We accept

The Development of Children's Scientific Thinking

This research is designed to get further into the idea of flotation and sinking adjoining two members in varying get older relating to the findings of Piaget, Vygotsky and Selley (1993). Piaget's views are based on constructivism that we learn with age group, and Vygotsky's is based on public constructivism that sociable discussion is also needed. Selley claims about a way of measuring what lengths learning has developed with regards to using hypotheses for flotation.

Two individuals were observed by using a small-scale inspection and the info was recorded, gathered, coded and compared appropriately to whether objects sink or float, and the reasoning why they actually either. Constructivism, public constructivism and Selley's hypotheses on "Why do things float?" were all taken into account, along with zone of proximal development, cognitive discord and scaffolding.

My conclusions do ascent with Piaget, Vygotsky and Selley's for the reason that as we grow older we come to appreciate that our scientific thinking is elaborated and enhanced so we have a better knowledge of why items float or sink.


This study studies into assessing two participants knowing that things either float or kitchen sink. Common sense instructs us that things sink because they are heavy for confirmed size, so therefore lighter items must float. That is a general everyday activity theory but technology tells us that we should be more exact with our thinking, and how is it that people come to think like this.

Jean Piaget (1896-1980) focused on understanding the development of cognitive functioning in the kid in which children pass through a series of cognitive levels at varying age range. The introduction of intelligence is naturalistic and natural and the result of a dynamic discussion between the child and the surroundings. On the other hand, Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) strains the fundamental role of communal interaction in the development of cognition, as community and peers, especially professors, play an important role in making sense of the world all around us.

In comparison to Piaget, social learning tends to precede development, not merely cultural but also culture must be taken under consideration. So, how do these theories change in relation to thinking about items that kitchen sink or float? Piaget's theory is that people should already really know what floats or sinks depending at what stage we live cognitively, and as we get older we know more in what objects will do. Through cognitive turmoil (what the kid is aware of and what s/he experiences) is achieved through assimilation (similarity of things) and accommodation (changes of inner schemas).

Vygotsky says that we will study from others and enhance and develop our understanding through "area of proximal development" which identifies the distance between just what a child can do with assistance, e. g. educator or skilled partner, and what the kid can accomplish without assistance. So, the educator, in this case Teacher Nunes can guide both participants to gain more knowledge and develop higher mental reasoning providing explanations of floating and sinking objects. This also pertains to "scaffolding", in that it is just a teaching strategy that provides individualised support to learners/members. The scaffold facilitates the learner/individuals ability to develop independently prior knowledge and use new information. The scaffolding is merely non permanent as the learners/individuals abilities increase and the scaffolding is then no longer needed.

Nicholas Selley (1993) "Why do things float" also is taken into account because of this research who came up with several different hypotheses, first of all, Hypothesis 1 - things float if indeed they contain air; Hypothesis 1A - things float if they contain enough air; Hypothesis 2 - things float if they are light for their size; Hypothesis 3 - things float if their density is significantly less than the denseness of substance, and Hypothesis 4 - equilibrium where things have buoyancy partly in and partially out of water. That is a progression of brains of floating and sinking through increased knowledge.

To investigate further into these results an observation was completed to realize information from two participants. The answers were then placed into data sheets, which has proven difficult to do, especially as some answers could go into several of the rules, i. e. what I've located into one code can have gone into another one quite easily. In addition, another person could also interpret the answers diversely and put them into a contrasting code as well. Furthermore, older children may give a false response to a question so that it might make them look better, and they may deduce the response that they feel the observer wants. The hypothesis is to determine if a younger child will think in a different way compared to teenagers who will have significantly more scientific knowledge and idea of flotation and sinking.



The analysis is aimed at demonstrating how our medical thinking changes even as we get older, in relation to floating and sinking items. The observations were designed and carried out by The Start University together with Professor Terezinha Nunes in March 2005. Firstly, the two individuals were educated of that which was going to occur (de-briefed). They were then shown some differing items and asked to separate them up for grabs into two hemorrhoids of objects that could float or sink, and asked why they thought that would happen. Teacher Nunes then received the aquarium and put it on the stand, and in turn put each of the things in it to find out whether the things floated or sunk. The members were called for a second time why they thought the items floated or sank. They were then given another pile of objects, asked again whether they would float or sink and the reasoning why, then put the objects in the water, and asked why they floated or sank. Teacher Nunes then asked general open-ended questions about flotation and sinking objects in general to find out more descriptive information and then used some scales to think about two tins with lentils in them before immersing them in the aquarium as well, and persisted with some more questions to see about why the individuals thought some items sunk and some floated.


Two people took part in the study, both were feminine. The researcher didn't know either of them. One woman is 8 yrs. old and the other is 12 years old. The observations were completed on an individual and private basis and were located in a primary university in Oxford, in support of their first brands have been used.


Both participants were given the same things to make use of and also hand newspaper was used to clean up normal water spills, and the same see-through field with water in it (i. e. aquarium) to put the things in. Vinyl scales were also used to ponder objects. Also, the observation was filmed by way of a film maker, two camera operators, a audio recordist and an associate of the course team.


The individuals were informed that they do must be as genuine as possible, and this there were no right or incorrect answers and that they weren't being tested as it is for research purposes only. The participants were designed to feel at ease so that comfortable as could be throughout the observation. The observation was noted, plus they were asked questions throughout the observation by Teacher Nunes.


The observations were completed relative to The British Psychological Society's code of carry out for psychologists. Consent was obtained from the children's parents plus they were debriefed before the observations occurred, and encouraged that they could stop, pause or leave at any time if they were not happy. All the information maintains confidential and other than their first labels used, no further personal information is used. Professor Nunes performed also not know any of the participants in my opinion. The observation was conducted in a specialist manner. Although there were quite a few adults in the area, care was considered not to position the individuals under any unneeded pressure also to make them feel relaxed.


The results for both participants were put into data bed sheets for level 1 (floaters and sinkers), level 2 initial justification of what each subject would do and causal codes and level 5 what new objects would do and why and level 6/7 explanations of what happened (see Appendix A and B), and then a table demonstrating the frequency of causal themes discovered for both participants and the information of correct predictions. There is merely a 4 year age space between both individuals, but the ratings for stage 2 were both higher predictions than for stage 5. The older child shows signs of predicting more items which will float or sink in stage 5 than younger child.

The trend for the older participant does show that normally they can forecast the things for both stage 2 and 5 more equally than younger child. Both members could predict the things that were much more likely to sink in level 2 (both obtained 100%). Also there have been more causal rules for Jessica, the more aged participant as she knew more about the items, although weight was still the primary reason behind deciding whether items should float or sink. These results do substantiate that the older the child, the greater scientific knowledge they may have for both Piaget and Vygotsky's views, and also higher the hypothesis number for Selley's research, on the intricate objects that may sink or float.


The investigation shows that both participants chose descriptions more into the weight of the items to determine whether or not the items would sink or float, though it did decrease somewhat with era as the participant used other reasoning. This however is an extremely over-generalised and simplistic set of studies, as only two individuals were studied. Also, as people get older people have more knowledge in any case. The younger child still have exceptional to get 100% appropriate predictions on stage 2 and this was much better than the more mature participant who obtained 88%, and in stage 5 younger participant only have scored 36% compared to the other more aged participant who obtained 82% of right predictions. The figures mixed greatly though between stage 5 forecasted floaters and sinkers, although they both predicted more floaters than sinkers. Also when the Professor continued to probe more into why items float and sink the elderly child knew far more about density/mass than just weight, however the younger participant have try to clarify about gravity and structure/material of items. When scales were used the younger participant started to question whether items sunk because these were heavier so scaffolding and zone of proximal development required hold. The elderly participant also started to question their own knowledge when in talk with Professor Nunes, however, not just as much, so teacher effect appeared to be quite high. Although, after Professor Nunes tried to find out from the members more reasoning behind why items kitchen sink or float and used the tins with lentils in them, the younger participant predicted the outcome wrongly by declaring that both large and small tins would sink, and the more mature participant was also wrong in saying that both tins would float. Also, with regards to Selleys hypotheses, Remy younger participant, appears to be at Hypotheses 1/1A and Jessica the more mature participant, reaches Hypothesis 2, so with era comes more clinical knowledge and understanding.

The main concern I associated with this review is coding the children's explanations, more so as sometimes they offered more than one answer. It might have been more productive and valid if the coding had been done by two differing people, and then got together to see that which was put where and the reasoning behind the chosen codes. This procedure may well have reduced the margin of problem and biased results from the researcher, as the researcher can effect the result by trying to put explanations into certain codes to achieve a desired and much more favourable result, therefore the results cannot be completely considered to be reasonable given these situations. Also, this isn't real life, and the members (there have been only two of these as well) may have said what they thought the Teacher wanted them to state as there were far more adults than children in the room as well.


To conclude, the results out of this particular little bit of research show that teenagers through presumably more clinical knowledge, can anticipate more intricate shaped items (level 5) if they will either float or sink and use a lot more reasoning. Whether this is from Piaget's constructivism or Vygostsky's interpersonal constructivism is less known. I agree that youngsters do tend to summarize items more based on weight as a determining factor for whether items will sink or float, but there is no set facts. Therefore, in retrospect Piaget's and Vygotskys's views remain relevant even nowadays. But, it continues to be onerous to measure and explore the concept of using medical thinking and the idea of items that float or kitchen sink just from these results. A lot more research is required to explore this notion.


More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment