**5. References**


Butler, L., & Markman, E. (2012b). Preschoolers use intentional and pedagogical cues to guide inductive inferences and exploration. *Child Development*, *83*, 1416-1428.

Emergence of Scientific Reasoning 77

Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Developmental change in notetaking during

Genter, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for

Gleason, M. E., & Schauble, L. (2000). Parents' assistance of their children's scientific

Gobet, F. (2005). Chunking models of expertise: Implications for education. *Applied Cognitive* 

Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. *Psychological Review,* 

Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from

Jaswal, V. K., & Dodson, C. S. (2009). Metamemory development: Understanding the role of

Jirout, J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Children's scientific curiosity: In search of an operational

Justice, E.M. (1986). Developmental changes in judgments of relative strategy effectiveness.

Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data

Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,

Klahr, D. (2000). *Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes.*

Klahr, D. (2010) Coming up for air: But is it oxygen or phlogiston? A response to Taber's review of Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? *Education Review*, 13(13), 1-6..

Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1995). Scientific thinking about scientific thinking. *Monographs of* 

in science investigations. *Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, *41*, 748-769.

multivariable causality. *Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, *40*, 898-921.

*Mechanisms of cognitive development.* San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. *Educational Psychologist*, *41*(2), 75-86. Klahr, D. (1984). Transition processes in quantitative development. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),

patterns of variation and covariation. *Developmental Psychology, 37*, 620-629. Goswami, U. (2008). *Cognitive development: The learning brain*. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark

scientific inquiry. *International Journal of Science Education, 29*, 1035-58. Gauvain, M. (2001). *The social context of cognitive development*. New York: Guilford.

analogical encoding. *Journal of Educational Psychology, 95*, 393–408.

reasoning. *Cognition and Instruction, 17*, 343-378.

(2006). *Educational Psychologist*, *42*, 99-107.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

http://www.edrev.info/essays/v13n13.pdf

*the Society for Research in Child Development, 60*(4), 137-151.

similarity in false memories. *Child Development, 80*, 629-635.

*British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4,* 75–81.

definition of an elusive concept. *Developmental Review*, *32*, 125-160.

*Psychology, 19,* 183–204.

*111*, 3-32.


*Developmental Psychology, 43*, 386–403.

*Developmental Psychology*, *29*, 409-424.

*Educational Psychology*, *9*, 133-156.

*Psychology Review*, *22*, 89-102.

*Psychology, 95*, 357-374.

210.

CT: Yale University Press.

*Education, 91*, 384-397.

*103*, 1-16.

Butler, L., & Markman, E. (2012b). Preschoolers use intentional and pedagogical cues to

Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). "An experiment is when you try it and see if it works": A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of

Chen, Z. (2007). Learning to map: Strategy discovery and strategy change in young children.

Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the

Chi, M. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? *Journal of Educational Psychology*, *94*, 327-343.

Croker, S., & Buchanan, H. (2011). Scientific reasoning in a real world context: The effect of prior belief and outcome on children's hypothesis testing strategies. *British Journal of* 

Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. *Science* 

Dejonckheere, P. N., Van De Keere, K., & Mestdagh, N. (2009). Training the scientific thinking circle in pre- and primary school children. *The Journal of Educational Research*,

Dejonckheere, P., Van de Keere, K., & Tallir, I. (2011). Are fourth and fifth grade children better scientists through metacognitive learning?. *Electronic Journal of Research in* 

Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. *Educational* 

Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), *Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A.* 

Echevarria, M. (2003). Anomalies as a catalyst for middle school students' knowledge construction and scientific reasoning during science inquiry. *Journal of Educational* 

Feist, G. J. (2006). *The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind*. New Haven,

Fender, J. G., & Crowley, K. (2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. *Journal Of Applied Developmental Psychology*, *28*, 189-

Freund, L. S. (1990). Maternal Regulation of Children's Problem-solving Behavior and Its

*Simon* (pp. 109-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Impact on Children's Performance. *Child Development, 61*, 113-126.

guide inductive inferences and exploration. *Child Development*, *83*, 1416-1428.

scientific knowledge. *International Journal of Science Education, 11*, 514-529.

Control of Variables Strategy. *Child Development*, *70*, 1098-1120.

Croker, S. (2012). *The development of cognition*. Andover, UK: Cengage.

learning activities. *Topics in Cognitive Science, 1*, 73–105.


Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. *Cognitive Psychology, 25*, 111-146.

Emergence of Scientific Reasoning 79

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating Communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science

Li, J. & Klahr, D. (2006). The psychology of scientific thinking: Implications for science teaching and learning. In J. Rhoton, & P. Shane (Eds.), *Teaching science in the 21st century*. National Science Teachers Association and National Science Education Leadership

Lorch, R. Jr., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. *Journal of Educational* 

Masnick, A. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children's understanding of experimental error. *Journal of Cognition and* 

Masnick, A. M., & Morris, B. J. (2008). Investigating the development of data evaluation: The

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?.

Metrailler, Y. A., Reijnen, E., Kneser, C., & Opwis, K. (2008). Scientific problem solving in a virtual laboratory: A comparison between individuals and pairs. *Swiss Journal of* 

Middleton, D. (1997). The social organization of conversational remembering: Experience as

Nelson, K. (1996). *Language in cognitive development*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Newcombe, N. S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2000). *Making space: The development of spatial* 

Palinscar, A. S., Brown, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). First-grade dialogs for knowledge acquisition and use. In E. A. Foreman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), *Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development* (pp. 43-57). New York: Oxford

Pine, K. J., & Messer, D. J. (1998). Group collaboration effects and the explicitness of

Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving students' helpseeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. *Learning* 

Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D. R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children's understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. *Child Development, 64*,

Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. *Science Education*, *89*, 634-656.

individual and collective concerns. *Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4*, 71-85.

education. *Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, *38*, 296-316.

role of data characteristics. *Child Development, 79*, 1032-1048.

*representation and reasoning*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

children's knowledge. *Cognitive Development, 13*, 109-126.

Association: NSTA Press.

*Development, 4,* 67-98.

*Psychology, 67*, 71-83.

University Press.

1617-1636.

*and Instruction, 21*, 267-280.

doi:10.1002/sce.20065

Press.

*American Psychologist*, *59*, 14-19.

*Psychology*, *102*, 90-101. doi:10.1037/a0017972


Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating Communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. *Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, *38*, 296-316.

78 Current Topics in Children's Learning and Cognition

developmental study. *Cognitive Psychology, 25*, 111-146.

children. *Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, 44, 183-203.

and false statements. *Psychological Science, 10,* 694-698.

instruction. *Psychological Science*, *15*, 661 - 667.

*Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64*, 195-205.

*Psychology, 64*, 141-152.

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

variables?. *Psychological Science*, *16*, 866-870.

*Applied Developmental Psychology, 1*, 119-130.

(1, Serial No. 159).

Blackwell.

Klahr, D., Fay, A., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science

Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school

Kloos, H., & Van Orden, G. C. (2005). Can a preschooler's mistaken belief benefit learning?

Koenig, M. A., Clément, F., & Harris, P. L. (2004). Trust in testimony: Children's use of true

Koerber, S., Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., & Nett, U. (2005). Scientific reasoning in young children: Preschoolers' ability to evaluate covariation evidence. *Swiss Journal of* 

Kreutzer, M., Leonard, C., & Flavell, J. H. (1975). An interview study of children's knowledge about memory. *Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40* 

Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. *Psychological Review, 96*, 674-689.

Kuhn, D. (2011a). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), *Handbook of childhood cognitive development* (2nd ed., pp. 497-523). Oxford, UK: Wiley-

Kuhn, D. (2011b, June). The universal and the particular in scientific reasoning. Plenary talk presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society. Berkeley, CA. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). *The development of scientific thinking skills.*

Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to

Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. R. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control

Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. *Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development*, *60*(4), 1-128. Kuhn, D., & Ho, V. (1980). Self-directed activity and cognitive development. *Journal of* 

Kuhn, D., & Phelps, E. (1982). The development of problem-solving strategies. In H. Reese (Ed.), *Advances in child development and behavior* (pp. 2-44). New York: Academic. Lazonder, A. W., Hagemans, M. G., & de Jong, T. (2010). Offering and discovering domain information in simulation-based inquiry learning. *Learning and Instruction, 20*, 511-520. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Van Lieburg, E. (2009). Unraveling the influence of domain knowledge during simulation-based inquiry learning. *Instructional Science, 37*, 437-451.

Kuhn, D. (2005). *Education for thinking*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

support inquiry learning. *Cognition and Instruction, 18*, 495-523.


Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Social processes in early number development. *Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development*, *52*(2).

Emergence of Scientific Reasoning 81

Siegler, R. S. (1996). *Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking*. New York:

Siegler, R. S., & Liebert, R. M. (1975). Acquisition of formal scientific reasoning by 10- and 13-year-olds: Designing a factorial experiment. *Developmental Psychology, 11*, 401-402. Siler, S. & Klahr, D. (2012). Detecting, classifying and remediating children's explicit and implicit misconceptions about experimental design. In Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (Eds.), *Psychology of Science: Implicit and Explicit Processes* (pp. 137-180). New York:

Siler, S. A., Mowery, D., Magaro, C., Willows, K., & Klahr, D. (2010, June). *Comparison of a computer-based to a hands-on lesson in experimental design.* Poster presented at the Tenth

Sodian, B. & Bullock, M. (2008). Scientific reasoning - where are we now? [Special issue].

Sodian, B., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Children's understanding of inference as a source of

Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical

Strand-Cary, M., & Klahr, D. (2008). Developing elementary science skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence. *Cognitive Development*, *23*, 488-511.

Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children's peer collaboration. *Developmental* 

Tenenbaum, H. R., Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., & Zanger, V. (2004). Children's learning about water in a museum and in the classroom. *Early Childhood Research Quarterly*, *19*, 40-58. Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. *Child Development,* 

Trafton J. G., & Trickett, S. B. (2001). Note-taking for self-explanation and problem solving.

Triona, L. M. & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to

Triona, L.M., & Klahr, D. (2007). Hands-on science: Does it matter what students' hands are

Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. R. (Eds.). (1981). *On scientific thinking*. New

Veermans, K., van Joolingen, W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain.

Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., & Ikospentaki, K. (2005) Reconsidering the role of artifacts in reasoning: Children's understanding of the globe as a model of the earth. *Learning and* 

International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Pittsburgh, PA.

Oxford University Press.

Oxford University Press.

*Cognitive Development, 23*(4).

doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.005

*Human-Computer Interaction, 16*, 1-38.

York: Columbia Univ. Press.

*Instruction, 15*, 333-351.

on? *The Science Education Review, 6*, 126-130.

*International Journal of Science Eduction*, *28*, 341-361.

*Psychology, 31*, 207-220.

*51*, 1-10.

knowledge. *Child Development, 58*, 424-433.

beliefs from evidence. *Child Development, 62*, 753-766.

design experiments. *Cognition and Instruction, 21*, 149-173.


Siegler, R. S. (1996). *Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking*. New York: Oxford University Press.

80 Current Topics in Children's Learning and Cognition

*Developmental Psychology, 32*, 102-119.

Clark (2006). *Educational Psychologist*, *42*, 91-97.

confounded. *Developmental Psychology, 43*, 1045-1050.

reasoning. *Cognitive Science*, *23*, 337-370.

information. *American Scientist, 71*, 631-638.

*Memory & Cognition*, *24*, 271-284.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

201–238.

114–121.

*40,* 162–176.

353-379.

*Psychology, 42*, 218-236.

*Development, 15*, 115-134.

Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Social processes in early number development. *Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development*, *52*(2). Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies

Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts.

Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Reiner, M. (1991). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. *The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1*,

Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and

Schneider, W. (1986). The role of conceptual knowledge and metamemory in the development of organizational processes in memory. *Journal of Experimental Child* 

Schneider, W. (2008), The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. *Mind, Brain, and Education*, *2*,

Schneider, W., Visé, M., Lockl, K., & Nelson, T. O. (2000). Developmental trends in children's memory monitoring: Evidence from a judgment-of-learning task. *Cognitive* 

Schulz, L., & Bonawitz, E. B. (2007) Serious fun: Preschoolers play more when evidence is

Schulz, L. E., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Causal learning across domains. *Developmental Psychology,* 

Schulz, L. E., Gopnik, A., & Glymour, C. (2007). Preschool children learn about causal

Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific

Schunn, C. D., & Dunbar, K. (1996). Priming, analogy, and awareness in complex reasoning.

Shaklee, H., Holt, P., Elek, S., & Hall, L. (1988). Covariation judgment: Improving rule use

Siegler, R. S. (1983). How knowledge influences learning: What children already know about scientific and mathematical concepts influences how they acquire additional

Siegler, R. S. (1985). Encoding and the development of problem solving. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, and R. Glaser (Eds.), *Thinking and learning skills* (pp. 161-185). Hillsdale, NJ:

Siegler, R. S. (1989). Mechanisms of cognitive development. *Annual Review of Psychology, 40*,

structure from conditional interventions. *Developmental Science, 10*, 322–332.

among children, adolescents, and adults. *Child Development, 59,* 755–768.

for generating evidence. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49*, 31-57.


Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. *Child Development, 72*, 655-684.

**Chapter 5** 

© 2012 Segovia and Crossman, 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.

**Cognition and the Child Witness:** 

**Development in Forensic Contexts** 

Daisy A. Segovia and Angela M. Crossman

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

calibrate the usefulness of their contributions.

might have in a given case.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53938

**1. Introduction** 

**Understanding the Impact of Cognitive** 

Children's normal cognitive development allows them to thrive and succeed in a wide variety of contexts, particularly those well suited to their emerging abilities. However, there are domains in which children are forced to participate that are not necessarily well adapted to their developing cognitive skills and abilities. One of these is the legal system. Designed to operate with adults in mind, children are often poorly equipped to cope with its demands and rigors (Malloy, Mitchell, Block, Quas, & Goodman, 2007), and their performance in these contexts is often evaluated in ways that might under- or overestimate their contributions (Bottoms, Golding, Stevenson, Wiley, & Yozwiak, 2007). Hence, examining children's cognitive abilities in forensic contexts can be an important means of helping

While the nature of children's participation in the legal system varies, child witnesses must have certain basic cognitive abilities, such as the capacity to perceive, recall and communicate appropriate, relevant information clearly and accurately to provide evidence in legal contexts (Federal Rules of Evidence 601, 602). They must be able to understand and respond to questions effectively, without succumbing to suggestion or interviewer influence, and they must be able to do so credibly, or their evidence might be disregarded, dismissed or otherwise disbelieved (Leippe & Romanczyk, 1989; Ruva & Bryant, 2004). Thus, beyond the cognitive capacity to perceive, recall and report on past events, child witness credibility is an important factor in the extent and type of impact a child witness

While there are numerous influences on perceptions of child witness credibility, it is likely that their cognitive development impacts both their actual accuracy and perceptions of their


**Chapter 5** 
