↓ Skip to main content

Hands-on experience can lead to systematic mistakes: A study on adults’ understanding of sinking objects

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hands-on experience can lead to systematic mistakes: A study on adults’ understanding of sinking objects
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0061-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramón D. Castillo, Talia Waltzer, Heidi Kloos

Abstract

In line with theories of embodied cognition, hands-on experience is typically assumed to support learning. In the current paper, we explored this issue within the science domain of sinking objects. Adults had to make a guess about which of two objects in a pair would sink faster. The crucial manipulation was whether participants were handed real-life objects (real-objects condition) or were shown static images of objects (static-images condition). Results of Experiment 1 revealed more systematic mistakes in the real-objects than the static-images condition. Experiment 2 investigated this result further, namely by having adults make predictions about sinking objects after an initial training. Again, we found that adults made more mistakes in the real-objects than the static-images condition. Experiment 3 showed that the negative effect of hands-on experiences did not influence later performance. Thus, the negative effects of hands-on experiences were short-lived. Even so, our results call into question an undifferentiated use of manipulatives to convey science concepts. Based on our findings, we suggest that a nuanced theory of embodied cognition is needed, especially as it applies to science learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 22%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#13,220,975
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#216
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,232
of 316,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.