Early science instruction: addressing fundamental issues.

Kuhn and Dean (this issue) make a valuable contribution to the challenge of increasing the scientific reasoning skills of low-performing urban sixth graders. They describe a procedure that was highly effective in the short run, and they show how difficult it is to achieve long-term transfer with anything less than extremely detailed and direct instruction. In addition, their work raises important questions about the way that psychologists have approached the topic of children's scientific thinking. Although I concur with Kuhn and Dean about the significance of these questions, in this Commentary I offer a set of answers that differ from theirs. My comments concern matters of emphasis, definition, and effectiveness.