Intuition theory refers to the theory that managers only rely on signs and intuition when making decisions. This theory holds that human behavior is largely dominated by the subconscious mind. So what's the difference between children's intuition theory and adults' intuition theory? Let's learn more about children's intuition theory-mechanical theory!
Children's intuitive theory-mechanical theory lives in a world composed of countable objects, and there are also some concepts about material behavior. As physicist and educator AndreaDiSessa put it, these ideas are very powerful. He borrowed a word invented by Goethe and called these concepts "the original concepts of phenomenology"
Examples of these natural concepts include: dividing objects into hard and soft; It is believed that the greater the impulse, the more obvious the effect (even if the resistance increases, the effect will weaken); It is believed that the object will move towards the top. Regardless of the original speed or direction. For most purposes of daily life, these assumptions about object behavior are good enough. In fact, they are likely to be gradually acquired and shaped in the long evolutionary history of mankind. They work well in their daily life. However, Di Sesha also noticed. Each of these ideas, together with many other viewpoints, will eventually conflict with the principles that physicists have stated that govern the behavior of objects in the mechanical world.
Some of these primitive ideas strongly influence preschool children's views on things around them. One of them is related to various principles governing the behavior of objects. From about the age of three, children can distinguish between those objects that move by themselves and those that cannot move. According to Ge Shou and her research team, the former is considered to have "internal organs", that is, there is an internal mechanism that enables them to move according to their own records. The latter group of objects can only move by external forces. They can be manipulated by impulses given by external media. The strength and influence of these differences are highlighted by the fact that young children understand that dolls that look like people are actually dominated by external media principles, and so are mechanical toy monkeys. In contrast, a new and strange-looking animal, which has never been seen before, will be considered active because it has necessary internal organs.
Some people may think that these theories lurk in the hearts of children's pots, and only when real faces ask the right questions will they appear. But my own experience is that children will use these mechanical principles consciously and spontaneously at any time when facing problems. On the same day I was going to write this chapter, my wife and I complained that the car wouldn't start again, and I don't know why. Benjamin, a four-and-a-half-year-old son, offered advice: "I know why. Maybe when you were driving on the highway, a branch bounced up and hit a hill. This will make the car sometimes unable to move. When I asked, Benjamin couldn't tell me the basis of his nonsense. But he can offer such an explanation on his own initiative, which proves how sure he is that the scratch on the root of the dish is mechanical. But in principle, it can be discriminated and corrected. Generally speaking, as this example shows, T's understanding of mechanical mechanics is not limited to known examples, but should be proved by AnnBrown, and can be applied to new machines, works or quiet situations at any time, even if there was a lack of relevant clues at that time.
Children's intuitive theory-number theory and another kind of ability to classify entities as "material types" develop synchronously, which is the ability to deal with physical objects digitally, that is, to conceptualize things into sets of different sizes. As we can see, jugglers show a primitive sense of numbers, while four-year-olds with digital images like to count things everywhere. In addition, normal preschool children gradually develop another set of important understanding.
German is probably the most important scholar in the study of digital understanding at present, and he has some "principles" about numbers that can be widely used. Four-year-olds have learned that everyone in a line should be represented by one and only one number; The order of these numbers must remain stable; The last number is the number of individuals in the row; People can count any number of entities; As long as each individual is tagged only once, it doesn't matter what order any particular member in the row is tagged. Generally speaking, children like to estimate numbers, which is quite different from those attributes that seem to be more easily perceived, such as color, shape and size. They will immediately notice the change in the number of elements in the collection.
Case, a researcher in New piagetian school, assumes that there is knowledge about "digital lines"-mental models that can evaluate any entity according to numbers. It may be an exaggeration to say that such understandings are innate, but it is also misleading to say that they were acquired or acquired through any traditional education. In fact, assuming that Erpen lives in an environment where people always use numbers, it is inevitable that he will have such an understanding in the years before going to school.
Just like language, it is difficult for us to imagine how a young child can cope with the surrounding environment without budding digital ability; How to track the games, books, things and even friends around him; How to react only to objects in his living environment. Similarly, it is hard to imagine what would happen if the use of digital capabilities changed significantly. For example, suppose that each type of entity must be counted in a different way, or suppose that the counting method varies with the object you want to report or the purpose of counting, even if the whole concept of counting does not exist at all. In these cases, it is as if we are dealing with another person or even another creature.
Since children have a strong tendency to understand the digital field for a long time and are always ready to use the correct method to calculate, we have to ask, why does a more formal education in the field of mathematics cause such great difficulties to children (this question is simply an echo of another broken situation: why do almost all people have a certain oral ability, but often find it difficult to read, write and spell)? We will discuss mathematics in chapter 8. Perhaps what needs to be pointed out here is that being able to directly deal with several pots in the surrounding environment does not mean being able to operate several marks that were not available in the environment at that time. In addition, some practices that encourage use in digital cities may interfere with formal digital skills. For example, the practice of adding sets may hinder the addition of academic performance. Children naturally want to add the numerator and denominator, thinking that the answer obtained in this way is correct.
Children's Intuition Theory-Biological World Theory Perhaps the most powerful difference made by children is to distinguish two types of entities: one is a "living" object that can move by its own strength; The other kind can't move without external force, that is, "dead" or "inanimate" (these two kinds are considered equal at first). Human beings are typical creatures. The more similar an organism is to people (especially in appearance), the more it is considered to have human attributes and behaviors. So as long as children should know that humans have spleens, they will infer that monkeys must also have spleens, and dogs may also have spleens. They are not sure that mice and fish also have spleens, but they are likely to conclude that flies and butterfly spiders may not have spleens. If a four-year-old child hears that a pencil or a stone may have a spleen, he will also feel funny.
Susan Carey confirmed that these differences lead to an intuitive or popular biology, which is different from the subject-based biology learned in school. According to this intuitive life theory, animals are alive, but plants are not, because they can't move. Similar-looking creatures (fish and whales) are considered to have the same organs and functions, while different-looking creatures (such as penguins and robins) are considered to have different organs and functions. Kerry reinterpreted Piaget's early animism about children's concept as evidence to illustrate the nature of some similar movements (clouds move because they have the will to go somewhere), which is much more powerful than the evidence about internal structure (clouds have no nervous system, so since they have no internal organs, they will not move by themselves).
I believe that children's development is different in different fields, so she put forward an interesting hypothesis that children can develop various embryonic theories to describe about a dozen types of phenomena in the world. These theories include the essence of physical causality, the difference between representation and reality, and the operation of simple psychology, which reflect all directions of a thinking subject. This understanding has a wide range of applications. Kerry further speculated that these basic structures may eventually lead to some academic topics (physics, philosophy and psychology), trying to synthesize formal knowledge on these topics. If so, it is possible for children to directly face the differences and contradictions between their intuitive theory and the theory developed by experts in formal disciplines-and it will be very effective in education. In fact, unless such a positive challenge occurs, these intuitive theories are likely to continue to exist, and when the experts' theories are no longer supported by the school, they will reappear and gain a dominant position.
Because children live in a world composed of many substances, they can classify, count and conceptualize these substances, so they construct some very effective theories about matter and life. These theories at least retain the rough distinction between living (moving) matter and inanimate (mechanical) matter, and also include some understanding of living and inanimate entities. Preschool children can also understand that natural things in the world (so-called natural types, such as plants, animals and minerals) are different from things made by human beings (artificial objects, such as machines, toys and buildings). Moreover, they can draw a conclusion from these differences. For example, if something is alive but not moving, it may be sleeping, pretending to sleep or being injured.
For most intentions and purposes, these differences are enough. But as Ber-trand Russell said when talking about the non-intuitive nature of relativity: "Since we can't move so fast in our daily life, nature, which is always based on economy, only teaches us common sense at the level of daily life. In some traditional cultures that have not yet reached the writing stage, the understanding of five-year-old children is likely to be very close to that of the elders in the clan. In the modern western world, the rough distinction made by children lags far behind the understanding of the actual structure and operation principle of machines and organisms (as well as celestial bodies) based on academic subjects.