Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students?

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 447-457

  Zacharia, Zacharias C ^a   Loizou, Eleni ^a   Papaevripidou, Marios ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

Kindergarten; Laboratory experimentation; Physicality; Science; Simulations; Touch

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863994905     PISSN: 08852006     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.004     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Anderson R.D., Helms J.V. The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2001, 38:3-16.
2. Baddeley A.D. Working memory. Science 1992, 255:556-559.
3. Baddeley A. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2003, 4:829-839.
4. Baddeley A.D., Hitch G. Working memory. The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory 1974, 47-89. Academic Press, New York, NY. G.H. Bower (Ed.).
5. Bara F., Gentaz E., Pascale C., Sprenger-Charolles L. The visuo-haptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the kindergarten-children's understanding of the alphabetic principle. Cognitive Development 2004, 19:433-449.
6. Barsalou L.W. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 2008, 59:1-21.
7. Barsalou L.W., Niedenthal P.M., Barbey A.K., Ruppert J.A. Social embodiment. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 2003, 43:43-92.
8. Black J.B. An embodied/grounded perspective on educational technology. New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education 2010, 45-52. Springer, New York, NY. M.S. Khine, I.M. Saleh (Eds.).
9. Brenneman K., Stevenson-Boyd J., Frede E.C. Math and science in preschool: Policies and practice 2009, National Institute for Early Education Research, New Brunswick, NJ, Preschool Policy Brief, 19.
10. Brown A.L. Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist 1997, 32:399-413.
11. Burton H., Sinclair R.J. Attending to and remembering tactile stimuli: A review of brain imaging data and single-neuron responses. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 2000, 17:575-591.
12. Callanan M.A., Jipson J.I. Explanatory conversations and young children's developing scientific literacy. Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings 2001, 21-49. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. K. Crowley, C.D. Schunn, T. Okada (Eds.).
13. Carlsen D., Andre T. Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student preconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 1992, 19:105-109.
14. Chan M.S., Black J.B. Direct-manipulation animation: Incorporating the haptic channel in the learning process to support middle school students in science learning and mental model acquisition. Paper presented at the international conference of the learning sciences 2006, June.
15. Clements D.H. 'Concrete' manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 1999, 1:45-60.
16. de Jong T., Njoo M. Learning and instruction with computer simulation: Learning processes involved. Computer-based learning environments and problem solving 1992, 411-427. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. E. de Corte, M.C. Linn, H. Mandl, L. Verschaffel (Eds.).
17. de Jong T., van Joolingen W.R. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research 1998, 68:179-202.
18. Doerr H. Experiment, simulation and analysis: An integrated instructional approach to the concept of force. International Journal of Science Education 1997, 19:265-282.
19. Eshach H. Science literacy in primary schools and pre-schools 2006, Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
20. Faryniarz J.V., Lockwood L.G. Effectiveness of microcomputer simulations in stimulating environmental problem solving by community college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29:453-470.
21. Fernald G.M. Remedial techniques in basic school subjects 1943, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
22. Finkelstein N.D., Adams W.K., Keller C.J., Kohl P.B., Perkins K.K., Podolefsky N.S., et al. When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 2005, 1:1-8.
23. French L. Science as the center of a coherent, integrated, early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2004, 19(1):138-149.
24. Gelman R. First principles organize attention to and learning about relevant data: Number and the animate-inanimate distinction as examples. Cognitive Science 1990, 14:79-106.
25. Gelman R., Brenneman K. Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2004, 19:150-158.
26. Gibbs R.W. Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language 2003, 84(1):1-15.
27. Ginsburg H.P., Golbeck S.L. Thoughts on the future of research on mathematics and science learning and education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2004, 19(1):190-200.
28. Glenberg A.M. What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1997, 20:1-55.
29. Glenberg A.M., Gutierrez T., Levin J.R., Japuntich S., Kaschak M.P. Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 2004, 96(3):424-436.
30. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 1979, 6:65-70.
31. Hsu Y.-S. Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students' conceptual change. Science Education 2008, 92:320-344.
32. Hsu Y.-S., Thomas R.A. The impacts of a web-aided instructional simulation on science learning. International Journal of Science Education 2002, 24:955-979.
33. Huppert J., Lazarowitz R. Computer simulations in the high school: Students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education 2002, 24:803-821.
34. Jones G.M., Andre T., Superfine R., Taylor R. Learning at the nanoscale: The impact of students' use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40:303-322.
35. Jones G.M., Minogue J., Tretter T.R., Negishi A., Taylor R. Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter?. Science Education 2006, 90:111-123.
36. Kallery M., Psillos D. Pre-school teachers' content knowledge in science: Their understanding of elementary science concepts and of issues raised by children's questions. International Journal of Early Years Education 2001, 9(3):165-179.
37. Klahr D., Triona L., Strand-Cary M., Siler S. Virtual versus physical materials in early science instruction: Transitioning to an autonomous tutor for experimental design. Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence 2008, 163-172. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert, L. Kester (Eds.).
38. Klahr D., Triona L., Williams C. Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2007, 44:183-203.
39. Klatzky R.L., Lederman S.J. Touch. Experimental psychology 2002, 147-176. Wiley, New York, NY. A.F. Healy, R.W. Proctor (Eds.).
40. Klatzky R.L., Lederman S.J., Reed C. There's more to touch than meets the eye: The salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1987, 116:356-369.
41. Korpan C.A., Bisanz G.L., Bisanz J., Boehme C., Lynch M.A. What did you learn outside of school today? Using structured interviews to document home and community activities related to science and technology. Science Education 1997, 81:651-662.
42. Lederman S.J., Klatzky R.L. Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology 1987, 19(3):342-368.
43. Leung C. Preschoolers' acquisition of scientific vocabulary through repeated read-aloud events, retellings, and hands-on science activities. Reading Psychology 2008, 29:165-193.
44. Loomis J.M., Lederman S.J. Tactual perception. Handbook of perception and human performances, Vol. 2: Cognitive processes and performance 1986, 1-42. Wiley, New York, NY. K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman, J.P. Thomas (Eds.).
45. Mantzicopoulos P., Patrick H., Samarapungavan A. Young children's motivational beliefs about learning science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2008, 23:378-394.
46. Millar S. Memory in touch. Psicothema 1999, 11:747-767.
47. Minogue J., Jones M.G. Measuring the impact of haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education 2009, 31:1359-1378.
48. National Science Teachers Association. (1999). Position statement on the use of computers in science education. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from the World Wide Web http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement%26psid=4.
49. Peterson S.M., French L. Supporting young children's explanations through inquiry science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2008, 23(3):395-408.
50. Piaget J. The language and thought of the child 1967, The Humanities Press, New York, NY.
51. Posner G.J., Gertzog W.A. The clinical interview and the measurement of conceptual change. Science Education 1982, 66(2):195-209.
52. Ramani G.B., Siegler R.S. Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-income children's numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development 2008, 79(2):375-394.
53. Reiner M. Conceptual construction of fields through tactile interface. Interactive Learning Environments 1999, 7:31-55.
54. Rennie L.J., Feher E., Dierking L.D., Falk J.H. Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out of school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40:112-120.
55. Ronen M., Eliahu M. Simulation a bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2000, 16:14-26.
56. Siegler R.S., Ramani G.B. Playing linear numerical board games promotes low-income children's numerical development. Developmental Science, Special Issue on Mathematical Cognition 2008, 11:655-661.
57. Smith L., Gasser M. The development of embodied cognition: Six lessons from babies. Artificial Life 2005, 11:13-29.
58. Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how 2008, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. C.E. Snow, S.B. Van Hemel (Eds.).
59. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 1994, 4:295-312.
60. Sweller J., van Merrienboer J.J.G., Paas F.G.W.C. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 1998, 10:251-296.
61. Tao P., Gunstone R. The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1999, 36:859-882.
62. Triona L., Klahr D. Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction 2003, 21:149-173.
63. van der Meij J., de Jong T. Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction 2006, 16:199-212.
64. White R.T., Gunstone R.F. Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education 1989, 11:577-586.
65. White R.T., Gunstone R.F. Probing understanding 1992, Falmer Press, London, UK.
66. Wilson M. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002, 9(4):625-636.
67. Windschitl M. Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development 2000, 48:81-95.
68. Winn W., Stahr F., Sarason C., Fruland R., Oppenheimer P., Lee Y.-L. Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2006, 43:25-42.
69. Zacharia Z.C. Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40:792-823.
70. Zacharia Z.C. The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers' explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education 2005, 27:1741-1767.
71. Zacharia Z.C. Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2007, 23:120-132.
72. Zacharia Z.C., Anderson O.R. The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students' conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics 2003, 71:618-629.
73. Zacharia Z.C., Constantinou C.P. Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the physics by inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students' conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics 2008, 76:425-430.
74. Zacharia Z.C., Olympiou G. Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction 2011, 21:317-331.
75. Zacharia Z.C., Olympiou G., Papaevripidou M. Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2008, 45:1021-1035.