**7. References**


Cheshire, A., Muldoon, K. P., Francis, B., Lewis, C. N. & Ball, L. J. (2007). Modelling change: New opportunities in the analysis of microgenetic data. *Infant and Child Development, 134*, 119-134. doi: 10.1002/icd.498

40 Current Topics in Children's Learning and Cognition

this understanding develops in interaction.

**Author details** 

**7. References** 

Netherlands.

*University of Groningen, The Netherlands* 

by making the dynamic principles that play a crucial role in the development of understanding accessible for a broader public of educators. Based on the short-term interaction patterns we see emerge, and the implications this has for the long term, we can eventually construct adaptive teaching programs, lessons and materials for science education, which are better adapted to children's current levels of understanding and how

An example of an adaptive educational and assessment (computer) program is Mathgarden (van der Maas, Klinkenberg, & Straatemeier, 2010), an educational computer game with a wide range of sums children that can play at school or at home. Children's responses (the short-term child-computer interactions) are frequently analyzed and reported to their teachers by means of error analyses, individual growth curves, and comparisons between the particular child and his classmates (or the broader population of peers). The program itself uses the child's data by varying the complexity of the sums adaptively, depending on the percentage of right answers, but also on the child's reaction time. Moreover, using the responses and reaction times of all individual children, the items of Mathgarden are arranged (and get frequently re-arranged) in terms of complexity. This program shows how multiple short-term interactions provide information about the individual's long-term development and how this information can inform educational practice. These kinds of adaptive teaching and assessment programs translate dynamic principles into concrete

materials that help children to develop their understanding in an optimal way.

an important contribution to both this applied and scientific goal is made.

Steffie Van der Steen, Henderien Steenbeek and Paul Van Geert

enhance learning? *Journal of Educational Psychology, 103*, 1-18.

In conclusion, as Vygotksy (1934/1986) already noted: "To devise successful methods of instructing the schoolchild in systematic knowledge, it is necessary to understand the development of scientific concepts in the child's mind. No less important than this practical aspect of the problem is its theoretical significance for psychological science." (p. 146). We think that by studying the development of children's understanding of scientific concepts using a model based on properties derived from dynamic systems theory and Skill Theory

Alfieri, L, Brooks, P. Aldrich, N., & Tenenbaum, H. (2010). Does discovery-based instruction

Blijd-Hogewys, E. M. A. (2008). *The development of theory-of-mind and the theory-of-mind storybooks*. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The

Carrière, R. M. (2009). *The transition to early education: A dynamic theoretical framework.* Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.


Halley, J. D. & Winkler, D. A. (2008). Classification of emergence and its relation to selforganization. *Complexity, 13,* 10-15. doi: 10.1002/cplx.20216

Using the Dynamics of a Person-Context System to Describe Children's Understanding of Air Pressure 43

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model.

Siegler, R. S., & Crowly, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying

Smith, L. B. & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. *Trends in Cognitive* 

Steenbeek, H. W. (2006). *Modeling dyadic child-peer interactions: sociometric status, emotional expressions, and instrumental actions during play.* Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Steenbeek, H. W., & Van Geert, P. (2005). A dynamic systems model of dyadic interaction during play of two children. *European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2,* 105-145.

Steenbeek, H. W., & Van Geert, P. (2007). 'Do you still like to play with him?' *Netherlands* 

Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1994). *A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and* 

Thelen, E. (1989). Self-organization in developmental processes: Can systems approaches work? In M. Gunnar and E. Thelen (Eds.) *Systems and development: Vol. 22. The Minnesota symposium in child psychology* (pp. 77-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thelen, E. (1992). Development as a dynamic system. *Current directions in psychological* 

Thelen, E., & Corbetta, D. (2002). Microdevelopment and dynamic systems: Applications to infant motor development. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), *Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning* (pp. 59-79). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

Understanding. (1989). *Oxford English dictionary.* Oxford University Press. Retrieved June 24,

Van Dijk, M. & Van Geert, P. (2007). Wobbles, humps and sudden jumps: A case study of continuity, discontinuity and variability in early language development. *Infant and Child* 

Van Geert, P. & Fischer, K. W. (2009). Dynamic systems and the quest for individual-based models of change and development. In J.P. Spencer, M. S. C. Thomas, & J. McClelland (Eds.), *Toward a new grand theory of development? Connectionism and dynamic systems* 

Van Geert, P. & Steenbeek, H. (2005). The dynamics of scaffolding. *New Ideas in Psychology,* 

Van Geert, P. (1994). *Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos.*

Van Geert, P. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. *Psychological Review, 105*, 634-677. doi: 10.1037/0033-

Van Geert, P. (2004). Dynamic Modelling of cognitive development: Time, situatedness and variability. In A. Demetriou, & A. Raftopoulos (Eds.) *Cognitive developmental change:* 

*theory reconsidered* (pp. 313-337). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

*Psychological Review, 106,* 435-357.

doi: 10.1080/17405620544000020

*science, 1*, 189-193.

University Press.

*action*. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

cognitive development. *American Psychologist, 46,* 606-620.

*Journal of Psychology, 63(3),* 79-92. doi: 10.1007/BF03061069

2011, from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/212090.

*25,* 115-218. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.05.003

*Development, 33,* 7-33. doi: 10.1002/icd.506

New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

295X.105.4.634-677

*Sciences, 7,* 343-348. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00156-6

University of Groningen, The Netherlands.


 http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social\_Sector/our\_practices/Education/Knowle dge\_Highlights/How%20School%20Systems%20Get%20Better.aspx


Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. *Psychological Review, 106,* 435-357.

42 Current Topics in Children's Learning and Cognition

24. doi: 10.1080/0951508032000067761

10.1177/0165025407077765

Cambridge University Press

Cambrige University Press.

etrieved on June 2011 from:

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

10.1016/j.dr.2008.04.001

published in 1958).

*(3),* 133-139.

7.

228X.2007.00010.x

Halley, J. D. & Winkler, D. A. (2008). Classification of emergence and its relation to self-

Haselager, P., de Groot, A., & van Rappard, H. (2003). Representationalism vs. antirepresentationalism: A debate for the sake of appearance. *Philosophical psychology, 16,* 5-

Hirsch-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. G. (2009). *A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence*. New York: Oxford University Press. Hollenstein, T. (2007). State space grids: Analyzing dynamics across development. *International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31*, 384-396. Doi:

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (2001). *The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence*. (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.) (Rev. ed.) New York: Basic Books. (Original work

Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us? *Psychological Science, 6* 

Lewis, M. D. (2000). Emotional self-organization at three time scales. In M.D. Lewis and I. Granic (Eds.) *Emotion, Development, and Self-Organization* (pp. 37–69). Cambridge, MA:

Lewis, M. D. & Granic, I. (2000). *Emotion, Development, and Self-Organization. Cambridge, MA:*

Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Van Geert, P., Bosma, H., Kunnen, S. (2008). Time and identity: A framework for research and theory formation. *Developmental Review, 28,* 370-400. doi:

McKinsey & Company (2007). *How the world's best-performing schoolsystems come out on top.* 

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social\_Sector/our\_practices/Education/Knowle

Parziale, J. & Fischer, K.W. (1998). The practical use of skill theory in classrooms. In R.J. Sternberg and W.M. Williams (Eds.), *Intelligence, instruction and assessment* (pp. 96-100).

Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. *Educational Leadership, 51,* 4-

Piaget, J. (2001). *The Psychology of Intelligence* (M. Piercy & D. E. Berlyne, Trans.) (Rev. ed.)

Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Tenenbaum, H. R., Koepke, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (2007). Transient and robust knowledge: Contextual support and the dynamics of children's reasoning about density. *Mind, Brain, and Education, 1,* 98-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-

Schwartz, M. & Fischer, K. W. (2005). Building general knowledge and skill: Cognition and microdevelopment in science learning. In A. Demetriou & A. Raftopoulos (Eds.), *Cognitive developmental change: Theories, models, and measurement* (pp. 157-185).

dge\_Highlights/How%20School%20Systems%20Get%20Better.aspx

London: Routhledge Classics (Original work published in 1947).

organization. *Complexity, 13,* 10-15. doi: 10.1002/cplx.20216


*Theories, models and measurement* (pp. 354-379). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

**Chapter 3** 

(Pfeiffer, 2012)

© 2012 Kloos et al., licensee InTech. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**Preschoolers Learning Science: Myth or Reality?** 

Teacher: "Now, kids, this is a book about dinosaurs. Are dinosaurs alive today?"

Teacher: "The ones at the zoo are just pretend dinosaurs, aren't they? (Children nod).

30 minutes later, Teacher: "Okay, listen up. I want you to think about what you've

Teacher: "They're mean? Okay. Does anyone remember what the word 'extinct' means?"

After Piaget's seminal claims on children's slow emergence of adult-like thought, research in cognitive development has skyrocketed to reveal ever-so-amazing competencies in younger and younger children. These competencies pertain to understanding cause-effect relations, physical truisms, or mathematical operations, to name just a few (e.g., see Bremner & Fogel,

learned today. Can anyone tell me something they learned about dinosaurs?"

Heidi Kloos, Heather Baker, Eleanor Luken, Rhonda Brown, David Pfeiffer and Victoria Carr

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Preschooler 1: "Yeah, at the zoo." Preschooler 2: "I saw one on TV."

Preschooler 3: "I farted ..." Teacher: "Say 'Excuse me.'"

Preschooler 4: "Farted."

Does anyone know what the word 'extinct' means?"

Preschooler 3 continues: "... in my house."

Several Preschoolers: "They're mean."

Teacher: "Let's keep thinking about dinosaurs...."

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54119

**1. Introduction** 

