Understanding the earth

Frède, V., Nobes, G., Frappart, S., Panagiotaki, G., Troadec, B., & Martin, A. (2011). The acquisition of scientific knowledge: The influence of methods of questioning and analysis on the interpretation of children’s conceptions of the Earth. Infant and Child Development, 20, 432-448. DOI: 10.1002/icd.730

Nobes, G., Frède, V., & Panagiotaki, G. (2022). Astronomers’ representations of the earth and day / night cycle: Implications for children’s acquisition of scientific concepts. Current Psychology. 10.1007/s12144-021-02676-6

Nobes, G., Moore, D., Martin, A., Clifford, B., Butterworth, G., Panagiotaki, G. & Siegal, M. (2003). Children’s understanding of the earth in a multicultural community: Mental models or fragments of knowledge? Developmental Science, 6 (1), 74-87. DOI 10.1111/1467-7687.00257

Nobes, G., Martin, A., & Panagiotaki, G. (2005). The development of scientific understanding of the earth. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 47-64.

Nobes, G., & Panagiotaki, G. (2004). Children's and adults' understanding of the Earth. ESRC award report.

Nobes, G., & Panagiotaki, G. (2007). Adults’ representations of the Earth: Implications for children’s acquisition of scientific concepts. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 645-665. DOI: 10.1348/000712607X178119

Nobes, G., & Panagiotaki, G. (2009). Mental models or methodological artefacts? Adults’ ‘naïve’ responses to a test of children’s conceptions of the earth. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 347-363. DOI: 10.1348/000712608X332909

Panagiotaki, G. (2000). Is the earth flat or round? Young children's understanding of elementary astronomical ideas. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 62. Special Issue.

Panagiotaki, G. (2003). Is the earth flat or round? Knowledge acquisition in the domain of astronomy. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Sussex.

Panagiotaki, G., Nobes, G., Banerjee, R. (2006). Is the world round or flat? Children’s understanding of the earth. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 124-141. DOI: 10.1080/17405620500397732. Abstract

Panagiotaki, G., Nobes, G., & Banerjee, R. (2006). Children’s representations of the earth: A methodological comparison. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 2, 353-372. DOI: 10.1348/026151005X39116. Abstract

Panagiotaki, G., Nobes, G., Potton, A. (2009). Mental models and other misconceptions in children’s understanding of the earth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 52-67. DOI:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.10.003

Siegal, M., Nobes, G., & Panagiotaki, G. (2011). Children’s knowledge of the Earth. Nature Geoscience, 4, 134-136. DOI:10.1038/ngeo1094

Why study children's understanding of the earth?

Developmental and educational psychologists have been investigating children's and adults' knowledge of the earth for over 40 years. This area of scientific understanding is of particular interest because it offers unique opportunities to find out about the nature and development of people's beliefs and theories, and where their scientific knowledge comes from. It therefore has important implications for how science should be taught. These unique opportunities arise because, in many ways, the scientific view of the earth is counterintuitive and contrary to appearances. For example, the earth seems flat and stationary but is actually spherical and spinning, and people can live in Australia without falling off. These discrepancies between facts on the one hand, and intuitions and observations on the other, mean that scientific knowledge of the earth has to be taught: children cannot observe or work out these things for themselves. If it were found that some young children believe, for example, that the earth is a flat disc with an edge from which you can fall, then this would suggest that children construct their own ‘naïve theories’ based on their own observations and intuitions: no-one will have told them that it is this shape. On the other hand, if young children understand some counterintuitive aspects of the scientific view of the earth (e.g., that it is a sphere), and show no signs of 'naive theories', then this would indicate that, at least in this area of science, children's concepts are acquired from the culture, e.g., school, parents and the media. Children's developing understanding of the earth therefore provides a fascinating natural experiment in the sources (intuition or culture) of young children's developing scientific views.

Two contrasting views. Prominent proponents of the first account are Stella Vosniadou and William Brewer (e.g., Vosniadou, 1994, 1998; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992, 1994). They and their colleagues have shown repeatedly, in several different cultures, that children say the earth is flat or flattened with people on top, hollow with people inside, or dual, with one flat earth on which we live, and another, spherical one in the sky. These researchers claim that children must have strong intuitions that lead them to construct theories or ‘mental models’ such as the flat, hollow or dual earth.

These issues have been re-examined in a series of recent studies in Australia, Britain, Estonia, France, The Netherlands and Sweden (e.g., Frède et al., 2011; Hannust & Kikas, 2007; Nobes et al., 2003, 2005, 2009; Panagiotaki et al., 2006, 2009; Schoultz, Säljö & Wyndhamn, 2001; Siegal, Butterworth & Newcombe, 2004; Straatemeier, van der Maas & Jansen, 2008). Using different methods from Vosniadou and Brewer’s, these researchers report that even young children have some knowledge of the earth, in particular that it is spherical. In addition, little evidence for children having naïve mental models has been found. It has been suggested that, before the scientific view is acquired, the development of scientific understanding in this domain involves the gradual accumulation of ‘fragments’ of knowledge communicated to children piecemeal by their culture.

Figure 1. Examples of picture cards presented to children and adults in Nobes et al., (2005): the flat (disc) earth; the hollow sphere; and the spherical (scientific) earth. Like adults, children showed a very marked preference for the scientific earth pictures, indicating that they do not have naive 'mental models' of the earth.

Implications for science education. The two accounts of conceptual development lead to very different recommendations for science education. If children have naive mental models, then we should not expect them to be able to overcome their strong intuitions (e.g., that the earth is flat) during early childhood. The principal role of teachers would be to challenge these intuitions, and help children to gradually acquire the scientific theory over several years. In contrast, the second account suggests that children's intuitions are weak or non-existent, and so they can acquire some counterintuitive understanding relatively quickly and easily from an early age. If correct, even young children should be able to benefit from instruction about the earth and related aspects of physics.

Why the controversy? The answer almost certainly lies in the differing methods used by the two groups of researchers. Vosniadou and Brewer and their colleagues have tended to ask children to draw or make representations of the earth, and asked them open questions (e.g., what is the shape of the earth?). Their critics have instead given children ready-made pictures or models to choose from, and asked forced-choice questions (e.g., is the world round or flat?). Much of the debate between researchers in this field has focused on the various strengths and weaknesses of their different tests and questions.

There are also important differences in the methods of analysis. The mental model theorists claim that children have coherent naive theories if children's answers to questions conform to certain patterns (e.g., saying that the earth is earth is round, the sky is only on top, and that people live inside is consistent with a hollow earth mental model). They have indeed found that most - typically 80% - of children's responses fit these patterns. Critics of this approach have pointed out that, if they have any meaning, these patterns must occur more frequently than would be expected by chance. They have used various statistical methods of analysis to test for coherence. For example, if children have naive mental models, we would expect children who drew hollow earth pictures to give more hollow earth answers than children who drew flat earths. So far, these researchers have not found any statistical evidence of naive mental models.

Recent research with adults. In a series of recent studies, we (Nobes & Panagiotaki, 2007; 2009) have taken a new approach. Vosniadou and Brewer's questions - designed for children as young as five years - were given to university students. These educated adults were found to give very similar responses to those given by young children. Many said that the earth is flat and that people live only on top. Many drew earth pictures that were identical to those drawn by children that are supposed to depict flat, hollow and dual earths (Figs. 2-4). When we interviewed these adults, we found that, although some had some odd ideas about the earth, all knew that it is spherical. None believed it actually to be flat, hollow or dual. All who gave apparently naive responses said they did so because they found Vosniadou and her colleagues' questions confusing and ambiguous.

Figure 2. 'Flat earth' pictures drawn by a 6-year-old (left) and a 33-year-old undergraduate student (right). These pictures are actually more commonly drawn by adults than by children. (See Nobes & Panagiotaki, 2007; 2009)

Figure 3. 'Dual earth' pictures drawn by a 6-year-old (left) and a 24-year-old undergraduate student (right). (See Nobes & Panagiotaki, 2007; 2009)

Figure 4. 'Hollow earth' pictures drawn by a 7-year-old (left) and a 43-year-old undergraduate student (right). (See Nobes & Panagiotaki, 2007; 2009)

In our view, these findings indicate that the main reason for the controversy is that the proponents of the mental models account have been misled by children's responses to their ambiguous questions and instructions: if even university students find them confusing, young children are bound to find them almost impossible. This conclusion is supported by the results of another recent study: when we gave adults, and then children (Panagiotaki, Nobes & Potton, 2009) the same questions as Vosniadou and Brewer (1992), but worded less ambiguously, the proportion of non-scientific responses reduced dramatically.

If we are correct, children do not have naive mental models of the earth, and their understanding has been substantially underestimated by previous researchers. Morevover, children's beliefs about the earth do not seem to be influenced by their 'entrenched' intuitions (such as that the earth is flat, and that unsupported objects fall downwards); instead, children's scientific knowledge - at least in this field - has its origins in the culture. Children learn about the earth from adults, books, the internet and other cultural sources, rather than from their own intuitions or direct observations of the apparently flat earth.

ESRC award report (award reference RES-000-22-0235)

The Flat Earth Society

Alphapsy: Who thinks the Earth is flat?

The Psychologist: Science and how people draw the earth

BPS Research Digest: What on Earth...?

BPS Research Digest: 5 years on

Universe Awareness

The misunderstood history of flat earth theories

Flat earth convention