Why Some Objects Float and Others Sink - Essay Example

? Practical: Examining 6 to 12 Year Old Children’s Understanding of Why Some Objects Float and Others Sink This study tried to explore how children of different ages explain why some objects float while others sink. Data was collected from two female participants between the ages of 6 - 12 years who studied in the same school via a video-recorded session with a researcher. Each child was shown a number of items and asked to predict whether it would float or sink and to provide explanations. They were also challenged on inconsistencies. It was found that children did indeed try to develop a consistent theory for why some objects float and others sink, and that maturity was associated with more complex explanations. The involvement of the researcher was salient to the development of detailed and alternate explanations. Examining 6 to 12 Year Old Children’s Understanding of Why Some Objects Float and Others Sink Introduction As a variety of academic settings started being developed for children, a particular interest in children’s cognitive development has become apparent in these different spheres. Children learn new concepts rapidly all through childhood (Rathus, 2008). They are able to learn complex concepts better as they grow older; and a number of theorists have tried to explain the stages in children’s cognitive, and the kind of information that is best learnt at each of these different stages. Jean Piaget’s theory was developed through the observation and description of children at different ages; and thus is broad enough to encompass the development of language, scientific reasoning, moral development, and even memory (Santrock, 2008). The theory assumes that children construct knowledge through experiences, and often do this without explicit instruction as they are motivated to learn about the world around them (Salkind, 2004). Each new finding is then integrated into their existing understanding of the world. Piaget’s theory also suggests that children are motivated to make sense of new information. As the child matures, it is able to learn new and more complex concepts (Santrock, 2008). Children at different ages think about the same event differently; and they interpret phenomenon similarly across different kinds of information (Salkind, 2004). Piaget also suggested that initially children make sense of information through their sensory and motor (Sensorimotor stage). After the age of two years, the child starts representing its understanding of things using language, mental imagery, and symbolic thought (Preoperational stage). At around six to seven years of age, children start reasoning logically (Concrete operational stage) but they only learn to apply this logic to abstract and hypothetical situations at around twelve years of age (Salkind, 2004). The Concrete Operational Stage is an important stage where children start developing logical arguments about the behaviour of actual physical objects. They are particularly adept at using inductive logic, and towards the end of this stage they start displaying deductive logic (Santrock, 2008). Besides being able to categorise objects and events, children at this stage are also able to draw knowledge from more than one category. They can also focus on multiple parts of a problem at once (Rathus, 2008). Salkind (2004) has called it a transition stage. Vygotsky has suggested instead that while children do learn and explore on their own, adults play an important role (Rathus, 2008). Thus, the interpersonal experience is an essential force that governs the direction and the effectiveness of learning; and as a result significantly impacts development. According to Vygotsky, caregivers and teachers need to be involved in the child for optimal development to occur, as this provides the child with cultural tools for learning and applying knowledge. Gopnik (2012) suggests that very young children’s learning and thinking are quite scientific; and thus, these children should not be underestimated in their ability to reason out situations. This study was conducted to test how such well these theories can explain the logical process demonstrated by children of different ages with respect to whether objects can float. The ability of an object to float / sink depends on both concrete and abstract factors. It was proposed that a younger child would provide simplistic, if logical reasons for why an object would float or sink, while a more mature child would provide more complex reasoning. Method Participants The study collected data from two female participants – Emily who was 6 years and 7 months; and Jessica who was 11 years and 10 months. As she was at the end of the preoperational stage, Emily was expected to demonstrate very rudimentary logical understanding; while Jessica was expected to exhibit more sophisticated logical analysis as she was at the end of the concrete operational stage. Data collection For this study, data was collected from two children studying at a primary school in the Milton Keynes area. The school was asked to identify children, and parents were asked for informed consent. Natalia Kucirkova, a researcher met the children at their own school, where the sessions were filmed. The children were given the number of new adults during the process of filming; efforts were taken by the crew to put the children at. Children were also told that they could leave, or stop the task if they wanted. Procedure The investigation was conducted in different parts. In Part A the researcher first presented the child with 8 objects. Each child was asked to predict what would happen for each object (whether it would float or sink) and the reasons for their response. These predictions were then tested by the researcher and the child. The researcher then moved onto Part B, where the child was again shown 10 new objects. Again, the child was asked to predict what each of the objects would do, and these predictions were again tested. When predictions were not verified, the child was asked if they could explain why the object acted as it did. Finally, in Part C cognitive conflict was introduced to demonstrate where the child had used inconsistent logic. This was done through talking to the child, re-testing the objects, and the use of scales to weigh objects. Finally children were asked if they knew what made all floating objects similar, and what made all sinking objects similar. Both participants were shown the same objects and were exposed to the same process of interaction. Results For the purpose of this study, data was collected from two young female participants – Emily and Jessica who both studied in the same primary school and differed by four years in age. Based on their ages, it was expected that Emily would use simplistic and few logical arguments to form and support her predictions, while Jessica would be able to develop more complex arguments as well as a greater variety as arguments to support her predictions. It was also expected that both children would use arguments that emphasised the concrete nature of the objects being used rather than using abstract concepts. Table 1 contains the frequency with which Emily developed different themes at the prediction stage and testing stage to explain her predictions and explanations. It can be seen that the weight of the object was frequently referred to; followed by the kind of material it was made from or the texture of the material. When asked to explain unpredicted events, Emily stuck to providing simple responses including suggesting that an object sank because it got wet; and that other objects were waterproof and thus were able to float. When inconsistencies in the weights of objects were pointed out, she chose to focus on the material with which the object was made. On a few instances only Emily suggested complex ideas. Twice she suggested that the outer cover of an object allowed it to float, and once she suggested that the holes in the object were responsible for its sinking. Table 1: Frequency of themes presented by Emily Code Theme Prediction stage Testing stage NW Not waterproof 3 1 H Heavy 4 2 L Light 6 4 W Wax 1 2 ST Squishy texture 1 0 M Metal 2 5 S Smooth texture 1 0 WD Wood 0 3 R Rubber 0 2 I Insulated contents 0 2 WH Water entering holes 0 1 Table 2 provides the frequency with which Jessica mentioned different themes in the prediction and the testing stages. It is evident from the scores for different themes that Jessica provided multiple reasons for each item sinking or floating at both stages. The weight of the object was emphasised the most; but other themes became important when this hypothesis became inadequate. Jessica also provided complex explanations more often, and described the effect of partial and complete holes o objects’ ability to float, and was able to make comparisons from the objects to other objects that were not present. She rarely emphasised the material to bolster her predictions after experiencing some inconsistencies in the Part A. Jessica also provided more creative explanations associated with the abilities and uses of the objects. Table 2: Frequency of themes presented by Jessica Code Theme Predicting stage Testing stage H Heavy 6 5 L Light 10 10 W Wax 1 1 M Metal 3 0 R Rubber 1 1 PAH Presence or absence of holes 5 8 RB Rounded bottom 0 4 P Plastic 1 1 Discussion A detailed analysis of the recorded sessions suggested that both children tried to develop one or more consistent theories for why objects floated or sank. Initially, the predictions made by both children emphasised the weight of the object and the material it was made from. Additional properties were used as explanations for prediction – inconsistent events, rather than to bolster the predictions themselves. Where necessary, both children were able to switch from one theory to another (e.g. – weight of object to material) to explain their observations (Rathus, 2008). They used statements like “It’s light, but it’s made of metal” to explain transition from pone theory to another. Both children did show evidence of using pre-existing theories (light objects float and heavy ones sink) to make predictions (Santrock, 2008). Jessica used more explanations and more complex attributes (e.g. – rounded bottom of object) to explain observations. Both children did try to develop a consistent theory that linked all floaters and one that linked all sinkers (Salkind, 2004). Emily persisted in using weight as a theory, and used material and texture as secondary theories when prompted to look for similarities. When challenged on weight of objects using the scales, She suggested that objects made of metal seem to sink, and that smooth objects mostly float. Jessica on the other hand was more creative with her explanations. She volunteered more reasons for both predictions and explanations. As part of Part C, when asked to develop a theory to tie all floaters and all sinkers, she suggested multiple options including the shape of the object so that “… objects with a rounded bottom will float”. She also suggested observed that the floaters and sinkers differ in texture, and suggested that the utility of the object was also salient. She suggested that objects of everyday use floated, while rarely used objects would sink. “….. [they sink because] because we don't always use these every single day.” When explaining why some objects floated when one side was placed on water, but sunk when the other was placed, she suggested that the ‘water gave up’. She also suggested that extreme weight caused the object to behave non-typically (the fruit floated because it was too heavy and the needle sank because it was too light). This is evidence of rudimentary abstract thinking and an awareness of typical and non-typical instances of a rule without changing the rule itself. The differences in explanations given by Emily and Jessica are consistent with the predictions of Piaget’s theory (Rathus, 2008; Santrock, 2008). Finally, the role of the researcher cannot be undermined. Both children attempted to construct common theories only when prompted, and used the feedback from the researcher to construct the same (Rathus, 2008). when they received positive reinforcement and acceptance for their theories, they were able to build on them and provide more complex and detailed explanations. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that children do understand how different factors affect the ability of objects to float / sink; and are able to develop theories to explain this with the help of adult feedback. Older children may be able to develop more numerous and complex ideas as compared to younger children. References Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific Thinking in Young Children: Theoretical Advances, Empirical Research, and Policy Implications. Science, 28(337), 1623-1627. DOI: 10.1126/science.1223416 Rathus, S. A. (2008). Children and adolescence: Voyages in Development Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Salkind, N. J. (2004). An introduction to theories of human development. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Santrock, J. W. (2008). A topical approach to life-span development (4th ed.). New York City: McGraw-Hill. Appendix 1 Data sheets for Emily 1.1 Themes developed Object Child’s evaluation Reason Response to testing Response to weighing Phase 1 Spanner float Sank; attributed to being metal Pencil Sink Not waterproof Floated; attributed to lightness and being made of wood Stone Sink heavy Sank; reinforced belief Lid Float Lighter than stone Sank; attributed to being metal Wooden block Sink Not waterproof Floated; attributed to lightness and being made of wood Candle Sink Made of wax Floated; attributed to lightness and being made of wax Tin Float Made of metal (like other objects judged as floating) Sank; attributed to being metal Ball Sink Squishy (texture) Floated; attributed to lightness and being made of rubber Phase 2 Button Float light Sunk; attributed to not being waterproof + water entering holes Lighter than wooden block, but not waterproof + has holes in it Yogurt pot Sink heavy Floated; attributed to having a cover (skin) that insulates the contents Heavy; but insides insulated by cover Wooden block Float light Floated; asserted premise + made of wood Heavier than button, but waterproof Penny Float Smooth on top; made of metal Sunk; attributed to being made of metal Light, but made of metal Small Candle Float Light Floated; asserted premise Light. Needle Float Light Sunk; attributed to being made of metal Lighter than wooden block, but not waterproof + has a hole Grapefruit Sink Heavy Floated; attributed to having a cover (skin) that insulates the contents Heavy; but insides insulated by skin Elastic band Float Light First floated and then Sunk; attributed to being made of rubber Got all wet Rubber Sink Not waterproof Sunk; attributed to being heavy Heavy + got all wet Big candle Sink heavy Floated; attributed to being made of wax Heavy; but didn’t get fully wet (waterproof) Phase 2: Most smooth objects floated, but because of the penny, the hypothesis was rejected 1.2 Frequency of use of different themes Code Theme Predicting stage Explaining stage Measuring stage NW Not waterproof 3 1 +1 H Heavy 4 2 + 5 L Light 6 4 + 4 W Wax 1 2 ST Squishy texture 1 0 M Metal 2 5 S smooth 1 0 WD Wood 0 3 R Rubber 0 2 I Insulated contents 0 2 WH Water entering holes 0 1 +1 WP Waterproof 0 0 +2 GW Got wet when testing 0 0 +2 Appendix 2 Data sheets for Jessica 2.1 Themes developed Object Child’s evaluation Reason Response to testing Response to weighing Phase 1 Spanner unsure Light; but made of metal Sank; attributed to being heavier than lid + having holes Pencil float Floated; attributed to being light + rounded +having no holes Stone Sink heavy Sank; affirmed hypothesis Lid Unsure Might float because light; but might sink because made of metal Floated; attributed a being made of a ‘lighter metal’ Sank on second try; attributed to having plastic on the side placed on water Wooden block unsure Not as heavy as stone; not as light as ball Floated; attributed to being lighter than other objects Candle Float Light + made of wax Floated; attributed to being light + rounded + having no holes Tin Sink Heavy + made of metal + full Sank; affirmed hypothesis + heavier metal Ball Float Light Floated; attributed to being light + round +having no holes Phase 2 Button Unsure Light; but has holes Floated on the flat side; attributed to being very light and holes being too small to matter. Sank when turned; attributed to not being able to turn itself over properly Sank because of holes; more holes than needle Yogurt pot Unsure Light; but filled Floated; attributed to having no holes, and contents being lighter than expected Floated because it’s a rounded bottom Wooden block Float Light + no complete holes Floated; assumption reinforced Floated because it’s wood Penny Might float Light + no holes +feels like plastic Sank; attributed to being too light to float Sank because too light Small Candle Float Light + no holes Floated; assumption reinforced Floated because it’s a rounded bottom Needle Part float; part sink The pointed end will float because light The eye-end will sink because it has a hole Sank; attributed to being maybe heavier though it looks lighter because it’s small Too light; too little to hold, so sank Grapefruit Sink Heavy; heavier than wood block Floated; attributed to having a curved bottom like a boat. Heavier than rubber; attributed to being too heavy and causing the water to ‘give up and let it float’ Floated because it’s a rounded bottom Elastic band Sink Has a big hole Initially floated; attributed to being light Sank when turned; attributed to having a hole Sank because of hole Rubber Sink Heavy + made of rubber Sank; attributed to being heavy although made of rubber Sank because its rubber and heavy Big candle Sink Heavy Floated; attributed to being made of wax Floated because it’s a rounded bottom Phase one: suggested that light objects float regardless of material Phase two: suggested that objects with curvy bottoms will float Suggested that items not used every-day might sink Floating objects are different shapes and textures from the sinking ones Shape is important 2.2 Frequency of use of different themes Code Theme Initial stage Latter stage Measuring stage H Heavy 6 5 +2 L Light 10 10 +2 W Wax 1 1 M Metal 3 0 WD Wood 0 0 +1 R Rubber 1 1 +1 PAH Presence or absence of holes 5 8 +2 RB Rounded bottom 0 4 +4 SM Small 0 0 +1 P Plastic 1 1 Read More