Prompting Children’s Belief Revision About Balance Through Primary and Secondary Sources of Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children’s understanding of how to balance objects on a beam has been studied extensively over the last 50 years. This body of research has shown that children’s beliefs about balance evolve through stages, going from a stage where children lack a consistent theory (No Theory), to becoming Center Theorists at around age 6 (believing that all objects balance in their geometric centre) to Mass Theorists at around age 8 when they begin to consider the distribution of objects’ mass. The current study explored whether children have a larger range of levels of understanding in balance relations. Most of the research on balance relations with children has been conducted using a single object, weighted either proportionally or disproportionally on either side. Instead of using a single object, 5-year-olds (N = 102, Age = 5.49) were shown 4 pairs of objects, two with the same weight and two with different weight. By pairing multiple objects of same or different weight, we gave children the opportunity to make judgments about multiple individual objects placed on the scale. Children were told to place the object pairs on a beam where they thought the objects would balance. We found evidence for an intermediate category of understanding: transition theorists. These transition theorists represent children who have two distinct theories, one for how to balance same weight objects, and one for how to balance different weight objects, but one of these theories was incorrect. Following the assessment of children’s understanding of balance, we used different sources of evidence to teach children the correct Mass Theory. Specifically, we compared children’s learning from evidence that was either presented through primary sources (a guided activity) or secondary sources (picture books). We then post-tested their understanding of balance using the same measure. Results show children learn about balance equally from both primary and secondary sources. Findings are discussed in terms of theoretical and practical implications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".