The Journal of Emergent Science - Home | ASE 15... · Systemizing (ES)Theory by BaronCohen (2002). The basis of his theory is that every human brain has two dimensions. On the one

PRIMARY SCIENCETEACHING TRUST

whyhh &howoo ?w

The Journal ofEmergent ScienceIssue 15 Summer 2018

PRIMARY SCIENCETEACHING TRUST

whyhh &howoo ?w

Editors:Amanda McCrorySuzanne Gatt

Executive Editor: Jane Hanrott [email protected]

Cover Photo Courtesy of: iStock.com/DGLimages(see article on page 13)

Publisher:Association for ScienceEducation (ASE) College Lane,Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9AA, UK

©ASE 2018ISSN: 20464754

ContentsIssue 15 Summer 2018

Editorial Contributions

2017 ESERA Conference special issue

3. Editorial

4. Guest editorial. Coral Campbell

6. Systemising and empathising in early years science – a videobased study withpreschool children. Nina Skorsetz and Manuela WelzelBreuer

13. Preschool children’s collaborative science learning scaffolded by tablets – a teacher’s view. Marie Fridberg, Susanne Thulin and Andreas Redfors

20. Potential for multidimensional teaching for ‘emergent scientific literacy’ in preschool practice. Sofie Areljung and Bodil Sundberg

28. Reflections on guidance to orientate untrained practitioners towards authenticscience for children in the early years. Linda McGuigan and Terry Russell

37. Teaching science in Australian bush kindergartens – understanding what teachers need. Coral Campbell and Christopher Speldewinde

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT)

46. Reflections on and analysis of the use of drama techniques and dialogic practicesin teaching science in a primary school. Clarysly Deller

57. Teachers’ attempts to improve assessment practice in primary science areinfluenced by job role and teaching experience. Isabel HopwoodStephens

67. News from the Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT)

Regular features

68. Guidelines for authors

70. About ASE

The Journal of EmergentScience (JES) is published by ASE in partnership with the Primary Science TeachingTrust (PSTT).

It is free to access for all.

Editoriall Amanda McCrory l Suzanne Gatt

Editorial JES14 Winter 2017/18 page 3

For this Special Issue of JES, we are very fortunateto have Dr. Coral Campbell from Deakin Universityin Geelong, Australia as a guest editor, whoexplains – further on in her own Editorial – theimportance of the focus of this issue – the 2017ESERA Conference. Coral has been involved inindustry, school and tertiary education for manyyears, and her research interests lie in practitionerlearning and students’ understanding in scienceand STEM, in all areas of the schooling sector. Hermore recent research has focused on earlychildhood STEM.

We would like to thank ESERA for their kindpermission to publish the extended abstracts ofsome of the 2017 Conference contributions in thisedition. In particular, we are very grateful toProfessor Costas Constantinou, President ofESERA, for his support. We will publish a secondcollection in issue 16.

In addition, this issue includes two articles from thePrimary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT), both ofwhich give interesting insights into science in the

primary classroom. The first, written by ClaryslyDeller, reflects on how drama techniques anddialogic practices can be used to effectively teachaspects of primary science. The second, by IsabelHopwoodStephens, grapples with the tensionsthat classroom practitioners face when attemptingto improve assessment practice in primary science.Both articles make for thoughtprovoking reading!

We very much hope that you enjoy the varied andengaging articles presented in this issue of JES.

Amanda McCrory, Institute of Education,University College of LondonEmail: [email protected]

Suzanne Gatt, Faculty of Education, University of MaltaEmail: [email protected] of the Journal of Emergent Science

Editorial

Editorial JES14 Winter 2017/18 page 3

Welcome to this edition of the Journal of EmergentScience (JES), which highlights some very interestingresearch through some short papers presented at the2017 European Science Education ResearchAssociation (ESERA) Conference in Dublin, Ireland.

Firstly, let me explain that the two JES Editors haveasked me to write this Editorial, as I was the personwho approached them about this special edition.This was as a consequence of my role as ESERAEarly Childhood (EC) Science Special Interest Group(SIG) Coordinator, a role shared with EstelleBlanquet. At the ESERA Conference in 2017, theSIG discussed ways to improve the visibility andimpact of early childhood science. Jane Johnstonand Lady Sue Dale Tunnicliffe were the originalEditors of JES as well as the first ESERA EC ScienceSIG coordinators, so it seemed fitting that ESERAand JES were associated again through this edition.

At the recent Conference in Ireland, there was asignificant increase in the number and type ofpapers submitted around topics of research intoearly years science education. For example, whenthe SIG started (2009), there were approximately15 people who submitted papers in two sessions. In2011, in Lyon, there were three sessions and 19papers presented, as well as quite a few posterpresentations, each with a standard synopsis paperof the research. In 2017, the number of paperspresented through six paper presentation sessions,two symposium sessions and one poster session,had increased to 35.

The indications, from the increasing number ofsubmissions to the conferences, imply that earlychildhood science education is receiving morenotice in the science education researchcommunity and is attracting more researcherslooking at the depth and breadth of scienceeducation provision in early childhood.

In this edition of JES, we have included theextended abstracts from some of the presentationsdelivered in Dublin. Obviously, we could not publisheverything, but feel that these offer a ‘taster’ of theinternational research happening across the globe.It is intended to include some more of theseabstracts in issue 16 of JES, later in the year. Also,if you would like further examples, please refer to

the ESERA website (https://keynote.conferenceservices.net/programme.asp?conferenceID=5233).

Contributors to this edition include:

p Reflections on guidance to orientate untrainedpractitioners towards authentic science forchildren in the early years – Linda Mcguigan andTerry Russell.

p Potential for multidimensional teaching for‘emergent scientific literacy’ in preschoolpractice – Sofie Areljung and Bodil Sundberg.

p Preschool children’s collaborative sciencelearning scaffolded by tablets – a teacher’s view –Marie Fridberg, Susanne Thulin and AndreasRedfors.

p Teaching science in Australian bushkindergartens – understanding what teachersneed – Coral Campbell and ChristopherSpeldewinde.

p Systemising and empathising in early yearsscience – a videobased study with preschoolchildren – Nina Skorsetz and Manuela WelzelBreuer.

I attended as many sessions as I could, and enjoyedthe variety of research being undertaken and therobust discussions afterwards. Interestingly, I attended the European Early Childhood EducationResearch Conference a short time after ESERA andfound yet more early childhood science paperspresented there. There were significantly fewer ofthem, but still of excellent quality and, of course,discussion was engaging.

Guest Editoriall Coral Campbell

Guest Editorial JES15 Summer 2018 page 4

I invite you to sit back, read and enjoy the contentof this edition of JES. If a particular article intriguesyou, please follow it up with the author – it is likelythat further research has been published in the lastfew months.

Coral CampbellDr. Coral Campbell is an Associate Professor inscience education at Deakin University in Victoria,Australia. Her research interests include earlychildhood and primary science/STEM education.

Guest Editorial JES15 Summer 2018 page 5

AbstractChildren are very different in their motivation to doscience. An approach used to explain thesedifferences in the motivation for science could bethrough the EmpathizingSystemizing (ES)Theory(BaronCohen, 2009). This theory states that everyperson’s brain has two dimensions: the systemisingand the empathising. Both dimensions can bemeasured with a questionnaire and represented in anEQ and a SQvalue.

People with a high SQvalue are called ‘systemisers’and tend to search for systems behind things;‘empathisers’ orientate themselves to other people’sfeelings. Systemisers are generally more engaged inscience and more motivated to do science thanpeople with a high EQvalue, who are stronger inempathising (Zeyer et al, 2013).

The main goal of this study is to find out if preschoolchildren with various EQ and SQvalues actdifferently in different scientific learningenvironments. Children were observed during twopedagogically differently arranged learningenvironments, to investigate potential differentbehaviour. In this study, the brain types with respectto the EQ and SQvalues of 4 to 6 yearold preschool children were determined with a 55item EQSQ questionnaire (Auyeung et al, 2009), which wastranslated into German. In terms of a designbased

research approach (Collective, 2003), the testedchildren were videoobserved while participating in the two different scientific learning environments,in spring 2015 and 2016.

Results seem to show that children with a high SQvalue, as reported in literature, tend to be moremotivated to do science than children with a highEQvalue. Children with a high SQvalue weremotivated in both learning environments, whichcould lead to the interpretation that these childrenare motivated to do science independent from thepedagogical arrangement of the learningenvironment. For children with a high EQvalue, no such correlations for their motivation to doscience were found. They seem to be less motivatedin both learning environments than children withhigh SQvalue. More research is needed.

Keywords: Early years science, videobasedresearch, designbased research

IntroductionStarting point: DiversityChildren in kindergarten are often very motivatedto do science, but this motivation varies from childto child and fades away with age (Patrick &Mantzicopoulos, 2015). One usual explanation forthe different motivation to do science is the genderdifference between boys and girls. A slightlydifferent approach for explaining differences in themotivation for science is the EmpathizingSystemizing (ES)Theory by BaronCohen (2002).The basis of his theory is that every human brainhas two dimensions. On the one hand, there is the‘empathising’ dimension, which is defined by thedrive to ‘identify another‘s mental states and torespond to these with an appropriate emotion, inorder to predict and to respond to the behaviour ofanother person’ (BaronCohen et al, 2005). On theother hand, there is the ‘systemising’ dimension,

l Nina Skorsetz l Manuela WelzelBreuer

Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 6

Systemising and empathising in early years science – a video-basedstudy with pre-school children

This paper has also appeared in: Finlayson, O.,McLoughlin, E., Erduran, S. & Childs, P. (Eds.)(2018) Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017Conference. Research, Practice andCollaboration in Science Education. Dublin,Ireland: Dublin City University.

ISBN 9781873769843. Reproduced here with permission from ESERA.

which is defined as ‘the drive to analyze or constructsystems’ (BaronCohen, 2009, p.71). Withquestionnaires, the measure of the peculiarity ofboth dimensions – called EQ and SQ – can bedetermined (Billington et al, 2007).

People with a high SQvalue, called ’systemisers’,are generally more engaged in science than peoplewho are stronger in empathising (Zeyer et al, 2013,p.1047). In BaronCohen’s studies, it seems that thetwo dimensions are independent from each other.BaronCohen and his colleagues calculated thedifference between the EQ and SQvalue andstatistically identified five socalled brain types:Extreme Empathisers; Empathisers; Balanced;Systemisers; and Extreme Systemisers. Furtherstudies showed that the two dimensions do notdepend on each other and the concept of braintypes was sometimes misleading, because a personcan have a balanced brain type, with either twosimilarly high EQ and SQvalues or two similarminor values (SvedholmHäkkinen & Lindeman,2015, p.366).

Zeyer et al (2013) showed that only the SQvaluehas an impact on the motivation to do science. Sofar, the relation between the SQvalue andmotivation for science has not been tested withyoung children, only with high school students.However, the EQ and SQvalues can be measuredfor 411 yearold children using a combined 55itemEQSQ Child Questionnaire, which was validated ina large study with over 1500 participants (Auyeunget al, 2009). In this case, the parents filled out thequestionnaire for their children.

In this current study, the goal is to find out whetherthere are differences in motivation betweensystemisers and empathisers when attendingscientific learning environments at kindergarten(Skorsetz & Welzel, 2015). Maybe children withdifferent brain types need different forms of accessto science (Zeyer et al, 2013, p.1047)?

What is motivation?Before we can find out how motivated preschoolchildren are when participating in scientific learningenvironments, we have to first define the term‘motivation’. A useful definition is: ‘Motivation is aninternal condition that elicits, leads and maintainsthe children’s behaviour’ (Glynn & Koballa, 2006).

‘Motivation’ is here being considered to bemotivation to learn something, or the desire togather knowledge (Artelt, 2005). Motivation can beseen as ‘time on task’ (Artelt, 2005, p.233) spentfocusing on the subject. If somebody is motivatedto learn something, s/he will probably spend moretime on it.

There are several constructs concerningmotivation. Following Glynn & Koballa (2006),these are, for instance, intrinsic/extrinsicmotivation, goal orientation, selfconfidence, selfdetermination and anxiety (Glynn & Koballa, 2006).Thus, the challenge is to observe different aspectsof motivation, knowing that ‘motivation cannot beobserved directly’ (Barth, 2010). Different types ofinstruments measure the amount of motivation,such as the Leuven’s scale ofinvolvement/engagement (Laevers, 2007). Withinthis measure, Laevers specified different signs ofmotivation: bodily posture, attentiveness,endurance, accuracy, responsiveness andcontentment. If we assume that someone ismotivated when s/he follows attentively in asituation, we can observe the different focus ofattention that the children choose in the scientificlearning situations, and their duration.

Early years science in German kindergartensIn German kindergartens it is common practice touse two different approaches to do science. Themain difference between these two approaches isin the degree of structuring of the didactical andmethodic arrangements used. An aspect that bothways have in common is that the learningenvironment often starts with the exploration of a natural phenomenon.

The first applied approach is ‘rather structured’,because the idea is that the child coconstructs newknowledge with others: for example, in astructured experiment an instruction is followed byan interpretation and guided by questions andinterventions of the teacher (Lück, 2009). In thisway, the learning environment is led and structuredby the preschool teacher. The preschool teacherand the children are often sitting around a table.The materials to be used are displayed by theteacher on a dark pad and labelled by both teacherand children. A manual is used, which is followedusing a stepbystep procedure.


The experimentation phase is followed by aninterpretation phase, where the children try to find an explanation for the phenomenon.

For the other approach, the idea is that the child makes holistic (nature) experiences togetherwith others, in a playful way and in acommunicative setting. Hence, s/he has thepossibility to identify him/herself with somebodyelse, or with a situation in a social setting, forexample through a fictional framing story (Schäfer,2008, 2015). The children and the teacher are oftensitting on the floor in a circle and the materials aredisplayed. A framing story is ‘told’ by a puppet, forexample, and the story ends with a problemencountered by the puppet, which has to be solvedby the children. After the story, the children havetime to explore the materials or the phenomenonand solve the problem in their own way, in order to‘help’ the puppet.

Research questionsThe main goal of this study is to find out how preschool children with different EQ/SQvalues actand react in different didactical and methodicallearning environments, on the same scientifictopic. In other words, we are observing children in the two different learning environments in orderto investigate potential different behaviour.

Our hypotheses in this context are:

p H1: Systemisers could be more motivated to do science in more structured learningenvironments because of their higher SQvalue,which leads them to search for systems.

p H2: According to Zeyer et al (2013), we assumethat fictional stories and the possibleidentification with protagonists shouldespecially motivate empathisers to do science.An additional idea is that learning environmentsthat include time to explore the materials couldbe motivating for empathisers.

Based on these hypotheses, we developed thefollowing research questions in order to finddifferences between the children in two contrastinglearning environments. First, we have to find outwhether different EQ and SQvalues can be foundamong preschool children:

p RQ1: To what extent do preschool children showempathising or systemising characteristics?

At first, all tested children in the first year of theproject and of both brain types participated in amore structured setting. In the following year,other tested children (the ‘next generation’), againof both brain types, participated in the moreexploratory learning environment. So, our researchquestion is specified for the two settings:

p RQ2: To what extent is the influence of brain typeor of the EQ and SQvalue reflected indifferences in children‘s actions in a ‘ratherstructured’ (RQ 2.1), or a ‘rather open’ (RQ 2.2),learning environment based on the behaviourchosen for measurement and its duration?

MethodIn order to answer the research questions, ourstudy was organised in three steps:

p (1): implementation of the EQSQ ChildQuestionnaire (developed by Auyeung et al,2009);

p (2): implementation of the more structuredlearning setting, and of the rather exploratorytype of learning environment; and

p (3): analysis of correlations between the braintype of the children and their actions in thedifferent learning settings.

(1): At first we had to translate and validate the EQSQ Child Questionnaire (Auyeung et al, 2009) in order to determine the EQ and SQvalues ofevery child in a communicative validation process(Lamnek et al, 2010). The questionnaire was givento the children’s parents because of the young age of the children participating in the study. The tested children were 56 years old and were inthe last year of kindergarten before enteringprimary school.

(2): In order to measure different actionsconcerning the children’s motivation and toinvestigate if these were independent of thedidactical and methodological arrangement of thelearning environment, a twostep procedure wasfollowed, where children participated in one of the


two contrasting scientific learning environments.Both learning environments were based on thesame scientific phenomenon: ‘absorbencyproperties of different materials’ (Krahn, 2005). The learning environments were theorybased andevaluated using the Design Based Researchapproach (DBR Collective, 2007).

One of the mixed groups of tested childrenparticipated in the ‘rather structured’ approach; theother group participated in the ‘rather open’approach. The children’s behaviour (n=50) wasobserved (videorecorded) carefully. The sameprocedure was performed with the ‘rather open’approach in the following year. The videotapesformed the basis for the empirical analysis, usinginductively developed observational categoriesfocusing on what the children were looking at(Mayring, 2008).

(3): The third and last step was to calculatestatistically the correlation between the compiledEQ response and SQvalues with the data from thevideo analysis, in order to find the expectedsignificant differences between the two groups ofchildren (Bortz & Döring, 2006).

ResultsThe EQSQ QuestionnaireThe analysis of the questionnaire was carried outwith the participation of different researchers fromdifferent faculties in order to achievecommunicative validation (Lamnek et al, 2010).About 17 scientists, who usually meet regularlyduring a seminar, participated in this twostepprocedure. For the pretest, the first version of thequestionnaire in German was trialled with a motherand her child in that age group. From this, weobtained answers to the questions, as well ascomments about the clarity of the questions. Afteranother communicative validation process with theabove research group, based on the mother’scomments, the second and improved version of thequestionnaire was finalised. The pilot studyfollowed, with the questionnaire administered to25 parents of preschool children. The internalconsistency of the results was tested statistically.Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated andshowed acceptable coefficients for empathy items(α=0.81), as well as for systemising items (α=0.61).

This result is in accordance with the literature(Auyeung et al, 2009). Thus, we can conclude thatthe translated questionnaire was valid and reliable.Overall, 112 children were tested by thequestionnaire during data collection in the spring of2015 and spring 2016.

Development, implementation and analysis of the learning environmentBoth learning environments were based on thescientific phenomenon of absorbency. We expectedthe children to recognise this phenomenon fromsituations experienced at home and in kindergartenand involving the spilling of fluids.

For the study, children with brain type/EQ and SQvalue participated in the learning environmentin groups of four. All activities were videorecordedusing two video cameras filming the sequencesfrom different angles. During the summers of 2015and 2016, 99 preschool children, aged 56, fromseven different kindergartens in the area ofHeidelberg, Germany, were filmed.

The data collection of the ‘rather structured’learning environment took place in spring/summer2015 in 15 settings with 52 children. The datacollection of the ‘rather exploratory’ learningenvironment comprised of 14 settings with 47 children, which was implemented inspring/summer 2016. Hence, the total number ofvideo material added up to about 10 hours.

The two videotapes of each setting were inputtedin the evaluation software programme Videograph(Rimmele, 2012) and synchronised. Inductively, we developed eight observation categories withthe focus on the children’s viewing directions.These included children looking:

p Towards the preschool teacherp Towards other childrenp At the experimentation materialp Towards the observer/into the camerap Aroundp At material not relevant to the immediate

situationp Indistinguishablep At anything else



Table 1: Correlations (‘rather structured’ learning environment).

Next, we converged categories 4, 5 and 6 into anew category, ‘Distraction/ Attentiveness’. The 6th category involved material that the childrenstored in their pockets, or experimentationmaterial that had been used before but was nolonger relevant. The 8th category was not used. A manual was produced.

The videotapes of both learning environmentswere then analysed in detail according to themanual. All videos were analysed by two coders. In the ‘rather structured’ learning environment, the children’s viewing directions were gathered forthe whole setting. With the software programmeVideograph, the duration was measured as apercentage independent from the duration of thesetting. Different codes were identified anddiscussed in the communicative validation process(Lamnek et al, 2010). The same procedure was

followed with the ‘rather exploratory’ learningenvironment. In contrast to the first setting, thecoding of the viewing directions of the childrenstarted just after the end of the presentation of the framing story.

CorrelationsIn order to answer the second research question,the EQ and SQvalues of each child werecorrelated using the videoanalysed data. Table 1shows the results of the correlations of the datafrom the ‘rather structured’ learning environmentand the children’s EQ and SQvalue. Twosignificant values were identified in this onetailedSpearman correlation: r=–.31* (negativecorrelation between SQ and ‘View to material thatis not relevant right now’, row 3, column 9) and r=–.28* (negative correlation between SQ and

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Difference − .69** – .38** − .03 – .16 .16 −.01 –.10 −.18 –.142 EQ −.32** .12 −.22 −.11 –.09 –.06 −.09 −.083 SQ −.21 .04 .00 −.07 −.02 –.31* –.28*

Notes: Difference = Difference EQ/SQ = Brain Type, EQ = relative EQvalue (2); SQ = relativeSQvalue (3), Teacher = View towards Preschool Teacher (4), Children = View towards otherChildren (5), Exp.mat. = View towards the Experimentation Material (6), Cam. = View towardthe Observer/into the Camera (7), Around = View around (8), Mat. n. r. = View t. Material that isnot relevant right now (9), Distraction (10)* p < .05, ** p < .01. (onetailed)

Table 2: Correlations (‘rather open’ learning environment).

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Difference −.68** .56** −.02 .04 .02 −.03 .01 .34** –.14 −.022 EQ .20 –.05 .17 .11 –.02 –.14 .28* −.08 –.143 SQ .04 .20 .11 −.01 −.12 –.23 .13 −.16

Notes: Difference = Difference EQ/SQ = Brain Type, EQ = relative EQvalue (2); SQ = relativeSQvalue (3), Teacher = View towards Preschool Teacher (4), Children = View towards otherChildren (5), Exp.mat. = View towards the Experimentation Material (6), Cam. = View towardthe Observer/into the Camera (7), Around = View around (8), Mat. n. r. = View t. Material that is not relevant right now (9), Puppet = View towards Handpuppet (10), Distraction (11)

‘Distraction’, row 3, column 10). This means thatchildren with a higher SQvalue tend to be morefocused on the scientific related aspects.

In Table 2, the results of the correlation in the ‘ratherexploratory’ learning environment with thechildren’s EQ and SQvalues are displayed. Ourstudy has relevant correlation with a significantvalue (r=.28*, row 2, column 9) between the EQvalue and the ‘view towards material that is notrelevant right now’.

This means that children with a higher EQvaluetend to focus on nonrelevant aspects, so they seemto be more distracted than children with a higherSQvalue. Another significant value is r=–.34**(variable difference, row 1, column 9) between thechildren’s brain type and the ‘view towards materialthat is not relevant right now’. This result could beinterpreted as children with a higher SQvalue (inthe difference accumulated) focusing less ondistracting material. This could also be interpretedas meaning that, again, children with a high SQvalue are more motivated to do science.

LimitationsLooking critically at the data, we have to take intoaccount specific limitations. Firstly, the parentsfilled in the EQ/SQ Child Questionnaire andevaluated their own children. Some of theiranswers could be socially desirable.

Secondly, characteristics (perhaps relevant) otherthan the EQ and SQvalues were not collectedthrough the questionnaire (e.g. socioeconomicalbackground, intelligence, previous knowledge),and no longitudinal data of the children wereavailable. Thirdly, the influence of the use of smallgroups when the children participated in thelearning environments could not be investigated.

Additionally, only some selected aspects, such as the focus of the children’s views, which wereconsidered as measures for motivation based ontheir duration, were observed in this study.

Finally, the comparability of the groups in thesample of 2015 and 2016 might not be entirelyaccurate given the random composition of preschool children.

Discussion and conclusionsThe first conclusion that we drew from the resultswas that children with a high SQvalue seem to bemotivated in both learning environments. So, children with a high SQvalue seem to bemotivated to do science independent of thelearning environment and the pedagogicalapproach used. This result matches our firsthypothesis with respect to children with a high SQvalue being motivated to do science instructured learning environments. The results gobeyond this hypothesis, because the childrenalways seem to be motivated to do sciencewhatever the learning environment.However, the second hypothesis can neither beconfirmed nor refuted, because we found no hintthat children with a high EQvalue seem to bemotivated to do science in the different learningenvironments. Maybe these children prefer tofocus on the nonrelevant material to contribute to the learning environment.

Therefore, the significant correlations lead to the following hypotheses, which need to beinvestigated further:

p Children with high SQvalues tend to bemotivated to do science independent from the learning environment; and

p The ‘rather open’ learning environmentmotivates children with high EQvalues due to the possibility of choosing additionalmaterial for their activities.

Further analyses of the quantity and choice ofobjects touched and labelled could be aninteresting additional focus.

AcknowledgementThis study is financially supported by the KlausTschira Foundation and the Forscherstation, theKlaus Tschira Competence Center for Early YearsScience Education, which aims to inspireenthusiasm for the natural sciences in children of a very young age, by training kindergarten and primary school teachers. The CompetenceCenter is an affiliation of the Klaus TschiraFoundation and is associated with the HeidelbergUniversity of Education.


ReferencesArtelt, C. (2005) ‘CrossCultural Approaches to

Measuring Motivation’, Educational Assessment,10, (3), 231–255. Retrieved from:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1003_5

Auyeung, B., Wheelwright, S., Allison, C., Atkinson,M., Samarawickrema, N. & BaronCohen, S.(2009) ‘The Children’s Empathy Quotient andSystemizing Quotient: Sex Differences in TypicalDevelopment and in Autism SpectrumConditions’, Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorder, 39, (11)

BaronCohen, S. (2009) ‘Autism: The EmpathizingSystemizing (ES) Theory’, Annals of the NewYork Academy of Sciences, 1156, 68–80

Billington, J., BaronCohen, S. & Wheelwright, S.(2007) ‘Cognitive style predicts entry intophysical sciences and humanities: Questionnaireand performance tests of empathy andsystemizing’, Learning and Individual Differences,17, (3), 260–268

Bortz, J. & Döring, N. (2006) Forschungsmethodenund Evaluation. Für Human undSozialwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: SpringerMedizinVerlag

Collective, T.D.B.R. (2003) ’DesignBasedResearch: An emerging paradigm foreducational inquiry’, Educational Researcher, 32,(1), 5–8

Glynn, S.M. & Koballa, T.R. Jr. (2006) ‘Motivation toLearn in College Science’. In: Handbook ofCollege Science Teaching, Mintzes J.J. &Leonhard, W.H. (Eds.). Arlington, VA: NationalScience Teachers Association Press

Krahn, S. (2005) Untersuchungen zum intuitivennaturwissenschaftlichen Wissen von Kindern imAlter zwischen zwei und sieben Jahren.Universität Bielefeld. Retrieved fromhttps://pub.unibielefeld.de/publication/2303984

Laevers, F. (2007) Die Leuvener Engagiertheitsskala.LESK (2nd Edition). Erkelenz: Klara Schlörner

Lück, G. (2003) Handbuch dernaturwissenschaftlichen Bildung. Theorie undPraxis für die Arbeit in Kindertageseinrichtungen.Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder

Mayring, P. (2008) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse:Grundlagen und Techniken (10th Edition).Weinheim: Beltz

Patrick, H. & Mantzicopoulos, P. (2015) ‘YoungChildren’s Motivation for Learning Science’. In:Research in Early Childhood Science Education,Trundle, K.C. & Saçkes, M. (Eds.), 7–34.Dordrecht: Springer Netherlandshttps://doi.org/10.1007/9789401795050_2

Schäfer, G.E. (2011) Bildungsprozesse imKindesalter. Selbstbildung, Erfahrung und Lernen in der frühen Kindheit. Weinheim undMünchen: Juventa

Skorsetz, N. & WelzelBreuer, M. (2016)’Systemizing and Empathizing. Research onEarly Years Science Education and Brain Types’.In: Systemizing and Empathizing. ElectronicProceedings of the ESERA 2015 ConferenceScience Education Research: Engaging Learnersfor a Sustainable Future, Lavonen, J., Juuti, K.,Lampiselkä, J., Uitto, A. & Hahl, K. (Hrsg.),15715, 2599–2607. Retrieved from:www.esera.org/media/eBook%202015/eBook_Part_15_links.pdf

Zeyer, A., ÇetinDindar, A., Nurulazam Md Zain, A.,Juriševič, M., Devetak, I. & Odermatt, F. (2013)‘Systemizing: A crosscultural constant formotivation to learn science’, Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 50, (9), 1047–1067

Nina Skorsetz and Manuela WelzelBreuer,Goethe University Frankfurt/Main and University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany. Emails: [email protected] andwelzel@phheidelberg.


Abstract The potential of tablets to support communicationduring collaborative inquirybased science learning inpreschool has previously been reported (Fridberg,Thulin & Redfors, 2017). Children communicate in amore advanced manner about the phenomenon andthey focus more readily on problemsolving whenactive in experimentation or Slowmation production.Here, we shift focus to the preschool teacher’sperspective on science and the work model withtimelapse and Slowmation. The preschool teacher’stalk about the teaching was analysed from threeperspectives: the relationships between teacherscience, teacherchildren, and childrenscience.Possibilities and challenges expressed by the preschool teacher in relation to the three perspectiveswere identified and, interestingly, the analysis showsmost possibilities in the childrenscience relationship.In contrast, most challenges are found for theteacherscience relationship, in terms of lack ofknowledge. We argue for the need to further discusspre and inservice preschool teachers’ experiencesof science and science education.

Keywords: Preschool, science, tablets

IntroductionOne identified important factor for children’slearning, whether in preschool or in the educationsystem as a whole, is teachers’ content knowledge

(Nihlfors, 2008; Gitomer & Zisk, 2015). Researchalso points to some key factors where teachers’knowledge of science is one central issue for thelearning (SirajBlatchford et al, 2002; Yoshikawa,2013). Furthermore, Fleer (2009) expresses the linkbetween early childhood teachers’ limited scienceknowledge and teachers’ confidence andcompetence to teach science. However she,together with other researchers, also point to preschool teachers’ pedagogical contentknowledge (PCK) and attitude towards science as having an impact on children’s learning (Fleer,2009; Thulin, 2011; SpectorLevy et al, 2013).

In this study, we make use of timelapsephotography and Slowmations. Timelapsephotography is a technique that shows a slowlychanging event in accelerated speed, which isaccomplished by photographing the event atcertain intervals and, when played at normalspeed, the event seems much faster. A Slowmationon the other hand is a stopmotion animationplayed in slow motion to explain a science concept(Hoban, 2007). The work model implemented withchildren aged 3 to 6 (Fridberg, Thulin & Redfors,2017) constitutes four different learning contexts:i.e. handson experiments, timelapse photography,stimulated recall, followed by Slowmation creation,where the children represent explanatory modelsin different materials, and which is versatile andopens up possibilities for the children to generate,represent and discuss explanatory models.

From a theoretical framework primarily based on phenomenography and variation theory(Marton & Booth, 1997), focusing ondevelopmental pedagogy (Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008), this work aims toanalyse variations of, in retrospect, expressedexperiences by the teacher, for the four differentcontexts of science learning during a semistructured interview.

Pre-school children’s collaborativescience learning scaffolded by tablets– A teacher’s view

l Marie Fridberg l Susanne Thulin l Andreas Redfors




The research question guiding the study is:

p What differences in referential meaning can beascribed to the teacher’s statements about thescience teaching work model, especiallyconcerning possibilities and challenges?

MethodA semistructured interview with openendedquestions was performed with the teacher one yearafter the finalisation of the project. The teacher answered spontaneously, with followup questionsfrom the researcher. In addition, we usedstimulated recall where the teacher watchedselected parts of the videorecorded activities withthe children, and was asked to reflect on his role.The activities were chosen to represent fourenacted learning contexts analysed previously(Fridberg et al, 2017). The teacher’s statementswere analysed and categorised with specificfocuses, depicted in Figure 1.

Through a phenomenographic analysis, we couldidentify variations of experienced possibilities andchallenges with parts of the science teaching workmodel, as described by the teacher.

ResultsThe challenges and possibilities identified in theanalysis of the teacher’s statements involvingscience and the work model will below besummarised as belonging to the themes:knowledge, number of children, children’s previousexperiences, time constraints, and interactions.

Challenges described by the teacher include hisexperienced lack of knowledge in science, eventhough he also stated that the project increased hisknowledge. Another challenge expressed isconnected to numbers, when too many childrentake part in the activities. This was manifested inthe teacher expressing the need to take a morecontrolling role in the situation, compared to whenthere are fewer children involved. Fewer childrenallow for him to stand back and the discussionsamong the children were more fruitful and lessstressful. However, in addition, the teacherstressed that the number of children is only onefactor influencing the outcome. The resultsachieved during the production of Slowmations,etc. also depend on the individual children involvedand their previous experiences and ability to cooperate. Yet another experienced limiting factor istime and the pressure the teacher felt to reachconclusions and ‘get somewhere’ during thetimeframe of the activity. This resulted in theteacher sometimes seeing himself as someone whoprovided the answers too quickly, or feeling that hedid not give the children space to think through theactivity. He described how the lived/felt timepressure sometimes negatively influenced thediscussions between him and the children.The teacher reported that, during the project, hecame to expand his view of natural science fromone restricted to biology to then include alsochemistry and physics, something that can bethought of as opening up opportunities. This resultalso concurs with the results of Thulin and Redfors(2017), who found a large portion of studentshaving changed their views accordingly from preto posttest related to a science course in preschool teacher education.

The possibilities described lie in the work modelitself. It takes into consideration the children’sinterest in tablets and captures many of the areas


Teacher

ChildrenScience teachingwork model

A B

C

Figure 1: The triangle of analysis depicts the threerelations A, B, C focused in the analysis of theteacher’s statements, related to A) the object oflearning in terms of the science teaching workmodel, B) the children, and C) the children’srelation to science or the work model.

in the preschool curriculum, such as naturalscience, mathematics and language, but alsovalues and interaction. The work model, withdiscussions, handson experiments andtimelapse/Slowmation production, where thechildren represent the phenomenon in differentmaterials, is versatile and opens up the learning ofthe science phenomenon from severalperspectives. This, according to the teacher, isconsistent with the preschool teacher’s mission toinclude all children based on their individual needsand preconditions.

Most possibilities described by the teacher arefound in the relationship between the children andthe object of learning (side C in the triangle, Figure1). He stated that the teachers and their attitudesto the work model or science are the limitingfactor, not the children. These results can becompared to Thulin (2011), who stated that thechildren were interested in the content and askedcontentrelated questions. The children have nodifficulties working with experiments, movieproduction, etc. The results depend on the attitudeof the teacher, who needs to be positive in order tohave a fruitful outcome. Interestingly, and to thecontrary, most challenges are described in therelationship between the teacher himself and theobject of learning (side A in Figure 1), in terms ofexperienced lack of knowledge.

DiscussionAn increasing number of studies (Ainsworth, 1999;Prain & Waldrip, 2006) suggest that students’learning is enhanced when they create digitalartefacts, such as representations of scienceconcepts. Through this creation of an explanatorymodel, skills such as creativity, problemsolving,communication and collaboration can bedeveloped (Nielsen & Hoban, 2015). We havepreviously studied and proposed a work model forchildren’s collaborative science learning throughthe use of computer tablets. This teaching modelincludes discussions, experiments documented bytimelapse photography, stimulated recall for theteacher and children through watching timelapsemovies, and a subsequent production of aSlowmation movie, where the children representedtheir explanatory model in, for instance, playdoughor LEGO® (Fridberg et al, 2017). Prain and Tytler(2013) argue that there are particular learning gains

for students when they construct their ownrepresentations of scientific processes andconcepts. These gains include the development ofstudents’ cognitive and reasoning strategies, thepromotion of contexts that engender meaningfulcommunication of science understandings, and ofactivities that are highly engaging for students. Ourresults were in agreement and revealed thetimelapse movies as beneficial for the children’smodelbased reasoning about the science content(evaporation), and the Slowmation movieproduction helped the children to think aboutexplanations for, and representations of, thescience content. Another interesting aspect ofyoung children and their interaction with digitaltechnology is described by Kjällander and Moinian(2014). They studied preschool children’s playfuluse of applications on tablets and described howtheir interactions resisted the preexisting didacticdesign of the application. Instead, the children intheir study transformed the application setting andobjects into something that made sense and hadmeaning for them. The children designed their ownprocess by making sense of affordances providedby the digital resource in relation to their owninterest and previous experience. This findingreflects children’s agency and opens up the way for thoughts on consumer and productionprocesses in the digital arena (Kjällander &Moinian, 2014). We consider our proposed workmodel with timelapse and Slowmation productionto fit well into an agentic view of childhood(Fridberg et al, 2017). In the present study, weexpand our previous work, which focused on thechildren, to include the teacher’s views andexperience of science and the jointly developedwork model.

In order to help children to learn about something,it is important that the teacher considers children’sprevious experiences, as well as the object oflearning (Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson,2008; Thulin, 2011; Gustavsson, Jonsson, LjungDjärf & Thulin, 2016). During the interview, theteacher highlighted the importance of thechildren’s prior experiences when he stated that‘It’s about what they have in their luggage too’ as hedescribed the lived curriculum. It is not the age ofthe children, but their prior experiences, which setthe limits according to the teacher and this concurswith the variation theory as described by Marton(2015). Important for a teacher to consider is what


the learners have not yet learned to discern about a certain object of learning, since these ‘lackingpieces’ are critical aspects for further learning.

In a recent national report, Skolinspektionen (2016)describes how the science subject in Swedish preschools often is acted out in somewhat randomexperiment activities, without guidance towards aspecific object of learning. The teacher in thepresent study pointed out the benefits of the workmodel, including several subjects and aspects ofscience such as, for instance, language, technologyand mathematics.

During the work process, the teacher also sawother important parts of the curriculum beingexpressed, such as value systems and the children’sability to interact with each other. He suggestedthe work model to be used prior to a parentteacher conference, since it would enable him as ateacher to learn things about the children and theircapabilities that he didn’t know about. The teachertalked about children whom he knew to be a bit shyand withdrawn surprising him by being active andexpressing their thoughts during the timelapse andSlowmation production. He connected this to thepreconceptions and takenforgrantedassumptions that adults and teachers often haveabout children’s capabilities.

Structural factors challenging the work with themodel and science included the number of childrenparticipating in the activity: the more children, themore stressful a situation for the teacher to handle.However, he also pointed to the influence of whichchildren one, as a teacher, groups together in theactivities, something that may be viewed as arelational factor that either limits or enables thelearning. If the children cooperate easily with each other, the group can be larger. Anotherstructural factor challenging his work included anexperienced lack of time during the activities. This, according to the teacher, influenced hisdiscussions with the children in a negative way, and prompted him to provide them with thecorrect answer to his questions, or to move on toofast without giving the children time to think asmuch as he would have liked them to. However, themain structural factor expressed by the teacher aslimiting for his work is his experienced lack ofknowledge in science.

Interestingly, and striking from the analysis, mostchallenges are expressed in the teacherlearningobject relationship (A) and in terms of theexperienced lack of knowledge, while mostpossibilities are described in the childrenlearningobject relationship (C). Different children showinterest in different parts of the versatile workmodel, and the teacher viewed them as capable.Instead, he pointed out that it is the knowledge andattitude of the preschool teacher towards scienceand the work model that will determine possibleopportunities and challenges. In this case study, theteacher was stimulated by the work model, but wasless well prepared for the science content.Research on primary science teachers of youngchildren shows that teachers have insufficientknowledge of the subject and pedagogical contentknowledge (Appleton, 2008; Fleer, 2009; Thulin,2011; SpectorLevy et al, 2013). Other studies alsopoint to early childhood teachers’ lack of sciencesubject matter knowledge (Kallery & Psillos, 2001;Garbett, 2003) but, to date, only a few studies havefocused on practising inservice preschoolteachers (Andersson & Gullberg, 2014). This relatesto justification for science in preschool and the‘being’ and ‘becoming’ perspectives, where ‘being’refers to viewing children as actors in their ownlives and letting them meet the science primarilyfor their own sake, while the ‘becoming’ refers tofuture uses of an early grounded knowledge. Thulin & Redfors (2017) do not polarise the twoperspectives, but show that student preschoolteachers revealed a slight predominance for thesociety – ‘becoming’ – perspective. However, fromthe results presented here, we can say that bothteacher and children benefited from andexperienced a ‘being’ perspective concerning theirmodelbased reasoning.

In this study, different dilemmas that the teacherencountered when working with science and thework model could be identified. In the teacher’sown words, ‘It’s a balancing act all the time, it’sreally tricky’. The teacher has to consider andhandle several factors at the same time, such astime management and children’s interactions,when teaching a subject manifested in thecurriculum about which he is not really comfortablewith his knowledge. He talked about the need forsupport, from both the children’s and the teacher’sperspective. The children are dependent on him


and his attitude towards the subject, and he in turnneeds support in the form of someone with whomto discuss ideas, thoughts and questions. Or, inother words, the need for someone who supportshis work through discussions about the intendedand enacted object of learning. In Thulin & Redfors(2017), the majority of student preschool teacherswere positive about science and this result iscontrary to the general impression in westerncountries that young people share negative viewsof science. Like the student preschool teachers inthe Thulin & Redfors survey, the preschool teacherin the present study expressed a positive attitudeto science. Instead, it was a feeling of not knowingenough about different science matters that theteacher in this study saw as the challenge in hiswork. This is further reflected in what we, asteachers in the preschool teacher programme,encounter in our work with students and thescience subjects. Our experience is that thestudents struggle with modelbased reasoning,while the attitude towards the subject is one ofpositivity and curiosity among most students.

This raises an important question. When differentcontent in the Swedish preschool curriculum isdiscussed, it is often from the children’sperspectives, and about how the content can bepresented to fit the children’s interests andprevious experiences. Eshach (2006) reasons thatthe teacher perspective is equally important toconsider when working with science in early years:

‘I thus argue that educators should seek after suchscience activities that not only fit the children’s needsbut also the teachers’ abilities, motivations andneeds. (…) But to succeed in using such an approach,a kindergarten teacher must receive sufficientscientific support. (…) Thus, I argue that K2 scienceeducation should be teachercentered as well asstudentcentered, as opposed to the traditionalstudentcentered approach’ (Eshach, 2006).

Here, and in earlier work, we have seen theimportance and benefits of intertwining sciencecontent and science education research results inworking with inservice preschool teachers – aview supported by Andersson and Gullberg (2014),who suggest four skills of which preschoolteachers can make use when teaching science:children’s previous experiences; capturing

unexpected things that happen in the moment;asking challenging questions to furtherinvestigations; and ‘situated presence’, that is,remaining in the situation and listening to thechildren. By making use of these skills, preschoolteachers may shift focus from their experiencedinsufficient subject matter knowledge to insteadreinforce their pedagogical content knowledge(Andersson & Gullberg, 2014).

At the same time, we argue that a polarisationbetween science and science education is notbeneficial. In intertwining support of science contentwith implementation of work models such as theone presented here, both knowledge of explanatorymodels in science and competence in handlingactivities with children can be seen to improve.

Conclusion and implicationsThe timelapse/Slowmation work model showspromise for future developmental work concerningboth children and teachers. We agree with Eshach(2006) that support for teachers’ work with sciencecontent in preschool is needed, and the workmodel described by us could be viewed as one suchsupport structure, through its framing andmeaningmaking of the science content. The workmodel with timelapse and Slowmation productionconcurs with teaching from a child perspective andan agentic role of active children in collaboration(Fridberg et al, 2017). In the present study, whereprevious work has been expanded to include theteacher’s views and experience, we have foundseveral distinct and important implications for preand inservice preschool teacher education.

Results from this research on uses of our workmodel for science teaching have given a list ofimplications – four ‘pointstomake’ for teachereducation and preschool practice. Firstly, teaching with and about the work modelentails and highlights the importance andfruitfulness of having planned teaching activitieswith formulated intended objects of learning,which open up several overarching learning goals inthe curriculum, such as communication, cooperation and world views, and bring in aspects ofother subjects, including language, technology andmathematics. Secondly, it combines digitaltechnology and science learning objects. Thirdly,


the work model facilitates active scaffolding by ateacher, but also brings into light the importance of

p support for pre and inservice teachers onscience content and science educationprinciples;

p focusing on both ‘being’ and ‘becoming’perspectives on teaching and children’slearning;

p holding back and giving children time andopportunity to work things out; and

p managing the balancing act of holding back,giving answers, keeping order and lettingchildren explore.

Fourthly, it highlights the children’s capacity forproblembased collaborative inquiry to solveformulated questions, thus helping the teacher tokeep focus on the learning object, to structurecollaborative group work and plan group sizesbased on communication skills and allotted time –all important aspects of collaborative inquiry inearly years.

Using the work model helps the teacher to keepfocus on the science learning objects through theactivities, especially the Slowmation production.The process of planning and evaluation of intended– enacted – lived learning objects is an interestingand, in many countries, novel challenge for preschool teachers. Projectbased education for preand inservice preschool teachers focusing onteaching with the work model will most likely bringall the points above into fruitful and generativediscussions, especially because an interestingsupport structure for single teachers would beteams of teachers starting science projectstogether by formulating the intended and theenacted object of learning. In future studies,possibilities and challenges for these teambasedformulations, during work with the work model,will be further investigated.

To conclude, our study points to great potential inthe versatile science teaching work model as ateacher’s tool for scientific explorations anddiscussions in preschool. Furthermore, it casts alight over the preschool teacher role in scienceteaching and contributes to important discussionsabout that role.

ReferencesAinsworth, S. (1999) ‘The functions of multiplerepresentations’, Computers and Education, (33),131–152

Andersson, K. & Gullberg, A. (2014) ‘What is science in preschool and what do teachers haveto know to empower children?’, Cultural Studiesof Science Education, 9, (2), 275–296. Doi: 10.1007/s1142201294396

Appleton, K. (2008) ‘Developing sciencepedagogical content knowledge throughmentoring elementary teachers’, Journal ofScience Teacher Education, (19), 523–545

Eshach, H. (2006) Science literacy in primary schools and preschools. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer

Fleer, M. (2009) ‘Supporting scientific conceptualconsciousness or learning in “a Roundaboutway” in playbased contexts’, InternationalJournal of Science Education, 31, (8), 1069–1089

Fridberg, M, Redfors, A. & Thulin S. (2017)‘Preschool children’s collaborative sciencelearning scaffolded by tablets’, Research inScience Education [online]

Garbett, D. (2003) ‘Science education in earlychildhood teacher education: Putting forward acase to enhance student teachers’ confidenceand competence’, Research in Science Education,(33), 467–481

Gitomer, D.H. & Zisk, R.C. (2015) ‘Knowing whatteachers know’, Review of Research in Education(March), (39), 1–53

Gustavsson, L., Jonsson, A., LjungDjärf, A. &Thulin, S. (2016) ‘Ways of dealing with sciencelearning: a study based on Swedish earlychildhood education practice’, InternationalJournal of Science Education. Doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1220650

Hoban, G. (2007) ‘Using Slowmation for engagingpreservice elementary teachers inunderstanding science content knowledge’,Contemporary Issues in Technology and TeacherEducation, 7, (2), 1–9

Kallery, M. & Psillos, D. (2001) ‘Preschool teachers’content knowledge in science: Theirunderstanding of elementary science conceptsand of issues raised by children’s questions’,International Journal of Early Years Education, (9), 165–179


Kjällander, S. & Moinian, F. (2014) ‘Digital tabletsand applications in preschool – Preschoolers’creative transformation of didactic design’,Designs for Learning, 7, (1). Doi: 10.2478/dfl20140009

Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997) Learning andAwareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates

Marton, F. (2015) Necessary Conditions of Learning.London: Routledge

Nielsen, W. & Hoban, G. (2015) ‘Designing a digitalteaching resource to explain phases of themoon: A case study of preservice elementaryteachers making a slowmation’, Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 52, (9), 1207–1233

Nihlfors, E. (2008) Kunskap vidgar världen—Globaliseringens inverkan på skola och lärande.Underlagsrapport nr 26 till Globaliseringsrådet[Knowledge broadens the world –The impact ofglobalization on education and learning].Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet/Globaliseringsrådet

Prain, V. & Waldrip, B. (2006) ‘An exploratory studyof teachers’ and students’ use of multimodalrepresentations of concepts in primary science’,International Journal of Science Education, 28,(15), 1843–1866

Pramling Samuelsson, I. & Asplund Carlsson, M.(2008) ‘The playing learning child: Towards apedagogy of early childhood’, ScandinavianJournal of Educational Research, 52, (6), 623–641

SirajBlatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R.& Bell, D. (2002) Researching effective pedagogyin the early years. Research report RR356.University of London: Institute of Education

Skolinspektionen (2016) Förskolans pedagogiskauppdrag – Om undervisning, lärande ochförskollärares ansvar. Kvalitetsgranskning 2016.Stockholm: Skolinspektionen. Diarienummer:2015:5671

Skolverket (2016) [Swedish National Agency forEducation]. Curriculum for the Preschool. Lpfö 98Revised 2016. Stockholm: Skolverket

SpektorLevy, O., Baruch, Y.K. & Mevarech, Z.(2013) ’Science and scientific curiosity in preschool –The teacher’s point of view’,International Journal of Science Education, 35,(13), 2226–2253. Doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.631608

Thulin, S. (2011) Lärares tal och barns nyfikenhet.Kommunikation om naturvetenskapliga innehåll iförskolan. Gothenburg Studies in EducationalSciences, 309: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis

Thulin, S. & Redfors, A. (2016) ‘Student preschoolteachers’ experiences of science and its role inpreschool’, Early Childhood Education Journal,[online]. Doi:10.1007/s1064301607830

Yoshikawa, H., Wieland C., BrooksGunn J.,Burchinal M.R., Espinosa L.M., Gormley, W.T. etal (2013) ‘Investing in our future: The evidencebase on preschool education’, Society forResearch in Child Development. Retrieved from: http://fcdus.org/resourcec/evidencebasepreschool

Marie Fridberg, Susanne Thulin andAndreas Redfors,Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, Sweden. Email: [email protected]


AbstractHow can preschool teachers form science teachingin a landscape of increasing focus on academicallyoriented learning outcomes, without losing theunique character of preschool pedagogies? Seekingto contribute to the discussion of what preschoolscience can be, we have analysed data fromactivities in fourteen Swedish preschools (forchildren aged 15 years), to examine if and howmultidimensional teaching may be combined withteaching for scientific literacy. The overall picture isthat elements of ‘emergent scientific literacy' can becombined with a wide range of teaching dimensions,such as empathy, fantasy and storytelling. Theseresults contribute important perspectives to whatpreschool science can be and how it can beresearched in a way that is suitable for the preschool’s conditions. We suggest our analyticalquestions, and the dimensions displayed in ourresults, as a tool for teachers who plan or evaluatescience teaching in the early years.

Keywords: Early childhood education, scienceeducation, schoolification, aesthetics, emergentscientific literacy.

Introductionp A group of children and a teacher gather

around a drain on the side of the street,listening to the echoing sound of drops hittingthe water surface deep down.

p Teachers encourage children to touch and tastesnow and to listen to the creaking sound oftheir peers treading on snowcovered ground.

p A teacher helps children to build a nest for aplastic magpie, asking them to think of whatthe magpie might need to feel comfortable inits nest.

These three snapshots, from a preschool forchildren aged 12 years, include severaldimensions: children’s sensory experiences (ofwater and snow), making (a bird’s nest), and caring (for a fictive organism). They also includeteacherchild interactions that relate to sciencecontent, such as sound, properties of snow andbirds’ living conditions. Yet, are they examples ofscience education?

We, the authors, are trained scientists/scienceeducators and have been schooled in the scienceteaching traditions of compulsory school andhigher education. However, in 2012 we beganresearching how science activities are shaped inSwedish preschools. Since then, we have beenoccupied with questions about what early yearsscience education can be, because we soonrealised that our schooloriented science standardswere not adequate to describe the activities thatwe encountered in preschools, such as thesnapshots above. Our questions adhere to ageneral ‘schoolification’ debate, dealing with theincreasing focus on academically oriented learningoutcomes in priortoschool institutions and thetendency of compulsory school standards to put adownward pressure on priortoschool education(Moss, 2008). Researchers have raised concernsthat schoolification threatens the characteristics of preschool pedagogies: for example, the role ofcare (Gananathan, 2011) and play (Gunnarsdottir,2014) in pedagogy. When it comes to scienceeducation, Klaar and Öhman (2014) recognise the risk that a growing focus on conceptual

l Sofie Areljung l Bodil Sundberg


Potential for multi-dimensional teaching for ‘emergent scientific literacy’in pre-school practice



knowledge may lead to subjectspecific teaching at the expense of the subjectintegrated, multidimensional teaching that often characterises preschool pedagogies.

How can teachers form science teaching in alandscape where the focus on academicallyoriented learning outcomes is increasing, withoutlosing the unique character of preschoolpedagogies? Is there room for the type of multidimensional teaching displayed in the abovesnapshots when science education is implementedin preschool? The answer could be yes, if weconsult recent studies of how Swedish preschoolteachers talk about their science teaching. Forexample, the teachers in Westman & Bergmark’s(2014) study indicate that ‘a child’s whole being,mind and body, are used in the learning process’(p.78), considering emotion and embodiedexperiences as prominent parts of scientificexploration. Further, Areljung, Ottander and Due(2016) show that teachers include imagination,individual taste, dramatising, as well asexperiments, in their talk of science activities.While these studies mainly build on teachers’ talkabout their practice, the current article attempts todisplay examples of multidimensional scienceteaching that are based on observations ofpractice. Here, we use the term ‘multidimensionalteaching’ to refer to a type of teaching thatintertwines science content learning with multipledimensions of children’s lives, such as emotions,play, physical experiences and aesthetic modes ofexpressions. Seeking to contribute to thediscussion of what early years science educationcan be, our aim is to examine if and how elementsof scientific literacy are combined with multidimensional teaching in preschool activities.

Scientific literacy and emergent scientific literacy‘Emergent science’ relates to a general idea of‘emergent learning’: that is, the idea that childrendiscern qualities that are essential to learningsomething in particular (Pramling & PramlingSamuelsson, 2008). One example is ‘emergentliteracy’, which is about discerning qualities such asthe fact that words consist of letters, or in whatdirection we read, which is essential to eventuallylearning to read (ibid.). When it comes to science,

the emergent learning can be about discerningmeaningful qualities of the science phenomenathat are under investigation. For example,experiences that help children discern howdifferent items sink or float are meaningful toeventually learning the abstract science concepts‘density’ and ‘buoyancy’ (Larsson, 2016).

What we are proposing is an ‘emergent scientificliteracy’ that builds on the ideas of emergentlearning (Pramling & Pramling Samuelsson, 2008).Scientific literacy has been used broadly in thelatest decades, by various stakeholders ineducation, to address what science educationshould consist of in order to foster citizensequipped for the contemporary society (Roberts,2007). Roberts has proposed that the concept‘scientific literacy’ could be understood somewhereon a continuum between two ‘visions’. Vision Ipoints at being literate in relation to specificcontent knowledge and processes within thescience community, while Vision II addresses theability to handle sciencerelated situations in alarger, societal context. In this article, we focus onscientific literacy closer to Vision I: being literate inrelation to how the natural world works and inrelation to the scientific methods of gainingknowledge about how the world works.

Our reason for adding ‘emergent’ to ‘scientificliteracy’ is that we need a concept suitable to thepreschool’s conditions in order to meet our aim toexamine if and how elements of scientific literacyare combined with multidimensional teaching inpreschool activities. We propose that thecharacteristics of preschool science practice mightgo unnoticed if we employ a schoolorientedframework for distinguishing scientific literacy. In ‘emergent scientific literacy’, we include theemergent qualities of natural, chemical andphysical phenomena that children experience priorto grasping the scientific concepts. For example,we consider children’s experiences of pushing andpulling as emergent qualities prior to learning theabstract concept ‘force’ (Sikder & Fleer, 2015).Further, we include emergent qualities of scientificmethods, such as observing, posing hypotheses,making inference based on empirical studies, andmaking models and other representations. Sinceour research builds on data from Swedish preschools, the national context is outlined below.


The Swedish contextSwedish preschool practice builds on the idea thatlearning, fostering and care are intertwined andequally important. As in many other countries, thepreschool’s responsibility for learning has beenstrengthened in the last decade. When it comes toscience, the curriculum states that preschoolshould strive to ensure that each child develop theirinterest and understanding of the different cyclesin nature, how people, nature and society influenceeach other, and science and relationships in nature,as well as a general knowledge of plants, animals,chemical processes and physical phenomena(National Agency for Education, 2011). Also, thechildren should be encouraged to develop an abilityto distinguish, explore, document, pose questionsand talk about science (ibid.).

In Sweden, 83% of all children aged between 15years are enrolled in preschool and the commoncase is that teams of 34 educators work with agroup of 1520 children (National Agency forEducation, 2016). The staff typically consist ofseveral professional categories, of whom anaverage of 40% are preschool teachers (ibid.).Though the preschool teachers have a specialresponsibility for education in Sweden, all staff areresponsible for both education and care.

Noteworthy is that Swedish preschool is anexample of institutionalised science education forchildren from the age of 1 year. This is rare from aninternational perspective, where science educationmost often targets children from 3 years and older(Sikder & Fleer, 2015).

Methodology and methodsOur data were collected in fourteen different preschool units in Sweden. We selected the preschoolsbecause they had reported that science was asignificant part of their practice. Three preschoolsvolunteered to join after a lecture held by one of theauthors. The remaining eleven were picked basedon their responses to a largescale questionnaire.We visited the preschools on four to ten occasions(97 in total) in order to observe and document bothplanned and spontaneous science activities. We alsoconducted stimulated recall group discussions (12 intotal) and individual interviews (20 in total) with theteachers in these preschools.

We have previously used Activity Theory(Engeström, 1987) as a theoretical framework toanalyse how cultural factors interacted with theshaping of the science activities in these fourteenpreschools. This meant that we studied thevideotaped activities, as well as group discussionsand interviews with teachers, to discern thefollowing seven elements: subject, object, tools, rules,community, division of labour and outcome (Sundberget al, 2016). Our analyses resulted in one ‘activitysystem’ for each preschool, including descriptionsof the seven elements and how they interacted inthe teacher’s shaping of science activities. In thisarticle, we revisit the activity systems to respond tothe following analytical questions:

1. Were elements of emergent scientific literacyvisible in the activities?a) Emergent qualities of scientific methodsb) Emergent qualities of physical, chemical, or

natural phenomena 2. If so, what teaching dimensions were visible in

these activities?

In order to respond to the questions, we conducteda thematic content analysis of the material andcommunicative tools, the object (the purpose), andthe outcome of the observed activities. Forexample, we followed a preschool whose scienceactivities were framed within a ‘rolling andspinning’ theme.

The teachers’ object was that the children learned‘as much as possible’ and gained many personalexperiences of rolling and spinning motions. Interms of material tools, they supplied children witha large variety of everyday objects that could spinand roll as well as ramps and other material whoseincline and surface the children were able to change.

In terms of communicative tools, the teachers usedgestures and verbal communication to drawattention to children’s achievements anddiscoveries, and to encourage children’s furtherexplorations. The preschool’s activities includedrolling marbles through paint on a tray, treasurehunting for examples of rolling and spinning in thesurroundings, rolling car tyres up and down a hill,and rolling oneself down a hill. The overall outcomewas that children were afforded many differentexperiences of rolling and spinning motions.



In terms of elements of emergent scientific literacy(analytical question 1), we discerned the followingthemes through our content analysis of this preschool’s activities:

a) Emergent qualities of scientific methods:Observing similarities and differences;comparing and contrasting how items roll,depending on the incline.

b) Emergent qualities of physical phenomena:Concepts enfolded in rolling and spinningmotion, such as friction, and the relationbetween the incline and the shape and speedof the rolling item or child.

In terms of teaching dimensions visible in theseactivities (analytical question 2), we discerned thefollowing themes:

p Fantasy and play: Treasure hunt for things thatspin and roll.

p Aesthetic modes of expression: Marble painting.

p Embodiment: Experiencing what it feels like toroll oneself down a hill and to roll a tyre up a hill.

p Systematic inquiry: Rolling marbles down rampswith different inclines.

FindingsBy analysing activities from all fourteen preschools in our data set, we have found examples ofthe following teaching dimensions in activities thatinclude elements of emergent scientific literacy:fantasy and play, empathy, aesthetic modes ofexpression, storytelling, embodiment/sensoryexperience, and systematic inquiry. In Table 1(overleaf), we present the results through examplesof common combinations of teaching dimensionsand elements of emergent scientific literacy.

The examples are selected from: the ‘rolling andspinning theme’ that we discuss above; thesnapshots presented in this article’s introduction;and three preschools that we will describe in moredetail below. In the table, we exemplify ‘emergentqualities of scientific methods’ with ‘makingmodels’ and ‘observing differences and similarities’.

Other examples, not included in the table, whichwe have identified in the preschool’s activities are:repeated trials, changing one factor at a time,

posing hypotheses, drawing conclusions based onevidence, and making visual representations.

Frottage art to learn about the different tree barksIn one preschool, for children aged 4 to 5, theteachers brought crayons and sheets of paper tothe forest. The children were encouraged to do‘frottage art’, putting the paper on the trunk of atree and drawing gently with the crayon so that thestructure of the bark resulted in a pattern on thepaper. The children were also encouraged to touchthe surface with their own hands and to comparewhat the bark on different trees felt like.

In this activity, we identified the following elementsof emergent scientific literacy:

a) Emergent qualities of scientific methods: toobserve similarities and differences (betweenthe bark of different trees).

b) Emergent qualities of natural phenomena (the composition of a tree): the structure of a tree’s bark.

Further, we identified that the main teachingdimensions were aesthetic modes of expressionand sensory experiences.

Storytelling and examining figures sticking to awoollen blanketIn another preschool, for children aged 1 to 2years, the teachers arranged for a storytellingmoment during a visit to the forest. The story wasabout a child going on a sleigh on an icy lake and,while reading, the teacher placed different toyfigures on a woollen blanket: for example, a smallsleigh and a plastic snowman. Since there wassome snow on the ground that day, the teachermade a real snowman too, adding it to the scenarioon the blanket.

At the end of the story, the teacher noticed thatthe snowman that was made of snow stuck to theblanket. Realising that this was something special,the teacher demonstrated several times how thesnowsnowman stuck while the plastic snowmandid not. She asked the children for suggestions ofother things that they wanted to test to see if theywould stick to the blanket. One child pointed atmoss on the ground and the teacher asked eachchild if they thought the moss would stick or notbefore she tested (it did not stick).


Table 1: In the table, examples of preschool activities are inserted in cells that represent the elements of emergent scientific literacy and the teaching dimension discerned in the activity. The table builds onthe empirical examples provided in this article, not a comprehensive picture of possible combinations ofelements of emergent scientific literacy and teaching dimensions. Hence, the fact that some of the cells in the table are blank should not be read as this being an impossible combination in preschool.

2. Teachingdimension

Fantasy and play

Empathy

Aesthetic modesof expression

Storytelling

Embodiment/Sensoryexperiences

Systematicinquiry

Makingmodels

Playing inside amodel of theinside of a tree

Creating a nestfor a magpie

Creating modelsof organisms inclay or papiermâché

Observingdifferences andsimilarities

Lettercorrespondencewith a treefungus about itseating habits,compared to how the children eat

Storytelling usingfigures ofdifferentmaterial, whichstick/do not stickto a woollenblanket

Comparing whatthe bark ofdifferent treesfeel like

Rolling andspinning differentobjects, indifferentsettings, throughcontrolled trials

Physicalphenomena

Treasure hunt:finding thingsthat roll and spin

Rolling marblesthrough paint

The feeling ofrolling oneselfdown a hill orrolling a car tyreup a hill

Concepts tied to rolling andspinning motion,such as, friction,surface, inclineand shape

Chemicalphenomena

Properties ofsnow; tasting,touching andlistening to snow

‘Sticking ability’of plastic, snow,moss and wool

Naturalphenomena

Fantasy and playconnected to therelationshipbetween fungusand tree; how thefungi ‘eat’

Rejecting thenotion that a treefungus be cutdown from a tree

Frottage art:drawing on apaper put on atree trunk

Teacher telling storiesabout howmushrooms eat

Sensing thestructure of thebark of a tree

1. Emergent scientific literacy (examples)

a. Emergent qualities of b. Emergent qualities ofscientific methods science phenomena


p Emergent qualities of scientific methods:repeated trials, changing one factor at a time,observing differences, and posing hypotheses(regarding how different material stick to wool).

p Emergent qualities of chemical phenomena(properties of various materials): ‘stickingability’ of plastic, moss, snow and wool.

We identified that the main teaching dimensionswere storytelling and systematic inquiry.

Building a fantasy world around a tree fungus andexploring how fungi eatIn a third preschool, for children aged 15, a groupof children had noticed that fungi grew on some ofthe trees in the forest. They ‘adopted’ one of thefungi, named it ’Musli’ and, over a long period oftime, they and their teachers developed animaginary world around the life of Musli and hisrelatives. The children showed empathy for thefungus, discussing whether Musli may be cold andbringing warm clothes to dress the fungus.

On one occasion, the teachers placed a letter ‘fromMusli’ on the particular tree for the children to find,to introduce the question of what and how thefungus eats, in comparison to the children. In lateractivities, the teachers told the children about howthe fungus injected thin threads into the trunk of thebirch tree, and that nutrients were transported fromthe birch to the fungus through these threads.

Following up on the ’food question’, the teachershelped children to roll a big piece of paper into acylinder, making room for as much as three childrenon the inside. The children then drew directly on thecylindershaped paper what they thought the insideof the tree might look like, hence creating a model ofa tree trunk. Since it was big enough for children to fitinside it, the tree model became a site for playing.

On one occasion, the teachers brought a fungus(not ‘Musli’!) to the preschool for the children totouch and observe. Afterwards, the children madetheir own papiermâché models of the fungus.Previously, the children had demonstrated that itwas unthinkable to cut Musli or some of hisrelatives down from their trees, because it wouldbe too cruel.


p Emergent qualities of scientific methods:making models (of the inside of a tree) andobserving differences (between how fungi andchildren ‘eat’).

p Emergent qualities of natural phenomena(the relation between fungi and trees): howfungi ‘eat’.

We identified many dimensions of science teaching:fantasy and play, empathy, aesthetic modes ofexpression, storytelling and sensory experience.

DiscussionThe results contribute important perspectives to thediscussion of what preschool science can be,showing that elements of emergent scientificliteracy can be combined with a wide range ofteaching dimensions, such as empathy, fantasy andstorytelling. In the studied preschools, there are noobvious signs of ‘schoolification’ in terms ofcompulsory school standards imposing a ‘downwardpressure’ on preschool education (Moss, 2008).Rather, the teachers seem to have found ways ofshaping science activities that are in line with themultidimensional pedagogies characteristic of preschool practice (Klaar & Öhman, 2014).

We put forward our analytical questions, and theteaching dimensions displayed in Table 1, as apossible tool for teachers to plan or evaluate theirscience teaching; what emergent scientific literacyare the children afforded, and what teachingdimensions are part of the science activities?Recognising that the concept ‘emergent scientificliteracy’ captures elements in preschool scienceteaching that would otherwise go unnoticed, wealso suggest the concept as a methodologicalcontribution to this field of research, supportinganalysis and descriptions suited to the conditionsof preschool practice.

The multidimensional science teaching thatcharacterises the studied preschools implies that‘a child’s whole being, mind and body, are used in thelearning process’ (Westman & Bergmark, 2014,p.78), which in turn caters for solid engagementand learning in science. Still, our analysis does notcapture what the children learn. Therefore, if


teachers use our analytical approach to plan andevaluate their science teaching, it needs to beaccompanied by a plan of how to capture andsupport children’s learning. We stress this sinceresearchers have pointed out that preschoolchildren are often left to discover the surroundingworld on their own, lacking the instructionnecessary to make scientific meaning of theirdiscoveries (e.g. Fleer and Pramling, 2015). Further,research has shown that teachers’ science learninggoals are obscured as an effect of their prioritisingother goals (Sundberg et al, 2016) or as an effect ofteachers’ will to address every child’s comment orto address fantasy and play in their communicationabout science content (Gustavsson et al, 2016). This article points at the potential of multidimensional teaching for emergent scientificliteracy in preschool. However, in order forlearning to take place, teachers need to hold on totheir science learning goals and help children tomake scientific meaning of the emergent qualitiesof science phenomena that they experience.Otherwise, the emergent scientific literacy riskssuffering defeat in the multidimensionalcompetition of everyday life in preschool.

ReferencesAreljung, S., Ottander, C. & Due, K. (2016)

‘“Drawing the leaves anyway”: Teachersembracing children’s different ways of knowingin preschool science practice’, Research inScience Education, 47, (6), 1173–1192

Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: anactivitytheoretical approach to developmentalresearch. Helsinki: Orientakonsultit

Fleer, M. & Pramling, N. (2015) A culturalhistoricalstudy of children learning science: Foregroundingaffective imagination in playbased settings.Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands

Gananathan, R. (2011) ‘Implications of full daykindergarten program policy on early childhoodpedagogy and practice’, International Journal ofChild Care and Education Policy, 5, (2), 33–45

Gunnarsdottir, B. (2014) ‘From play to school: Arecore values of ECEC in Iceland beingundermined by “schoolification”?’, InternationalJournal of Early Years Education, 22, (3), 242–250

Documents

The Journal of Emergent Science - Home | ASE 15... · Systemizing (ES)Theory by BaronCohen (2002). The basis of his theory is that every human brain has two dimensions. On the one