Page 329 - Čotar Konrad Sonja, Borota Bogdana, Rutar Sonja, Drljić Karmen, Jelovčan Giuliana. Ur. 2022. Vzgoja in izobraževanje predšolskih otrok prvega starostnega obdobja. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem
P. 329
The Significance of the Constructivist Approach in Preschool Science Education
difficulty is that some scientific explanations are counter-intuitive (Loxley et
al. 2010; Allen 2014; Britten and Allen 2018). Children’s everyday observations
may lead them to hold firmly established ideas, which turn to be wrong in
terms of science. For example, the Earth-centred model of the universe is an
intuitive idea. When we watch the Sun rise in the east and set in the west,
common sense tells us that it must be travelling around the Earth. The idea
that this is an illusion caused by the spin of the Earth is counter-intuitive.
Therefore, children sometimes find science too abstract and separate from
their everyday understanding; the scientific accounts which they encounter
do not map easily on to what children can see, feel and hear (Loxley et al.
2010).
Many different factors influence children’s concepts of natural phenom-
ena. In order to help children learn, and, even more importantly, understand
science concepts, we must first comprehend the nature of their ideas about
the world around them. Some authors suggest that children’s concepts de-
rive from their daily experiences, which are helpful and valuable in the child’s
daily life context (Driver, Guesne, and Tiberghien 1985; Duit and Treagust
1995; Trundle 2010). However, children’s concepts are usually not scientific
and these non-scientific ideas are called ‘naïve concepts’ or ‘alternative con-
cepts.’ Duit and Treagust (1995) proposed six possible sources for alternative
concepts: sensory experience, language experience, cultural background,
peer groups, mass media, and even science instruction.
Children’s interpretation of scientific concepts is influenced by the nature
of their ideas. They tend to view the world and its phenomena from a self-
centred or human-centred, anthropocentric point of view, with which they
often attribute human characteristics, such as feelings, will or purpose, to
objects and phenomena (Piaget 1972; Bell 1993; Battelli and Dolenc-Orbanić
2006). For example, some children believe that the moon phases change be-
cause the moon gets tired. When the moon is not tired, we see a full moon.
Then, as the moon tires, we see less of the moon (Trundle 2010). Of course,
the natural explanation for this is that the lunar phases are created by chang-
ing relative positions of the Earth, the moon and the Sun, as the moon orbits
the Earth.
Additionally, children usually focus on change rather than on static, steady-
state situations, which make it difficult for them to recognize patterns on
their own without the help of an adult or more knowledgeable peer. For ex-
ample, when children observe mealworms over time they easily recognize
how the mealworms’ bodies change from larva to pupa and finally, to adult
beetle. Still, they have difficulty noticing that the population count remains
329
difficulty is that some scientific explanations are counter-intuitive (Loxley et
al. 2010; Allen 2014; Britten and Allen 2018). Children’s everyday observations
may lead them to hold firmly established ideas, which turn to be wrong in
terms of science. For example, the Earth-centred model of the universe is an
intuitive idea. When we watch the Sun rise in the east and set in the west,
common sense tells us that it must be travelling around the Earth. The idea
that this is an illusion caused by the spin of the Earth is counter-intuitive.
Therefore, children sometimes find science too abstract and separate from
their everyday understanding; the scientific accounts which they encounter
do not map easily on to what children can see, feel and hear (Loxley et al.
2010).
Many different factors influence children’s concepts of natural phenom-
ena. In order to help children learn, and, even more importantly, understand
science concepts, we must first comprehend the nature of their ideas about
the world around them. Some authors suggest that children’s concepts de-
rive from their daily experiences, which are helpful and valuable in the child’s
daily life context (Driver, Guesne, and Tiberghien 1985; Duit and Treagust
1995; Trundle 2010). However, children’s concepts are usually not scientific
and these non-scientific ideas are called ‘naïve concepts’ or ‘alternative con-
cepts.’ Duit and Treagust (1995) proposed six possible sources for alternative
concepts: sensory experience, language experience, cultural background,
peer groups, mass media, and even science instruction.
Children’s interpretation of scientific concepts is influenced by the nature
of their ideas. They tend to view the world and its phenomena from a self-
centred or human-centred, anthropocentric point of view, with which they
often attribute human characteristics, such as feelings, will or purpose, to
objects and phenomena (Piaget 1972; Bell 1993; Battelli and Dolenc-Orbanić
2006). For example, some children believe that the moon phases change be-
cause the moon gets tired. When the moon is not tired, we see a full moon.
Then, as the moon tires, we see less of the moon (Trundle 2010). Of course,
the natural explanation for this is that the lunar phases are created by chang-
ing relative positions of the Earth, the moon and the Sun, as the moon orbits
the Earth.
Additionally, children usually focus on change rather than on static, steady-
state situations, which make it difficult for them to recognize patterns on
their own without the help of an adult or more knowledgeable peer. For ex-
ample, when children observe mealworms over time they easily recognize
how the mealworms’ bodies change from larva to pupa and finally, to adult
beetle. Still, they have difficulty noticing that the population count remains
329
