chapter 7shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/5037/13/13... · 2015-12-04 · year-olds, and...

238

CHAPTER 7

Children’s Conceptions of Matter

In the last two chapters findings pertaining to the contexts of curriculum and

pedagogy were presented. This last chapter of findings presents children’s

conceptions of matter which were explored through a variety of tasks, written

worksheets and activities carried out in groups, and clinical interviews. The chapter

is divided into four sections. Section one presents an overview of literature and

findings pertaining to the concept of matter as relevant to this thesis. Sections 2

discusses the findings pertaining to the concept of ‘padartham’ (substance), and

section3 discusses children’s conceptions of solid, liquid and gas. Section 4

explores an investigation into classification of materials. The chapter concludes

with a discussion of the findings.

Matter is a fundamental concept in science and a central concept in school

science textbooks, the development of which is one of the aims of school science

curriculum. Appropriate understanding of matter is considered essential to

understand the principle and theories of physical and chemical changes; also

the kinetic theory of matter (Smith, Grosslight & Davis, 1997). The middle

school science lessons deals with the properties and states of matter, pure

substance and mixtures, elements and compounds, physical and chemical

changes, particulate nature of matter and finally proceeds to the atomic

hypothesis in high school, which is believed to be one of the most salient

conceptions of modern science (Feynman et al, 1963). Matter is also a concept

that is related to the everyday world of the child. The everyday world of children

is filled with a wide variety of materials and objects from which they develop

their initial conceptions of matter. Children recognize, identify, distinguish and

use these objects and materials for different purposes.

The chapter attempt to understand middle school children’s conceptions

of matter and addresses the questions a) what are children’s understanding and

explanations related to the concept of matter? b) What are children’s ideas of

matter that are formed in relation to the curriculum, textbook, classroom and

everyday understanding of the concept of matter?

239

7.1 The Concept of Matter: Previous Studies

Children’s learning the concept of matter is essential to understand the principles

and theories behind a vast array of chemical and physical phenomena. The concept

of matter is central to explain properties of materials, state of matter, phase,

physical and chemical changes, chemical reaction, water cycle, diffusion, kinetic

theory, atomic structure, structure of universe, ions, atoms, bonding, molecules,

much of solution chemistry, chemical reactions, equilibrium etc. Students should

learn this concept in two domains: the macroscopic domain and the microscopic

domain. The macroscopic domain deals with substances and their properties,

processes and phenomena. The micro-domain deals mainly with atoms models,

molecules, ions, electrons etc. The major concepts that come under the title matter

are a) object, b) substance, c) form, d) state and its change, e) physical and chemical

properties and change, f) classification, g) conservation, h) composition and i)

structure and particulate theory of matter.

This section is an attempt to survey existing finding and the literature on

chidlren’s conceptions of ‘matter’ on the following aspects: substance, object,

object-matter differentiation, matter and its classification.

One of the observations that need to be mentioned while surveying the

literature on matter conceptions among children is that there exist a wide range

of studies related to children’s conceptions of object and matter. The literature

on matter is incoherent and dispersed as noted by Krnel, Watson and Glazar

(1998); also several studies were conducted among infants to university level

students, as also student teachers. The present survey mentions the findings on

infants and younger children to set the background, but mainly focus on the

studies that were conducted among children of the age group 9 to 13. These

studies basically examine school children’s conceptions of matter related to

various aspects of matter learned from science classroom.

Major studies on the concept of ‘object’ was conducted among children in

their infancy and early years (i.e. 2 months to 5 year old) following a Piagetian

tradition (Lovell, 1971; Baillargeon, Spelke, & Wasserman, 1985;

Baillergeon1987) whereas the concept of matter, substance, their physical and

chemical properties, atomic ideas etc. were done among school children, university

students and student teachers to examine their conceptions developed as a result

of science learning (Driver et al, 1994; K renel et al., 1998; Krenel et al., 2005).

Chapter 7 – Children’s Conceptions of Matter

240

Infants and young preschool children don’t have any explicit explanatory

concepts of matter or material kind. In order to have such concepts, children

need to distinguish object and matter. But there is evidence that very young

infants have a robust concept of physical object that they understand as a

bounded entity, that is solid, permanent and enduring, and that has characteristic

properties and functions (Baillargeon, 2002; Spelke, 1991). In addition, there

is evidence that, by 8 months, infants make a distinction between discrete objects

(that are countable) and continuous entities such as liquids and aggregates (that

are not) (Huntley-Fenner, Carey & Solimando, 2002). This distinction plays an

important role in early word learning. Children hold general concept of matter

as shown in a small-scale study by Carey (1991) in which 4-, 6-, 10-, and 12-

year-old children were explicitly asked to sort entities into different piles: one

pile for things that were made of some kind of physical stuff, one pile for

things that were not made of some kind of stuff. Children were given a wide

range of entities: solids (both inanimate physical objects and biological kinds),

liquids (water, coca-cola), powders (sugar), gases (air, steam), nonmaterial

physical entities (heat, electricity, shadows, echo) and mental entities (wish,

idea). Carey found that about half of the 4-year-olds, three quarters of the 6-

year-olds, and all the older children grouped some solids, liquids, and powders

as alike in being made of some kind of stuff. The study proposed that, the fact

that children were making some sensible groupings at a level broader than

solid physical object is an evidence for preschoolers developing a broader

concept of matter. They not only recognized that these entities are things that

can be seen, touched, or produce some physical effect but they use these

properties as evidence that they are all “made of some kind of stuff.”

7.1.1 Initial Conceptions of Matter and Object-matter Differentiation

Children’s initial conceptions of matter are formed from the wide range of

everyday objects that are present in children’s everyday life and children in their

early years develop common conception about substances as inert objects from

their everyday world (Russell, Longden & McGuigan, 1991). Children initially

learn the name of objects and raw materials (the substance’s family names), and

then they develop representations of substances as objects, based on materials

“function” which can be considered as the materials property of common use

One of the key features in the early development of the concept of matter is

that children learn how to distinguish between matter and objects (Krnel, Watson

241

& Glazar, 2003). The study explored how the ability to recognize a substance in

various objects changed with age among children aged 3 to 13 in Slovenia, also

the development of the concept of matter. The authors focused on two aspects,

the first was whether the differentiation was based mainly on intensive properties

or on a mixture of intensive properties that characterize matter and extensive

properties that characterize object. Intensive properties do not change with size,

shape, or quantity of objects, and are identical in each part of the object. Therefore,

intensive properties characterize the substance of which the object is made. By

contrast, extensive properties are changed when objects are divided or the number

of objects is changed. The second aspect examined was the role of action in

developing a scheme that leads to differentiation of matter and object.

The results of the above study showed that younger children tended to

classify using a mixture of extensive properties and intensive properties, whereas

older children (above 9 years old) tended to use intensive properties most of the

time. A second key feature argued by the authors in the formation of matter concept

is that children learn the differentiation of such interlinked concepts by acting

upon and observing the natural world. Through their actions children gradually

develop more elaborated schema which enable them to distinguish between

extensive and intensive properties and hence distinction between object and

matter. The study concluded that distinction of such interlinked concepts is seen

as a key process in the formation of differentiated and stable scientific concepts.

In a case study done among 3 to 9 year old children’s concept of size,

weight, density, matter and material kind (Smith, Carey & Wiser, 1985), it was

proposed that young children had a theoretical system which included distinct

concepts of size, weight, and material kind and were beginning to form

generalizations relating these concepts (e.g., size is crudely correlated with

weight, steel objects are typically heavy). Material kinds were defined in terms

of properties which characterize large scale chunks of stuff. Slightly older

children (5-7-year olds) had made modifications to their concepts of material

kind. At these ages, they were coming to see weight differences as important in

distinguishing whether large-scale objects were made of the same kind of stuff.

However, the core of their concept of material kinds were defined in terms of

properties of large scale objects. Finally, still older children (8-9 year-olds)

had a theoretical system in which material kinds were reconceptualized as the

fundamental constituents of objects. The study concluded that in early years

children differentiate objects and matter according to natural (ill-defined)


242

criteria, that an undifferentiated alternative “object–matter” concept is formed

in early childhood and that this concept can persist in spite of the science

education received.

The above study also proposed a ‘universal grinding test’ to distinguish

kinds of objects and kinds of matter (stuff). Intensive properties are those which

are conserved during breaking or taking away. These are: density, hardness,

temperature, chemical reactivity, conductivity, malleability, ductility, state of

matter and a number of other physical and chemical properties; if the object is

made of a homogeneous substance, the intensive properties also include taste,

smell and colour. By contrast, the extensive properties are those which change

during breaking or taking away: mass, volume, size, etc.

There exist few other studies that show that from early childhood an

undifferentiated alternative conception of ‘object-matter’ persist in children. Even

schoolchildren in the primary grade; also from age 11 to age 14 do not differentiate

between the concepts of object and the concept of matter (Johnson 1998,

Solomonidou and Stavridou, 2000, Solomonidou et al. 1993, Vogezelang 1987)

and this alternative concept can persist in spite of the science education received

(for example, Driver et al. 1989, 1994, Mortimer 1993).

The major conclusion that we can derive from the above studies is that for

a clear conceptual understanding of matter, children need to differentiate the

object concept from the matter concept. They should also be able to distinguish

the intensive and extensive properties of matter.

7.1.2 Conceptions of Matter in School Science

The concept of matter in school science begins from its nature, properties

and states and progresses towards understanding the structural theory of matter

and applying the theory in describing and explaining various forms and

changes of matter.

Nature of matter: The SPACE project (Russell, Longden & McGuigan, 1991)

documented primary children’s understanding of materials. It probed in particular

children’s ideas about the properties and nature of materials. The results have shown

that children do not hold similar views as in their science textbooks about the nature

of matter, and these ‘alternate conceptions’ make it difficult to understand the concept.

Also children did not clearly distinguish between solids, liquids and gases. There are

243

substances at the boundaries of each set. Children counted free flowing solids such

as salt as liquid. It was therefore proposed it was difficult for children to develop hard

and fast rules about what counts as solid, liquid or gas.

Development of the concept: Based on a review study of research on

conceptions of matter, Krenel, Watson and Glazar (1998) proposed that the

development of matter in children originates from actions such as holding, breaking,

pouring, blowing etc. Primitive actions, prototypes, schemes and laws may be used

by children to develop a hypothesis about the concept of matter. Actions on matter

lead to the development of prototypes that represent particular types of matter such

as water for liquid and air for gas. When children combine primitive actions with

prototypes of matter, understanding of the process of physical change such as

dissolving is developed. The understanding of laws such as, matter occupies volume

is formed when children combine action with matter. The study also proposed that

the key to children’s development towards the particle model of matter depends on

their ability to differentiate objects and substances. The clarity with which children

understand the distinction between matter and objects also influences their

explanations of composition and phenomena.

A theoretical framework for the development of the concept of matter via

‘action’ was also given in the above review, which provided an explanation of

how children develop the concept of matter and is used to discuss literature

concerning children’s classification of matter, their explanations of the

composition of matter, and their explanations of physical and chemical change.

The study also shows possible implications of the development of this concept

for learning and teaching.

Macroscopic and microscopic aspects: A review study by Andersson

(1990) on student’s conceptions of matter among the age groups of 12 to 16

years, examined four aspects of the concept matter among students–chemical

reactions, change of state, conservation, atoms, molecules and system of

particles. Students’ reasoning at 12 to 16 years of age begins at the macroscopic

with microscopic reasoning to follow later. The study proposed that student’s

conceptions of matter could be described by the following categories a)

disappearance b) displacement c) modification d) transmutation into energy or

a substance and e) chemical interaction.

The aim of the study conducted by Renström, Andersson & Ference

(1990) was to examine how upper level school students (13 to 16 years old)


244

conceptualized matter. Six distinctively different conceptions were found. Matter

can be understood as (a) homogeneous substance, (b) substance units, (c)

substance units with “small atoms,” (d) aggregate of particles, (e) particle units,

or (f) systems of particles. The different conceptions, their varying internal

structures, and the alternative forms of conceptions found were logically

interrelated in a system, called the “outcome space,” which depicts how thinking

about matter may vary qualitatively between and within students.

Progression in matter conception according to grades: In a study done

on student’s conceptions of matter from elementary to high school (Liu & Lesniak,

2005) it was proposed that student’s conceptions of matter can be described by

the existence forms and the properties of matter. The existence forms of matter

are in the order of natural characteristics, natural phenomena, physical properties

and chemical properties. The combination of the property and existence of matter

are in seven progressive levels and the study claims students conceptual

understanding from elementary to high school and beyond follows these seven

levels. But the study didn’t identify the age or age groups for each of the

hierarchical conceptual levels.

Liu & Lesniak (2006) extended the above study adopting a neo-Piagetian

conceptual framework and a phenomenographic approach, identified students’

conceptual progression pattern on matter from elementary to high school. The

study interviewed 54 students from Grade 1 to Grade 10 chemistry on their

conceptions of substances (i.e., water, vinegar, and baking soda) and the combining

of the substances. The study found that progression of students’ conceptions on

matter from elementary to high school is multifaceted. For any aspect examined,

from spontaneous description of substances to chemical reaction of baking soda

with vinegar, there was a unique progression pattern. Different conceptual

progression patterns existed for different substances (i.e., water, baking soda,

and vinegar) as well. Further, there is no clear conceptual difference observed

between different grade levels in conceptual progression; that is, there is

tremendous overlap in conceptions among students of different grades.

(Gómez Crespo & Pozo, 2004) analyzed the representations held by

adolescents and university students in relation to the mechanism for explaining

changes in matter (changes of state, dissolutions, expansions and chemical

reactions) in terms of the kinetic theory. The main conception that competes

with the kinetic model is the attribution to the particles of the changes observed,

at a macroscopic level. This is more evident in changes of state and expansions

245

than in other changes. This confusion results from a failure to differentiate properly

between the represented reality and the model that represents it. In conclusion,

analysis has shown students’ difficulties in going beyond apparent reality or

integrating the data obtained from it into the scientific models they learn at school.

Yilmaz & Alp (2006) investigated the effect of grade level on students’

achievement in matter concept and reasoning abilities. The data was collected

from 8th, 10th and 11th grade students. The results revealed that there was a

significant effect of grade level on students’ achievement in favor of 11th

grade

students and the linear combination of reasoning abilities was significantly related

to students’ achievement. In the Matter Concept Test, the 10th graders did better

than 8th graders and the 11th graders did better than either. The only exception to

this general observation was the 8th graders’ better performance on a small number

of questions, which related to topics that were taught and nationally examined in

the 8th grade. It seems likely, therefore, that the more chemistry a student is

taught the better he/she is likely to be, except that if a topic is examined while it

is reasonably fresh in a student’s mind the results are likely to be better than if

the test is carried out 2-3 years later

Substance: Johnson (1996) pointed out that “substance” does not stand

alone as a concept, but relates to other component ideas such as material/object,

purity and chemical change. According to his study 11-14 year olds misapply

these component ideas and so do not have a chemist’s view of substance.

Sannmartý et al. (1994) analyzed the explanations of 13-year old students

regarding the properties of substances and their changes. A significant number

of pupils use explanations which have been categorized as ‘substantialisation of

properties’. It is said that students substantialize a particular property when they

treat the property as a material substance. For instance, when sugar is dissolved

in water, students believe that sugar disappears, but only the taste remains. The

authors classified students’ answers according to three categories: substantializers,

non-substantializers and not-expressing-a-model.

Solomonidou and Stavridou (2000) conducted a study among 168 Greek

students aged 13-14, to elucidate students’ conceptions about the chemical

substance concept. More specifically, the study analyzed specific problems related

to the construction of the chemical substance concept, as well as the primitive

ideas children form about substances in everyday life. The study also investigated

students’ conceptual development about substances during an introductory

experimental chemistry sequence. The study proposed that a major problem


246

concerning substances is that, in the context of everyday life, people and children

conceive of them as inert objects, on the basis of their common experiences,

practices, and use of language. The everyday life context poses so many restrictions

that it is not possible to promote the development of conceptions about substances

to more scientific ones. The students’ initial ideas corresponded to a pre-concept

of substance, because they considered the various substances as concrete

substances having one or two perceptible properties, a conception very similar

to the inert object idea. A number of students progressed to an intermediate state,

because they conceived substances as unknown substances having perceptible

properties, as well as some “relative” or “reactive” ones.

The study suggested that chemistry teaching should help students to

conceive substances as unknown ones, each having a range of physical and

chemical properties. The outcomes of this study support the idea that the teaching

of chemistry should begin with a “chemical substance approach,” involving

students in appropriate activities and conceptual tasks and giving them the

opportunity to develop a more scientific language to express their ideas on matter

and its transformations. The conclusion was that the construction of the chemical

substance concept should precede the introduction of concepts related to atomic

structure. This is a necessary condition for helping students operationally connect

the entities of the empirical level and the entities of the atomic level (i.e., substance

and molecule, new substance, and new molecule).

7.1.3. Discussion

Research in science education continues to emphasize the significance of

concept matter for learning science especially as it is the subject matter of

physics and chemistry. Science curricula consider matter to be a fundamental

concept and appropriate understanding of the matter concept is a key feature

and aim of the school science lessons. This understanding is also essential to

grasping the nature and importance of many of the everyday physical and

chemical phenomena. This learning progression on matter encompasses several

fundamental and broad ranges of interrelated concepts-not only matter and

substance, but also weight, volume, density, solid, liquid and gas. The concept

of matter is generally introduced in science curricula in the middle school

science lessons starting from properties of matter, as well as learning of states

of matter. The concept progress to changes of state, physical and chemical

changes, and the changes associated with heating and cooling of a substance,

247

such as thermal expansion and eventually to particle theory of matter and atomic

theory. Atomic theory marks the end of the learning progression, according to

which matter consists of tiny particles, atoms and molecules, in never ending

motion and interaction provides a basis for understanding the invisible

microscopic events underlying natural phenomena.

The concept of matter does not develop in isolation but rather in close

interaction with the concepts of weight, density, mass, and material kind and,

later on, with the concepts of atoms and molecules.

Given that young children’s initial concepts of matter and material kind

are quite different from the concepts of matter and chemical substance that are

the target of elementary and middle school science curricula, how do children

develop the concept of matter from school science. Young children’s initial

understanding of matter and materials is very much based on perception and

action—which is based on objects (broadly defined) which are “seeable” and

tangible (matter), and they exist in a variety of kinds of stuff with certain clusters

of perceptually accessible properties (material kinds). Scientific theory of matter,

both at the macroscopic and atomic level, is far removed from everyday

experience. The concepts that they develop from everyday experience do not

provide a framework that allows developing either macroscopic or microscopic

understanding of matter. The disparity between observed phenomena and

microscopic aspects are more complex. Moreover, the thinking involved in

understanding the relation between the properties of atoms and molecules and

the macroscopic properties of material kinds and of physical and chemical

transformations requires a major shift from the “process” type of causal reasoning

students are familiar with to one that acknowledges emergent properties and

constraint-based interactions (Chi & Roscoe, 2002). Although physical and

chemical changes are visible as changes of the states of matter or changes in

other properties of the substance, like color, the microscopic aspects of matter

concepts cannot be taught merely by showing an example. It is difficult to

demonstrate atoms, molecules, ions, bonding between these particles, or elements

and compounds and their chemical characteristics. It needs a lot of instructional

planning and design to introduce these chemical concepts for a meaningful

learning to happen. As proposed by Novick & Nussbaum (1981) students’

understanding of basic aspects of matter concept increases as the amount of

relevant information presented increases, hence these aspects of pedagogy and

learning difficulties to understand various aspects of matter concepts should be

taken into consideration while preparing curriculum materials for school children.


248

7.2 The Investigation: Children’s Conceptions of Substance,Solid, Liquid and Gas

This section examines children’s understanding of the key conceptual categories

relating to the concept of matter which are: - (1) substance (2) solid (3) liquid

and (4) gas. The initial part examines the examples that children from 5th to 8th

grade named for substance, solid, liquid and gas, and the characteristics features

of these examples to get an initial understanding of children’s conceptions and

later it presents the findings based on the definition and characteristics children

gave for the above concepts, also presents the results of the Piagetian Clinical

interview. (The term ‘children’s conception’ is used in this chapter to denote the

conceptions expressed by children.).

This section reports the results of following five tasks conducted with

children from Grade V to Grade VIII

1. Writing tasks

a. Instantiating ‘padartham’, ‘solid’, ‘liquid’ and ‘gas’

b. Listing the characteristics of ‘padartham’, ‘solid’, ‘liquid’ and ‘gas’

c. Noting the definition of ‘padartham’, ‘solid’, ‘liquid’ and ‘gas’

2. Piagetian Clinical interview

a. to elicit children’s conception of Padartham, solid, liquid and gas

3. Classification of materials followed by Piagetian Clinical Interview.

In the above, first three tasks were a paper pencil task or a writing task

where children from grade V to grade VIII in the whole class setting during a free

period were asked to note down examples, characteristics and definition of the

concepts under study. The very first one among the three was making a list of

examples for ‘padartham’ on a sheet of paper (which had space to note down

name, date, time, name of the task- examples for padartham and ample space to

write as many as 100 examples) . Children were initially asked to write five

examples of padartham. After writing five examples they were encouraged to

write as many as they could. The time taken to write examples ranged from two

minutes to twenty minutes as there were children who cited only two examples;

also children who cited nearly 60 examples. Once this task was over they were

then asked to list out characteristics of padartham and write a definition for

padartham. The task was conducted at each grade in their respective classroom.

In the case of writing characteristics also children were initially asked to write

five, later encouraged to add on if they knew more than five characteristics. The

249

final one was telling children to give a definition for ‘padartham’. Three of these

tasks (writing examples, characteristics and definition) took 45 minutes or one

period in each grade. A total of 122 Children from V to VIII grade wrote definition

and characteristics for substance.

After the writing tasks, Piagetian clinical interview was conducted with a

total of 53 children from (grade V to grade VIII) in groups comprising of two or

three children in each group. Through the clinical interviews, children’s ideas

related to substance were probed in more detail. In addition to enquiring about

what they had written in the worksheets, the interview also discussed new

examples, non-examples, the contexts from which children got familiar with the

word substance, and their ideas of object and substance. A total of 27 such groups

(two/three children in each group) from grades V to VII were interviewed. During

the course of the interview there were a few groups who invoked the idea of

atom, molecules etc. and in such cases they were probed in the direction of the

microscopic aspects of matter. The interview generally attempted to probe and

trace children’s line of thinking of the ideas regarding substance in detail.

The same procedure as the above was followed in the case of other

concepts-solid, liquid and gas in which children in their whole class room setting

listed out examples, characteristics and definition for solid, liquid and gas.

Afterwards children were clinical interviewed to understand their ideas related

to solid, liquid and gas. In this case also children were probed regarding

definition, properties, and examples of solid, liquid and gas; as also difference

between solid, liquid and a gas.

The final task was a Piagetian clinical interview combined with a

classification task conducted around a wide range of concrete materials designed

to examine the manner in which children classify a collection of everyday and

esoteric materials. The aim of this task was to elicit children’s conception of

various aspects of matter in detail, examine children’s classification of everyday

familiar and unfamiliar materials, probe their knowledge, reasoning and

description of the material world; also the rules and strategies children use to

classify materials. A wide range of materials with multiple attributes that were in

different states, form, made up of different substances, with different properties

and functions, were given to a total of 64 children from grade V to grade VIII to

perform an open ended classification. The task was conducted in group comprising

of two or three members and was designed to invoke detailed conversation among

children, in turn map their knowledge and conceptions about materials. The task


250

was conducted at two contexts: the context of the school along with peers and at

the context of home along with elders, siblings or friends, to examine the manner

in which context of the home, school, peers, and adults influence children’s

thinking; also examine whether there is any difference in manner in which they

reason out about materials at the two contexts.

The task eventually focused on eliciting children’s understanding of various

aspects of the concept of matter as a basis of understanding the concept from the

everyday world and science classroom. The materials were chose chosen in such

a manner that it has relevance to the everyday world and classroom context of

the child. After assigning categories to the entire materials, clinical interview

was conducted with the group around the name and characteristics of the categories

formed, and characteristics of materials in each category etc. The task was video

and audio recorded and took an average of 45 minutes to an hour.

7.3 Conception of ‘Padartham’ (Substance)

The concepts of substance, element, compound and mixtures form the basic

concepts in order to explain the composition and behavior of matter. It provides

the initial framework to explain the physical and chemical changes of matter.

In chemistry, substance is taken as the basic chemical species and is a

homogenous basic material such as gold (Brakel, 1977)1. Substance cannot be

separated by chemical means and distinct substances are the starting and end

points of chemical reactions.

In the Kerala Science Text Book the chapter which corresponds to

‘introduction to substance’ in grade V used the terms ‘padartham’ and ‘vasthu’.

‘Vasthu’ may be translated loosely to correspond to ‘material/object’. The term

‘padartham’ corresponds roughly to ‘substance/matter’. As was discussed in Chapter

five, the concept of padartham was introduced to children in the fifth grade with

the aim of bringing in a ‘chemical approach’ of material characterization and

classification in later grades. This led to the systematic investigation of chemical

properties of substance and chemical sign language in grade VIII. The associated

concepts pure substance, mixtures, elements, compounds, molecules, and atoms

were introduced in grade VI and VII.

The attempt here is to explore the children’s conceptions related to the

term ‘padartham’. In order to examine children’s understanding of the term

‘padartham’, a writing task followed by a clinical interview was used.

251

In the writing task children were asked to

(1) give examples of padartham

(2) list characteristics of padartham

(3) define padartham

A total of 113 children answered the writing task on the example for substance.

Table 7.1: Details of children who wrote example for substance

The responses of children were categorized and analyzed based on their

grade, gender and caste. The chapter is organized around each question, and an

analysis of the responses it evoked.

7.3.1 Instantiating ‘Padartham’

The first task given to children in the whole class setting was a writing task

in which they were asked to write examples for ‘padartham’. The task was

provided to all children from grade V to grade VIII (in their respective

classrooms during a free period) and a total of 113 children answered.

Directions were given to children at the time of task to the whole class. They

were asked to first write five examples on an A4 sheet provided to them,

(that had space to write the examples, name, grade, date, time, page no.).

After this they were asked to write as many examples as they could. The time

taken by children varied from one minute to 20 minutes to list examples, the

number of examples ranged from 2 to 10 to 60. The examples given by 113

children were aggregated together for the purpose of analysis. Their responses

to this question were also later pursued through a clinical interview in which

children were asked to define substance. A total of 53 children from Grade V

to VIII were interviewed.

Grade Boys Girls No. of Children

V 4 5 9

VI 22 13 35

VII 15 17 32

VIII 19 18 37

60 53 113


252

a) Exemplars for ‘padartham’:

A total of 2007 different examples were named by the 113 children. The

maximum number of examples given by an individual child was 57, the

minimum was 2. The examples ranged from water, sugar, kerosene to table,

chair, leaf, human body etc. The most frequently occurring examples included

water, stone, wood, iron, salt

Example 1 (Child 1, grade7, girl): (1) Sugar (2) Salt (3) Soda (4)

Copper (5) Soap Solution (6) Lemon Juice (6) Petrol (7) Oil (8) Water (9)

Alcohol (10) Iron (11) Iron Rod (12) Lock (13) Key

Example 2 (Child 2, grade7, girl): (1) Wood (2) Water (3) Smoke

(4) Paper (5) Pen (6) Book (7) Pencil (8) (Chair (9) Door (10) Table (11)

Duster (12) Bulb (13) Chart Sheet (14) Plastic cover (15) Coat (16)

Window (17) Cloth (18) Iron (19) Aluminum (20) Cement (21) Leaf (22)

Flower (23) Paint (24) Chocolate (25) Vegetables (26) Fruits (27) Gold

(28) Silver (29) Hair (30) Milk

b) Analyzing the children’s examples:

The examples of all 113 children were entered into a spread sheet along with the

name, grade, and gender of the child in the first three columns. Given the vast

number of different things being named, a strategy had to be evolved in order to

initiate analysis. Initial focus was on getting a feel for the data, to understand if

there was any structure or pattern which could then provide a way of systematically

analyzing all the children’s examples. The analysis initially looked at which

examples children were citing most frequently. For this, the first examples, the

first five examples, and all examples were analyzed. Following this, in order to

study the types of examples that children were giving, the analysis was based on

taking up to 15 examples provided by children, 15 being the median of number

of examples (see graph provided in end note 1). No examples were judged ‘right’

or ‘wrong’. All examples were treated equally as emerging from children’s attempt

to instantiate ‘padartham’ and hence were kept within the analysis.

c) Most frequently cited examples—part (i).

Table 7.2 provides the counts of various examples provided by children, based

on the first example they cited (total of 113 examples from 113 children), the

253

counts of examples in the first five (total of 559 examples, as some children

wrote less than five examples) and finally based on all examples cited (2005

examples). In the case of the first example, the most frequently cited first example

was ‘stone’ (17 cases) followed by sugar (13 children) and water (13 children).

From among the first five examples, the most frequently occurring example was

‘water’ (39 counts) followed by stone (34 counts) and then sugar (26 counts).

Among all examples cited, again water (86 counts) and stone (62 counts) were

among the most frequently cited examples, followed by iron (49 counts), table

(46 counts) and sugar (46 counts).

Table 7.2: Counts of first ten frequently cited examples-Column1, 1 to 5, 1 to 57

First example Five examples All examples(113 examples) (559 examples) (2005 examples)

Rank Example Counts Example Counts Example Counts

1 Stone 17 Water 39 Water 85

2 Sugar 13 Stone 34 Stone 62

3 Water 13 Sugar 26 Iron 49

4 Solid 10 Salt 21 Table 49

5 Iron 4 Iron 17 Sugar 46

6 Wood 4 Wood 14 Kerosene 41

7 Air 3 Solid 13 Salt 41

8 Pen 3 Liquid 13 Pen 39

9 Salt 3 Gas 13 Copper 38

10 Acid 2 Table 13 Gold 35

Initial Finding

" On the whole, water, stone, iron, sugar, salt etc.were more frequently

cited examples for ‘padartham’.

" Children cited not only substance/materials kinds, but also objects such

as table, pen, chair, also fruits, leaf as examples for ‘padartham’.

" In the total of the 2005 examples 55% were examples of ‘padartham’

and 45% were non examples for ‘padartham’


254

Table 7.3: Examples of ‘padartham’ in the total examples

Everyday Substance (like salt, sugar, honey etc.)+ 488+145=633

chemical substances (like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen,

potassium etc.)

Material kind (like iron, copper, gold, steel etc.)+ 437+29=466

Powders (Chalk powder, chilly powder etc)

1099=55%

(out of 2005)

" Non-examples for ‘padartham’

Table 7.4: Non examples for Padartham

Objects (table, chair, pen, pencil etc.)+( Natural 717+82=799

Kinds (fruit, flower, leaf etc.+Edible items+ Cereals

(rice, pulses, etc.))

Solid/Liquid/Gas (the general scientific terms) 90

Miscellenous (human body, hand, heart, hair, etc) 17

908=45%

(out of 2005)

Children cited a wide range of materials/objects etc. as the examples for

substance. Either we can conclude children don’t have the concept of

‘padartham’ or we can proceed to closely examine these examples to understand

the details of the children’s existing conception of padartham. Hence the analysis

was done further to understand the characteristics of these examples to infer

children’s conception of ‘padartham’.

d) Deciding on a ‘cut off’

The next step was to decide the numbers of examples per child which could be

taken into consideration for detailed analysis. For this purpose the median value

was found (see end note 1 for a spread of number of children and no of examples).

The median value was found to be 15. While deciding to use ‘15’ as a cut off to

analyze in more detail the types of examples being cited by children, the examples

occurring in the 16 column onwards were examined. It was found that generally

255

there were examples such as bench, pen, etc. all with very low frequency of

occurrence (as shown in table …).

Example Frequency occurrence

Column16 Bench 2

Column17 Pen 3

Column18 Chair 3

Column19 Bag 2

Column20 Aluminum 3

The trend observed in the examples of children who wrote more than 15

were that they kept on naming the objects in their vicinity or examples that were

of less relevance. The examples that were occurring low in number were found

to be difficult to categorize. Based on the above details and analysis of the spread

of the examples by each child, it was decided to consider examples up to 15 for

the further analysis. The rest of the findings reported below pertain to the analysis

of up to 15 examples provided by the children which were deemed to be more

relevant to understanding how children were instantiating the term ‘padartham’.

The total number of such examples was 1352. These were then treated as a group

and analyzed for patterns including most frequently cited examples and types of

examples cited, variation with grade and with gender, etc.

e) Most frequently cited examples—part (ii)

The first ten most frequently cited examples are provided in the table 7.5

Water at 57.5% is the most frequently cited example for padartham. This is

followed by stone (45.1%). Sugar, wood, iron and salt seem to follow as the next

group of most frequently cited, with occurrences between 32% and 28% in all

examples. Kerosene, table, copper and pen and the next more frequent, (with

percentage occurrences between 25% and 22%).

We can see from the above list that these are substances/materials/objects

that are common in children’s everyday life, and significantly also mentioned

frequently in children’s textbook, and also mentioned by teachers in the classroom.

we can also note children citing materials, objects. The invocation of stone, wood,


256

iron, copper etc. in this group is interesting as this seems to correspond with a

sense of materiality of substance-as that of which things are made up. Sugar and

salt are among the most common ‘active’ materials/chemical used in a number

of activities especially mixtures and dissolution. A significantly high level of

mention of common classroom objects—table and pen—may be noted.

f) Typology

Based on studying the actual 1352 examples cited, a typology was evolved to

bring out the key characteristics of these examples, which could account or explain

or contribute to understanding the basis on which they were being invoked as

examples. The examples named were both objects and materials. All the examples

(except the miscellaneous examples like human body, organ, etc. which are few

in number) seem to fall into one of the following 4 groups:

Type 1: Generic everyday-textbook substances/materials: these were

examples of everyday substances materials, but which were of a generic

character and cited in science textbooks. (discussed in chapter 5).

Type2: Objects in the vicinity of the classroom

Type3: Everyday world Objects/functional items

Type4: Chemical substances/materials

Table 7.5: Count of top occurring examples of first 15 Columns and % out of 113

Rank Examples Counts %

1 Water 65 57.5

2 Stone 51 45.1

3 Sugar 36 31.8

4 Wood 36 31.8

5 Iron 32 28.3

6 Salt 32 28.3

7 Kerosene 29 25.6

8 Table 29 25.6

9 Copper 26 23.0

10 Pen 25 22.1

257

Type1: Everyday substances/materials which are also cited in the science

text book (generic everyday materials).

We can see from table 8 that the most cited examples such as water, sugar,

stone, wood etc. are substances that are common in children’s everyday world,

and significantly also mentioned frequently in the science textbooks, and by

teacher in the science classroom.

There were also material kinds especially solids such as iron, gold, silver,

copper, etc. Science text book and classroom draws a variety of examples such

as stone, sugar, alt, iron, gold, water etc. from children’s everyday world to

explain various concepts in science. The majority of examples written for

substance belonged to this category i.e. familiar everyday material that is also

used by the science textbook and teacher. The examples ranged from solid:

stones, metals, non-metals, soluble materials, brittle materials; liquids and gas.

A significant number of these were also materials from the everyday world—

both materials which are commonly used such as paper, plastic, and also

‘chemicals’ such as soap, washing soda etc.; also powders such as turmeric

powder, talcum powder, iron powder, rice powder etc.

The table 7.6 gives the details of the examples that came under this

category. Firstly the examples have been placed in rank order. More

characteristics of these materials have also been noted in the detailed cross

tabulated table in endnote 233

Rank Material Count %Order named by

children

I Water 65 57.52

II Stone 54 47.78

III Wood 36 31.85

IV Sugar 36 31.85

V Salt 34 30.08

VI Iron 32 28.31

VII Kerosene 29 25.66

VIII Copper 26 23.00

Table 7.6: Type1-Everyday substance/materials


258

IX Aluminum 19 16.81

X Gold 19 16.81

Petrol 19 16.81

Soil 18 15.92

Powders 18 15.92

Glass 17 15.04

Coconut Oil 17 15.04

Lemon Juice 16 14.15

Paper 16 14.15

Plastic 15 13.27

Chalk 14 12.38

Milk 14 12.38

Fruit Juice 13 11.50(apple juice,orange juice)

Metals (lead, 11 9.73zinc etc.)

Diesel 10 8.84

Everyday 10 8.84chemicals(pesticide,syrup etc.)

Camphor 9 7.96

Cooking Oil 9 7.96

Smoke 9 7.96

Soap 9 7.96

Silver 8 7.07

Soda 8 7.07

Salt Solution 7 6.19

Air 7 6.19

Charcoal 6 5.30

Soap Solution 6 5.30

Coffee/Tea 6 5.30

259

Sand 5 4.42

Brick 5 4.42

Cement 5 4.42

Machine Oil 5 4.42

Washing Soda 5 4.42

Curd 5 4.42

Steel 4 3.53

Ice 4 3.53

Sugar Solution 4 3.53

Soap Powder 4 3.53

Ink 4 3.53

Butter 4 3.53

Honey 3 2.65

Rubber 3 2.65

Sponge 3 2.65

Wax 3 2.65

Calcium 2 1.76Carbonate

Medicine 2 1.76

Paint 2 1.76

Butter Milk 2 1.76

Cardboard 2 1.76

Vapor 1 0.884

Type 2: Objects in the vicinity of the Class Room

The second type was the classroom objects that were present in children’s vicinity

of the classroom. A total of 232 examples belonged to this group and following

table gives the details of the examples.


260

Rank Example Count %

I Table 29 25.66

II Pen 25 22.12

III Bench 20 17.7

IV Chair 17 15.04

V Note Book 15 13.27

VI Box 15 13.27

VII Pencil 14 12.39

VIII Fan 14 12.38

IX Alma rah 11 9.73

X Door 9 7.96

Text Book 9 7.96

Bottle 9 7.96

Window 8 7.08

Board 7 6.19

Roof tiles 5 4.42

Chart 4 3.54

Bag 4 3.54

Bulb 4 3.53

Others 13 11.5

Table 7.7: Type 2 example, classroom objects

Type 3: Everyday World objects or functional items

This category consists of functional materials and objects from children’s everyday

lives, which are manmade and natural materials/objects. A large number off

materials that were written also came from the kitchen and could be considered

261

ingredients for cooking; also edible. The final group was objects rather than

materials, and included electronic equipments, cloths, etc. All these were familiar

and common, but not mentioned in the textbook, and hence were from the child’s

everyday world.

Table 7.8: Everyday World Objects

Rank Material/object Count %

I Electronic Equipments 17 15.04

II Cloths (as shirt, sari etc.) 17 15.04

III House hold Objects 13 11.50

IV Vessels 13 11.50

V Jewelry 10 8.84

VI Rubber objects 8 7.07

Wooden objects 6 5.30

VIII Plastic objects 6 5.30

IX Iron objects 5 4.42

Natural kinds (Fruits

and vegetables) 18 15.92

Edible items 14 12.38

Groceries 11 9.73

Type 4: Scientific categories (chemical substances and general terms)

This group included those examples which has specific scientific names and

which children could have encountered only in relation to the school/science

textbook knowledge. This category consists of scientific terms, specific names

and name of materials that are learned from the science class. As can be seen, a

number of these had t do with common elements that are named in the initial

science grades, such as oxygen hydrogen. Acid was also well known to children.

A significant number of the names were ‘solid, liquid gas’ which cannot be

considered examples, and are really scientific terms being recalled by children,

which seem to have a close association with the topic ‘padartham’.


262

Table 7.9: Type 4, science categories-chemical substance and general

science terms

Chemical Counts % General Counts %Substances science terms

Acid 18 15.93 Solid 18 15.93

Oxygen 15 13.27 Liquid 17 15.04

Hydrogen 11 9.73 Gas 18 15.93

Nitrogen 10 8.85 Mixtures 5 4.42

Carbon dioxide 6 5.31 Alkali 4

Coal 5 4.42 Pure Substance 2 1.77

Carbon 4 3.54 Others 16 14.16

Chlorine 3 3.54

Lead 3 2.65 Lab objects 3

Magnesium 3 2.65 83

Zinc 3 2.65

Spirit 3 2.65

Copper Sulphate 2 2.65

Helium 2 1.77

PotassiumPermanganate 2 1.77

Sodium 2 1.77

Alcohol 2 1.77

Rust 1 1.77

Citric Acid 1 0.88

Others 10 0.88

263Chapter 7 – Children’s Conceptions of Matter

Occ

urre

nce

of t

ypes

of

exam

ples

in t

he f

irst

, com

bina

tion

of

five

and

fif

teen

col

umns

Tabl

e be

low

pro

vide

s a

sum

mar

y of

the

occu

rren

ces

of th

ese

diff

eren

t typ

es o

f ex

ampl

es in

the

wor

kshe

ets

of 1

13 c

hild

ren.

Tabl

e 7.

10:

Type

cou

nts

of c

olum

n1, 1

to 5

, 1 to

15

In th

e ab

ove

the

type

1 ex

ampl

es a

nd ty

pe4

exam

ples

(ch

emic

al s

ubst

ance

s) c

an b

e co

nsid

ered

as

exam

ples

for

pad

arth

am

C

olum

n1C

olum

n 1

to 5

Col

umn

1 to

15

C

ount

% (

113)

Cou

nt%

(55

9)C

ount

% (

1352

)

Typ

e1:E

very

day

subs

tanc

es a

nd m

ater

ial

83(4

5+38

)73

.45

364(

204+

160)

65.1

276

2(40

8+35

4)56

.28

kind

s, a

lso

cite

d in

Sci

ence

tex

tboo

k

Type

2:C

lass

Roo

m O

bjec

ts6

5.31

519.

1216

412

.11

Type

3:E

very

day

Wor

ld F

unct

iona

l Ite

ms

21.

7751

9.12

239

17.6

5

Type

4:Sc

ienc

e ca

tego

ries

Gen

eral

term

s13

11.5

529.

379

6.9

(sol

id,e

lem

ent e

tc.)

Che

mic

al S

ubst

ance

s8

7.07

393.

498

8.6

Mis

cella

neou

s (h

uman

bod

y, h

eart

etc

.)1

0.88

20.

3612

0.89

11

355

913

52

264

g) Trends

From the types of examples children given for substance it is evident that children

consider both category material and object under the concept of substance.

Everyday substances which were also mentioned in the textbook had the highest

recall value for children. This was followed by citing everyday materials. The

third most common category was the everyday and classroom object world, and

finally the world of science as learnt through the textbook.

Examining which type of example dominated the list of first examples,

(see table 7.10), it the textbook basis dominated. While everyday examples from

the textbook accounted for 73% of what children wrote, the textbook related

science materials accounted for a significant 12%.

Examples and non-Examples for Padartham in the first, combination

of five and fifteen columns

Table 7.11: Examples and non-examples for ‘padartham’

In First In First five In First In Totalexample fifteen examples examples(out of 113) examples (out of (out of 2005)

(out of 559) 1352)

Examples 91=80.5% 403=72.09% 860=63.6% 1099=55%

Non-Examples 22=19.4% 156=27.9% 492=36.4% 908=45%

What can be noted is a reduction in the right examples of substances when

children were citing more and more examples.

Majority of the children recalled an example from the science textbook

and salt and sugar seemed to be a prototype example for substance. Stone and

water which are the examples given by text book for solid and liquid; and metals

such as iron, gold and copper were also of high in occurrence. In summary,

majority of the children started with an example such as stone, salt, gold, water,

kerosene, lemon juice, paint, milk,metal etc., (type1), few began with the

classification of substance in terms of Solid, Liquid and Gas and others began

with specific scientific names such as hydrogen, oxygen, sodium etc. There were

also children who began with everyday objects such as, table, bench, chair which

were present in their immediate vicinity.

265

In the combination of first five examples, i.e. aggregate of Column 1 to

Column5, again everyday materials from science text book (type1) was of high

in occurrence (65%) followed by type2&3 i.e. everyday objects and functional

items (19%). But in comparison to Column1 there is a decrease in type1

examples (74% to 65%); whereas the everyday functional items and class room

objects (type2&3) began to show an increase (from 7% to 19%). The occurrence

of Science category (type4) decreased in the aggregate of column1 to 5 from

column1 (from 19% to 13%).

In the combination of 15 examples i.e. aggregate of column1 to column15,

56% were type1 (everyday materials also cited in the science text book), 30%

were type2&3 (objects and everyday useful items), 15% were science materials.

More of everyday functional and classroom objects began to appear as children

began to cite more and more examples from which we can infer that children

weren’t able to distinguish the substance and object.

Everyday Examples such as water, stone, sugar, wood, iron that are citedin the science textbook were high in their occurence in all of the above analysis(first column, combination of five columns and fifteen columns). Moreover theabove analysis also shows that as children began to cite more and moreexamples, more of everyday objects began to appear more frequently.

h) Variation in types of examples according to Grades

Table 7.12: Variation in substance examples according to grades

Total of 15 Examples (percentage calculated out of total 1352 examples)

Grade V(9) Grade VI(35) Grade VII(32) Grade VIII(37)

Counts % Counts % Counts % Counts %

T1:Everyday substances/materials 39 2.8 221 16.34 204 15.08 298 22.04

T2:Class Room Objects 44 3.25 31 2.29 37 2.73 52 3.8

T3:Everyday World Objects 44 3.25 48 3.55 76 5.62 73 5.3

T4: Scientific categoriesGeneral terms 29 2.14 20 1.47 30 2.2Chemical substance —- —- 41 3.03 27 1.99 30 2.2

Miscellaneous —- —- 2 .14 —- —- 10 .74

127 372 364 493

What can be noted in the above table is that that the trend in examples

cited by children from all the grades is found to be similar except the fact

that science category is found to be absent in Grade V.


266

In all the grades except grade V, type 1 is found to be of high in occurrence.

The occurrence of everyday world/functional items (type2&3 combined) was found

to be same in all the grades. The science category (Type4) was absent in grade V.

In grade V, objects were found to be highest in occurrence followed by

examples cited in the science textbook. In grade V children are introduced to the

topic substance through familiar everyday materials. Children learn the scientific

terms for substance from grade VI onwards.

Type 4, the science category was found to be high in occurrence in gradeVI.

It is the grade VI children who named more of everyday materials cited in the

textbook and science category. They learned two topics related to substance,

“Pure Substance and Mixture” and “Elements and Compounds” in grade VI.

Also they recalled, more of the science terms such as solid, liquid, gas, pure

substance, mixtures etc and chemical substance or names such as hydrogen,

nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide etc.

i) Variation in the types according to gender

Table 7.13: Variation in the substance examples according to gender

Boys % Girls %

55 (1352) 58 (1352)

T1:Everyday Examples 358 26.47 405 29.95

in the STB

T2:Class Room Objects 76 5.62 88 6.50

T3:Everyday World 117 8.65 120 8.87

Functional Items

T4:Science categories

General names 51 3.77 28 2.07

Chemical substances 71 5.25 27 1.99

Miscellaneous 4 0.295 9 0.66

677 677

There is no major difference observed in the category of examples cited by

girls or boys. The one difference observed was in the science materials (type4),

where boys cited far many more examples of scientific materials as compared to

267

the girls. The citing of everyday world functional examples from girls was slightly

higher than of boys. In other categories, the difference was far less.

j) Some observations regarding the examples:

(1) Prototype Examples: The examples, sugar/salt, iron, stone and water,

(refer Table 7.2, 7.5, 7.6) seem to be akin to ‘prototype’ examples for

substance (Mervis and Rosch,1984). They were also from among the

frequently invoked examples in the textbook. They were cited not only

as examples for substance, but they also recurred later when children

were asked to provide examples of solid, liquid, gas, and in exploration

of properties, etc. Later I will discuss how trying to find commonalities

between these examples may have been operating in children’s attempts

to define substance.

(2) Typology that Exemplify Substance: Of the four types suggested by the

range of examples given by children, only two, i.e. everyday materials also

cited in the Science Text Book (type1) and chemical susbtances cited in STB

(type4) can be regarded as exemplifying ‘substance’. Type2 and type3 are

‘objects’; while they are ‘made up of substance’, they are not themselves

examples of substance. The incidence of type1 went up from 2.8% in grade

V to 22% in grade VIII, suggesting that children do seem to be increasingly

naming appropriate everyday examples. The naming of everyday familiar

objects remained at the same level of significance and the incidence of naming

scientific materials also cited in the Science textbook decreased.

(3) Highly cited examples: In all the grades except grade V, everyday materials

cited in the science text book (type1) are found to be high in occurrence.

The occurrence of everyday functional objects/materials (type3) is found

to be almost same in all the classes. In grade V, classroom objects were

found to be highest in occurrence followed by materials cited in the science

textbook and everyday functional items. Science terms are found to be

absent in gradeV. In gradeV children are introduced to the topic substance

through familiar everyday materials and learn the scientific terms for

substance from grade VI onwards.

(4) Examples cited by children from different grades: It is the grade VI

children who named examples of type1 and type 4 i.e. everyday examples

cited in the textbook and science terms. Type 4, the science terms was


268

found to be high in occurrence in grade VI. It is in Grade VI, two major

topics and formal concepts related to substance are introduced (“Pure

Substance and Mixture” and “Elements and Compounds”). It seemed that

children from Grade VI, who were also studying these topics in their

science textbooks, provided the most appropriate examples for substance.

The occurrence of objects as the examples for substance was also

prominent among the grade VIII children which is evident from the

Table 7.12. Grade VIII children also found it difficult to meaningfully

understand the idea of substance with regard to the science classroom,

which was also indicated in the clinical interviews with this group. This

suggests children learn and remembers substance conceptions for the sake

of science classroom at that particular grade and the conceptions are not

retained by the children for the requirement further learning of higher

grades or to the needs of everyday world.

(5) Difficulty in distinguishing between substance and object: We could

understand the high level of citing objects as a failure of children to

distinguish the idea of substance from the idea of objects which are made

up of substance. But as will be discussed in the next section on defining

substance, there is a confusion that is created on account of the two

connotations of ‘vasthu’ in everyday Malayalam, which denotes both object

and the material of which an object is made.

7.3.2 Definition of Padartham

The present section examines the ideas that children brought into explain the

concept “substance/padartham”. After naming of examples for substance

children were asked to list characteristics and provide a definition for substance.

A total of 122 Children from V to VIII grade wrote definition and characteristics

for substance.

Piagetian clinical interview was conducted with a total of 53 children in

groups comprising of two or three children in each group. Through the clinical

interviews, children’s ideas related to substance were probed in more detail. In

addition to enquiring about what they had written in the worksheets, the

interview also discussed new examples, non-examples, the contexts from which

children got familiar with the word substance, and their ideas of object and

substance. A total of 27 such groups (two/three children in each group) from

269

grades V to VII were interviewed. During the course of the interview there

were a few groups who invoked the idea of atom, molecules etc. and in such

cases they were probed in the direction of the microscopic aspects of matter.

The interview generally attempted to probe and trace children’s line of thinking

of the ideas regarding substance in detail. Thus the section will addresses the

following questions

1. What are the contexts from which children got familiar with the

word substance?

2. What are the meanings that children gave to the word substance? How

did they define it? What are the explanations children brought around

the word substance?

3. How they defined object and substance?

4. What are the text books ideas children invoked to explain substance? What

are the everyday ideas children invoked to explain substance? How they

connected the two?

a) Types of definitions of ‘padartham’

The second writing task on the worksheet required children to define ‘padartham’.

Substance which translates to “Padartham” in Malayalam is a word that

children were introduced to in their science classroom and the word is formally

introduced in the fifth standard science lesson. Children considered “padartham”

to be a formal scientific term.

Children’s written responses of definition for substance fall into three types

which are a) any material, object or a thing is called substance b) solid, liquid

and gas is called substance and c) based on the textbook definition of substance-

that which has one component or it is pure substance or mixtures etc. This

definition was told based on the contents of unit of substance, but in most case

was an incomplete formulation in which children seemed to be drawing on the

contents and ideas from the lessons related to substance in a rote manner.

Defnition1: Vasthu is called Padartham/Padartham is another name for

Vasthu/ Padartham is a sadhanam (thing)/any object is called

a ‘padartham’

Defntion2: Substance is Solid, liquid and gas.


270

Defntion 3: Substance is pure substance, mixture, compounds, atoms,

molecules, acid, alkali, solution, solvent etc. / combination of atoms,

molecules etc. / it is like water

Eg 1: (Student 1, Grade 6, and Girl) I heard this word from the text book.

Substance is pure substance. Gold, lemon juices etc. are something that

has only one component and it is a substance.

Eg 2: (Student 2, grade 8, boy) Substance are materials that are made up

of the same molecules

Eg 3: (Student 1, Grade 6, and Girl): whatever made from molecules

are padartham

There was also a fourth category, who didn’t know how to define substance

but knew its examples.

In the first type of definition, it seems that children were trying to reconcile

their everyday term ‘vasthu’ with the formal science textbook term Padartham.

Children were seen to systematically connect their own everyday term ‘Vasthu’

with the formal science textbook term ‘Padartham’ and assert, apparently

tautologically that vasthu is padartham i.e. substance is a material or object.

“Vasthu” is a word that is used in Malayalam simultaneously for an object or the

material from which an object is made. “Padartham” in contrast was the terms

used in the science text book. The children who gave definition1 considered

object and material as synonymous

In the second type of definition, children seemed to recall a fact that

substances may be in three states, solid, liquid or gas which is a science textbook

definition. Children who gave defntion 2 considered all solids, including objects

such as chair, table, cup etc. as padartham.

In the case of the third type of definition seemed to be trying to recall terms

from the textbook and examples cited in the textbook to define ‘padartham’and

type 3 seems to be more advanced.

Among the 122 children who wrote the definition for substance, 44 children

wrote definition of type1 or considered padartham as a material/thing/an object

that is found around them; 22 of them defined substance as solid, liquid and gas

271

and 36 of them gave definition of the third kind. 20 of them didn’t know how to

define a substance; rather knew the examples for substance.

All children from grade5 gave definition of the first kind i.e. substance is a

material, object or a thing. It is the grade6 children who were major in number to

give definition of the second kind.

Grade7 and grade8 children stand high in giving definition of the third kind.

There is not much difference observed in the definition given by girls and boys.

Table 7.14: Counts of defntion1, 2 & 3 written for substance and % out of 122

b) Examples in relation to definitions

The types of examples named by children were analyzed in light of the definition.

Type1 i.e. everyday substance and materials was the dominant category of example

provided by all children across all three types of definition i.e., whether they

wrote defntion1, defntion 2 or defntion 3.

The examples of children who wrote defntion1 and defntion2 included

all the four types, since they considered any material/object/thing as a substance

and named text book examples, objects/materials in their vicinity or from

everyday world; similar the case with children who considered solid, liquid

and gas as substance. Children who considered the definition of substance as

solid, liquid and gas systematically wrote examples for solid followed by

examples for liquid and examples for gas. For e.g. Stone, Wood, Pen, Pencil,

Book, Text Book, Bench, Desk, Table, Chair; Water, Coconut Oil, Kerosene,

Milk, honey, Juice, Rice Water, Tender coconut Water; Smoke, Gas, Vapor,

Children Defntion1 % Defntion2 % Defntion3 % Don’t %Know

41 14 11.48 6 4.92 17 13.93 4 3.28

35 16 13.11 4 3.28 13 10.66 2 1.64

33 5 4.10 12 9.84 6 4.92 10 8.20

13 9 7.38 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 3.28

Total 122 44 36.07 22 18.03 36 29.51 20 16.39

Girls 62 21 17.21 12 9.84 18 14.75 11 9.02

Boys 60 23 18.85 10 8.20 18 14.75 9 7.38

Total 122 44 36.07 22 18.03 36 29.51 20 16.39


GradeVIII

GradeVII

GradeVI

GradeV

272

Air, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon dioxide, Biogas, Wind. The number

of examples named by children who wrote defntion1 and defntion2 were also

more in number as they considered any material/object and any solid, liquid,

gas as the examples for substance. They began their examples with the textbook

examples especially the category 1 examples and continued to name examples

of similar type from their everyday world.

Children who wrote defntion3 attempted to connect ‘substance’ to the

scientific ideas given in the chapters related to substance in the science textbook.

They gave intuitive definition or ideas for substance by recalling the textbooks

terms, but still did not seem to be making any meaningful connection. Children

who defined substance by recalling the science textbook ideas also tended to be

the ones who gave examples from the science textbook—both type1 and type4,

i.e. everyday examples that are cited in the Science Text book (category1), and

scientific categories, names and terms (category4). They seemed to be confident

that sugar, salt, lemon juice, gold, iron, were examples of substance, yet they

were not able to explain this based on a definition. It seemed that they began by

naming familiar objects named in the textbook and then moved on to the scientific

materials names in the book, thus drawing all their examples from the textbook.

They also did not name ‘objects’. But still it seemed that the idea of ‘substance’

seemed to be an inert scientific term, lacking meaning. They invoked several

connected ideas including molecules, elements, compounds, pure substance,

mixture, heterogeneous substance, homogenous substance, elements, acid, alkali,

molecules, etc. with substance. Still they gave disconnected pieces of explanation

and were not able to articulate a definition for a substance in a meaningful manner.

They seemed to be constructing and reconstructing definitions of ‘substance’

within the framework of the science textbook.

The case of definition 3 could be interpreted as one produced by a rote

memorization and forgetting, an incomplete recollection of the textbook. Yet,

both based on the examples given by this group of children, as well as clinical

interviewing with them, there was something more significant taking place there—

the possibility that this is on account of children making a conceptual transition

and trying to ‘grasp’ the meaning of a scientific concept through the use non-

everyday school science vocabulary.

The definitions that children gave were probed further through clinical

interviews. During these interviews these additional aspects were confirmed

and explored further.

273

c) Object and substance

Children who considered padartham as a vasthu or solid, liquid and gas found it

difficult to differentiate object concept from the substance concept. They cognized

the relation between substance, material, object, or a thing, but weren’t able to

explain the relation in a clearer manner. They considered padartham and vasthu

as synonyms, considered both table and wood as Vasthu. But the third category

of children who recalled textbook terms or who didn’t gave a definition for

padartham, cognized substance through an example such as iron, sugar, lemon

juice and intuitively understood that there is difference between padartham and

vasthu, but weren’t able to articulate it in a meaningful manner. Children who

subscribed to the third category of definition gave the right example for substance

though they weren’t able to tell about substance in meaningful manner. There is

only one group i.e. two children among the 27 groups interviewed explicitly

talked about the materiality of objects and connected the substance idea with

materiality. Following excerpt gives a picture of the major ideas children were

expressing during the interview.

Episode 1: (Gokul and Sachin, Grade 6)

Q: Can you tell me what “Padartham” is?

Gokul: Solid, liquid, gas

Sachin: No. Substances are seen in those three states. Substance is that

which is found in the solid, liquid and gaseous state.

Q: where did you hear the word “padartham” first?

Gokul: I heard about it in the 5th standard science lesson.

Q: (to S) What about you?

Sachin: Me too in the 5th standard science class, I heard about it when

teacher taught.

Q: So you haven’t heard it before that? Have you heard this word

anywhere else? at home? Or any other place?

Quiet

You know about substance only from the lesson teacher

taught you?

C: yes

Q: Can you tell me some examples of “substance”?

Quiet

Q: Is there any substance in this room

Gokul: All are substances


274

Q: Which are those?

(Looking around the room and telling)

C: Bench, Computer, Tube light, Window, Metal Rods (kambi),

alamarah.

Q: So all these are substances?

C: Yes

S: Also glass, keys, bottles, box.

Q: that means, you have seen a lot of substances, in that case you

heard about it only in the science class?

C: We learned the name substance (padartham) in the science

class, before that we didn’t know these are substances

(padartham) also. We knew these were objects(vasthuckal), but

never knew these were substances (padartham) also.

Q: So is there any difference between an object (vasthu) and a

substance (padartham)?

G: Both are same.

Q: what do you think Sachin? Is there any difference between an

object and a substance?

S: both are same

Q: Is this table a substance (padartham)?

G: yes

Q: What about wood?

S: It is also a substance.

Q: Is this table an object (vasthu)?

C: yes

Q: What about wood?

G: yes, that is an object (vasthu) also, object is another name. It is

both substance and an object. Both are same

Q: Can you tell me the names of ten substances (padartham)?

C: Table, chair, steel glass, window, steel rod, computer, almarah,

key, lock, stick, TV, VCD, DVD

Q: With what we make all these?

Quiet

After a while

G: From the materials (vasthu) that we obtain from nature.

Q: Consider this table. From what it is being made?

S: wood from the tree.

G: All these are obtained from nature only.

275

S: is table available in nature?

G: yeah, it is made from the things obtained from nature.

S: Then, What about Fan?

G: the material from which it is made is basically available in

nature.

Q: Ghee? Is it an object or a substance?

Quiet and doubtful

Q: What about sugar?

G: Substance

Q: Why?

Quiet

S: I will tell, all these are objects, also substance

G: yes, all these are objects, and then all are substance also

Q: What about salt?

Substance, Then object also

Q: What is water?

Substance and object.

Q: What about air?

G: it is a substance, Air is also a mixture

Q: What about gold?

G: object and substance;

S: it is also an element

As we can see in this above interview, on several occasions’ children asserted

that substance and object are the same, and that padartham ie ‘substance’ was a

new name for vasthu ie ‘object’.

(Episode 2, grade 8, Keerthi, Riya, Rinu-girls groups)

Q: can you tell me what a padartham (substance) is?

Rinu: padartham is not man made, it is natural, vasthu (here-object)

is man made

Riya: no, Sometimes there may be man made padartham also, for

example paint is also a padartham, and it is made by man

Q: can you tell me some more examples for padartham that are

man made and natural?

Keerthi: gold, metals, salt, sugar, copper, iron,

Q: what is the difference between padartham and vasthu?

Quiet

Q: is table a substance?


276

All three: No, it is a vasthu (here object).

Q: is chair a substance?

C: no, it is a vasthu

Q: then which is a padartham?

Keerthi: sugar

….

Q: how about wood?

Rinu: it is a vasthu (here material)

Riya: it is also a padartham

Q: is pen a padartham?

C: vasthu (here object)

Q: table?

C: vasthu (here object)

Q: ice

C: vasthu

Q: Stone?

C: vasthu (material)

Q: glass


Q: copper?


Q: soil?

C: Padartham

Q: water?

C: padartham

Q: Brick?

C: vasthu ( here object)

Rinu: soil is the padartham, brick is made from soil. So soil is the

padartham and brick is the vasthu (object)

Keerthi: whatever we make from padartham is a vasthu

Rinu: so soil is a padartham

Keerthi: soil is made by nature, it exists there naturally. what is natural

is padartham and what is made by man is vasthu.

Riya: also sugar, lemon juice, gold, copper ….all these are padartham

Q: why you think lemon juice is also a padartham?

No response

…………………….

277

Q: you know many examples for substances. So what is a definition

that all of three of you will give for padartham?

Thinking…and no response

Q: When I say the word padartham, what is it that comes to your

mind?

Rinu: A thing (oru sadhanam)

Q; which thing?

Quiet

Q: (to Riya) so which is the thing that came to your mind?

Riya: solid, liquid and gas

Keerthi: also pure substances and mixtures.

Rinu: A thing that is solid or liquid or a gas, for example gold copper

Keerthi: also sugar

Q: how about liquid?

Rinu: yes, liquid state is also a padartham, water is a padartham

Q: how about air?

C: yes, it is also a padartham

Rinu: oxygen is a padartham that is in the gaseous state, also air

and hydrogen

Riya: (to others) can we say juice?

Rinu: it is a mixture

Keerthi: pure substance is that which don’t have anything else. We

learned this in a chemistry lesson. I am not able to remember

which lesson

Riya: Pure substance is a substance that is pure like water, milk

There is nothing else in water. There is only water.

Rinu: there is hydrogen and oxygen……

Keerthi: then think about the case of juice. It contains water, orange

and sugar. But in the case of milk there is only milk. Similarly

in the case of water there is only water. But juice has several

things in it.

Riya: pure substance is a padartham that does not contain any other

pdartham. It has only one thing in it. If water is mixed

with sugar it will become sugar solution and it will become a

mixture. Similarly lemon juice, tea, squash, all these are

mixtures. Also soda….

Rinu: soda is made by injecting carbon dioxide into water and it will

become mixture


278

Keerthi; then water has hydrogen and oxygen. It is then similar to carbon

dioxide in soda

Then what is difference between soda and water. Water is also

a mixture.

Riya: I know soda is a mixture and water is a pure substance. Soda

also has soda powder in it;

Keerthi: is water a pure substance? Which is the mixture in this? Or

both are mixtures or both are pure substances

Riya: soda is the mixture, water is the pure substance. Soda has

carbon dioxide and water. Water has only water

(Children very doubtful)

Rinu: do they add any powders also in soda?

Riya: yes, they add soda powder also to it

But water doesn’t have any powders in it…..

Q: so what is a definition that you will give for padartham?

Rinu: padartham are those which are found around us, What is found

in nature are ‘padaartham’. But there are natural padartham

and manmade padarthams. But vasthu is manmade.

Q: is it riya?

Riya: yes, also we can say solid, liquid and gas is padartham. The

vasthu that are solid, liquid or gases are padartham.

Q: what are the characteristics of padartham?

C: it has color, smell, we can see it

Q: what is the difference between padartham and vasthu?

Rinu: vasthu is man made, but padartham is found in nature

Riya: vasthu is made using padartham

Rinu: (recalling what she told about wood previously) we told wood

is a vasthu, it is also a padartham, it is found in nature and it is

used to make table, chair etc. . So wood is a vasthu and

padartham

Similarly gold, copper, iron, sugar, salt, metals all these are

padartham

Riya: also soil and air

Keerthi: petrol, coal, diesel, jaggery,

The above was an interview with a three eighth grade children in a group.

What can be noted in the above episode is the children’s familiarity with a wide

279

range of examples for padartham, also ability to distinguish object from substance.

But still there is an obscurity existing between the words vasthu (object/material)

and padartham.

d) Emergence of multiple definitions for substance “padartham”

What is noted in the clinical interview is that though children found it easy to

give examples for substances and they found it difficult to define substance, they

in fact seemed to shift and use all the three kinds of definitions during the course

of the interview.

In the first episode what can be noted is that, while at the intuitive level

children’s attempt was to explain substance with the help of an example and

formulating a definition based on these examples; but accommodating a new

example seemed to put them on slippery grounds.

In the second episode children intuitively explained what a substance is by

recalling examples from the textbook and by connecting examples to the definition

of a substance. They formulated a definition for substance based on the examples

that were discussed at the time. When more examples are introduced children

tried to formulate a new idea to accommodate the examples introduced.

It was also noted in the interviews that definition for substance also evolved

from a consideration of examples and non-examples. Children didn’t consider

living things or anything that has life or can move as examples for substance.

Children were also clear about the distinction of it terms of solid, liquid and gas;

also examples for solid, liquid and gas.

e) Conceptions of substance

What is evident is that children’s initial understanding of substance is very much

based on perception—seeable and tangible matter. These initial conceptions are

quite different from the concept of chemical substance that is the target of the

middle school science curriculum. Children’s initial thoughts are characterized

by a lack of appropriate categories of substance and their interaction. In retrospect,

seen through the eyes of the children, this concept also in fact seems to be far

more abstract than at first sight. The concept of ‘substance’ seems to be akin to a

super ordinate concept (Smith &Medin, 1984) which itself has limited scope

for direct meaningful conceptual engagement. While it seems to be the logically

basic level term in the scientific development of the concept, psychologically it


280

seems to be limited in allowing children to grasp its meaning or finding it useful

in organizing their experience of the material world. There is no clear conceptual

leap between different grade levels in conceptual progression; that is, there is

tremendous overlap in conceptions among students of different grade. Further

more children find it difficult to distinguish between the ideas of object and

materiality—perhaps this difficulty was compounded by the fact that in Malayalam

there is only one term vasthu for both material and object.

7.4 Conceptions of ‘Solid’ ‘Liquid’ and ‘gas’

The section focuses on children’s understanding of the concepts of solid. The

attempt here is to explore children’s conception by studying the explanations,

definitions, examples and characteristics of the solid, liquid and gas according

to children. In the worksheet, children were asked to (i) give an example for

solid (ii) define solid (iii) give the characteristics of solid. This was followed

by a Piagetian Clinical interview. The same was also carried out for ‘liquid’

and for ‘gas’.

The concept of solid along with the topic of change of state matter takes an

important place in the middle school science curriculum. The topic is introduced

in the fourth grade which progresses to an introduction to the particle theory of

matter in the eighth grade. The physical attributes of the concept of solid, liquid

and gas serve as part of the phenomena on which the particle theory is based.

The grade IV and grade V school textbooks assert that matter can exist in three

different states: solid, liquid or gas. Solids are defined as having a definite volume

and shape emphasizing that a common attribute of all solids is that they are hard,

rigid and needs space to exist. Liquids are defined as having definite volume but

no definite shape and as flowing from one place to another and gas as having

neither volume nor definite shape. It is also mentioned that all matter share some

attributes: that it has mass (weight) and occupies space. These physical attributes,

in turn, the eight standard textbook explain with the particulate theory of matter.

7.4.1 The Concept of ‘Solid’

The worksheet question first asked children to provide five examples of solid.

After this they were encouraged to write as many as they could. Data was

gathered from 95 children. A total of 2466 examples were named by 95

children and the examples ranged from materials such as stone, iron, gold,

281

wood, steel, copper etc. and also various objects that were present in their

day to day life. The maximum numbers of example named by a child was

102 and the minimum was 2.

The following five examples give an idea of the kinds of examples that

children wrote. They wrote many examples. This is likely because of their

familiarity with this abundantly found state of matter. All the examples provided

by the children were everyday in their character. No scientific names were used.

It seems that children seem to have a ‘confidence’ that they understood this concept

and could give examples without resorting to scientific names.

Table 7.15: Sample of examples written for solid

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5(Grade 8 (Grade 8 (Grade7 (Grade6 Grade 5/girl) /girl) /girl) /Boy) (/Boy)

1. Stone2. Glass3. Wood4. Ice5. Salt6. Sugar7. Pen8. Paper9. Book10. Chalk11. Glass12. Marble

Sand

1. Ice2. Stone3. Wood4. Rock5. Glass6. Copper7. Knife8. Vessel9. Iron cube10. Charcoal11. Gold12. Hollow

Bricks13. Iron Rod

Brick

1. Iron2. Stone3. Aluminum4. Copper5. Iron Rod6. Plastic7. Wood8. Pen9. Steel10. Table11. Stool12. Bench13. Stick14. Glass15. Paper16. Cloth17. Box

Brick

1. Stone2. Wood3. Lock4. Bench5. Pen6. Pencil7. Table8. Iron rod9. Key10. Book11. Alamrah12. Bag13. Iron14. Nail15. Stick16. Bottle17. Glass18. Scale19. Fan20. Bulb21. Switch22. Pipe23. Computer24. Umbrella25. Statue26. Door27. Thread28. Mat29. Window30. Watch31. Rubber32. Box33. Text Book34. Bucket35. Cup

1. Wood2. Iron3. Vehicle4. Pen5. Mobile6. Stone7. Vessels8. Fan9. Watch10.Train11. Plane12. Rocket13. Window14. Stool15. Black Board16. Glass17. Switch

Board18. Lunch Box19. Pebbles20. Rock21. Fridge22. Washing

Machine23. TV24. Coat25. Chair26. Candle


282

36. Bangles37. Chain38. Ring39. Plastic40. Cardboard41. Black board42. Vessel43. Chalk44. Earring45. Aluminum46. Roof tiles47. Brick48. Paper49. Bat50. Ball51. Gold52. Compass53. Protector54. Hat55. Sharpener56. Cloth57. Soil58. Cement59. Sand60. CD61. TV62. Tyre63. Brick64. Hammer65. Teeth66. Nail67. Zinc68. Doll69. Metal70. Silver71. Copper72. Toy73. Pot

Materials: 11 Materials: 5 Materials: 5 Materials:14 Materials:6

Objects: 2 Objects: 9 Objects: 13 Objects:59 Objects:20

(a) Most frequently occurring examples in the total examples:

The prominence of stone as the example of solid is very evident in the first

example. This was also the case when a count was taken over the first five

examples given by children. ‘Stone’ accounted for close to 60% of first examples.

Over 95% of children named ‘stone’ among the first five examples. This was

followed by ‘wood’ and ‘iron’.

283

Table 7.16: Count over first examples and first five examples written by

95 children for solid

The examples children named for solid can be categorized into two

types—those which are materials, and such as wood, iron, gold, glass etc. and

those which are objects such as table, chair, bench, box, etc. In the first example,

first five examples and total examples named, frequency of occurrence of stone,

wood, iron are high and is the mostly cited examples. The group of stone,

wood and iron functions as archetypal examples for solid. Stone has both the

characteristics of ‘material’ and ‘object’ simultaneously. As shown in the table

below, out of the 61 unique examples that were significantly cited (with a count

over 9), only 16_5=21 could be considered as materials (5 among these being

a little ambiguous, as it was not clear if the child was thinking of materiality or

object while naming stone, rock, soap, glass and iron rod). A total of 40 of

these examples were solid objects.

Column1 Column1to5

Stone 62 Stone 90 Nail 6 Plate 2

Wood 14 Wood 49 Box 6 Chain 2

Iron 5 Iron 48 Window 5 Door 2

Gold 2 Table 22 Sand 5 Copper Cube 2

Ice 2 Pen 19 Lock 5 Board 2

Board 1 Gold 15 Iron Rod 5 Steel Spoon 2

Chair 1 Soil 14 Ice 5 Others 31

Box 1 Bench 14 Chair 5

Iron Cube 1 Copper 13 Book 7

Soil 1 Pencil 11 Roof tiles 4

Nail 1 Silver 9 Plastic 4

Tar 1 Brick 9 Paper 4

Weight Gram 1 Glass 8 Bottle 3

Bangle 1 Chalk 8 Alma rah 3

Watch 1 Aluminum 7 Vehicle 2

Soap 6 Sandals 2

Total 95 456


284

Table 7.17: Total examples named by 95 children (objects and materials seperated)

rank material count rank material/object count rank material count

I Wood 93 I Stone 95 I Table 64

II Iron 69 II Glass 49 II Pen 62

III Copper 48 III Iron rod 31 III Box 54

IV Gold 44 IV Rock 18 IV Bench 43

V Aluminum 34 V Soap 12 V Pencil 43

VI Chalk 31 5' VI Book 41

VII Paper 31 VII Brick 41

VIII Plastic 30 VIII Fan 39

IX Silver 30 IX Roof tiles 39

X Soil 29 X Watch 32

Sand 19 Nail 29

Rubber 18 Bangles 27

Cloth 15 Board 26

Metal 13 Chair 25

Marble 11 Door 25

Steel 10 Vessels 24

16' Window 24

Bottle 23

Ear Ring 23

Chain 23

Almarah 22

Bag 22

Sandals 20

Key 20

Scale 19

TV 19

Lock 18

Bulb 15

Compass 14

Computer 14

Vehicle 12

Anklet 11

285

Bucket 10

Teeth 10

Umbrella 10

CD 9

Ring 9

Pearl 9

Switch 9Board

Tyre 9

40'

The absence of powders and least occurrence of soft materials, pliable

materials are noticeable. The essential property seems to have been considered

by children when naming an example seems to be those that have a shape and

that which is rigid. The rigid solids were successfully named by majority of the

children as an example for solid, but left out the non-rigid solids. Materials or

objects that are heavy, hard, rigid and have a definite shape are the ones that are

mostly named by children as examples for solid.

The reason for the citing of stone by majority of children is also due its

frequent usage in the textbook and classroom. Stone is the example through

which middle school science textbook introduced the concept of solid. Examples

such as stone, chalk, brick, glass, ice etc. are extensively used by the science

textbook to introduce various concepts related to matter to children.

(b) Defining solid: salient properties

Children defined solids based on certain properties which they considered to be

essential to the idea of ‘solidity’. These essential properties include shape

(aakrithi), ie having a definite shape, heavy (khanam), and hard (katti/kadinyam).

The following are some examples of definitions provided by children:

Response 1 (Student 1, Boy, Grade 5)

Materials which are rigid are called solids. Solids sink in water and are

hard. We construct building with solids materials which are hard.

Response 2 (Student 2, Girl, Grade 6)

Solid has shape, strength, weight, and is unbreakable


286

Response 3 (Student 3, Girl, Grade 7)

Solids Materials has weight, shape, has density more than water, sink

in water, can’t move, it is visible, has color, immobile, has color and is

non-living.

Response 4 (Student 4, Boy, Grade 8)

Molecules in a solid are arranged very near to each other and are tightly

packed, it has less energy, it doesn’t has life, it has a definite shape, it has

color, it can change its shape, it can be touched, the vibration of the

molecules is less, the uses of solid are more, it is heavy, it is dense, mass is

more, it sinks in water, salt floats in liquids which are very dense.

Following are the significant properties used by children to define

the concept of solid

Has a definite shape (Nishchitha Akrithi) 57%

Hard (Katti/Kadinyam) 37%

Sinks in water 34%

Heavy (Khanam) 33%

Has weight (Bharam) 23%

Has color 21%

Insoluble in water 20%

Use 20%

Visible 20%

Strong (Bhalam) 15%

Won’t Flow 15%

Other properties that have been used by children to define solid were that

it has form, floats in water, needs space, it is a substance (padartham), immobile,

know by touch/hold, malleability, density, rigid, unbreakable, smell, won’t flow,

won’t fly, not slippery, like stone, has power, conduct electricity and heat, sound,

it is natural/artificial, can’t destroy, etc.

It is evident that children cognized the concept of solid through certain salient

properties which included having a particular fixed shape, hardness, and heaviness.

Concept of solid through a prototypical property: The core of the

children’s conception of solid is based on few properties; an entity is a solid if it

is hard, has shape, heavy, has weight, sinks in water etc.. Among these “having a

shape”, “hardness” and “heavy/has weight” seemed to serve as prototypical

287

properties for children to consider an entity under solid. In later tasks they used

this to check as a necessary and sufficient property to include a given example

under the category ‘solid’.

Concept of solid through a prototypical example: Another way in which

they seemed to understand the concept of solid was through a prototypical

example. In the case of solid, materials such as stone and next, iron served as

the prototypical examples. These materials seemed to have the essential qualities

associated with the idea of solidity. A prototype is an example of a class to

which children attribute a limited range of properties (Rosch & Mervis, 1984).

Prototypes help to link different examples of matter into different classes. When

children describe unknown substances they often give them the name of the

prototype ‘because what something looks like is an excellent cue to what it

actually is’ (Rosch & Mervis, 1984).

It may be noted that the prototypic property is sensorial in its character as

opposed to other salient properties which are abstract. So also, the prototypic

example is everyday and generic.

Particulate theory of matter: A total of 12 children from grade8 defined

solid using the particulate theory of matter and based on molecular arrangement.

(see example 4 above).

(c) Grading solids based on properties

It was noticed during the Piagetian Clinical Interview on the concept of solid,

that children tend to regard any rigid material as a solid, but non-rigid material

such as sponge, cloth, paper, powder etc as “like solid” i.e. they tend to put non-

rigid solids, powders, soft, pliable, thin solids under a new category of ‘like solids’.

A worksheet based task was provided to children in which they were asked

to categorize a range of materials into solid, like solid, and not solid. The name

of the material were read to the children and they were directed to write the name

under any of the above category. After the worksheet based task, Piagetian clinical

interview was conducted in which they were provided with a range of solids

(rigid, non-rigid, pliable, soft, thin, brittle materials) and asked to pick the best

solid from the given group of materials.

Children considered that non-rigid, soft, pliable materials are not good

solids and preferred to put them under the category of “like solid”.


288

Identification and reasoning process associated with correct classification of

these materials that are not consistent with the everyday or real life conceptions

seemed to be more demanding for children. Children found it quite difficult

to bring together an iron cube/copper cube and a sponge/thermo Cole to a

single category called “Solid”

Following interview excerpt provides an idea of children’s reasoning behind

assigning material to a solid. A range of solids (rigid, non-rigid, pliable, soft,

thin, brittle materials) was provided and the child was directed to pick examples

of best solid from the group of materials.

Episode 1 (Boy, Grade 8)

Q: Can you pick the examples for solids from these materials?

Picking the solids and telling the names

R: iron, iron cube, iron rod, nail, hammer, stone and rock.

Q: Which is the best example for solid?

R: Iron

Q: Why you think so?

R: it is hard, strong and heavy.

Q: How about that thermo cole?

R: It is ‘like solid’

Q: Why?

R: it has shape; it is not heavy, not strong, and also not rigid

Q: Are there any more solids in that group?

Picking up Copper cube, brass cube, iron cube.

Q: How about this metal wire?

R: like solid, it is hard, but not heavy; also it bends

Q: How about this Ceramic cup lid?

R: like solid, it has weight, it has a shape, it is rigid, but it can be powdered.

Q: aluminum sheet?

R: this is like solid; this is hard, but not heavy

Q: (pointing at the group of solids picked) Why you think all these are solids?

R: all of them are hard, heavy, rigid and can’t be powdered.

Q: How bout this stone? Can it be powdered?

R: Yes

Q: is it a solid then?

R: (to me) so it is also like solid? And not solid?

289

Iron cube is a solid, since it is hard, heavy, rigid and has weight; also we

can’t powder it

Looks to be confused about stone

Q: so what you think about this stone?

R: Like solid, it can be powdered.

Q: But in the worksheet for the examples for solid, you have written stone as

the first example for solid. Now you are telling it is not solid. So which one

you think is right?

R: I think anything that can be powdered is not solid. it is like solid.

(taking the tile piece) So this tile is also like solid, can be powdered.

Glass piece is also like solid, it can be also powdered. Rubber rod is also

like solid. It can’t be powdered also it is strong, but it bends.

Q: but it will go back to its original shape even if bends, right?

R: still, It is like solid. It doesn’t have weight. it can be cut into pieces. It will

also melt if we put it in fire

Q: is there anymore solid in the group? How about carbon rod?

R: (To me) can it be powdered?

Q: if it powders?

R: then not a solid, if it can be powdered it is like solid

Q: which else are the good solids? How about this aluminum cube?

R: It is solid. it is hard, it has weight, it is rigid.

Q: how about the iron powder?

R: it is not a solid, it is in the powder state

Q: how about that Sponge?

R: Not solid, can cut it apart, not heavy, doesn’t have weight, not hard.

Q: How about this charcoal?

R: Not solid, it can be powdered, it is not heavy, doesn’t have weight,

not hard.

Q: Tablet?

R: Not solid, doesn’t have weight, also not hard and it dissolves in water

Q: Sugar crystals?

R: Not solid, it can be powdered, it doesn’t have weight, and also it dissolves

in water.

Q: Plastic cover?

R: like solid, it is not strong, doesn’t have weight, it tears apart, melts in fire,

floats in water; also fly away in the wind

Q: Cotton?

R: Not strong, rigid, it flies in air and floats in water


290

Q: soap?

R: not solid. It dissolves in water

Q: so what definition will you give for solid

R: the substances those are hard, heavy, strong, that can’t be powdered,

rigid, unbreakable are solids.

Q: what is the difference between these like solid and not solid? Why you say

some are like solid and some are not solid?

R: the one that are like solids doesn’t have any quality of a solid. For example

this charcoal doesn’t have any characteristics of a solid. It is not heavy,

also not hard, that can be powered easily. So it is like solid

(d) Discussion

Children experience solids by acting upon them for example checking its

breakability, solubility, whether can be powered etc. and tend to represent

solids as something that has a shape, hard, rigid and is unbreakable.

Assignment of non-rigid solids and powders into solid category is found to

be difficult for children. Rigid solids such as stone, iron were correctly

classified as solid whereas non-rigid solids elastic and plastic objects, e.g.,

clay, cotton, sponge, cloth were less successfully classified. Classification of

powders seems to be even more problematic. The concept labels essential to

the description of solid are hard, that which has a shape, and rigid– terms

which relate to direct tactile sensing. Among all the several properties

described hard is the most distinct property children considered essential to

idea of solidity. Hard means difficult to break distort or bend as distinct from

soft which describes things which can be broken easily, squashed or deformed

in the hand. We can say that children consider solid as a subcategory of hard

things that have a continuity of substance throughout as distinct from things

which have a hollow space inside, brittle, soluble, thin, light in weight etc.

Thus we can say that the word solid is being used by children as an adjective

to describe the extent of the hard substance in an object.

An everyday conception of solid, which was formed in children based on

its property, hence seemed to be interfering with the scientific conception of

solid which they learned in school.

291

7.5 Children’s Conception of Liquids

As was done for solids, in the case of liquids also, children were asked to give

examples and define and this was followed by clinical interviews. The first thing

that could be noticed was that the number of examples cited by children for

liquid was far less in number compared to substance or solid. A total of 1042

examples were written by 92 children. The maximum number of examples cited

by a child was 37. Among the 92 children who attempted the task, 57%

(53)children wrote only 10 examples for liquid, 22 % (21) were able to write

more than15 examples, 14% (13) were able to write more than 20, only 4 children

were able to write more than 25 example and only 2 children were able to write

more than 30 examples (endnote 3).

(a) Examples of liquids

In the total of 1042 examples written by 92 children the everyday example like

water, juice, coconut oil, kerosene, milk, petrol, lemon Juice, soda, diesel, tea etc

ranked high in their frequency of occurrence. Not surprisingly, water was the most

frequently cited example and featured first in the list of examples for close to 60%

of the children, and within the first five examples of over 80% of all children.

What can be noted in the examples cited for liquid is that all the examples

cited belong to the everyday world category of liquids. Acid and mercury are the

only two examples cited from the science textbook; otherwise all other examples

belonged to that of everyday world.

Table 7.18: Counts of the first example for liquid

Column 1

Example Count %

Water 54 58.70

Kerosene 7 7.61

Coconut Oil 8 8.70

Milk 7 7.61

Mercury 2 2.17

Petrol 3 3.26

Others 11 11.9

Total 92


292

Tabl

e 7.

19:

Exa

mpl

es f

or li

quid

: Agg

rega

te o

f fi

rst f

ive

exam

ples

, fir

st f

ifte

en a

nd to

tal e

xam

ples

by

92 c

hild

ren

Agg

rega

te C

olum

n 1

to 5

Agg

rega

te C

olum

n 1

to 1

5

Agg

rega

te to

tal

Exa

mpl

eC

ount

%E

xam

ple

Cou

nt%

Exa

mpl

eC

ount

%

Wat

er80

86.9

6W

ater

9097

.83

Wat

er92

100

Coc

onut

Oil

4447

.83

Juic

e65

68.4

8Ju

ice

8491

.30

Ker

osen

e43

46.7

4C

ocon

ut O

il63

58.7

0C

ocon

ut O

il66

71.7

4

Petr

ol26

28.2

6K

eros

ene

5452

.17

Ker

osen

e57

61.9

6

Juic

e26

26.0

9M

ilk48

46.7

4M

ilk52

56.5

2

Milk

2425

.00

Petr

ol43

44.5

7Pe

trol

4852

.17

Die

sel

2318

.48

Lem

on J

uice

4142

.39

Lem

on J

uice

4447

.83

Lem

on J

uice

1516

.30

Die

sel

3841

.30

Soda

4447

.83

Soda

1213

.04

Soda

3639

.13

Die

sel

4043

.48

Tea

1111

.96

Tea

3335

.87

Tea

3335

.87

Salt

solu

tion

99.

78C

oke/

Peps

i23

28.2

6Sa

lt so

lutio

n29

31.5

2

Hon

ey6

9.78

Salt

wat

er21

25.0

0C

oke/

Peps

i26

28.2

6

Palm

Oil

66.

52B

utte

r M

ilk19

22.8

3B

utte

r M

ilk25

27.1

7

293

Cok

e/Pe

psi

66.

52M

edic

ine

(syr

up)

1820

.65

Med

icin

e20

21.7

4

Cof

fee

46.

52Pa

lm O

il18

19.5

7Pa

lm O

il19

20.6

5

Ghe

e4

4.35

Cof

fee

1419

.57

Cur

d18

19.5

7

Mer

cury

44.

35C

urd

1415

.22

Ink

1819

.57

Squa

sh4

4.35

Ink

1415

.22

Squa

sh17

18.4

8

Med

icin

e (s

yrup

)4

4.35

Pow

der (

Salt/

Chi

lly/

1315

.22

Cof

fee

1617

.39

whe

at/R

ice/

sand

)

Blo

od3

4.35

Hon

ey12

16.3

0H

oney

1617

.39

Gre

ase

33.

26Sq

uash

1213

.04

Hot

Wat

er16

17.3

9

Ice

crea

m3

3.26

Ghe

e10

13.0

4R

ice

Wat

er16

17.3

9

Ink

33.

26H

ot W

ater

1010

.87

Suga

r So

lutio

n14

15.2

2

Cas

tor

Oil

33.

26B

lood

910

.87

Aci

d13

14.1

3

But

ter

Milk

33.

26C

asto

r O

il9

9.78

Pain

t13

14.1

3

Hot

Wat

er3

3.26

Ric

e W

ater

99.

78Po

wde

r (C

hilly

/cha

lk)

1314

.13

Suga

r So

lutio

n3

3.26

Suga

r So

lutio

n9

9.78

Mac

hine

oil

1213

.04

Aci

d2

3.26

Pain

t8

9.78

Blo

od10

10.8

7


294

Cur

d2

2.17

Aci

d7

8.70

Ghe

e10

10.8

7

Frui

ty2

2.17

Ice

crea

m7

7.61

Coc

onut

wat

er9

9.78

Gel

22.

17M

ercu

ry7

7.61

Frui

ty8

8.70

Pain

t2

2.17

Mac

hine

Oil

77.

61Sa

liva

88.

70

Saliv

a2

2.17

Coo

l Dri

nks

77.

61A

lcoh

ol7

7.61

Ice

22.

17Fr

uity

77.

61Ic

e cr

eam

77.

61

Mol

ten

wax

22.

17R

ain

Wat

er6

7.61

Mer

cury

77.

61

Oil

22.

17Sa

liva

66.

52Sw

eat

77.

61

Mac

hine

oil

22.

17Sw

eat

56.

52

Soda

22.

17C

urry

45.

43C

urry

66.

52

Oth

ers

1213

.04

Gre

ase

44.

35Ic

e6

6.52

40

9Te

ars

44.

35R

ain

Wat

er6

6.52

Coc

onut

wat

er4

4.35

Col

d w

ater

66.

52

Cre

am4

4.35

Tear

s5

5.43

Oth

ers

5046

.74

Win

e5

5.43

882

Fevi

col

44.

35

Gre

ase

44.

35

295

Sp

irit

44.

35

Syru

p4

4.35

Vin

egar

44.

35

Cre

am3

3.26

Gel

33.

26

Jam

33.

26

Mud

dy W

ater

33.

26

Soap

sol

utio

n3

3.26

Veh

icle

Oil

33.

26

Det

tol

22.

17

Nai

l Pol

ish

22.

17

Ros

e w

ater

22.

17

Rub

ber

Lat

ex2

2.17

Sham

poo

22.

17

Tar

22.

17

Wax

22.

17

Oth

ers

1913

.04

10

42


296

(b) Defining liquid: Through salient features

Student 1 (grade 8, boy): It doesn’t have a definite shape. It flows. It

is a solvent.

Student 2 (grade 6, girl):: Liquids doesn’t have a definite shape, takes the

shape of the vessel in which it is kept, it flows down, and there are liquids

that are obtained from nature; also there are manmade liquids. It doesn’t

have a color

Student 3 (grade 5, boy): Take the shape of the vessel in which it is kept.

Doesn’t have a shape. It has weight. Water, Diesel, Petrol, etc are examples

of liquids. The best Example for Liquid is water

Table 7.20: Definition for liquid written by 63 children

The most important feature identified by the children was that liquids flow.

This was followed by absence of definite shape and finally by taking the shape of

the container in which they are placed.

This was followed by properties such as no colour, cannot be held, not hard,

drinkable, has weight, needs space, can’t fly. Children also seemed to be using

‘water’ like a prototype and they used this in definitions saying ‘like water’. Only

one child among the 63, wrote that in liquids molecules have freedom of movement.

7.6 Children’s Conception of Gas

a) Examples

In order to understand children’s conceptions of ‘gas’, again, they were asked to

provide examples and they were asked to define. The total number of examples

Definition Count Percentage

Flows 38 60.31

Doesn’t have a 26 41.27definite shape

Takes the shape of the 20 31.75container in whichit is kept

297

Tabl

e 7.

21:

Exa

mpl

e fo

r ga

s w

ritte

n in

col

umn1

, col

umn

1 to

5 a

nd c

olum

n 1

to 1

4 by

64

child

ren

Col

umn1

Col

umn

1 to

5C

olum

n 1

to 1

4

Exa

mpl

eC

ount

% E

xam

ple

Cou

nt%

Exa

mpl

eC

ount

%

Smok

e16

25.0

0O

xyge

n43

67.1

9C

arbo

n di

oxid

e48

75.0

0

Air

1218

.75

Car

bon

diox

ide

4164

.06

Oxy

gen

4875

.00

Oxy

gen

1218

.75

Hyd

roge

n32

50.0

0H

ydro

gen

4164

.06

Hyd

roge

n8

12.5

0N

itrog

en30

46.8

8N

itrog

en38

59.3

8

Car

bon

diox

ide

710

.94

Smok

e30

46.8

8A

ir34

53.1

3

LPG

46.

25A

ir29

45.3

1Sm

oke

3250

.00

Car

bon

11.

56C

arbo

n18

28.1

3C

arbo

n24

37.5

0

Car

bon

Mon

oxid

e1

1.56

Gas

1015

.63

Hel

ium

1726

.56

Dus

t Par

ticle

s1

1.56

Hel

ium

914

.06

Vap

or17

26.5

6

Nitr

ogen

11.

56V

apor

914

.06

Gas

1421

.88

Vap

or1

1.56

Dus

t Par

ticle

s6

9.38

Dus

t Par

ticle

s11

17.1

9

64

W

ind

69.

38N

eon

1015

.63

Neo

n3

4.69

Arg

on8

12.5

0

Arg

on2

3.13

Win

d8

12.5

0


298

Sky

23.

13C

hlor

ine

46.

25

Snow

23.

13A

mm

onia

34.

69

Oth

ers

1320

.31

Bor

on3

4.69

28

5

Car

bon

Mon

oxid

e3

4.69

Lith

ium

34.

69

Phos

phor

ous

34.

69

Snow

34.

69

Sulp

hur

34.

69

Ber

ylliu

m2

3.13

Fluo

rine

23.

13

Kry

pton

23.

13

Silic

on2

3.13

Sky

23.

13

Spra

y2

3.13

Sulp

hur

diox

ide

23.

13

Xen

on2

3.13

Oth

ers

26

41

7

299

given by 64 children for this was far less than those for liquids, with a total of

417 examples being cited (endnote 4). It is interesting to note that the most

cited first example was ‘smoke’ followed by ‘air’, both everyday examples

of gas. Children clearly related to this concept through these everyday

examples. These were almost the only everyday examples in the list of all

examples of gas. After this almost only scientific names that children had

clearly learnt through their science class were cited.

b) Definitions for gas

Only 35 children were able to give definitions and invoke characteristics of a

gas. The key characteristics for gas was that it lacks shape. Others were

properties that seemed to suggest how elusive ‘gas’ was this was for them to

experience—being colourless, with no smell. Several other characteristics were

more to do with establishing that gas exists (it is everywhere) and that it is

Total children 35

Doesn’t have a definite shape 20

Invisible 19

No color 12

No smell 11

Floats/Fly 11

Can breathe 8

Spreads everywhere 7

Essential for the existence of life 6

Doesn’t need space to exist 6

Found in the atmosphere 5

Vapor form 4

Can’t hold 4

Less Dense 4

Can be filled in tyre/balloon 4

Molecules flows freely 3

Has weight 3

Doesn’t have weight 3

Not hard 3

Table 7.22: Definition for gas


300

‘useful’ (it is essential for life), etc. However, this was clearly a very difficult

concept for them to grasp. Only one child asserted that gas also has molecules

and that the attraction between molecules is much less. Many of the statements

were assertions and did not describe properties or try to define. (for full list of

properties described, see end note 5.

7.7 Discussion of Children’s Conceptions of ‘Padartham’, Solid,Liquid and Gas

The concept of ‘substance’ which is the key concept focused on, is elusive

for children, having the characteristic of a super ordinate concept, rather than

a basic one. Children have difficultly separating the idea of materiality from

object which is key to the conception of substance and of matter. The examples

that children provided seemed to be dominated by those everyday examples

that were also in the science textbook, and with science examples following

as the second most frequently cited examples. A very large number of everyday

objects featured in children’s examples, especially in the grades V and VI

and it was only in grade VIII that the object notion of substance was less

significant than the materiality aspect. As shown by the attempts that children

were making to define ‘substance’ they did not find adequate everyday

language to capture the idea of padartham. Instead they tried to use textbook

language. Those children who provided more appropriate examples for

padartham were also found to be the same children using textbook language

to define the concept. Rather than interpreting this as rote memorization, we

suggest that given the abstract character of the concept and its irrelevance to

everyday life, the science language from the textbook was necessary for

children to be able to convey their understanding of the concept. This was

especially so, given that in the everyday language, there is insufficient

distinction between the ideas of object, materiality and substance.

With regards the conceptions of solid, liquid and gas, solid was by far the

concept with which students related most easily. Stone seemed to be a prototypic

solid with ‘hardness’ being a prototypic property. The properties that dominated

children’s thinking of solid were everyday experiential properties and they did

not support the children in differentiating the idea of solid from the idea of object.

The idea of ‘liquid’ seemed to draw from ‘water’. Liquid was also a very everyday

experiential conception. Gas was by far the most elusive concept, with hardly

any real life examples that children could give for it.

301

7.8 Classification

This part of the chapter VII focuses on an analysis of the ways in which children

classified a collection of everyday and esoteric materials. The exploration of

how children classify has been used in educational research in the study of

children’s development of specific scientific concepts. The present classification

task was designed to explore children’s knowledge and understanding of the

concept matter. It also enabled the examination of the natural criteria and reasoning

children employ to classify materials. The task also aimed to examine the social

interactional process involved when children work in a team, shared thinking,

and how they discuss and find strategies towards the final classification

The proposal of Cognitive anthropologists is that each culture has its own

system of classification and one of the sources of cultural variation in the cognitive

process is in the ways of classifying the world that characterize the given cultural

group (Cole and Scribner, 1974; Luria, 1974). According to them the process of

classification may vary with the attributes of things in question, the context in

which the act of classifying occurs and the skills and knowledge possessed. These

studies also stressed progression from a kind of thinking that is concrete and

context bound to thinking that is abstract and rule governed. Research on the

influence of social interaction on cognitive development has emphasized the

role of adults and peers in influencing a cognitive activity (Gauvian, 2000).

Children may learn more from doing a task in a group, because joint planning

may encourage them to give more thought in advance to what they need to do to

coordinate their own and their partners actions. By coordinating responsibility

for planning and organizing a task, children may have opportunities to specify

their knowledge in interaction with their partners. Individuals who are experienced

in a cognitive activity may support a child’s participation in a task by structuring

the problem and by guiding the child’s participation in its solution. Research has

also suggested that peer interaction facilitates the cognitive task. Peer interaction

and collaborative problem solving can advance performance on a task.

7.8.1 Children’s Classification of Materials

A task was designed to examine the manner in which children classify a collection

of everyday and esoteric materials. This task of examining children’s classification

of everyday familiar and unfamiliar materials, was aimed at probing their

knowledge, reasoning and description of the material world; and also to discover


302

rules and strategies children use to classify materials. A wide range of materials

with multiple attributes that were in different states, form, made up of different

substances, with different properties and functions were given to a total of 64

children from grade V to grade VIII to perform an open ended classification. The

task was conducted in groups comprising of two or three members and was

designed to invoke detailed conversation among children, in turn map their

knowledge and conceptions about materials. The task was conducted at two

contexts: the context of the school along with peers and at the context of home

along with elders, siblings or friends, to examine the manner in which context of

the home, school, peers, and adults influence children’s thinking; also examine

whether there is any difference in manner in which they reason out about materials

at two contexts. The task eventually focused on eliciting children’s understanding

of various aspects of the concept of matter as a basis of understanding the concept

from the everyday world and the science classroom. The following table provides

the details of the materials that were given for classification. The materials were

chose chosen in such a manner that it has relevance to the everyday world and

classroom context of the child.

Table 7.23: Materials given for classification

Iron Balls Plastic (diff Charcoal Gheeshape/function)

Iron Cube Rubber Soap Butter

Iron Cylinder Wax Sandal Gel candy

Iron Mesh Carbon rod Moth Balls Peanut Butter

Iron Nails Ebonite rod and cube Brick Cheese

Iron Spring Card board Sand Hair gel

Iron filings and Ceramic and clay Stone (diff types) Fabric Paintturnings

Weight Grams Cotton/cloth Sugar Agar Agar

Iron Wire Seeds Flour Water

Iron rod Marble (Sphere Turmeric Powder Shampooand Bar)

Iron sheet Papers (diff type) Custard Powder Honey

Brass (diff shape/ Pebbles Salt Crystals Coconut Oilfunction)

Copper (diff shape Sponge Baking Powder Ink/function)

303

Lead (diff shape) Tablets Sugar Cubes Water

Glass (diff shape/ Salt Powder Brown Syrupfunction)

Steel (diff shape/ Iron/copper Filings Pink syrupfunction)

Wood (diff shape/ Iron/Copper turningsfunction)

Thermo Cole(diff shape)

Method

The study included 64 children from middle school divided into 27 groups.

The groups were organized by grades: V, VI, VII and VIII. The method for

probing was the Piagetian Clinical interview. The materials to be classified

were laid on a table and children were directed to take one material or object

at a time, discuss its name and classify it according to the criterion they decide

upon after discussing with the group members. They were left alone while

doing the task without asking question or providing any clues and care was

taken not to influence their thinking and criteria to be decided for classifying

the materials. As they started to form the groups they were asked how they

were deciding which went together. After assigning categories to the entire

materials, clinical interview was conducted with the group around the name

and characteristics of the categories formed, and characteristics of materials

in each category etc. The task was video and audio recorded and took an

average of 45 minutes to an hour. Notes were taken during the task for the

purpose of framing questions for Piagetian Clinical Interview conducted at

the end of the task. The way in which children grouped the materials were

also recorded.

Data Analysis

The videos of the classification task were analyzed to examine the categories

formed, method of classification, how children tested or acted on each material

and remarks made by children while classifying the materials etc. Categories for

developing themes from children’s response were developed from the

transcriptions and how they grouped the objects. The process of developing the

categories was also from the research questions. The themes were used to group

children’s classified groups and explanations


304

Following are the themes for which the video and interviews were

analyzed for

Categories: The categories formed and the names given, prominent

characteristics and criteria chosen to form the categories, basis of group formation

and the defining criteria of the group.

Method of classification: How did each group approach the task? Whether

the method of classification was by using concrete or abstract reasoning? Whether

they approached it from school/ text book categories or experiential categories?

Material under consideration: description made during new encounters

with a material/ object, reasoning about a material that belonged to more than

one category, interesting materials, the materials that were categorized easily

and materials that have posed problems. How each material was approached by

different groups of children, or stories and course of each material in each

classification, naming and description of the material, properties discussed, action

and method of testing performed on the material, comparisons made, how children

reasoned and identified about a material of a new and unknown kind. How did

they test it and assign a category?

The social dimension: Peer group interaction and its role, how discussion

between children and shared thinking influenced the task, is there any variation

in the process of classification according to the context in which the

classification happened i.e. how the context of the classroom and home influence

the task, How was the school and the home classification systems and categories

different? Role of adults and peers during the task, adult support and guidance

towards the task.

An analysis sheet was maintained for the transcripts of the classification

which has the categories:- Name, Material taken, Action, Method of testing, Remarks

7.8.2 Classification: A Task Specific to School Context

Children seemed to consider the activity of classification as a task that is specific

to school context. In everyday life we do not always classify intentionally or

form categories as a main goal of an act; we form categories for some kind of use

i.e. we often make implicit, not explicit classifications. Classification can be

intentional classification and incidental classification (Estwes,1994). Intentional

305

classification occurs when one is explicitly aware of the classification task, such

that it becomes the primary goal. Incidental classification is performed in support

of some other goal and it is implicit. When probed about children’s previous

experience of doing classification it was obvious that children performed

intentional classification only at school or children viewed the act of classification

as peculiar to school, not to everyday life where incidental classifications are

performed implicitly. Before the task children were asked to guess what they

think the materials are for, majority of them responded that it may be to do an

experiment or do a classification.

To classify, e.g.

Episode1 (Amrutha and Anju, Grade V, 29/02/08)

Children sat around the materials that were spread on a piece of chart paper;

began to pick, examine and talk to each other about the materials

Q: Can you guess what are we going to do with all these materials?

Amrutha: is it for classification?

Q: is it? Why do you think so?

Anju: there are many items here. There are also items that are similar

Q: have you done classification earlier?

Anju: yes

Q: when?

Anju: at school

Q: what did you classify?

Anju: We classified as solid, liquid etc.

Amrutha: (to Anju) also transparent object, opaque object etc

Q: what else do you think we can do with these? We can classify,

then what else?

Children: may be we can do some experiment

Q: what experiment can we do with this?

Both looking at the materials and thinking

To do an experiment e.g.

Episode 2 (Riyaz Rasheed and Abdul Samad, Grade VIII, 23/02/2008)

Q: what do you think these materials are for?

Samad: to do some experiments

Q: what do you think Riyaz?

Riyaz: same, to do an experiment

M: What experiment can be done with these materials?


306

Samad: (taking the copper cube) to find the mass of this, also other

materials.

Riyaz taking the copper cube from samad, keeping it above the glass cube,

both of them picking all the cubes from the group and kept one above the

other, also picked the small metal spheres

Q: what experiment can be done with that sphere?

Riyaz: may be to find the atoms in this

M: how?

Riyaz: using a microscope

Children used multiple strategies for classifying and linking the materials

together. They do not rely solely on one manner of category formation but were

flexible in the types of categories they formed and used i.e. they formed categories,

not based on a single rule rather multiple rules and criteria were used. They used

both abstract and concrete categories towards the formation of groups. The

categories children formed included textbook categories such as solid, liquid,

gas; perceptual categories such as shape, color, form; certain properties such as

solubility, sinking, floating etc.; and functional categories such as used in the

kitchen, decorative items.

Materiality, a major criterion for classification was present with a majority

of the groups. Children’s grouped the materials through the categories “iron,

wood, wax, paper, rubber” etc.

Children identified materials by acting upon them, by seeing what they can

be used for, or what happens to them when an action is performed on them.

Examples of such actions include smelling, listening to the sound, feeling in

hand, touching, holding and weighing, checking material for its breakability,

solubility in water, floating and sinking in water, heating the material, burning

etc. The association of materials with water such as solubility in water, floating

and sinking in water was noted among a significant number of groups.

A quick and successful way of classifying was possible by comparing an

object or material with a familiar material/object, which is one of the methods in

which children identified a material.

Solids, especially those which are rigid, heavy and have a shape are the

materials that got primary attention in almost all groups for primary classification.

Examples of such materials include cubes, marbles bars, spheres, rods, cylinders,

307

pebbles and stones, rubber balls etc. Liquids were the most easiest to form a group.

All the liquids kept in the bottle was grouped together by majority of the groups to

liquid. The materials that posed challenge for identification and classification were

gels, creams, powders, cotton, soft materials ebonite rod, carbon rod etc.

Children easily identified materials made up of wood, rubber, stone, metals,

marbles, brick etc. whereas materials such as carbon rod, ebonite rod, certain

liquids, fabric paint, gels etc. turned out to be unfamiliar material for them.

The important themes that got elaborated during the discussions are

properties of materials, definition of solid, liquid and gas, best solid and its

characteristics, the characteristics and identification of gels, powders and its

classification. Powders got a distinct group and children found it difficult to put

it under the group of solids.

The task primarily generated insightful discussion and explanations

regarding the nature, characteristics of the materials. This was evident in the

manner in which children approached, examined and identified a variety of

everyday materials. Some of the significant attributes of the materials that were

employed by children to assign a category and establish the identity of a material,

also extensively discussed by majority of the groups during the course of the

task, included the following:

1. Materiality: - it is made of wood, or iron, or plastic, or cotton, etc.

2. Color, Shape:-definite shape, that changes shape, bend etc.

3. Solubility and Insolubility

4. Floating and sinking in water

5. Heaviness, hardness, softness, smoothness, and brittleness

6. Breakability and that which can be powered

7. Natural and man-made

8. Function of materials

9. Those that melts, and burns

10. Sticky and Viscous materials

11. Transparent, Translucent and Opaque

7.8.3 Final Categories of Classification Task

The final categories formed by the 27 groups (64 children) were based

primarily on three criteria: (1) materiality, (2) properties and functions and (3)


308

a general category name, such as solid, liquid, gas etc. There were secondary

multiple criterion, characteristics and associations employed during the course of

the task. Children formed different intermediate loose groupings or collections in

between to reach at the above final categories at the end of the task. Children used

simultaneously both categorical and other kinds of relations and cross classified

during the course of the task. Following table provides the details of the final

criteria on which 27 groups of children based the classification of materials.

(1) Materiality:-

No. of Groups

that chose the

criteria to classify

1 Wood 15

2 Wax 16

3 Glass 13

4 Paper 13

5 Rubber 11

6 Copper/Brass 10

7 Iron 9

8 Plastic 9

9 Cloth/cotton 9

10 Stone 7

11 Marble 6

12 Thermo Cole/sponge 6

13 Aluminum 5

14 Steel 5

15 Shell 5

16 Threads 5

17 Made from clay 4

18 Fiber 4

309

(2) General category name: -

No. of Groups that chosethe criteria to classify

Liquid 19

Gels 11

Solid 10

Gas 9

Manmade items 8

Powders 7

Seeds 7

Cubes 5

Metal 5

Natural Products 5

Edible items 4

Sphere/cylinders 4

others 6

(3) Properties and functions:-

No. of Groups that chosethe criteria to classify

Soluble 18

Brittle 9

Floats in water 7

That can be powdered 3

Can’t be powdered 3

Sink in water 4

Soft 2

Viscous items/sticky 2

Transparent 2

Functions 12To tie (thread), 2Used in the kitchen 2Used to write 2Decorative items 2Others 4


310

7.8.4 Methods Adopted for Classification

While classifying the primary attempt by the children, while approaching a

material was to identify the material, which was followed by assigning of it

to a group. Initially children formed loose groupings or collections in which

they used a variety of characteristics and associations among the items.

Gradually children worked towards groupings based on some single common

feature that characterize all the items included within the group. What was

noted was before reaching to the above stable final categories children formed

intermediate categories and associations (which will be discussed in detail

in the following section). Finally children reached to a single criterion to

include an item to a group. But the progression of the formation of group

didn’t follow any patterns or orderly progression. But the above was the

general trend observed.

The way in which children reached to a final group category was through

multiple methods and criterion. The major criterion followed was

1. Picking an object/material that has some striking characteristics or that

strike the attention of one of the child/all children of the group and taking

out more of similar items and grouping them into a single group

2. Deciding a category name (inventing a rule/strategy) and picking materials

according to the predetermined category or rule (Hypothesis Testing)

3. Based on the property

a) Based on property

One of the manner in which children approached the classification task and initial

criterion for group formation was decided based on the prominent characteristics

of a familiar material and picking more materials having that property. Children

paid close attention to the external form and characteristics of the material, and

group formation was done based on taking out similar materials having the

properties of the material under consideration.

For e.g.

1. Formation of category based on shape:- with some of the groups, cubes

happened to be the first material that came to their initial attention of children

which prompted them to categories based on the shape of the materials, which

was followed by taking other materials also based on its shape.

311

So the children started grouping the materials from the category those that have

a shape and that don’t have a shape

For e.g. Cubes, Cylinders, Spheres, Balls, Marble bars, metal rods etc. are

the categories formed by a group of children who started their classification based

on a wooded cube; followed by using other criterion such as heavy,

Episode 3 (Riyaz and Samad; Grade VIII; 23/02/2008)

Categories formed

(1) Cubes (heavy and not heavy),

(2) Cylinders (heavy and not heavy),

(3) Spheres (heavy and not heavy),

(4) Liquids,

(5) Creams and gels,

(6) That doesn’t have a definite shape (which again getting separated based

on materiality):- (a) Soap, (b) Cotton, (c) Wax, (d) Plastic, (e) Wood, (f)

Glass, (g) Steel, (h) Paper, (i) Plastic, (j) Ceramic, (k) Stones, (l) Shells,

(m) Thread, (n) Edible items

In the above, towards the end of the classification multiple criterion such

as shape, property, states, and materiality were used by children to classify the

materials. Also in this case, the classification was a fairly straightforward process

with children deciding g on the six major major categories.

1. Formation of category based on materiality:-With a second group

of children, an iron spring was the material that got their initial attention and in

turn the first material chosen for category formation. They decided to keep

iron spring under the category iron (based on material). After deciding the

category iron all other materials made of iron were picked out to form category

iron (which remained as a stable category till the end of the classification in

this case). The formation of the group based on the materiality of iron prompted

this particular group of children to consider the materiality of the other items

also for classifying. So one of the major criteria on which children of this

group classified all the items were based on the materials. Following are criteria

of group formation used


312

Episode 3 (Haris Rasheed, Yedhu Krishnan, and Muhammed Hassan;

Grade V 26/02/2008)

Categories formed

Though materiality was the major explicit criteria for the above group of

children to approach the classification task, certain other criteria such as solubility

also got into consideration for category formation. When they encountered with

the material salt, they found it difficult to group it based on materiality, the apparent

property that got noticed for salt was its solubility in water which prompted

them to pick other materials such as sugar, salt crystal, soap etc. that are soluble

in water to form category based on property

b) Deciding a category name and picking materials accordingly

(Hypothesis testing)

Another manner in which children approached the materials was by deciding a

general category or class name in the beginning and picking the materials based

on the category or class name which was a hypothesis testing. The category name

given by most children who approached classification according to this manner

was solid, liquid and gas; transparent, translucent and opaque which are the

categories drawn from their science text book.

An example

The approach and classification of materials based on textbook category/

hypothesis testing: The group began the classification task by determining the

category names Solid, liquid and gas

(1) Iron

(2) Copper

(3) Brass

(4) Aluminum

(5) Steel

(6) Wood

(7) Glass

(8) Plastic

(9) Sponge

(10) Stone

(11) Paper

(12) Rubber (bounces)

(13) Chalk (brittle items)

(14) Wax

(15) Cloth

(16) Sticky materials

(17) the group of water

(all liquids)

(18) those that are soluble in water

(19) Powders

313

Episode 5 (Aparna, Reshma and Sumi; Grade VII; 2/09/07)

Q: Can you guess what are we going to do with these materials?

Reshma: we may be doing an experiment with these

Aparna: this is to classify

Sumi remains quiet

Q: (to reshma) why you think this is for an experiment?

Reshma quiet

Q: (to Aparna) why do you think this is to classify?

R&A: by seeing these many items

Q: what about you Sumi? What is your guess?

Sumi: it may be to take all the vessels used at home and like that to

take out each

Aparna: yes, all these can be classified into groups

Q: like you said, we have to classify all these materials, Can you

do that?

Three of them looking at the materials

Aparna: there is solid, there is liquid and there is gas in these.

So we can classify this as solid liquid and gas,

(to me) Is that the way you want this to be classified?

Q: you can classify however you want, classify it in any way

you like

Aparna: We can classify as solid, liquid and gas. First we will take

all solids

c) First materials to be classified

Aparna took the metal cubes one after another (Iron, Copper, steel, aluminum)

while Reshma and Sumi began to take out other solid materials and handed over

to Aparna to keep it along with the cubes. Sumi and Reshma picked all the solids

out, while Aparna arranged it. The materials that were taken are metal cubes,

marble, glass and plastic cube, brick, wooden glass, the clay vessel, brass pensted,

steel spoon, tiles, clay pensted, glass tumbler, aluminum rod, wood, glass spoon,

key, metal blade, iron wire, ….etc.

Also it was fairly easy for children to groups all the liquids into one group.

The material type’s powder, gel and creams (ghee) posed problem to

continue the classification according to the category name solid, liquid and gas


314

d) Categorizing powder

Aparna: While seeing the (flour) can we take these powders?

Sumi: is it solid?

(Three of them taking out all the powders from the group of materials)

Reshma: We can keep all the powders separately at one place

Aparna: Will it be possible to sort powders into solid, liquid or gas?

Reshma: Where does powder belongs to solid or liquid?

Taking out all the powders and keeping them separately without assigning

a category name initially and deciding to consider it later. Towards the end

of the classification, after separating other materials children returned to

the powders that were separately kept

Q: So you have three groups now

Children: yes, Solid, Liquid and Gas.

(Pointing at the groups) all solid here, all liquid here and gas

there (fully blown balloon).

Q: then how about these ones? What group is this?

Reshma: that is the group of powders

Aparna: that is of a different type, may be gas or is it plasma?

Sumi: That may another type of gas

Aparna: No, I think this one may be plasma

Sumi: do you mean plasma group?

Aparna: plasma is that without bones;

isn’t right? Plasma is that without bones right?

Reshma: plasma is that without any shape.

Sumi: does turmeric powder has a shape?

Reshma: every cubes has shape, but powders doesn’t have a shape

Aparna: if powders do not have a shape, then is it plasma. something

which doesn’t has a shape is called plasma

Sumi: do you want to call this group plasma? That is ok, and then

what is the specialty of plasma?

Aparna: no shape

Sumi then?

Aparna: will dissolve and is found in the form of powders, there is

no shape

315

The group decided on a category name ‘Plasma’ for powders and continued

to work with it till the end of the classification. The point that is to be noted here

is that powders got a distinct state of matter and is not considered as solid, the

comparison of powder to gas was also made by this group.

The above observation that powders (Sugar, Salt, turmeric powder, Flour

etc) doesn’t belong to solid, liquid or gas was noted among many other groups.

Powders are a distinct state of matter from child’s point of view.

e) Difficult to classify all the given materials according to the category

name solid, liquid and gas: - Children found it difficult to classify all the items

into categories such of solid, liquid and gas. One of the observations made from

the above example and from those who opted to do the classification according

to the category solid, liquid and gas was that it was difficult to classify all the

materials using the above category names i.e. they weren’t able to stick on to the

same category till the end of the classification. Material types such as powders,

gels, sponges, papers, cotton, rice flakes, leaf, flower, etc. posed difficulties.

Children shifted to a new category based on property or any other concrete

characteristic of the material (such as creams, or materials that can be burned,

soluble, insoluble) during the course of the classification to accommodate above

the material types.

The final groups formed

Solids, Liquids, Gas, Plasma, Khara-dravakom (creams and gels)

Sub classifying solids to: Decorative Items, Glass Products, Those that burn, Those

that float in water, Cubes, Iron, Cloth, Found on the courtyards of the house, Those

that can be worn, Those that can be bend, Seeds, To Clean Vessels, Edible items,

Those that are used to write, That bounce, Those that are used in the Kitchen

The above group of children started with the category solid, liquid and gas,

created a new categories ‘plasma’ and ‘khara-dravakom’ to accommodate creams

and gel; finally sub-classified solids based on its properties, functions and materiality

f) Formation of intermediate group between solid and liquid

It was not only powders that posed problem to be classified using the category

names solid, liquid and gas. Materials such as gels, creams, cotton, wax, etc.

also posed difficulty to be classified under the category name of solid, liquid or

gas. Children formed distinct category for gels/creams. Some groups of children


316

kept gels in between solid and liquid, also devised new name such as khadrava

(combining the first letters of Kharam (solid) and Dravakam(liquid)), Khara-

Dravakam (a solid-liquid), Kuzhambu (cream) etc.

Episode 6 (Gokul, Rahul and Sachin; Grade VII; 25/10/07)

Assigning category for a gel candy

Gokul: (taking the gel) what is this? (Examining and telling to others)

touch and see

Rahul and sachin taking it from Gokul, touching and feeling the gel in hand

Gokul: We can consider this in both groups solid and liquid.

Sachin: then it belongs to all the three.

Gokul: But, it is not a gas

Rahul taking it from others, pressing, feeling in hands and showing to

others. Three of them examining it again and again

Rahul: this belongs to both solid and liquid.

Sachin: it looks like solid, but if we hold it feels like water and there is

water inside it.

Gokul: So where will we keep this one?

Sachin: Solid and liquid

Rahul: it is hard outside, also inside. It has a shape too.

Gokul: it is also sticky

Sachin: (checking again) yes it is hard

Gokul: I think this is rubber.

Sachin: then to which group this belongs to?

Gokul: Solid, but there is water that is sticking to my hands, like ice

Sachin: it is like water when we hold it

Gokul: yeah, there is water sticking to hands, this is like ice

Sachin: then we can keep it with solids

Gokul: but it is getting squeezed when pressed, also its shape change.

I doubt whether it is becoming small.

So what will we do with this?

Sachin: I don’t know

Rahul: where will we keep this?

I think there is water inside

Gokul: (examining by looking through it) yes there is water inside

317

Rahul: Can we break this and see?

(Breaking the gel into four pieces; more water sticking to their hands)

Sachin: this is liquid

and rahul confirming yes, this is water

Gokul: then keep it with the group of water

Sachin: yeah looks like it belongs there. We can keep it there for

sometime and see what will happen

Rahul: yes we can wait and see whether it will completely turn

to water

(Observing it)

Rahul: yes it is liquid; there is water on my hands

Sachin also agreeing to Rahul

Rahul: Both that in the tin (hair gel) and this one is liquid (Gel candy).

This will turn to water after sometime.

Q: why you think, it is a liquid?

Gokul: water is sticking to my hands

But it has also shape

I think it will soon become water.

Rahul: We have kept it here to see whether it will become water

Sachin: We can keep that out in the sun and check whether it will

become water,

it may become water if heated, Then may become vapor.

Others also agreeing to it

(Heating the gel candy over the flame of candle keeping on a dish; the

candy remains the same; )

Q: so where will we keep it now?

Sachin: solid, also liquid

Gokul: First with solid for sometime, then with liquid

Q: where did you keep that finally?

R: solid

M: why

R: it is very difficult to say whether this is solid, liquid or gas

R: it is liquid when we hold it, but it has also a shape

G: If it was a solid then its shape wouldn’t have changed. But the

shape of this can be changed. Also hard, so what we will do?

What about keeping this in a new group?

S: yeah, we can make a new group of kharadravakam


318

Sachin continuing to explain about the name and the gel candy was assigned

to the new group of Khadravakom.

Butter, peanut butter, cheese, ghee, hair gel, gel candy, agar-agar, tar, wax and

paraffin wax are the items that were finally grouped with the category of Khadrava

d) Identification of materials

Children identified an unfamiliar material through two methods 1) comparing its

properties with a familiar material that has similar properties 2) by performing

certain actions.

Children examined, identified and tested materials by performing certain

actions such as smelling, listening the sound (tapping them on the floor or with

another object/material and comparing the sound) smelling, holding in hand,

touching or pressing, checking its texture, scratching on it with nails, weighing

in hand, bending, stretching, checking for its breakability etc.

Action performed Material Type ( for

examination and identification of)

Smelling Liquids, Gels/creams/sticky items

(Wax, Soap), Powders Camphor,

moth balls, sandalRubber

Touching and feeling in hand Gels/creams, and sticky items,

powders

Pressing Soft and puffy items (thermo Cole,

sponge, cotton)

Holding /Weighing in hand Metals (aluminum, iron, steel,

copper, brass, lead) and non-metals

Examining /comparing (Rubber, wood, Glass,

heaviness and hardness Ceramic, Ebonite, Plastic,

and Carbon)

Separation of metals (e.g. to

distinguish Iron from

Aluminum/steel)

319

Another manner in which materials were identified was comparing it with

a prototypical material or a similar familiar material. For e.g. the important

identification criteria used for liquids was by comparing the liquid under

consideration with the prototypical liquid water.

Separation of non-metals from

metals (Ebonite cube from metal

cubes; carbon rod from iron)

Separation of non-metals (e.g.

Plastic from wood; Ebonite

from plastic)

Scratching with nails Brittle items (charcoal, moth

balls, camphor)

Bending Rubber, Metal Wires, thin sheets

Stretching Rubber

Metals (aluminum, iron, brass,

copper, brass, lead)

Non-metals (Glass, Ceramic)

To distinguish between metals (Iron

from Aluminum/steel/lead)

To distinguish metals from

non-metals (eg. Iron rod from

carbon rod)

Checking for its breakability Ebonite rod, Carbon rod, Glass,

Ceramic items

Separation of metals (aluminum-

Color iron-steel-lead; brass-copper);

identification of liquids

Listening to the sound by tapping

on the floor, with another object/

material, with same material and

comparing the sounds


320

Some interesting materials and the method of identification

Material Method of identification

Tar

Peanut ButterGel

Fabric paint

Syrup (medicine)

Honey

Ink

Aluminum Pipe and Iron Comparison of weight by weighing

in hand, Color, Heaviness, Shape

Ceramic (tiles and cup) Comparison of sound, checking

breakability

7.8.5 Classification of Materials at the Home Context

The classification activity was conducted at five house holds along with children’s

playmates, siblings and elders present during the time. Elder members considered

the activity proposed as an academic or schooled activity, also made an association

of the activity with science lessons, due to which they initially showed reluctance

to participate in the activity. These assumptions was made based on the very

nature of the materials (cubes, spheres, gels, solutions of different colors, sugar)

and the popular notion that experiments using materials at school are done only

in science. Many of them considered science as a difficult subject and expressed

that they don’t know much of science to participate in the task. Initially elders

observed children performing the activity and during the course of the activity

they began to participate by giving their suggestions for making categories and

helping children to identify materials, and sorting the material etc. The category

formed in all the five tasks were based on materiality, characteristics and functions

of the material. The approach towards the task was mainly through the properties,

function and materiality of the familiar materials. There was not any significant

difference being observed in the final categories formed, examination and

identification criteria employed. One of the observations that needs mention is

that the category solid, liquid and gas was not invoked in any of the task that was

performed at the home context, rather the materials were classified based on the

Close observation

Smelling

Feeling with fingers: Touching, Pressing

Close observation

Smelling

321

materiality, properties and functions. Overall the tasks suggest that there is no

significant difference in the manner which children approached the task or the

categories formed at the context of home.

7.8.6 Operation of Gender while working on the task

It was noticed during the task that among the adolescent children both girls

and boys preferred to work with the same sex peers. Children from grade IV to

grade VIII were grouped in groups of four for the classification activity, during

the pilot phase of study. Groups were composed as a) All girls groups b)All

boys group c) Boys dominant group d) Girls dominant group e) Girls and boys

of equal in number. The task worked effectively in all the above groups in

Grade IV and Grade V. In both these grades there were cooperation and

collaboration among children irrespective of the gender of the peers. Children

worked as a team and there were not any segregation or clustering observed

among boys and girls in mixed groups. Children shared their ideas freely and

the task generated rich conversations among the participants as expected.

Children exhibited lots of excitement and interest about the variety of materials

that were in-front of them. They examined the materials, discussed their ideas

and criteria for classification with each other without being conscious about

the gender of the peers participating in the task.

Among the Grade VI, Grade VII and Grade VIII, the task worked effectively

only among the all girls and all boys groups. Groups in which either boys/girls

were majority, the other member became a passive member who silently watched

the dominant members performing the task. In mixed groups of equal number of

boys and girls, boys were the active members who dominated, taken the lead

role and course of the task. Girls passively watched boys performing the task. It

was being noticed that girls were not comfortable to work in a mixed group of

boys and girls. Girls maintained their physical distance with the boys and there

was a great amount of difficulty among children to begin the task itself and

eventually do the classification. Finally in mixed groups, boys classified the

materials, while girls watch boys doing the task silently. Boys took the role of an

expert peer, narrated their previous experience of using or seeing the materials

and girls seems to be agreeing to this expertise of the boys. The girls began their

discussion by whispering to the other girls. The investigator had to re-explain

the concept of group. The children subsequently talked louder and also talked

with the peer companion, but still did not talk to the entire group. Once the boys


322

groups decided their categories they proceeded to the next material without the

rest of the group. In spite of investigator, giving many prompts for initiating

conversation, sharing ideas with each other to sort out the materials there was no

progress observed interaction during the course of the task. There was nil

interaction among the boys and girls irrespective of the continuous encouragement

and direction to perform the task as a team. What is important to conclude is that

there was no progress in collaboration with the advancement of task among the

mixed groups and there was difficulty in coordinating ideas. The different gender

preferred to work independently which was the way in which children were

eventually grouped for the classification task.

7.9 Discussion

Regardless of the grade in which children studied and their familiarity with the

idea of matter, ‘solid-liquid and gas’, almost all children used experiential and

external characteristics of materials in order to classify materials. Their

classification was dominated by natural criteria based on material, property, and

function. Children’s direct action on material seemed to be the chief instrument

to develop material conceptions. Children approached their everyday world of

materials from functional criteria and properties, and the major way they saw

their world is through the materiality that makes it. The range of properties that

they examined in this was quite wide and impressive and they used multisensorial

tests to examine each material.

The difficulty of classification by the state of matter indicates that concepts

of solids, liquids and gas draws attention to the fact that these are not important

categories, or significant categories from the point of view of the everyday material

world. Rather it results from schooling and science education i.e. the categories

solid, liquid and gas are very ‘school-science’ categories.

On the whole it can also be observed that science classroom concepts had

very limited use in enabling children to approach and handle the real everyday

material world. It seemed that ‘Matter’ and its ‘classification into solids, liquids,

gas’ are school concepts. In everyday the classification of materials as solid,

liquid or gas are never invoked, rather approach materials based on their

materiality, functions and characteristics and by performing certain actions on it.

Though matter, solid, liquid and gases are something that permeates children’s

everyday world very much, the invocation of these categories is not on the lines

323

of ‘science’. Children invented new categories between solids and liquids in

order to accommodated powders and gels. Clearly the physical experience of

these materials had not been assimilated into the science categories of the three

states of matter. Everyday understanding of materiality and sensorial experiences

of matter had not been reconciled with the scientific concept of matter.

The concept of ‘substance’ which is the key concept focused on, is elusive

for children, having the characteristic of a super ordinate concept rather than a

basic one. Children have difficultly separating the idea of materiality from object,

distinction of which is the key to the understanding of the concept of substance

and of matter (Krnel, Watson & Glazar, 2003). The examples that children

provided for substance was dominated by everyday examples and science textbook

examples that were objects, material kinds and substances. As shown in the

children’s attempts to define ‘substance’ they did not find adequate everyday

language to capture the idea of substance/padartham. Instead they tried to use

textbook language. Those children who provided more appropriate examples for

padartham were also found to be the same children using textbook language to

define the concept. Rather than interpreting this as rote memorization, we suggest

that given the abstract character of the concept and its irrelevance to everyday

life, the science language from the textbook was necessary for children to be

able to convey their understanding of the concept. This was especially so, given

that in the everyday language, there is insufficient distinction between the ideas

of object, materiality and substance.

What was evident regarding children’s conception of ‘substance’ was that

children’s initial understanding of substance was very much based on perception—

seeable and tangible matter. Their initial conceptions were quite different from

the concept of chemical substance that was the target of the middle school science

curriculum. Children’s conceptions were characterized by a lack of appropriate

categories of substance and their interaction. They cognized the relation between

substance, material, object, or a thing, but they were not able to explain the relation

in a clearer manner. They found it difficult to explain in words the distinction

between the ideas of object and materiality—perhaps this difficulty was

compounded by the fact that in Malayalam there is only one term vasthu for both

material and object. Children cited not only substance/materials kinds, but also

objects such as table, pen, chair as examples for ‘padartham’ where water, stone,

iron, sugar, salt etc.were being the more frequently cited examples for ‘padartham’.

There was no significant conceptual progression observed between children of


324

different grade levels as there is tremendous overlap in conceptions among

students of different grade. What was noted in the clinical interview was that

though children found it easy to give examples for substances they found it difficult

to define substance; they in fact seemed to shift and provide multiple definitions

to define substance during the course of the interview. Children were seen to

systematically connect their own everyday term ‘Vasthu’ with the formal science

textbook term ‘Padartham’ and assert, apparently tautologically that vasthu is

padartham i.e. substance is a material or object. “Vasthu” is a word that is used in

Malayalam simultaneously for an object or the material from which an object is

made. “Padartham” in contrast was the terms used in the science text book.

Children intuitively explained what a “padartham” was by recalling examples

from the textbook and by connecting examples to the definition of a substance. It

was also noted in the interviews that definition for substance also evolved from

a consideration of examples and non-examples. Children didn’t consider living

things or anything that has life or can move as examples for substance. Children

were also clear about the distinction of substance in terms of solid, liquid and

gas; as also examples for solid, liquid and gas.

With regards the conceptions of solid, liquid and gas, solid was by far the

concept with which students related most easily. Stone seemed to be a prototypic

solid with ‘hardness’ being a prototypic property. The properties that dominated

children’s thinking of solid were everyday experiential properties and they did

not support the children in differentiating the idea of solid from the idea of object.

The idea of ‘liquid’ seemed to drawn from ‘water’. Liquid was also a very much

an everyday experiential conception. Gas was by far the most elusive concepts,

with hardly any real life examples that children could give for it.

Concept of solid was cognized through a prototypical property and

prototypical example. This result was in accordance with previous studies conducted

among children on the concept of solid (Stavy 1990; Mortimer 1993; Krnel, Watson

& Glazar, 1998). What was noted in this case, which is similar to the above studies,

was that children cognized the concept of solid through salient properties such as

“having a shape”, “hardness” and “heavy/has weight”. The prominence of stone as

the example of solid was very evident in children’s examples. Over 95% of children

named ‘stone’ as an example. This was followed by ‘wood’ and ‘iron’. The absence

of powders and minimum occurrence of soft materials, pliable materials were

noticeable. The rigid solids were successfully named by majority of the children as

an example for solid, but left out the non-rigid solids. Materials or objects that are

325

heavy, hard, rigid and have a definite shape are the ones that are mostly named by

children as examples for solid. Children also cognized the concept of solid through

a prototypical example such as stone and iron. These materials seemed to have the

essential qualities associated with the idea of solidity.

Assignment of non-rigid solids and powders into solid category was found

to be difficult for children. It was noticed during the Piagetian Clinical Interview

on the concept of solid, that children tend to regard any rigid material as a solid,

but non-rigid material such as sponge, cloth, paper, powder etc as “like solid”

i.e. they tend to put non-rigid solids, powders, soft, pliable, thin solids under a

new category of ‘like solids’. Children considered non-rigid, soft, pliable materials

not as a good solid and preferred to put them under the category of “like solid”.

Identification and reasoning process associated with correct classification of these

materials that are not consistent with the everyday or real life conceptions seemed

to be more demanding for children. Children found it quite difficult to bring

together an iron cube/copper cube and a sponge/thermocole to a single category

called “Solid”. Children experience solids by acting upon them for example

checking its breakability, solubility, whether can be powered etc. and tend to

represent solids as something that has a shape, hard, rigid and is unbreakable.

Rigid solids such as stone, iron were correctly classified as solid whereas non-

rigid solids elastic and plastic objects, e.g., clay, cotton, sponge, cloth were less

successfully classified. Classification of powders seems to be even more problematic.

The concept labels essential to the description of solid are hard, that which has a

shape, and rigid– terms which relate to direct tactile sensing. Among all the several

properties described hard is the most distinct property children considered essential

to idea of solidity. Hard means difficult to break distort or bend as distinct from soft

which describes things which can be broken easily, squashed or deformed in the

hand. We can say that children consider solid as a subcategory of hard things that

have a continuity of substance throughout as distinct from things which have a hollow

space inside, brittle, soluble, thin, light in weight etc. Thus we can say that the word

solid is being used by children as an adjective to describe the extent of the hard

substance in an object. An everyday conception of solid, which was based on this

property as its key defining property hence seemed to be interfering with the scientific

conception, which they were also learning in school.

The most important feature identified for liquid by the children was that

liquids flow. This was followed by absence of definite shape and finally by taking


326

the shape of the container in which they are placed. They also elicited properties

such as no color, cannot beheld, not hard, drinkable, has weight, needs space,

and can’t fly. Children also seemed to be using ‘water’ like a prototype and they

used this in definitions saying ‘like water’.

The concept of gas was defined in terms of its properties. The key

characteristic considered for gas was that it lacks shape followed by characteristics

such as invisible, no color, no smell, floats/fly, can breath, spreads everywhere

etc. Others were properties that seemed to suggest how elusive ‘gas’ was this

was for them to experience—being colourless, with no smell. Several other

characteristics were more to do with establishing that gas exists (it is everywhere)

and that it is ‘useful’ (it is essential for life), etc. However, this was clearly a very

difficult concept for them to grasp. Many of the children’s statements were

assertions and did not describe properties or try to define them.

Children considered the activity of classification as a task that is specific

to school context as in everyday life the act of classification was not done

intentionally. In everyday life classification or category formation is not done

as a main goal of an act rather categories are formed for a functional aspect

and done implicitly. It is the school or a formal context that demands for a

task like classification. Children used multiple strategies for classifying and

linking the materials together. They used both abstract and concrete categories

towards the formation of groups. The categories children formed included

textbook categories such as solid, liquid, gas; perceptual categories such as

shape, color, form; certain properties such as solubility, sinking, floating etc.;

and functional categories such as used in the kitchen, decorative items etc..

Some of the significant attributes of the materials that were employed by

children to assign a category and establish the identity of a material, also

extensively discussed by majority of the groups during the course of the task

included the following: materiality: - (it is made of wood, or iron, or plastic,

or cotton, etc), color, shape:-definite shape, that changes shape, bend etc,

solubility and insolubility, floating and sinking in water, heaviness, hardness,

softness, smoothness, and brittleness, breakability and that which can be

powered, natural and man-made, function of materials, those that melt, and

burn, sticky and viscous materials, transparent, translucent and opaque. The

final categories formed by the 27 groups (64 children) were based primarily

on three criteria: materiality, properties and functions and a general category

name, such as solid, liquid, gas etc.

327

Children identified unfamiliar materials by acting upon them, by seeing

what they can be used for, or what happens to them when an action is performed

on them. Examples of such actions include smelling, listening to the sound,

feeling in hand, touching, holding and weighing, checking material for its

breakability, solubility in water, floating and sinking in water, heating the

material, burning etc. A quick and successful way of identification was possible

by comparing properties of an object or material with a familiar material/object.

Solids, especially those which are rigid, heavy and have a shape are the material

that got primary attention in almost all groups for primary classification.

Children easily identified materials made up of wood, rubber, stone, metals,

marbles, brick etc. whereas materials such as carbon rod, ebonite rod, certain

liquids, fabric paint, gels etc. turned out to be unfamiliar material for them. It

was fairly straightforward for grouping liquids. The materials that posed

challenge for identification and classification were gels, creams, powders,

cotton, soft materials ebonite rod, carbon rod etc. Powders got a distinct group

or category and children found it difficult to put it under the group of solid.

The approach towards the task was mainly through the properties, function

and materiality of the familiar materials. Overall the tasks suggest that there is

no significant difference in the manner which children approached the task or

the categories formed at the context of home.

7.10 Conclusion

This chapter presented findings pertaining to children’s conceptions of matter,

as emerging from a written task, followed by a clinical interview and a

classification task followed by a clinical interview. In both these tasks what

emerged first is that the concept of substance is abstract and more often

children are dealing with and thinking in terms of ‘object’ and ‘materiality’

which are sensorially accessible ways of interacting with the everyday world.

However these concepts were not made the basis of the scientific concepts of

matter, solid, liquid, gas in the textbook. The classification task showed the

impressive capability children have to interact with and analyze materials

properties through sensorial explorations. This was a capability completely

unrecognized and unutilized by the school science curriculum for science

concept development. Instead the premature introduction of formal ideas such

as solid liquid gas sat uncomfortably with this sensorial knowledge of

materials and objects.


328

EndnotesC

hild

ren

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Examples

Median =15

Spread of Examples written for solid by 95 children

Spread of Examples written for substance by 113 children

2

1

329

Spread of Examples written for Gas by 64 children4

Spread of Examples written for Liquid by 92 children3


330

1 Doesn’t have a definite shape (20) –Invisible (19) -No color (12) - No smell (11) - Floats/Fly

(11) - Can breath (8) - Spreads everywhere (7) - Essential for the existence of life (6) Doesn’tneed space to exist (6) - Found in the atmosphere (5) - Vapor form (4) - Can’t hold (4) - Less

Dense (4) -Can be filled in tyre/balloon (4) - Molecules flows freely (3) - Has weight (3) -

Doesn’t have weight (3) - Not hard (3) - Moves Freely (3) - There are many types of gases onearth (2) - Take the shape container in which it is kept (2) - Oxygen, Hydrogen etc are

examples of gas (2) - No form (2) - like smoke (2) - Used to fly planes (1) - Used in science

for experiments and investigations (1) - Used for different purpose (1) -

There are many products that are in gaseous state, the gas used in the kitchen, spray etc.

spread in the atmosphere (1) -There are gas that are artificial (1) -

Some of the gases are dangerous (1)- Not heavy (1)- Need space to exist (1) - Less

weight (1) - Known in different name (1) - if filled in any object the object floats (1) - Have

advantages and disadvantages (1) - Has shape (1) - has molecules and atoms in it (1) - Foundin variety of colors (1) -

Found in mars (1) - Doesn’t have volume (1) - Different uses (1) - Cannot destroy (1)

- Can use for different purpose (1) - Can cause some dangers (1) - Can blow (1) - Bothvisible and invisible (1) - Attraction between molecules is less (1) - Also there are gases

that are poisonous (1)

chapter 7shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/5037/13/13... · 2015-12-04 · year-olds, and...

Documents