W. T.

LeGard (2004) OU

Children’s Scientific Thinking: Social

Interaction and Cognitive Development
Abstract
An observational study examined children’s scientific reasoning pertaining to objects
that float or sink. The study was designed to test the hypotheses that social interaction
is related to cognitive change, and that children move through developmental stages
in an understanding of science. The sample comprised a male child aged eight and a
female child aged twelve. Data were collated from video-recorded scientific tasks.
The participants’ predictions and explanations were coded. Findings revealed that
social interaction and cognitive conflict can cause conceptual change, and that there
exists a developmental progression in children’s scientific thinking. The complexity
of conceptual change is related to the child’s age. Scaffolding is only successful if the
ZPD is identified correctly.

Introduction
Although Piaget (1955a) regarded cognitive development as an endogenous process,
he proposed that peer-interaction has the potential to promote cognitive development.
He claimed that such interactions allow children to experience socio-cognitive
conflict. Thus, conflicting viewpoints may compel the child to re-evaluate their
individual knowledge.

Vygotsky (1978) perceived children as social beings who are able to appropriate new
patterns of thinking when learning alongside individuals who are more proficient.
Through such collaboration, children come to master activities and think in ways that
have meaning in their culture. Vygotsky called this concept, the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD). This is the expanse between the child’s level of development
and their potential developmental level, in collaboration with more competent
individuals. Thus, social interactions ‘scaffold’ (Wood, 1988) the child’s cognitive
development in the ZPD, leading to a higher level of reasoning.

Many researchers (e.g. Brownell and Carriger, 1999; Perret-Clermont, 1980; Doise
and Mugny, 1984; Howe et al., 1992) maintain that social interaction is related to
cognitive change and the understanding of concepts in science.

Selley (1993) proposed a developmental progression of children’s scientific

understanding, relating to floating and sinking. He maintained that children initially
acquire practical comprehension of buoyancy. As children realize their theories are
insufficient, they progress through various stages, what Selley termed Hypotheses 1,
(1A), 2, 3 and 4.

The above research proposes that social interaction and cognitive conflict contribute
to cognitive change, and that children undergo a progression in scientific
understanding. The present observational study measured children’s predictions and
explanations concerning the sinking and floating behaviour of a variety of objects.
The study’s principle intention was to answer the following research questions: 1) Do
the results support researchers’ findings that cognitive conflict and collaboration play
a role in cognitive development? 2) Is there evidence that the participants relate to
Selley’s progression of scientific understanding? It is predicted that the outcome of
the present study will support the above research.

Method
Design
A cross-sectional research design employed science-based tasks. Data were collected
using observation of scientific procedures, where the participants discussed their
thinking. Video recordings were made of the children’s investigations, which were led
by Professor Terezinha Nunes. The participants’ responses were coded and analysed.

Participants
Participants included one male and one female child − aged seven (Daniel) and twelve
(Jessica) − selected from two state schools in the Oxford area.

Materials
The participants’ predictions and explanations were coded (Appendix 1) and the
frequency of main causal themes identified (Appendix 2). Questions and statements
that induce cognitive conflict were posed, and an example of these is included in the
appendices (Appendix 3). The approximate length of the tasks for Daniel and Jessica
were thirty-five and thirty minutes respectively. For a complete list of the objects used
and the protocol for the practical task see Appendix 4.

Procedure
A primary school was approached for children who would be willing to participate in
a video-recorded practical investigation. A number of children agreed to take part. The
recordings took place in March 2005 within the school building during the school day.
The seven-year-old participant was recorded in a room familiar to him, and was
accompanied by a teaching assistant. A sound recordist, two camera operators, a
member of the course team and the producer were present. Professor Nunes, who had
no previous knowledge of the participants, led the investigations.

The children were presented with eight objects and asked to speculate if the items
would sink or float and their reasons for their predictions. The predictions were tested
and the participants asked to comment on what had occurred. The children were asked
to explain why the two groups of objects behaved as they did. The participants were
presented with the next ten items and the above procedure was repeated. This part of
the investigation was referred to as the Initial Stage.

Attention was drawn to objects where the children’s explanations indicated an

incomplete understanding. This phase of the task was referred to as Stage 6/7. The
participants were again asked to explain why the items in each group floated or sank.

A set of scales and two similar shaped, but different sized, tins containing lentils were
introduced. The larger tin was the heaviest and floated. The participants’
understanding of scales was confirmed and the tins weighed. The children were asked
to predict what would occur once the tins were placed in the water and to discuss what
happened. Finally, the participants were asked why the two groups of objects behaved
as they did.

2
Informed consent was obtained and the children were notified that they could end
their participation at any time. Any indication that the participants were
uncomfortable with the procedure was regarded as withdrawal of consent. Personal
information was protected in line with the British Psychological Society’s protocols.

Results
The participants’ predictions and explanations were coded. Where two or more
explanations were offered for the same object, each was coded separately. The coding
method was used to attain a clear comparison between the children’s Initial Stage
explanations and those following cognitive conflict (Stage 6/7). Daniel correctly
predicted that 13 out of the 18 objects would sink or float. Jessica accurately
identified that 12 of the 18 items would behave as they did. Both participants made
false predictions on the tin lid, the painted block, the button and the elastic band.

Daniel initially cited 5 causal themes. Following cognitive conflict, the number of
explanations remained at 5 (Figure 1). At the Initial Stage of the investigation, Jessica
named 9 causal themes. At Stage 6/7, this was reduced to 6 (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Frequency of main causal themes (Daniel)

6
Number of explanations

Initial
4
Stage 6/7

0
Weight Experience Material Shape Holes Grouping Similar No Answer
Materials
Causal themes

3
 Figure 2: Frequency of main causal themes (Jessica)

6
Number of explanations

Initial
4
Stage 6/7

ow

er
e

ty
e

lid
ze

ls
t

ia

Ai
gh

as
ap
nc

si
ia

sw
So
er

Si

Kn
ei

en
M

er
rie

Sh
at

An
W

at

D
't
pe

on

rM

o
Ex

N
D

ila
m
Si
ngi
up
ro
G
Causal themes

Daniel cited shape as an explanation 6 times. This rose to 7 at Stage 6/7. Jessica
initially referred to air on 3 occasions. Following cognitive conflict, she discarded the
explanation completely.

For a comparison of the themes of the initial and later stages of the investigation for
individual participants, the frequencies were converted to percentages (heavy
floaters/light sinkers only, Appendix 5). In the Initial Stage, 8.3 per cent of Daniel’s
causal themes related to his own experience. For Jessica the result was 16.6 per cent.
Following cognitive conflict, Daniel’s explanations declined to 7.1 per cent, while
Jessica’s decreased to 0 per cent.

Daniel identified weight as a main causal theme in 25 per cent of the initial themes
and 14.2 per cent of the Stage 6/7 themes. Mass was identified as an explanation in 0
per cent of Jessica’s initial themes and 10.5 per cent of the Stage 6/7 themes.

Discussion
Both Daniel and Jessica gained a high number of correct predictions, which indicates
that they posses a good everyday knowledge of science (Nunes and Bryant, 2006).
That both participants made false predictions on identical items suggests that, initially,
the weight and size of an object were present in their thinking. Indeed, Selley (1993)
asserted that young children focus upon one prominent attribute of an object when
beginning the search for a basis for predictions. Daniel’s initial predictions were based
upon the weight and shape of the objects. Although Jessica originally based her
predictions upon weight, the shift in attention to the material of the object, following
cognitive conflict, supports Selley’s (ibid.) claim that once an older child’s theory is
contradicted, they switch to another, improved, hypothesis which moves the focus
from the object to the material.

Jessica initially cited a larger number of causal themes than Daniel, which indicates
that she has acquired additional scientific knowledge. Indeed, Inhelder and Piaget

4
(1958) maintained that comprehension of scientific methods only develops once the
formal operational stage has been reached. Daniel’s scope of explanations was
limited, demonstrating that he has yet, perhaps, to develop the appropriate cognitive
structures required to master scientific concepts (ibid.).

Daniel’s perseverance with shape as a causal theme indicates that he has not yet
gained Selley’s Hypothesis 1 stage (that objects float if they contain air). Jessica
initially referenced air for three causal themes. However, following cognitive conflict
she did not cite air at all. Thus − referring to density and mass − she abandoned
Selley’s Hypothesis 1 and shifted to Hypothesis 2 (that objects float if they are light
for their size).

Piaget (1955b) claimed that children progressively build up mental representations of

how the world operates. Thus, what a child is capable of learning depends
significantly on what they already know. This was demonstrated by the initial reliance
upon experience by both participants. Indeed, the findings of the present study back
up di Sessa’s (1993) argument that children’s initial concepts concerning the physical
world are based upon their perception of everyday experience with physical objects.
Following a challenge to their thinking, Daniel reduced experience as an explanation
and Jessica discarded the causal theme completely, which implies that cognitive
conflict was sufficient to cause conceptual change.

Daniel’s citing of weight as a causal theme reduced at Stage 6/7, while mass increased
as an explanation for Jessica. This suggests that cognitive conflict fostered conceptual
change in both participants. However, the complexity of the conceptual change was
relative to the ages of the children.

Piaget (1958) averred that young children may discard contradictory evidence and
retain their own theory. Certainly, once Daniel’s belief (heavy things sink) was
challenged, he simply re-categorized the painted block as ‘not that heavy’. Daniel’s
theory, therefore, remained the same, while his perception of the evidence was altered.

Daniel’s cognitive process was guided during the scaffolding stage. However, he
remained convinced that shape was the main causal theme. This indicates that his
ZPD was not identified correctly and, moreover, that conceptual change is related to
the child’s age. Jessica’s ZPD was identified and her thinking extended. This
Vygotskian approach enabled Jessica to begin to move towards Selley’s Hypothesis 3
(that objects float if their density is less than the density of the fluid).

An understanding of how children gain comprehension of scientific concepts is

significant because of its relevance to how educators may teach children to acquire
scientific understanding.

The use of an observational approach ensures that the conditions are the same for all
participants. Moreover, the video recordings can be scrutinized and coded by the
investigator or, indeed, other researchers.

Several limitations to the present study should be noted. Observer influence can
reduce the accuracy of observations. A number of the participants’ predictions and
answers were absent. A further inadequacy was the difficulty in coding (Appendix 6).

5
The study was completed with two participants, and generalizations from such a small
sample would be unhelpful.

The study could be improved in a number of ways. Fewer individuals should be

present during the task, and all participants should attend the same school or schools.
Questions to elicit predictions and explanations should be posed while the child is
examining each object. The data should be coded to assess intra- and inter-observer
reliability. To examine accurately the role of social interaction in children’s scientific
thinking, research must be based upon patterns found among a larger sample of
children across cultures. Indeed, this, same and mixed gender small groups and peer-
peer collaboration should be considered for future research.

Conclusion
The results support researchers’ findings that social interaction can cause conceptual
change, and that there exists a developmental progression in children’s scientific
thinking. Conceptual change is related to the child’s age. Scaffolding is successful
only if the ZPD is identified correctly. There are limitations to the study and further
research is required.

References

Brownell, C. A. and Carriger, M. S. (1999) cited in Littleton, K. and Miell, D. (2005)

p.119.

Bruner (1975) cited in Oates, J. (2005) p.275.

Chevallard, Y. (1985) cited in Perret-Clermont, A. N., Carugati, F. and Oates, J.

(2006) p.317

Ding, S and Littleton, K. (eds) (2005) Children’s Personal and Social Development,
Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

di Sessa, A. (1993) cited in Terezinha, N. and Bryant, P. (2006) p.282.

Doise, W. and Mugny, G. (1984) cited in Terezinha, N. and Bryant, P. (2006) p.292.

Howe, C., Tolmie, A. and Rodgers, C. (1992) cited in Terezinha, N. and Bryant, P.
(2006) p.292.

Inhelder, B and Piaget, J. (1958) cited in Terezinha, N. and Bryant, P. (2006) p.288.

Littleton, K. and Miell, D. ‘Children’s Interactions: Siblings and Peers’, in Ding, S.

and Littleton, K. (eds) (2005) Children’s Personal and Social Development, Oxford,
Blackwell/The Open University.

Oates, J., Wood, C. and Grayson, A. (eds) (2005) Psychological Development and
Early Childhood, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

6
Oates, J. ‘First Relationships’, in Oates, J., Wood, C. and Grayson, A. (eds) (2005)
Psychological Development and Early Childhood, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open
University.

Oates, J., Sheehy, K. and Wood, C. ‘Theories of Development’, in Oates, J., Wood, C.
and Grayson, A. (eds) (2005) Psychological Development and Early Childhood,
Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (eds) (2006) Cognitive and Language Development in

Children, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

Perret-Clermont, A. N., Carugati, F. and Oates, J. ‘A Socio-Cognitive Perspective on

Learning and Cognitive Development’, in Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (eds) (2006)
Cognitive and Language Development in Children, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open
University.

Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1980) cited in Terezinha, N. and Bryant, P. (2006) p.292.

Piaget, J. (1955) cited in Oates, J., Sheehy, K. and Wood, C. (2005) pp. 66-67.

Piaget, J. (1955b) cited in Oates, J., Sheehy, K. and Wood, C. (2005) p.65.

Piaget, J. (1958) cited in Terezinha, N. and Bryant, P. (2006) p.291.

Terezinha, N. and Bryant, P. ‘Mathematical and Scientific Thinking’, in Oates, J. and

Grayson, A. (eds) (2006) Cognitive and Language Development in Children, Oxford,
Blackwell/The Open University.

Vygotsky (1978) cited in Oates, J., Sheehy, K. and Wood, C. (2005) p.73.

7
 Appendix 2

Table 1: Frequency of main causal themes identified in Daniel’s data

Code Theme Initial Stage 6/7

W Weight 6 2
Ex Experience 4 1
M Material 3 1
Sh Shape 6 7
H Holes 0 2
GSM Grouping Similar Materials 1 0
NA No Answer 0 1
Total 20 14
Table 2: Frequency of main causal themes identified in Jessica’s data

Code Theme Initial Stage 6/7

W Weight 7 3
Ex Experience 2 0
M Material 3 5
Sh Shape 1 0
A Air 3 0
Sz Size 1 0
So Solid 2 3
Ms Mass 1 2
DK Don’t know 1 1
GM Grouping Similar Materials 2 4
NA No Answer 1 0
D Density 0 1
Total 24 19

Appendix 3

Questions and statements that induce cognitive conflict.

Daniel
Professor Nunes: But, you know, this is a bit like a ball too, isn’t it?
Daniel: Except it’s heavy and that’s not extremely heavy.
TN: But that is a bit heavy, too, isn’t it?
*
PN: But this one really isn’t shaped like a boat at all.
*
PN: Look at the needle; it’s shaped a bit like a boat too, isn’t it?
*
PN: This ones a bit like the pencil, isn’t it? So why would it sink?

Jessica
PN: But there’s one thing I’m curious about, Jess. Look, which one do you think is
heavier, the penny or the grapefruit?
Jessica: The grapefruit.
PN: So why would the penny sink and the grapefruit float?

8
 *
PN: So when you put it on the scale, you’re looking at weight or are you looking at
mass?
*
PN: Is there a way we could compare that and say if we compared it this way, we’d
know exactly?

Appendix 4

List of objects used and the protocol for the task

Part A: assessing the participants’ initial understanding with light objects that float
and heavy objects that sink.
Stage 1: the participant is presented with the following eight objects:-
Light floaters
1. Small wooden rectangle
2. Pencil
3. Small candle
4. Ball
Heavy sinkers
5. Spanner
6. Rock
7. Tin can
8. Tin lid
Stage 2: the participant is asked to predict what will happen and why they think the
object will sink/float.
Stage 3: the objects are placed in the water and the child is asked to comment on what
happens.
Part B: assessing the participants’ initial understanding with light objects that sink and
heavy objects that float.
Stage 4: the participant is presented with the following ten objects:-
Heavy floaters
1. White candle
2. Red candle
3. Large wooden rectangle
4. Painted (black) wooden block
5. Grapefruit
Light sinkers
6. Eraser
7. Needle
8. Penny
9. Button
10. Elastic band
Stage 5: the participant is asked to predict what will happen and why they think the
object will sink/float.
Stage 6: the objects are placed in the water and the child is asked to comment on what
happens. If the child’s prediction is not confirmed, they are asked to explain the result.
A Stage 7 type discussion for an object may be instigated.
Stage 7: cognitive conflict is induced.
Stage 8: scales are introduced in an attempt to scaffold the participants’ thinking.

9
Stage 9: the participant is asked why the items that float and sink behave as they do.
Plastic water tank; set of scales; two similar shaped, but different sized tins; lentils.

Appendix 5

Table 1: Percentage of main causal themes identified in Daniel’s data (heavy

floaters/light sinkers only)

Theme Initia Stage 6/7

l
Weight 25% 14.2%
Experience 8.3% 7.1%
Material 16.6 7.1%
%
Shape 41.6 50%
%
Holes 0% 14.2%
Grouping Similar 8.3% 0%
Materials
No Answer 0% 7.1%

Table 2: Percentage of main causal themes identified in Jessica’s data (heavy

floaters/light sinkers only)

Theme Initia Stage 6/7

l
Weight 16.6 15.7%
%
Experience 16.6 0%
%
Material 16.6 26.3%
%
Size 8.3% 0%
Solid 8.3% 15.7%
Mass 0% 10.5%
Don’t Know 8.3% 5.2%
Grouping Similar 16.6 21%
Materials %
No Answer 8.3% 0%
Density 0% 5.2%

Appendix 6

Notes on the coding

The certainty of Daniel’s belief, that paint makes objects float, was difficult to judge.
His explanation seemed to occur as an utterance obtained from him because of the
‘didactic contract’ (Chevallard, 1985) between the researcher and participant. Such
questioning may influence the study’s validity. Several responses were difficult to

10
judge and some were absent, and this may call into question the reliability of the
research.

11