Follow-up research on science in preschool

In this project, we analyse a municipality’s experiences of partaking in a professional development programme called Science Kids. We aim to develop knowledge about how participation in such programmes can contribute to the development of science teaching in preschools. The research is done in cooperation with a mid-sized Swedish municipality and empirical data is collected in terms of pre- and post-questionnaires, focus-group discussions, and interviews. Content analysis is used supported by frameworks of curriculum emphases and professional development. The analysis is ongoing and results and discussion related to current and future science teaching in preschool will be presented at international conferences and journals. Preliminarily we can, at this point, say that the participants display a positive attitude towards science in preschool and that they highlight the importance of everybody's participation. There is a pronounced focus on the importance of children being able to understand and discuss science content among themselves. Not so much about decision-making, science in society, and other aspects of science.

Introduction
The project has its background in that the national curriculum stipulates natural science as content in Swedish preschool, i.e. children should be given the opportunity to develop an understanding of "simple chemical processes and physical phenomena" and the ability to discuss natural science. At the same time, many educators in preschool experience science as a difficult area to teach. In line with these difficulties, the Swedish Schools Inspectorate reports that science in preschool is often treated in isolation without connection to the children's own investigations or everyday life (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2018). The need for the development of science teaching is emphasised in the same report. The non-profit association BUNT, leads the project Science Kids, which aims to develop science teaching in preschool based on children’s questions. Free web-based teaching materials are developed in collaboration between science centres and preschools. We are collaborating with a mid-size municipality taking part in Science Kids to analyse experiences made.

We aim to develop knowledge about the processes associated with the development of material for preschool science teaching. In particular, the focus is on how workteams’ participation in Science Kids can contribute to professional development in relation to science teaching in preschool. The research questions are:
•What kind of science content can be identified in the empirical data?
•How can participation in a project like Science Kids contribute to the professional development of work teams regarding science teaching?

Background
Research on science in preschool often uses Eshach's (2006) description of science as two knowledge domains. The first includes facts and science theories with concepts. The second includes scientific and investigative approaches such as questions, observations, experiments and discussions, i.e. the processes that have been used to arrive at the facts and theories addressed in the first domain. Both domains can be related to the knowledge area Nature of Science (NOS) (cf. Lederman, 2007; McComas, 2020). Important aspects of NOS possible to illustrate in preschool are, for example, different types of scientific methods and tools as well as human aspects linked to the knowledge processes such as curiosity, creativity, and collaboration (cf. Hansson et al., 2020; Leden et al., 2022). An analytical tool that can be used in the analysis of science content is Roberts' curriculum emphases (Roberts, 1982).

Furthermore, the preschool teacher's own attitude towards science is important for the children's opportunity to learn science; if the teacher has a positive attitude, it can affect the children positively (Fleer, 2009). In addition to aspects linked to the scientific content, research has shown the importance of preschool teachers making an effort to adapt to children's perspectives – a prerequisite for maintaining mutual simultaneity and intersubjectivity in teaching (cf. Fridberg et al., 2019).

According to Timperley (2019), teachers need to operate and be challenged within new frameworks and have access to new knowledge in order to develop new forms of practice. Furthermore, the importance of everyone's participation is emphasised. In other words, a workplace does not seem to "get further due to the development of a few individuals. Instead, the "whole" gains from everyone's participation. Results from a previous professional development project on science teaching in preschool showed that it was indeed imperative that all staff participated (Fridberg et al., 2021).

Research methods
The project is ongoing (2022-2024). Empirical data is collected in collaboration with two preschools in the municipality. Three work teams participate, each with a group of ten children (3-5 years old). Science Kids has an appointed process leader who collaborates with the three workteams together with a project manager from the Science Centre. A lecturer from the municipality supports the process.

The structure of Science Kids will be repeated in four periods: autumn 2022, spring 2023, autumn 2023 and spring 2024. Each period begins with a visit from the project manager from the Science Centre to the relevant children's group. The visit is organised around pre-selected science materials. The process leader and the workteam pay attention to the children's questions and interests and, based on this, choose a science content area for further work.

The empirical data consists of pre- and post-surveys and focus groups with the workteam and the municipal lecturer. In addition, the documentation of the process leader is collected, and follow-up interviews are conducted with the process leader, the project manager, the municipal lecturer, and the principals at the two preschools. Data is analysed by using both conventional and directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

Results 
One of the interests of the study was to get an insight into what science content comes into focus in this type of project. This was studied by analysing how participants talk about their didactic choices regarding science and children's questions about science. The analysis uses the seven curriculum emphases (Roberts, 1982). Solid foundation is about learners getting a stable foundation for future studies. Correct explanation focuses on factual knowledge and the value of knowledge for its own sake. Everyday coping focuses on the benefits children/students can derive from science to understand everyday life. Science, technology and decisions focuses on the role of science in society and how science knowledge can be used to make informed decisions. Self as explainer is based on the need and desire to be able to explain phenomena one is curious about in the here and now. Scientific skill development focuses on scientific methods and procedures to enable learners to investigate things themselves. Nature of science focuses on knowledge of how science works and what characterises scientific knowledge. The curriculum emphases as a theoretical framework enable an analysis of both what is emphasised and what is not in the participants' discussions. Thus, it is possible to draw conclusions about what should be emphasised or adjusted in professional development processes.

Furthermore, a directed content analysis drawing on the didactic questions Why, What, How, and Who (including Teacher perspective), and a theoretical framework of professional learning (Timperley, 2011) three levels (basic level, development level and integrated level). Two perspectives, knowledge and skills, and the role of leaders, are analysed based on the three levels.

Selected statements were first categorised into the categories Why, What, How, and Who, including Teacher perspective (TP). The analysis processes were then repeated for the categorisation related to the perspectives and levels adapted from Timperley (2011. A second directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) of focus groups and interviews utilised two perspectives, each with three levels, adapted from Timperley (2011). 

Overall, the results show that participation supported a shift toward more investigative, child-responsive science teaching and strengthened teacher motivation, but also surfaced tensions related to teacher confidence, concept-focused expectations, and organisational conditions.

Implications for future professional learning projects

Taken together, the findings suggest that developmental projects aiming to support preschool science teaching should:

• Build on and explicitly value work teams’ child perspective traditions, while also scaffolding attention to children’s own perspectives and to teacher perspective as a reflective resource.

• Offer concrete support in broadening science content beyond biology, including examples of how to work with physical phenomena in playful, multisensory ways.

• Address work teams’ negative histories and lack of confidence explicitly, by creating safe spaces for “finding out” together and by highlighting that not knowing is a legitimate starting point for inquiry.

• Prioritise whole-team participation and collaboration, ensuring that all members of a work team are involved and that leaders actively support structures for shared reflection.

• Make the Why question visible to enable conscious sensemaking about purposes and to prevent implicit messages from dominating.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the research platform ‘Collaboration for Learning’ at Kristianstad University, Sweden [2023-2312-94]

References
Eshach, H. (2006). Science literacy in primary schools and pre-schools. Springer.

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.

Fridberg, M., Jonsson, A., Redfors, A., & Thulin S. (2019). Teaching Chemistry and Physics in Preschool – a Matter of Establishing Intersubjectivity. International Journal of Science Education 41(17), 2542-2556.

Fridberg, M., Jonsson, A., Redfors, A., & Thulin, S. (2021). Undervisning om kemi- och fysikrelaterade vardagsfenomen i förskolan: Samverkan med ett skolområde kring kompetensutveckling och forskning. Kristianstad University Press.

Hansson, L., Leden, L., & Thulin, S. (2020). Book Talks as an Approach to Nature of Science Teaching in Early Childhood Education. International Journal of Science Education, 42(12), 2095-2111.

Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.” Qualitative health research 15(9): 1277-1288.

Leden, L., Hansson, L., & Thulin, S. (2022). Characteristics of book talks about nature of science. Science Education, 106(6), 1469-1500.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, 831-879. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McComas, W. F. (2020). Nature of Science in Science Instruction. Springer.

Redfors, A., Fridberg, M., & Jonsson, A. (2024). Student preschool teachers' and work teams' planning ses¬sions of thematic teaching including science during degree projects – curriculum emphases in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education. 

Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66(2), 243-260.

Skolinspektionen (2018). Förskolans kvalitet och måluppfyllelse – ett treårigt regeringsuppdrag att granska förskolan. Skolinspektionen.

Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. Open University Press