Can we play with science? Preschool teachers’ discussion about play-responsive teaching and how science content can be introduced into play with support of digital tools

ABSTRACT

This article is from a continuous professional development project where preschool teachers are introduced to the framework Play-Responsive Early Childhood Education and Care (PRECEC). Aspects of play and teaching are discussed in focus groups, before and after a first attempt to enact and re-enact play-responsive teaching, with science content. In the attempts, digital pictures or videos are projected in play to create an experience of science content. The technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework is used to analyse the complex and dynamic connections between pedagogical knowledge (PK), here with a focus on PRECEC, content knowledge (CK) and technological knowledge (TK). The results show that the preschool teachers often separate play and teaching. A concern is raised by the preschool teachers that they might influence or ruin the play if they participate. However, promising possibilities for play-responsive teaching were created when preschool teachers projected digital pictures and videos representing science content in a created play world.

KEYWORDS:

• Play-responsive teaching
• science
• digital technology
• early childhood education
• preschool teachers

Introduction

The research presented here is a study of the first part of a longitudinal Continuous Professional Development (CPD) project where possibilities for early childhood educators to enact and develop knowledge about play-responsive teaching are created. The aim of the study is to contribute with new knowledge about preschool teachers’ initial attempts at play-responsive teaching of science content when supported by digital tools.

Play in the context of Swedish preschool has a long tradition (Pramling et al. 2019). In contrast, the concept of teaching has a rather short history in Swedish preschool. In 2010, the concept became a part of the Education Act for all Swedish school forms, including preschool (Swedish Ministry of Education and Research 2010), and in 2018, it was included as part of the Swedish national curriculum for preschool (Swedish National Agency for Education 2019). Teaching is here described as taking place based on a planned content or on something that appears spontaneously in practice. Even before the concept of teaching was introduced in a preschool context, there were different areas to address, such as science. However, during this time, there was a strong emphasis on environmental issues and biology (Thulin 2011). The definition of science was clarified and broadened in a revision of the curriculum in 2010 (Swedish National Agency for Education 2011). In the current curriculum (Swedish National Agency for Education 2019), the different parts of this study, play, teaching, science and digital tools, are all included, and the preschool teachers need to relate to these in their practice. In this CPD project, play and teaching is directed towards science content and based on the theoretical framework of play-responsive early childhood education and care (PRECEC) (Pramling et al. 2019). Preschool teachers are challenged to use digital tools as support when introducing science content in play-responsive teaching by projecting digital pictures or videos on the wall during play.

Play-responsive early childhood education and care (PRECEC)

Play and learning in the preschool practice are often conceptualised as a dichotomy, even if there are many researchers and professionals who point out the importance of play as necessary for development and learning (Pramling Samuelsson and Asplund Carlsson 2008; Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson 2006; Pyle and Danniels 2017; Wallerstedt and Pramling 2012). This separation of play and learning can be based on play associated with children’s self-guided time and learning as something that takes place in activities organised by preschool teachers (Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson 2006). In PRECEC, the interest is directed towards the ‘metaphorical space of tension between open-endedness of play and the directionality of teaching’ (Pramling et al. 2019, 23). However, Pramling et al. (2019) highlight that learning is a dynamic process of sensemaking, and what someone learns in an activity cannot be seen as a copy of what is taught or instructed.

The intention of teaching from a PRECEC perspective is to make someone else, a child or preschool teacher, aware of something that he or she was not aware of before (Pramling et al. 2019). Hence, teaching is seen as a mutual activity between at least two participants. New knowledge is interpreted and understood based on the learner’s prior experiences. To be responsive means changing the ways of teaching if the children, for example, show interest in something else or express something that they do not understand (Barnett 1973). However, to be responsive does not only mean following the will expressed by the children but the teacher’s role is also to challenge the children in new directions, and/or create new ways of playing. Since teaching takes place in response to the children, all participants in the activity are equally important, although the preschool teacher has an important role as an experienced participant (Pramling et al. 2019). In conclusion, being responsive means that the teacher is both reactive by being responsive to children’s initiatives and interests and proactive by giving children opportunities to experience things they may not have been able to on their own (Pramling et al. 2019).

Research studies within PRECEC do not focus on defining different kinds of play but on how the participants in play mediate between each other, how action and activity are created, i.e. how participants signal ‘play’ to each other. There is an openness to what is characterised as play activity based on a view that play constantly shifts between ‘as if’ and ‘as is’. ‘As if’ describes how the participants communicate or act as if it were in a different way than it really is, the way they fantasise or imagine things to be. ‘As is’ describes how things are based on established knowledge (Pramling et al. 2019).

Science in preschool

The purpose and strength of science is to describe and predict phenomena by creating explanations based on theories and theoretical models. In science, experiences and theories are woven together to (re)construct theoretical models, during joint discussions, experiments and observations (Fridberg et al. 2020). Teaching science in preschool can mean allowing children to experience different materials and inquiries to make a scientific phenomenon visible in meaningful contexts (Thulin 2011). Eshach and Fried (2005) highlight the importance of creating opportunities for children to explore science based on the fact that children are already discovering the world around them. This could mean putting words to what is happening, sharing experiences or together seeking answers to the children’s questions (Eshach and Fried 2005; Thulin 2011). Fleer (2009) points out that many teachers in preschool use strategies for teaching science based on primary and secondary science education, where the foundational research is based on learning environments for children over 8 years old. Introducing preschool teachers to work with play-responsive teaching is a way to create opportunities to teach science in preschool by introducing and highlighting science content in children’s play. In the exploration of science, sometimes different forms of representations can be used instead of an authentic experience of science content (Treagust and Tsui 2014). In this study, digital pictures or videos are projected to create an experience of science content (as is) in the activity (as if).

Using digital technology in preschool science

In both science and play-based research, different research results indicate the possibilities of using digital technology to create opportunities for children to develop curiosity and scientific inquiry skills (Kewalramani and Havu-Nuutinen 2019). Through interaction and communication, there is an opportunity for preschool teachers and children to meet in a joint activity (Pramling et al. 2019). This requires the preschool teacher to contribute by focusing on content that is meaningful and interesting for the children (Pramling et al. 2019).

Introducing technologies, digital media and popular culture together with a play-based approach has proven to be a challenge for preschool teachers (Edwards 2016). According to Edwards, one problem in existing research efforts is that it often focuses on the teachers´ beliefs, attitudes and/or confidence about digital technology rather than the actual practice. Kewalramani and Havu-Nuutinen (2019) supports this view by pointing out that there is little research done about how preschool teachers, together with children, create joint participation around technology as a multimodal learning platform. There is also a lack of knowledge base that teachers can draw on to help them use technologies, digital media and popular culture (Edwards 2016). However, digital technology is now so culturally sustained that there is a pedagogical basis and necessity to recognise multimodal play in the lives of children in the ECEC setting (Arnott and Yelland 2020).

Based on the aim of the study and the relevance of previous research, the research question guiding the analysis in this study is:

• What aspects of play and teaching do preschool teachers highlight when discussing attempted play-responsive teaching with science content when digital tools are used as support?

Research design

This article is based on data from the initiation of a continuous professional development (CPD) project at a preschool in southern Sweden. Ten preschool teachers from different work teams participate in the project, all with some experience of science teaching and digital tools. CPD usually consists of interventions that are integrated into the preschool’s activities through a combination of new knowledge and follow-up activities, such as coaching with opportunities for teachers to reflect together and get feedback (Peleman et al. 2018). Based on this, the organisation of the CPD project as a whole is a combination of different interventions and focus-group discussions. The initiating semester of the project started with digital lectures about play-responsive teaching and science in preschool. The lectures were discussed by the preschool teachers in a focus group. The focus for this occasion was to create possibilities to link their newly acquired knowledge with their experiences from their practice, as well as create and share new ideas in a social context (Breen 2006).

The ten preschool teachers participating in this project are challenged to create opportunities in their practice to introduce play-responsive teaching with science content by projecting digital pictures or videos to create a shared play world. These attempts at play-responsive teaching are videos documented by the preschool teachers themselves. A section of the video documentation is selected by the preschool teacher and brought to a second focus-group discussion where they are viewed and discussed based on the stimulated recall method (Borko et al. 2011; Geiger, Muir, and Lamb 2016; Reintano and Sim 2010). Through stimulated recall, there is an opportunity for the participants to reflect on the video documentation and their role in teaching (Reintano and Sim 2010), but also to see events that were not noticed in the moment (Borko et al. 2011). According to Geiger et al. (2016), stimulated recall can be used to challenge teacher professional learning, provided that reflection and questioning are included as an important part of the process. The process is described in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Showing the process of the first part of the CPD project with the different parts of this study.

When viewing the preschool teachers’ video documentation, the participants were divided into two groups, preschool teachers working with children aged 1–3 years, and preschool teachers working with children aged 3–5 years. This division created opportunities for the preschool teachers to relate their experiences to others working with the same age group. Each focus-group discussion lasted for approximately 1 hour.

Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations for this research follow the recommendations of the Swedish Research Council (2017) and meet the ethics requirements of our institution at the time the data were collected. The participating preschool teachers and the guardians of the children approved their participation by signing a consent form. The consent form contained information that their participation is voluntary, with the right to withdraw their participation at any time. The video documentation that forms the basis for stimulated recall and the discussions that took place within the focus group was handled confidentially.

Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK)

In this study, the technological pedagogical and content knowledge framework TPACK (Mishra and Koehler 2006; Thompson and Mishra 2007) is used to approach and analyse the complex and dynamic connection between content, pedagogy and technology (Mishra and Koehler 2006). The conceptual framework TPACK is based on Shulman’s (1986) formulation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and further develops it to integrate technology into teaching based on the opportunities that new technology creates (Mishra and Koehler 2006). The TPACK framework ‘emphasizes the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy, and technology’ (Mishra and Koehler 2006, 1025). Each part of the framework is visible separately: pedagogy knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and technology knowledge (TK), but there is also an opportunity to look at them in pairs; pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). When all three parts are viewed, the triad is referred to as technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK), which is made visible in Figure 2 and described further in Table 1.

Figure 2. A Venn diagram of the three parts: Pedagogical knowledge, Content knowledge and Technological knowledge viewed as a triad (adapted from Mishra and Koehler 2006).

Table 1. Presenting the themes and descriptions of themes based on the TPACK framework.

Acronym	Themes based on TPACK framework	Description of themes
PK	Pedagogical knowledge	Comments about play-responsive teaching. The comments can be about both play and/or teaching as a possibility or as a limitation.
CK	Content knowledge	Comments about the science content
TK	Technological knowledge	Comments about the digital tools
PCK	Pedagogical content knowledge	Comments about teaching of the science content
TCK	Technological content knowledge	Comments about the use of digital technology to represent the science content.
TPK	Pedagogical technological knowledge	Comments about digital technology as a pedagogical tool
TPACK	Technological pedagogical and content knowledge	Comments about how to use digital technology in teaching to represent a science content

Analysis process

The focus-group discussions were held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The recordings of the preschool teachers’ discussions were transcribed in their entirety. The video documentations viewed on these occasions form the basis for the preschool teachers’ discussions but are not analysed per se.

The process of analysis started with a blinded reading where each researcher read the transcription and commented on the process of highlighting important parts and creating categories. A thematic analysis (Bryman 2011) was used based on the study’s aim and research question. The different categories that emerged were discussed and formed the basis for a second analysis. In order to further visualize and analyse the preschool teachers’ discussions, the transcriptions were re-analysed, again blinded between the researchers, based on the TPACK framework. The statements of the preschool teachers were analysed as a whole, which meant that if it touched on both pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge within the same statement, it was categorized as pedagogical content knowledge. The resulting analysis was in line with the categories from the prior analysis. However, the framework helped us to see when preschool teachers discussed their pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and technological knowledge (TK) as separate from each other or joined together.

Result

The results of the focus-group discussions are presented by different excerpts. Each cited excerpt ends with the fictive name of the preschool teacher, from which focus-group discussion the statement is taken (I or II), what age group the preschool teacher works with and into which category the statement was analysed.

Preschool teachers’ discussions about play-responsive teaching (PK), science content (CK) and digital tools (TK) as separate from each other

The content from the lecture about play-responsive teaching and science was discussed and the preschool teachers related the lectures to their former knowledge and understanding, as well as to their practice. However, in their discussions, no comments were analysed as just talking about a science content or digital tools. These areas were always raised together, or together with pedagogical knowledge, as will be shown below.

To participate in the children’s play was not seen as something obvious by some of the preschool teachers, and questions about why and how often a preschool teacher should join the play was raised. Some preschool teachers thought that participating in play depended on factors such as the children’s age.

Yes, you do it with the younger children, and then you let it go as they get older

(Helene, I, 1–3 y, PK)

While others thought it depended on children not being used to preschool teachers joining their play.

But I think about it, it could be, I think that children are not used to us going in and playing like that either, maybe if you do it a little more continuously, they find that we are not there to spy or what they feel that why should they now suddenly be here. I don’t know, it’s just a thought.

(Martina, I, 1–3 y, PK)

These excerpts represent different views from preschool teachers discussing their role in play. In the first excerpt, Helene points out that it may depend on the age of the children and is an aspect that preschool teachers return to during the discussion. This is linked to PK based on the notion that the role of the preschool teacher in play will be different depending on the age of the children. In the second excerpt, Martina is reflecting about children not being used to preschool teachers joining the play. This statement is also analysed as PK, but Martina describes joining the play as an opportunity, something that could be done if the children got used to preschool teachers participating.

Karin raised another concern about participating in the children’s play:

If there are three children and then I come in as fourth participant, there will be four different suggestions about where we should go on the excursion or what it might be in the play, it is perhaps easy to assume that my proposal, just because I am an adult, is what will be… and it can be good sometimes if we feel that now we want to go in this direction because we have a thought about something we want to teach about. But to participate, I think it’s hard as an adult to participate on the same terms as a child, so we have to be incredibly attentive not to take over too much.

(Karin, I, 1–3 y, PK)

Camilla describes her experience from joining a play about a television programme the children had initiated:

I asked if I could join, and I could! So, then I followed and it was very important what I was going to do and how I had to be quiet/…/So it all depends on what the play situation is. It’s hard to read, that here it might be appropriate to go in with a role but, you’re so afraid of ruining.

But then I got the feeling that they thought it was a little extra exciting/…/because I knew nothing. They had to explain a lot to me, what we are doing and what it is… then they had to teach me, and it felt like a very good way to go into a play. Like, I know nothing about this, now you get to help me how to play here. So, it became a challenge for them.

(Camilla, I, 3–5 y, PK)

In Karin’s excerpt, there is an idea about what will happen if they were to participate in the children’s play. Children and preschool teachers are not seen as jointly engaged in the play, and the different roles create different opportunities to influence the direction of play. This is highlighted by the preschool teacher due to children following the adults’ suggestions. The pedagogical knowledge here becomes invisible, except when the preschool teacher wants the play to develop in a certain direction. Camilla and Karin both raised fear of influencing or destroying the play by participating. Camilla, however, had a positive experience of joining the play. This excerpt is also categorized as PK, even if Camilla highlights her role in play as not to teach, to just follow the children’s play and let the children teach her.

From the discussion in focus group II, after trying in different ways to join children’s play, some teachers still raised a concern about participating in play. There was a feeling described that they interfered with the play. One example of this is Emilia’s description of joining, or in this case, initiating play:

I tried a few times to participate without filming, but it’s very much that the children have their play, they have their roles in the play/…/What I had to do was plan and control the play very much from the beginning/…/I had to start the whole situation and then I was happily allowed to participate. It was hard to get into a play that they already had, but now that I was involved from the start and started it up, I could be part of it.

(Emilia, II, 3–5 y, PK)

The excerpt shows that it can be a challenge for preschool teachers to join the children’s play. To create opportunities for joint participation in play. Emilia invited the children to join in her activity. Emilia’s statement can be related to Martina’s previous statement that the children are not used to preschool teachers participating in the play.

As a summary of the statements analysed as PK, the play is described as ‘children’s play’ that is separate from teaching. The teaching activity is described as planned and led by the preschool teacher. The preschool teachers notice that the children then use their knowledge from the teaching activity in their play. The importance of making the material used in teaching available to the children in their play was highlighted. When play and teaching are seen as separate from each other, there is an uncertainty about what role the preschool teacher has in the play. Based on this, it is the children who will process and use their knowledge in the play without the support of the preschool teacher.

Preschool teachers’ discussions where two areas meet visualizing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)

Here results are presented by giving examples of the preschool teachers’ discussion where two areas meet when discussing different aspects of play and teaching about a science content or with digital tool.

Joining/creating a play to highlight and play with a science content (PCK)

Cecilia works with the very youngest children in the preschool (1–3 years old) and tells everybody about a project about air that they have in her group. The science content is visualized by the story about the three little pigs where the wolf blows their houses down:

Yes, because it was very … we had more of a teaching situation that became a play./ … /We acted the story of the three little pigs. Then they played with the props and so, now we have done this many times, so they know this well, but they have developed how they have played with the props from time to time.

(Cecilia, I, 1–3 y, PCK)

During the discussion, she relates on different occasions to this project:

I think again this ‘three little pigs’ now that we played it, we work with air and we have chosen this story with the wolf blowing on the different houses and so on. When we then started this play, I chose that when they started to go into the roles, I chose to pick up the palm tree in front of me as if I were the pig and then they blew like wolves and then we fell down. So, I used the material in my own … when we were in these roles. Then we picked up the sticks and then we picked up the brick ‘and what happens then’ (playfully). I wanted to add a little bit of our purpose to the fact that we have chosen this story in the play…. I have not actively added any material, but I actively did something to maintain the purpose we had

(Cecilia, I, 1–3 y, PCK)

Cecilia highlights her role by creating opportunities for the children to play. The purpose and the content of teaching is directed towards air where the story together with the play is used to consciously draw the children’s attention to a science content.

Using digital representation in the play to create a shared experience about a science content (TCK)

The preschool teachers also reflected about the possibilities and limitations of using digital picture or videos projected on walls to inspire play or create a common play world.

… if there are 3 of the children who have experience of something but the fourth does not have it and then it may be good to add, yes a background. But of course, you can just go and look at a picture of/ … /jungle animals for example or a palm tree, what is a palm tree. It may not have to be a projected picture, but it could be for everyone to have a common platform to start from, ok, now we’re playing that we’re around the palm trees as well. That’s what a palm tree is. Maybe one or two children don’t really know what it’s about. This is a way to use these pictures to get everyone on the same path. But I also think there may be a risk in whether it’s too much…

(Karin, I, 1–3 y, TCK)

This example shows some possibilities for using projected digital pictures in the play to create a common understanding for a content that the children had no experience of. Karin, in this example, is thinking about, and imagining ways of using projected pictures. In this example, she is not referring to her role as a preschool teacher to guide the children to a common experience but thinking about how digital tools can represent a science content and thereby create a common image in play. However, this statement also indicates a possibility for the TPACK category based on her reflection that ‘now we’re playing that we’re around the palm trees’.

Inspiring and challenge/develop children’s play by introducing projected pictures in the play (TPK)

Camilla tells everybody about an example of how she works with projected pictures or videos to inspire children to include the picture in play or to imagine being in different places.

- We sometimes ask, ‘Do you need a background? so, what are you playing?’ ‘Yes, we play hunters’. ‘What do you need, do you need anything in the play, do you want a background on the wall?’ Yes, and then you might suggest something like a forest, or do you want a cave where you can hide in/ … /And if you do it often, they come themselves and tell us, can we get a castle or something because we are going to play knights or yes, whatever it is. (Camilla, I, 3-5 y, TPK)

- Yes, they must learn, for it is noticeable that the older children find it easier to connect a background with the play … (Helene, I, 1-3 y, TPK)

- Or you make them a little aware of ‘look there’s a forest’ (projected), to present the material, look there is a forest./…/That you might dramatize something together, there’s a forest, then we can be bears, so you have to start in a different way with the slightly younger children. (Camilla, I, 3-5 y, TPK)

In these excerpts, there is a discussion about how projected pictures can be used to guide or develop children’s play. This has been analysed as TPK. However, Helene’s statement again indicates her thoughts about the possibilities for using projected pictures is depending on the age of the children and not as Camilla to highlights the preschool teacher’s role in making the children aware and helping them to use the common play world. In the PK category Camilla reflected about ruining the play by participating and teaching, but by using digital tools she sees a possibility to support and develop children play by participating.

As a summary of the discussions analysed as PCK, TCK, and TPK, the aim or purpose of the activity becomes clearer when two areas meet from the TPACK framework. Statements analysed as TPK and PCK describe the role of the preschool teachers to provide a science content or challenging children’s play with the help of digital tools. This can be seen as a way of consciously including new knowledge in play. TCK also becomes a conscious way to add a science content to the play, but it will again be up to the children to use and develop the content in the play, if the preschool teacher is not involved and supports in the process. This can be put in relation to the statements analysed as PK where the purpose of teaching can be clear. However, the view that the children use their knowledge in play is seen rather as a result of the teaching activity instead of a continued process of learning.

Creating a common play world where a science content can be introduced, supported by digital tools (TPACK)

When attempting to initiate play-responsive teaching with a science content supported by digital tools some of the preschool teachers still struggled with taking part in the play. In focus group II, five video documentations and one photo documentation were viewed. Helene and Camilla used a picture from a forest they often visit as a background, Emilia made up an adventure using a video of butterflies and Jonna used a video from below water surface, Jenny used a picture from below ground to create a play with Blue-bots™ where they pretended that the Blue-bots™ were ants. Martina showed various pictures from a science area about small insects. To start the activity, the preschool teachers described how they initiated the play in different ways, for example:

We started with a teaching activity around the butterfly and then I very much controlled around that. When I finished my challenge to the children, the play took off. (Emilia, II, 3–5 y, PCK)

I projected a picture from a place we usually visit, an environment they recognize. We had some exercises where you would follow different tracks and go in different ways. I thought it might lead on to some play. (Helene, II, 1–3 y, TPACK)

It was teaching and a little bit of play, but then when we had turned off the camera and we were using the Blue-bots™, you could see that it was a different play. I was still sitting in the room, and I saw that they were playing what we had started. (Jenny, II, 3–5 y, TPACK)

In these excerpts, the planned content that the preschool teachers want to introduce takes precedence, even if it is a play that is initiated. But preschool teachers also point out that the play takes off when they have completed their teaching. Different reflections about participating in play were also raised:

So join in, I don’t know if it turned out quite what I had in mind really. I was in the play, but beside somehow. I was there for support, asked and came up with some facts and questions and stuff like that, and they played. I got to help out with buttons and… though they talked to me a lot anyway in the play, I don’t know, it’s a matter of interpretation

(Camilla, II, 3–5 y, PCK)

At the same time, the teachers started to highlight the possibilities of playing with science. The projected digital pictures created opportunities for a mutual play with a science content (TPACK).

Jonna, who works with children aged 3–5, had a project about the sea. She projected a video from below the water’s surface with various fish and turtles.

It was kind of the idea at the same time that it was still planned, what my focus would be and that I was available there to highlight the sciences and ask those questions. So it was pretty planned. I had prepared a room for them to enter, so it was very planned.

(Jonna, II, 3–5 y, TPACK)

/ … /

My focus was… we have been learning about the sea and now it was that we would be in the sea, ie how to be in the sea and how can people be in the sea, what do you need to be in the water for a long time.

(Jonna, II, 3–5 y, TPACK)

Jonna and the children started discussing what they needed to be able to stay under the water. The play changed from swimming around with the fishes to the children becoming divers with gas cylinders on their back. The projected video together with the imagined diving gear allowed them to dive under water as if they were really there. The projected video at the wall worked as a representation for the real experience of swimming in the ocean. Jonna had the intention to focus on how people can be in the ocean and what you need when you are under the water. Since the video that was projected showed an underwater perspective, questions about what is needed when one is beneath the surface were relevant in the play.

A summary of the discussions after attempting to create a play responsive teaching with science content supported by digital tools showed that opportunities for a common play were created. The projected picture or video were in some of the preschool teachers’ experience important, along with other tools. Emilia had, for example, brought binoculars to the children when they went on a journey of discovery in the play to look for butterflies:

I think it was the picture that did it a lot too and that everyone got a pair of binoculars, that you had a little bit of the same, not only that now we’re going to go exploring but that they had some tools to be able to do that as well. So it became so clear also what we were going to do, just for those children who think it’s a little trickier with the play codes, that they get very clear in front of them what is expected and what roles you have.

(Emilia, II, 3–5 y, TPACK)

However, the digital pictures or videos were used in different ways, as a background in play or as a way to represent and highlight science content.

Discussion

By analysing what aspects of play and teaching preschool teachers highlight in discussions after lectures on play-responsive teaching and science, a picture emerges of play and teaching as separated by some of the preschool teachers. Teaching is highlighted as an activity planned by the preschool teacher and play as children’s play. The connection that they say exists between play and teaching is the importance of material from teaching being available in play and that the preschool teachers can see how the children use knowledge from previous teaching in play. Based on this, when children use their knowledge and experiences from prior teaching in play, the preschool teachers view this as a result of learning. Even so, there is an uncertainty among some of the preschool teachers both about participation in play, but also about whether and why their role in the play is important. However, when the preschool teachers participate in play, they see interesting aspects emerging. By participating and introducing a science content in play based on their tentative grasp of play-responsive teaching, conditions were created for the preschool teacher to give the children new play experiences and challenge the children to use their knowledge in the play. This could be seen as one way of creating opportunities for children to explore science in a meaningful context (Eshach and Fried 2005; Thulin 2011) but also a possible way to discuss experiences together with theories of science to (re)construct theoretical models (Fridberg et al. 2020).

In order for two or three of the areas included in TPACK’s framework to meet, an intentional approach is required from the preschool teacher, where play and teaching are given equal space. What becomes a challenge for preschool teachers in this is to be responsive to the children’s play initiatives. When the preschool teacher enters the play with an intended content, a proactive approach can take precedence, where the preschool teacher challenges the children based on the intended content as opposed to a reactive approach where the teaching takes place in response to the children. Pramling et al. (2019) highlight that being responsive is to be both reactive by being responsive to children’s initiatives and interests and proactive by giving children opportunities to experience things they may not have been able to on their own. Through focus-group discussions with stimulated recall, opportunities are developed for the preschool teachers to use professional language when talking about the relationship between teaching and play, and what can happen in a mutual activity that is open for play.

The preschool teachers used projected pictures or videos as a representation of science content when creating a mutual play world, with an intention to introduce or highlight science content in play. This could be one way to support preschool teachers to use digital media in a preschool practice (Edwards 2016). The results show that the projected pictures or videos were used in different ways by the preschool teachers. For example, Camilla and Helene used a projected picture of a forest as a background, which helped the children to use their experience of digital images (Arnott and Yelland 2020) to pretend that they were in another place. This could be seen as a way of supporting play, but not as supporting the science content that was introduced. Another way of using a projection in play is where Jonna together with the children pretend to be divers in the ocean and the science content became a part of the play by acting in relation to a projected video. This result represents an example of a created opportunity discussed by Kewalramani and Havu-Nuutinen (2019).

Conclusions and implementations

The data for this study consists of the introduction period for a longitudinal continuous professional development project. The result of this study shows both possibilities and limitations that the preschool teachers raised before and after attempting to create play-responsive teaching. The challenges that emerge are mainly based on the notion that the preschool teachers are not secure in the role of playing adults nor in participating in the children’s play. Implementing a theoretical perspective such as PRECEC in the practice takes time and requires a long-term process. Further research is needed about play-responsive teaching and how digital tools can support teachers in playing with and introducing science content in play.

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the Swedish National Research School on Play-Responsive Early Childhood Education and Care for Social and Cultural Sustainability (PRECEC_SCS), funded by the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2019-03786).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was funded by the Swedish Research Council [grant no. 2019-03786; Vetenskapsrådet].