Literature DB >> 32300013

Asking young children to "do science" instead of "be scientists" increases science engagement in a randomized field experiment.

Marjorie Rhodes1, Amanda Cardarelli2, Sarah-Jane Leslie3.   

Abstract

Subtle features of common language can imply to young children that scientists are a special and distinct kind of person-a way of thinking that can interfere with the development of children's own engagement with science. We conducted a large field experiment (involving 45 prekindergarten schools, 130 teachers, and over 1,100 children) to test if targeting subtle properties of language can increase science engagement in children's daily lives. Despite strong tendencies to describe scientists as a special kind of person (in a baseline control condition), brief video-based training changed the language that teachers used to introduce science to their students. These changes in language were powerful enough to predict children's science interest and behavior days later. Thus, subtle features of language shape children's beliefs and behaviors as they unfold in real world environments. Harnessing these mechanisms could promote science engagement in early childhood.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cognitive development; generic language; science education

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32300013      PMCID: PMC7211969          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1919646117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   12.779


  16 in total

1.  Thirteen-month-olds rely on shared labels and shape similarity for inductive inferences.

Authors:  Susan A Graham; Cari S Kilbreath; Andrea N Welder
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr

2.  Subtle linguistic cues affect children's motivation.

Authors:  Andrei Cimpian; Holly-Marie C Arce; Ellen M Markman; Carol S Dweck
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2007-04

3.  How language shapes the cultural inheritance of categories.

Authors:  Susan A Gelman; Steven O Roberts
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Asking Children to "Be Helpers" Can Backfire After Setbacks.

Authors:  Emily Foster-Hanson; Andrei Cimpian; Rachel A Leshin; Marjorie Rhodes
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2018-09-19

Review 5.  The development and developmental consequences of social essentialism.

Authors:  Marjorie Rhodes; Tara M Mandalaywala
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-03-08

6.  Consequences of "minimal" group affiliations in children.

Authors:  Yarrow Dunham; Andrew Scott Baron; Susan Carey
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2011-03-17

7.  Changes in children's self-competence and values: gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve.

Authors:  Janis E Jacobs; Stephanie Lanza; D Wayne Osgood; Jacquelynne S Eccles; Allan Wigfield
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr

8.  Subtle Linguistic Cues Increase Girls' Engagement in Science.

Authors:  Marjorie Rhodes; Sarah-Jane Leslie; Kathryn M Yee; Katya Saunders
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2019-02-05

9.  Effects of generic language on category content and structure.

Authors:  Susan A Gelman; Elizabeth A Ware; Felicia Kleinberg
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The intergenerational transmission of ethnic essentialism: how parents talk counts the most.

Authors:  Gili Segall; Dana Birnbaum; Inas Deeb; Gil Diesendruck
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2014-09-11
View more
  2 in total

1.  How children's media and teachers communicate exclusive and essentialist views of science and scientists.

Authors:  Michelle M Wang; Amanda Cardarelli; Sarah-Jane Leslie; Marjorie Rhodes
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2022-04-21

2.  Does It Matter How We Speak About Social Kinds? A Large, Preregistered, Online Experimental Study of How Language Shapes the Development of Essentialist Beliefs.

Authors:  Rachel A Leshin; Sarah-Jane Leslie; Marjorie Rhodes
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2021-01-29
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.