Japanese preschoolers' understanding of biological concepts related to procedures for animal care

Early ChildhoodResearch (luaflerly, 12, 347-360 (1997) ISSN 08852006

0 Ablex PublishingCorp.

Japanese Preschoolers’ Understanding of Biological Concepts Related to Procedures for Animal Care Noriko Toyama Yuu Mei Lee Takashi Muto Ochanomizu University

This study examined whether voluntary participation in animal care activities in school was associated with 6-year-old children’s (N = 41) understanding of animal care procedures. Children who often participated in such activities had better understanding of animal care procedures, based on physical characteristics specific to target animals. But levels of participation were not associated with understanding of procedures which are common to both animals and humans. The results of this study suggest that voluntary participation in animal care activities, reflection on animal care procedures, and other factors all are related to young children’s

understanding

of animal care procedures

at school.

This study compared the animal care activities of voluntary participants and nonparticipants at a Japanese preschool.’ Children responded to questions regarding the meanings of general biological, species-specific biological, and nonbiological animal care procedures. Many Japanese preschools and elementary schools keep small animals such as ducks and rabbits for educational purposes. Teachers and children typically feed animals and clean up their hutches, and it is assumed that children will acquire social and scientific knowledge by caring for animals. However, such activities do not always enable children to acquire such knowledge. Namiki and Inagaki (1984) compared the understanding of animal care procedures between children who had taken care of animals by themselves for over a year with children who lacked this direct experience. The experienced children in their sample recognized the importance of procedures more often than did the unexperienced children (e.g., they predicted that a rabbit might die if they did not clean up Direct all correspondence to: Noriko Toyama, c/o Muto Laboratory, Department of Developmental and Clinical Studies, School of Human Life and Environmental Science, Ochanomizu University, 2l-l, Otsuka, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112 Japan; ([email protected]>. 347

348

Toyama, Lee, and Muto

its hutch). However, their understanding of the meaning of procedures was no better than that of the other group (e.g., neither group could explain why inappropriate execution of procedures might cause the rabbit to die). A second study, however, tends to support the notion that experience in raising animals results in gaining conceptual understanding (Inagaki, 1990). She found that children who raised goldfish at home not only acquired factual knowledge about goldfish, but also could use this knowledge to make predictions about frogs. That is, children gained some conceptual knowledge of procedures. According to Hatano and Inagaki (1992), the differences between these studies are attributable to voluntary vs. compulsory engagement in animal care. The children in Nan&i and Inagaki (1984) were required at school to care for animals, while the children in Inagaki (1990) were not so strongly obliged to care for their goldfish at home. Though many Japanese parents require children to care for pets at home, the criterion for being classified as “raising goldfish” was that the child had fed the fish within the 2 days prior to the study. Thus, animal care in Inagaki (1990) may have been voluntary rather than required. Why would spontaneous participation contribute to conceptual understanding? As Hatano and Inagaki (1992) note, time and mental effort are necessary to understand the physical and social world. When participation is compulsory, one may lose the motivation to persist in comprehension activities. As previous studies on motivation have suggested, interests serve to organize experience and learning, and we are more likely to engage in various possible activities when the target is interesting (Renninger, 1990). Preschool children thus may acquire knowledge through voluntary participation in animal care activities. The present study examines (a) whether children’s understanding of animal care procedures is related to voluntary animal care activities, (b) what kind of knowledge children may acquire, and (c) how teachers can help children acquire procedural knowledge.

BASIC DESIGN OF THIS STUDY Using observations and questioning of children, the present research tested the question of whether voluntary participation in animal caretaking is associated with greater awareness of the biological meanings of animal care procedures. The observational data also suggest how children gain conceptual understanding of animal care procedures. Grouping To examine the effects of voluntary vs. compulsory participation on conceptual understanding, ideally we would have compared children from the same preschool whose participation was either voluntary or compulsory. However, in Japan, such a comparison was impossible because participation is typically compulsory in preschool. Another design would compare “participant” children from a preschool in which animal care is voluntary, with children in another preschool where caretak-

Animal Care Procedures

349

ing is compulsory. However, this comparison would also be problematic in Japan because specific animal caretaking procedures differ between schools. The children who took part in the present study were from a preschool which does not require children to care for animals, and we divided children into groups according to the extent of their voluntary caretaking activities. Our general prediction was that cognitive benefits would be related to the degree of participation in caretaking activities. Under the experimental design here, it is possible but unlikely that individual differences in reading ability contributed to group differences. To compare the two groups, we asked children some questions about biology. Other factors (e.g., intelligence, reading ability, or verbal ability) may have contributed to group differences; these were not measured. Our informal contacts with the children, however, gave no hint of any such group differences in cognitive abilities. Target Domain of Knowledge and Sets of Procedures The target domain of knowledge in this study is biology. Recent studies on children’s biological understanding (see Wellman & Gelman, 1992 for a review) have suggested that even young children have a somewhat adult-like understanding of biological phenomena. It has been also suggested that young children use knowledge about human beings as a basis for inferences about the biology of other species. Since they have a richer knowledge about human beings than about other living things, children often personify, using knowledge about humans explicitly to predict the behavior of animals (Inagaki & Hatano, 1987, 1991). Predictions In light of these studies, it was predicted that differences between children relatively high and low in animal caretaking activity would be found for some particular procedures but not for others. Among caregiving activities, some procedures are common to both animals and human beings (general biological procedures), while others are not. For example, if humans or other animals eat too often, either may suffer diarrhea or a stomachache. However, some species-specific biological procedures-for example, that carrots must be chopped before being fed to ducks-do not apply to adult human beings. Such procedures are not common to human beings but are suitable to the specific physiological characteristics of a given animal. A third type of procedure, for example, requesting children to cover the floor of a rabbit hutch with paper, is a nonbiological procedure, where the main purpose is to make cleaning the hutch easier. These three types of procedures (general biological procedures, species-specific biological procedures, and nonbiological procedures) were not distinguished in previous studies. Since young children have rich knowledge about human beings, even children unfamiliar with animal care activities may understand the meanings of general biological procedures to some extent. This lead to two predictions: (a) children who have little animal care experience would be aware of the meanings of general procedures but unaware of species-specific procedures; (b) children who have often

Toyama, Lee, and Muto

350

raised animals would be aware of the meanings of all types of animal care procedures. METHOD Target Animal Care Activities The Tokyo preschool housed ducks, rabbits, small birds and guinea pigs in cages on the playground, and goldfish and turtles in the classrooms. Children were not required to take care of these animals, and every child could play with the animals during mo~ng free time. Basically, 6-year-olds were assumed to be responsible for caretaking activities, but 5-year-olds were also allowed to participate. By the end of each school year, S-year-olds take over caregiving responsibility. The older children created a set of cards about how to take care of animals, and make booklets with messages about animal care (e.g., “Cleaning cages, hold your breath. So you won’t smell it.” and “It is O.K. to touch dropping, because you can wash your hands.“) At a year-end farewell gathering, the graduating children give cards and booklets to the 5-year-olds as presents and read them to the younger children. For about one month, both age groups participate together in caretaking in a voluntary activity. Teachers do not usually instmct children in how to take care of animals. If children ask teachers about caretaking, the teachers would suggest that they read and follow a series of animal care cards made by the older children in the year before and posted by animal hutches. The cards are written in Hiragana syllables which almost all 6-year-olds can read. Our informal questioning of several children and their teachers indicated that the cards were very easily read by all the children sampled. The cards included illustrations depicting the procedures, so that children could easily understand them. The contents of the cards are listed in Appendix A. Identification

ofParticipant

vs. Nonparticipant Groups

Children were identified as participants or nonparticipants in animal care, based on observations and teacher ratings. We visited the preschool on 24 separate days and observed animal care activities. We observed whether each child on the playground engaged in animal care, and noted what he or she said during such activities. Since the guinea pig cage was far apart from the hutches of rabbits, ducks, and small birds, our observations focused only on care of the latter three animals. Most children either consistently engaged in animal care activities, or did not do so at all, so it was easy to code children as participants vs. nonparticipants. We observed 180 episodes of a child’s individual participation in the care of a given animal. If a child participated in animal care during an observation, this child was given one point for the day, even if the child took care of several kinds of animals. Points were given only for caretaking, and not for simply playing with animals. Point totals were indicators of engagement in animal care activities. The most points obtained by an individual child was eight, for animal care on 8 of the 24 days. Children who received from five to eight points were assigned to the “partic-

Animal Care Procedures

351

ipant” group. Children with scores of zero or one were classified as “nonparticipants.” Twenty “participants” (11 girls and 9 boys; mean age = 72.1 months) and 21 “nonparticipants” (10 girls and 11 boys; mean age = 7 1.8 months) were identified. The remaining 19 children who received from two to four points were not included in the study. Teachers concurrently rated each preschooler’s daily participation in animal care activities. Children who “took care of animals almost every day” received two points; those who “sometimes participated in animal care activities” received one point; children who “seldom took care of animals” received zero points. These ratings were highly correlated with the observation scores (r = .75, p < .OOl). Assessment of Knowledge Unrelated to Animal Care Four biology questions were prepared to test the equivalence of the two subject groups, and are listed in Appendix B. Children’s answers to the biology questions were coded as either correct or incorrect. Assessment of Children’s Understanding of Animal Care Children were asked about six procedures: (a) two referring to general biological procedures, (b) two referring to species-specific biological procedures, and (c) two referring to nonbiological procedures. These questions were related to the content of the animal care procedure cards posted on the animal hutches. General Biological Procedures. The items for general biological procedures were “feed a rabbit at regular times each day” and “before feeding a duck, wash its feeding cup.” Children’s answers were coded as correct, incorrect, or “nonexplanation.” Explanations were coded as correct when children stated either that omission or violation of the procedures could cause undesirable physiological states, or that maintaining proper procedures could enhance desirable physiological states. Examples of correct and incorrect explanations are described for each question in the Results. Species-Specific Biological Procedures. The species-specific biological procedures were “do not put a rabbit and a duck in the same hutch’ and “before feeding a duck, cut his food into pieces.” These procedures are related to characteristics of target animals which are not common to adult humans, and correct answers included the following information. While rabbits become weak in water, ducks cannot live without water. Pet rabbits in Japan often get sick and sometimes die when exposed to water. By contrast, ducks live primarily on fresh water; therefore, ducks and rabbits should not kept in the same hutch. In addition, since ducks do not have teeth, they cannot eat unless their food is cut into pieces. For children’s answers to be scored as correct, they had to refer to specific physiological characteristics of the animal in their explanations. Nonbiological Procedures. The nonbiological procedures were “cover the floor of the hutch with paper every time you clean up” and “take the duck out of its hutch before cleaning up.” Even if these procedures are omitted, animals may not

352

Toyama, Lee, and Muto

necessarily suffer physically. The procedures are merely intended to make animal care easier. To validate the classification of procedures, we asked 10 adults to explain the meanings of the general biological, species-specific biological, and nonbiological procedures. Nine out of the 10 adults spontaneously gave biological explanations for general and species-specific biological procedures, and all 10 explained the nonbiological procedures in terms of convenience rather than biological importance. A different group of 10 adults were asked whether the general and speciesspecific biological procedures applied to human adults. Nine of them agreed with our general/species-specific distinction. Children were first asked if they were familiar with each procedure (confirmation question). If children were not familiar with a procedure, the experimenter explained the procedure. Next, children were asked if they knew why they should follow the procedure (meaning question), and if the procedure was suitable for an unfamiliar but similar type of animal (prediction question). The nonbiological procedures by definition did not have a biological basis. Since the purpose of this study was to examine whether children gave biological explanations, only meaning questions were asked about the nonbiological procedures. All the stimulus questions are presented in Appendix B, and pictures were shown with all the questions. The order of questions was counterbalanced, but the four questions about other living things always came the end of the interview. The two people who independently coded all of the responses were not told about children’s group classification (participant vs. nonparticipant in animal care). Interrater reliability was .93, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion.

Children’s Statements During Animal Care Activities Children’s animal care activities were observed with ducks, rabbits and birds. We counted the proportion of the 180 episodes (125 episodes for participants and 55 for nonparticipants) in which the children referred to biological meanings of animal care procedures. When children talked about relations between procedures and resulting biological states of an animal, their statements were coded as biological. For example, while drying wet sheets of paper used to cover the hutch floor, one child said; “If I don’t dry it, the duck may get a cold.” Interrater reliability between two independent coders of the episodes was .94; discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

RESULTS Results concerned (a) assessment of children’s knowledge not related to animal care, (b) assessment of understanding of three sets of procedures (general biological, species-specific biological, and nonbiological), and (c) statements while taking care of animals.

Animal Care Procedures Table 1. Percentages of Children Who Gave Correct, Incorrect, and Nonexplanations for Meaning and Prediction Question About “Feeding” and “Washing a Cup” Procedures Prediction

Meaning P (N = 20)

(N =“,l,

(N =‘2,

N (N = 21)

Feeding too often Correct Incorrect No Response

6.5 30 5

43 43 14

65 30 5

47 47 5

Washing Cup Correct Incorrect No Response

50 50 0

43 43 14

45 55 0

47 33 20

Notes:

P = Participant group; N = Nonparticipant group.

Questions About Other Living Things To confirm whether participants and nonparticipants were comparable in their general knowledge about biology, we scored their answers (correct vs. incorrect) to basic biology knowledge questions. One point was given for each correct answer, and scores ranged from zero to a maximum of four. Mean scores (3.2) were identical for the participant and nonparticipant groups, indicating that the children in both groups were equally aware of basic biological facts. Animal Care Procedures General Biological Procedures. For the “feeding too often” question, correct explanations were coded for an answer like “If I feed a rabbit too often, [a rabbit may suffer from diarrhea] .” An example of an incorrect explanation was “..., [it may grow].” For the “washing a cup” question, the correct explanations included; “If I don’t wash the feeding cup, a duck may eat dirty food and get a stomach ache,” and incorrect explanations included “because cards posted in the cage say.” Table 1 gives the frequencies of children’s correct, incorrect, and nonexplanations. Chi-square tests comparing the frequencies between the participants and nonparticipants group did not yield significant group differences. Some children in both groups seem to be aware of biological meanings of these two procedures, and such awareness does not appear to be related to the level of participation in caretaking at the preschool. Species-Specific Biological Procedures. For the “separating a rabbit and a duck” question, explanations were considered correct only if they referred to different degrees of tolerance of water between rabbits and ducks, for example, “While rabbits are weak in water, ducks cannot live without water.” For the “cut-

Toyama, Lee, and Muto

354

Table 2. Percentages of Children Who Gave Correct, Incorrect, and Nonexplanations for Meaning and Prediction Question About “Separating” “Cutting” Procedures Meaning

and

Prediction

(N :20)

(N %I)

Separating a duck and a rabbit Correct 65 Incorrect 35 Nonresponse 0

5 57 38

55 35 10

5 62 33

Cutting a whole carrot Correct Incorrect Nonresponse

9 71 19

75 25 0

19 57 24

Norest

80 20 0

(N _PZO,

(N L,

P = Participant group; N = Nonparticipant group.

ting foods” question, reference to lack of teeth was required for correct explanation, for example, “Because a duck doesn’t have teeth, he can’t eat a whole carrot.” Incorrect explanations included answers such as “because a rabbit and a duck may fight” for the question about separating species, and “because the duck doesn’t like whole carrots” for the question about cutting up food. Table 2 presents frequencies of correct, incorrect and non explanations. For the “separating species” procedure, chi-square tests yielded significant differences between participants and nonparticipants for the meaning question, x2(1) = 16.5, p < .Ol, and for the prediction question, x2(1) = 12.5, p < .Ol. For the “cutting foods” procedure, there was also a significant difference for the meaning question, x2(1) = 20.7, p < .Ol, and for the prediction question, x2(1) = 12.9, p < .Ol. In all cases, the children in the participant group were more aware of biological meanings based on the specific characteristics of given animals. For the nonbiological procedures, biological Nonbiological Procedures. explanations were not expected. Indeed, no adults in the preliminary experiment referred to biological meanings. Neither did animal care guidebooks explain these procedures in biological terms. We showed five adults the responses of children from this study, and asked them to judge whether the explanations were biological or nonbiological. All agreed that several of the responses were biological. That is, some children predicted that violations of a nonbiological procedure would result in biological damage in target animals. Thus, we coded children’s explanations as either “biological” or “other.” For instance, some children explained the meaning of the “covering the floor” procedure as “If I don’t cover the hutch floor with paper, the floor would get dirty and birds could get sick” (biological explanations). For the “taking the duck out of a hutch” question, explanations such as “If I don’t take the duck out of his hutch while cleaning it, the duck might drink dirty cleaning water and get sick” were

Animal Care Procedures

355

Table 3. Percentages of Children Who Gave Biological, Other, and Nonexplanations for Meaning Question About “Covering” and “Taking Out” Procedures Taking Out

Covering (N :20,

(N %I)

(N !ZO)

(N :Zl)

Biological

40

0

55

9

Other Nonexplanations

55 5

71 29

45 0

71 19

Notes:

P = Participant group;

N = Nonparticipant group.

obtained. These answers were coded as biological. Examples of “other explanations” were “If I don’t cover the hutch floor, I must wash the floor every time,” and “If I don’t take the duck out of his hutch while cleaning it, it may get the hutch dirty.” In Table 3 are the frequencies of children who gave biological, “other” and nonexplanations for each group. Chi-square tests comparing the participants and nonparticipants groups yielded significant differences for the “covering” procedure, x2(1) = 9.0, p < .Ol, and for the “taking out” procedure, x2(1) = 9.8, p < .Ol. The children in the participant group were more likely to give biological explanations for non biological procedures than the children in the nonparticipant group. Observations of Children’s Biological References During Animal Care Participants used biological references during 16 of 125 animal care episodes (12.8%), while only 2 out of 55 nonparticipants’ episodes (3.6%) included biological references. In some episodes, (8.8% for participants and 3.6% for nonparticipants), children tried to examine the effects of procedures on animals by observing the animals after caring for them. In one episode, a participant watched a duck eating and said, “His mouth looks like a vacuum because he swallows food without chewing. He doesn’t really have teeth!” As can be seen in such an explanation, children sometimes try to make sense out of procedures rather than following them without thinking. DISCUSSION The results of this study suggest that children who often participate in animal care activities at preschool and children who seldom do so, differ in thinking about animal care procedures. The animal care participants were aware of the biological importance of the procedures which are based on characteristics of specific animals. However, such differences between the participants and nonparticipants were not found for the procedures which have common implications for human beings. The participants also tended to find biological meanings for nonbiological procedures; this tendency was less frequent in nonparticipants.

Toyama, Lee, and Muto

356

First, since the design of this study was correlational, there may be other reasons why the active animal care participants were aware of the biological importance of the species-specific biological procedures while the nonparticipants were not. In our follow-up study, we plan to more systematically control for and vary children’s participation in animal care activities. In addition, a more in-depth assessment of children’s prior interests in animal care is warranted, because interests and degree of participation may be correlated. Despite these limitations and the need to consider factors not addressed in our present design, the data reported above suggest that p~i~ipation is likely a signi~~~t variable in relation to children’s procedural knowledge. Interpretatkts

of Results

It is possible that children with greater knowledge of biology may be more likely to take care for animals because they already understand the biological functions of procedures. However, the results of questions about other living things showed that participants and nonparticipants were equally aware of basic biological facts. Several factors may be responsible for the better comprehension of the species-specific biological procedures by the frequent participants in animal care. For example, participants may be more familiar with nature books than nonp~icipants. However, if this were so, why were differences obtained only in the questions about species-specific biological procedures? If the preceding factors were responsible for the group differences obtained, the participant group should have done better not only on questions about specific biological procedures, but also on other questions. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the degree of voluntary participation is associated with depth of understanding of species-specific biological procedures. Concerning principles of early childhood education, some say that teachers should offer equal educational opportunities to children regardless of their interests, so that all children can learn. This would suggest that children should be required to care for animals. Yet it is also widely recognized that education should emphasize voluntary participation, since genuine interest and intrinsic motivation may be punished by compulsory learning. The results of the present study, along with Nan&i and Inagaki (1984), support the latter viewpoint. Participating and Understanding Why, then, was voluntary participation associated with better understanding of some types of animal care procedures? Based on the present observational data, two possible factors might contribute to understanding the biological meanings of procedures. The first factor is that children may reflect on their own activRe~ecti~R. ities. K~loff-Sag and Inhelder (1975) found that children sought more

Animal Care Procedures

357

efficient procedures for balance scale tasks after successfully performing the procedures because children seemed to reflect on how these procedures work. Similarly, children in the present study-particularly those who often participated in animal care- may have been reflecting on how to use the various procedures more efficiently. By doing so they may have come to better understand the importance of the procedures. We observed several types of children’s behavior which suggested such reflection. In these instances children examined the effects of animal care procedures on target animals while taking care of them and did not simply obey teachers’ instructions without thinking. As stated in the Method section, teachers at the preschool tried not to teach children how to take care of animals. Instead, they always encouraged children to read animal care cards and take care of animals by themselves. Such teacher behavior might have helped children to reflect on the meanings of procedures. In Namiki and Inagaki’s (1984) study where animal care was compulsory, children were to complete caretaking activities as efficiently as possible. Reflection requires extra time and because they were concentrating on executing procedures rapidly, the children in Namiki and Inagaki’s (1984) study may not have been able to be reflective. Personijkation. The second possible reason for participant children’s understanding of biological procedures concerns emotional personification. We sometimes observed that children explained animal care procedures in anthropomorphic terms, using human terms such as “wants” and “feels” to describe the psychological states of animals. When personification was found, it was usually accompanied by sympathy for the target animals. For example, one participant noticed another child covering the floor of a duck’s hutch with wet paper sheets and said, “Dry the sheets. Gacchan [the duck] likes dry sheets. I feel sorry for Gacchan. He may catch a cold ‘cause of those wet sheets.” Thus, reflection supported by personification may be a fundamental mechanism underlying biological conceptualizations. For example, to understand the meanings and effects of procedures, the child may imagine his own experiences receiving the same procedures. With a certain degree of such experiences, children may discover relationships between each step of a procedure and the biological nature of the target animals. But this process do not seem to be triggered without sympathy for the animals. Namiki and Inagaki’s (1984) findings are consistent with this claim, in that the children in their study did not have a choice about types of animal care activities. In the case of compulsory participation, children are more likely to pay attention in order to simply follow procedures, and empathy towards the animals may not be so strong. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest several factors that may be related to children’s conceptual understanding of animal care procedures. These include voluntary participation, reflection while performing procedures, and personification based on sympathy.

Toyama, Lee, and Muto

358

APPENDIX A Animal Care Procedure Cards Posted on Animal Hutches How to take care of ducks: 1.

Take ducks out of the hutch, and put them into the enclosed area.

2. Bring a hose, and wash the hutch with a brush. 3. Wash the floor, water cup, and food cup. If there are leftovers in the food cup, put 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

them in the dust box. Cut vegetables (cabbage and carrots). Mix corn, chopped vegetables, and water. Put food in the food cup, and put ducks in the hutch. Put hose and brush back. Wash knife and cutting board, and put them back. Use a broom to sweep the place where you cut vegetables.

How to take care of rabbits: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Put rabbits out of the hutch. Wash the food cup. Wash the floor of the hutch with a brush. Take paper out of the hutch, and wash the floor. Put food in the food cup. Cover the floor with new paper. Put rabbits into the hutch. Sweep the hutch with a broom.

How to take care of small birds: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Remove paper from the cage. Wash the floor. Cover the floor with new paper. Wash the water and food cups and put water and food in them. Sweep around the cage with a broom.

APPENDIX B Stimulus Questions A. General biological procedures 1.

1. Feeding too often. (a) “Do you know how many times per day you should feed rabbits?’ [C; confirmation]; (b) “If you feed rabbits too often, will they grow faster? Why?’ [M; meaning]; (c) “If you feed a baby squirrel too often, does it grow faster? Why?’ [P; prediction]. Only for this item, the syntax and content of the meaning question was different from those for other items. Here, if we were to use the same format as for other items (“Why do you have to feed rabbits two or three times a day?‘), children might have misunderstood the question as “Why do you have to feed rabbits?’ and answered too broadly, for example, “If rabbits don’t eat, they may die.” To avoid such confusion, we prepared a question that focused on feeding times, and

Animal Care Procedures

2.

359

asked about the effects of overfeeding. Washing a cup. (a) “Do you know whether you should wash the feeding cup before giving vegetables to a duck?’ [Cl; (b) “Why do you wash the cups before feeding a duck?’ [Ml; (c) “If you keep a peacock, do you wash cups before feeding it? Why?’

PI. B. Species-specific 3.

4.

6.

procedures.

Covering the floor of a cage. (a) “Do you know whether you should cover the floor of a bird’s cage with paper?’ [Cl; (b) “Why should you cover the floor of a bird’s cage with paper?’ [Ml. Taking ducks out of a hutch. (a) “Do you know whether you should take a duck out of its hutch before cleaning the hutch?’ [Cl; (b) “Why should you take a duck out of its hutch while cleaning the hutch?’ [Ml.

D. Basic biological 7. 8. 9. 10.

procedures.

Separating rabbits and ducks. (a) “Do you know whether it’s all right to keep a rabbit and a duck in the same hutch?’ [Cl; (b) “Why can’t you keep a rabbit and a duck in the same hutch?’ [Ml; (c) “Is it all right if you keep a peacock and a squirrel in the same hutch? Why?’ [PI. Cutting foods. (a) “Do you know whether it’s all right to feed a whole carrot to a duck?’ [Cl; (b) “Why can’t you serve a whole carrot to a duck?’ [Ml; (c) “Is it all right if you feed a whole carrot to a peacock? Why?’ [PI.

C. Non-biological 5.

biological

“Does “Does “Does “Does

knowledge

about living

things.

a panda have claws?’ a monkey drink milk?’ an elephant lay eggs?’ a tulip have blood?’

Acknowledgments:

We are grateful to the children and Akemi Miyasato and other teachers at Tokyo Bunkyo Daiichi kindergarten for their participation and helpful suggestions. We also thank Dr. Ken Springer for his comments on an early draft, and Dr. David Shwalb for his assistance with revisions.

NOTE 1. In Japan, 4- to 5-year-olds go to preschool. After graduating from preschool, 6-year-old children go to elementary school.

REFERENCES Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1992). Desituating cognition through the construction of conceptual knowledge. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 115-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

360

Toyama, Lee, and Muto

Inagaki, K. (1990). The effects of raising animals on children’s biological inference. Brirish Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 119- 129. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1987). Young children’s spontaneous personification as analogy. Child Development, 58, 1013-1020. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1991). Constrained person analogy in young children’s biological inference. Cognitive Development, 6,2 19-23 1. Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Inhelder, B. (1975). If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition, 3, 19% 212. Namiki, M., & Inagaki, K. (1984). Cognitive consequences of raising animals at a kindergarten. Paper presented at an Annual Meeting of Japanese Educational Psychology Association, Kyoto [in Japanese]. Renninger, K.A. (1990). Children’s play interests, representation, and activity. In R. Fivush and J.A. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 127-165). New York: Cambridge University Press. Wellman, H.M., & Gelman, S.A. (1992). Cognitive development: Fundamental theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43,337-37.5.