How does a switch work? The relation between adult mechanistic language and children's learning

Adults' learning of complex explanations violates their intuitions about optimal explanatory order

Should you first teach about the purpose of a microwave or about how it heats food? Adults strongly prefer explanations to present function before mechanism and information about a whole to precede information about its component parts. Here we replicate those preferences (Study 1). Using the same stimuli, we then ask whether those pedagogical preferences reflect ease of learning of labels, function, or mechanism. Surprisingly, explanations that accord with function-before-mechanism and whole-before-part structure show no learning benefits to participants compared to other participants who see lessons that violate one or both intuitions (Study 2). Even when potential scaffolds are removed (i.e., diagrams) the preferred pedagogical order does not predict better learning (Study 3). Finally, explanatory order has only modest effects on experiential outcomes (e.g., curiosity, frustration; Study 4). In all cases, all orders of presentation support learning in comparison to controls and are not constrained by either ceiling or floor effects. Reasons for the clash between intuitions about learning and actual outcomes are explored.

What would happen if?: A comparison of fathers' and mothers' questions to children during a science activity

Parents' questions are an effective strategy for fostering the development of young children's science understanding and discourse. However, this work has not yet distinguished whether the frequency of questions about scientific content differs between mothers and fathers, despite some evidence from other contexts (i.e., book reading) showing that fathers ask more questions than mothers. The current study compared fathers' and mothers' questions to their four- to six-year-old children (N = 49) while interacting with scientific stimuli at a museum research exhibit. Results indicated that fathers asked significantly more questions than mothers, and fathers' questions were more strongly related to children's scientific discourse. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of adult questions for the development of children's scientific understanding as well as broadening research to include interlocutors other than mothers.

No guts, no glory: underestimating the benefits of providing children with mechanistic details

Previous research shows that children effectively extract and utilize causal information, yet we find that adults doubt children's ability to understand complex mechanisms. Since adults themselves struggle to explain how everyday objects work, why expect more from children? Although remembering details may prove difficult, we argue that exposure to mechanism benefits children via the formation of abstract causal knowledge that supports epistemic evaluation. We tested 240 6-9 year-olds' memory for concrete details and the ability to distinguish expertise before, immediately after, or a week after viewing a video about how combustion engines work. By around age 8, children who saw the video remembered mechanistic details and were better able to detect car-engine experts. Beyond detailed knowledge, the current results suggest that children also acquired an abstracted sense of how systems work that can facilitate epistemic reasoning.