Using inquiry-based science education at the preschool level is one thing, and assessing the subsequent learning and skills is another. Indeed, science is not among the domains that are well represented in the catalog of reliable and valid assessments available to educators and researchers.
2. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 assumed to be critical for both school readiness and as foundations for future learning (Brenneman, 2011). In addition, early engagement in science stimulates the development of concepts of oneself as a science learner and a participant in the process of science (Mantzicopoulos & Samarapungavan, 2007). However, the first problem is that science in preschool classrooms often does not receive a sufficient amount of attention compared with other subjects. One of the reasons is that teachers are not familiar with the basic knowledge that preschoolers have about science concepts, the reasoning skills they possess and the potential limits of those skills (Brenneman, 2011; Park Rogers, 2011). Young children then have few or no opportunities to learn science compared with other subjects in their early years of education, meaning that the cognitive skills that form the basis for scientific thinking and learning are clearly underestimated (Sackes, Akman, & Trundle, 2010). Another problem is that few studies show how teaching interventions are translated into the classroom. Indeed, training studies frequently involve many labour-intensive and time-consuming methods. They are often minimally guided as well. It is difficult to translate a laboratory method into the practical setting of the classroom (e.g. class organisation), and the central aim is focussed on conceptual understanding (Lorch, et al., 2008; Zohar & Barzilai, 2013). In order to avoid the aforementioned problems, compact didactic methods can be designed in which the child plays an active role in its own learning process. This process ideally does not involve many instructions and builds on the child’s curiosity and its urge to interact and inquire. These principles can be found within an inquiry-based pedagogy in science. Indeed, scientific inquiry is primarily about the process of building understanding by collecting evidence to test the possible explanations in a scientific manner. It explains how smaller ideas (e.g. stand-alone observations) have the potential of growing into big ideas (e.g. theories and phenomena that are related to each other) (Harlen, 2013). Activities are then designed in such a way that children are intellectually engaged and challenged through questions and extended interactions and by giving responsibility for what is accomplished. It is clear that an inquiry-based approach offers possibilities for children to make sense of the world and their environment rather than learning isolated bits and pieces of phenomena. Science in preschool should not be an obstacle. It is a fact that humans are born inquirers. For instance, when a young child is trying to find out how a sound box must be held in order to generate a pleasant melody, it may pay attention to the relation of its actions and the effects that follow. It is plausible that the child detects that orientation is a significant action, instead of tapping on the box. Similar experiences combined with other aspects may be generalised, which may lead to the recognition of regularities or the understanding and expectations of actions within the child’s everyday world. However, the aforementioned example is in contrast with scientific inquiry. Indeed, the development of understanding should depend on the processes that are involved in making predictions, seeking solutions and gathering evidence to test whether they are being carried out in a scientific way (Harlen, 2013). Children do not do this automatically (e.g. Klahr & Nigam, 2003; Lorch et al., 2008; Chen & Klahr, 1999; Masnick & Klahr, 2011). Sometimes children may focus on the wrong variable or they may vary more than one variable at a time, which results in incorrect and inconsistent conclusions. Many studies have shown that children normally do not test their initial ideas and that even when they do, they may not do it scientifically. Within scientific learning, it is therefore certainly important that children are helped to develop the skills they need in scientific investigation (Harlen, 2013). Teachers should design environments in which scientific activities occur when the child explores, plays and learns. They should guide them by supporting self-regulation skills (e.g. 538
3. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet planning), asking probe questions, focussing the children’s attention to causes and effects or helping them reflect on what was found. In this way, the focus is on process skills rather than on formal knowledge and conceptual change. However, in this study we are not considering children’s understanding of inquiry but rather their ability to conduct, engage and act in inquiry activities. Action provides information (Glenberg, 2011). In exploratory activity, the act of children spontaneously seeking information about the properties of events in their worlds is important. Young children learn to control action intentionally, learn to control external events and thus learn to gain information about the world around them and their own capabilities. For instance, what is being learned in causal relations is to differentiate events into subevents in which objects have different functions (Gibson & Pick, 2000). In the present study, we design didactics based on the inquiry pedagogy of science for preschool children of 4–6 years of age. The didactics consider the following characteristics: (1) scientific activities are meaningful through the use of rich contexts and build on the natural curiosity of early learners, (2) children are challenged with questions that make them think and rethink, (3) children are allowed to interact with one another and (4) research activities encourage the child to collect the data in a systematic way. By means of 15 activities, children explore different scientific phenomena. For instance, they are encouraged to explore the effect of weight and position on a balance or they are engaged in exploring the sound effect of filling water in glasses of various dimensions. A teacher then uses probe questions in order to direct the attention of the child to the event, its properties, the relations or higher-order relations between these properties or sets of properties. In addition, the teacher poses questions at crucial moments, inviting the children to reflect. Through this act of scaffolding, a deeper level of learning is promoted, which may encourage children to make or to understand predictions about what will happen next or what will happen if something else happens (French, 2004). Assessing scientific reasoning skills Using inquiry-based science education at preschool level is one thing, and assessing the subsequent learning and skills is another. Indeed, science is not among the domains that are well represented in the catalogue of reliable and valid assessments available to educators and researchers. In other words, few comprehensive tools exist (Brenneman, 2011). However, such instruments would be interesting when for instance teachers want to assess the effectiveness of a curriculum or a particular programme or when they want to find out to what extent individual children has acquired the desired skills. However, this entails a number of issues. The first problem is that children’s causal reasoning skills are often underestimated because of their overreliance on domain-specific prior beliefs, masking its formal reasoning abilities (Cook, Goodman, & Schulz, 2011). Indeed, even when children are capable of using scientific processes in some circumstances, they do not necessarily do so in other circumstances (Harlen, 2013). In other words, the nature of the context in which they use scientific processes matters. The second problem is that when children are tested on real-world phenomena where complex and multivariate problems occur or with contexts that do not fit in with young children’s natural way of processing experience, the test will probably once again underestimate the children’s capacities. This is in accordance with information processing theories such as cognitive load theory, arguing that environmental complexity overloads working-memory capacity, which is pronounced more in younger children (Sweller, In order to circumvent these problems a task can be designed in which the context is less crucial, reflecting the children’s real formal reasoning abilities. Gopnik, Sobel, Schulz, and 539
4. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 Glymour (2001) have already tested whether young children are able to make causal inferences on the basis of simple patterns of variation and co-variation. When two variables together cause an effect but only one variable generates the effect independently, children reason that the other variable cannot be the cause. In another example, Cook et al. (2011) show that preschoolers spontaneously select and design actions in order to effectively isolate the relevant variables in cases where information is to be gained. The authors use an experimental method in order to find out whether preschoolers are able to distinguish informative from uninformative interventions in a simple exploration environment. The authors manipulate the base rate of candidate causes, affecting the potential of information gain. It is then hypothesised that when children understand that causal variables need to be tested separately, they have to design actions in order to effectively isolate the relevant variable of cause. Although these methods are promising, they have never been used in combination with inquiry-based science programmes. In the present study we therefore investigate to what extent there is a transfer between interventions that encourage children’s exploration behaviour in rich and authentic contexts with complex relationships between different variables (the usual classroom) on the one hand and their formal reasoning abilities in simpler contexts on the other. To that end we use a less context-dependent assessment method in which a need for information gain is created. We demonstrate that a box lights up when a wooden block is moved while it is put upright; thus, the variables block position and block orientation are varied at the same time. At the first sight, it is not possible to infer the real cause of the box lighting up unless one examines the effect of the variables one by one. In our opinion, a similar assessment tool not only informs us about the extent to which a child learns from exploration during the intervention phase but also gives us information about a child’s understanding at the level of scientific reasoning skills, which happens to be an important aim of an inquiry-based approach. Inquiry-based programmes for science are not really new. For instance, van Schijndel, Singer, Van der Maas and Raijmakers (2010) show that preschool science consisting of guided play can improve young children’s spontaneous exploratory behaviour at a higher level. This is especially the case in children with low exploratory play levels before the observations are started. The authors used a 6-week programme with 2- and 3-year olds in a day-care centre. Children’s exploratory play was observed in a pretest and a post-test. The programme consisted of guiding spontaneous play activities in the sandpit. Two science subjects, ‘sorting and sets’ and ‘slope and speed’, were alternated week by week and were connected to the themes that had been elaborated on in the children’s classrooms. For sorting and sets, objects had to be sorted according to colour, size or function. The experimenter let the children play and let them repeatedly sort, vary and observe the obtained effects. For slope and speed, the slope of the piles and the position of the tubes were varied, while the speed of the balls was monitored. For both the activities, the experimenter asked the children for explanations and guided them by varying the different variables while monitoring the effect. In a pre-test and a post-test, exploratory behaviour was observed. Exploratory behaviour was classified as scientific if the following four conditions are met: (1) manipulation, (2) repetition, (3) varying and (4) observing the effects. In the post-test, the authors found a higher proportion of high-level exploratory play compared with children who did not receive the instructions. In another study, French (2004) describes the ScienceStart! Curriculum. The programme consists of different activities with a four-part cyclic structure: (1) ask and reflect, (2) plan and predict, (3) act and observe and (4) report and reflect. All the activities involved open- 540
5. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet ended investigations of materials and phenomena. After that, explorations were discussed and other questions that children wanted to address were generated and executed. Everything ended with a culminating activity. In order to assess the effectiveness of the programme, quality measurements were carried out for teacher impressions and parent impressions. Furthermore, a significant increase in receptive knowledge of vocabulary and mastery of science content in the areas of colour, shade and air was found. Both the approaches bring children into contact with scientific environments that are rich in both experience and language (French, 2004). An experience-rich environment leads to a better understanding of events and materials, and a language-rich environment allows for authentic communication with adults who support the children’s acquisition of meaning and pragmatic functions of language (French, 2004). In the present study verbal instructions and comments form part of the intervention. In accordance with French (2004) we assume that language in scientific contexts (teacher– child and child–child) is essential for children in order to acquire content knowledge and strategy learning by listening to each other. Furthermore, through the use of language, explanatory language (Peterson & French, 2008) and the ability to talk about concepts (Gelman, Brenneman, Macdonald, & Roman, 2009) are encouraged. Although the aforementioned studies are promising, our study distinguishes itself from the above in various ways. A first difference is the fact that our intervention is integrated in a real practical classroom setting. Secondly, the age of the children varies from 4 to 6 years. Furthermore, we assess the scientific reasoning skills by means of a quantitative method, and lastly, we use a less context-dependent test in which the child is less inclined to rely on prior knowledge. Research goals and hypotheses The present study offers an inquiry-based didactic method encouraging scientific reasoning in children of 4–6 years of age. It includes 15 activities that aim to provoke a set of domain general process skills such as observing, describing, comparing, questioning, predicting, experimenting, reflecting and cooperating. Secondly, we design a test in order to quantify learning gains at the level of inquiry. The main research question in this study is whether the inquiry-based teaching affects real experimenting. On the basis of this, we formulate three hypotheses: H1: Children who receive the intervention will carry out more meaningful and informative experiments in a post-test relative to a pre-test and relative to controls. H2: It is expected that the amount of uninformative post-test experiments relative to all experiments carried out decreases in experimentals but not in controls. H3: It is expected that children with the lowest exploratory levels in the pre-test will benefit most from the intervention in experimentals but not in controls. Fifty-seven children participated in the experiment, in which 31 were boys and 26 were girls. The age of the children ranged from 48 to 72 months (M= 60.3; SD= 5.4). Children came from four different classrooms from two Dutch-speaking schools (Belgium). Schools were selected randomly. The children were selected on the basis of the permission of the parents, the age of the child (4–6 years), the language of the child (Dutch), participation in both the pre-test and the post-test and, finally, child’s willingness to show involvement during the interventions. Two classrooms (one group of 4/5-year olds and another group of 5/6-year olds) were allocated to the intervention group (27 children), the two other 541
6. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 classrooms (again one group of 4/5-year olds and another group of 5/6-year olds) were allocated to the control group (30 children). All the children met our selection requirements. Children were not tested on any field in advance. Activities. The intervention phase consisted of 15 activities that were spread over 7 consecutive weeks (see Table 1 for an overview). All the 15 activities were designed and coordinated closely with the pre-service teacher and with the actual teachers of the classes. As a result, activities were more closely connected to the children’s interest and curiosity. Further activities were selected when more than one variable at a time could be controlled and when the child was well stimulated, visually or auditory. Table 1. Used materials and investigation objectives for 15 activities Subject Materials Investigation objectives Sinking and Floating An aquarium filled with water, 1 cork, 5 Investigating the effect of coins, 1 jar with lid, 1 jar without lid, 1 combinations of weight and size on ball, several paperclips, marbles, 1 floating and sinking sponge Swing One wooden construction with two Investigating the effect of weight swings (height is made adjustable), and rope length on its swinging several large and small marbles, speed different metal weights Magnifying glasses Three different types of magnifying Investigating the effect of different glasses, several books, several pictures types of magnifying glasses on the that were enlarged, were made smaller visibility of objects. Investigating the or that were distorted effect of holding distance on the visibility of scanned objects Magnets One wooden rod, several paperclips, 1 Investigating the effect of type of bucket with sand, several buttons, material on its magnetic attraction coins, pieces of paper, aluminium foil in force spheres, several pebbles, 1 iron bolt, 1 wooden block, 1 magnet, 1 tea light Keys and locks Different keys and padlocks, 1 wooden Learning to test systematically board different keys in order to in order to find the right lock. Balance scale One wooden shelf with fulcrum in the Investigating the effect of weight middle, 1 wooden shelf with fulcrum on and position on the balance one side, 4 wooden blocks with different weights Slopes One wooden shelf, different wooden Investigating the effect of slope on blocks, sugar cubes, toy cars, marbles rolling speed with different types of and a ping pong ball objects Magnets in water One fishing rod with a large magnet, 1 Investigating what materials are fishing rod with a small magnet, a jar magnetic and which not filled with water, 1 paperclip, 1 marble, 1 coin, 1 magnetic letter, 1 metal key, 1 clothespin 542
7. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet Table 1 (Cont.). Used materials and investigation objectives for 15 activities Musical glasses 8 glasses with two different sizes, 1 Investigating the effect of filling wooden stick, 1 plastic stick, 1 different glasses with different measuring cup filled with water amounts of water on the sound that is produced by tapping on the rim Colour filters A box painted in black inside with a Investigating the effect of wearing peephole, different torches with different coloured glasses on different sizes, different plastic colour colours of objects in the filters, 1 white sheet of paper environment Gears Plastic gears with different sizes, Investigating the effect of different plastic gears with different pictures, a gear sizes on its rotation speed. plastic board equipped with holes Investigating the effect of number of gears on the direction of rotation Shadows One white projection screen made of Investigating the effect of size and cardboard (30 cm x 20 cm), different distance on the size and position of coloured objects, 1 torch (white light), a projected shadow 1 torch (coloured light), 1 candle light Bolts and Nuts Several bolts and nuts, 2 wooden Investigating the strongest way to boards fit 2 wooden boards tightly together Rubber bands Different pockets. One wooden strut. Investigating the effect of weight on Different rubber bands. Several flints of the degree of stretching of different different weights and sizes, wooden rubber bands blocks of different weights and sizes, marbles of different weights and sizes Dropping objects One bucket filled with sand, different Investigating the effect of weight marbles, 1 ping pong ball, 1 pencil, 1 and start position on the size of hole metal ballpoint pen, 2 wooden blocks, 1 that is caused by its impact spoon, 1 measuring rod Light box and block. A custom-built wooden box of 23 × 23 × 6 cm dimension was set up. The top of the box had a semi-transparent platform (21 cm diameter). A light bulb was fixed in the box itself. With the aid of a hidden remote switch, the experimenter could turn the box off and on. When the switch was in on mode, the light bulb in the box was lighted up. When the switch was set to the off position, the light was turned off. In addition, one wooden red block of 15 × 3 × 3 cm dimension was used. The experiment consisted of a pre-test, a 7-week intervention period and a replication of the pre-test, that is the post-test. The control group did not receive the interventions but only performed the pre- and post-tests. Pre-test and Post-test. The pre-test (and the post-test) was designed in order to detect patterns in children’s exploratory behaviour. The pre-test was assessed in a separate room of the child’s school. The experimenter was a final year pre-service preschool teacher. In the context of her research stage, she assessed and coded both the pre-tests and the post- tests. The experimenter followed a protocol. The child sat on a table upon which the light box was positioned. On the left side of the box a wooden block was laid (counterbalanced across the children). The experimenter showed the child the red block and the light box (see Figures 1 and 2). 543
8. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 Figure 1. procedure of the pre-test (and post-test) Figure 2. Pictures of different stages of the pre-test (and post-test) The child was first allowed to touch, to play and to inspect the red block as long as he or she liked. Then the experimenter introduced the ‘magic box’ and told them that there were strange things going on with that box and that she needed the child’s assistance. This playing and magic introduction increased the child’s commitment. In addition, the possible intimidating effect of being interviewed by an adult in a one-on-one situation was limited. Then, the red block was placed to the left side of the light box (start position). The experimenter told the child to look very carefully. She took the red block and placed it on its long side on the transparent platform of the light box, this was in the lower left corner (from the point of view of the experimenter). Then, the experimenter placed the red block back to its start position. Then the block was placed again on the light box; however, this was now on the other side of the light box (the upper right corner) while the block was put upright (these actions were counterbalanced). The box immediately lighted up. When the light box was activated, the experimenter said, ‘Wow, look at this, I wonder what makes the machine go?’ Then, the experimenter laid the block to its original position (light went off) and said, ‘Go ahead and play, you can try’. The child was left to play for 75 seconds, the experimenter pretended to be busy with other things (reading a book or writing a text). The dependent measure of interest in the pre- and post-test was whether children performed informative and meaningful experiments or actions. An experiment was meaningful when the child tested one variable at a time. For instance, the child varied block orientation while keeping block position constant or otherwise, it was counted each time the child did this. We also observed whether the child performed other informative actions. For instance, the child moved the box, while keeping other variables constant, or the child hit on the top of the box while keeping other variables constant. Another dependent measure of interest was the number of uninformative or confusing experiments. An uninformative experiment was counted each time a child tested more 544
9. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet than one variable at a time. For instance, moving the block while moving the box, moving the block while changing its position on the box surface, moving the block while hitting harder/softer with the block on the box surface and so on. The post-test was conducted 2 or 3 days after the intervention was finished. The post-test procedure was identical to the pre-test. Controls were also tested within the same period of time. After the post-test, the videotapes were coded by the second author and by a coder blind to both the hypotheses and the conditions to determine inter-observer reliability. Inter- observer reliability was 0.88 (Pearson r). For the oldest children of the control group (N= 16), results of the math subtest of the Toeters (Dudal, 2000) were available. The Toeters is often used to determine school readiness in 4- to 6-year-old children. We found a significant correlation between our pre-test results for these children and their conservation scores (r= 0.39; p<0.05) but not for identifying numbers (0–10) nor for understanding math concepts (e.g. tallest, smallest, more, less, and one more). Furthermore, the actual teachers recognised pre-test (and post-test) results from the experiences they had with the children. In particular this was the case for the cognitively strongest and the weakest children. Both the sources of information indicate some validity of the pre-test and post-tests used in the present study. The pre-tests and post-tests were recorded with a Sony digital camera, type DCR-HC23. This block test measures the objectives we intended to. The way children design interventions in a simple toy world implies something about their ability to attend to the kinds of evidence that distinguish states of knowledge from states of uncertainty (Cook et al., 2011). Such skills are encouraged during the training interventions. In the box test, we expect that children test several hypotheses repeatedly since is the child has the motivation to light up the box; the experimenter asked the child to find out how the box was lighted up. Of course, the child will fail to do, which stimulates to try/design other actions/experiments. This is also encouraged within our training interventions: ‘when something does not lead to a good result, try something else’. Of course, a child’s exploration behaviour will extinct because the box will never light up. However within a time period of 75 seconds, most of the children are still motivated to find out the hidden mechanism or rule. In such a way counting the number of informative experiments that are executed implies something about the ability to design and to execute valid and logic experiments, that is formal reasoning. Intervention. The intervention was only for the experimental group. Controls could not play and experiment with the different activities; they only performed pre- and post-tests and followed their normal classroom courses. During the intervention of the experimental group, 15 activities were used. In each session, two to four activities were selected at the same time. Each activity was selected at least twice. Activities were presented in a separate corner of the preschool classroom and could be chosen by the children during the course: free playing initiative. For all the activities, the contexts of science subjects were connected to the themes that were going on at that moment in the classrooms in order to reach a maximal immersion in the environment. Each child played at least 10 times in the science corner. The activities during the intervention consisted of three different phases. In the introduction phase (the whole class group), the teacher presented the materials for the selected activities. It was shown what one could do with these materials, and a link was established with the child’s actual knowledge. For instance for floating and sinking, it was asked what rubber ducks do (floating or sinking) or it was asked what kind of materials should sink or float, and so on (see Table 2 for an overview). No instructions were given. The second phase is the exploration phase, where children could freely play with the 545
10. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 materials (see Figure 3). This was done in small groups of children (three to five children) and took place in one to two science corners. Figure 3. Trigger Phase: Children were asked what they could do in order to hit the wall of sugar cubes with more power. It was asked how they would investigate this. These children tried different objects in order to observe the effect on the sugar wall Children played in each session for about a maximum of 40 minutes. The third part was called the trigger phase, in which the teacher posed probe questions in order to focus the exploration activities to the causal and non-causal variables (see Table 2 for an enumeration of the probes for each activity). Table 2. Guidelines for introduction and probe questions for the trigger phase Subject Introduction Probe questions (trigger phase) Sinking and -Enumerating examples of floating and sinking Show me an object that will sink. Floating objects: e.g. rubber duck, stone, wooden Show me an object that will float. materials, shells etc. Can you select an object that will sink -Brainstorm with the children. The explanation fast? of concepts of floating and sinking. Can you select an object that will sink -Short demonstration: objects were laid one by slowly? one into the water while its floating and Can you change this object so that it sinking characteristics were observed. will float instead of sink? -The oldest children could search for a Do large objects always float? How particular object in the classroom that was would you investigate this? expected to float or to sink. Bolts and Nuts -The teacher explained what bolts and nuts are Try to find out which bolt fits with this and where these things could be found. nut. -It was discussed in which situations bolts and Try to find out which nut fits with this nuts are of importance. bolt. -Objects in which bolts and nuts were used Can you select a bolt that fits in the were then observed (e.g. chairs, tables etc.). different wholes? -Children were encouraged to enumerate Try to find out the best way to fit these objects that could contain bolts and nuts. two wooden boards together, as tightly as you can. How would you investigate this? Magnifying -Different magnifying glasses were shown and Which magnifying glass would you use glasses it was discussed what these things were used to look for a large object? for. A link was laid with wearing glasses. Which magnifying glass would you use -A collection of prints of objects (very small to look for a small object? prints) was shown. How would you investigate which magnifying glass is best to use? Magnets -The teacher gave a number of examples of Can you find out whether an object is things that are known to be magnetic. Children magnetic or not? How would you could give their own examples. investigate this? -The teacher discussed what it meant that an object is magnetic. 546
11. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet Table 2 (Cont.). Guidelines for introduction and probe questions for the trigger phase Keys and locks -Applications of keys and locks were given. Can you find out which key you need -Children were encouraged to give examples of for the different locks? How would you keys and locks and when these things are investigate this? needed (e.g., doors, closets, lock on a journal, lock on a treasure chest). Balance -Materials were presented and it was Try to lift both sides of the balance. explained what a balance was. What happens with the point of -A link with the children’s environment was balance when the blocks are moved? laid (e.g. in playgrounds) When one block is placed on this side, how much blocks should be placed on the other side (pointing to another place on the balance)? Can you find out why this is the case? Slopes (see -Materials were presented. Can you find out what makes the ball Figure 3) -A link with children’s environment was laid rolling faster? (e.g. in playgrounds) Can you find out which object will roll the fastest? Which slope will lead to faster rolling speeds? What can you do in order to hit the wall of sugar cubes with more power? How would you investigate this? Magnets in -A connection with the child’s play world was Try to find out which fishing rod is water laid for magnets. It was asked whether the needed for heavy objects. children were familiar with applications of Try to find out which fishing rod is magnets. needed for light objects. -When the activity ‘magnets’ was not executed already, magnets were first explained and discussed. Musical glasses Examples of musical instruments and the Arrange the glasses from small to concept of pitch was discussed. Methods of large. making music were discussed. Materials were What can you do with the materials presented. in order to make a higher sound? What can you do using the materials to make the sound lower? Show me how you make higher and lower sounds with the sticks. How would you investigate this? Colour filters -Colour filters were shown and different colours Try to find out whether a red colour were named. is the same on a white sheet of paper -It was asked whether the children were able to as on a darker surface. mix colours and what kind of effects could Do you know how you can make a follow. purple colour? -Other materials were demonstrated. Try to find out the effect of using different lamps. How would you investigate this? Gears -A number of gears were shown. -Let the characters turn in the same -It was asked whether children recognized the direction. objects and whether they knew some situations -What will happen with more gears where gears are used. for rotation speed? -A picture of a gear of a bicycle was shown and -What will happen with more gears its function was discussed/explained. for rotation direction? -What will happen when a gear is added (or removed)? Shadows -It was discussed what shadows are and how -Make a large (small) shadow. shadows can emerge (e.g. different light sources -Try to make a shadow were discussed). lighter/darker -Materials were shown. -Try to deform a shadow What will distance do with your shadow? How would you investigate this? 547
12. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 Table 2 (Cont.). Guidelines for introduction and probe questions for the trigger phase Swing A connection between the materials and the child’s - How can you make the swing move play world was laid. Other materials were shown. slower? Why is this so? - How can you make the swing move faster? -Let the swings go with equally speeds. -Try to find out how you can move the swings with to different speeds. How would you investigate this? Rubber -A rubber band was shown and it was asked whether -Try to find out how you can see that bands the children knew what it was and in which situations a pocket contains more weight. these things are useful. -What is the effect of weight on the -Other materials were explained. rubber bands? How would you investigate this? -Try to make the height of the pockets equal Dropping -Materials were explained. -Take an object and drop it above the objects bucket. -Try to find out whether height makes a larger hole. How would you investigate this? -Try to find out whether the weight of the object makes a larger hole when it is dropped into the sand. How would you investigate this? The teacher was a final year student of our teacher education department. The purpose and goals of our study were explained to her, and she received specific guidelines to organise and follow up the 15 activities. She received all the probe questions for each activity. Different activities had to be video-recorded. Then, after the post-test, it was verified whether these activities were delivered according the guidelines (this was a part of the evaluation of the student). Firstly, with the aid of a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA), the extent to which children explored more in the post-test than in the pre-test relative to controls was calculated. Therefore, the sum of informative and uninformative explorations in the pre- test and post-test was calculated. Pre-test versus post-test acted as an independent variable (within subjects), group (controls vs. experimentals) and gender acted as independent variables (between subjects), whereas the mean number of explorations in pre- and post-test acted as a dependent variable. An effect of group on the number of explorations was found in the post-test (Mcontr = 4.30; SD= 3.13; Mexp= 6.63; SD= 2.54), F(1,56)= 9.74, p<0.003, partial η²= 0.20, but not in the pre-test, F<4. No effect of gender was found, F<2. A second MANOVA verified the extent to which children executed more informative explorations for the variables orientation, position or other variables relative to controls, in both the pre-test and the post-test. The mean number of informative exploration trials was calculated, which acted as a dependent variable. Pre-test versus post-test acted as an independent variable (within subjects), and group and gender acted as independent variables. Results revealed a main effect of group, F(1, 52)= 7.8; p<0.007, partial η²= 0.13. Gender proved not to be significant, F<1. The interaction of pre-test/post-test × group for exploration trials was significant, F(1, 52)= 31.58; p= 0.000 (see Figure 4). In addition, the interaction of gender × pre-test/post-test showed significance, F(1, 53)= 3.1; p<0.015, partial η²= 0.108. 548
13. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet Figure 4. Mean number of informative explorations during the free play phase for controls and experimentals in the pre-test and the post-test With a third MANOVA with repeated measures, the ratio between the number of uninformative explorations and the sum of all uninformative and informative explorations was investigated in the pre-test and the post-test of the experimentals and controls. To that end, the following formula was used: Thus this percentage is a measure of error and gives us information about the extent to which a child whether or not ‘act as a scientist’. A high percentage equals a huge amount of confusing and uninformative explorations. On the contrary, a low percentage refers to a high amount of informative experimenting. The percent of uninformative explorations in the pre-test and the post-test (within subjects) acted as a dependent variable, whereas group and gender acted as independent between-subjects variables. The difference between pre-test and post-test was not significant, F<1, ns. In contrast, the main effect of group (experimentals vs. controls) was significant, F(1, 49)= 6.09; p<0.02, partial η²= 0.110. The main effects of gender showed no significance, F<1. However, the interaction of pre-test/post-test with group (experimentals vs. controls) for the number of uninformative explorations was significant, F(1, 49)= 5.57; p<0.022 (see Figure 5). 549
14. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 Figure 5. Percent uninformative explorations during free play in pre- and post-test, for controls and experimentals A further one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant difference between the experimentals and the controls in the pre-test, F<1, ns, in contrast to the post- test (Mcontr= 10.79; SD= 16.10; Mexp= 34.63; SD= 34.54), F(1, 52)= 10.51; p<0.002. A fourth and final analysis examined the effect of pre-test exploratory actions during free play on the increase of exploratory play as a result of the program. An ANOVA showed that the initial relationship between group (experimentals vs. controls) and gain (the difference scores of post-test exploratory scores and pre-test exploratory scores) was significant, F(1, 55)= 28.49; p<0.000. However, when the analysis was repeated and the exploratory scores in the pre-test were added as a covariate (ANCOVA) the relationship remained significant, indicating that the effect of group on gain was not affected by the initial exploration levels. Furthermore, results showed that the effect of the covariate on gain was significant, F(1, 55)= 27.17; p<0.000; partial η²= 0.339 showing that exploratory scores (covariate) in the pre-test significantly predicted the difference scores between pre- and post-tests. In Figure 6, gain is plotted as a function of pre-test exploratory levels, for both controls and experimentals. Figure 6. Gain scores are plotted as a function of pre-test exploratory play levels. Regression lines are calculated for each group separately 550
15. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet The present study offered and tested an inquiry-based didactic method for preschool science at the level of scientific reasoning and showed how it could be translated into the real classroom. Children explored different materials and situations in rich and multivariate contexts with the aid of 15 activities spread over 7 consecutive weeks. All the activities consisted of three phases: an introduction phase, an exploration phase and a trigger phase. In the trigger phase, a teacher asked probe questions to direct the child’s attention to the phenomenon that occurred and to stimulate the child to manipulate and explore variables, causes and consequences of the observed event. In a pretest and a post- test each child was tested individually. To that end we used a simple toy experiment with few variables to be manipulated. The extent to which the children’s spontaneous explorations were informative and meaningful, reflecting advancements at the level of scientific inquiry and scientific reasoning, was measured. Firstly, the results showed that after the intervention, the children, relative to controls, explored more with regard to orientation, position and other variables. This means that the programme had encouraged the children’s spontaneous exploratory activities in general. Secondly, it was found that the children generated more informative explorations around particular target variables; they were more inclined to set-up experiments that offered new information and they were less inclined to vary more than one variable at a time. In addition, the percentage of uninformative explorations from pre-test to post-test decreased in experimentals but not in controls. This means that children not only executed more explorations around target variables, but also that the number of experiments that were uninformative decreased. This can be considered a significant learning gain in the development of the so-called control of variables strategy (CVS). It is not fully clear why controls showed less informative (Figure 4) and more uninformative explorations (Figure 5) from pre-test to post-test. Possibly, this was because of an effect of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975). Learned helplessness could occur in the pre-test when the child became conditioned to believe that the situation was unchangeable. This feeling of uncontrollability did not change in the post test for controls. In contrast, experimentals received opportunities to build a sense of control during the intervention which could have an effect on their post-test performances. The fact that experimentals outperformed controls is in contrast to the finding that most elementary school children are not very adept at designing experiments (e.g. Bullock & Ziegler, 1999; Schauble, 1996) and that experimentation without explicit guidance produces little improvement in CVS understanding (Chen & Klahr, 1999; Klahr & Nigam, 2004). However, these studies typically investigate children’s understanding of real-world phenomena in which domain-specific prior beliefs underestimate their formal reasoning abilities (Cook et al., 2011); this is less the case in the present study. Indeed, our results suggest that children learned through exploration: (1) when there is information to be gained, (2) how to differentiate the causal role of different factors and (3) how to manipulate particular features in order to test these factors. According to Lorch et al. (2010), this is in line with the finding that students show better understanding of CVS if the experimenter offers a single variable to be tested in an experiment than if the students are required to determine the goal of an experiment (Kuhn & Dean, 2005). Indeed, children repeatedly designed experiments with small corrections for the same variable in order to provoke an effect (lighting up the box). We often observed that children first tried to imitate the whole act of the experimenter. Of course this was an uninformative experiment because both orientation and position variables were varied at the same time (but they failed to replicate the effect). After this imitation, experimentals more often tried to correct the design of the experiment. For instance, they did so by putting the block 551
16. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 upside down or by putting it on its side. When no effects emerged, the child started a new experiment. For instance, the block was positioned 1 or 2 cm further, hoping that a more precise block position would lead to the desired effect. When block position was not effective either, they tried other variables (e.g. putting the block harder and softer on the box platform and moving the complete box). Especially in the pre-tests, children gave up more often and showed less motivation when they saw that their experiments and explorations did not lead to the desired effect. The aforementioned results are also in accordance with other studies. For instance, Cook et al. (2011) found that preschoolers already recognize action possibilities that allow them to isolate variables when there is information to be gained in a simple context with little variables to be investigated. Indeed, the present didactic method seems to encourage children to pay attention to the importance of setting up informative experiments and to search for useful and disambiguating information. Our activities let children manipulate various materials, leading to expected and unexpected events, which could be observed. In other words, even when interventions are given with the help of multivariate and complex contexts in real classrooms, learning advancements at the level of experimenting and formal reasoning may be expected. A significant shortcoming of the present study is that we have not been able to find out what the exact contribution of the particular components of the didactics such as probe questions, introduction activities, demonstrations, cooperative learning and so on is. For instance, is it possible that interventions with a purely free exploration are sufficient to make a difference? Another objection is whether it is necessary for children to engage in all the 15 activities to gain these results. The present study is unable to offer conclusive answers to these questions. We only know that the didactics resulted in a substantial gain at the level of formal scientific reasoning and that the inquiry skills of the children increased to a higher level of exploratory behaviour. Of course we are not suggesting that children explicitly learned the importance of isolating variables or that they showed metacognitive understanding of how to carry out meaningful experiments. We rather argue that children’s perceptual sensitivity was increased and that they were more inclined to pay attention to the underlying structure in which a complex of variables was embedded. In this way, the programme may have the potential to support a child’s executive functioning such as sustained attention and inhibitory control (Kerns, Eso, & Thomson, 1999). It is also likely that through the activities, children were more motivated to find solutions for specific (scientific) problems. Together with cognitive capacities, perceptual differentiation and the willingness to pay attention to particular events may pave the way for a child’s development of scientific skills and formal development. For the present study goals, we are not really in favour of free play alone, since it leaves the field too open and does not sufficiently demarcate on what children should focus. In addition, it is probably not necessary to engage in all the 15 activities. However, in a real classroom context, not all children are just as excited about each activity. This means that the ‘power’ of practicing inquiry skills for a particular activity is different for each child. Therefore, teachers must be aware that variation in subjects over periods of time matters. For instance, children tended to be more enthusiastic about activities such as sinking and floating, keys and locks and balance scales and less about magnets in water and bolts and nuts. In addition, interactions between children matter. Notwithstanding the way children talked to one another and the way a teacher supported these interactions are beyond the scope of the present research, we observed particular interactions during the activities. These interactions were at the level of (1) demonstrating materials (‘look at these keys’, 552
17. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet ‘look at my beautiful coloured glasses’), (2) demonstrating effects or causal relations (‘I will show you a strange thing, this thing does not stick to the magnet, but this piece of metal does so’), (3) explaining (‘I will show you how you can make the swing swinging faster’), (4) talks that reflect expectations and hypotheses (‘I wonder what will happen when I drop this heavy ball’, ‘Can you hold the slope this way, I think the ball will roll faster’) and (5) egocentric talks and talks that did not serve the exploratory activities. Finding the correct solution to the questions that the teacher asked was not of importance. For instance, no children answered correctly to the question ‘Do large objects always float? How would you investigate this’ during the ‘sinking and floating’ activity. On the other hand, they easily started to set up experiments for instance by selecting objects and predicting their behaviour in water or by changing particular object properties (e.g. filling the jar with marbles) and observing the effects of it. During the ‘dropping objects’ activity (‘Try to find out whether the weight of the objects makes a larger whole when it is dropped in to the sand’), we saw a similar process. Furthermore, the crave to explore materials strongly depended on perceiving action possibilities (affordances). Not all the 15 activities offered an equal amount of variables that could be manipulated. For instance, magnifying glasses, keys and locks, magnets in water, bolts and nuts, and rubber bands were rather limited compared with other activities. The less action possibilities, the faster children explored affordances that were not offered directly by the teacher (e.g. testing magnets for objects and furniture in the classroom and testing the effect of coloured light on the walls of the classroom and on each other’s face). Finally, the degree of novelty and complexity of materials is without doubt a factor of attractiveness and that elicit exploration behaviour. We saw this especially in magnifying glasses, magnets, gears, magnets in water, colour filters and shadows. A third result of the present study was that lower pre-test exploratory levels indicated stronger difference in scores of exploratory play in the post-test. At the visual level, the regression line was steeper for experimentals than for controls. However, the difference was not significant. This is in contrast with van Schijndel et al. (2010), who found that participants with the lowest initial exploratory play levels benefited most from a programme with exploratory play. However, in that study the age of the children was significantly lower (2–3 years old) compared with the children of the present one (4–6 years old). In younger children, individual differences are more likely to occur, which may result in a substantial group performing poorly in an exploratory pre-test. Another explanation is that van Schijndel et al. (2010) did not directly measure the child’s formal reasoning skills. They only scored if actions like manipulation, repetition, variation and effect observation were present in a child’s behaviour during exploratory play. Although we did not find an effect at exploratory level, it does not mean that early experiences with science outside of school settings do not matter. On the contrary, it is only through action, when children play, they receive opportunities to accumulate experiences over time and to detect higher-order relations between properties or a set of properties in the world (Smitsman & Corbetta, 2010). The more experience a child has, the more abstraction and causal learning can occur. In this way, old knowledge can guide new explorations and the development of further and deeper interest in science (Nayfeld, Brenneman, & Gelman, 2011). Of course, with a concrete didactic method at hand, teachers are more likely to make science both enjoyable and educational. Research has shown that teachers need such guidelines since they often show inadequate knowledge in science content and primarily focus on language arts (Mantzicopoulos & Samarapungavan, 2007). In that case, guidelines can be used in order to create more confidence and willingness to integrate science in the curriculum or in other important subject areas that are covered in preschool. At the same time, attitudes such as curiosity, open-mindedness and a positive 553
18. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 approach to failure are fostered (Gallenstein, 2005). Preschool science fits in seamlessly with the need of strengthening STEM education. STEM refers to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Since society is highly information-based and technological, children need to develop STEM abilities to levels much beyond those considered acceptable in the past. However, the problem is that the STEM knowledge in college-level courses that are needed to succeed is currently not being obtained. Consequently, there is a particular need for an increased emphasis on technology and engineering at all levels in the current education systems (National Science Board, 2007). It is beyond dispute that there is a link between early childhood and STEM education in primary and pre-primary schools (and beyond). It is especially about early exposure to reasoning, predicting, hypothesising, problem solving and critical thinking, rather than memorising and practicing. It can be argued that encouraging these domain of general skills in primary and pre-primary schools kindles the interest in STEM study and careers later on. Children are born as inquisitive learners. Action plays a fundamental role in learning concepts: the child as a scientist. Scientific programmes should thus be designed in such a way that children are provided with a well thought-out structure, in which they can build their explorations on and in which situations can lead to new questions. Undoubtedly, emerging skills can be used for other content domains too, such as mathematics, technology and language. For instance, when a child learns to compare, sort, count, estimate, classify, measure, graph and even share its explanations with others within its science activities, a transfer to math, language and technology is to be expected. Most researchers emphasise the need for inquisitive learning. However, the attitude of the child is of equal importance. Through participation in inquisitive learning, children are more inclined to develop an inquiring attitude such as curiosity, open-mindedness, being critical, openness to other perspectives and sharing ideas with others. A child needs these attitudes for further developments in STEM contents and beyond. In other words, inquisitive learning and inquiring attitude influence each other mutually. It is often argued that scientific activities, either within the domain of knowledge or within the domain of scientific skills, are not suited for young children. Of course, the present study is rather explorative because of a limited sample size, and therefore, one should be vigilant to make generalizable conclusions. Despite this, the present study allows for some optimism. The current results suggest that guided exploratory play in a preschool context is able to support the children’s learning at the level of inquisitive learning and scientific reasoning. In this way, the didactics may contribute to support a STEM-oriented Implications for teachers, early years practitioners and researchers With the present study, we highlight the importance of stimulating children’s scientific thinking processes in an attractive context and an age appropriate format rather than putting the focus merely on content and a body of knowledge. Teachers must know that it is not difficult for young children to explore scientific phenomena and to find out how things work as long as it is in accordance with the child’s everyday world (meaningful). However, the didactics we presented in the present study should inspire teachers to conduct their classroom activities in order to foster and support domain-general strategies starting from exploratory activities and posing simple research questions. This is not a complete turnaround. Fostering early domain-general strategies imply that teachers pay attention to the process of problem identification, problem analysis, hypothesising, identifying variables, describing effects, gathering evidence, expressing 554
19. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet conclusions and so on. The process can be further enhanced by encouraging children to explain the effects, to articulate findings and conclusions and to ask what they are going to do and how they will do this. As a result, children will be more encouraged to develop an attitude of a real scientist. Another important implication of the present study is that teachers are offered ways to use preschool science for the training of early mathematic skills since they are encouraged to express what is happening in terms of numbers, amounts or other concepts (more, less, the tallest, the smallest, the first, the fastest, etc.). Notwithstanding this is easy to implement, preschool teachers are no scientists and of course they do not need to be a scientist per se. However, insight into the way in which scientific theories develop (even in educational fields) and the way in which discoveries are made may bring the scientific thinking process in the pupils more easily to a higher level. A way to meet this need is to implement scientific courses and knowledge about the scientific process into the curricula of teacher training students since it is rather difficult to reach and inform teachers at work. Future questions An important limitation of the present study is which aspects of the training intervention were helpful at the level of children’s problem-solving abilities is unclear. For instance it can be questioned to what extent the preschool children are sensitive to the demonstrations of a scientific process, and also to the questions, to cooperative learning, feedback and so on. In addition, the contribution of each of the 15 activities is not clear. One way to get a better view on the contribution of these aspects is to look at the way the teacher, child and tasks influence one another over time. In other words, the extent to which the problem-solving abilities (and eventually content knowledge) emerge from child–teacher interactions (also child–child) in particular contexts should be investigated (Van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005a). By studying children’s exploration patterns, their answers to questions, their behaviours and the complexity of their explanations during the training interventions, patterns of growth can be revealed, which provide insight into the nature of cognitive change (Yan & Fischer, 2002) for the different contexts that are used. In addition, it can be argued that an ‘equal opportunity policy’ is needed to ensure that both children with strong capacities and children who need more support and guidance are stimulated. Again, a focus on the embedded knowledge and skills that are created in real-time child–teacher–task interactions could give insight into the way the present didactics should be adjusted, so that all the children are stimulated in an equal way. • • • We wish to thank Ad Smitsman (Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands) for his helpful comments in the starting phase of this research and Bieke De Fraine (KU Leuven, Belgium) for methodological and statistical support. We also want to thank Hilde Van Puymbroeck, Liesbeth Van Remoortere, Charlotte Heyndrickx, Sara Van der Kelen and Marijke De Moor from VBS De Verrekijker in Verrebroek (Belgium). Bullock, M., & Ziegler, A. (1999). Scientific reasoning: Developmental and individual differences. In F.E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Individual differences from 3 to 12: Findings from the Munick longitudinal study (pp. 38-54). New York: Academic Press. 555
20. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 Brenneman, K. (2011). Assessment for preschool science learning and learning environments. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 13(1). Chen, Z. & Klahr, D. (1999). All Other Things being Equal: Children’s Acquisition of the Control of Variables Strategy, Child Development, 70, 1098–1120. Concept to Classroom (2016). Retrieved from http://www.thirteen.org/ edonline/ concept2class/ inquiry/index_sub1.html Cook, C., Goodman, N., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers' exploratory play. Cognition, 120(3), 341-349. Creative Little Scientists (2013) Country Reports on in-depth field work . Deliverable 4.3 Addenda. EU Project (FP7) (Coordinator: Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece). Report 1 of 9: Belgium Lead Authors: H. Van Houte and K. Devlieger. French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated, early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138-149. Gelman, R., Brenneman, K., Macdonald, G., & Román, M. (2009). Preschool pathways to science (PrePS): Facilitating scientific ways of thinking, talking, doing, and understanding. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Glenberg, A.M. (2011). How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 5-18. Harlen (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of science, mathematics, and ICT education, 7(2), 9-33. Kerns, K.A., Eso, K., & Thomson, J. (1999). Investigation of a direct intervention for improving attention in young children with ADHD. Developmental Neuropsychology, 16, 273-295. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16, 866-870. Lorch, R.F.Jr., Lorch, E.P., Calderhead, W.J., Dunlap, E.E., Hodell, E.C., Freer, B.D., & Lorch, E.P. (2008). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 90-101. Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samrapungavan, H.P.A. (2007). Young chidren’s motivational beliefs about learning science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 378-349. Masnick, A. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children’s understanding of experimental error. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4, 67-98. Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. Young Children, 65(5) 12-14, 16-18. National Science Board (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Edcuation System. Retrieved September 1, 2014, from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf Nayfeld, I., Brenneman, K., & Gelman, R. (2011). Science in the classroom: Finding a balance between autonomous exploration and teacher-led instruction in preschool settings. Early Education & Development, 22, 6, 970-988. Park Rogers, M. (2011). Implementing a science-based interdisciplinary curriculum in the second grade: a community of practice in action. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(2), 83-103. Peterson, S.M., & French, L. (2008). Supporting young children's explanations through inquiry science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(3), 395–408. 556
21. Exploring the classroom: Teaching Science in Early Childhood / Dejonckheere, Wit, Keere & Vervaet French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 138-149. Gallenstein, N.L. 2005. Engaging Young Children in Science and Mathematics. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17, 2, 27-41. Gelman, R., Brenneman, K., Macdonald, G., & Roman, M. (2009). Preschool pathways to science (PrePS): Facilitating scientific ways of knowing, thinking, talking, and doing. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Gopnik, A., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two, three, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology 37, 5, 620-629. Saçkes, M., Akman, B., & Trundle, K. C. A Science Methods Course for Early Childhood Teachers: A Model for Undergraduate Pre-Service Teacher Education. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 1-26. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 49, 31-57. Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Smitsman, A. W., & Corbetta, D. (2010). Action in infancy: Perspectives, concepts, and challenges. In J. G. Bremner & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Infant Development (2nd edition), Volume 1: Basic Research (pp. 167-203). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Ltd. Sweller, J (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12(2), 257–285. van Schijndel, T.J.P., Singer, E., van der Maas H.L.J., & Raijmakers M.E.J. (2010). A sciencing programme and young childrenʼs exploratory play in the sandpit. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(5), 603-617. DOI 10.1080/17405620903412344. Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005a). Explaining after by before. Basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental Review, 25(3-4), 408-442. Yan, Z., & Fischer, K.W. (2002). Always under construction: Dynamic variations in adult cognitive development. Human Development, 45, 141-160. Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169. 557
22. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.8, Issue 4, 537-558, June 2016 www.iejee.com This page is intentionally left blank 558
+1-315-636-4485
+91 98151-74050 
