The Journal of Emergent Science - whyhh & howoo ?w - Association for Science Education
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Journal of
Emergent Science
Issue 15 Summer 2018
why
h &
how
ow?
PRIMARY SCIENCE
TEACHING TRUST
Contents
Issue 15 Summer 2018
Editorial Contributions Editors:
Amanda McCrory
3. Editorial Suzanne Gatt
Executive Editor:
Jane Hanrott
janehanrott@ase.org.uk
2017 ESERA Conference special issue
Cover Photo Courtesy of:
iStock.com/DGLimages
4. Guest editorial. Coral Campbell
(see article on page 13)
6. Systemising and empathising in early years science – a videobased study with
preschool children. Nina Skorsetz and Manuela WelzelBreuer Publisher:
Association for Science
13. Preschool children’s collaborative science learning scaffolded by tablets – Education (ASE) College Lane,
a teacher’s view. Marie Fridberg, Susanne Thulin and Andreas Redfors Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9AA, UK
20. Potential for multidimensional teaching for ‘emergent scientific literacy’ in ©ASE 2018
preschool practice. Sofie Areljung and Bodil Sundberg ISSN: 20464754
28. Reflections on guidance to orientate untrained practitioners towards authentic
science for children in the early years. Linda McGuigan and Terry Russell The Journal of Emergent
Science (JES) is published
37. Teaching science in Australian bush kindergartens – understanding what
by ASE in partnership with
teachers need. Coral Campbell and Christopher Speldewinde
the Primary Science Teaching
Trust (PSTT).
It is free to access for all.
Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT)
46. Reflections on and analysis of the use of drama techniques and dialogic practices
in teaching science in a primary school. Clarysly Deller
57. Teachers’ attempts to improve assessment practice in primary science are
influenced by job role and teaching experience. Isabel HopwoodStephens
67. News from the Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT)
Regular features
68. Guidelines for authors
why
h &
70. About ASE
how
ow?
PRIMARY SCIENCE
TEACHING TRUST
Editorial
l Amanda McCrory l Suzanne Gatt
For this Special Issue of JES, we are very fortunate primary classroom. The first, written by Clarysly
to have Dr. Coral Campbell from Deakin University Deller, reflects on how drama techniques and
in Geelong, Australia as a guest editor, who dialogic practices can be used to effectively teach
explains – further on in her own Editorial – the aspects of primary science. The second, by Isabel
importance of the focus of this issue – the 2017 HopwoodStephens, grapples with the tensions
ESERA Conference. Coral has been involved in that classroom practitioners face when attempting
industry, school and tertiary education for many to improve assessment practice in primary science.
years, and her research interests lie in practitioner Both articles make for thoughtprovoking reading!
learning and students’ understanding in science
and STEM, in all areas of the schooling sector. Her We very much hope that you enjoy the varied and
more recent research has focused on early engaging articles presented in this issue of JES.
childhood STEM.
We would like to thank ESERA for their kind
permission to publish the extended abstracts of
some of the 2017 Conference contributions in this
edition. In particular, we are very grateful to
Professor Costas Constantinou, President of Amanda McCrory, Institute of Education,
ESERA, for his support. We will publish a second University College of London
collection in issue 16. Email: a.mccrory@ucl.ac.uk
Suzanne Gatt, Faculty of Education,
In addition, this issue includes two articles from the University of Malta
Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT), both of Email: suzanne.gatt@um.edu.mt
which give interesting insights into science in the CoEditors of the Journal of Emergent Science
Editorial JES14 Winter 2017/18 page 3
Guest Editorial
l Coral Campbell
Welcome to this edition of the Journal of Emergent In this edition of JES, we have included the
Science (JES), which highlights some very interesting extended abstracts from some of the presentations
research through some short papers presented at the delivered in Dublin. Obviously, we could not publish
2017 European Science Education Research everything, but feel that these offer a ‘taster’ of the
Association (ESERA) Conference in Dublin, Ireland. international research happening across the globe.
It is intended to include some more of these
Firstly, let me explain that the two JES Editors have abstracts in issue 16 of JES, later in the year. Also,
asked me to write this Editorial, as I was the person if you would like further examples, please refer to
who approached them about this special edition. the ESERA website (https://keynote.conference
This was as a consequence of my role as ESERA services.net/programme.asp?conferenceID=5233).
Early Childhood (EC) Science Special Interest Group
Contributors to this edition include:
(SIG) Coordinator, a role shared with Estelle
Blanquet. At the ESERA Conference in 2017, the p Reflections on guidance to orientate untrained
SIG discussed ways to improve the visibility and practitioners towards authentic science for
impact of early childhood science. Jane Johnston children in the early years – Linda Mcguigan and
and Lady Sue Dale Tunnicliffe were the original Terry Russell.
Editors of JES as well as the first ESERA EC Science p Potential for multidimensional teaching for
SIG coordinators, so it seemed fitting that ESERA ‘emergent scientific literacy’ in preschool
and JES were associated again through this edition. practice – Sofie Areljung and Bodil Sundberg.
p Preschool children’s collaborative science
At the recent Conference in Ireland, there was a
learning scaffolded by tablets – a teacher’s view –
significant increase in the number and type of
Marie Fridberg, Susanne Thulin and Andreas
papers submitted around topics of research into
Redfors.
early years science education. For example, when
the SIG started (2009), there were approximately p Teaching science in Australian bush
15 people who submitted papers in two sessions. In kindergartens – understanding what teachers
2011, in Lyon, there were three sessions and 19 need – Coral Campbell and Christopher
papers presented, as well as quite a few poster Speldewinde.
presentations, each with a standard synopsis paper p Systemising and empathising in early years
of the research. In 2017, the number of papers science – a videobased study with preschool
presented through six paper presentation sessions, children – Nina Skorsetz and Manuela
two symposium sessions and one poster session, WelzelBreuer.
had increased to 35.
I attended as many sessions as I could, and enjoyed
the variety of research being undertaken and the
The indications, from the increasing number of
robust discussions afterwards. Interestingly,
submissions to the conferences, imply that early
I attended the European Early Childhood Education
childhood science education is receiving more
Research Conference a short time after ESERA and
notice in the science education research
found yet more early childhood science papers
community and is attracting more researchers
presented there. There were significantly fewer of
looking at the depth and breadth of science
them, but still of excellent quality and, of course,
education provision in early childhood.
discussion was engaging.
Guest Editorial JES15 Summer 2018 page 4
I invite you to sit back, read and enjoy the content of this edition of JES. If a particular article intrigues you, please follow it up with the author – it is likely that further research has been published in the last few months. Coral Campbell Dr. Coral Campbell is an Associate Professor in science education at Deakin University in Victoria, Australia. Her research interests include early childhood and primary science/STEM education. Guest Editorial JES15 Summer 2018 page 5
Systemising and empathising in
early years science – a video-based
study with pre-school children
l Nina Skorsetz l Manuela WelzelBreuer
research approach (Collective, 2003), the tested
This paper has also appeared in: Finlayson, O., children were videoobserved while participating
McLoughlin, E., Erduran, S. & Childs, P. (Eds.) in the two different scientific learning environments,
(2018) Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 in spring 2015 and 2016.
Conference. Research, Practice and
Collaboration in Science Education. Dublin, Results seem to show that children with a high
Ireland: Dublin City University. SQvalue, as reported in literature, tend to be more
ISBN 9781873769843. motivated to do science than children with a high
Reproduced here with permission from ESERA. EQvalue. Children with a high SQvalue were
motivated in both learning environments, which
could lead to the interpretation that these children
Abstract are motivated to do science independent from the
Children are very different in their motivation to do pedagogical arrangement of the learning
science. An approach used to explain these environment. For children with a high EQvalue,
differences in the motivation for science could be no such correlations for their motivation to do
through the EmpathizingSystemizing (ES)Theory science were found. They seem to be less motivated
(BaronCohen, 2009). This theory states that every in both learning environments than children with
person’s brain has two dimensions: the systemising high SQvalue. More research is needed.
and the empathising. Both dimensions can be
measured with a questionnaire and represented in an Keywords: Early years science, videobased
EQ and a SQvalue. research, designbased research
People with a high SQvalue are called ‘systemisers’ Introduction
and tend to search for systems behind things; Starting point: Diversity
‘empathisers’ orientate themselves to other people’s Children in kindergarten are often very motivated
feelings. Systemisers are generally more engaged in to do science, but this motivation varies from child
science and more motivated to do science than to child and fades away with age (Patrick &
people with a high EQvalue, who are stronger in Mantzicopoulos, 2015). One usual explanation for
empathising (Zeyer et al, 2013). the different motivation to do science is the gender
difference between boys and girls. A slightly
The main goal of this study is to find out if preschool different approach for explaining differences in the
children with various EQ and SQvalues act motivation for science is the Empathizing
differently in different scientific learning Systemizing (ES)Theory by BaronCohen (2002).
environments. Children were observed during two The basis of his theory is that every human brain
pedagogically differently arranged learning has two dimensions. On the one hand, there is the
environments, to investigate potential different ‘empathising’ dimension, which is defined by the
behaviour. In this study, the brain types with respect drive to ‘identify another‘s mental states and to
to the EQ and SQvalues of 4 to 6 yearold pre respond to these with an appropriate emotion, in
school children were determined with a 55item EQ order to predict and to respond to the behaviour of
SQ questionnaire (Auyeung et al, 2009), which was another person’ (BaronCohen et al, 2005). On the
translated into German. In terms of a designbased other hand, there is the ‘systemising’ dimension,
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 6
which is defined as ‘the drive to analyze or construct ‘Motivation’ is here being considered to be
systems’ (BaronCohen, 2009, p.71). With motivation to learn something, or the desire to
questionnaires, the measure of the peculiarity of gather knowledge (Artelt, 2005). Motivation can be
both dimensions – called EQ and SQ – can be seen as ‘time on task’ (Artelt, 2005, p.233) spent
determined (Billington et al, 2007). focusing on the subject. If somebody is motivated
to learn something, s/he will probably spend more
People with a high SQvalue, called ’systemisers’, time on it.
are generally more engaged in science than people
who are stronger in empathising (Zeyer et al, 2013, There are several constructs concerning
p.1047). In BaronCohen’s studies, it seems that the motivation. Following Glynn & Koballa (2006),
two dimensions are independent from each other. these are, for instance, intrinsic/extrinsic
BaronCohen and his colleagues calculated the motivation, goal orientation, selfconfidence, self
difference between the EQ and SQvalue and determination and anxiety (Glynn & Koballa, 2006).
statistically identified five socalled brain types: Thus, the challenge is to observe different aspects
Extreme Empathisers; Empathisers; Balanced; of motivation, knowing that ‘motivation cannot be
Systemisers; and Extreme Systemisers. Further observed directly’ (Barth, 2010). Different types of
studies showed that the two dimensions do not instruments measure the amount of motivation,
depend on each other and the concept of brain such as the Leuven’s scale of
types was sometimes misleading, because a person involvement/engagement (Laevers, 2007). Within
can have a balanced brain type, with either two this measure, Laevers specified different signs of
similarly high EQ and SQvalues or two similar motivation: bodily posture, attentiveness,
minor values (SvedholmHäkkinen & Lindeman, endurance, accuracy, responsiveness and
2015, p.366). contentment. If we assume that someone is
motivated when s/he follows attentively in a
Zeyer et al (2013) showed that only the SQvalue situation, we can observe the different focus of
has an impact on the motivation to do science. So attention that the children choose in the scientific
far, the relation between the SQvalue and learning situations, and their duration.
motivation for science has not been tested with
young children, only with high school students.
However, the EQ and SQvalues can be measured Early years science in German kindergartens
for 411 yearold children using a combined 55item In German kindergartens it is common practice to
EQSQ Child Questionnaire, which was validated in use two different approaches to do science. The
a large study with over 1500 participants (Auyeung main difference between these two approaches is
et al, 2009). In this case, the parents filled out the in the degree of structuring of the didactical and
questionnaire for their children. methodic arrangements used. An aspect that both
ways have in common is that the learning
In this current study, the goal is to find out whether environment often starts with the exploration of
there are differences in motivation between a natural phenomenon.
systemisers and empathisers when attending
scientific learning environments at kindergarten The first applied approach is ‘rather structured’,
(Skorsetz & Welzel, 2015). Maybe children with because the idea is that the child coconstructs new
different brain types need different forms of access knowledge with others: for example, in a
to science (Zeyer et al, 2013, p.1047)? structured experiment an instruction is followed by
an interpretation and guided by questions and
interventions of the teacher (Lück, 2009). In this
What is motivation? way, the learning environment is led and structured
Before we can find out how motivated preschool by the preschool teacher. The preschool teacher
children are when participating in scientific learning and the children are often sitting around a table.
environments, we have to first define the term The materials to be used are displayed by the
‘motivation’. A useful definition is: ‘Motivation is an teacher on a dark pad and labelled by both teacher
internal condition that elicits, leads and maintains and children. A manual is used, which is followed
the children’s behaviour’ (Glynn & Koballa, 2006). using a stepbystep procedure.
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 7
The experimentation phase is followed by an p RQ1: To what extent do preschool children show
interpretation phase, where the children try empathising or systemising characteristics?
to find an explanation for the phenomenon.
At first, all tested children in the first year of the
For the other approach, the idea is that the project and of both brain types participated in a
child makes holistic (nature) experiences together more structured setting. In the following year,
with others, in a playful way and in a other tested children (the ‘next generation’), again
communicative setting. Hence, s/he has the of both brain types, participated in the more
possibility to identify him/herself with somebody exploratory learning environment. So, our research
else, or with a situation in a social setting, for question is specified for the two settings:
example through a fictional framing story (Schäfer,
2008, 2015). The children and the teacher are often p RQ2: To what extent is the influence of brain type
sitting on the floor in a circle and the materials are or of the EQ and SQvalue reflected in
displayed. A framing story is ‘told’ by a puppet, for differences in children‘s actions in a ‘rather
example, and the story ends with a problem structured’ (RQ 2.1), or a ‘rather open’ (RQ 2.2),
encountered by the puppet, which has to be solved learning environment based on the behaviour
by the children. After the story, the children have chosen for measurement and its duration?
time to explore the materials or the phenomenon
and solve the problem in their own way, in order to
‘help’ the puppet.
Method
In order to answer the research questions, our
Research questions study was organised in three steps:
The main goal of this study is to find out how pre
school children with different EQ/SQvalues act p (1): implementation of the EQSQ Child
and react in different didactical and methodical Questionnaire (developed by Auyeung et al,
learning environments, on the same scientific 2009);
topic. In other words, we are observing children p (2): implementation of the more structured
in the two different learning environments in order learning setting, and of the rather exploratory
to investigate potential different behaviour. type of learning environment; and
p (3): analysis of correlations between the brain
Our hypotheses in this context are: type of the children and their actions in the
different learning settings.
p H1: Systemisers could be more motivated
to do science in more structured learning
(1): At first we had to translate and validate the
environments because of their higher SQvalue,
EQSQ Child Questionnaire (Auyeung et al, 2009)
which leads them to search for systems.
in order to determine the EQ and SQvalues of
p H2: According to Zeyer et al (2013), we assume every child in a communicative validation process
that fictional stories and the possible (Lamnek et al, 2010). The questionnaire was given
identification with protagonists should to the children’s parents because of the young
especially motivate empathisers to do science. age of the children participating in the study.
An additional idea is that learning environments The tested children were 56 years old and were in
that include time to explore the materials could the last year of kindergarten before entering
be motivating for empathisers. primary school.
Based on these hypotheses, we developed the (2): In order to measure different actions
following research questions in order to find concerning the children’s motivation and to
differences between the children in two contrasting investigate if these were independent of the
learning environments. First, we have to find out didactical and methodological arrangement of the
whether different EQ and SQvalues can be found learning environment, a twostep procedure was
among preschool children: followed, where children participated in one of the
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 8
two contrasting scientific learning environments. This result is in accordance with the literature
Both learning environments were based on the (Auyeung et al, 2009). Thus, we can conclude that
same scientific phenomenon: ‘absorbency the translated questionnaire was valid and reliable.
properties of different materials’ (Krahn, 2005). Overall, 112 children were tested by the
The learning environments were theorybased and questionnaire during data collection in the spring of
evaluated using the Design Based Research 2015 and spring 2016.
approach (DBR Collective, 2007).
Development, implementation and analysis
One of the mixed groups of tested children of the learning environment
participated in the ‘rather structured’ approach; the Both learning environments were based on the
other group participated in the ‘rather open’ scientific phenomenon of absorbency. We expected
approach. The children’s behaviour (n=50) was the children to recognise this phenomenon from
observed (videorecorded) carefully. The same situations experienced at home and in kindergarten
procedure was performed with the ‘rather open’ and involving the spilling of fluids.
approach in the following year. The videotapes
formed the basis for the empirical analysis, using For the study, children with brain type/EQ and
inductively developed observational categories SQvalue participated in the learning environment
focusing on what the children were looking at in groups of four. All activities were videorecorded
(Mayring, 2008). using two video cameras filming the sequences
from different angles. During the summers of 2015
(3): The third and last step was to calculate
and 2016, 99 preschool children, aged 56, from
statistically the correlation between the compiled
seven different kindergartens in the area of
EQ response and SQvalues with the data from the
Heidelberg, Germany, were filmed.
video analysis, in order to find the expected
significant differences between the two groups of
children (Bortz & Döring, 2006). The data collection of the ‘rather structured’
learning environment took place in spring/summer
2015 in 15 settings with 52 children. The data
Results collection of the ‘rather exploratory’ learning
The EQSQ Questionnaire environment comprised of 14 settings with
The analysis of the questionnaire was carried out 47 children, which was implemented in
with the participation of different researchers from spring/summer 2016. Hence, the total number of
different faculties in order to achieve video material added up to about 10 hours.
communicative validation (Lamnek et al, 2010).
About 17 scientists, who usually meet regularly The two videotapes of each setting were inputted
during a seminar, participated in this twostep in the evaluation software programme Videograph
procedure. For the pretest, the first version of the (Rimmele, 2012) and synchronised. Inductively,
questionnaire in German was trialled with a mother we developed eight observation categories with
and her child in that age group. From this, we the focus on the children’s viewing directions.
obtained answers to the questions, as well as These included children looking:
comments about the clarity of the questions. After
another communicative validation process with the p Towards the preschool teacher
above research group, based on the mother’s p Towards other children
comments, the second and improved version of the p At the experimentation material
questionnaire was finalised. The pilot study
p Towards the observer/into the camera
followed, with the questionnaire administered to
25 parents of preschool children. The internal p Around
consistency of the results was tested statistically. p At material not relevant to the immediate
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated and situation
showed acceptable coefficients for empathy items p Indistinguishable
(α=0.81), as well as for systemising items (α=0.61). p At anything else
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 9
Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Difference − .69** – .38** − .03 – .16 .16 −.01 –.10 −.18 –.14
2 EQ −.32** .12 −.22 −.11 –.09 –.06 −.09 −.08
3 SQ −.21 .04 .00 −.07 −.02 –.31* –.28*
Notes: Difference = Difference EQ/SQ = Brain Type, EQ = relative EQvalue (2); SQ = relative
SQvalue (3), Teacher = View towards Preschool Teacher (4), Children = View towards other
Children (5), Exp.mat. = View towards the Experimentation Material (6), Cam. = View toward
the Observer/into the Camera (7), Around = View around (8), Mat. n. r. = View t. Material that is
not relevant right now (9), Distraction (10)
* p < .05, ** p < .01. (onetailed)
Table 1: Correlations (‘rather structured’ learning environment).
Next, we converged categories 4, 5 and 6 into a followed with the ‘rather exploratory’ learning
new category, ‘Distraction/ Attentiveness’. The environment. In contrast to the first setting, the
6th category involved material that the children coding of the viewing directions of the children
stored in their pockets, or experimentation started just after the end of the presentation of
material that had been used before but was no the framing story.
longer relevant. The 8th category was not used.
A manual was produced.
Correlations
The videotapes of both learning environments In order to answer the second research question,
were then analysed in detail according to the the EQ and SQvalues of each child were
manual. All videos were analysed by two coders. correlated using the videoanalysed data. Table 1
In the ‘rather structured’ learning environment, shows the results of the correlations of the data
the children’s viewing directions were gathered for from the ‘rather structured’ learning environment
the whole setting. With the software programme and the children’s EQ and SQvalue. Two
Videograph, the duration was measured as a significant values were identified in this onetailed
percentage independent from the duration of the Spearman correlation: r=–.31* (negative
setting. Different codes were identified and correlation between SQ and ‘View to material that
discussed in the communicative validation process is not relevant right now’, row 3, column 9) and
(Lamnek et al, 2010). The same procedure was r=–.28* (negative correlation between SQ and
Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Difference −.68** .56** −.02 .04 .02 −.03 .01 .34** –.14 −.02
2 EQ .20 –.05 .17 .11 –.02 –.14 .28* −.08 –.14
3 SQ .04 .20 .11 −.01 −.12 –.23 .13 −.16
Notes: Difference = Difference EQ/SQ = Brain Type, EQ = relative EQvalue (2); SQ = relative
SQvalue (3), Teacher = View towards Preschool Teacher (4), Children = View towards other
Children (5), Exp.mat. = View towards the Experimentation Material (6), Cam. = View toward
the 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)
Table 2: Correlations (‘rather open’ learning environment).
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 10‘Distraction’, row 3, column 10). This means that Discussion and conclusions
children with a higher SQvalue tend to be more The first conclusion that we drew from the results
focused on the scientific related aspects. was that children with a high SQvalue seem to be
motivated in both learning environments.
In Table 2, the results of the correlation in the ‘rather So, children with a high SQvalue seem to be
exploratory’ learning environment with the motivated to do science independent of the
children’s EQ and SQvalues are displayed. Our learning environment and the pedagogical
study has relevant correlation with a significant approach used. This result matches our first
value (r=.28*, row 2, column 9) between the EQ hypothesis with respect to children with a high
value and the ‘view towards material that is not SQvalue being motivated to do science in
relevant right now’. structured learning environments. The results go
beyond this hypothesis, because the children
This means that children with a higher EQvalue always seem to be motivated to do science
tend to focus on nonrelevant aspects, so they seem whatever the learning environment.
to be more distracted than children with a higher However, the second hypothesis can neither be
SQvalue. Another significant value is r=–.34** confirmed nor refuted, because we found no hint
(variable difference, row 1, column 9) between the that children with a high EQvalue seem to be
children’s brain type and the ‘view towards material motivated to do science in the different learning
that is not relevant right now’. This result could be environments. Maybe these children prefer to
interpreted as children with a higher SQvalue (in focus on the nonrelevant material to contribute
the difference accumulated) focusing less on to the learning environment.
distracting material. This could also be interpreted
as meaning that, again, children with a high SQ Therefore, the significant correlations lead to
value are more motivated to do science. the following hypotheses, which need to be
investigated further:
Limitations
p Children with high SQvalues tend to be
Looking critically at the data, we have to take into
motivated to do science independent from
account specific limitations. Firstly, the parents
the learning environment; and
filled in the EQ/SQ Child Questionnaire and
evaluated their own children. Some of their p The ‘rather open’ learning environment
answers could be socially desirable. motivates children with high EQvalues due
to the possibility of choosing additional
Secondly, characteristics (perhaps relevant) other material for their activities.
than the EQ and SQvalues were not collected
through the questionnaire (e.g. socioeconomical Further analyses of the quantity and choice of
background, intelligence, previous knowledge), objects touched and labelled could be an
and no longitudinal data of the children were interesting additional focus.
available. Thirdly, the influence of the use of small
groups when the children participated in the
learning environments could not be investigated. Acknowledgement
This study is financially supported by the Klaus
Additionally, only some selected aspects, such Tschira Foundation and the Forscherstation, the
as the focus of the children’s views, which were Klaus Tschira Competence Center for Early Years
considered as measures for motivation based on Science Education, which aims to inspire
their duration, were observed in this study. enthusiasm for the natural sciences in children
of a very young age, by training kindergarten
Finally, the comparability of the groups in the and primary school teachers. The Competence
sample of 2015 and 2016 might not be entirely Center is an affiliation of the Klaus Tschira
accurate given the random composition of pre Foundation and is associated with the Heidelberg
school children. University of Education.
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 11References Mayring, P. (2008) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse:
Artelt, C. (2005) ‘CrossCultural Approaches to Grundlagen und Techniken (10th Edition).
Measuring Motivation’, Educational Assessment, Weinheim: Beltz
10, (3), 231–255. Retrieved from: Patrick, H. & Mantzicopoulos, P. (2015) ‘Young
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1003_5 Children’s Motivation for Learning Science’. In:
Auyeung, B., Wheelwright, S., Allison, C., Atkinson, Research in Early Childhood Science Education,
M., Samarawickrema, N. & BaronCohen, S. Trundle, K.C. & Saçkes, M. (Eds.), 7–34.
(2009) ‘The Children’s Empathy Quotient and Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands
Systemizing Quotient: Sex Differences in Typical https://doi.org/10.1007/9789401795050_2
Development and in Autism Spectrum Schäfer, G.E. (2011) Bildungsprozesse im
Conditions’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Kindesalter. Selbstbildung, Erfahrung und
Disorder, 39, (11) Lernen in der frühen Kindheit. Weinheim und
BaronCohen, S. (2009) ‘Autism: The Empathizing München: Juventa
Systemizing (ES) Theory’, Annals of the New Skorsetz, N. & WelzelBreuer, M. (2016)
York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 68–80 ’Systemizing and Empathizing. Research on
Billington, J., BaronCohen, S. & Wheelwright, S. Early Years Science Education and Brain Types’.
(2007) ‘Cognitive style predicts entry into In: Systemizing and Empathizing. Electronic
physical sciences and humanities: Questionnaire Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference
and performance tests of empathy and Science Education Research: Engaging Learners
systemizing’, Learning and Individual Differences, for a Sustainable Future, Lavonen, J., Juuti, K.,
17, (3), 260–268 Lampiselkä, J., Uitto, A. & Hahl, K. (Hrsg.),
Bortz, J. & Döring, N. (2006) Forschungsmethoden 15715, 2599–2607. Retrieved from:
und Evaluation. Für Human und www.esera.org/media/eBook%202015/eBook_P
Sozialwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: Springer art_15_links.pdf
MedizinVerlag Zeyer, A., ÇetinDindar, A., Nurulazam Md Zain, A.,
Collective, T.D.B.R. (2003) ’DesignBased Juriševič, M., Devetak, I. & Odermatt, F. (2013)
Research: An emerging paradigm for ‘Systemizing: A crosscultural constant for
educational inquiry’, Educational Researcher, 32, motivation to learn science’, Journal of Research
(1), 5–8 in Science Teaching, 50, (9), 1047–1067
Glynn, S.M. & Koballa, T.R. Jr. (2006) ‘Motivation to
Learn in College Science’. In: Handbook of
College Science Teaching, Mintzes J.J. &
Leonhard, W.H. (Eds.). Arlington, VA: National Nina Skorsetz and Manuela WelzelBreuer,
Science Teachers Association Press Goethe University Frankfurt/Main and University
Krahn, S. (2005) Untersuchungen zum intuitiven of Education, Heidelberg, Germany.
naturwissenschaftlichen Wissen von Kindern im Emails: skorsetz@em.unifrankfurt.de and
Alter zwischen zwei und sieben Jahren. welzel@phheidelberg.
Universität Bielefeld. Retrieved from
https://pub.unibielefeld.de/publication/2303984
Laevers, F. (2007) Die Leuvener Engagiertheitsskala.
LESK (2nd Edition). Erkelenz: Klara Schlörner
Lück, G. (2003) Handbuch der
naturwissenschaftlichen Bildung. Theorie und
Praxis für die Arbeit in Kindertageseinrichtungen.
Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 12Pre-school children’s collaborative
science learning scaffolded by tablets
– A teacher’s view
l Marie Fridberg l Susanne Thulin l Andreas Redfors
(Nihlfors, 2008; Gitomer & Zisk, 2015). Research
This paper has also appeared in: Finlayson, O., also points to some key factors where teachers’
McLoughlin, E., Erduran, S. & Childs, P. (Eds.) knowledge of science is one central issue for the
(2018) Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 learning (SirajBlatchford et al, 2002; Yoshikawa,
Conference. Research, Practice and 2013). Furthermore, Fleer (2009) expresses the link
Collaboration in Science Education. Dublin, between early childhood teachers’ limited science
Ireland: Dublin City University. knowledge and teachers’ confidence and
ISBN 9781873769843. competence to teach science. However she,
Reproduced here with permission from ESERA. together with other researchers, also point to
preschool teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) and attitude towards science
Abstract as having an impact on children’s learning (Fleer,
The potential of tablets to support communication 2009; Thulin, 2011; SpectorLevy et al, 2013).
during collaborative inquirybased science learning in
preschool has previously been reported (Fridberg, In this study, we make use of timelapse
Thulin & Redfors, 2017). Children communicate in a photography and Slowmations. Timelapse
more advanced manner about the phenomenon and photography is a technique that shows a slowly
they focus more readily on problemsolving when changing event in accelerated speed, which is
active in experimentation or Slowmation production. accomplished by photographing the event at
Here, we shift focus to the preschool teacher’s certain intervals and, when played at normal
perspective on science and the work model with speed, the event seems much faster. A Slowmation
timelapse and Slowmation. The preschool teacher’s on the other hand is a stopmotion animation
talk about the teaching was analysed from three played in slow motion to explain a science concept
perspectives: the relationships between teacher (Hoban, 2007). The work model implemented with
science, teacherchildren, and childrenscience. children aged 3 to 6 (Fridberg, Thulin & Redfors,
Possibilities and challenges expressed by the pre 2017) constitutes four different learning contexts:
school teacher in relation to the three perspectives i.e. handson experiments, timelapse photography,
were identified and, interestingly, the analysis shows stimulated recall, followed by Slowmation creation,
most possibilities in the childrenscience relationship. where the children represent explanatory models
In contrast, most challenges are found for the in different materials, and which is versatile and
teacherscience relationship, in terms of lack of opens up possibilities for the children to generate,
knowledge. We argue for the need to further discuss represent and discuss explanatory models.
pre and inservice preschool teachers’ experiences
of science and science education. From a theoretical framework primarily based
on phenomenography and variation theory
Keywords: Preschool, science, tablets (Marton & Booth, 1997), focusing on
developmental pedagogy (Pramling Samuelsson
& Asplund Carlsson, 2008), this work aims to
Introduction analyse variations of, in retrospect, expressed
One identified important factor for children’s experiences by the teacher, for the four different
learning, whether in preschool or in the education contexts of science learning during a semi
system as a whole, is teachers’ content knowledge structured interview.
Main Article JES14 Summer 2018 page 13The research question guiding the study is: Results
The challenges and possibilities identified in the
p What differences in referential meaning can be analysis of the teacher’s statements involving
ascribed to the teacher’s statements about the science and the work model will below be
science teaching work model, especially summarised as belonging to the themes:
concerning possibilities and challenges? knowledge, number of children, children’s previous
experiences, time constraints, and interactions.
Method Challenges described by the teacher include his
A semistructured interview with openended experienced lack of knowledge in science, even
questions was performed with the teacher one year though he also stated that the project increased his
after the finalisation of the project. The teacher knowledge. Another challenge expressed is
answered spontaneously, with followup questions connected to numbers, when too many children
from the researcher. In addition, we used take part in the activities. This was manifested in
stimulated recall where the teacher watched the teacher expressing the need to take a more
selected parts of the videorecorded activities with controlling role in the situation, compared to when
the children, and was asked to reflect on his role. there are fewer children involved. Fewer children
The activities were chosen to represent four allow for him to stand back and the discussions
enacted learning contexts analysed previously among the children were more fruitful and less
(Fridberg et al, 2017). The teacher’s statements stressful. However, in addition, the teacher
were analysed and categorised with specific stressed that the number of children is only one
focuses, depicted in Figure 1. factor influencing the outcome. The results
achieved during the production of Slowmations,
Through a phenomenographic analysis, we could etc. also depend on the individual children involved
identify variations of experienced possibilities and and their previous experiences and ability to co
challenges with parts of the science teaching work operate. Yet another experienced limiting factor is
model, as described by the teacher. time and the pressure the teacher felt to reach
conclusions and ‘get somewhere’ during the
timeframe of the activity. This resulted in the
Teacher teacher sometimes seeing himself as someone who
provided the answers too quickly, or feeling that he
did not give the children space to think through the
activity. He described how the lived/felt time
pressure sometimes negatively influenced the
A discussions between him and the children.
B The teacher reported that, during the project, he
came to expand his view of natural science from
one restricted to biology to then include also
chemistry and physics, something that can be
thought of as opening up opportunities. This result
Science teaching C Children also concurs with the results of Thulin and Redfors
work model (2017), who found a large portion of students
having changed their views accordingly from pre
Figure 1: The triangle of analysis depicts the three to posttest related to a science course in pre
relations A, B, C focused in the analysis of the school teacher education.
teacher’s statements, related to A) the object of
learning in terms of the science teaching work The possibilities described lie in the work model
model, B) the children, and C) the children’s itself. It takes into consideration the children’s
relation to science or the work model. interest in tablets and captures many of the areas
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 14in the preschool curriculum, such as natural for students when they construct their own
science, mathematics and language, but also representations of scientific processes and
values and interaction. The work model, with concepts. These gains include the development of
discussions, handson experiments and students’ cognitive and reasoning strategies, the
timelapse/Slowmation production, where the promotion of contexts that engender meaningful
children represent the phenomenon in different communication of science understandings, and of
materials, is versatile and opens up the learning of activities that are highly engaging for students. Our
the science phenomenon from several results were in agreement and revealed the
perspectives. This, according to the teacher, is timelapse movies as beneficial for the children’s
consistent with the preschool teacher’s mission to modelbased reasoning about the science content
include all children based on their individual needs (evaporation), and the Slowmation movie
and preconditions. production helped the children to think about
explanations for, and representations of, the
Most possibilities described by the teacher are science content. Another interesting aspect of
found in the relationship between the children and young children and their interaction with digital
the object of learning (side C in the triangle, Figure technology is described by Kjällander and Moinian
1). He stated that the teachers and their attitudes (2014). They studied preschool children’s playful
to the work model or science are the limiting use of applications on tablets and described how
factor, not the children. These results can be their interactions resisted the preexisting didactic
compared to Thulin (2011), who stated that the design of the application. Instead, the children in
children were interested in the content and asked their study transformed the application setting and
contentrelated questions. The children have no objects into something that made sense and had
difficulties working with experiments, movie meaning for them. The children designed their own
production, etc. The results depend on the attitude process by making sense of affordances provided
of the teacher, who needs to be positive in order to by the digital resource in relation to their own
have a fruitful outcome. Interestingly, and to the interest and previous experience. This finding
contrary, most challenges are described in the reflects children’s agency and opens up the way
relationship between the teacher himself and the for thoughts on consumer and production
object of learning (side A in Figure 1), in terms of processes in the digital arena (Kjällander &
experienced lack of knowledge. Moinian, 2014). We consider our proposed work
model with timelapse and Slowmation production
to fit well into an agentic view of childhood
Discussion (Fridberg et al, 2017). In the present study, we
An increasing number of studies (Ainsworth, 1999; expand our previous work, which focused on the
Prain & Waldrip, 2006) suggest that students’ children, to include the teacher’s views and
learning is enhanced when they create digital experience of science and the jointly developed
artefacts, such as representations of science work model.
concepts. Through this creation of an explanatory
model, skills such as creativity, problemsolving, In order to help children to learn about something,
communication and collaboration can be it is important that the teacher considers children’s
developed (Nielsen & Hoban, 2015). We have previous experiences, as well as the object of
previously studied and proposed a work model for learning (Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson,
children’s collaborative science learning through 2008; Thulin, 2011; Gustavsson, Jonsson, Ljung
the use of computer tablets. This teaching model Djärf & Thulin, 2016). During the interview, the
includes discussions, experiments documented by teacher highlighted the importance of the
timelapse photography, stimulated recall for the children’s prior experiences when he stated that
teacher and children through watching timelapse ‘It’s about what they have in their luggage too’ as he
movies, and a subsequent production of a described the lived curriculum. It is not the age of
Slowmation movie, where the children represented the children, but their prior experiences, which set
their explanatory model in, for instance, playdough the limits according to the teacher and this concurs
or LEGO® (Fridberg et al, 2017). Prain and Tytler with the variation theory as described by Marton
(2013) argue that there are particular learning gains (2015). Important for a teacher to consider is what
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 15the learners have not yet learned to discern about Interestingly, and striking from the analysis, most
a certain object of learning, since these ‘lacking challenges are expressed in the teacherlearning
pieces’ are critical aspects for further learning. object relationship (A) and in terms of the
experienced lack of knowledge, while most
In a recent national report, Skolinspektionen (2016) possibilities are described in the childrenlearning
describes how the science subject in Swedish pre object relationship (C). Different children show
schools often is acted out in somewhat random interest in different parts of the versatile work
experiment activities, without guidance towards a model, and the teacher viewed them as capable.
specific object of learning. The teacher in the Instead, he pointed out that it is the knowledge and
present study pointed out the benefits of the work attitude of the preschool teacher towards science
model, including several subjects and aspects of and the work model that will determine possible
science such as, for instance, language, technology opportunities and challenges. In this case study, the
and mathematics. teacher was stimulated by the work model, but was
less well prepared for the science content.
During the work process, the teacher also saw Research on primary science teachers of young
other important parts of the curriculum being children shows that teachers have insufficient
expressed, such as value systems and the children’s knowledge of the subject and pedagogical content
ability to interact with each other. He suggested knowledge (Appleton, 2008; Fleer, 2009; Thulin,
the work model to be used prior to a parent 2011; SpectorLevy et al, 2013). Other studies also
teacher conference, since it would enable him as a point to early childhood teachers’ lack of science
teacher to learn things about the children and their subject matter knowledge (Kallery & Psillos, 2001;
capabilities that he didn’t know about. The teacher Garbett, 2003) but, to date, only a few studies have
talked about children whom he knew to be a bit shy focused on practising inservice preschool
and withdrawn surprising him by being active and teachers (Andersson & Gullberg, 2014). This relates
expressing their thoughts during the timelapse and to justification for science in preschool and the
Slowmation production. He connected this to the ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ perspectives, where ‘being’
preconceptions and takenforgranted refers to viewing children as actors in their own
assumptions that adults and teachers often have lives and letting them meet the science primarily
about children’s capabilities. for their own sake, while the ‘becoming’ refers to
future uses of an early grounded knowledge.
Structural factors challenging the work with the Thulin & Redfors (2017) do not polarise the two
model and science included the number of children perspectives, but show that student preschool
participating in the activity: the more children, the teachers revealed a slight predominance for the
more stressful a situation for the teacher to handle. society – ‘becoming’ – perspective. However, from
However, he also pointed to the influence of which the results presented here, we can say that both
children one, as a teacher, groups together in the teacher and children benefited from and
activities, something that may be viewed as a experienced a ‘being’ perspective concerning their
relational factor that either limits or enables the modelbased reasoning.
learning. If the children cooperate easily with
each other, the group can be larger. Another In this study, different dilemmas that the teacher
structural factor challenging his work included an encountered when working with science and the
experienced lack of time during the activities. work model could be identified. In the teacher’s
This, according to the teacher, influenced his own words, ‘It’s a balancing act all the time, it’s
discussions with the children in a negative way, really tricky’. The teacher has to consider and
and prompted him to provide them with the handle several factors at the same time, such as
correct answer to his questions, or to move on too time management and children’s interactions,
fast without giving the children time to think as when teaching a subject manifested in the
much as he would have liked them to. However, the curriculum about which he is not really comfortable
main structural factor expressed by the teacher as with his knowledge. He talked about the need for
limiting for his work is his experienced lack of support, from both the children’s and the teacher’s
knowledge in science. perspective. The children are dependent on him
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 16and his attitude towards the subject, and he in turn unexpected things that happen in the moment;
needs support in the form of someone with whom asking challenging questions to further
to discuss ideas, thoughts and questions. Or, in investigations; and ‘situated presence’, that is,
other words, the need for someone who supports remaining in the situation and listening to the
his work through discussions about the intended children. By making use of these skills, preschool
and enacted object of learning. In Thulin & Redfors teachers may shift focus from their experienced
(2017), the majority of student preschool teachers insufficient subject matter knowledge to instead
were positive about science and this result is reinforce their pedagogical content knowledge
contrary to the general impression in western (Andersson & Gullberg, 2014).
countries that young people share negative views
of science. Like the student preschool teachers in At the same time, we argue that a polarisation
the Thulin & Redfors survey, the preschool teacher between science and science education is not
in the present study expressed a positive attitude beneficial. In intertwining support of science content
to science. Instead, it was a feeling of not knowing with implementation of work models such as the
enough about different science matters that the one presented here, both knowledge of explanatory
teacher in this study saw as the challenge in his models in science and competence in handling
work. This is further reflected in what we, as activities with children can be seen to improve.
teachers in the preschool teacher programme,
encounter in our work with students and the
science subjects. Our experience is that the Conclusion and implications
students struggle with modelbased reasoning, The timelapse/Slowmation work model shows
while the attitude towards the subject is one of promise for future developmental work concerning
positivity and curiosity among most students. both children and teachers. We agree with Eshach
(2006) that support for teachers’ work with science
This raises an important question. When different content in preschool is needed, and the work
content in the Swedish preschool curriculum is model described by us could be viewed as one such
discussed, it is often from the children’s support structure, through its framing and
perspectives, and about how the content can be meaningmaking of the science content. The work
presented to fit the children’s interests and model with timelapse and Slowmation production
previous experiences. Eshach (2006) reasons that concurs with teaching from a child perspective and
the teacher perspective is equally important to an agentic role of active children in collaboration
consider when working with science in early years: (Fridberg et al, 2017). In the present study, where
previous work has been expanded to include the
‘I thus argue that educators should seek after such teacher’s views and experience, we have found
science activities that not only fit the children’s needs several distinct and important implications for pre
but also the teachers’ abilities, motivations and and inservice preschool teacher education.
needs. (…) But to succeed in using such an approach,
a kindergarten teacher must receive sufficient Results from this research on uses of our work
scientific support. (…) Thus, I argue that K2 science model for science teaching have given a list of
education should be teachercentered as well as implications – four ‘pointstomake’ for teacher
studentcentered, as opposed to the traditional education and preschool practice.
studentcentered approach’ (Eshach, 2006). Firstly, teaching with and about the work model
entails and highlights the importance and
Here, and in earlier work, we have seen the fruitfulness of having planned teaching activities
importance and benefits of intertwining science with formulated intended objects of learning,
content and science education research results in which open up several overarching learning goals in
working with inservice preschool teachers – a the curriculum, such as communication, co
view supported by Andersson and Gullberg (2014), operation and world views, and bring in aspects of
who suggest four skills of which preschool other subjects, including language, technology and
teachers can make use when teaching science: mathematics. Secondly, it combines digital
children’s previous experiences; capturing technology and science learning objects. Thirdly,
Main Article JES15 Summer 2018 page 17You can also read
