Science Education in Early Childhood Teacher Education: Putting Forward a Case to Enhance Student Teachers' Confidence and Competence

Research in Science Education 33: 467–481, 2003.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Science Education in Early Childhood Teacher Education:Putting Forward a Case to Enhance Student Teachers’

Confidence and Competence

Dawn GarbettAuckland College of Education

Abstract

New Zealand is moving towards increased qualification requirements for early childhood educators.There is an underlying assumption that there is a correlation between quality early childhood edu-cation, teacher qualifications and quality practices in teaching and learning. Two fields of literature,early childhood pedagogy and science specific pedagogy, are reviewed briefly to provide a frameworkwith which to consider why student teachers’ attitudes, misunderstandings and misconceptions inscience can limit their ability and willingness to create quality teaching and learning opportunities.The study reported in this paper highlights, in general, that early childhood student teachers’ subjectknowledge in science was poor. It also emerged that the student teachers were unaware of how littlethey knew and how this might affect their ability to provide appropriate science experiences foryoung children.

Key Words: early childhood education, pre-service teacher education, science education, teachereducation

The project reported in this paper coincided with a move in early childhood educationin New Zealand towards increased qualification requirements for early childhood ed-ucators. This shift has been formalised in the document “Pathways to the Future: NgaHuarahi Arataki, a 10-year Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education” (Ministryof Education, 2002). One of the three goals stated in this document is to improve thequality of early childhood education services through the introduction of professionalregistration requirements for all teachers in teacher-led early childhood educationservices by 2012. An underlying assumption is that there is a strong correlation be-tween quality early childhood education, teacher qualifications and quality practicesin teaching and learning.

The project undertaken explored early childhood student teachers’ confidence andcompetence in a wide range of subjects. It was designed to help understand howstudent teachers’ background knowledge influenced their confidence and ability toteach in an early childhood setting (Garbett & Yourn, 2002). This paper focuses onthe student teachers’ perceived and actual understanding of science concepts and thereasons why the curriculum module in the Bachelor of Education (Early ChildhoodEducation) course was revised to provide a broad science knowledge base. What thestudent teachers did not know about basic science concepts was the starting point forrevising the curriculum module in the first year. Of equal importance was the need

468 DAWN GARBETT

to maintain their confidence and willingness to integrate science into their teachingpractice. An assumption was made that if student teachers were to provide a learningenvironment that was rich in opportunities for young children to explore and makesense of science concepts then the student teachers themselves needed to have thescience knowledge, the pedagogical skills and the ability to synthesise the two inappropriate ways in order to make science accessible to young children.

Supporting this assumption was the literature in the area of early childhood ped-agogy that acknowledged the tension between the quality of care that children re-quire and an increasing expectation of an educative outcome for children in earlychildhood settings in New Zealand (Nally, 1995; Educational Review Office, 1998;Ministry of Education, 2002). Furthermore, the literature pertaining to the sciencespecific pedagogy was also considered when revising the module. A brief review ofboth literature fields precedes a report of the first year student teachers’ perceivedand actual understanding in science knowledge.

Early Childhood Pedagogy

The underlying ethos of the early childhood education curriculum in New Zealand,Te Whaariki (Ministry of Education, 1996), recognises the complex partnership be-tween the child, their family and the teachers – all of whom construct a curriculum tosuit their many varied needs in diverse and unique settings. Essential to the processof creating the curriculum is the interpretation, development, refinement and ongoingreflection on practice, process and product.

The pedagogical orientation of Te Whaariki requires the teacher to share under-standings in the role of active participator with children. Smith, Grima, Gaffney,and Powell (2000) clarify this role with their comment that “Teachers do not simplytransmit knowledge to passively receiving children, but they share meanings andunderstandings, and children take an active and inventive role” (p. 67).

Early childhood teachers need to extend children’s learning in what Meade (1997)calls “teaching moments” (p. 36). They need to be proactive when scaffolding chil-dren’s learning, and bear in mind that “learning drives development rather thandevelopment drives learning . . .” (p. 37). Taking into account and valuing children’sideas as the basis for developing further understandings is the starting point of aconstructivist pedagogy. Children’s experiences shape the intuitive understandingsand theories that they construct as they make sense of the world around them. Theteacher’s role in this process is as a supportive, knowledgeable ‘other.’

Teachers’ subject knowledge impacts on their pedagogical content knowledge andability to make new ideas and understandings accessible to young learners. The depthof subject content knowledge can affect the ability of the teacher to ask meaningfuland appropriate questions. Carlson’s (1991) research with teachers of older childrenrevealed that the less the teacher knows the more often discussions with the childrenare going to be dominated by the teacher. The result is that children are given lessopportunity to interact. The less competent the teacher is, the more difficult it is

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 469

for them to follow the child’s lead and explore topics by asking the right questions,initiating the appropriate activities or directing the line of inquiry with confidence.

Planning becomes limited and defined by what the teacher knows rather thana meeting of knowledge between teacher and learner. The analysis of other stud-ies presented by Kallery and Psillos (2001) support the finding that “. . . teachers’knowledge on the content they teach influences the way they represent that con-tent to students” (p. 167), and that personal subject content knowledge impacts onthe perceived confidence of prospective teachers. Children bring a range of under-standings and interests into the early childhood setting that need to be identified bythe teacher in order to be planned for accordingly. Approaching the curriculum inthis way becomes more difficult for the teacher with a limited subject content base(Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985). In order for an early childhood teacher toteach confidently and proficiently in a range of subject areas the need to provide asound basis of general knowledge has become more important in teacher preparationprogrammes (Garbett & Yourn, 2002).

Science Specific Pedagogy

Early childhood practitioners are viewed as having a specialised body of knowl-edge and, as Edwards and Knight (2000) highlight, this includes knowledge aboutchildren, teaching, learning and the curriculum that can be translated into meaning-ful practice. The teacher must plan learning experiences that engage and challengechildren in thinking that is conceptually rich, coherently organised, and persistentlyknowledge building. An effective early childhood teacher is going to be one whocan facilitate and extend children’s learning within the holistic nature of the earlychildhood curriculum without being overcome by the traditional notions of teaching.In the curriculum area of science this is particularly difficult since teachers often donot have the requisite background knowledge to integrate content and pedagogy ontheir own. Many authors (recent examples include Kelly, 2000; Wolf-Watz, 2000;Elliot, 2000; Watters, Diezmann, Grieshaber, & Davis, 2001) have commented thatthe school science experience of most prospective primary and early childhood teach-ers has been a passive, teacher-driven collection of facts. This has a marked effecton attitudes towards and an understanding of the nature of science and frequentlyobstructs any new perspectives on engaging in science activities. As Elliot (2000)points out, teachers rarely have the capacity to teach children how to discover andsolve novel problems, evaluate the strength and nature of evidence, use reason tosupport conclusions and question claims in science when their own experiences havebeen limited.

In the science education literature much has been written about children’s ideas inscience. These ideas are also called misconceptions, naïve views and alternative con-ceptions (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). Scientific ideas are often counterintuitive. Forexample, it would appear that the sun goes down rather than the earth is turning. Chil-dren make sense of their experiences and develop their own knowledge and workable

470 DAWN GARBETT

theories to explain the world around them. Levitt (2001) posits that learning in sci-ence is more a matter of altering prior conceptions than giving explanations wherenone existed before. Begg (1999) reiterates that knowledge is personally constructedfrom new experiences and that every learner has ideas prior to learning which affectthe way they make sense of what they are being taught. Harlen (2000) claims thatchildren pay attention to what they perceive through their senses rather than the logicthat may suggest a different interpretation. They may hold onto ideas even thoughcontrary evidence is available because they have no access to an alternative view thatmakes sense to them. These ideas, developed in the earliest years, are tenacious andoften difficult to alter (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Harlen, 1997; Sanders & Morris,2000; Watters, Diezmann, Grieshaber, & Davis, 2001; Fleer, 2002). In fact, if theyremain unchallenged these misconceptions may well persist throughout schooling.

The literature reviewed highlights the challenges of developing a curriculum mod-ule within the early childhood degree structure that would enhance students’ abilityto teach science. The subject area is viewed traditionally as a collection of difficultideas and concepts to learn by rote and of little worth, as such, in the early childhoodsetting. The constructivist approach to learning promulgated in Te Whaariki standsin direct contrast to this. However, in knowledgeable hands, science education in theearly childhood setting presents numerous opportunities to explore a wealth of richlearning experiences with the child.

Gathering Information

A cohort of first year student teachers enrolled in the Bachelor of Education degreewere the case study participants. Questionnaires were given to collect data at thestart of the semester as part of a larger study to ascertain student teacher confidenceand competence across a full range of curriculum subjects. One hundred studentteachers were invited to complete the questionnaires and 57 were completed andreturned anonymously. The questionnaire provided demographic information suchas ethnicity and gender and levels of educational attainment in each subject area.

Within this questionnaire, student teachers were asked to rank their confidenceand competence in applying subject knowledge in early childhood settings using5-point Likert-scale items. For example, they were asked to respond to the state-ment “In general my background knowledge in science is adequate for applicationin early childhood settings” by ticking the appropriate box from strongly disagreeto strongly agree. Subject knowledge was defined by the New Zealand CurriculumFramework (Ministry of Education, 1993) into seven areas – science, mathematics,english, health and physical education, the arts (drama, dance, music and art), socialstudies and technology (craft, woodwok, cooking, sewing and technical drawing).This information was intended to give the researchers comparative data for the stu-dent teachers’ actual and perceived competence and confidence in different subjectareas.


Also in this questionnaire, student teachers were asked to write their most vividschool memory of their experience in each of the curriculum areas. The responses tothis question were to give some indication of attitudes and feelings towards each ofthe subjects.

A second set of data was collected from the same cohort using a science knowl-edge test to determine their actual and perceived competence in science contentknowledge in the first lecture. All of the student teachers sat a 73 question multiplechoice test based on the British Quality Teacher Status (University of Cambridge,1998). The test covered the four strands in the New Zealand Science Curriculum doc-ument – biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy. This gave a general indicationof the student teachers’ actual competence in science.

Student teachers were asked to predict the number of correct answers they hadmade in each of the four strands. The data gathered from this indicated their percep-tion of their own subject knowledge competence. Due to the first questionnaire beinganonymous it was not possible to match the results of the test and their predictionswith their personal background information.

In summary, the student teachers were invited to participate in a larger project byanswering a questionaire which provided demographic details and data concerningparticipants perceived and actual competence and confidence in each of the subjectareas. Further to this, all student teachers were required to sit a multichoice sciencetest and to predict their own results. This was intended to give a second measure ofstudent teacher’s actual and perceived understanding in science.

Results

Questionnaire

Background information

The participants in this study were all female aged between 18 and 50 years. Theyrepresented 15 different nationalities with 27 European New Zealanders, 2 Maori, 9from developing Pasifika countries (e.g., Samoa, Tonga, Fiji), 13 Asians (Chinese,Japanese, Korean) and women from South Africa, Ethiopia, Nepal, India and thePhillipines.

The participants were asked to record their grades in their highest level of ed-ucation in each of the subject areas. Although the data collected was incomplete,some participants failing to record any grades or levels of subjects taken at school orUniversity, Table 1 shows the number of student teachers who did record grades ineach of the curriculum areas.

The number of participants taking each of the sciences at and above Year 11(which is when they are first offered in New Zealand schools as separate subjects)was also noted. Table 2 shows the number of student teachers who recorded levels ofattainment in the three sciences.

472 DAWN GARBETT

Table 1Number of Student Teachers Having Completed Subject to this Level

Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 University

Science 18 3 0 2

Mathematics 16 11 4 5

English 11 18 6 9

Art 7 8 2 2

Social studies 7 3 0 4

Physical Ed. 6 8 2 5

Information technology 2 4 2 3

Table 2Number of Student Teachers Having Completed Single Science Subject to this Level

Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 University

Biology 7 17 3 3

Physics 1 2 0 2

Chemistry 1 4 0 2

Perceived confidence and competence

The first Likert scale question asked student teachers to indicate their personalconfidence in their ability to communicate subject knowledge in each of the subjectareas. They were asked to rate their confidence from most confident = 1 to leastconfident = 5. The second question asked them to rate their competence in theirsubject knowledge in each of the subject areas using the same 1–5 scale. Table 3shows the percentage of student teachers who rated each subject as most confidentand most competent, rated 1.

In another question, student teachers were asked whether they agreed or disagreedwith the statement that their background knowledge in each of the subject areas wasadequate for application in early childhood settings. Table 4 shows the results of thisquestion.


Table 3Student Teachers’ Rating of Subject in Which They Were Most Confident orCompetent

Subject % rating most confident % rating most competent

Science 8.8 6.9

English 12.1 10.3

Social studies 13.8 12.7

The arts 21.1 22.4

Mathematics 22 17.2

Technology 22 16.9

Health & Phys. Ed 23.2 21.8

Table 4Student Teachers’ Response to the Question on Adequacy of Their BackgroundKnowledge

Subject Disagree strongly Disagree Agree Agree strongly

(%) (%) (%) (%)

Technology 8.5 21.2 26.9 3.8

Science 3.8 11.3 47.2 15.1

Mathematics 9.1 5.5 54.5 20

The arts 0 9.1 54.5 27.3

Social studies 0 7.3 60 14.5

English 0 5.7 64.2 15.1

Health & Phys. Ed. 0 5.6 66.7 16.7

Science Knowledge Test

Actual competence as measured by the multichoice test

As a way of determining student teachers’ actual competence in science a multi-choice test was administered. The test was based on the benchmark audit for Britishprimary student teachers. The British study tested over 600 student teachers andreported that 71% scored more than two-thirds of the possible marks (University ofCambridge, 1998). By comparison, the results for this particular cohort of student

474 DAWN GARBETT

Table 5Number of Student Teachers Scoring per Quartile

75–100% 50–74% 49–25% 0–24%

Biology 16 28 8 0

Physics 5 31 15 0

Chemistry 8 22 18 4

Astronomy 13 9 16 14

Test overall 4 30 18 0

teachers (n = 52), 16% scored more than two-thirds. The marks ranged from a lowof 29% to a high of 82%. Although there are acknowledged limitations of multi-choice assessment this test served the purpose of gaining an overview of the generalstandard of scientific understanding in a large cohort. Table 5 shows how manystudent teachers scored in each of the quartiles broken down into single subjectsand over the test in it entirety.

Student teachers tended to score better in biology with 85% scoring more than halfof these questions correctly compared with 65% in physics, 56% in chemistry, and42% in astronomy.

Perceived competence

As a way of measuring their perceived competence student teachers were asked topredict their scores in each of the strands. Those who scored above average tendedto predict lower scores while those who scored poorly tended to overestimate theirresults. Very few student teachers (3) predicted their actual score within a 10%margin of error. For every close prediction there were two cases of overestimating(e.g., predicted 57 correct, actual score 42) and four cases of underestimating (e.g.,predicted 15 correct, actual score 33). More student teachers underestimated whatthey would score in all of the strands except astronomy where numbers were moreevenly distributed between accurate predictions and over or under estimations.

A Discussion of the Results

The data collected from the two different sources highlights that student teach-ers in this cohort had poor background knowledge in science. Compared to Britishprimary student teachers they scored considerably lower in the multi-choice test.The number of students who reported their level of attainment at school was low.Although this data is incomplete, it could be taken as support for Alton-Lee and


Praat’s (Alton-Lee & Praat, 2000) assertion that the calibre of the student attractedto the earlychildhood sector has tended to be academically less qualified than thoseattracted to primary and secondary teaching. The opportunity to staircase onto theBachelor of Education (Early Childhood Education) degree via a pass in a Certificatecourse means that a number of student teachers with little or no formal academicqualifications are enrolled. Many of the student teachers thought that their sciencesubject knowledge was adequate for teaching at early childhood level and their ownperception of their knowledge in science was at variance with their actual knowledge.The reasons why this should be particularly evident in science relates mainly to theirschooling which has been affected by their gender and ethnicity.

All of the student teachers in this cohort were female and they had selected sub-jects from within the school curriculum which were positioned as “traditionallyfeminine,” the arts and English rather than “traditionally masculine,” mathematicsand science (Alton-Lee & Praat, 2000). It would be wrong to assume that the qualityor quantity of experiences received at school would be the same for girls and boys.Attitudes towards science are typically stereotyped and since the vast majority ofearly childhood teachers are females they will carry the typical stereotyped viewforward (Alton-Lee & Praat, 2000). When student teachers were asked to write abouttheir school experiences in different subjects, their comments provided evidence thattheir experiences had been influenced by their gender. One student teacher reportedthat she wasn’t given the option to do science subjects as these were “consideredboys’ subjects.” One claimed that she was the “only girl in the physics class” whileanother stated that “as a female felt inferior” in science. As shown in Table 2, biologywas the only science taken in significant numbers once the subject became optionalat the Year 12 level. The number of student teachers having taken any science atYear 13 or University was low in comparison to the other subjects.

Fewer student teachers opted to rank science as the subject in which they feltmost confident and competent than any other subject as shown in Table 3. However,when they were asked if their background knowledge in science was adequate morethan 60% thought that it was while only 15% thought that it wasn’t. The numberof student teachers who thought their background knowledge in mathematics wasinadequate was similar to science but more student teachers (74%) thought they hadsufficient background knowledge in mathematics for an early childhood setting. Allother subjects, except for technology, were weighted more heavily towards studentteachers feeling that their background knowledge was adequate for application in anearly childhood settings.

The results throughout the project that relate to technology are confused by therecent introduction of the term technology to cover what used to be home economics,clothing, woodwork and metalwork and Information and Communications technol-ogy (previously known as computing). It became apparent as the data was analysedthat the questionnaire failed to distinguish adequately between the terms and studentswere confused.

Results from the multichoice test show that student teachers had a better under-standing of biology with 85% scoring more than half correctly. Astronomy was the

476 DAWN GARBETT

area where more student teachers performed poorly although chemistry ideas werealso confused.

An example of the questions (Figure 1) asked in each section and how many ofthe student teachers chose each answer is given here as an indication of the standard.I have asterisked the correct answer.

Example 1: Which of the following (A–D) best describes the role of the circulatorysystem in humans?1 Carries food to body cells2 Carries oxygen around the body3 Carries waste productsA 1, 2 and 3 (3)∗B 1 and 2 only (29)C 2 and 3 only (6)D 1 and 3 only (14)

Example 2: Two small bar magnets are suspended by threads 10cm apart. Which oneof these pictures shows how they will come to rest?The results for this question were:A (24)∗, B (7), C (6), D (14).

Despite widespread use of magnets attached to miniature train sets and magneticwands in early childhood centres only 24 student teachers selected that oppositepoles attracted one another.

Example 3: A drop of water containsA one molecule of water (11)B one hundred molecules of water (6)C one thousand molecules of water (9)D millions of molecules of water (26)∗

Example 4: Day and night occur because theA Sun rotates (2)B Earth rotates (28)*C Sun goes round the Earth (8)D Earth goes round the Sun (14)

Figure 1: Example questions and frequense of responses.


Another question in the last section about astronomy asked student teachers topick the correct explanation for the phases of the moon. Fewer selected the correctanswer: “because we see the moon from a different angle at various times of thelunar month” (23) than “because the earth casts a shadow on the moon” (26).

Most student teachers’ perception of their competence in science was inaccurate.This was shown when they were asked to predict their own scores in each of thesections. Underestimating scores could be as a result of them anticipating poor resultsas a learned outcome, general lack of confidence, the response to down-play knowl-edge and competence which may be a gendered trait, or luckier than anticipatedguesswork. Similarly those who overestimated their marks may have recorded whatthey would like to get, or they thought they knew more than they did. Whatever thereasons, there was little correlation between their perceived competence and actualcompetence as measured by this test. Student teachers seemed confused and ignorantof their own understanding and/or misunderstanding in science.

Student teachers’ ethnicity also appears to influence their school experiences andexpectations. The women from the developing Pasifika countries have had differenteducational experiences. One commented that her experience in science was limiteddue to the lack of equipment and that she had dropped the subject because of this.Several of the Asian students commented on their test papers that they had found itdifficult to remember the science concepts but that they had learned these in school.It is important to appreciate that student teachers from different ethnic backgroundsmay well have a different knowledge base to work from and be at a disadvantage.Teacher educators need to plan accordingly to ensure that they can support all studentteachers to achieve appropriate levels of competence.

Implications for My Practice

As the questionnaire was analysed and the results of the multichoice test andstudent teachers’ predictions became apparent, the curriculum module was revisedto provide more science content knowledge. Clearly, there were implications havinguncovering previously unchallenged misconceptions. Many of these student teachershad a limited understanding of science concepts and also did not know what they didnot know! With such a limited subject content base the quality of interactions thatstudent teachers would have with children in a science context would be affected. Thestudent teachers were encouraged to reflect on their own competence and the impactthis would have in early childhood settings. We discussed the position of a teacherwho was unaware of their own misconceptions not being able to provide childrenwith appropriate explanations nor ask questions that would allow children to developaccurate understandings. Following constructivist principles, student teachers wereasked to discuss in small groups their prior knowledge and, through a series of guidedactivities which challenged and supported developing understanding, there was con-siderable movement towards a more scientific understanding and an appreciation of

478 DAWN GARBETT

the vast scope that science offered to enrich the everyday experiences in the earlychildhood setting.

It was important to foster confidence in the student teachers’ abilities to interactmeaningfully with children in the teachable moment rather than provide ready, fac-tual answers to their questions. It was not the intent, nor was it within the scope ofthe module, to deliver a content laden course that would form the basis of contentknowledge for transmission to children. Rather, as Harlen (1997) indicates, the aimwas to enable teachers to ask appropriate questions:

that lead children to reveal and reflect on their ideas, so that they can avoid “blind alleys,” so they canprovide relevant sources of information and other resources, so they can identify progress and the nextsteps that will take it further. (p. 335)

In my feedback to these student teachers I was mindful of the need to enhancetheir confidence as I directed them to appropriate texts that would improve theirunderstanding in certain areas. While some students would be empowered by poortest results to tackle their knowledge deficits, it seemed unlikely to be a motivatingfactor for most of these student teachers. Sanders and Morris (2000) in an analysisof Initial Teachers’ Training (Primary) in mathematics, found that students eitherdisbelieved the test result or placed a lower priority on the subject knowledge in asimilar situation. It is important that student teachers acknowledge responsibility fortheir own continued learning and that their teachers establish a positive environmentin which they feel confident to explore and construct their own knowledge.

I needed to consider the likely preconceptions females have of subject contentknowledge when revising the curriculum module and took steps to challenge stereo-typical views. In this module a typical “masculine” subject area such as electricitywas demystified though the use of torches. The student teachers were encouragedto participate in a hands-on practical experience. In other sessions I highlighted thescience involved in a typical “feminine” subject area such as cooking to considerchemical change. There was general consensus in informal discussions that sciencewas rarely seen in early childhood settings except for the ubiquitous nature table.After consideration, student teachers could name several instances when scienceconcepts could have been explored further if they had been more attuned to the pos-sibilities. When they were asked whether they would teach a topic like electricity thatthey knew little about they replied that they had to have a good knowledge base andthat there was “nothing worse than giving misinformation. Even to a preschooler it isdefinitely the wrong thing to do.” They acknowledged that they may not know every-thing and that responding to a child with “Look, let’s go and explore it together,”was a “right thing to do” (student teachers’ comments in response to question posedin interview). In this respect I believe that the module had given student teachersincreased confidence to explore a wider range of science experiences.


Conclusion

This study provided evidence that, in general, the student teachers’ subject knowl-edge in science was poor. It also emerged from the study that the student teacherswere unaware of how much they didn’t know and how this might affect their abilityto provide appropriate science experiences for young children. In fact, only 15% ofthe participants considered that their science background knowledge was inadequatefor application in the early childhood setting.

This information was used for the ongoing development and refinement of the cur-riculum module in the first year of an early childhood teacher education programme.The literature supported the need for subject content knowledge to be reinforced,explored and examined at the student teacher level if they were to enhance the learn-ing experiences of children in early childhood settings. At the same time, exploringpedagogical content knowledge allowed student teachers appropriate ways of makingthis knowledge accessible to young children.

Student teachers should realise that their own negative attitudes, misunderstand-ings and misconceptions, particularly in science, can limit their ability and willing-ness to create quality teaching and learning opportunities in early childhood settings.Science education at this level is of the utmost importance and value as youngchildren learn to make sense of the world around them.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the valuable critique provided by Alan Ovens andBelinda Yourn and funding support from the Research Grants Committee, AucklandCollege of Education.

Correspondence: Dawn Garbett, Auckland College of Education, New Zealand,E-mail: [email protected]

References

Alton-Lee, A., & Praat, A. (2000). Explaining and addressing gender differences inthe New Zealand compulsory school sector: A literature review. Wellington, NewZealand: Research Division, Ministry of Education.

Begg, A. (1999). Constructivism: An overview and some implications. Unpublishedseminar, Auckland College of Education, New Zealand, 11 May 1999.

Carlsen, W. (1991). Effects of new biology teachers’ subject-matter knowledge oncurricular planning. Science Education, 75, 631–647.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. MiltonKeynes, UK: Open University Press.

480 DAWN GARBETT

Educational Review Office. (1998). The use of Te Whaariki. Wellington, NewZealand: Ministry of Education.

Edwards, A., & Knight, P. (2000). Subjects and the early years curriculum ineffective early years education: Teaching young children. Philadelphia: OpenUniversity Press, 123–142.

Elliot, A. (2000). Effects of sociocultural contexts and discourses on science andtechnology teaching in early childhood education. In J. Hayden (Ed.), Land-scapes in early childhood education: Cross national perspectives on empower-ment – a guide for the new millennium (pp. 393–408). New York: Peter LangPublishing.

Fleer, M. (2002). What I know about . . .? What does the research tell us about earlychildhood and primary children’s thinking in science. The Journal of the ScienceTeachers Association of Western Australia, 38(2), 11–15.

Garbett, D., & Yourn, B. (2002). Student teacher knowledge: Knowing and under-standing subject matter in the New Zealand context. Australian Journal of EarlyChildhood, 27(3), 1–6.

Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in theclassroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323–337.

Harlen, W (2000). The teaching of science in primary schools (3rd ed.). London:David Fulton Publishers.

Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2001). Pre-school teachers’ content knowledge in sci-ence: Their understanding of elementary science concepts and of issues raisedby children’s questions. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(3),165–179.

Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for con-tent pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 22(7), 755–777.

Levitt, K. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teachingand learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1–21.

Meade, A. (1997). Good practice to best practice: Extending policies and children’sminds. In New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Early Childhood. Fo-lio 3:A collection of recent research (pp. 33–40). Wellington, New Zealand: NewZealand Council for Educational Research.

Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Welling-ton, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whaariki. Early childhood curriculum. Welling-ton, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2002). Pathways to the future: Nga Huarahi Arataki. A 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education. Wellington, New Zealand:Learning Media.

Nally, P. (1995). Curriculum development and professional development in the earlychildhood sector. Proceedings of Sixth Early Childhood Convention, TamakiMakaurau, Auckland, September 5–8, 208–216.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. The implications ofchildren’s science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.


Sanders, S., & Morris, H. (2000). Exposing student teachers’ content knowledge:Empowerment or debilitation? Educational Studies, 26(4), 397–408.

Smith, A. B., Grima, G., Gaffney, M., & Powell, K. (2000). Early childhood educa-tion: Literature review. Otago, New Zealand: Report to the Ministry of Education,Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

University of Cambridge. (1998). The science knowledge audit. Cambridge, UK:Research and Evaluation Division, University of Cambridge Local ExaminationsSyndicate.

Watters, J., Diezmann, C., Grieshaber, S., & Davis, J. (2001). Enhancing scienceeducation for young children: A contemporary initiative. Australian Journal ofEarly Childhood, 26(2), 1–7.

Wolf-Watz, M. (2000). Student teachers’ beliefs about science. Journal of In-serviceEducation, 26(2), 403–413.

Documents

Science Education in Early Childhood Teacher Education: Putting Forward a Case to Enhance Student Teachers' Confidence and Competence