Kate

Hibbard
HUDK 5023: Cognitive Develop
Clinical Interview Assignment
Metacognitive Understanding & Monitoring (18-21 years)
Submitted 12/10/14

Contemplating the Stars

A clinical interview designed to trace the moments that we realize we dont know what we
thought we knew with the purpose of better understanding what causes this realization.

Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Rational
III. Implementation
IV. Interpretation
V. Reflection
VI. References
VII. Appendices
i. Participants
ii. Transcripts
iii. Materials

I. Introduction
Knowledge acquisition becomes increasingly challenging as cognition develops towards adulthood. The amount of
accumulated acquired knowledge increases with experience, thus adults tend to harbor a greater collection and sense of
confidence in their acquired knowledge than younger people. However, younger people are better able to adapt their
knowledge base to new evidence (Smith, Sera & Gattuso, 1988). For adults, managing discrepancies with their
established body of knowledge, is more of a challenge because one discrepancy implies that inaccuracies or
misunderstandings may influence other interrelated aspects of their knowledge (Asch, 1952, Kiel 1991). Discrepant
evidence therefore necessitates theory revision or a conceptual change. Making these changes and coordinating
assimilated theories with new evidence is difficult. Often, adult learners struggle to make insights into the level of their
knowledge (Keil, 2011). They over estimate the detail and depth of their knowledge (Mills & Keil, 2004). However, much
of the work in the field of continuing education for adults relies on the learners capacity to engage in revisionary
learning. It demands learners confront what they thought they knew and monitor their metacognition. Studies into how
adult learners build awareness of their knowledge is an intrinsic part of revisionary learning and adult education; it is a
focus of this clinical interview. Recent studies suggest that providing explanations can help adult learners recognize their
initial illusions of understanding (Mills & Keil, 2004) and thus begin the process of correlating new evidence with old
knowledge and revising their thinking. This study examines how oral explanations influence adult learners
demonstrated ability to monitor their metacognition, specifically in terms of monitoring their awareness and illusions of
understanding.

II. Rational
Using the dynamic, engaging, yet structured process of a 1:1 clinical interview, the interviewer engages participants in a
series of questions designed to draw attention to the participants awareness of how confident they are that they know
what they know. In this case, knowledge will be assessed based on the participants ability to accurately describe and
explain a phenomenon. Metacognition will be measured by the participants reported level of confidence in their
knowledge about the phenomenon. Using these methods of measurement, the clinical interview is designed to
document the events that build and/or decrease the participants confidence in their knowledge.
While confidence levels may seem an unusual metric with which to measure metacognition, they serve the
intents and purposes of this project because the governing goal behind the design of this interview is to create a means
of improving teaching methodology concerned with guiding students towards greater awareness of their own
knowledge. Changes in participants confidence levels may indicate initial stages in revisionary learning, when learners
encounter new conflicting evidence, which can be key insights into learner readiness for new knowledge acquisition.
Applying the clinical interview method as a means of measuring confidence levels may serve as a learning experience
that can be as revealing for the participant as for the interviewer; thus, serving as an educational experience as well as
an assessment. Through this interview, it is possible that both the participant and the interviewer may be able to build a
collection of methods, tricks, and tools from observation that can be used to help the learner independently check,
revise, and build their knowledge.
As a teacher of adults with cognitive disabilities, I have been consistently fascinated by my students awareness
of their own knowledge. Their knowledge acquisition seems limited by their illusions of understanding. For example, my
often confidently claim to poses knowledge on a topic that they have never studied before. Other times, they claim they
significantly doubt their ability to perform skills they have previously applied with competency. Significant portions of
my lesson plans are committed to building background knowledge, which are activities designed to call forth the
knowledge that my students already have in order to better facilitate the alignment of knowledge acquisition with

previously established knowledge. Often, I design this activity in a way that requires students to explain what they
already know. By engaging in explanatory activities like these, my students must defend their reasoning. They must
unpack their assumptions, reconsider the rational they reported as truth, and compare it against their own logic.
Answering these questions often cues them to make adjustments to their understanding right in front of my eyes. This
presentation of metacognition has intrigued me as a teacher time and time again. This clinical interview is designed to
help me better document this internal metacognitive process with the purpose of better preparing myself with
questions and conversation strategies to help my future students ignite similar metacognitive reasoning processes.
In this interview, the participants level of confidence in the accuracy of their knowledge will be used as an
indicator of their metacognition. These metrics will be referred to in this paper as their confidence levels. To best align
with the purpose of the clinical interview, data collected on the participants confidence levels will be divided into three
categories based on how well they understand the phenomenon: (3) they have a clear understanding of the
phenomenon, (2) they have a partial understanding of the phenomenon, and (1) they do not have a clear understanding
of the phenomenon. The interviewer will determine the clarity of the participants understanding based on how
concisely and consistently the participant applies the terminology they decide to use to describe and explain the
phenomenon during the interview. Variation in their terminology (ex. using words that have very different meanings to
describe the phenomenon or failing to include descriptive elements of the phenomenon that the participant, later in the
interview, identifies as important) will be interpreted as confusion and thus a lack of a clear understanding. To
demonstrate their knowledge of the phenomenon, the participant will be asked (1) describe the phenomenon and then
(2) explain how the phenomenon interacts with its surrounding environment. The phenomenon will be determined
ahead of time and selected as appropriate to the age and cognitive functioning of the participant. For the sake of
designing an interview that will challenge the participant to seriously consider their confidence levels, the phenomenon
chosen for this interview should have a complex body of attributes that have an interactive relationship with the
surrounding environment. By design, the participant should not be able to succinctly describe the phenomenon in just a
few words. Elaboration should be necessary.

For this clinical interview, the participants are all students of mine1: Meredith, Stephan, and Ellen. The names of
the students who participated in this study have been changed to protect their identities. The subject of this clinical
interview is Meredith. Stephan and Ellen also participated in the same clinical interview process described here. They
will be referenced for cross-comparisons and alternative perspectives the responses to their interviews provide. All
three participants are 18 and 19-year-old people of color. They have completed all four years of high school and have
been students of mine for 4 months. All three have been diagnosed with a learning disability. See Appendix I for further
detail on participants.
Considering the experience and educational background of all three participants, particularly in the area of their
high school science class, I chose to use the phenomenon of stars for this interview. My reasoning behind this selection
was based on the observation that several of their classmates have demonstrated uncertainty about (a) whether stars
are small or large (b) whether or not they are also suns, and (c) whether they are hot or cold. This observation was
striking to me since I am well aware of the fact that they studied the solar system in their high school. Thus, I deemed
stars to be an appropriate phenomenon for this assessment because the participants enough familiarity with the
subject matter so as to reasonably assume that they know what they are. Additionally, the concept of stars is both
complex as well highly interactive with its surrounding environment.

1 While an interviewers students should not typically be used for clinical interview due to the potential power dynamic of the
student-teacher relationship, the relationship that I have established with my students is notably different from this status quo
because I assess them regularly. Reading inventories, KeyMath assessments, these are typically monthly experiences for my students
and me. We have become remarkably comfortable with the setting of an interview styled assessment. In each of these interviews, I
endeavor to replicate this same comfortable relationship that I have established with my students during past interviews. Perhaps
this relationship can be heard in the audio recordings of the interviews. Because of this previously established relationship, the
potential teacher-student power dynamic plays a minimal influence in my assessments and will most likely have minimal influence
here as well.

III. Implementation
The clinical interview is comprised of two 5-minute trials separated by a 15-minute group activity. Each participant was
interviewed individually (Trial I), then after participating in a collaborative group activity they were each interviewed a
second time (Trial II) with the same questions posed to them in the first interview. Differences between these answers
and answers given prior to the clinical interview will be of particular significance.
Upon beginning each interview, the participant was asked to answer the yes or no question, Do you know what
stars are? After answering this question, the participant was asked to rate how well they think they know what stars
are on a scale of 1-5. A mark of 5 signifying that they are confident in their knowledge of what stars are and a mark of 1
signifying that they are not confident that they know what stars are.
After this initial assessment the interview began. The interview was an informal exchange of dialogue between
the participant and the interviewer about stars. The interviewer asked the participant to illuminate their knowledge by
describing and then explaining to the best of their knowledge what stars are. Specifically, the participant was
prompted to elaborate on their knowledge with questions designed to have them (a) describe what stars are, (b) explain
how stars function, (c) explain how stars interact with their surrounding environment. See Appendix iii. Materials for
more detailed information about the questions involved in each interview.
Immediately after Trial I, all three participants took part in a two part 15-minute collaborative activity. In the
first part, participants independently read identical information about stars (See Appendix iii. Materials). After reading,
participants took part in the second part of the activity, where they were prompted to share and discuss what they had
learned from the reading. During this activity, all three participants were encouraged by the interviewer to use the
group to check what they knew to increase their level of confidence in their knowledge.
Each part of the clinical interview Trial I, the Group Activity, and Trial II were designed to be brief and
immediately follow each other so as not to strain the participants working memory or processing skills. (See Appendix i.
Participants for further information.)

IV. Interpretation
The beginning of Stephan and Ellens interview was almost identical. Both participants entered the conversation
reporting the highest levels of confidence in their knowledge of stars. They reported 5; they knew stars very well. This
beginning is not necessary representative of what the participant actually knew about stars; instead, these 5s signify
high confidence levels in prior-knowledge of stars. At this early stage in the interview, it became apparent that
understanding could not be correlated with confidence levels; for although both Stephan and Ellen reported that they
knew stars very well their explanatory demonstrations of their knowledge were quite different. While Stephan needed
extra time to convey his answers, his answers were clear and concise; demonstrating what will be considered a relatively
clear understanding, by the terms defined in this clinical interview (See II. Rational for further details on this subject).
Stephan demonstrated an awareness of stars in their physicality in space saying, theyre actually suns, and, Theyre
really big, and if you touched one, you would just get burned and an awareness of their poetic significance for us
earthlings saying, People sometimes, um, we wish upon a star thus Stephan demonstrates a multifaceted
understanding. However, Ellen, who also claimed confidence at level 5, seems to confront what may be her illusion of
understanding very rapidly as soon as she is asked to describe what stars are she says, Oh, Jesus Christ, um I should
know this. I watch the Cosmos all the time. Um. Theyre, oh, theyre suns. They are millions and millions of suns.
Although Ellen decides here that the stars are suns, she later expresses mild confusion about whether Earths Sun and
stars are they same kind of sun, stars, they create sunlight, not as much as our main sun would, but they do. In this
interview, Ellen demonstrates partial understanding of what stars are despite her initial high confidence levels.
These Trial I interviews clearly demonstrate two individuals with varying degrees of understanding, but similarly
high confidence levels. These initial confidence levels stand in contrast to the confidence levels of this interviews main
subject, Meredith. Early in Trial I, Meredith demonstrated lower confidence levels in her understanding of stars giving
herself the confidence level of a 3 suggesting awareness or insight into what she doesnt know to a degree that her
peers were not able to replicate. In the interview, Meredith says, Im not sure but I think and I could guess, thus
clearly highlighting to the person shes speaking to her low confidence levels. The disparity between Merediths initial

confidence levels and those of Stephans and Ellens could be the result of many influences external to the question of
metacognition. While it is highly likely that Meredith is very aware of how detailed her knowledge of stars really is, it is
also possible that we are seeing the confidence levels of a person who is small in stature, with a quiet voice, who is
confined to a wheel chair, and who consequently struggles with personal confidence even before stars were brought
into the picture. Merediths confidence level may not be as clear a sign of metacognition as initially thought.
What can clearly be observed from Trial I is, congruent with Mills & Keil (2004), the confidence levels of both
Meredith and Ellen decrease after being asked to explain what they
know. As they explain what they know, they seem to realize that their
level of understanding isnt what they thought it was. Ellen admits to
watching Cosmos, thus expecting that she know more about stars
than her present performance indicate. Meredith admits to how
surprisingly challenging the explanatory task is, saying, Wow, this is
hard. In both cases, there is a notable decrease in confidence levels
at the of the Trial I. These results suggest that the act of explaining
their knowledge dispelled both Meredith and Ellen of some of their
illusions of understanding.
Most striking is the change in confidence levels between Trial I
and Trial II for both Meredith and Ellen. The numbers suggest that
activities that took place between the two interviews made both
woman feel significantly more confident in their knowledge than they
had before. Immediately after their individual interviews, all three
participants were given reading about stars (See VI. Appendix iii.
Matierials for a copy), written at their reading level, each reading contained the same information. After reading, each
student participated in am unstructured group conversation about the reading. While the facilitator led much of this

discussion posing questions and actively motivating participants to share their answers points made during the group
discussion proved to be extremely influential in terms of both confidence levels and acquired knowledge, the later of
which was not measured here, but which remains interesting as an indicator of how influential the group work was on
the individuals.
What individuals brought up during the group discussion appeared as fact and common knowledge in the Trial II
interviews, despite the fact that these individual observations were not necessarily true. Take for example that during
the group conversation, Stephan pointed out at that a star is, a ball of
gas. Later, during the individual interviews of Trial II, both Meredith
and Ellen report similar facts. Merediths first description of stars is,
Theyre, um, theyre a ball of gas. Similarly, Ellen begins her
interview by immediately going into the detail about the kinds of gas
the comprise stars. She says, A star is a bunch of suns, just like I said
before. And its made of hydrogen I cant say that word well and,
um, carbon dioxide. Note that while Meredith is correct, Ellen is
not entirely correct, yet they both are reporting high confidence
levels after the group discussion. Its possible that the recycling of
points made during the group conversation increased participant
confidence levels.
However, Stephans confidence levels remain the same. He
is as confident as ever. However, what is worthy of note here is that
while Stephans confidence levels remain un-phased by the group
discussion, his level of understanding seems to have increased, because his understanding is clearer and more concise.

V. Reflection
a. The results from this clinical interview suggest that cognition is more than just the accumulative sum of units of
knowledge, cognition is an active intellectual construction and revision process. All participants demonstrated readiness
to acquire certain knowledge and concepts depending on their prior-knowledge. For example, Stephan was able to
retain information about hydrogen and helium that Ellen was not ready to retain. Stephan had heard of terms like
hydrogen before, thus he was ready to evoke previously acquired knowledge about them and learn more, but Ellen
wasnt. This observation and observations like them support the findings of recent research demonstrating that after the
age of 10, the induction of new knowledge depends entirely on category membership and whether the input aligns with
previously established categories. For example, if previously established categories around the concept of stars is that
they are small, cold, distant, it will be particularly challenging for a learner to grasp the notion that stars are giant,
burning balls of gas, like the sun. Such discrepancies provoke theory revision and conceptual change. Current research in
theory revision implies that knowledge acquisition should be regarded as a process of theory revision, rather than the
accumulation of individual units of knowledge. A critical part of learning, then, is the control theory revision. Knowing
when to revise ones knowledge base is a crucial component of intentional learning. However, to do this, the learner
must be aware of what they know and what they dont know.
b. While, the design of this clinical interview created opportunities for adult learners to question and challenge their
acquired knowledge, we cannot be sure that the changes we observed in confidence levels during both trials were the
direct result of participants changing awareness of what they know. Changes in confidence levels could have been the
result of the personality types involved, particularly Merediths. In reality, this clinical interview is very susceptible to
participant misunderstanding and misreporting. Thus, it is impossible for this clinical interview to demonstrate anything
more concrete than anecdotal evidence supporting existing research. If this study were to be continued, the assessment
of levels of understanding would have to be refined so as to better indicate the points at which the participants think
they know and when the actually know.

10

VI. References
Smith, L., Sera, M., & Gattuso, B. (1988). The development of thinking. In R. Sternberg & E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology
of human thought ( Cambridge).

Chi, M., & Roscoe, R. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.),
Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (Kluwer).
Mills, C. M., & Keil, F. C. (2004). Knowing the limits of one's understanding: The development of an awareness of an
illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(1), 1-32. Retrieved from http://eduproxy.tc-
library.org/?url=/docview/62075132?accountid=14258
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (National Academy of
Sciences). Chapter 2. Available online at http:www.nap.edu.
Keil, C. (1991). The emergence of theoretical beliefs as constraints on concepts. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The
epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (Erlbaum).
Keil, F. C. (2011). The problem of partial understanding. Linguistic Insights - Studies in Language and
Communication, 144, 251-276. Retrieved from http://eduproxy.tc-
library.org/?url=/docview/1081898326?accountid=14258

11

VII. Appendix

i. Participants
There were three participants in this clinical interview: Meredith, Stephan, and Ellen. Their names have been changed
for the sake of protecting their right to privacy. Below is a brief description of how each participants disabilities may
impact their ability to participate in the clinical interview, specifically in terms of reading, listening, and conversation
skills.
Meredith has two different types of disabilities that must be taken into consideration. One of them is physical. She is
orthopedically impaired and confined to a wheel chair and has limited mobility in her hands. For this reason, she opted
out of drawing stars for the clinical interview. Meredith also has a learning disability that, minimally characterized, limits
her perceptual reasoning and processing speed. This cognitive disability impedes her daily life functioning in so far as it
demands that she take extra time to complete most activities. She speaks in a soft and often muffled voice, which makes
it difficult for others to hear and acknowledge her contribution to a conversation. This disability may have impaired her
cognitive development only slightly as her grade equivalency in reading proficiency is 6th grade and her listening
proficiency is at a high school level. Her verbal reasoning and working memory skills have been measured as falling in
the average for her age group. Therefore, while Meredith requires extra time to complete activities, like the reading and
conversation activities that comprise a key component of this clinical interview, her learning disability does not impact
her ability to respond to the interview questions. Apparent in the transcript and the audio recordings, are her struggles
with verbal conversation. To assist her participation with the purpose of making her desired level of participation
possible, I took on the responsibility of repeating her words for her peers and for the audio recording to ensure she was
heard clearly.
Stephans cognitive disabilities must be taken into consideration as well. Minimally characterized, Stephans processing
speed, working memory, and perceptual reasoning skills fall within an extremely low range relative to his age group.
These cognitive disabilities impede his daily life functioning in so far as they demand he take extra time to consider what

12

he wants to say, as well as take extra time to communicate his thinking. Like Meredith, Stephan also speaks softly, and
typically strings his thoughts together in loose phrases as he decides how best to express himself. This style of
communication is apparent in the audio recordings and transcripts of interviews with Stephan. One can immediately see
that his answers are confident, but it takes him some time to settle on what exactly it is that he wants to say. Stephans
disabilities may have impaired his cognitive development only slightly as his grade equivalency in reading proficiency is
5th grade and his listening proficiency is at an upper middle school level. Interestingly, Stephans cognitive processing
speed falls within the average range for his age group. Therefore, while Stephan requires extra time to express himself,
for example when stringing phrases together in conversation during the group activity between trial I and II of the
clinical interview, his learning disability does not impact his ability to understand the reading and interview questions. To
assist his self-expression, I presented Stephan with several more questions than Meredith and Ellen. These extra
questions were designed to give Stephan ample opportunity to phrase and re-phrase his thinking in order to best
express his intended answers.
Our third participant, Ellen, also has several disabilities that must be taken into consideration. Like Meredith, Ellen has a
physical disability as well cognitive disabilities. Because Ellens physical disability does not impact her ability to
participate in this clinical interview, therefore it is inconsequential to this clinical interview. Ellens cognitive disabilities,
minimally characterized, limit her working memory and perceptual reasoning. These cognitive disabilities impede her
daily life functioning in so far as they demand she take extra time to consider her logical-reasoning when reading to
learn and when conversing about what she has learned. Ellen demonstrates a tendency to struggle to report what she
has perceived to the degree that is satisfactory to her. Often, she expresses frustration with her demonstrated
comprehension levels because she believes she knows more that she has reported. For example, in class she will often
say, I know I know this, when struggling explain what she knows. This disability may have impaired her cognitive
development, but for reasons that may be obvious, this is difficult to measure because of her struggles to self-report her
cognitive abilities. It is possible that this cognitive disability has impeded her cognitive develop only slightly as her grade
equivalency in reading proficiency is 8th grade and her listening proficiency is at a upper middle school level. Therefore,

13

Ellen requires extra time to complete knowledge acquisition activities, like the reading and conversation activities that
comprise this clinical interview; however, her learning disability does not impact her ability to respond to the interview
questions. Apparent in the transcript and the audio recordings, are her struggles with self-reporting her knowledge base.
To assist her participation with the purpose of making her desired level of participation possible, the interview was
designed to give participants like Ellen multiple prompts and perspectives from which to consider the topic. This was
done with the intention of giving Ellen and other participants an opportunity to consider and re-consider what they
know and how they know what they know about the topic.

14

ii. Transcripts
*Note: Transcript of Merediths First Interview was lost in a data transfer. Please see iii. Materials for more evidence of
Merediths clinical interview.
Katherine Strong Hibbard
HUDK 5023: Cognitive Development, Fall 2014
Final Project: Clinical Interview

Transcript of First Interview

with Ellen

Hibbard: I wanted to ask you, how well do you know or do you think you know, about stars? And so the first part is
can you just answer this question, do you know what stars are? And then circle yes or no.
Ellen:

Well, Im not an idiot, so I think I know.

Hibbard: Ok, and would you say that you know what stars are or you dont know what stars are?
Ellen:

Hibbard: Ok, alright, cool. So, you can see that this paper is folded over because there is another part, but wait wait
wait This is these are your documents. Well get to those in a moment. So, then could you just tell me what
stars and describe them?
Ellen:

Oh, Jesus Christ, um I should know this. I watch the Cosmos all the time. Um. Theyre, oh, theyre suns. They
are millions and millions of suns. So, thats what they are.

Hibbard: Ok, could you draw a picture of a star for me?

Ellen:

Oh gosh, Im gonna not do that very well, so I dont know what they look like specifically, so

Hibbard: Ok, great. Um, so what would those like if you were up close?
Ellen:

Thats what Im thinking. It probably looks like this (points to Figure A on Student Drawing Trial I Ellen).

Hibbard: Ok, so can you label them?

Ellen:

Or maybe this since its the moon um

Hibbard: Ok, um could you touch a star?

Ellen:

No! Oh wait, I said its a sun its not a moon. No, you could not because youll burn. The sun is like a thousand
degrees, so

15

Hibbard: Ok, great. So so what do stars do?

Ellen:

Uh, stars, they create sunlight. Not as much as our main sun would, but they do.

Hibbard: Ok, great. Im going to stop there. Thats it. Im going to turn this over and would you now circle yes or now do
you think you know what stars are? And would you give yourself a score how well do you think you know what
stars are? Ok.


Katherine Strong Hibbard
HUDK 5023: Cognitive Development, Fall 2014
Final Project: Clinical Interview

Transcript of First Interview

with Stephan

Hibbard: Yeah so I wanted to ask you, um, do you know what stars are?
Stephan: Yeah.
Hibbard: What are stars?
Stephan: Theyre like those theyre those theyre actually suns.
Hibbard: Oh, great, ok, so if I were to ask you, like, how well you know what stars are, uh, or I guess I better way to say
this is if you know what stars are would you circle yes or no.
Stephan: Yeah.
Hibbard: Ok great. And then how well do you think you know what stars are?
Stephan: Very well 5.
Hibbard: Ok, great. Alright, so, then Im just going to ask you a few questions about stars, um, so you said theyre suns,
what else are stars, like, if you were to describe them to me what would you say?
Stephan: Uh, that theyre, like, theyre really small.
Hibbard: Umhmm
Stephan: They come out, um, they come out at the night.
Hibbard: Ok.
Stephan: Um, you could, um lets see Oh yeah, I said theyre suns.

16

Hibbard: Umhmm
Stephan: Like, theres whole, theres a lot of them.
Hibbard: Umhmm
Stephan: That people sometimes, um, we wish upon a star (chuckles).
Hibbard: Ok. (chuckles) I know I do.
Stephan: (chuckles) and
Hibbard: So, could you draw me a picture of what a star looks like?
Stephan: Umhmm yup.
Hibbard: Ok, great. And, like, what do stars look like, up close?
Stephan: Um, theyre like really big.
Hibbard: Ok. Um, are there any labels that you want to put on your drawing? Are there any parts that, like, you know
how sometimes a car has a door and wheels and a windshield? Are there any parts that star that you want to
label or, you dont have to label it if you dont want to.
Stephan: Nah.
Hibbard: Ok, um, and then can you touch a star?
Stephan: No.
Hibbard: What would happen to you if you touch a star?
Stephan: I think you would just get burned.
Hibbard: Youd get burned.
Stephan: Yeah.
Hibbard: Alright, great, and then how do stars work? Like, what do they do?
Stephan: Uh, like they only they only come every night. And also, so, we live in the city so we cant, like, really see
them but if we lived in like, like in the, um, in the woods, then we could see them a lot.
Hibbard: You could see them a lot, ok. And how do stars affect the environment around them?
Stephan: Um, they just, they help, they just shine.

17

Hibbard: They just shine.

Stephan: Yup.
Hibbard: Alright, great. Cool. And so then I guess my last question is just to ask you, um, to do part II, which is after I
asked you those questions, you feel like you know what stars are, yes or no?
Stephan: Yes.
Hibbard: And then, if you were to circle how well you think you know what stars are, which one would you circle?
Stephan: This one.
Hibbard: Ok, cool. And thats it! (chuckles)
Stephan: Wow.
Hibbard: Yeah.

Katherine Strong Hibbard
HUDK 5023: Cognitive Development, Fall 2014
Final Project: Clinical Interview

Transcript of Group Discussion

with Meredith, Stephan, and Ellen

Hibbard: Take a seat anywhere you want. And, so, what, Dwayne, so what I did is, everyone was like, ok what are stars?
Oh my gosh, whats going on? So what I did is, Ive given everybody, um, a reading about what stars are so you
can refresh your memory, you said you knew a lot about them.
Stephan: Umhmm
Hibbard: Um, and I want to give you a chance to look over it to sort of remind yourself of what you already knew about
stars, um, and then Im going to ask you guys to just make sure that everybody knows what stars are. You can
ask each other questions, you can talk about the reading
(interrupted)
(students start reading)
Stephan: Ok, Ive read it.
Hibbard: Ok, you feel pretty comfortable with what stars are?
Stephan: Yup, umhmm

18

Hibbard: Ok, grab a seat, um, so, folks you just were all just asked the same questions. Is there anything that you want
to check with each other to make sure that you know? Is there any, do you have any questions for each other
to make sure that you are comfortable with this knowledge?
Stephan: Nope.
Ellen:

No.

Stephan: Sorry.
Hibbard: You feel good, like, if I were to ask you to talk about a star again one on one you think you could say more
comfortably a few things about what a star is?
Stephan: Umhm
Ellen:

Yeah.

Hibbard: Yeah?
Meredith: I think so.
Hibbard: You think so?
(Interrupted)
Hibbard: Ok, alright, then without, you guys dont want to talk? To get on the same page? You dont have to. Im just
saying it might be helpful to check.
Meredith: Um, I dont know
Hibbard: Alright. You know Im probably going to ask you the same questions, so you know that Im going to ask you
what a star is.
Stephan: Umhm
Hibbard: Ok
Stephan: A ball of gas.
Hibbard: Ok, so you think its a ball of gas. Do you guys agree with Dwyane?
Meredith:Yeah
Ellen:

Its a ball of gas made of helium and nitrogen? I believe it says yeah it is.

Hibbard: Hmmm, yeah, it says helium and nitrogen, helium and I think it says hydrogen

19

Stephan: Hydrogen, yeah.

Hibbard: Helium and hydrogen, yeah, ok
Ellen:

It says the degrees as well, but, um, I dont remember where it says oh, 10 million degrees, oh jeez

Hibbard: Yeah, 10 million degrees, that sounds really, what? Hot or cold?
Stephan: Hot.
Ellen:

Yeah, hot.

Hibbard: Really hot, yeah.

Ellen:

Really.

Stephan: It would burn you.

Hibbard: Yeah, it would burn you.
Ellen:

The closer you get the hotter it is.

Hibbard: Yeah, absolutely. Any other interesting things that we need to know about stars?
Ellen:

Umhmm (indicating no)

Hibbard: It burns out.

Stephan: And becomes a dwarf
Hibbard: And becomes a dwarf star, yeah
Stephan: A red dwarf
Hibbard: So, its like stars grow and change.
Stephan: Yeah
Ellen:

Yeah, thats why there are so many.

Hibbard: Yeah, great. Anything else?

Meredith:Um, it said that they collapse on themselves or something like that

20

Hibbard: They collapse on themselves. Yeah, thats true. Yeah, when they are forming they collapse on themselves.
They start out at a gas cloud and then they get heavier and they kind of suck themselves into this ball and then
they are a star. And then as they age they sort of loose energy.
Meredith:I never knew that.
Hibbard: What did you never know?
Meredith:That they collapse on themselves.
Hibbard: They collapse on themselves. Yeah.
Meredith:When theyre forming.
Hibbard: Yeah. Thats very cool. Alright. Lets stop and Im going to ask you guys one on one so Ill ask Lydia and Dwayne
to step out. You guys can take the reading materials with you if you want. Step out for just two minutes and
Im going to interview Megan with the same questions and then Im going to ask you guys to each come in and
Ill ask you the same questions and that will be it.
Ellen:

Ok.

Hibbard: Ok? Cool, thanks.

Katherine Strong Hibbard
HUDK 5023: Cognitive Development, Fall 2014
Final Project: Clinical Interview

Transcript of Second Interview

with Ellen

Hibbard: So, I bet this isnt too surprising, but Im going to ask you the same questions. So, how well do you think you
know what stars are?
(Interruption)
Alright, Lydia, so Im going to ask you again before doing Part II to describe what a star is after doing the
reading and participating in the group conversation.
Ellen:

A star is a bunch of suns, just like I said before. And its made of hydrogen I cant say that word well and, um,
carbon dioxide

Hibbard: Ok

21

Ellen:

And when the star dies, it turns into a dwarf star and thats how after it dies and turns into a dwarf star, um, it
creates new stars they create new stars.

Hibbard: Great. Do you want to draw a picture of stars again, for me?
Ellen:

I dont know what they look like exactly so

Hibbard: Thats ok.

Ellen:

Im just going to recreate what I did last time.

Hibbard: Sure, did the reading help you visualize that a star looks like at all?
Ellen:

Um, it was just little dots really, so I dont really know still

Hibbard: Uhuh, ok, alright

Ellen:

Hibbard: Nah, dont worry about it.

Ellen:

Yeah, I cant do that one. But you know what I mean. Thats the fancy one.

Hibbard: Thats ok. Yeah, I get what youre saying. Ok great. Do you do you want to label anything?
Ellen:

Um, stars in general.

Hibbard: Ok, great. Alright, so you know what Im going to do at the very end, part II, do you think you know what
stars are and how well do you think you know what stars are?
Ellen:

Hibbard: Alright, great. Thank you so much.

Katherine Strong Hibbard
HUDK 5023: Cognitive Development, Fall 2014
Final Project: Clinical Interview

Transcript of Second Interview

with Meredith

Hibbard: Alright, here we go, same documents, this is trial II ok, Im going to give you that, but I think youre going to
opted out to not use it, which is fine.
Meredith: Yeah.

22

Hibbard: Alright, so, if you were to circle yes or no to tell me that you know what stars are, which would you circle?
Meredith: Umm
Hibbard: Yes? Ok, great. And um, how well do you think you know what stars are now?
Meredith:
Hibbard: Very well? Ok, great. So, what do stars what are stars like?
Meredith:Theyre, um, theyre a ball of gas. A star is very hot. And they are, like, sorta, like, theyre sorta like the sun;
really hot. And they are made out of gas. They are formed out of gas.
Hibbard: Great. Um, would you touch one?
Meredith: No, because they are very hot and they would burn.
Hibbard: What do they look like up close?
Meredith: Um, up close they they
Hibbard: Yeah, what do they look like up close, Megan?
Meredith:They, um, I guess they kind of look like the sun up close.
Hibbard: Ok, great. Is there anything else that you want to saw about stars?
Meredith: Um, yeah.
Hibbard: Alright. Cool. Thats it. So now, part II, Im going to ask you to just say how do you think you know what stars
are, yes or no?
Meredith:Um
Hibbard: And how well do you think you know what stars are?
Meredith:
Hibbard: Alright. Great. Thats it!


Katherine Strong Hibbard
HUDK 5023: Cognitive Development, Fall 2014
Final Project: Clinical Interview

Transcript of Second Interview

23

with Stephan

Hibbard: So, Im just going to ask you again, how confident are you in your knowledge of stars? Circle yes if youre really
confident and no if youre not confident.
Stephan:
Hibbard: Ok oh, thank you for putting your name on it. And um, how well do you think you know what stars are?
Stephan: Umhmm
Hibbard: How well oh, you said 5? Ok, great. So, um, Im just going to ask you the same questions, um, can you
describe what a star is?
Stephan: Its um, a ball of gas that has hydrogen and helium
Hibbard: Great.
Stephan: That, um, it turns when, um, it has no more, um, has no more, um, what do you call that? Um, it isnt, um,
when it doesnt have anymore, um like, to make it grow. Like our, um yeah, I think it shines, I think.
Because then it shines more and it becomes a red dwarf.
Hibbard: Ok.
Stephan: And its really hot. Lets see uh and it, and it also, uh, it drops.
Hibbard: It what?
Stephan: It could, uh, no, not drops, um, that, um, it, um, you could see, if you are really close,
Hibbard: Yeah.
Stephan: That, uh wait, that if youre really close, then, it um, then you can actually feel its heat.
Hibbard: Yeah.
Stephan: Like, like, its like the sun.
Hibbard: Great. Excellent. Cool. Well, um, that was wonderful, um, can you draw me a picture of a star or stars?
Stephan:
Hibbard: Nice. Alright great. Do you want to label it in any way?
Stephan: Thats the outer

24

Hibbard: Ok.
Stephan: Yeah, no thats the, um, inner, inner.
Hibbard: Inner, ok.
Stephan: And this is the outer.
Hibbard: Great. Alright. So, I bet this isnt surprising, but this is part II, would you, uh, answer these questions one more
time, how do you know what stars are? yes or no.
Stephan: Yeah.
Hibbard: And, how well do you think you know what stars are?
Stephan: Very well.
Hibbard: Great, alright, thats it. Thank you so much. Youre the best. Thanks for your time.
Stephan: Umhmm youre welcome.

25

iii. Materials

Meredith

26

Meredith

27

Meredith

28

Meredith

29

Ellen

30

Ellen

31

Ellen

32

Ellen

33

Ellen

34

Ellen

35

Stephan

36

Stephan

37

Stephan

38

Stephan

39

Stephan

40

Stephan

41