See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229598384

The Importance of Learning About Knowing: Creating a Foundation for

Development of Intellectual Values

Article  in  Child Development Perspectives · July 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00089.x

CITATIONS READS

40 324

1 author:

Deanna Kuhn
Columbia University
188 PUBLICATIONS   15,150 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thinking curriculum View project

Teaching and Learning by Questioning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deanna Kuhn on 02 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 C D E P
Journal Name
0
Manuscript No.
8 9
B Dispatch: 19.5.09
Author Received:
Journal: CDEP CE: Ulagammal
No. of pages: 6 PE: Karpagavalli

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

1
2
3
4
5 The Importance of Learning About Knowing: Creating
6
7
a Foundation for Development of Intellectual Values
8
9 Deanna Kuhn
10
11 Columbia University
12
13
14
15
16
17 ABSTRACT—How does understanding of knowledge and foundation for intellectual values, which, in turn, affect educa-
18 knowing develop and why is it important? I argue that it tional outcomes. If these claims are correct, we have an instance
19 provides a critical foundation for the development of intel- in which basic knowledge about psychological development has
20 lectual values, which in turn are central to educational implications for educational practice.
21 outcomes. Because evidence indicates that this develop-
22 ment does not routinely occur in the absence of specific INTELLECTUAL VALUES
23 efforts to support it, developmentalists need to join educa-
24 tors in seeking to identify the kinds of experiences that What are intellectual values? Few developmental psychologists
25 can best provide this support. have studied values, perhaps because of a lack of clarity about
26 exactly what they are. Social psychologists have defined values
1 KEYWORDS—xxx; xxx; xxx; xxx; xxx; xxxx.
27 as abstract goals people regard as important (Rokeach, 1973).
28 Although supported by feelings attached to them (Maio & Olson,
29 1998), values are most closely associated with attitudes and
30 Research on theory of mind and metacognition establishes that beliefs (Rokeach, 1968). Higgins (2007) characterizes values as
31 by the time they are in preschool, children have begun to under- involving norms about what goals are worth pursuing, as well as
32 stand much about mental processes, including even interactive beliefs about means for attaining and maintaining them. In
33 ones like teaching (Strauss, Ziv, & Stein, 2002) and learning one of the few discussions of the development of intellectual
34 (Sobel, Li, & Corriveau, 2007). Curiously and largely values, Resnick and Nelson-LeGall (1997) identify a number of
35 unconnected to this work has been a less visible line of research characteristics of those who value intellectual activity. Such
36 examining how conceptions of mental phenomena evolve beyond individuals, they claim,
37 preschool years. Here, I review what we know about what has
38 come to be called developing epistemological understanding from believe they have the right (and the obligation) to understand things
middle childhood onward, and make a case for what is important and make things work … [and] that problems can be analyzed, that
39
about it. solutions often come from such analysis and that they are capable
40
Research on this topic can be traced to a pioneering study by of that analysis. (pp. 149–150)
41
42 Perry (1970), followed by King and Kitchener (1994) and others,
Several further characteristics they cite have to do with the
43 and a growing number of researchers continue to investigate it
skills to implement these values.
44 (see Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Kuhn & Franklin, 2006; Moshman,
In an effort to assess intellectual values, Kuhn and Park
45 2005, 2008, for reviews). To anticipate my argument here, devel-
(2005) presented questions like this one to adolescents from sev-
46 oping beliefs about knowledge and knowing provide a critical
eral cultures:
47
48 Many social issues, like the death penalty, gun control, or medical
49 care, are pretty much matters of personal opinion, and there is no
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
50 Deanna Kuhn, Box 119, Teachers College Columbia University,
basis for saying that one person’s opinion is any better than
51 New York, NY 10027; e-mail: dk100@columbia.edu. another’s. So there is not much point in people having discussions
52 about these kinds of issues. Do you agree, somewhat agree, or
ª 2009, Copyright the Author(s)
53 disagree?
Journal Compilation ª 2009, Society for Research in Child Development

Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 112–117

 The Importance of Learning About Knowing 113

1 Although variability was high across cultures, many teens knower. At this absolutist level of epistemological understanding,
2 agreed, giving such reasons as ‘‘It’s not worth it to discuss knowledge is thus regarded as an accumulating set of certain
3 because it’s not something you can get a definite answer to,’’ or facts.
4 ‘‘There’s no point because you’re not going to get anywhere; During childhood, the absolutist level of thought prevails,
5 everyone has a right to think what they want to.’’ although there is progress toward what has been called an ‘‘inter-
6 Such statements of value also appear when young people talk pretive’’ theory of mind (Carpendale & Chandler, 1996; Chan-
7 about their own personal experience. Nathan (2005) reports the dler, Boyes, & Ball, 1990; Pillow & Henrichon, 1996). By age 8
8 following comments by college students about why they don’t or 9, children recognize that individual minds interpret reality
9 contribute to classroom discussions: and may do so in different ways. Someone may see the object a
10 masked man carries while fleeing a building as a gun, whereas
11 Opinions are personal. I don’t feel everyone needs to know my another sees it as something different. There remains an absolute
12 business. truth, however, that will be known once the relevant information
13 I don’t want people all upset with me if they don’t agree. is revealed. One person will be right and the other wrong. There
14 is no room for a legitimate multiplicity of viewpoints about any
15 Underlying these statements of value is a set of beliefs regard- knowledge claim. Claims regarding the causes of crime or
16 ing the nature of knowledge and knowing. Understanding their school failure are seen to have similarly certain answers (Kuhn,
17 development, I claim, is central to the study of intellectual val- 1991).
18 ues. What do we know about the origins and development of Although details vary across different researchers, there is
19 such beliefs? general agreement that further development is characterized by
20 transition to a multiplist, or relativist, level, followed by, in at
21 THE DEVELOPING COURSE OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL least some individuals, further transition to an evaluativist level.
22 UNDERSTANDING Although progression beyond absolutism is unlikely during
23 childhood, with early adolescence comes the likelihood of the
24 The origins of epistemological understanding lie in early child- striking shift to multiplism. The discovery that reasonable peo-
25 hood. Three-year olds make the now-classic error of unwilling- ple—even experts—disagree serves as a source of recognizing
26 ness to attribute to another a belief they know to be false the uncertain, subjective aspect of knowing. This recognition ini-
27 (Perner, 1991). The impossibility of false beliefs reflects an epis- tially assumes such proportions, however, that it eclipses recog-
28 temology in which all beliefs come directly from the external nition of any objective standard that could serve as a basis for
29 world, rather than being constructed by the knower. Hence, there evaluating conflicting claims. From the multiplist perspective,
30 are no inaccurate renderings of events, nor any possibility of knowledge consists not of facts but of opinions, freely chosen by
31 conflicting beliefs, because everyone apprehends the same exter- their holders as personal possessions. Everyone has a right to
32 nal reality. their opinions, which accordingly are not open to challenge.
33 Less often noted about the development of false-belief under- Knowledge is now clearly seen as emanating from the knower,
34 standing by age 4 or 5 is its foundational status in the develop- rather than the known, but at the significant cost of any discrimi-
35 ment of scientific thinking (Kuhn, 2002). Three criteria must be nability among competing knowledge claims.
36 met if one is to engage in the coordination of theory and evi- This progress in epistemological understanding can be charac-
37 dence, the essence of scientific thinking: The theoretical claim terized as an extended task of coordinating the subjective and
38 must be recognized as falsifiable, evidence must be recognized the objective elements of knowing (Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock,
39 as the means of falsification, and the theoretical claim and evi- 2000). By late adolescence, many, though by no means all, ado-
40 dence must be recognized as belonging to distinct epistemologi- lescents will have reintegrated the objective dimension of know-
41 cal categories—evidence must be distinguishable from the ing and achieved the understanding that although everyone has
42 theory itself and bear on its correctness. The three-year-old real- a right to their opinion, some opinions are more right than others,
43 ists just described meet none of these criteria. When asked for to the extent that they are better supported by argument and evi-
44 justification for a knowledge claim (that an event occurred), pre- dence. Justification for a belief becomes more than personal pref-
45 schoolers are likely to respond with a theory as to why occur- erence. Rather than facts or opinions, knowledge at the
46 rence of the event is plausible rather than with evidence it did in evaluativist level of epistemological understanding consists of
47 fact occur (Kuhn & Pearsall, 2000). judgments, which require support in a framework of alternatives,
48 Once it is recognized that assertions are produced by human evidence, and argument.
49 minds and need not necessarily correspond to reality, assertions
50 become susceptible to evaluation vis-à-vis the reality from which LINKS TO EDUCATION
51 they are now distinguished. Here the potential for scientific
52 thinking emerges. The products of knowing, however, for a time Among educators, science educators have perhaps shown the
53 still remain more firmly attached to the known object than to the greatest interest in epistemological understanding. It is essential

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 112–117

 114 Deanna Kuhn

1 for science students to come to understand that scientific knowl- about the nature and development of epistemological under-
2 edge is constructed by humans, not simply discovered in the standing, as well as its educational implications. Do students’
3 world (Duschl, 2008; Sandoval, 2005). By this criterion, middle- understandings of the nature of scientific inquiry reflect their
4 school and even high-school students do poorly, with many understanding of the nature of knowledge and knowing more
5 continuing to regard science from an absolutist stance as the broadly? If so, does this understanding develop in an integrated
6 accumulation of certain facts (Leach, Driver, Millar, & Scott, or in a piecemeal fashion? Or, a third possibility, as Louca, Elby,
7 1997; Smith, Maclin, Houghton, & Hennessey, 2000). The chal- and Hammer (2004) propose, does it remain entirely fragmen-
8 lenge to science students is thus to progress beyond the absolut- tary, unintegrated within as well as across knowledge domains?
9 ist position, coming to understand the role of human rational The extent to which evolving epistemological understanding pro-
10 construction and interpretation (with the inevitable subjective ceeds ‘‘of one piece,’’ rather than specific to different subject
11 element it introduces) as essential to science. Doing so entails domains, has clear theoretical implications for the nature of the
12 the construction of alternative possibilities (multiple representa-understanding in question and the developmental mechanisms
13 tions of truth, or theories) that need to be coordinated with involved, as well as implications for education, both within and
14 empirical evidence in an ongoing process. Theory-evidence beyond science.
15 coordination thus comes to be regarded as the essence of Progress in answering these questions may lie not only in con-
16 scientific work, and scientific knowledge as evolving and subject necting the largely independent research strands I have noted
17 to revision. here, but also in a closer analysis of what needs to develop,
18 Researchers in educational psychology have also investigated within and across domains. Toward this end, we have engaged in
19 epistemological understanding, although mostly among college a more qualitative examination of the challenges to epistemologi-
20 students and mostly as an individual-difference, rather than a cal understanding posed by different subject domains (Kuhn,
21 developmental, construct. Two questions have dominated this Iordanou, Pease, & Wirkala, in press), an analysis that we hoped
22 work. One is whether epistemological understanding is predic- would yield greater insight into the cross-domain question by
23 tive of academic performance—a relationship that has received asking the qualitative question of how the developmental chal-
24 modest empirical support (Buehl & Alexander, 2005)—although, lenges and progression in different domains are different, rather
25 as a review by Muis (2007) notes, the direction of causality, and than only the quantitative question of the degree to which perfor-
26 the mechanism involved, remain to be firmly established. The mance is parallel across them.
27 second question is whether students’ level of epistemological Recognizing the role of human interpretation, we have pro-
28 understanding is consistent across domains. Relevant studies, posed, poses somewhat different challenges in scientific and
29 reviewed by Muis, Bendixen, and Haerle (2006), have shown social domains. In the science domain, the entry of human inter-
30 some but far from perfect correspondence among college stu- pretation into what was previously regarded in absolutist terms
31 dents in levels of epistemological understanding across science as direct perception of a single reality is to be understood in
32 and nonscience domains (Buehl & Alexander, 2005; Buehl, positive terms: Science comes to be appreciated as a human con-
33 Alexander, & Murphy, 2002). It is not entirely clear what con- struction and interpretation as an essential resource for knowing.
34 clusions to draw from such findings, however, and, as Muis et al. The ‘‘filter’’ that human minds represent empowers the scientific
35 (2006) note in their review, the studies reported have been sub- endeavor.
36 ject to variable interpretations, supporting both domain-general- In the social domain, in contrast, when human subjectivity first
37 ity and domain-specificity. impinges on the absolutist realm of objective fact, it is typically
38 Researchers approaching the topic within a developmental regarded in negative terms, as the intrusion of human ‘‘bias’’—a
39 framework have also addressed the consistency question. necessary evil to be acknowledged and accommodated. The lin-
40 Despite considerable individual variation, a general finding has gering absolutist often looks for a way to get beyond this bias to
41 been that the transition to multiplism occurs more readily in a uncover the ‘‘true facts.’’ But the danger is one of a permanent
42 social science domain, such as history, but the transition to stall in the multiplist’s embrace of radical relativism (Chandler
43 evaluativism (involving the reintegration of the objective compo- et al., 1990), with the evil of subjectivity seen as overpowering
44 nent of knowing) is more readily achieved in a physical science the quest for any knowledge beyond subjective opinion—‘‘there’s
45 domain (Hallett, Chandler, & Krettenauer, 2002; Kuhn et al., no way of knowing anything because everyone sees it their own
46 2000; Mason, Boldrin, & Zurlo, 2006; Rowley & Robinson, way’’ (a position difficult to maintain in the domain of science).
47 2002; Tabak & Weinstock, 2005; Wainryb, Shaw, Langley, In the social domain, then, the major challenge is to conquer the
48 Cottam, & Lewis, 2004). view that human interpretation plays an unmanageable, overpow-
49 ering role. In the science domain, the major challenge is to rec-
50 TAKING STOCK ognize that human interpretation plays any role at all.
51 Our data (Kuhn et al., in press) support this interpretation of
52 These various findings, based on studies conducted within sev- the distinction between the two. We presented sixth graders with
53 eral largely independent strands of research, leave us uncertain 2 the scenarios shown in Appendix and asked them the same key

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 112–117

 The Importance of Learning About Knowing 115

1 questions regarding the certainty of knowledge: Could anyone oval, 2005). Returning to our topic of intellectual values, young
2 ever be certain about what happened in the Fifth Livian War? people are unlikely to engage vigorously in their own quest for
3 Or about why dinosaurs became extinct? What would help us knowledge unless they have developed a solid understanding of
4 become more certain? what is involved and it makes sense to them (Kuhn, 2005; Kuhn
5 Previous literature leads to a prediction of greater willing- & Pease, in press).
6 ness to relinquish the absolutist idea of certain knowledge At the same time, the relinquishment of absolutist conceptions
7 in the social domain and greater resistance to doing so in is fraught with challenge as it manifests itself in the many schol-
8 the science domain (Hallett et al., 2002; Kuhn et al., 2000). arly and everyday domains beyond pure science. The radical rel-
9 The goal in the Kuhn et al. (in press) study was to identify ativism of the multiplist position is common among
10 a problem in the science domain that would facilitate will- adolescents—well reflected in the ubiquitous ‘‘whatever’’ stance
11 ingness to loosen the absolutist’s commitment to knowledge characteristic of this life stage. It offers a solution to adolescents
12 as objective fact (and thereby foster developmental advance), trying to figure out what to make of disagreement among alleged
13 to a degree that would equal or exceed that observed in the experts. The challenge is to avoid a permanent stall at this level
14 social domain. Because dinosaur phenomena are situated in of thinking, one that threatens the development of the intellec-
15 a pre-human era, the firsthand observation by humans that tual values that support academic commitment and progress.
16 an absolutist conception requires is precluded. As a result, Unless they see the point of intellectual discourse, students are
17 the potential negative influence of human subjectivity (the not going to be disposed to involve themselves in it in any deep
18 ‘‘biased’’ observation that is a dominant concern in the way. They are more likely to embrace the apparent virtue of tol-
19 social domain) is minimized. In the dinosaur problem, then, erance, combining it with the vice of indiscriminability (of
20 the only way in which knowledge can advance is by means opposing views) and hence sliding down the slippery slope from
21 of the positive, constructive role of human theorizing and its everyone has a right to their view to all views are equally right.
22 coordination with various forms of indirect evidence. We Supporting this connection is evidence of a relation between
23 therefore predicted it would facilitate the transition from argument skills and epistemological understanding (Kuhn, 1991;
24 absolutism. Mason & Boscolo, 2004; Mason & Scirica, 2006; Weinstock,
25 Results supported this prediction. Performance on the dino- Neuman, & Glassner, 2006).
26 saur problem surpassed that on the Livia problem, despite the Better understanding of these developmental challenges puts
27 earlier noted findings that absolutism is relinquished and uncer- us in the best position to support young people’s progress as they
28 tainty more readily recognized in a social domain. Two thirds of engage them. All of the evidence indicates that progression does
29 sixth graders believed certainty was possibly in the Livia prob- not develop routinely in the absence of nurturing. There exists
30 lem, versus one third in the dinosaur problem. Something about here, then, a point of genuine intersection between developmen-
31 the dinosaur problem apparently loosened the absolutist commit- tal psychology and educational practice. In contrast to the first
32 ments of many of them. decade of life, during the second decade not all that might
33 develop routinely does so. The developmentalist can contribute
34 CONCLUSIONS knowledge of what needs to develop, sketch its course, and hope-
35 fully even gain insight into the mechanisms involved. Develop-
36 Although there remains a good deal more to learn about it, the mentalists and educators in collaboration can seek to identify
37 development of epistemological understanding, at least in broad the kinds of experiences that make it more likely to happen. My
38 stroke, follows a predictable course. The challenges involved in major goal here has been to identify how important it is to do so
39 this development, however, are different at different points and in the case of developing intellectual values.
40 across different domains in this evolution. Epistemological
41 understanding is indeed nuanced, as the Kuhn et al. (in press) REFERENCES
42 findings just described document. It does not develop ‘‘of one
43 piece.’’ Subject domain and context, as well as developmental Buehl, M., & Alexander, P. (2005). Motivation and performance
44 differences in students’ domain-specific epistemological belief
level, need to be considered. The view reflected here, nonethe-
profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697–726.
45 less, is that a developmental framework is the most fruitful one Buehl, M., Alexander, P., & Murphy, P. (2002). Beliefs about schooled
46 in which to conceptualize and examine the attainment of mature knowledge: Domain general or domain specific? Contemporary
47 epistemological understandings. Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449.
48 The transition from absolutist conceptions to recognition of the Carpendale, J., & Chandler, M. J. (1996). On the distinction between
49 fundamental role of human knowledge construction is indeed false belief understanding and subscribing to an interpretive theory
50 critical to a mature understanding of science. It provides an of mind. Child Development, 67, 1686–1706.
51 essential foundation for any deep appreciation for or engagement Chandler, M., Boyes, M., & Ball, L. (1990). Relativism and stations of
epistemic doubt. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50,
52 with a scientific field, a view science educators now widely
370–395.
53 endorse (Duschl, 2008; Leach et al., 1997; Metz, 2004; Sand-

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 112–117

 116 Deanna Kuhn

1 Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing Metz, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their
2 conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own
3 Research in Education, 32, 268–291. design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219–290.
Hallett, D., Chandler, M., & Krettenauer, T. (2002). Disentangling the Moshman, D. (2005). Adolescent psychological development: Rationality,
4
course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic morality, and identity (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5
content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 285–307. Moshman, D. (2008). Epistemic development and the perils of Pluto. In
6 Higgins, E. T. (2007). Value. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), M. Shaughnessy, M. Vennman & C. K. Kennedy (Eds.),
7 Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.) (pp. 454– Metacognition: A recent review of research, theory and perspectives
8 472). New York: Guilford. (pp. 161–174). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.
9 Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological Muis, K. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning.
10 theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to Educational Psychologist, 42, 173–190.
11 learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140. Muis, K., Bendixen, L., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and
King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San domain-specificity in personal epistemology research:
12
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a
13 Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3–54.
14 University Press. Nathan, R. (2005). My freshman year: What a professor learned by
15 Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? becoming a student. New York: Penguin.
16 In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge:
17 (pp. 371–393). Oxford: Blackwell. MIT Press.
18 Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the
University Press. college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
19
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of Pillow, B., & Henrichon, A. (1996). There’s more to the picture than
20 epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309– meets the eye: Young children’s difficulty understanding biased
21 328. interpretation. Child Development, 67, 803–819.
22 Kuhn, D., & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops and Resnick, L., & Nelson-LeGall, S. (1997). Socializing intelligence. In L.
23 how? In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), W. Damon & R. Lerner (Series Smith, J. Dockrell & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Piaget, Vygotsky and
24 eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, beyond (pp. 145–158). London: Routledge.
25 and language (6th ed.) (pp. 953–993). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco:
26 Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (in press). Beyond Jossey-Bass.
control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free
27
scientific thinking? Cognitive Development [Special issue, The Press.
28 Development of Scientific Thinking, B. Sodian & M. Bullock, Eds.]. Rowley, M., & Robinson, E. (2002). Adolescents’ judgements about the
29 Kuhn, D., & Park, S. H. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the evidential basis for complex beliefs. International Journal of
30 development of intellectual values. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 259–268.
31 Educational Research, 43, 111–124. Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies
32 Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific and their influence. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
33 thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–129. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. (2000). Sixth-
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (in press). What needs to develop in the grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school
34
development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction. science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition
35 Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of and Instruction, 18, 349–422.
36 progression in learning about ‘‘‘the nature of science’’‘: Issues of Sobel, D., Li, J., & Corriveau, K. (2007). ‘‘They danced around in my
37 conceptualization and methodology. International Journal of head and I learned them’’: Children’s developing conceptions of
38 Science Education, 19, 147–166. learning. Journal of Cognition and Learning, 8, 345–369.
39 Louca, L., Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2004). Epistemological resources: Strauss, S., Ziv, M., & Stein, A. (2002). Teaching as a natural cognition
40 Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. and its relations to preschoolers’ developing theory of mind.
Educational Psychologist, 39, 57–68. Cognitive Development, 17, 1473–1487.
41
Maio, G., & Olson, J. (1998). Values as truisms: Evidence and Tabak, I., & Weinstock, M. (2005). Knowledge is knowledge is
42
implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), knowledge? The relationship between personal and scientific
43 294–311. epistemologies. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and
44 Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Zurlo, G. (2006). Epistemological Technology Education, 5, 305–328.
45 understanding in different judgments domains. International Wainryb, C., Shaw, L., Langley, M., Cottam, K., & Lewis, R. (2004).
46 Journal of Educational Research, 45, 43–56. Children’s thinking about diversity of belief in the early school
47 Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding years: Judgments of relativism, tolerance, and disagreeing persons.
48 and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief Child Development, 75, 687–703.
change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128. Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Glassner, A. (2006). Identification of
49
Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation informal reasoning fallacies as a function of epistemological level,
50 skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. grade level, and cognitive ability. Journal of Educational
51 Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509. Psychology, 98, 327–341.
52
53

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 112–117

 The Importance of Learning About Knowing 117

1 APPENDIX ing in great celebration. After these dramatic victories, the South
2 Livians suffered some minor losses. But then a neighboring large
3 country intervened to stop further bloodshed.
4 THE LIVIA PROBLEM Despite their later setbacks, South Livia’s victory seemed
5 assured because of its position of strength. As a result of this
6 North and South Livia are two small countries that existed in the war, South Livians felt a new self-respect. They had felt embar-
7 1800s in Asia. There occurred a series of conflicts between the rassed by their previous defeats, but now they had proven they
8 two countries, termed the Livian Wars. Here are two brief were the equals of the North Livians. Because South Livians had
9 accounts of the Fifth Livian War that took place in 1878. achieved military respect, they were willing to work out differ-
10 ences through peaceful negotiations, thus ending the Livian
11 A Brief Account of the Fifth Livian War by J. Abman, Wars.
12 National Historian of North Livia
13 On July 19th 1878, during a national ceremony in North Livia to THE DINOSAUR PROBLEM
14 honor one of their national leaders, ceremonies were interrupted
15 by a sneak attack from South Livia. Thus began the Fifth Livian Dinosaurs dominated the Earth for nearly 150 million years.
16 War. Because the North Livians were caught by surprise, they Dinosaurs disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous Period,
17 were unprepared at first and the South Livians won a few early about 65 million years ago. There are different views about why
18 battles. Then North Livia began to win. But before the North Liv- dinosaurs disappeared. Recently, a new finding was reported—a
19 ians could reach a final victory, a neighboring large country layer rich in iridium near the geological layers of the Cretaceous
20 intervened to stop further bloodshed. Period.
21 Despite their early setbacks, the later sweeping victories of According to scientist Luis Alvarez, this finding supports his
22 the North Livians showed they would have won had the fighting view that dinosaurs died out when the earth was hit by a meteor-
23 continued. As a result of this war, South Livians finally recog- ite (meteorites contain a lot of iridium). The collision left enor-
24 nized anything they gained from North Livians would have to be mous amount of dust in the air that blocked the sunlight,
25 worked out through peaceful negotiations. So ended the Livian resulting in a long dark winter that caused plants to die. Dino-
26 Wars. saurs died from starvation and the very cold climate.
27 According to scientist Norman MacLeod, this finding supports
28 A Brief Account of the Fifth Livian War by N. Ivan, his view that dinosaurs died out because of the difficult climate
29 National Historian of South Livia conditions caused by a series of giant volcanic eruptions from
30 In the last war, North Livia had beaten South Livia, taken some deep in the earth (large quantities of iridium are found at the
31 of its land, and refused to leave. South Livia could no longer earth’s core). The volcanic eruptions filled the air with poison
32 accept this situation and spent much money to strengthen its mil- gas. This caused a greenhouse effect, which raised the Earth’s
33 itary. On July 20th, 1878, the Fifth Livian War began. The war temperatures. Dinosaurs died as a result of poisonous gas and
34 took place with rapid, dramatic victories for South Livia, result- very hot temperatures.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 112–117

 Author Query Form
Journal: CDEP

Article: 089
Dear Author,
During the copy-editing of your paper, the following queries arose. Please respond to these by marking up your proofs with the
necessary changes/additions. Please write your answers on the query sheet if there is insufficient space on the page proofs.
Please write clearly and follow the conventions shown on the attached corrections sheet. If returning the proof by fax do not
write too close to the paper’s edge. Please remember that illegible mark-ups may delay publication.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Query reference Query Remarks

1 AUTHOR: Please supply a maximum of six keywords.
2 AUTHOR: Please check and confirm. Table 1 has been changed to Appen-
dix section.
USING E-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION
Required Software
Adobe Acrobat Professional or Acrobat Reader (version 7.0 or above) is required to e-annotate PDFs.
Acrobat 8 Reader is a free download: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
Once you have Acrobat Reader 8 on your PC and open the proof, you will see the Commenting Toolbar (if it
does not appear automatically go to Tools>Commenting>Commenting Toolbar). The Commenting Toolbar
looks like this:

If you experience problems annotating files in Adobe Acrobat Reader 9 then you may need to change a
preference setting in order to edit.
In the “Documents” category under “Edit – Preferences”, please select the category ‘Documents’ and
change the setting “PDF/A mode:” to “Never”.

Note Tool — For making notes at specific points in the text

Marks a point on the paper where a note or question needs to be addressed.

How to use it:

1. Right click into area of either inserted
text or relevance to note
2. Select Add Note and a yellow speech
bubble symbol and text box will appear
3. Type comment into the text box
4. Click the X in the top right hand corner
of the note box to close.

Replacement text tool — For deleting one word/section of text and replacing it
Strikes red line through text and opens up a replacement text box.

How to use it:

1. Select cursor from toolbar
2. Highlight word or sentence
3. Right click
4. Select Replace Text (Comment) option
5. Type replacement text in blue box
6. Click outside of the blue box to close

Cross out text tool — For deleting text when there is nothing to replace selection
Strikes through text in a red line.
How to use it:
1. Select cursor from toolbar
2. Highlight word or sentence
3. Right click
4. Select Cross Out Text

Page 1 of 3
Approved tool — For approving a proof and that no corrections at all are required.

How to use it:

1. Click on the Stamp Tool in the toolbar
2. Select the Approved rubber stamp from
the ‘standard business’ selection
3. Click on the text where you want to rubber
stamp to appear (usually first page)

Highlight tool — For highlighting selection that should be changed to bold or italic.
Highlights text in yellow and opens up a text box.

How to use it:

1. Select Highlighter Tool from the
commenting toolbar
2. Highlight the desired text
3. Add a note detailing the required change

Attach File Tool — For inserting large amounts of text or replacement figures as a files.
Inserts symbol and speech bubble where a file has been inserted.

How to use it:

1. Click on paperclip icon in the commenting toolbar
2. Click where you want to insert the attachment
3. Select the saved file from your PC/network
4. Select appearance of icon (paperclip, graph, attachment or
tag) and close

Pencil tool — For circling parts of figures or making freeform marks

Creates freeform shapes with a pencil tool. Particularly with graphics within the proof it may be useful to use
the Drawing Markups toolbar. These tools allow you to draw circles, lines and comment on these marks.

How to use it:

1. Select Tools > Drawing Markups > Pencil Tool
2. Draw with the cursor
3. Multiple pieces of pencil annotation can be grouped together
4. Once finished, move the cursor over the shape until an arrowhead appears
and right click
5. Select Open Pop-Up Note and type in a details of required change
6. Click the X in the top right hand corner of the note box to close.

Page 2 of 3
View publication stats