Promoting science education in early childhood: a research in a nursery school

ABSTRACT

European and international research shows how the child has an attitude, in relation to the knowledge of the natural world, characterized by curiosity and free exploration. My research refers to the theoretical contribution of Dewey ([1933. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relationship of Reflective Thinking to the Educational Process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin]; [1938. Logic, the Theory of Inquiry. New York: Hennry Holt and Company]), Vygotsky ([1930. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press]; [1934. Thought and Language. London: MIT Press]), Wood, Bruner, Ross ([1976. “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89–100]), psychoanalysis regarding the psychic processes at the base of curiosity and to the experience of Susan Isaacs ([1930. The Intellectual Growth of Young Children. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul]; [1933. The Social Development of Young Children: A Study of Beginnings. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul]) at the Malting House. The approach of ‘promoting from within’ as a useful reference for designing and setting up adult intervention aimed at promoting the development of a scientific attitude. The main objective of the research is to highlight the conditions (space, material, adult approach) which best promote a scientific attitude in children. I collected the data through videotapes, observation protocols and I elaborated two analysis grids: one related to the epistemic conduct of the children and the other concerning the strategies and functions of the adult.

A first analysis of audio and video recordings highlighted the different ways in which the child approaches the materials, explores and gets to knows them and the effects of different adult intervention approaches on children's scientific attitude. In particular, the analysis highlighted some interesting aspects suggesting that an adult approach based on participatory intervention strategies (promoting from within and ending conversation) allows the development of a scientific attitude in terms of the acquisition of critical thinking.

KEYWORDS:

• Science education
• scientific attitude
• promotion from within
• early childhood
• participatory pedagogy

Introduction: the context and the reasons for a choice¹

In the international panorama documents and lines of address² referring to educational services for children highlight how science education is a skill that, moving from a child's curiosity towards the world, needs participatory methods based on listening to the child and on welcoming its points of view as a subject capable of building its own knowledge.

In recent years, the Italian school landscape has also been characterized by a revived interest in science education. Projects have been launched in the different orders and degrees of school,³ but also from documents and initiatives promoted by the Ministry of Education, University and Research (Miur). In February 2018, the document ‘Indicazioni Nazionali e Nuovi Scenari’ in which the importance of citizenship skills is emphasized and the cultural instruments through which it is possible to promote their development are made explicit, was presented to the Ministry of Education. Among these, we highlight scientific thought understood as the ability to observe, explore, detect phenomena, ask questions, formulate hypotheses to be tested and collect data. What is said is in continuity with what was written in the ‘Indicazioni Nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell’infanzia e del primo ciclo di istruzione’ (2012) in the field of experience ‘Knowledge of the world’. This field of experience supports the idea of a child who observes, continually explores reality, learns to describe, reflect and elaborates the experiences made.

The research that I have carried out has started from these considerations and, moving on an exploratory level, has set as its main purpose that of elaborating and testing a participatory approach aimed at supporting and promoting the development of scientific thought in the Nursery School.

The theoretical frame of reference

The analysis of national and international scientific literature on the subject of science education has highlighted aspects that can be traced back to three main lines of investigation.

• Sensitization towards environmental issues (Environmental Education) (Duhn 2012; Erdogan et al. 2012; Cutter-MacKenzie et al. 2014).

• The rediscovery of the natural world through a direct relationship with plants and animals (experience of the agri-nursery school, school in the woods) (Faber Taylor et al. 1998; Louv 2005; Peta, Ventura, and Savarese 2013).

• The importance of initiating children to the acquisition of a method to investigate the phenomena of the natural world. (Inan, Trundle, and Kantor 2010; Giordano 2013; Andersson and Gullberg 2014).

Only this last line of investigation focuses explicit attention on a science education intended as support for the relationship between child and nature in cognitive terms. In particular, it emerges that science education in nursery school cannot be reduced to the simple transmission of scientific notions, but it is important to propose paths aimed at supporting processes typical of a scientific way of relating and knowing the world, relying on the fact that children, even in an embryonic way, activate these processes spontaneously starting from early childhood.

The analysis of European and international literature has proved to be fundamental, but not sufficient. For this reason, a deepening of the theoretical references that are the basis of an educational approach aimed at promoting critical and reflective thought processes in children was necessary. In particular, John Dewey's theory of investigation (1933, 1938), the concept of ‘Zone of proximal development’ by Vygotsky (1930, 1934), the scaffolding by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), was taken into consideration on the one hand, and, on the other, the psychoanalytic perspective with the thought of Freud (1910), Melanie Klein (1928, 1930), Bion (1962, 1965) and Meltzer and Harris (1976), to focus on deep psychic processes which represent the engine for the development of curiosity and the taste of research and knowledge. Moreover, the contribution of Susan Isaacs (1930, 1933) was particularly useful because, with her experience at Malting House, she effectively interpreted Dewey's theory and the psychoanalytic one in an expressly pedagogical sense.

In order to keep the above mentioned theories and references in close interconnection, reference has been made to the approach of ‘promoting from within’ (Bondioli 2004, 2008; Bondioli and Savio 2009; Bondioli 2015a, 2015b; Savio 2003, 2012, 2013). This approach is in fact part of the theoretical framework outlined and is characterized by a participatory style since the design of the educational intervention starts from the child's curiosity and welcomes suggestions. This strategy proved to be effective for designing and setting up adult intervention aimed at promoting the development of a scientific attitude.

On the basis of the reference literature examined, I proceeded to the development of an exploratory research in the field with the following purposes:

• to identify which environmental conditions can encourage and promote the conduct of scientific exploration of natural phenomena in preschool-aged children, with particular reference to the educational context of nursery schools;

• to detect and describe these conducts.

Methodology

The context

The research experience was conducted in Liguria, in one of the 5 nursery school complexes of a Comprehensive Institute. In particular, the class where I conducted the research welcomes 29 children and the group is run by two teachers assisted by non-teaching staff.

Participants

The groups of children: 21 children aged between 4 and 5 participated in the research. The children were divided into 3 groups composed in such a way as to be balanced by age and gender. To each group, in parallel, a path consisting of the same number of meetings – 8 – conducted in the same space and with the same materials, but with a different adult intervention was proposed (see section ‘styles of adult intervention’). The groups were formed maintaining a balance between gender and variable age.

The participation of the adults: before starting the activities with the children, I had some meetings with the Headmaster, teachers and parents in order to present the research project, to define some formal aspects and, in particular, to listen to his point of view and welcome any suggestions regarding the subsequent actions.

At the end of the path of research in the field with the children, I have foreseen two moments of restitution: one for the teachers, the other for the parents of the children involved. The purpose of the return was to show teachers and parents what the groups of children actually did during the meetings with the researcher. This initiative allowed me, on the one hand to respond to a curiosity about the path taken with children, on the other hand to collect further observations and information related to the points of view, both of the children and the adults, compared to the experience gained.

Styles of adult intervention

The intervention styles implemented by the adult in the three groups of children are characterized as follows:

• laissez faire. The adult maintains an observer role, does not intervene with the intention of promoting exploration activity, but only if particular practical problems arise;

• promotion from within. The adult intervenes with the aim of supporting and promoting exploration based on the model of ‘promotion from within’. In this condition, the adult waits and grasps the initiative of the children, urges them to ask questions, ‘reflects’ the scientific attitude implemented by the children on the materials, either verbally or not. The highlighted aspects outline the participatory character of this approach that starts from the interests of the child, recognizing the right to participate actively in the learning process;

• promotion from within + final conversation. The position and the role of the adult are similar to those of the previous condition but, moreover, at the end of the activities, the researcher encourages the children to retrace the experience made by narrating it, and to reflect on it. In this case, the adult supports discussion, comparison and reflection through guiding questions (What have we done today? What have we observed? What has happened? What is needed to continue the experience?). In this case, the intent is to consider whether and to what extent a style of adult who not only promotes from within but also supports participatory reflection on the experience gained, affects the manifestation of scientific exploration behaviour. In this way, we intend to investigate the incidence of the meta-cognitive dimension.

The three conditions were randomly assigned to the three group (laissez faire/group C; promotion from within/group A and promotion from within + final conversation/group B).

Data collection methods

Data collection was made possible: from the video recording of all the meetings and their transcription into observational protocols as a basis for carrying out the analysis work; from conducting an interview with teachers.

Interview

I conducted one interview, lasted one hour,⁴ with teachers to gather some more specific information on the educational context and the proposal that was offered to children in everyday life. I chose to carry out the interview with the teachers at the end of the research experience with the children, in order to ‘clear’ the field of prejudices that could have an influence on my way of conducting the meetings, to relate with the children and with the teachers themselves.

From the interview, some information has emerged that allows us to outline the educational context that the children involved in the research, experience daily, and that has provided useful information for the ‘reading’ of the data.

Scientific experience, in the stories of teachers, is centred almost exclusively on observation. Often, teachers refer to experiences of scientific observation in describing the activities they propose within the field of experience ‘Knowledge of the world’.

Researcher

‘What experiences have you had on the scientific field?’. Teacher: ‘We have proposed, for example, a floating activity. We had prepared a basin on a table and a box with some objects inside. We proposed that they should fish for an object one at a time, with closed eyes, touch it, try to say what it was and then, before putting it in the water, say if he thought it would float or no’.

Another example:

Researcher

‘Have you done other science education experiences besides floating?’.

Teacher

‘I do not know if making salt dough can be considered a scientific observation activity, once I got ready and brought all the ingredients to make salt dough from home. I brought: flour, salt etc. and with all the children seated, they were all good. […]’. Everyone had a glass and on it I had written flour to indicate where they had to put the flour, salt to indicate where they had to put salt. We put all the ingredients in a big bowl, I coarsely kneaded it then I gave each child a portion of the dough’.

These examples highlight a methodology that tends to favour the conduct of the teacher who decides activities and methods to carry them out (children sitting around the table, the material is requested from teachers).

Observations

The activities with the children took place once a week in the middle of the morning (from 10:30am to 11:30am), over a period of time between January and March 2017 and were set in a classroom set up in a laboratory. For each group 4 meetings (2 preliminaries and 2 at the end of my intervention) were foreseen where the children could act freely with the materials. During this meetings, I observed without intervening. The two preliminary meetings of observatories were aimed at detecting exploratory behaviour (implemented by children not yet subjected to an intervention intentionally designed to support and promote scientific conduct).

The observation meetings at the end of the implementation of the three conditions of intervention by the adult were intended to detect any differences with respect to the two observations made in the initial phase, in the scientific conduct of the children.

Data analysis

The analysis carried out on the observational protocols made it possible:

• to identify those conducts of children who seemed to reveal an epistemic attitude towards the proposed materials;

• to individuate the strategies implemented and the functions performed by adults to promote the children's exploration with regards to the natural phenomena observed.

As far as the epistemic categories are concerned, the analysis of the data has permitted us to identify five ones: Detection of the phenomenon, assembling and construction, exploration, experimentation, detection of the problem (see section 5). The order of presentation of the categories does not correspond to a sequential order of manifestation but emphazises a greater complexity and articulation that characterizes the different conducts.

To identify the strategies that the adult has implemented, and which fall within the theoretical framework of ‘promotion from within’, I have referred to the categories developed by Bondioli (1996, 2001). Specifically, with reference to the tutoring theory in relation to the cognitive, emotional and social field, the researcher has implemented reflections by ‘mirroring’ the verbal and non-verbal behaviour of the child avoiding making judgments; open questions that allow a wide range of answers; introductions of novelty elements (materials, or activities) that are in continuity and consistent with what the child / group is doing.

The strategies explained above perform precise functions⁵ (falling within the tutoring theory) in relation to the cognitive, emotional and social field.

Findings

The analysis of the data allowed me to underline 5 ways in which the children interact with things from the world of nature in order to understand how they work.

All the situations that fall into the category Detection of the phenomenon show ways in which the children understand the characteristics of materials without continuing further investigation. An example is represented by Leonardo who looks at the plastic bottles, lies down on the ground, takes aim, blows on one of the standing bottles. He repeats the action a couple of times by blowing harder and harder until he manages to make it fall.

In the category assembling and construction, the children, individually and / or in groups, look for objects with the intention of building something on the basis of a project. Some examples are represented by the construction of a marble track and the assembly of different materials to create a wigwam.

In the Exploration category, children not only detect and briefly observes a phenomenon but explores it showing the intention to deepen the knowledge, to understand ‘how it works’; this, too, in view of the achievement of an objective outside the cognitive one. An example taken from an observation protocol.

Alice trying to get a piece of scotchtape but cannot tear it. She tries pulling harder and observes that the tape stretches but does not tear. Try to rip it off with your teeth (if I pull harder or bite with my teeth, it will tear) but she realizes it fails and puts it back in the box holding the roll of cardboard in her hand.

In Experimentation category children interact with the material available on the basis of a ‘hypothesis’ to be verified. The discriminating aspect in this category consists of the verbal explanation of the hypothesis in mind and of the implementation of the actions useful to put it to the test by observing the effects that follow. For example:

Leonardo is working in a pool of water and suddenly says: ‘Look! This floats (indicates a piece of wood) but if I put this on it (a plastic bottle full of water) it will all go down’.

The Detection of the problem category is very similar to the previous one. The aspect that characterizes the behaviours that fall into this category is represented by the fact that the children, during their exploration, encounter a problem that puts them in front of a ‘hitch’ or a dilemma. An example is shown below.

Leonardo notices a piece of cardboard from the broken kitchen paper roll. After a few moments, Leonardo says: ‘Here it is broken’. He looks around, approaches a box and takes a roll of blue tape. He shows it to me and shows me the corner that has been raised in the cardboard roll and says: ‘I have to fix it!’. Looking at the roll of tape he tries to find the point where you can lift it to get a piece. Peter and Alice approach him. Leonardo starts to pull the piece of cellotape, he pulls hard, looks at the cardboard roll of and that of the cellotape and says: ‘How do you do it … how do you do it?’.

Alice proposes: ‘If we take scissors, we can cut it’.

The data thus codified was subjected to quantitative (non-statistical) and qualitative analysis that allowed to highlight differences between the groups in relation to the manifestation of the different scientific categories (Tables 1–3).

Observing the tables, it emerges that the scientific categories of Detection of the phenomenon, Assembling / Construction and Exploration are present in all three groups while the most complex (experimentation and identification of the problem) occur and remain constant during the meetings, only in the two groups A and B (promotion from within). These considerations could suggest that for the exploratory categories it is sufficient to offer some material, make some changes and leave freedom of movement for these conducts to be activated. This situation, however, as shown by the experience of group C (which has experienced a similar context but an intervention not aimed at promoting scientific skills), in the long run causes a decrease, also, of these conducts that represent a first level of knowledge in the interaction with the proposed material (during the 6 scheduled meetings the behaviours considered here decrease). This seems to indicate that offering stimulating materials to children and allowing them to explore them freely without an adult, even if fundamental, is not sufficient to activate more articulated and complex conducts. In essence, the categories of Experimentation and Detection of a problem, which can be placed within the framework of the Dewey inquiry process, have been observed in those groups that have not only had the material to explore freely but have been supported by an adult who intentionally designed interventions that fall within the theoretical and methodological framework of Wood, Bruner and Ross tutoring (1976) and of the proximal development zone of Vygotsky (1930, 1934).

Table 1. Calculations relating to the categories of scientific conduct observed in the various meetings held with Group A – promotion from within.

	Pre-obs^a	1	2	3	4	Post-obs^b	TOT
Phenomenon detection	4	–	–	–	1	3	8
Assembling/Construction	1	1	1	1	–	2	6
Exploration	3	4	2	3	4	4	20
Experimentation	–	–	2	1	2	1	6
Identifying a problem	2	2	1	2	1	2	10

^aPre-obs. = preliminary observations.

^bPost-obs. = observations post intervention.

Table 2. Calculations relating to the categories of scientific conduct observed in the various meetings held with Group B – promotion from within + final conversation.

	Pre-obs	1	2	3	4	Post-obs	TOT
Phenomenon detection	1	1	2	–	1	–	5
Assembling/Construction	2	–	–	1	–	2	5
Exploration	3	3	2	4	4	4	22
Experimentation	2	2	–	1	2	3	10
Identifying a problem	2	–	1	1	–	1	5

Table 3. Calculations relating to the categories of scientific conduct observed in the various meetings held with the group C – laissez-faire.

	Pre-obs	1	2	3	4	Post-obs	TOT
Phenomenon detection	1	2	1	1	1	2	8
Assembling/Construction	2	–	–	1	1	1	5
Exploration	4	4	1	2	2	2	15
Experimentation	–	1	–	–	–	–	1
Identifying a problem	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

A separate reflection is needed for the function performed by the final conversation provided by the intervention model experienced by the children of group B.

With reference to the theoretical framework specified in section 2, in group B, in addition to the promotion from within approach, a conversation was proposed at the end of each meeting, in order not only to increase the frequency of the verbalizations connected to epistemic conduct, but also to promote greater social interaction: the sharing of observations and solutions to problems that open up to new possibilities.

The role of the adult in these situations is to support dialogue, exchange and encourage the group to express themselves and say what they think about the issue discussed, encouraging them to recount experiences that, consistent with the activities carried out, may also refer to knowledge acquired in other contexts.

A first element that emerges from the conversations concerns the fact that the children, while narrating, continue to ‘do’ and accompany the story with actions that demonstrate what has been said. An example is observed when the children talk about the experience of floating and Elena rises from the circle, goes to the pool with water, indicates the metal caps and says:

‘See? These are light and yet they are on the bottom, why?’. Alice responds to this solicitation by taking the cap from a plastic bottle that has slightly higher edges, puts it on the water, observes and affirms: ‘This stays a bit up, then goes down’.

This exchange, re-launched by the adult, leads the companions to try to make different assumptions until, in a subsequent meeting, trying to do the same thing, the children sense that at some point the water enters the cap with the highest edges making it become heavy and sink.

Another aspect that seems relevant to me is that, by participating in these meetings, the children seem to assume the function of keeping a memory of a path recalling experiences made in different meetings, more and more. In this regard, during the conversation at the end of the last meeting, expressing to the group that I would bring them some different materials from the ones used so far in the following meeting and Elena says:

I remember when you brought us the planks of wood and we built the marble track and we had races to see which marble could get to the end of the path. We tried to use bigger balls that did not fall through the spaces between one plank and the other.

The examples seem to highlight how the moment of group conversation, supported by adult interventions, solicit the sharing and the narration of what happened.

Discussion

In accordance with the theoretical framework (section 2), the experience I have conducted seems to have aspects in common with the researches of the third line of investigation described in section 2.

In particular, I have not transmitted scientific content, but I have proposed an approach that takes account of children's proposals. This choice starts from the belief that children are competent in relation to the exploration of the world (Isaacs 1933; Dewey 1938); they have their own theories about how things work and about the phenomena they observe.

The adult is proposed as a ‘facilitator’ who makes children, involved in this path, co-protagonists (Bondioli 2008; Bondioli and Savio 2009; Bondioli 2015a, 2015b; Savio 2003, 2012, 2013). The aspects that make the proposed approach in group B (section 3.2) participatory are represented by the adult who waits for the child's initiative, enhances it through the mirroring function, promotes sharing and group discussion supported by the intentional action of the adult, favours the autonomous individuation of possible solutions and other research paths.

Another aspect of the research that is coherent with participatory pedagogy concerns the involvement of the expert adult figures of that educational context (teachers, parents and Headmaster) and the reciprocal dialogue between teachers, parents and researcher was fundamental to the successful outcome of the experience.

The meetings held before the start of the research with the children and those of return at the end of the experience were aimed to clarify who, in the different phases, had the expertise to manage the context. In the formation of groups, for example, the researcher has clarified some constraints to be respected (balance between gender and age), teachers have suggested which children were better placed in the same group. The interview with the teachers also allowed me to have information on the characteristics of the educational context that they know in depth.

The teachers were not participating in the meetings with the groups of children because this would have made it difficult for them to look after the 2 and 3 olds who were not participate in the research. To make them aware of the path and some outcomes, I had one meeting of restitution with the teachers where I showed them the videotapes and we discussed the aspects that they considered to be new with respect to the educational modality they proposed to the children.

The steps described highlighted the acquisition of greater awareness of what is being done and the principles and values that support educational action. Actors, especially teachers and children, have perceived a genuine involvement in the design of some organizational phases of research.

Conclusion

Assuming that this research moves on an exploratory level, the wealth of the material produced and its analysis have provided some useful data to outline what are the characteristics of an educational approach that seem to contribute to structuring a favourable context to the development of a scientific attitude.

However, there are still several open questions and multiple possibilities for further study, to be considered with due attention when designing experiences aimed at supporting and promoting the development of scientific attitude. In relation to the aspects that, based on the data collected and analyzed, seem to have an influence on the possibility of children to activate scientific behaviours, it would be useful to carry out further investigations with an experimental set-up in order to try to clarify the type of influence and relationship that occurs. This possibility would allow to highlight the questions to which it is useful to give an answer. Which strategies of the adult are more effective in favouring the manifestation of increasingly complex scientific behaviours? Which adult strategies are more effective in supporting the verbalization of children and cooperation in investigating a phenomenon?

The timing of the research did not allow us to foresee a further formative moment, with the teachers and parents, aimed at a transformative action which requires, in fact, times longer than those I have had available for the work related to the research doctorate.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The experience I will describe in this article has developed within my PhD at the Department of Humanities at the University of Pavia.

2. Among the international curriculum documents: in Norway the National curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care, in New Zealand the Te Whākiri Curriculum and in France the Socle Commune de Connaissance, de Competences et de Culture.

3. ‘Experimenta’ projects have been coordinated by the Committee for scientific and technological development with tasks concerning the dissemination of scientific and technological culture through innovative teaching. The physicist Carlo Bernardini was also part of the Committee, of which Luigi Berlinguer is president.

4. The interview was made at the end of the school day.

5. The functions related to the cognitive dimension are: Consolidation, Focusing attention, Stress and expand, those related to the emotional and social field are: regulate emotional intensity, contain frustration, ‘social connection’.