An Investigation of the Relationships Between Executive Functions, General Cognitive Ability, Science Education and Explanatory Coexistence

Abstract

From a young age, children develop naïve thinking by observing the world around them (i.e., ‘the Earth is flat because it looks flat’). Correcting such naïve thinking is crucial for effective scientific learning and is a key goal in primary science education, but the process of correction is not easy, as even adults may make mistakes in conflicts between naïve and science thinking. Since the 2010s, empirical studies have suggested that naïve thinking is not simply replaced or changed by, but can coexist with science thinking, in a state of explanatory coexistence. Numerous studies have explored the underlying mechanisms of this explanatory coexistence, yet no consensus conclusion has been reached, although executive functions, general cognitive ability and science education are thought to be its influential contributing factors. This study therefore measures the relative contribution of each of these factors to explanatory coexistence and includes a case study from a non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) population, to expand the purview of its research findings. Two studies were conducted to gauge the relative contribution of explanatory coexistence's impact factors. Online computerised cognitive tasks, including four executive functions, one general cognitive ability and three naïve thinking tasks, as well as demographic questionnaires for science education, were used on cross-cultural populations. Study 1 recruited 262 adult participants from the United Kingdom. Results of correlation and path analysis showed that switching and inhibition played the most significant roles in explanatory coexistence. While executive functions and general cognitive ability were contributors; working memory and science education did not contribute to explanatory coexistence at all. Different contributing factors were also involved when task modality varied: while switching contributed to both picture- and text-based tasks, behavioural and interference inhibition contributed to picture-based naïve thinking tasks only, and general cognitive ability contributed to text-based naïve thinking tasks only. Such links were found to be robust across trials, regardless of naïve and science thinking being congruent or incongruent. Study 2 recruited 234 adult participants from China to conduct cross-cultural research. Using the same research method as in Study 1, results indicated that, unlike participants from the United Kingdom, behavioural inhibition did not predict naïve thinking, a discrepancy that might be caused by differences in response patterns adopted by participants across the two countries, with Chinese participants spending greater time obtaining more accurate results. Regarding the links between other contributing factors and explanatory coexistence, however, findings on modality and task trials were robust across both countries. In sum, results from this study shed light on science education from a cognitive perspective, and indicate the further need to integrate consideration of executive functions into pedagogy design with explanatory coexistence concepts.