Understanding Imaginative Thinking During Childhood

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306 DOI 10.1007/s11165-008-9085-x

Understanding the Dialectical Relations Between Everyday Concepts and Scientific Concepts Within Play-Based Programs Marilyn Fleer

Published online: 31 May 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract In recent times there has been an enormous interest in Vygotsky’s writing on conceptual development, particularly his insights on the differences between everyday and scientific thinking. In drawing upon cultural–historical theory, this paper seeks to examine the relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within playful contexts, such as preschools, with a view to better understanding how very young children develop conceptual understandings in science. This paper presents an overview of a study which sought to map the transformation and appropriation of scientific concepts within two early childhood settings. Approximately ten weeks of data gathering took place, with video recordings, field notes, photographic documentation, and child and teacher interviews for recording child concept formation within these naturalistic settings. The findings indicate that when teacher programs are more oriented towards concepts rather than materials, children’s play is focused on conceptual connections. Importantly, the study showed that: It was possible to map the multiple and dynamic levels or stratas of thinking that a child or group of children may exhibit within play-based contexts; An analysis of ‘unorganised heaps’ and ‘complexive thinking’ evident in conceptually or materially oriented play-based programs can be determined; the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts in play-based programs can be understood; and greater understanding about the nature of concept formation in situated playful contexts have been possible.

Keywords Early childhood education . Elementary education . Cultural–historical theory .

Sociocultural theory . Play . Preschool science

Introduction Research into young children’s scientific concept formation has had a long history, with understandings about the nature of children’s alternative views dominating how research M. Fleer (*) Faculty of Education, Monash University, Building A, Peninsula Campus, McMahons Rd. Frankston, P.O. Box 527, Frankston VIC 3199, Australia e-mail: marilyn.fleer@education.monash.edu.au

282

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

has been framed (Carey 1985; Carey and Spelke 1994; Novak 2005). A large body of research has documented children’s scientific thinking in relation to different science concepts (e.g. Driver et al. 1985), different ages (e.g. Leeds University 1992; Metz 1991; Venville et al. 2003), and different contexts (Harlen 2003). However, much of this research has focussed on what an individual thinks at a particular point in time about a particular science concept. Vygotsky (1987, p. 121) argued that much of what we know about concept formation has tended to use research methods which focus on the ‘completed process of concept formation with the ready-made product of that process’. Vygotsky also argued that the dynamics of concept formation, how it develops, how it begins and what it looks like at the end, are usually not examined. He suggested that when we study the child’s definitions of a particular concept, we are studying ‘his (sic) knowledge or experience and the level of his verbal development more than we are studying his thinking in the true sense of the word (p. 121)’. Studying the dynamic process as opposed to the child’s definitions of a particular concept (‘end product’), offers a new direction for science education research, and is particularly pertinent for researchers interested in how very young children pay attention to, and extend their understandings of scientific concepts. This paper presents the findings of a study which sought to examine how children’s everyday and scientific concepts evolve in play-based contexts in early childhood education. The first part of this paper discusses Vygotsky’s ideas about everyday and scientific concept formation, followed by the study design and the findings.

Importantly, Vygotsky (1987) used the term scientific concept to refer to the schooled or academic concepts taught, as opposed to intuitive tacit concepts embedded in everyday contexts. In this article, Vygotsky’s (1987) term “scientific concept” takes on this meaning, but with specific reference to the schooled concepts learned through Western science education.

Theoretical Perspective Guiding the Study What children pay attention to is determined both by what is in the environment that can be explored, and what adults or significant others around them, point out. A cultural–historical view of concept formation, in young children, foregrounds the importance of context, in conjunction with the dynamic and evolving nature of concept formation. This represents a movement away from the traditional epistemological basis of psychology in relation to knowledge claims. Rather than the isolation and examination of specific conceptual units through confirmation or disconfirmation of evidence, Vygotsky sought to build a dialectical and dynamic methodology whereby concepts were part of a broader system. For example, in his discussions of the problem and method of investigation where he used the example of ‘word’ and ‘verbal thinking’, this dialectical relationship is evident: It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies that reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way in thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference is primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality.

Therefore, generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense of the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of the word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A word without meaning no

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

283

longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot say of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one and the same time; it is a unit of verbal thinking.

(Vygotsky 1987, p. 47).

As outlined by Minick (1987, pp. 33–34) in the forward to Vygotsky’s collected works on the general problems in psychology, “Vygotsky and his intellectual descendants in the Soviet Union have developed a conceptual framework that overcomes many limitations of other attempts to represent the relationship between the social and the individual in psychological development”.

According to Vygotsky (1987), concept formation should be thought about at two dialectically related levels (the everyday and scientific). At the everyday level, concepts are learned as a result of interacting directly with the world – developing intuitive understandings of how to do things, such as closing doors when it is cold, or opening windows when it is hot. Children put on jumpers when they feel cold, and will tell you that the jumper will keep them warm. These are important everyday concepts. But children may not know the science behind these actions. They may not know the scientific concept of insulation. Vygotsky (1987) argued that these everyday concepts lay the foundations for learning scientific concepts. Developing everyday concepts in the context of children’s everyday world is important for living. However, everyday concepts cannot be easily transferred to other contexts. For example, knowing that a jumper helps you keep warm may not be useful if you are learning to surf. How do you keep warm in the water? But knowing about insulation will help you ask for and understand how a wet suit works.

Knowing only about everyday conceptions limits children’s thinking to embedded contexts and reduces their opportunities to apply concepts in new situations.

Vygotsky (1987) also argued that when children simply learn science concepts at school away from the context in which they are used, scientific ideas become disembedded from everyday practice. For instance, learning about insulation by putting different materials/ fabrics around jars with hot liquid in them, in order to determine which will stay warmer the longest, can only be useful if it relates to children’s everyday experiences.

Everyday concept formation and scientific concept formation are strongly connected to each other. That is, the everyday concepts grounded in the day-to-day life experiences of children and adults, create the potential for the development of scientific concepts in the context of more formal school experiences. Similarly, scientific concepts prepare the structural formations necessary for the strengthening of everyday concepts (Vygotsky 1987). As children bring together their working everyday knowledge of ‘keeping warm’ with their scientific knowledge of ‘insulation’, they transform their everyday practice.

Vygotsky argued that these embedded contexts are important pathways toward disembedded or scientific thought.

In working its slow way upward, an everyday concept clears a path for the scientific concept in its downward development. It creates a series of structures necessary for the evolution of a concept’s more primitive, elementary aspect, which give it body and validity.

Scientific concepts in turn supply structures for the upward development of the child’s spontaneous concepts toward consciousness and deliberate use (Vygotsky 1966, p. 109).

Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) suggest that the most powerful learning contexts are those where the professional keeps in mind the ‘everyday concepts’ and the ‘scientific concepts’ when planning for learning. Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) have called this the

284

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

‘double move’ in teaching. As early childhood professionals, we create many different types of learning contexts for children – some of these are opportunities for building everyday concepts, and some are contexts which suit the introduction of scientific concepts.

What is important here, is the double move on the professional’s part – where everyday concepts and scientific concepts are interlaced so that a child’s thinking and practice will be transformed. Knowing how everyday concepts and scientific concepts can be interlaced within play-based contexts is important for building pedagogical approaches for early childhood education. However, psychological research has traditionally not been directed towards understanding the dynamics of concept formation as it occurs within and across multiple contexts.

Science Education Research in the Early Years In contrast to cultural–historical research, the long standing science education research literature has, in the past, tended to foreground the idea that everyday concepts get in the way when teaching science concepts in schools (see Osborne and Freyberg 1985).

Although research directions are steadily changing, much of the research efforts in science education over the past twenty years have been directed towards amassing data on how children aged around 8 years and older, who are from European heritage communities, think about a range of science concepts. For instance, Tsai and Wen (2005, p. 3) analysed 802 research papers published in science education journals (1998–2002) and found that research from US, UK, Australia, and Canada were mostly evident, and most papers were about students’ conceptions and conceptual change. However, they also noted that there was a declining trend in relation to this type of research and more ‘research topics related to student learning contexts, and social, cultural and gender issues also received relatively more attention among science educators’ For example, O’Loughlin (1992) argued for moving beyond Piagetian constructivism towards a more sociocultural mode of teaching and learning in science. This is also supported elsewhere (Howe 1996) with many advocating the potential of Vygotsky’s important theoretical ideas in relation to teaching and leaning for science education. Howe (1996) particularly noted the relations between school instruction and mental development and made explicit reference to everyday concepts and scientific concepts, a key concept discussed above. Roth (1997) has also drawn attention to everyday science but from a socio-constructivist perspective, with latter work being more located in cultural–historical paradigm (see Roth et al. 2002). These scholars illustrate the active theoretical movement within science education research. In particular, a more social and community oriented perspective for framing research has emerged. As noted by Lemke (2001), sociocultural perspectives for science education research focus upon the nature of communities and how they shape and are shaped by the participating individuals. A focus on “context” has also featured in the science education research literature (see Campbell et al. 2000), but the theoretical orientation drawn upon is quite diverse (e.g. Gomez Crespo and Pozo 2004) with only some drawing upon cultural– historical theory to frame their research (e.g. Cowie 2005; Gilbert 2006). Other science education studies have drawn upon contemporary aspects of cultural–historical theory, such as scaffolding (see Bouillion and Gomez 2001; Clark and Sampson 2007; Davis and Linn 2000; Reigosa and Jimenez-Aleixandre 2007; Rigano et al. 2002), communities of practice (see Eick and Dias 2005; Olitsky 2007; Puntambekar and Kolodner 2005), situated cognition (e.g. Roth 1998), apprenticeship in thinking (see Barab and Hay 2001; Charney et al. 2007), activity theory (Van Aalsvoort 2004; Roth et al. 2002), task affordance (see

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

285

Cowie et al. 2006) and mediation through conceptual tools (see Robbins 2006). The related work of third space theory (see Bellocchi 2006) has relevance for cultural–historically oriented view of science education. Although space does not permit for a full exploration of these works and concepts, collectively, these studies show how cultural–historical theory has been used for framing science education research, or has been influential through the active use of particular constructs, such as ‘scaffolding’ in the study designs. What is common in these papers, is the broadening of the study design to include the social and contextual dimensions of the learner.

Daniels (1996) suggests that as researchers we should change our focus from simply studying concepts in isolation to examining children’s conceptual understandings within an embedded and richly based context. He states: ...instead of viewing particular forms of mental functioning as characterizing individuals or groups in a general way, these forms can be viewed as being characteristic of specific settings (Daniels 1996 pp. 65–66) Whilst we know a lot about children’s ideas in science (the ontological base is now large), we know very little about how young children’s scientific thinking moves and changes as a result of the science topics or the contexts which shape children’s thinking (see Cumming 2003; Ravanis et al. 2004). Research in early childhood science education has shown the importance of extended and collaborative data gathering for gaining better insights into very young children’s thinking (Fleer 1991a, b; Robbins 2002a). Concerns for building contextualised learning spaces in science education for early childhood children has been noted when documenting conceptually oriented interactions by preschool and early years teachers in relation to living things, electricity, light, change of state of matter, and magnetism (Fleer 1992). Similar findings were also noted by Cumming (2003) in relation to home and family contexts for learning about food, by Ravanis and Bagakis (1998) in relation to gaseous states of matter, and Robbins (2000a, b, 2001a, b) in her research into 5-year-old children’s understanding of natural phenomena. These researchers noted that when the research methodology was framed within a sociocultural rather than a constructivist paradigm, richer and more contextualised understandings of children’s thinking emerged. A sociocultural orientation to researching young children’s scientific thinking has also been demonstrated in cross-cultural contexts and through a variety of data gathering approaches, including music and art activities, food, farming and land management (Dillon et al. 2005; Fleer 1991a; Fleer and Robbins 2003; Hannust and Kikas 2007). Traditional constructivist inspired approaches to interviewing young Indigenous Australian children has produced data which only documents Indigenous children’s capacity to engage in question and answer techniques and aspects of Western science understandings, and gives very little insight into young Indigenous children’s scientific understandings (e.g. Kasandra et al. 2005; Kesamang and Taiwo 2002; Gilbert and Yerrick 2001; Fleer 1997).

However, through a sociocultural or cultural–historical research, researchers have documented complex and contextually based understandings of young children’s thinking about everyday occurrences across age groups and concepts (see Eshach 2006; Gelman and Brenneman 2004; Gitari 2006; Fleer and Beasley 1991; Roth et al. 2002).

Discourse analysis within some socioculturally inspired research designs with older children and adults has been shown to provide more contextually rich data when looking at thinking in science (Brown 2006; Hanrahan 2006; Kittloeson and Southland 2004; Shepardson and Britsch 2006; Van Zee et al. 2001; Wickman and Ostman 2002). Segal and Cosgrove (1993) have noted the importance of conversations and context when researching

286

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

very young children’s scientific understandings of light and shadow. They described the learning of a small group (n=28) of 5-year-old children around light and shadows following what they termed a ‘conversational approach’. They noted: ‘We also inquire into their social construction of knowledge as we attempt to follow changes in conceptual understanding which may occur during our lessons and how our three part learning model comprised of cooperative groups, informal inquiry and familiar context assists in this process’ (Segal and Cosgrove, Emphasis in original, p. 277). Their research highlighted the complexity and fluidity of children’s thinking. Further work presented by Fleer and Segal (1996) showed the playfulness of children’s scientific thinking as children discussed their understandings of sunlight and whether a sea sponge was an animal or a plant – noting the intuitive inconsistency evident when an animal is anchored to the sea floor and unable to breathe!

Southerland et al. (2005) have also noted through their analysis of third graders’ understanding of condensation the dialectical relations between the group meaning-making and individual constructions through their mircroanalysis of classroom conversations.

These everyday contexts and areas of interest contrast strongly with traditional decontextualised framing, evident when documenting children’s understandings of living and non-living, plant and animal, and notions of light, as gained through interviews about incidents (Osborne and Freyberg 1985).

Martins and Veiga (2001, p. 69) have also highlighted the importance of context in understanding concept formation: ...scientific knowledge is frequently viewed as independent of the context, because it is supposed to be valid for any situation. However, an increasing number of authors argue that science teaching must be organised around situations close to real scientific knowledge...

They argued that decontextualising science from the site of its use, disembeds scientific knowledge, resulting in disengagement of the learner.

To combat this position requires adopting contextualised teaching from the beginning, in which the importance of daily life is a fundamental aspect. In this way teaching should, on the one hand, concentrate on relevant personal and social themes and, on the other hand, be flexible enough to adapt when conditions change...(Martins and Veiga 2001, p. 72).

Martins and Veiga (2001, p. 72).) also suggest that from a very ‘early age children should be involved in practical activities with clear aims. In effect, children can develop from merely manipulative and sensorial knowledge to the establishment of causal relations and even to an interpretation of those relations through explanatory models...’ Researching young children’s thinking in context, has also been noted indirectly by Jordan (1992) as a result of working with mothers in play centres in New Zealand. Jordan’s (1992) action research project in science demonstrated that improvements in the science programs offered to the early childhood children and the level of staff-child interactions was possible when staff were encouraged to examine the everyday contexts in which science took place.

Research into children’s thinking in the home and in childcare during periods of scientific activity for children in their childcare centre revealed that although young children engaged in the experiences, they did not ask scientific questions when in the centre (Fleer 1996). However, interviews with family members indicated that the children asked a range of interesting scientific questions when at home – always in an everyday context.

This research supports Vygotsky’s premise of conceptual development working its slow

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

287

way upward, an everyday concept clears a path for the scientific concept in its downward development (Vygotsky 1966, p. 109). Research by Martins and Veiga (2001) into the use of everyday contexts for science such as floating and sinking with potatoes and apples, provided new directions for researchers working with very young children.

Tytler (1998) and Tytler and Peterson (2000) have also noted the meandering of children’s thinking as they engage in scientific conversations in early years’ classrooms.

Although their work does not attribute the meandering to the science context, they do indirectly suggest an evident playfulness in thinking for very young children. Of significance in their research was their finding that children’s ideas were fluid and took many different pathways during extended interview conversation periods. Their surprise at the differences in young children’s thinking when compared with older children and the different research contexts that evolved or were needed for young children to present their thinking has been noted in their work.

Either through surprise (e.g. Tytler and Peterson 2000) or through design (e.g. Robbins 2001a), researchers have noted that research contexts must be linked to the everyday – as meaningful contexts in which science conversations, thinking and explorations can emerge.

The early childhood studies reviewed above, strongly suggest a need for considering the importance of contexts for science; contexts that are embedded in the child’s world that include the provision of time and space in order to capture the meandering of young children’s scientific thinking. Rather than focusing research attention on cognitive processes and conceptual structures only, research should concentrate on ‘what kinds of social engagements provide the proper context for learning to take place’ (Hanks 1991, cited in Lave and Wenger 1991, p. 14) and what are the social contexts which permit authentic understandings of young children’s thinking in science to emerge? As such, research in the early years should move to the development of a situated (or contextualised) scientific research methodology (as described by Martins and Beiga 2001). Without an appropriate research context – featuring embeddedness – our capacity to understand young children’s conceptual thinking will remain limited. We will never realise Vygotsky’s (1987) most educationally potent notion of “everyday” and “scientific” thought.

The research design of this project was created to provide ways to reveal and reflect upon everyday and scientific concept formation within different societal conditions.

Study Design Play is the dominant pedagogical approach to supporting learning found in most preschool contexts within many Western communities (OECD 2006; Starting Strong 2). It mirrors what occurs in many families from European heritage communities. Understanding how concept formation occurs within these naturalistic play contexts is important for better understanding how science learning can be supported in early childhood education.

Because play is a leading activity for preschool aged children (see Vygotsky 1966) a ‘definite (psychological) need’ is generated within ‘which it is the function of the concept to satisfy’ (Sakharov 1994, p. 83).

However, studying concept formation during the process of its development is most challenging, as noted by Vygotsky and Luria (1994, p. 114), who suggest that in their research in this area ‘we were not studying one and same activity each time in its new concrete expressions, but that, over a series of experiments, the object of research itself changed’ Sakharov (1994, p. 82–83) suggests that studying the “process of formation of new concepts is important”. He argued that ‘a concept must be studied in its functional context’.

288

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

Play-based contexts are an important research site because they afford concept formation opportunities, and as illustrated by Vygotsky (1987), offer a functional, dynamic and motivational study context which should provide a working example of concept formation.

Research Question This study sought to examine the reciprocity between everyday thinking and scientific thinking (or schooled academic concepts) during playful encounters in early childhood centres with a view to better understanding how concept formation for 4 and 5-year-old children is supported during play. Although concept formation can relate to many cognitive areas, in this study the focus of attention is on Western science concepts.

Sample Forty-eight children and their families from two preschools and their teachers participated in this study. The centres came from two distinct regions of south-eastern Australia. One centre was urban and one was located in a rural community.

Rural Centre A group of 24 preschool children (14 boys and 10 girls) aged between 4 and 5 years participated in the study (age range from 4 years 4 months to 5 years 5 months; Mean age of 4 years 11 months). All the children were from European heritage families. The children lived in a rural community where fishing and market gardening were the main source of employment. The children attended the preschool for 4 days per week, where an extended day program was offered (Monday: 9–1:00; Tuesday and Wednesday 9–2:00; Friday: 9– 12:00). The centre had one qualified teacher (4 year university degree) and an assistant who had no formal teaching qualifications, but held a fine arts degree. She had worked in the centre for approximately 18 years.

Although all the children participated in the study, five focus children were selected for closer data gathering. Two boys and three girls with a mean age of 5 years and 2 months were identified by the teacher. Selection was based on teacher judgement in relation to the children’s willingness and acceptance of being video taped and interviewed. The average age of the focus children was slightly higher than the mean for the overall group.

Urban Centre The preschool centre was set within a bushlands setting, in close proximity of a city centre.

Families were predominantly of European heritage. The 25 children (Age range of the children was 5.2 years to 4.0 years; Mean age of 4 years, 5 months) who were participants in this study, attended the centre, four half days per week. Fifteen boys and 9 girls with a median age of 4 years and 7 months were identified by the teacher as children who would happily participate in the project. A qualified teacher (recently graduated from an honours program) with 3 years of experience and an assistant with 10 years of experience ran the program in the centre.

The staff from both centres were briefed on the aims of the research and were introduced to cultural–historical theory by the chief investigator. The focus of attention for the play program in the rural centre was materials and their properties; and in the urban centre it was the structure and function of living things.

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

289

Data Gathering Approach Video recordings All the children were video taped over four school weeks during their free-play time (for the rural centre a total of 15 days; urban centre it was 17 days). The research assistant followed the children in and out of the centre video-taping them as they engaged in non-directed play. All group times and routines, such as snack time and lunch, were video-taped by a research assistant. Due to the naturalistic context, not all the children could be video-taped because the focus children were not always in close proximity to each other or were not always engaged in the same play activity. The research assistant followed the focus children and recorded their play activities with one camera, but was unable to record simultaneous play activities. For the rural centre, a total of ten preschool sessions were video recorded. A total of 60 pages of field notes, 220 centre based photos and 8 hours of video data of the play activities of the children were recorded. For the urban centre, a total of 17 days of field notes, 15 days (11 hours) of video data of play, and 300 photographs were generated of the play in the centre.

Family interviews The focus children and their families were given disposable cameras and asked to take photographs of everyday experiences that the children engaged in at home and in the community which they thought related in some way to science (A total of 65 family-based photographs for the rural centre, for the urban 65 photographs). One member of each family was interviewed about the photographs either at their home on in a quiet room in the early childhood centre (as selected by the interviewee). Each parent was asked to comment on the nature of the photographs, why they took the photographs, and if they saw any links between the home and centre contexts in relation to science. These interviews were video-taped and transcribed. Most interviews lasted 20 minutes.

Staff interviews The staff in the centres were interviewed an average of five times (each session lasting up to 2 h) about the centre program. They were specifically asked to comment upon the science they were introducing to the children in the centre through play. The staff were also asked to view the family photographs and to comment on any connections between the home and the centre they knew about, planned for, or could see in the photographs. The teachers were also shown video stills of the children at play in the centre and were asked to comment on what was happening in relation to planning for children’s scientific learning. These images related to the planned play experiences introduced by either staff member.

Organisation of the video-data All the video-tapes were categorised into play segments.

Play segment where the theme of the play appeared to begin was noted and where it ended was also noted. Endings tended to be where the play theme changed (e.g. water play, baby play). Play themes were noted as occurring across space (e.g. different parts of the centre) and time (e.g. on subsequent days).

Analysis Vygotsky’s (1987) categories of concept formation provided a beginning point for examining concept formation in the play-based contexts. As suggested by Vygotsky (1987): We must establish what impels the formation of concepts toward the centre of the mental transformation that constitutes the crises of this period (p. 130).

290

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

Vygotsky (1987) wrote about three levels of thinking. These three levels were divided into different categories of thinking. The levels should be viewed like sedimentary layers. He argued that they co-exist, just as strata representing different geological epochs coexist in the earth’s crust (Vygotsky 1987, p. 160). Vygotsky (1987, Original emphasis, p. 162) suggested that conceptual thinking could be understood as ‘a complex process involving the movement of thinking through the pyramid of concepts, a process involving constant movement from the general to the particular and from the particular to the general’.

The first level of thinking identified by Vygotsky (1987) was “unorganised heaps”. What characterized concept formation in this level was the more subjective and unconnected way in which children would think. For instance, random probes were often emotionally driven –that is experientially driven. They were not necessarily connected, but rather could be seen as separate acts.

Vygotsky also argued that children focus on the spatial dimensions of objects and are influenced visually or temporally in their categorization of them.

A further characteristic of unorganized heaps in concept formation is children’s uniting of groups of things based on one single criterion. Rather than seeing complex connections, they simplify and reduce meaning when categorizing objects during concept formation.

The formation of complexes takes place when children begin to make complex connections, and think in a more objective way. Rather than an emotional connection being foregrounded, children look for evidence of connections. The types of connections made by children become complicated over time. For instance, children associate two objects in relation to a key characteristic. Some connections are functionally oriented – that is, things are grouped together because they support each other in some way (symbiotic relationships). Other associations occur in the way a domino game works – children connect ideas in relation to what stands out the most at that point in time, and then as they encounter new experiences or objects, they make new connections. Diffuse complexive thinking, however, occurs when children begin to link concepts in relation to knowledge outside their practical experience.

Pseudoconcepts are evident when children appear to know and use concepts in their everyday practice. However, Vygotsky (1987) argued that children may apply theories in practice, but they have no conscious understanding of the conceptual connections underlying their actions. For instance a child wears a wet suit when surfing, because this is the ‘standard uniform’ of surfers in cold conditions but has no knowledge of how the wet suit is insulating their bodies. There is no conscious conceptual understanding of insulation.

We have said that the higher forms of complexive thinking, especially the pseudoconcept, are maintained in our everyday thinking and its foundations in ordinary speech. Indeed, the rudiments of the forms of thinking which we will now describe, significantly predate the formation of pseudoconcepts. (Vygotsky 1987, p.

156).

Moving from complexive thinking to conceptual understanding can be better understood if we consider the importance Vygotsky placed on the nature and interlacing of everyday concept formation and scientific concept formation. Everyday concept formation, and the different manifestations of this thinking, as shown in the layers in Table 1, as an important foundation. Unlike earlier work in science education, Vygotsky’s theory does not focus on children’s ‘mini theories’ (Claxton 1990), alternative views (Driver 1983; Driver et al.

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

291

Table 1 Concepts in action Concepts

Descriptions

Unorganised heaps (subjective – unconnected connectedness)

Syncretic image – random separate probes (subjective emotional connections) Spatial distribution – (visual–spatial or temporal encounter) Already united groups in the child’s perception are reduced to a single meaning Associative complex – concrete relationship between nucleus and object Complex collections (e.g. cup and saucer) – functionally associated Chained complex – no structural centre in the chained complex Diffuse complex – units based on things outside child’s practical knowledge Externally see the conceptual connection. Internally, it is still a complex. Apply concept in practice, but no conscious awareness of concept.

Formation of complexes (connected and objective)

Pseudoconcepts

1985; Harlen 2003; Osborne and Freyberg 1985;) or argumentation (Newton et al. 2004).

Rather, Vygotsky’s (1987) theory of concept formation concentrates upon the dynamic interaction between everyday concepts and scientific concepts, foregrounding the importance of situated everyday thinking.

Vygtosky’s methodological approach for developing the strata described in Table 1 was developed with his colleague Sakharov (1994) [adapting a sorting test developed by Ach (1921), and was known as the ‘double stimulation’ or as the block activity in the West (see Chapter 5 of Vygotsky 1987 for a full description of the method)]. Although critiques of the method have been made in relation to the disembedded experimental nature of the activity that the children engaged in (see Daniels 2001; Kozulin 1990), the categorisations that resulted (Table 1), does provide a beginning point (only) for analysing concept formation within a naturalistic setting (Vygotsky 1994).

Findings Concept Formation in Open-ended Play Contexts – Focus of Attention is on Providing Materials, Time and Space An analysis of the science play data gathered from the rural preschool, demonstrated that children’s scientific investigations during play were generally focussed on the physical attributes of the materials available. The children played with: funnels, coloured water, spoons, mortar and pestle (and fragrant leaves), buckets, bottles, hoses, pipes, hand pumps on bottles, oil, and vinegar (in the sandpit only). A summary of the play episodes, that resulted from the ‘potions’ play introduced by the teacher, is shown in Table 2. The play that dominated in the centre, related to the physical dimensions of the equipment, such as moving coloured water from one container to another, or grinding leaves to make perfume.

The buckets, pumps, funnels, tubes and mortar and pestle were the objects that sustained the children’s engagement in the play. One example of these play episodes is discussed below.

292

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

Table 2 Concepts in action: potions Concepts

Descriptions

Unorganised heaps

Syncretic image – random separate probes Spatial distribution Already united groups in the child’s perception are reduced to a single meaning Associative complex Complex collections

Complexive thinking

Chained complex Diffuse complex Pseudoconcepts

Potions and perfume Siphoning Filling potion containers (buckets and pumps) Not evident Potions and medicine Potions and poison and funneling to kill plants Mixing and cooking Not evident Not evident Not evident

Observation 23.8: Siphoning (Unorganised Heaps)

Three children are in the sandpit. Two children hold one end of a plastic tube. One end is positioned lower and is attached to a bottle which is held in the sand. The other child is holding the other end of the tube which has a cup funnel attached to it.

Rodney is packing the sand around the bottle. Yarrow is watching. He then looks at the cup and turns and puts coloured water in it. Rodney stands up and walks over to Yarrow who is holding the cup with coloured water.

Rodney: “Put it in that one ‘cause there’s lots of potions” (Yarrow turns and puts more water into cup and looks in cup. Rodney goes and gets another white plastic bottle and takes the plastic tube out of the bottle and puts it into the new bottle. Yarrow turns and puts more water into the cup. Rodney takes the other bottle out of the sand and puts the new bottle in it’s place and packs the sand around the bottle, Yarrow watches and then looks inside his cup. Rodney then gets the bottle that was filled first and tips it into the spare bottle which is in the sand next to the bottle being filled by plastic tube).

The two children involved in this play were focussed on pouring liquid into the tubes.

Their attention was directed to coordinating the pouring action (at one end) and the release of liquid from the other end of the tube. This type of play continued in other areas of the centre’s outdoor environment. A mother helper and a small group of children moved the siphoning equipment to many different parts of the outdoor area, including the fort and climbing equipment in order to siphon from higher and higher points in the environment.

The assistant teacher also provided additional play equipment for the children, including siphoning equipment to extend children’s play.

The children’s interactions with the materials and each other during free play, tended to be random and unconnected. The children appeared to be experiencing the materials physically rather than conceptually. The teachers supported the children’s random investigations – even when the directions taken were different from those planned by the staff. Much of the play evident in the centre (see Table 1) could be categorised in this way.

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

293

However, some of the children did re-frame the funnelling activity into an imaginary situation, where the focus of attention was on funnelling coloured water via a long hose to a series of branches that had been stuck into the sand, resembling cuttings. This type of play, although using the same resources, involved complexive thinking (see below).

Observation 23.8: Funnelling to Kill Plants (Complexive Thinking)

Max is holding a bottle. He is standing in the outdoor area of the preschool.

Max: “Kill all the plants. No they’re our plants” (Points to leaves that a child has just picked up). “They’re the ones that are gonna get killed” (points to plant on ground, other child picks up bucket with plants in hand and moves to where another bucket is and tips something in it).

This child has brought to the planned activity of mixing coloured water, his own experience of poisoning plants. His focus is on the materials but in relation to poisoning the plants. A further example of this type of play on a subsequent day by a different child follows.

Observation 26.8: Potion Poison (Complexive Thinking)

A group of children are assembled outside under a fort, where they are filling up plastic bottles with coloured water from a bucket.

Research Assistant: What potion is this?

Child: It’s poison Research Assistant: The potion is poison?

Child: Puts funnel down by feet and starts spraying at the bottom of the tree. Picks up funnel and moves around to potted plants in a tray. The child systematically pumps liquid into each plant that is in the tray.

Research Assistant: The potion is poison. How does it work?

Child: Puts down funnel and starts spraying plants in pots in a systematic way.

This child has made sense of the coloured water and containers by constructing the potion as poison. This was also evident in the previous observation (funnelling to kill plants). The child had focused primarily on the act of killing plants (a common experience for children living on local vegetable farms). The imaginary situation allowed the children to make sense of the materials provided by the teachers in ways that related to their own experiences of growing up in a market garden area. The relations between materials were explored, but not in ways which generated theoretical knowledge of materials, and their properties.

These play episodes provide evidence for the importance of introducing to children materials which are meaningful to children. When the conceptual intentions on the part of the adults were not clear to children, or when the core concepts being considered by the teacher, were not well understood, then the play events were re-framed by the children in

294

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

ways that suited their interests and connected in meaningful ways to their experiences (e.g. through narratives or imaginary situations).

In line with the deliberate expansion of everyday experiences (e.g. giving more materials to the children) in the centre, was a concentration on the children’s random probing and a concentration in the complex connections made between the materials and life events (e.g. poisoning plants). As such, two types of thinking processes were being privileged in this particular centre – unorganized heaps and complex collective (see Table 1). The children’s focus of attention was at the everyday concept level – what does the equipment do, rather than at a scientific concept level in relation to ‘materials and their properties’. The teachers believed that because the children were using the equipment in their play, they were learning about materials and their properties. However, an overall analysis of the data (Table 2) indicated that concept formation tended to be related to children’s everyday concepts and not their scientific concepts.

The children’s learning about materials and their properties remained at a tacit everyday level.

Although this is important in terms of the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts, without focused teacher–child interactions at the scientific level, only everyday concepts could develop for the children. Therefore it can be argued that materially rich play-based environments without teacher input in relation to scientific concepts as children play with the resources, promotes everyday conceptual development.

This finding is particularly important for teachers who seek to continually ‘add equipment’ to the children’s environment for exploration and do not plan for the specific introduction of scientific concepts as children play (e.g. through books, focused investigations or through carefully crafted adult-child interactions). In this particular rural centre, the teacher stated that she believed children should learn ‘in a round about way’ (teacher interview) and she wanted the materials to ‘suggest learning’ (Teacher interview) rather than have the staff direct the children’s attention. The teacher’s philosophy about learning science through the materials is consistent with traditional beliefs in early childhood education which foregrounds play equipment, and de-emphasises the role of the teacher. This perspective is common in early childhood education in Australia, and follows from the theoretical interpretations of Piaget’s theory of learning. However, these beliefs and practices are not consistent with international research. For instance, Lobman (2006) noted in her extensive review of the literature that teachers who make a difference in playbased environments ‘elaborate and enhance children’s learning by adding to the activity at hand, and ...help take it to a new level’ (p. 455). Siraj-Blatchford (2004) in examining over 141 randomly selected centres, and closely examining cognitively successful play-based programs as determined through longitudinal research (see Sammons et al. 2002) in the UK also noted that sustained teacher-child interactions was the common characteristic found.

Further evidence for an active teaching role has been noted by Gelman and Brenneman (2004) in their Preschool Pathways to Science and by French’s (2004, p.140, pp. 141–142) ScienceStart programs where ‘adult support can help children receive maximum benefit from their activities’ and where ‘Teachers’ language may structure investigations and may extend the children’s understanding of these investigations. Adult language provides vocabulary to describe the concepts emerging from the investigations and provides models for discourse functions such as describing and explaining’. The findings of the present study show how teacher beliefs about materially rich environment as the main site for learning, promotes learning, but mostly at an everyday conceptual level and not at a scientific conceptual level. The absence of the teacher as the mediator for higher levels of thinking were pronounced in the data, and the type of play generated, although important, was mostly repetitive, random and not conceptually connected to concepts that the teacher believed she was promoting.

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

295

Concept Formation in Conceptually Oriented Play Contexts – Focus of Attention is on Scientific Knowledge In the urban centre, the program that was planned and implemented by the teacher, concentrated more on concept formation as shown in Table 3. The teacher had capitalised on one child’s interest in living organisms to develop a program on ‘bugs’. Four examples of play episodes from the program are presented, to illustrate the dominant type of play evident, and the particular thinking that it generated – complexive thinking. In particular, one of the five focus children is discussed in this paper to illustrate the type of play generated and utilized by the teacher for supporting all the children’s science learning.

In this first example the child (Ch) engages in a treasure hunt, utilizing his interest in living things to play with the treasure map and his centre environment.

14.2.06 Map and Treasure Hunt

Ch. adapts a treasure hunt activity from the day before and takes the map he’s made and marked with an X inviting teacher J to follow him outside to hunt for bugs (field notes).

J. Should we go and find the path?

Ch. Yes...

Ch. has spent time each day looking carefully around the yard with binoculars and magnifiers but today he is the trying to use the abstracted view of the yard that his map represents to locate bug treasure at point X. This is a new experience and challenge and he seeks support from his teacher to embark on this venture (field notes).

Ch. ...(can we find it)...without the map Ga. I gave something to Ch. (Ga hands Ch something to encourage his treasure hunt search in the environment) Table 3 Concepts in action: bugs Concepts

Descriptions

Unorganised Syncretic image – random separate heaps probes Spatial distribution Already united groups in the child’s perception are reduced to a single meaning Complexive Associative complex thinking Complex collections Chained complex

Diffuse complex Pseudoconcepts

Not evident Not evidence Bug and fish swimming in water.

Cockroach is a baby because it is small.

Map for bugs – treasure hunt.

Bull ant sucking machine.

Bull ant going to the dentist.

Collectively evident when each ‘event’ is considered around the mechanics of ‘eating/biting/ digesting’.

Bacteria and digestion Naming of organisms in book.

296

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

All four children follow Ch and the teacher These children explore the environmental context in order to better understand the nature and place of small creatures living in it. Using a map as a powerful conceptual tool, the children played with the idea of finding and documenting the creatures in their shared environment.

Field notes Observations The children use a range of Observation 21.2 conceptual tools to support Ch fascination with ecosystems investigations, such as extends and associations occur. He magnifying glasses, binoculars, a regularly lifts logs, collecting the camera, containers with lids, a slaters and millipedes under them bug catcher with a magnifying lid, and putting them in his bug catcher. an overhead projector, local In this encounter with assistant environment photographs in a teacher (JP) he seems to understand book, micro-life book, insect that bugs digest differently from identity charts, a poster of humans. When research assistant bushland creatures, pens, chalks showed this conversation to his (six legged creature), paint mother she believed that Ch’s brushes and dye, collage materials father had read him a book about and pencils, play-dough (butterfly this at home (field notes). and eggs) and animal figures (especially dinosaurs, crocodiles).

Observation 27.2

Transcripts JP: What do slaters eat?

Ch: Wood, leaves, everything JP: If I ate wood, I’d get a tummy ache. Why doesn’t the slater get one?

Ch: It has germs in its tummy and they kick the tummy ache away.

We don’t have germs in our tummy.

Ch: Naughty boy (referring to bug not eating) Ch often carries a bug catcher with A: What have you put in there to him and on this day he is observed help him? talking to the bug as if it is a Ch: Grass and he’s not going to eat it person. He seems concerned about A: He doesn’t seem to like grass the bug not eating the grass he has Ch. He does eat grass. put in to sustain it (field notes).

A: Does he?...

Ch: He’s supposed to eat it.

A: What else does he possibly eat?

Ch: Grass, trees... leaves but not trees A: I suppose the things that are around him.

Ch: Grass, leaves,.. branch, trees leaves, grass, leaves, trees, grass, trees, leaves....(he repeats these names over and over)

In these two related observations, the interactions are around expressing what this particular child knows about the digestion of insects and considering the close relationship between creatures and their environment in terms of what they eat. The teacher has asked questions which promote these conversations and focus this child and other children’s attention further on what the creatures eat. What is evident is that some of the children have associated the concept of ‘eating’ in terms of the mechanics of this process to the creature’s environment. Some of the children make an association between the concepts of eating with that of digestion, and once again associated this within the context of the environment. In this example, it is evidence that Ch appears to be developing quite a sophisticated knowledge system of organisms, themselves, and the environment. Other children pay attention to these ideas being explored.

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

297

In the urban centre, the children were encouraged by staff to represent their investigations of their environment through painting and drawing. An example of the child who was stimulating the centre’s investigations is shown below.

Observations 27.2 Bug machine Ch is at a table with food dye and brushes when he spontaneously paints and explains about a machine he has represented on paper that can suck up bull-ants The machine he painted represented a functional solution to managing stray bull ants that might bite and offered thought as to what might happen should they get sick (field notes) 21.2 Pacman person chomping

Transcript

Field notes The day before he had found a large bull ant near the sand pit and called for his teacher to come and get it.

She had carefully removed it (using a glass and cardboard) to the adjacent bushland whilst he watched and told her about how bull ants have jaws and teeth to bite

Ch: It goes up there and it gets the ants and this is when they go to the dentist JH: Go to the dentist?

Ch: Yeah that’s when they get sick and then they go here JP: Oh wow....what fun....(she Later in the day when Ch’s peer Co plays with the pacman person stamps on a beetle, he cries out opening its mouth) loud in anguish. Ch. has strongly Ch continues to re-present his earlier Co: Excuse me.... expressed concerns about idea about digestion and has chosen JP: He got a circle right and he preservation of life. JP empathises got two dots for eyes and he cut and begins a new search with a the collage table to create an imaginary bug like pac-man from a cut cut for the mouth....look Ch group of children to find a new round piece of paper. He wants the beetle/bug in the yard (field notes) character to function with a mouth that opens so it can ‘burp, eat, bite and chomp’. With encouragement from assistant JP, he cuts a design that allows the character to do this.

JP role plays with Ch’s creation and he jumps with excitement when it is animated in front of his peer Co. Ch. often converses with the creatures he finds and is delighted when JP brings this imaginary creature ‘to life’ with comic voices

Ch’s probing in relation to the function of ‘eating’ is extended further, when an examination of the nature of the interface between the structure of the creatures (the mechanics of eating) and the environment in which the creature is located is made. In particular we note that Ch’s sense of environment and human care comes together to ensure that the creatures are safe. He actively seeks to ensure that the bull ants are moved for his own and other’s safety too.

The active exploration for small creatures by many of the children was partnered with teacherchild interactions where scientific concepts were introduced, as is shown in the next example:

27.2 Naming Bugs Teacher (JH) has charts and insect identity sheets as resources for children in the centre who want to name the bugs they find. Ch has found a ‘bug’ and believes it to be a centipede. He

298

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

brings it indoors for clarification of identification. Ch looks closely at the chart and points to and names, the Centipede, Mosquito, Praying Mantis and Lacewing (field notes).

Ch: I think that’s a centipede JH: I think that’s a centipede. Yep. I’ll read the word centipede yep that one’s a centipede.

That one’s a millipede. They’re the ones we find around the kinder all the time.

Co: We found one. Sticks on. I think it will go through those holes Ch: Mosquito JH: That one’s called a scorpion fly Ch: Praying mantis JH: Special names Co: Praying mantis JH: Yep Ch: Lacewing The naming of small creatures represents a bringing together of aspects of children’s scientific knowledge (as Ch shares his understandings) and observational knowledge of the creatures the children have actively sought, uncovered, cared for and played with, in their environment. However, when viewing this event within the context of all the other probes of the environment, it becomes evident that the children are developing pseudoconcepts about small creatures – an important dimension of conceptual development.

An overall analysis of the scientific activities that the children were engaged in during their play within the urban preschool showed a diversity of activity. However, the activity was purposefully framed in relation to the structure and function of organisms. Each of the ‘activities’ was clearly linked to a metaplan of investigation of small creatures in this environment (i.e. bugs). Table 3 provided an overview of the ‘play activity’ in relation to different relations between the environment and the organisms, and shows collectively that the play activity of the children was contributing to scientific concept formation.

Each of the play episodes can be analysed as separate probes and a particular type of conceptual thinking can be identified. For example, it is clear that many of the children’s probes of their environment are not random, but rather quite purposeful (see complexive thinking). They use the environment in a spatial way to better understand the place of small creatures within the preschool outdoor area. Spatial thinking is clearly evident. The mapping of the creatures in their environment and their engagement in the treasure hunt both demonstrate that this is an important element of their concept development.

Similarly, the investigations of the form and structure of small creatures in terms of the mechanics of eating within the context of their environment, ensures that the probes were oriented to “what is”, rather than a “fantasy dimension”. Fantasy does become important in this centre, when the children link what they know about the bull ant’s bite within their working knowledge of visiting the dentist. Here we note complexive thinking, particularly in relation to the associations of ‘teeth-bite’ with ‘dentist’, as is characteristic of Vygotsky’s ideas in relation to complex collections (see Table 1). However, there is an overwhelming sense of complexive thinking in relation to chained complexes – the chain that builds focuses around the children’s fascination with the mechanics of eating. At times, the eating and what moves from this appears to be chained, with no structural centres (see chained

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

299

complex). For instance, the thinking moves from the ‘bite’, to the ‘teeth’, to the ‘eating’ to the ‘digestion’, to the ‘environment in terms of what they eat’. There is a clear complex chain emerging. But what also emerges is how these probes, build a core concept of the small creatures within the context of their environment.

An analysis of children’s concept formation is important for gaining insights into how concepts develop within playful learning contexts, such as preschools. In particular, we notice through an analysis of the children’s probing, that the learning environment supported the development of complexive thinking. The learning context, which included the program planned and implemented by the teacher, allowed for the interlacing of everyday concepts that the child was exploring with scientific concepts gained at home and in the centre. For example, the teacher encouraged the representation of the environment the children were exploring through creating maps, providing tools for orienteering and exploration (e.g. binoculars, treasure maps), reading of scientific books and charts (introduced by the research assistant), and conceptually oriented interactions with adults which ensured that the bull ants were moved to an appropriate context.

Concurrently, the space and time devoted to play and exploration, meant that the children could also make chained links between the probes they initiated, and those the staff introduced to support the development of concepts. The children were given space and time to express their thinking, for example, creating a munching pacman, designing and painting a bull ant sucking machine that included how bull ants travel to the dentist and doctor and drawing a map to locate bugs in the playground. These representations of complexive thinking illustrate both associative complex thinking and also chained complex thinking (see Table 1).

Diffuse thinking was also noted in the everyday contexts of exploring what the creatures eat, as children drew upon knowledge gained from their home context (bacteria aiding digestion). What is significant here, is that the playful contexts supported the interlacing of everyday concept formation and scientific concept formation. There was a dialectical relationship that generated different types of complexive thinking around the playful events initiated by the children and introduced by the teacher.

The importance of everyday thinking for laying a foundation for scientific thinking (rather than viewing it as getting in the way) was particularly evident in this data set. The children drew upon many everyday concepts, such as visiting the dentist, and used these everyday understandings for interlacing their growing knowledge of the nature of how insects eat (mechanics, as well as what they eat). The everyday contexts created a conceptual space for working through the scientific ideas that the children were grappling with. The diffuse complexive thinking that were introduced at home for one child– such as bacteria aiding digestion – were being considered within the everyday context of creating a munching pacman person who eats, burps and digests. The children were bringing together ideas outside of their direct practical experience and knowledge to something that they have experience of through animating the pacman creature. The data shows that for very young children, playful contexts help children bring together their everyday concepts with scientific concepts. However, the playful events described in this data set are not random, but rather represented a systematic framework for the development of concepts.

Discussion A Cultural–Historical Framework for Researching Concept Formation Play-based programs provide a challenging research context for researchers to investigate, and few researchers have attempted to understand concept formation within the context in

300

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

which it is used/developed (see Eshach 2006). Constructivist inspired studies have provided an expansive set of outcomes in relation to what young children know and can do across a range of areas (e.g. Hannust and Kikas 2007). Much of this conceptually oriented research which foregrounds a developmental approach to explaining how children think, has been critiqued in relation to very young children (see Cumming 2003; Christidou and Hatzinikita 2005; Fleer 1990, 1999; Gelman and Kremer 1991; Pramling and Pramling-Samuelson 2001), with some (see Metz 1995) arguing that misunderstandings of Piaget’s theorisation, has reinforced a belief that young children find it difficult to engage in conceptually abstract ideas (see also Eshach 2006; Eshach and Fried 2005). A cultural–historical approach to researching concept formation foregrounds the dynamic nature of concept formation, and advocates that adult mediation within embedded contexts be studied (Ravanis and Bagakis 1998). For instance, Vygotsky and Luria (1994, p.114) argued that ‘As soon as we moved on to the study of activity from the viewpoint of the process of its “Werden” (in a series of experiments drawn out in time), we immediately found ourselves faced with a cardinal fact: that, actually, we were not studying one and same activity each time in its new concrete expressions, but that, over a series of experiments, the object of research itself changed’.

Few studies actually seek to map and understand the nature of concept formation within embedded contexts. Foregrounding the functional use of concepts within their naturalistic context (Sakharov 1994) must be taken into account in research. The present study sought to explicitly map and analyse concepts in the context of their use or in the context of their development. Although a challenging research design, the analytical framework adopted (Vygotsky 1987) provided a systematic way of examining concepts in the context of their use in playful situations.

Understanding Concept Formation in Materially Oriented Programs and Conceptually Oriented Programs In the first case study of a materially rich environment, the teacher’s program was focussed on providing equipment and resources within the framework of ‘potions’. This was a most appealing activity for the children, and their focus of attention was predominately on the physical exploration of what the equipment could do. In addition, a number of children also used fantasy to connect the disparate pieces of equipment together. They created a narrative around the resources, a narrative which brought their everyday world and prior knowledge and experience to the new equipment. For instance, the children linked the coloured water, the tubes, funnels and the bottles together with the branches of fragrant plants in order to play with the idea of poisoning pants in their created (market) gardens. The children generated narrative knowledge (see Hedegaard and Chaiklin 2005) to frame their play and built everyday concepts about the materials they were exploring through the physical manipulation of the equipment (e.g. pouring the coloured water into the funnels and tubes).

The narrative framework was used by the children, because the teacher believed it was important for the children to determine how they should use the equipment – the equipment was provided to suggest possibilities. The scientific concepts that the teacher had in mind for the children to learn were loosely defined as materials and their properties. The mixing of substances was important, and the funnelling, pouring and pumping of coloured water were significant experiences for the children. These substances and equipment were provided for the children to play with and use as the tool to support learning about materials and their properties. The random probing and the narratives that were generated to give purpose to the materials and the equipment, did not create a metaplan of exploration for the children, which could collectively build scientific concepts in relation to materials and their

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

301

properties. Whilst it has been argued that narrative frameworks provide a relevant and important form of knowledge across some communities (see Norris et al. 2005), the narrative knowledge that was being used by the children to frame their experiences did not support the learning of Western science that had been planned by the teacher.

In contrast, the second case study revealed a more systematic approach to investigating through play. The treasure map focused the children’s attention on where ‘bugs’ could be found in the children’s centre environment. The equipment provided for the children helped them to investigate more closely, to capture and release creatures, and provided them with opportunities to document (through the map, collage and drawing/painting materials) what they were experiencing spatially. The teacher-child interactions were conceptually focussed (function and structure of organisms) across a range of play episodes, and the teacher introduced explicitly science concepts (e.g. through books) within play exploration (not as mini lessons). The explorations during play were conceptually defined, and although some children created a narrative around particular play episodes (e.g. going to the dentist), theoretical knowledge building, rather than narrative knowledge, dominated in this centre.

As such, the urban play-based program on ‘bugs’ was conceptually connected (form and function of living things), actively building Western scientific knowledge (as everyday concepts and scientific concepts were dialectically related) as planned by the teacher.

The rural play-based program on ‘potions’ provided rich everyday experiences of materials and their properties, building narrative knowledge in relation to separate pieces of equipment and a range of materials. In contrast, the focus of attention by children as they examined ‘bugs’ was conceptual, and investigative probes were conceptually oriented. The dialetical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts was foregrounded in this program.

Ravanis et al. (2004) has also shown in a study of interventions in relation to preschool children’s learning about friction, the significance of the teacher in framing the learning for children through mediated interactions. The findings have shown that conceptually oriented programs afford more scientific learning than just materially oriented programs where children are left to frame their own orientation to the materials.

The Dialectical Relations Between Everyday Concepts and Scientific Concepts The findings of this study have shown the importance of ensuring that playful events include both opportunities and experiences for everyday concept formation and scientific concept formation. When children are given progressively more everyday experiences, without a corresponding matching of scientific concepts, then children’s investigative probes tend to be only connected to events in their everyday lives – as was shown through the data of children working with potions. That is, children work horizontally only and do not engage in other ways of thinking (as have been identified by Vygotsky 1987: see Table 1) as they interact with their environment. The learning context of potions provided rich and imaginative experiences for the children, which are also important for learning.

However, the pedagogical framing did not support the scientific thinking that the teacher had in mind for the children – it was located in the everydayness of the materials. Osborne (1996, p. 54, 55) has argued that “(Western) Science earns its place on the curriculum because there is a cultural commitment to the value of the knowledge and the practices by which this body of ideas has been derived ... and such a view requires that teachers have some understanding of the epistemology of science – that is, the nature of the subject that they present to children”. Where children had opportunities for experiential everyday learning alongside of scientific learning (program on ‘bugs’), there was evidence of a

302

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

broader range of thinking by the children, and a more expansive range of elements of a concept being explored. Overall, these playful events allowed children to probe in ways which ensured that concept formation was much more systematic and led to the children’s development of scientific concepts – as was shown in understanding structure and function of living things. As such, the study has shown that playful events can provide conceptual spaces for the interlacing of everyday concepts and scientific concepts. However, special attention by the teacher must be paid to the nature of knowledge being considered by the children, and care must be taken in framing the experiences for children in ways which give a scientific focus to their interactions.

If Western science is to be supported through play in preschools then teacher thinking about concept formation must move beyond what is in the teachers head about how the materials will afford science learning, to thinking about how the teacher mediates science learning through teaching. As suggested by Osborne (1996, p. 59), ‘for the scientist, theories are successful because they offer a range of explanation, non-ad hocness, consistency with empirical evidence, and logical consistency which gives them explanatory force that inductive generalizations lack...”. If this is what is to be afforded through Western science, then playful experiences by preschool children should be framed with teacher mediation in mind.

In this study it was shown that teacher mediation which brought together scientific investigations and children’s everyday experiences, interests and world outside of the preschool, afforded Western scientific concept formation. However, it is important to note that research by Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) has shown that when a didactic program which only focuses on scientific concepts (with no connection to everyday concepts) that learning is not transformative of children’s worlds. Their work supports the view that teachers need to have in mind both everyday concepts and scientific concepts when building concept formation in schools. The outcomes of this study provide evidence of how playful learning contexts can generate scientific learning for preschool children.

As Vygotsky (1987) argued, it is through the dialetical relations between everyday and scientific concepts, that true concept formation results. Playful events provide an important conceptual space for the realisation of dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts – but clearly the ‘teacher as mediator’ is central.

Acknowledgments Australian Research Council (Discovery) funding provided the resources for the study reported in this paper. Dick Gunstone was the co-researcher named on the application. However, due to personal circumstances was unable to contribute to the part of the study reported in this paper. Importantly, it is acknowledged that Avis Ridgway made an enormous contribution to the project through acting as the main field officer for this study. Carol Linney provided specialist expertise to the project through transcribing video and audiotapes. The time given by the preschool staff, children and their families is also acknowledged.

References Ach, N. (1921). Über die Begriffsbildung. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung. Bamberg: C.C. Büchners Verlag.

Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70–102.

Bellocchi, A. (2006). Exploring the “Third Space” as analogies are co-constructed within a chemistry class.

Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Canberra.

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

303

Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school–community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 878–898.

Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff”: Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96–126.

Campbell, B., Lubben, F., & Dlamini, Z. (2000). Learning science through contexts: Helping pupils make sense of everyday situations. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 239–252.

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: The MIT. Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld, & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 195–213.

Christidou, V., & Hatzinikita, V. (2005). Preschool children’s explanations of plant growth and rain formation: A comparative analysis. Research in Science Education, 36, 187–210.

Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation.

International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.

Claxton, B. (1990). Teaching to learn. A direction for education. Cassell Educational Limited. London.

England.

Cowie, B. (2005). Student commentary on classroom assessment in science: A sociocultural interpretation.

International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 199–214.

Cowie, B., Moreland, J., & Jones, A. (2006). Task affordance: Considering the ways tasks shape and constrain interaction. Paper presented at ASERA, Canberra, July.

Cumming, J. (2003). Do runner beans really make you run fast? Young children learning about sciencerelated food concepts in informal settings. Research in Science Education, 33, 483–501.

Daniels, H. (1996). Charting the agenda. Educational activity after Vygotsky. London: Routledge.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. RoutledgeFalmer, London, UK. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Sanders, D., & Teamey, K. (2005). On food, farming and land management: Towards a research agenda to reconnect urban and rural lives. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1369–1374.

Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist. UK: Open University Press Milton Keynes.

Driver, R., Guesne E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.) (1985). Children’s ideas in science. UK: Open University Press Milton Keynes.

Eick, C., & Dias, M. (2005). Building the authority of experience in communities of practice: The development of preservice teacher’s practical knowledge through coteaching in inquiry classrooms.

Science Education, 89(3), 470–491.

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

Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught to early childhood. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336.

Fleer, M. (1990). Scaffolding conceptual change in early childhood. Research in Science Education, 20, 114– 123.

Fleer, M. (1991a). Towards a theory of scaffolded early childhood science education. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 16(3), 14–22.

Fleer, M. (1991b). Socially constructed learning in early childhood science education. Research in Science Education, 21, 96–103.

Fleer, M. (1992). Identifying teacher–child interaction which scaffolds scientific thinking in young children.

Science Education, 76(4), 373–397.

Fleer, M. (1996). Fusing the boundaries between home and preschool to support children’s scientific learning. Research in Science Education, 26(2), 143–154.

Fleer, M. (1997). A cross-cultural study of rural Australian Aboriginal children’s understandings of day and night. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 101–116.

Fleer, M. (1999). Children’s alternative views: Alternative to what. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 119–135.

Fleer, M., & Beasley, W. (1991). A study of conceptual development in early childhood. Research in Science Education, 21, 104–112.

Fleer, M., & Robbins, J. (2003). “Hit and run research” with “hit and miss” results in early childhood science education. Research in Science Education, 33(4), 405–432.

304

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

Fleer, M., & Segal, G. (1996). Supporting science learning through imaginative play. In M. Fleer (Ed.), Play through the profiles. Profiles through play. ACT: Australian Early Childhood Association.

French, L. (2004). Science as the centre of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149.

Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150–158.

Gelman, S. A., & Kremer, K. E. (1991). Understanding natural cause: Children’ explanations of ho objects and their properties originate. Child Development, 62, 396–414.

Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.

Gilbert, A., & Yerrick, R. (2001). Same school, separate worlds: A sociocultural study of identity, resistance, and negotiation in a rural, lower track science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (5), 574–598.

Gitari, W. (2006). Everyday objects of learning about health and healing and implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 172–193.

Gomez Crespo, M. A., & Pozo, J. I. (2004). Relationships between everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge: understanding how matter changes. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1325–1343.

Hannust, T., & Kikas, E. (2007). Children’s knowledge of astronomy and its change in the course of learning.

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 89–104.

Hanrahan, M. U. (2006). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 86(5), 601–623.

Harlen, W. (2003). The teaching of science in primary schools (3rd ed.). UK: David Fulton Publishers.

Hedegaard, M., & Chaiklin, S. (2005). Radical-local teaching and learning: A cultural–historical approach.

Denmark: Aarhus University Press.

Howe, A. C. (1996). Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian framework. Science Education, 80(1), 35–51.

Jordan, B. (1992). Improving a playcentre science programme through action research. Research in Science Education, 22, 240–247.

Kasandra, C., Lubben, F., Gaoseb, N., Kandjeo-Marenga, U., Kapenda, H., & Campbell, B. (2005). The role of everyday contexts in learner-centred teaching: The practice in Namibian secondary schools.

International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1805–1823.

Kesamang, M. E. E., & Taiwo, A. A. (2002). The correlates of the socio-cultural background of Botswana junior secondary school student with their attitudes towards and achievements in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 919–940.

Kittleson, J. M., & Southland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267–293.

Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, I. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge.

Leeds University (1992). Leeds National Curriculum Science Support Project. UK: Leeds City Council and Leeds University.

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.

Lobman, C. L. (2006). Improvisation: An analytic tool for examining teacher-child interactions in the early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 455–470.

Martins, I. P., & Veiga, L. (2001). Early science education: Exploring familiar contexts to improve the understanding of some basic scientific concepts. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 9(2), 69–82.

Metz, K. (1991). Development of explanation: Incremental and fundamental change in children’s physics knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 785–797.

Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93–127.

Minick, N. (1987). The development of Vygotsky’s thought: An introduction, (pp. 17–36). In Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1, Problems of general psychology. (pp. 39–285). R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.); N. Minick (Trans.); NewYork: Plenum Press.

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (2004). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science.

In J. Gilbert (Ed.), The Routledge Falmer reader in science education (pp. 97–109). London: Routledge/ Falmer.

Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–563.

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

305

Novak, J. D. (2005). Results and implications of a 12-year longitudinal study of science concept learning.

Research in Science Education, 35(1), 21–40.

O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 791–820.

Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 33–56.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (OECD) (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. OECD Education & Skills, 2006(13), i–445–i-446.

Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53–82.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. The implications of children’s science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

Pramling, N., & Pramling-Samuelson, I. (2001). “It is floating ‘cause there is a hole:” A young child’s experience of natural science. Early Years, 21(2), 139–149.

Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

Ravanis, K., & Bagakis, G. (1998). Science education in kindergarten: Sociocognitive perspective.

International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(3), 315–327.

Ravanis, K., Koliopoulos, D. & Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2004). What factors does friction depend on? A sociocognitive teaching intervention with young children. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 997–1007.

Reigosa, C., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2007). Scaffolded problem-solving in the physics and chemistry laboratory: Difficulties hindering students’ assumption of responsibility. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 307–329.

Rigano, D. L., Ritchie, S. M., & Bell, T. (2002). Scaffolding for science inquiry: coteaching in a primary classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Townsville, July.

Robbins, J. (2000a). What’s Mr. Whiskers go to do with the sun?: The importance of finding out what children understand. High expectations: Outstanding achievements. Proceedings of the Early Years of Schooling P-4 Conference, Victoria, July; November.

Robbins, J. (2000b). “It isn’t raining on Wednesdays!”: Young children’s explanations of natural phenomena.

Paper presented at the 8th Annual Australian Researching Early Childhood Education Conference, Canberra, January.

Robbins, J. (2001a). “My mummy can tell me other things, and I’ll be able to tell you”: Interviewing young children to find out what they understand. Paper presented at the 9th annual Australian Researching Early Childhood Education Conference, Canberra, January.

Robbins, J. (2001b). Shoes and ships and sealing wax – taking a sociocultural approach to interviewing young children. Paper presented at the 2001 New Zealand Early Childhood Research Symposium, NZARE National Conference, Christchurch, December.

Robbins, J. (2002a). Moving through understanding rather than to understanding: A sociocultural perspective on young children’s conceptions of the rain. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Australian Researching Early Childhood Education Conference, Canberra, January.

Robbins, J. (2006). A sociocultural perspective on young children’s thinking: An analysis of conversation, collaboration, contexts and cultural tools. Paper presented at the Thirty-seventh Annual Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Canberra, ACT, July.

Roth, W.-M. (1997). From everyday science to science education: How science and technology studies inspired curriculum design and classroom research. Science and Education, 6, 373–396.

Roth, W.-M. (1998). Situated cognition and assessment of competence in science. Evaluation and Programming Planning, 21, 155–169.

Roth, W. M., Tobin, K., Zimmermann, A., Bryant, N., & Davis, C. (2002). Lessons on and from the Dihybrid Cross: An activity-theoretical study of learning in coteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 253–282.

Sakharov, L. (1994). Methods of investigating concepts. In R. Van Der Veer, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 73–98). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Elliot, K. (2002). Measuring the impact of pre-school on children’s cognitive progress over the pre-school period (Technical paper 8a).

London Institute of Education.

Segal, G., & Cosgrove, M. (1993). “The sun is sleeping now”: Early learning about light and shadows.

Research in Science Education, 23, 276–285.

Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 443–466.

306

Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:281–306

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2004). Quality teaching in the early years. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education. Society and culture (pp. 137–148). London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Southerland, S., Kittleson, J., Settlage, J., & Lanier, K. (2005). Individual and group meaning-making in an urban third grade classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 1032–1061.

Tsai, C. C., & Wen, M. L. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 3–14.

Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of students’ informal science conception. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 901–927.

Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2000). Deconstructing learning in science – young children’s responses to a classroom sequence on evaporation. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 339–355.

Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry’s lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1635–1651.

Van Zee, E. J., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.

Venville, G., Adey, P., Larkin, S., & Robertson, A. (2003). Fostering thinking through science in the early yeas of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1313–1331.

Vygotsky, L. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Voprosy psikhologii, 12(6), 62– 76.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. (In L.S. Vygotsky, The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1, Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.); N. Minick (Trans.); New York: Plenum Press).

Vygotsky, L. (1994). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In R. Van Der Veer, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 57–72). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. Van Der Veer, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 99–174). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Wickman, P., & Ostman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601–623.