Introduction

This article presents a study that explores how a Swedish preschool teacher shows responsiveness in play-activities with scientific content. The article rests on a theoretical framework of Play-responsive Early Childhood Education and Care (PRECEC) developed by Pramling et al. (2019). According to PRECEC, the concept of responsiveness is understood as something that takes place between participants (adults and/or children) involved in a mutual activity, where mutual activities can involve both teaching and play (Pramling et al., 2019).

Preschool, in Sweden, as many other countries (OECD, 2017) follows a national curriculum (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). It has a holistic approach, where care, development and learning form a whole (SNAE, 2018, p. 7). When the Swedish Curriculum for the preschool (2018) was adjusted in 2019, guidelines for the concept of teaching were included. These guidelines still highlight play as ´the foundation of [children´s] development, learning and well-being´ (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018 p. 8). Furthermore, teaching is described as goal-oriented processes (SFS 2022:1088) that are planned by preschool teachers or that emerge spontaneously throughout the preschool day (SNAE, 2018). The description has raised concerns about how preschool teachers can combine teaching content without abandoning play (Pramling et al., 2019).

In this study, preschool teachers were asked to (a) try to include science into children’s play and (b) find ways to take part in the play. The study thus has the potential to explore challenges that preschool teachers might face, when they aim to focus on scientific content, without marginalizing play. Previous research studies point out that there is a need for more empirical studies that examine play-activities in relation to science teaching (Akman & Güçhan Özgül, 2015). Of particular importance are studies that examine 1–3-year-old children’s scientific learning in an everyday context (Lloyd et al., 2017; O´Connor et al., 2021), and studies that examine the potential of play in relation to children’s curiosity for science (Ilgaz et al., 2018).

Learning and Play

In the field of early childhood education there is a range of different values and beliefs regarding the relationship between young children´s development, play, and learning (Akman & Güçhan Özgül, 2015). Sometimes play and learning are seen as “two ends of a spectrum” (Ilgaz et al., 2018, p. 1258) where one end is directed towards children’s free play and the other towards instructions organised by teachers to follow learning goals of the curriculum. However, a concern has been expressed regarding whether preschool practice is moving away from its cultural tradition of play-based education to a more goal-oriented and content-focused education (e.g., Broström, 2012; Due et al., 2018). It has been argued that the increased interest in younger children’s academic skills (e.g., Bodrova, 2008; Magnusson & Pramling, 2018) might lead to play taking a subordinate role in relation to teaching (Fleer, 2011). Hence, there is a need to develop teaching approaches that are directed towards the object of learning and at the same time incorporate the child´s perspective. Such a teaching approach can be described in terms of mutual simultaneity (e.g., Thulin, 2011; Gustavsson et al., 2016). Play-responsive teaching (Pramling et al., 2019) has the potential to bring the two teaching approaches together.

Scientific Content in Preschool

Science is part of Swedish early childhood education as can be seen in the national curriculum for preschool (SNAE, 2018):

…the preschool should provide each child with the conditions to develop an ability to use and understand scientific concepts, see correlations and discover new ways of understanding the world around them, an understanding of natural sciences, knowledge of plants and animals, and simple chemical processes and physical phenomena, an ability to explore, describe with different forms of expression, ask questions and discuss science and technology (p. 15).

As can be seen in the above quotation, science is understood in a broad way, entailing concepts, processes and discussions, which provides room for a multitude of various encounters with science.

During recent years, research studies have contributed with valuable knowledge about children´s acquisition of knowledge and encounters with science in preschool (e.g., Fleer & Pramling, 2015; O´Connor et al., 2021). However, there is a need to expand the current understanding of what science teaching in preschool should be and what it should aim for. Previous studies have advocated that broader notions of science are included in preschool teaching to make it more relevant to children’s lives as citizens now and in the future (Arnold & Clarke, 2014; Hansson et al., 2021). That a teacher addresses these issues is, according to Noddings (2005), the core of what it means to educate and thus care for children and their socialization process, both individually and collectively. One way of understanding science in preschool is by dividing it in two distinct domains of knowledge: domain specific knowledge and domain general knowledge (Eshach, 2006; Eshach & Fried, 2005). Domain specific knowledge includes knowledge associated with scientific conceptual understanding, and certain areas of science, for instance biology. Domain general knowledge includes cognitive skills linked to the scientific working process such as observing, classification, asking questions and posing hypotheses, designing, and conducting experiments, using appropriate tools and analysing and demonstrating conclusions from the investigation (Eshach, 2006; Eshach & Fried, 2005). Both domains are represented in the curriculum (SNAE, 2018).

To describe what science education for the youngest children can entail, Siraj-Blatchford (2001) uses the term emergent science, which describes an educational practice in which children are allowed to explore, investigate, and gain experiences of scientific content through play. Here, the preschool teacher’s role is to show responsiveness and promote children’s interest in problem solving, encourage their questions and interpretations, and lay the foundation for an exploratory approach (Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). However, research by Williams and Sheridan (2018) shows that children in play and everyday situations encounter science, but it is rare that these situations are noticed by preschool teachers or made the object of learning. Given that scientific activities are not always planned in advance but can arise from children’s spontaneous exploration and observation (Eshach, 2011), there is a need for preschool teachers to develop skills to identify and further build on such situations (Pendrill et al., 2014; Tunnicliffe & Gkegouskou, 2020).

Imagination and fantasy are concepts that preschool teachers can use to form a “bridge between play as a leading activity and learning as a leading activity” (Fleer, 2011, p. 236). Play can be conceptualized as a cognitive process, in which the child creates and re-creates imaginary situations, what Vygotsky refers to as pretend play (Bodrova, 2008). In pretend play, children have an ability to act on the basis of their imagination, and they move between sensory, motoric, and visual acts and more advanced and abstract thoughts (Bodrova, 2008, p. 361). Play is also an activity that can take participants (both preschool teachers and children) in an unforeseeable direction (Pramling et al., 2019). Preschool teachers engaging in children’s play, can promote both children’s make-believe play and the development of their academic skills (Bodrova, 2008). Furthermore, scientific content and play as integrated activities can provide an opportunity for children to approach the two science domains described by Eshach (2006), Eshach and Fried (2005).

Theoretical Framework of Play-Responsive Early Childhood Education and Care (PRECEC)

The theoretical perspective – PRECEC, has been developed both empirically and theoretically through a combined research and development project (Pramling et al., 2019). As previously mentioned, according to the PRECEC framework, play and teaching is understood as mutual activities where both preschool teachers and children are responsive to each other’s perspectives. Play is signalled between participants through verbal or nonverbal communication. There is an openness to what can be constituted as play-activities and it is acknowledged that play and non-play can switch constantly (Pramling et al., 2019). Teaching is seen as an activity where children and preschool teachers use communication to support each other to see or realise something (Pramling et al., 2019). Since teaching takes place in response to the participants’ contributions, it means that all participants are equally important in the activity. However, the preschool teacher can participate as a more experienced member in the activity with an intention that the activity should generate new knowledge to the child (Pramling et al., 2019).

‘As If’ and ‘As Is’

The concepts as if and as is describe the imagination and fantasy dimension of the play-activity, as well as the learning about recognised knowledge of the world as it is (Pramling et al., 2019). Participants in a mutual activity signal to each other, verbally or non-verbally, that they move between play (as if) and non-play (as is). Typical for play activities, according to Pramling and Wallerstedt (2019), is that participants constantly seem to move between as if and as is. As an example, if participants in an activity play with a stuffed hedgehog toy, they can imagine and act (as if) that the hedgehog toy is a living animal, ‘Come here little hedgehog and you will get something to eat’ (as if). In order for the play to continue, the participants may need to move from as if, to communicate about what real, living hedgehogs might eat (as is),’ What should we give the hedgehog to eat? What do they actually eat?’ (As is). As can be concluded from the example above, both children and adults are possible candidates for initiating movements between as if and as is. The current study, however, focuses only on how the preschool teacher navigates these movements.

Aim and Research Question

This study aims to contribute with knowledge about how scientific content and play can take shape as responsive, integrated activities. The study focuses on how the shifts are characterised and how the preschool teacher navigates the movements between as if and as is since this is an important part of understanding how science and paly can be fruitfully integrated.

The following research question is examined:

  • What characterises shifts between as if and as is in play-activities with scientific content?

The characteristics of the shifts are analysed in terms of how the shifts are made and what seems to be the reason (why) they are made. Only shifts initiated by the preschool teacher and shifts that are related to scientific content are analysed.

Design of the Study

This study is part of a larger study where the overall aim is to gain deeper understanding of how preschool teachers show responsiveness in play-activities with scientific content. In a first step, preschools in a municipality that was close enough to be regularly visited by the first author were contacted. A criterion was that the preschool should already work with science as a part of its practice. The empirical material was generated at one preschool, were the teachers and the principal responded that they were curious about the project and willing to participate. It is important to note that since the teachers were already rather comfortable with teaching science in preschool, some of the possible difficulties connected to integrating play and science may not be visible in this study. The preschool contained a total of six units (a unit here refers to the organisation into specific groups of children and teachers at the preschool). The participating preschool teachers had received a preschool teacher education (3,5 years, academic level) and all of them had long teaching experience. The unit was responsible for 17 children aged one to four years.

Setting and Participants

This study builds on video-observations from one of the units, which consisted of two preschool teachers and one child carer. The unit collaboratively decided that one of the preschool teachers, Robin, should participate during all the video-observation sessions together with different children (two to four at a time), who chose to participate in the activities. These observations constitute the empirical material for the present analysis. Data was generated during a two-month period from May to June. The participating unit took part in a workshop where the teachers discussed how children’s picture books could serve as a point of departure and as a way to inspire a shared play narrative with connection to science. This way of using children’s picture books (both expository books and fairy tales) as a starting point is inspired by the work of Hansson et al. (2020). The unit acquired inspiration from a fairy tale Swift in the Tree (Swedish: Vips i Trädet, Jonsson, 2019). In the book, a shrew called Swift, explores the living beings in a tree. The book also contains factual knowledge about various plants and animals (such as birds, spiders, and ants). After the workshop, Robin initiated activities that combined play and scientific content. The play-activities took place indoors at the preschool, the preschool yard, and in its surroundings. The activities were video-documented by the first author of this article. The unit was visited on four occasions, which in total generated approximately two hours of video-recordings. After two completed rounds of video-observation, the unit participated in focus-group discussions with video-stimulated recall (Cutter-Mackenzie et al., 2015) and reflected on the video-sequences. This process was repeated twice. Even if the content of these focus groups is not analysed in the present study, it is important to note that they affected and inspired the video-recorded activities that followed. Due to the children’s young age, their abilities for verbal communication varied. This means that note was taken of the preschool teacher’s response to children showing interest in multiple ways; bodily, verbally, asking questions, and exploring the surroundings.

Ethical Considerations

The study followed the ethical guidelines for research that the Swedish Research Council (www.vr.se) advocates. Participating units and the children’s guardians were given access to consent forms and information about the study, regarding purpose and implementation. The units and the children’s guardians gave their written consent. During the researcher´s visits, the child’s verbal, and non-verbal (body language) consent to participation was taken into account before and during each video-observation session. Hence, the child always had the opportunity to choose not to participate (https://unicef.se/barnkonventionen; Pálmadóttir & Einarsdóttir, 2016). All participants were treated confidentially, they were informed about the use of data, and that they could withdraw their participation at any time. All names in the article are pseudonyms.

Analysis Process

A qualitative content analysis was performed to interpret content and underlying meanings in the material (see Graneheim and Lundman, 2004; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), with a focus on the research question: What characterises shifts between “as if” and “as is” in play-activities with scientific content? The analysis process started by repeatedly reviewing the generated empirical material with the aim to identify video-sequences that incorporated play and scientific content as integrated activities. This study refers to the previously described PRECEC framework, where play is understood as an activity where children and adults are mutually engaged and in which shifts take place between as if and as is (Pramling et al., 2019). Science in this study is understood in relation to domain specific knowledge and domain general knowledge (Eshach, 2006; Eshach & Fried, 2005). This is recognised by the participants observing, exploring, and asking questions about scientific content, for instance by using magnifying jars, exploratory books, binoculars, and sharing factual knowledge about ants and spiders.

The video-sequences where participants played and approached a scientific content were fully transcribed by turn which means that the participants’ responses to each other’s utterances were written down with both verbal- and non-verbal utterances (e.g., pointing, nodding, shaking heads, or gesturing). Thereafter, the transcripts were read and re-read to discern shifts initiated by the preschool teacher. Shifts are defined as the preschool teacher in different ways trying to introduce scientific content (as is) into ongoing play (as if), or when the preschool teacher steps outside of ongoing play (as if) to introduce scientific content (as is). Such shifts were highlighted, and the analytical procedure continued by reflecting, taking note of, and commenting on, how shifts are made and the possible underlying meanings of them (what seems to be the reason why a shift are made). Categorisation of both how and why was data driven and did not follow predetermined categories. In order to distinguish how the preschool teacher shifted between as if and as is, notes were made of both verbal and bodily expressions and structured as different ways to make shifts. Two overarching categories of how shifts are made where identified: (a) voice change (playful-voice mode and regular voice mode), and (b) bodily expression (gesticulation, pointing, illustrating, and mimicry). Next, possible underlying meanings to why these shifts were initiated by the preschool teacher, were structured for meaning and sorted into categories. Two categories where identified: (a) Preschool teacher aims for science learning, and (b) Preschool teacher aims for socialisation and care. Categories were discussed and reflected on among all authors of this article. The results regarding how and why the preschool teacher shifts between as is and as if are presented in the next section.

Results

In this section, the research question, what characterises shifts between as if and as is in play-activities with scientific content, is presented, first by briefly describing how shifts occur. This presentation is further exemplified in the section that reports on our interpretation of underlying meanings to why shifts are made. Excerpts from the empirical material have been selected to illustrate each category. In the excerpts, the preschool teacher’s name (ROBIN) is written in uppercase letters and the children’s names in initial capital letters followed by lowercase letters. Uppercase letters also indicate speech that is louder than the surrounding speech (e.g., shouting speech). Italic letters are used when participants use a playful voice. Bodily actions and non-verbal expressions are commented in brackets.

How Shifts are Made

The preschool teacher introduces scientific content through different types of actions (voice change and bodily expression) that makes the play shift between as if and as is in either direction.

Voice Change

Common to the shifts made by voice change is that the preschool teacher shifts between voice modes as a way to support play and communicate about scientific content. For instance, when, the preschool teacher and children are exploring real ants and the preschool teacher changes her voice to move from as is to as if: ‘Do you see! They almost get a little scared and a little angry…don’t come here to our anthill… what happened… Did you destroy our house? (video-sequence 2:4, turn 2–4). In this example, the preschool teacher first explains in a regular voice that the ants can get hurt if you are not careful how you handle them and then changes the voice into a playful-voice to imitate an angry ant (as if).

There are also examples of when the preschool teacher introduces scientific content (as is) by temporarily pausing and stepping outside of ongoing play (as if). One example is when ROBIN and the children pretend to be outdoors in a forest observing fictional owls (turn 222 in Table 1 below).

Table 1 Introduction of an exploratory book (video-sequence 3:1)
Full size table

The preschool teacher introduces an exploratory book (turn 227) using her regular voice and asking the children to come closer, meanwhile, ROBIN opens the backpack and takes out an exploratory book. In this example, the preschool teacher first pretends and acts inside the play-frame using a playful-voice and then changes the voice into a regular voice when the exploratory book is presented.

Bodily Expressions

Common to the shifts in the second category is that all the shifts are made through various bodily expressions. One example is when the preschool teacher reinforces the communication with bodily expressions: ‘Oh look! Then you see much better when you have binoculars’ (ROBIN brings her cupped hands in front of her eyes and looks out at the forest) (video-sequence 1:3, turn 42). This example shows how scientific content is introduced into ongoing play, by the preschool teacher using her hands as pretend binoculars (as if), and then adding factual knowledge about real binoculars (as is).

Another example occurs in the following excerpt (see Table 2), when participants imagine (as if) they have caught a real frog (as is).

Table 2 Exploration of a fictional frog (video-sequence 4:1)
Full size table

This excerpt shows how scientific content is introduced into ongoing play. The preschool teacher and children embody scientific content by acting and imitating (as if) they were exploring real living animals (as is). Here, the preschool teacher uses gestures as a way of figuratively reinforcing specific features of real frogs (turn 58). In the following section, different examples of how shifts are made can be seen in in the excerpts that illustrate underlying meanings as to why shifts are made.

Underlying Meanings of Why Shifts are Made

In the analysis of the empirical material, it seems that shifts often are made for an underlying reason. Sometimes these reasons are quite straight forward and explicit while at other times they are more implicit. Our interpretation of what appears to be the preschool teacher’s reasons for why shifts are made are presented in two categories. These categories are presented together with illustrative excerpts below.

Preschool Teacher Aims for Science Learning

Common to the shifts within this category is that they can be interpreted as the preschool teacher’s aim to introduce and create learning opportunities about natural phenomena (factual knowledge, concepts, and explanations) and scientific processes (ways to explore and use different tools). The preschool teacher creates a learning experience by adding new science content or by developing the content in an ongoing play-activity. As mentioned in the previous section, this can be done by, for instance, changing her voice or illustrating a concept by using gestures. In the excerpt below (see Table 3) the play-activity takes place indoors and the participants (ROBIN and the three children Gustav, Vilma, and Bodil) pretend that they are out exploring in the forest. They have packed a backpack, containing exploratory books about insects and loupes that they use to catch fictional insects. Each child brings binoculars made of cardboard rolls. The shift occurs in turn 259, when ROBIN changes her voice and adds factual knowledge (as is) about anthills within the activity’s as if dimension.

Table 3 Exploration of a fictional anthill (video-sequence 3:1)
Full size table

As shown in the excerpt above, it is not only the preschool teacher who introduces scientific content into ongoing play. Also, children take initiative to direct focus to scientific content when opportunities arise. This is done by Gustav (in turn 252) who introduces a fictional anthill (as if) into ongoing play. The preschool teacher shows responsiveness to the child’s initiative (turn 253) by encouraging the other participants to show interest and explore Gustav’s spontaneous fictional observation (turn 255). Furthermore, this example shows how the preschool teacher, and the children confirm and respond to each other’s perspectives through their various ways of communicating. While the preschool teacher participates in the play-activity as a play partner, she also acts as a more experienced participant when she tries to expand children’s understanding of anthills by introducing factual knowledge about ants (as is) within the play’s as if – dimension (turn 259). This example shows how teaching takes place in response between participants in mutual activities, while the participants move between being inside and outside the playframe.

Preschool Teacher Aims for Socialisation and Care

Common to the shifts within this category is that they can be interpreted as the preschool teacher aiming to socialise and care for the children in ways that can be associated with the preschool’s norms of social fostering/education. The empirical material shows two types of different socialisation practices in the shifts initiated by the preschool teacher. The first, is about caring for the individual child in a collective. This is shown by the preschool teacher taking responsibility for the children’s participation, for instance by encouraging everyone to take on a character-role and to be involved in the play-activity. An example is shown in excerpt 1:3, when the preschool teacher tries to encourage Iris to participate in the play-activity: ‘Have you brought binoculars Iris, or do you want to borrow mine?’ (turn 46). In this play-activity, the preschool teacher manages to get Iris to participate, while she is introducing science content. This example illustrates how the preschool teacher takes part in the play-activity as a play partner by acting in a role-character (as if) (i.e., using her hands as fictional binoculars and by using a playful-voice as a way to signal play). Instead, of going outside the playframe, the preschool teacher continues to participate inside the play-frame, by communicating in make-believe terms and imagining as if they were using real appropriate tools (as is) when she asks the child to join the play as a participant.

The second type is about socialising children to show consideration and responsiveness to others (humans as well as animals). Such socialisation aims to develop children’s behaviour by learning how to care for peers and show care and respect for nature. An example of this type of shift can be seen in the excerpt below (Table 4). Here, the preschool teacher (ROBIN) and the three children (Måns, Johan and Iris) are exploring the surroundings near the preschool’s yard. As the excerpt begins, the participants have just noticed ants that are in the process of building an anthill among some large boulders. In this example the shifts take place in turn 41.

Table 4 Act as an angry ant (video-sequence 2:3)
Full size table

The excerpt begins with Måns sitting on his knees observing ants while they move quickly on the large stones. He stretches out his hand to touch one of them (turn 38), an act that ROBIN responds to by first speaking in a regular voice (turn 39), secondly by changing to a playful-voice (turn 41), and thirdly by again changing and using a regular voice (turn 45). It appears that ROBIN is trying to influence the child’s behaviour (socialise) by ‘fostering’ him through shifting back and forth between as if and as is.

Conclusions and Discussion

Play-responsive teaching is about showing responsiveness to the child’s perspective when approaching subject content, while moving inside and outside the frame of play-activity – as if and as is (Pramling et al., 2019). This article contributes to further understanding of how play-responsive teaching can be managed – that is, a way of teaching content as integrated with play and not at the expense of it. By analysing shifts between as is and as if (see PRECEC, Pramling et al., 2019) it became possible to distinguish different ways of how the preschool teacher made the shifts as well as why they were made. The study shows that it is possible to integrate scientific content and play, when the preschool teacher is tuned in on doing it and is conscious of the need to use a responsive approach to children’s initiatives.

To Integrate Science and Play is a Mutual Activity

There are strong arguments for the development of teaching strategies, that are both directed towards an object of learning and to the child´s perspective without abandoning play (see Pramling et al., 2019; Thulin, 2011; Gustavsson et al., 2016). Being able to include the child’s perspective while focusing on the object of learning has been described in terms of ‘mutual simultaneity’ (Thulin, 2011). The results of the present study show that ‘mutual simultaneity’ was established when the participants became engaged in play-activities where the preschool teacher on one hand took the child’s interest and initiative into account, and on the other hand, simultaneously, focused on the object of learning.

Further, the results show that the preschool teacher made the shifts by practicing a variety of didactic expressions such as verbal speech and body language which clarified and coordinated perspectives. Moreover, the results show that the narrative of an ongoing play-activity with scientific content does not have to be interrupted, even though shifts between as is or as if are made, as long as the shifts make sense from the perspective of the play and the children. We argue that the shifts contributed to the development of the play and supported children’s further understanding and experiences. Previous studies have shown that it can be challenging for preschool teachers to gain access and participate in children´s play (see e.g., Pramling et al., 2019). However, the preschool teacher has an important role to participate as a more experienced and knowledgeable participant in play-activities. By moving between play and science content, they can inspire children to both take part in the play and in the exploration of the scientific content.

The Educational Tradition in New Clothes: Play and Learning Leaving the Dichotomy for an Integrated Whole

As previously mentioned, the present study shows that there seems to be different underlying aims as to why the preschool teacher makes shifts between as if and as is. One of these aims is to direct children’s attention towards the object of learning: science as both factual knowledge and the use of science tools. The other aim is to integrate socialization and care into play-activities with scientific content, in ways that educate children to engage in a careful and respectful manner with nature and living things (including themselves and others). Both aims can be found in the Swedish preschool curriculum (SNAE, 2018), as an integrated concept educare. The results of this study, show how the play becomes the centre of the activities in which both domain general knowledge and domain specific knowledge (Eshach, 2006; Eshach & Fried, 2005) as well as socialization and care can be incorporated. This differs from how preschool teaching has been described in previous studies, either as an activity where the object of learning is the ruling factor (Williams & Sheridan, 2018) or as an activity where socialization takes precedence over the object of learning (see Thulin, 2011). The activities, which are illustrated and discussed in this article, show that one focus does not necessarily need to be down-prioritized in favour of the other.

Play-Responsive Teaching as a way of Teaching Science in Preschool

The results show that science teaching does not only take place in the as is- dimension of play, but also in the as if- dimension if supported by the preschool teacher. The preschool teacher’s way of constantly shifting dimensions during the activity by moving between as is and as if, offers different ways of learning. If science is to be successfully integrated in play, the preschool teacher (as a more knowledgeable adult) has an important role to introduce this kind of content, since it may not arise by itself. However, several studies have highlighted the importance of discussing what kind of science knowledge to teach and for what purposes it should be taught (see Thulin, 2011; Hansson et al., 2020, 2021). Therefore, it is essential that preschool teachers develop their subject knowledge to be able to identify opportunities for science teaching in various situations in the preschool setting, for instance in play-activities.

The fact that the preschool teacher in this study continued to participate and show responsiveness to the children’s initiative in the play while scientific content was introduced, may be a contributing factor to why many of the activities continued without interruption.

Implications for Preschool Teachers and Preschool Practice

In order to participate as a preschool teacher in activities that integrate scientific content and play, this study suggests that the preschool teacher:

  • shows responsiveness to children’s perspectives, while guiding and directing the children’s focus towards the scientific content.

  • is mutually engaged in the play-activity by showing responsiveness to the child’s suggestions and exploration.

  • supports children’s participation and inclusion in joint play-activities with scientific content.

  • reinforces the scientific content through verbal and nonverbal communication (such as pointing, imitating, changing voice mode), as a way to participate as a more knowledgeable play-participant.

  • shifts between as is and as if, as a way to introduce and present content from different perspectives.

Further, we highlight the importance of addressing both subject content knowledge and play-competence in preschool teacher education.

The empirical examples presented in this study show the preschool teacher’s important role in orchestrating an activity where play, learning, and care are balanced and become an integrated whole. That is, play does not have to take a subordinated role towards learning or vice versa thus polarization is unnecessary. It is possible to combine different responsibilities and have a firm anchoring in the preschool’s educational tradition of a holistic view of care, play and learning when a conscious and responsive preschool teacher takes an active part in the activity.

Further research in this area is needed. Questions that are important to address concern how children’s agency can be supported by the preschool teachers; how teachers’ content knowledge influences the science focus of the play; which situations result in interrupted responsiveness.