|
Kayte Edwards
Judith Loveridge
Victoria University
THIS RESEARCH SEEKS TO EXPLORE how early childhood professionals support children’s scientific learning from the practitioner’s perspective. Taking a qualitative approach, this case study indicates possible ways effective team teaching can support the child’s scientific learning as well as other team members’ learning and teaching development. While conferring with past research on the importance of teachers having adequate scientific subject knowledge, this study suggests this should also be in relation to the learning community in which the early childhood setting is located. It also calls into question the teachers’ understanding of the Nature of Science (NOS), reinforcing the complexity of the issue and possible solutions to increasing early childhood teachers’ motivation to support children’s scientific learning.
Introduction
With a rapidly changing world the emphasis on children becoming scientifically literate citizens has grown (Heap, 2006), hence the interest in research into how young children are effectively encouraged to engage with scientific processes and develop working theories around scientific concepts has also developed (Fleer & Robbins, 2003). Previous research in Australia (Fensham 1991; Fleer, 2001; 2009) and New Zealand (Garbett, 2003; Hedges, 2002; Smorti, 2005) has raised concerns regarding the abilities of early childhood teachers to effectively support children’s scientific learning. The studies indicate that early childhood teachers’ lack of scientific subject knowledge plays a major part in the type and amount of scientific learning supported in the educational setting, yet little appears to have changed. The previous research has indicated that addressing the concern is not a simple matter, with several interrelated factors affecting the way teachers learn and use their scientific subject knowledge. One of these is how teachers perceive their ability to support children’s scientific learning.
This paper emanated from a Master’s thesis (Edwards, 2009) which sought to gain a broader understanding of the issue by investigating the perspectives of those involved in supporting children’s scientific learning on a daily teaching basis. It takes a case study approach to investigating the individual teacher’s perspectives within one New Zealand early childhood educational setting, generating data on the relationships between participants and others, as well as their perspectives. Taking a sociocultural approach to interpreting the data, Rogoff’s (2003) three lenses of analysis were adopted to encompass the wide variety of responses from participants. The findings imply that teachers may have different approaches to a common pedagogy of socioculturally based support of children’s scientific learning. Their personal teaching pedagogy, subject knowledge and understanding of what science is, or the Nature of Science (NOS), are three significant and interrelated factors. This research highlights the role of collaborative teaching practices in supporting and developing teachers’ abilities to support children’s scientific learning.
Previous research
A variety of reasons have been given as influencing teachers’ inclinations to support children’s scientific learning, the majority of which appear to lie with the individual teaching professional. The teacher’s attitudes (Alexander, 2000; Gilbert & Calvert, 2003), beliefs (Rivalland, 2007; Waters-Adams, 2006), level of scientific subject knowledge (Fleer, 2008; Garbett, 2003; Hedges, 2002), and understanding of the Nature of Science (Heap, 2006; Hipkins et al., 2002) have all been identified as significant factors. Researchers have also identified other factors which influence those listed above and increase the complexity of the situation. These are more subtle influences, such as how the teacher’s view of the child’s capabilities is influenced by their beliefs about children (Fleer, 2009), or how the teacher’s own schooling experiences of learning science not only influence their scientific understandings (Harlen, 1999, cited in Alexander, 2000; Smorti, 2005), but also their view of NOS (Heap, 2006; Waters-Adams, 2006) and consequently their attitudes toward and confidence to engage in science teaching (Alexander, 2000). Introducing yet another factor influencing the way teachers support children’s scientific knowledge, Gilbert and Calvert (2003) view gender as a significant influence. They comment along with others on the limited opportunities teachers have had to study science (Garbett, 2003), the teaching methods employed in those opportunities (Haynes, 2000), and how science is seen in society (Water-Adams, 2006).
There are many individual and interrelated influences on the way teachers support children’s learning. For example, Rivalland (2007) conducted research in an Australian childcare centre on the ‘interplay between personal beliefs and practices’ (p. 30). Although teachers in her study followed a common teaching tenet, the degree to which they appropriated the ideas was ‘dependent on the individuals’ personal interpretations and level of interconnectedness to their intricate belief systems’ (p. 36). British researcher Waters-Adams (2006) found similar results, adding that the confidence of the teachers in his study increased only when there was a ‘resonance between their ideas about how to teach science, their understanding of the nature of science, and their general beliefs about how they should be teaching children’ (p. 939).
Along with personal beliefs, the degree of scientific subject knowledge a teacher holds has also been identified as a significant factor in influencing teacher pedagogy. Shulman’s theory of Pedagological Content Knowledge (PCK) (1986) sees this as a basic necessity for teaching, along with knowledge of the child and knowledge of teaching pedagogy. Irish researcher Alexander (2000) highlighted the relationship between primary school teachers’ personal scientific knowledge base and their pedagogy. Specifically, she related teachers’ subject knowledge to their abilities to ask probing questions and encourage higher cognitive thought. She concluded that ‘when teachers lack confidence to teach science they tend to use strategies which allow them to maintain control in the class room knowledge flow but which are not appropriate ways of engaging students in science’ (Alexander, 2000, p. 35).
Similarly, Hedges (2002) found that New Zealand early childhood professional teachers in her research were more inclined to support children’s learning in planned situations rather than the spontaneous situations where children engaged in scientific learning during their everyday play experiences. Hedges also stressed the need for teachers’ subject knowledge. She highlighted the importance of teachers using scientific language, and the role it plays in empowering children’s scientific learning through enabling them to articulate their learning. Australian researcher Fleer (2008) stated that if teachers have scientific knowledge it enables them to engage children in further learning by keeping in mind ‘both the everyday practice where the concept is used/built and the core concept that is to be taught’ (Fleer, 2009, p. 1074). This enables links to be made between the everyday concepts and scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1987, cited in Fleer, 2008). Fleer found in her study of Australian pre-schoolers that ‘without focused teacher-child interactions at the scientific level, only everyday concepts could develop’ (2008, p. 294).
The teacher’s understanding of the discipline of science, or NOS, is also a significant influence on teacher pedagogy. While NOS has a variety of definitions owing to the changing nature of society (Heap, 2006), there is an acceptable level of generality regarding NOS ideas (Hipkins, Barker & Bolstad, 2005, p. 244) or what Hipkins and colleagues refer to as an ‘understanding of science as a knowledge-building enterprise’ (p. 243). In her research into early childhood and primary school pre-service teachers’ understandings of NOS, Heap adopted Adb-El-Khalick, Bell and Lederman’s (1998, cited in Heap, 2006) definition of NOS which gives five common interrelated tenets. These see science emerging from observations of the world from which interpretations are made. Therefore scientific knowledge is not static and able to claim absolute truths owing to the possibility of new evidence. In this respect science is not an orderly accumulation of knowledge but requires imagination and creativity to explain observations. In acknowledging that scientists can interpret or explain the same data sets differently, the impossibility of truly objective observations and interpretations without any bias from the observer is also acknowledged. This is because of a difference between scientists’ prior knowledge, background, experiences, and theoretical beliefs. In this way, scientific knowledge is produced within a larger society and culture, influenced by the politics, economy, power structures, religion and philosophy of that society/culture.
Heap concluded that the teachers’ ideas in her research were ‘naive rather than consistent with contemporary understandings of NOS’ (p. 157). Hipkins et. al. (2005), in their literature review of New Zealand science education, provided a number of possible reasons for this, such as the teachers’ own schooling experiences, or ‘educational traditions and day-to-day classroom realities’ (p. 247). They suggest teachers need to rethink the purposes and practices of science teaching, inferring the importance of reflective practices.
While researchers have posed various factors influencing early childhood teachers’ ability to support children’s scientific learning, there still appears to be little evidence of change in research findings. Fleer (2001), in looking at early childhood science education over the past 40 years, questions how much has changed since Fensham (1991) expressed his concerns about early childhood teachers’ subject knowledge base.
The research topic
Against this background of previous research on teaching influences, this study sought early childhood practitioners’ opinions in order to gain a broader perspective of the ways New Zealand teachers support children’s scientific learning. The importance of gaining multiple perspectives in research has been increasingly acknowledged as a way of understanding all aspects of a situation. In regard to seeking multiple perspectives in researching early childhood science, Fleer and Robbins (2003) suggest taking a sociocultural approach, using such ‘sociocultural tools’ (p. 425) as Rogoff’s three planes, or foci, of analysis (1998, cited in Fleer & Robbins, 2003). This approach sees researchers going past the individual as a unit of research to also consider broader social influences, and is adopted in this study.
The research question that underpinned the study was: What are professionally trained early childhood teachers’ understandings of, and feelings about, the way they support young children’s learning in science? Eight sub-questions were developed to give further definition to the inquiry. These looked at what the research participants’ views of science were and what they felt had informed their views; how they thought they supported children’s scientific interests and how they felt about that support; and what major influences they felt impacted on their teaching. As a result, the participants in this study provided insights into the teaching beliefs they valued, how past experiences had influenced them, and what they thought their teaching role was in supporting children’s scientific learning. They also discussed factors they saw as enabling or hindering this support.
Research design and methodology
The desire to capture the early childhood professional teachers’ voices was paramount in deciding on the research methodology for this study. A qualitative, interpretive approach was chosen as the most appropriate for an exploratory study aiming to understand others’ ideas and feelings. Case study methodology was also adopted in recognition of the unique nature of early childhood educational settings and to respond to the high number of early childhood team-teaching situations in the New Zealand context. While this limits the research results to a specific situation, it is hoped that enough detail will be provided to enable others to establish the degree to which the findings for this research might be relevant to their own situation (Stake, 2005). In New Zealand, as in Australia, the early childhood sector is diverse, which makes any research attempt at generalisation questionable. However, in taking a case study approach, the views of the participants in this research can be identified as similar to or different from the views of others in the teaching team.
Research location
The research case study site was a well-established non-profit-making, full-day, multi-aged community-based childcare centre in an outer suburb of Wellington, New Zealand. It employed seven teachers, all trained except one who was still in training. The six fully trained professional teachers who participated in the research were aged between 20 and 45. Four were of European descent, one of Maori descent, and one an Indian immigrant. All had studied science to various levels at secondary school and gained teaching qualifications from the same institution.
The centre catered for 35 children aged between 18 months and five years, with no more than 28 at any one time. The environment was indoors and outside, with children choosing their area of play for most of the day in between meals, group sessions and a rest period in the early afternoon. Activities were provided to encourage learning, often around children’s interests that had previously been identified. At the time of the research, a garden project planned by the teachers and children was well underway. Children’s learning was assessed via narrative observations, often accompanied by a photograph that highlighted the children’s dispositions. These were referred to as ‘learning stories’ (Carr, 2001) and not only documented the children’s learning but were on occasions also revisited by the staff, parents, child, or any combination of these to further learning opportunities both at the centre and at home.
Data collection methods
An initial interview with each participant gathered information on their background as well as their ideas on what science is and how scientific learning might be supported in early childhood. Participants were also asked for their views on any values or beliefs, and influences from their family, school or other educational experiences they saw as contributing to the way they supported children’s scientific learning. For the following three days, participants gathered documentation on situations in which they recognised children as engaged in scientific learning or possible scientific learning. Participants were supplied with a digital camera, Dictaphone, and note-taking equipment. Using the digital camera to take photos was the most popular data-gathering method. At the end of the three-day period, each participant had a second interview, which was less structured than the previous one and focused on the participants talking about the data they had collected and what they did, or might do, to respond to the situation. Data was collected within the early childhood setting for a three-week period between late November and early December.
To strengthen the validity of the research findings and ensure the views of the participants were accurately documented, ‘member checking’ (Mutch, 2005) was employed. This involved the participants checking their interview transcripts as well as participating in a focus group interview. This interview was centred on a PowerPoint presentation of collated research data and the initial analysis. At the participants’ request, all teaching staff at the centre were involved in the group discussion, including the one teacher who had been a research participant and not collected data. The transcript of the focus group was then analysed in light of the initial data.
Ethics
The focus of this research was on the teachers’ perspective, but some of the data gathered included documented observations of young children engaged in scientific learning. For this reason, careful ethical consideration was given to the ownership and use of the observations and any photographs taken. While it was agreed that the photos belonged to the centre and could be used as part of assessment procedures, specific permission was also sought from participants and parents to use some of the photos in disseminating the research findings. All ethical considerations were reviewed by the Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Education ethics committee, with consideration given to participant, parent, and managerial consent forms, which clearly identified the research process and involvement required.
Method of data analysis
All the interview transcripts were thematically coded broadly around the sub-questions related to the research question and entered into a matrix to enable comparisons. The sub-questions identified how the teachers defined science; what they saw as informing their views of science; the teaching strategies they employed when supporting children’s scientific learning, including their use of the early childhood national curriculum, Te Wha-riki , (Ministry of Education, 1996); how they felt about the learning support they provided, and what they saw as enabling or hindering them. Another set of data drawn from the interviews concerned the participants’ background information and helped to identify similarities with, and differences from, the participants’ previous experiences. A third and final set of data analysis was based on the documentation collected by the participants, primarily photographic. It focused on the number of children in an observed situation, their ages, their gender, and the location.
In order to collate the three sets of data analysis, the results were then analysed in light of Rogoff’s (2003) three planes of foci to examine the personal, interpersonal, and cultural-institutional influences on the participants’ support of children’s scientific learning. While this approach has previously been used as an analysis tool for looking at children’s learning (Robbins, 2005), in this situation it was utilised to focus on the teachers’ actions. This highlighted the participants’ individual teaching pedagogy and knowledge base, as well as teachers’ relationships and collaboration with others in the team. It also identified cultural, institutional and historical factors, such as specific language and educational resources that were part of the participants’ scientific learning support.
The findings
From a wide range of data, three key findings emerged: the collective and individual nature of early childhood teaching; the complexity and interrelated nature of influences on teaching decisions; and the influential role of the participants’ perceptions of NOS. These findings will now be discussed in more detail along with the possible implications of these for other early childhood professional teachers, teacher educators and future researchers.
The collective and individual nature of teaching
The participants in this study used the collective knowledge and support of the teaching team as a deliberate teaching strategy to support children’s scientific learning. First, in pragmatic terms, teachers used others’ physical support to overcome perceived barriers in supporting children’s scientific learning, such as having very young children present or more pressing care and teaching demands. While this was not the focus of this research, these barriers were often given as the reason participants had not responded to children they had noticed and documented as engaged in scientific learning.
Second, in line with Shulman’s theory on Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) (1986), the participants shared their scientific subject knowledge, early childhood pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of the individual children to support their learning. As one participant commented, ‘It doesn’t depend on me; sometimes it could be that the other teacher has the knowledge of that.’ This suggests that a teacher’s ability to work within a team can increase their ability to support children’s scientific learning. It also highlights the collaborative skills required when working in teaching teams and suggests that teachers increase their own scientific subject knowledge in relation to their co-teachers’ scientific interests. This reinforces the need for teachers to access current scientific knowledge bases, whether these are digital, web-based, or in the form of supplementary curriculum documents.
Finally, the use of reflective practice was particularly evident during the focus group interview. The initial findings were presented to the participants, and the resulting debates not only highlighted differences and similarities in teaching pedagogy but also acted as a catalyst for collective and individual teacher reflection. For example, this happened with a debate regarding the degree to which scientific language and explanations should be used with the children.
During the focus group interview, it was also evident that while all the teachers had adopted a common pedagogical approach in line with the New Zealand early childhood curriculum documents, they also had their own interpretations of that pedagogy. This is congruent with past research regarding the influence of teachers’ belief systems on their teaching pedagogy (Rivalland, 2006, Waters-Adams, 2006). It also supports the work of New Zealand researcher Jordan (2003), who has previously noted the varying degrees to which New Zealand early childhood professional teachers have adopted sociocultural theory. She notes that, while sociocultural theory has ‘become the accepted umbrella paradigm for learning’ (p. 3), teachers are still ‘coming to terms with what the adoption of socio-cultural theory might mean in practice, for children and for adults’ (p. 3).
An understanding of the NOS
When asked about their understanding of what science is, the participants gave broad answers, some indicating they had not thought much about it. There appears to be little emphasis given to NOS in early childhood teacher training or the New Zealand curriculum document, Te Wha-riki, although it is an important tenet in the New Zealand primary school curriculum, NZCF (Ministry of Education, 2007). While not a concept one might directly teach to young children, the teacher’s understanding of science is crucial if scientific attitudes and understandings are to be encouraged and developed in children.
Findings in this research indicated that participants had differing degrees of understanding NOS and an inconsistency in their viewpoints. For example, some participants increased the number of planned scientific activities provided for children while others retained a consistent pedagogical stance, as demonstrated by this participant’s comment:
I don’t think I respond any differently now to a science concept than I did then ... I was one of those people who think science is in everything anyway; even washing your hands is a scientific concept if the children are asking about water and all that sort of stuff. So I still think that if a child asked that question I’d still certainly respond to it in a scientific way.
During the research some participants also developed their understanding of NOS. As one commented:
You think about science, you know, experiments an all that. ... Then going further, going from that one belief, ‘Yeah, that’s science’, to seeing all science happening and thinking, ‘Oh, that’s science and I didn’t think of it that way before.’
Along with an increased understanding of NOS there was also an increase in that participant’s ability to recognise children as possibly being engaged in scientific learning. She commented:
That is H and she’s talking away about, ‘Do I need to push you?’ And it’s her using the force behind her to get them to go because they’re telling her they want to go high and fast and it’s her trying to get in behind them and help make it happen.
A strong understanding of NOS is required to effectively support children’s scientific learning in an holistic manner. In this study, teachers referred to the integrated nature of scientific learning in early childhood. However, while one participant spoke of finding ‘the science aspect in anything really’, others appeared surprised when reflecting on the scientific learning children might be engaged in: ‘You don’t realise what’s science until you really have a look at what’s happening out there and they’re doing it all the time.’ This raises the question of whether a lack of understanding of NOS leads to holistic teaching practice becoming an excuse for not addressing specific gaps in teachers’ subject knowledge. Even teachers who are unsure or have misconceptions of what science is still support children’s working theories around NOS, whether they are aware of it or not.
The complexity and interrelated nature of influences on teaching decisions
By using the three sociocultural foci of analysis suggested by Rogoff (2003), several factors influencing the participants’ support of children’s scientific learning emerged, highlighting the complex and multidimensional aspects of teaching. Factors identified in past research, such as adequate subject knowledge (Fleer, 2008; Hedges, 2002), having a solid understanding of NOS (Heap, 2006), or effective teacher pedagogy (Fleer, 2009; Waters-Adams, 2006), were evident, as well as the way they interrelated with each other. Additional factors identified by the participants included drawing on each other’s expertise and experiences, the use of reflective practice, and the impact of the day-to-day realties in this type of early childhood setting. Some aspects were specific to that context, such as working within a multi-aged environment, caring for and educating children from eight months to five years old. Other examples given by participants were broader and concerned the multi-tasking nature of a full-day-care early childhood setting, as demonstrated by this participant’s comment:
They [the children] ask questions and you’ve got 50 million things to do and a baby that you’re feeding. So if you can, remember to come back to it, or grab them a book or something that they can look at for themselves.
While much of the data in this study supports previous research findings, this was not so for all of it. One participant’s enthusiastic and positive attitude to providing support for children’s scientific learning, regardless of her own knowledge base, overcame barriers which inhibited other participants’ teaching support. This appeared to be because of her attitude and pedagogy. While previous claims that adequate scientific subject knowledge is required to support the ‘interlacing of everyday concept formation and scientific concept formation’ (Fleer, 2009, p. 299), this participant’s approach indicates that attitude and confidence can lead to a willingness to support children’s scientific learning. New Zealand curriculum documents refer to this support as the teacher’s ability to notice, recognise and respond to children’s learning.
Most participants in the study commented on the challenge of providing simple, spontaneous extension activities or simple scientific explanations, and all acknowledged they were still developing their subject knowledge base. However, it appeared teacher pedagogy was also a significant factor in whether or not the participants responded to situations they had noticed when collecting data. Participants responded to only 55 per cent of the situations for a variety of reasons. One was a belief in children’s independent learning, illustrated by this participant’s comment: ‘If they are doing something else, because they are so much into it, like the slide. They were so much into that they didn’t want me to interact.’ Other participants felt not responding was also a way to support peer learning situations: ‘I’m quite happy with what I’m observing. I think it’s really cool that there are times when I can step in and help them, but it’s cool that they’re doing it with their peers.’
Teacher pedagogy was evident not only in whether the participants responded but also in how they responded. One participant engaged in shared learning situations that extended her knowledge base as well as the children’s. For example, as a result of a conversation, she and the children found out more about wombats they were making a stew from. Conversely, having failed secondary school assessments in science, another participant felt this inhibited her ability to feel confident about providing scientific explanations. Thus it is the teacher’s beliefs about, and confidence in, their scientific knowledge, as well as their teaching pedagogy that enables it to be used.
However, the type of scientific concepts a teacher learns in expanding their knowledge base is also of relevance. In this study there was evidence that the participants’ knowledge bases increased in accordance with the interests of the children, parents, other teachers, and wider community. This was most evident when a child at the centre expressed an interest in viscosity. While one teacher knew of the scientific concept, others increased their knowledge about it as a result of the child’s interest. In this way the knowledge base of the early childhood professional is developed in relation to the interests and knowledge valued by the associated learning community (children, parents, and wider community members). This enables the teacher to encourage the children to make links between their everyday experiences and scientific concepts (Fleer, 2009). It appears an emphasis during training on teachers’ identifying and developing scientific knowledge valued by the community they work within may be of more value than trying to increase teachers’ general knowledge. For practising teachers, scientific knowledge of importance to the community may become evident during conversations with parents or other community members, and at local cultural events. However, further discussion and research may also be necessary for teachers to understand the ideas and values that underpin the concepts.
This creates the possibility of a knowledge base that is locally contextualised, relevant to the child, and open to both local and global perspectives. In this scenario the teacher’s relationship with the child and their family is vital in supporting the development of the child’s scientific working theories. It also highlights the importance of the teacher’s relationship with the rest of the learning community. In this study, conversations with parents about the child’s learning experiences were a way for parents to share their perceptions of the child’s learning and, in turn, influenced the way the participants supported the child’s learning.
However, having adequate subject knowledge is not just about knowing scientific concepts but also having a clear understanding of what the nature of science is. This adds further complexity to the situation, as it appears from this research that the teacher’s understanding of NOS is related to the role they felt a teacher should play in supporting children’s scientific learning. Participants in this study with a solid understanding of NOS appeared to approach a lack of knowledge of the child’s scientific interest as a positive opportunity to utilise co-constructive teaching strategies and learn more about a particular topic. However, those who demonstrated less understanding of NOS appeared inhibited by a lack of confidence in their ability to provide the child with correct scientific explanations.
It appears that a number of interrelated factors influence teachers’ feelings in regard to their support of children’s scientific learning. This implies that a multi-faceted approach is required to encourage teachers to engage in more effective support (Hipkins et al., 2002). For example, the influence of the day-to-day realities of teaching in an early childhood environment was identified by participants as influencing their ability to support children’s scientific learning. While they did not view this influence as entirely negative, because it also creates possibilities for peer learning, it does imply that structural aspects of the context in which children are learning significantly influence the science education those children receive. The ways teaching influences are interconnected suggest there are a number of ways teachers’ negative perceptions toward science education might be challenged and changed. In particular, this study has identified a solid understanding of NOS, along with a positive attitude to one’s subject knowledge base, reflective teaching practices, and a supportive teaching team as four salient factors that should be considered in fostering teacher engagement in young children’s scientific learning.
Conclusion
This research set out to investigate the perceptions of one group of teachers about the way they supported children’s scientific learning and what they thought of that support. While the findings apply only to this specific situation, it is hoped that the detail provided in this article will enable other early childhood professionals to find a resonance with their own experiences and motivation to consider how children’s scientific learning could be more effectively supported in their own situation.
Although such support is often seen as an individual endeavour, this case study has highlighted the ways the participants’ teaching abilities were supported through the use of collective team knowledge and interplay of individual and group reflective practice. As a climate of discussion, critique, and knowledge sharing amongst team members can maximise the knowledge of each team member, consideration should be given in teacher training and professional development to encouraging the development of team-teaching practices. This suggests that further research into early childhood science education should also take into account the wider influences that occur in collaborative team teaching, possibly examining the diversity of the collective knowledge base within an educational setting and what makes for effective use of that knowledge base.
Increasing teachers’ knowledge of the concept of NOS has the possibility of challenging and possibly changing teaching pedagogy with regard to children’s scientific learning. A view of science as static inhibits teachers’ use of their scientific knowledge and can encourage children to view science in a similar way. Developing a teacher’s understanding of NOS has the possibility of developing the teacher’s confidence and ability not only to support children’s scientific learning but also to model scientific learning as the teacher’s own knowledge base increases in conjunction with their colleagues’, the children’s, and parents’ scientific interests and knowledge. Further research on the ways teachers might learn about and reflect on the knowledge base of the communities where they teach could provide further insight into utilising a ‘funds of knowledge approach’ (Hedges, 2007). There were a number of factors influencing the participants’ support of children’s scientific learning, and the findings from this study indicated the interrelated nature of these. For example, the participants’ understanding of NOS influenced their personal pedagogy, which in turn influenced the scientific learning support they provided for children. Subsequently there is also no single solution to increasing early childhood professionals’ engagement with scientific learning. However, one notable teaching strategy that emerged from the study is reflective teaching practice. Both individual and group reflective practice was used by the participants to develop their abilities to support children’s scientific learning. It appears that teachers’ reflection on their feelings about science and understandings of NOS can empower them to develop their support of children’s learning. This has implications not only for the teachers but also for professional development, teacher training, and further research.
Enhancing early childhood teachers’ abilities to support children’s scientific learning is a complex issue involving several interrelated factors, and an increased teacher awareness of these factors might bring about a greater effectiveness and consistency in the way teachers provide this support. This study suggests that the individual and collective endeavours of teachers support children’s scientific interests and develop the individual teacher’s practice as well as the scientific understandings of the future generation.
If this happens, early childhood professional teaching practices can influence the wider society as increasingly scientifically literate citizens contribute to the way that society is shaped.
References
Alexander, P. (2000). An investigation into teacher and student teacher confidence in their own understanding and abilities to teach science and technology in primary schools in Northern Ireland. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queens University of Belfast.
Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood settings: Learning stories. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Edwards, K. (2009). The inside story: Early childhood practitioners’ perceptions of teaching science. Unpublished Master’s thesis (in process), Victoria University of Wellington.
Fensham, P. (1991). Science education in early childhood education: A diagnosis of a chronic illness. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 8(3), 3–11.
Fleer, M. (2001). Science education over 40 years. Australian Journal of Early Childhood Education, 26(1), 39–45.
Fleer, M. (2008). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39, 281–306.
Fleer, M. (2009). Supporting scientific conceptual consciousness or learning in a ‘roundabout way’ in play-based contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1069–1089.
Fleer, M., & Robbins, J. (2003). ‘Hit and run research’ with ‘hit and miss’ results in early childhood science education. Research in Science Education, 33, 405–431.
Garbett, D. (2003). Science education in early childhood teacher education: Putting forward a case to enhance student teachers’ confidence and competence. Research in Science Education, 3, 467–481.
Gilbert, J., & Calvert, S. (2003). Challenging accepted wisdom: Looking at the gender and science education question through a different lens. International Journal of Science Education, 25(7), 861–878.
Haynes, M. (2000). Teacher education for early childhood through the New Zealand curriculum framework. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood, 3, 163–176.
Heap, R. (2006). Myth busting and tenet building: Primary and early childhood teachers’ understanding of the Nature of Science. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Massey University, Auckland.
Hedges, H. (2002). Subject content knowledge in early childhood curriculum and pedagogy. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North.
Hedges, H. (2007). Funds of knowledge in early childhood communities of inquiry. Unpublished PhD thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Hipkins, R., Bolstad, R., Baker, R., Jones, A., Barker, M., Bell, B. et al. (2002). Curriculum learning and effective pedagogy: A literature review in science education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Hipkins, R., Barker, M., & Bolstad, R. (2005). Teaching the ‘nature of science’: Modest adaptations or radical re-conceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2) 243–254.
Jordan, B. (2003). Professional development making a difference for children: Co-constructing understandings in early childhood centres. Unpublished PhD thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Ministry of Education (1996). Te wha-riki: He wha-riki matauranga mo- nga- mokopuna o Aotearoa/Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2007). New Zealand curriculum framework: Te anga marautanga o Aotearoa. Wellington: Learning Media.
Mutch, C. (2005). Doing educational research: A practitioner’s guide to getting started. NZCER Press: Wellington.
Rivalland, C. (2007). When are beliefs just ‘the tip of the iceberg’?: Exploring early childhood professionals’ beliefs and practices about teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(10), 30–37.
Robbins, J. (2005). ‘Brown paper packages’?: A sociocultural perspective on young children’s ideas in science. Research in Science Education, 35, 151–172.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smorti, S. (2005). Why don’t we teach science? Early Education, 38, 13–20.
Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationships between the understanding of the nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 919–944.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood – Volume 36 No 2 June 2011
Don't forget, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood is tax deductible for early childhood professionals
You can purchase this issue of the Australasian Journal of Early Childhood now.
|
