Introduction

There is an ongoing discussion about how teaching approaches that direct focus towards a learning objective, and simultaneously incorporate children’s perspectives, can be orchestrated in preschool (Thulin, 2011). It has also been argued that the concept of teaching needs to be clarified without compromising the preschool tradition of play-based education (Williams & Sheridan, 2018). Play-responsive teaching (Pramling et al., 2019) has the potential to bring together children’s perspectives and the preschool’s tradition of a play-based education, as play and teaching are equated as a mutual activity, where preschool teachers and children are equally engaged (Pramling et al., 2019). In relation to science teaching, Hansson et al. (2020) argue that more research is needed regarding what kind of science content early childhood education should and can entail, and possible ways for preschool teachers to approach it. A recent study conducted by Henriksson et al. (2023), reports that it is possible to integrate science teaching and play if teachers show responsiveness to the children and take active part in the activities. An educational practice that integrates play, learning and care with science teaching has potential to prepare children for future citizenship (Larimore, 2020). However, as stated by Caiman and Lundegård (2014), research that focuses on children’s agency in science education connected to citizen issues such as sustainability is limited. The same applies to play-responsive teaching in relation to science teaching and children’s agency, where more empirical studies are needed. This study is part of such line of research by exploring how preschool children’s agency is supported in activities that integrate play and science content.

Science Content in Preschool

Science in preschool is often described as focusing either on detached facts (a facts-tradition) or on detached investigative activities (a doing-tradition). However, both traditions omit questions concerning how knowledge has been developed and human involvement in the process (Hansson et al., 2021). The argument for why science should be taught in preschool has long been about children’s rights to gain an understanding of the world around them (Eshach, 2006; Eshach & Fried, 2005; Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). However, there is a need to expand the understanding of what science teaching in preschool entails in relation to imagination in play-based settings (Fleer & Pramling, 2015), and in relation to democracy, justice, and children’s agency (Hansson et al., 2021).

Children’s Agency

The concept of agency has a range of different interpretations (Caiman & Lundegård, 2014) however, a clear definition is lacking (Arnold & Clarke, 2014). Thus, it is not possible to regard agency as uniform, according to Varelas et al. (2015), who argue that agency emerges in sociocultural practices both on an individual and collective level. Preschool research has a longstanding tradition of viewing the child as an individual with its own rights (Kultti et al., 2016), and seeing preschool educational practice as depending on a child-centred pedagogy (Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008). Concepts such as inclusion, collaboration, belonging, and agency are relevant within the preschool education to approach issues related to social and cultural sustainability (Bergan et al., 2021). Still, there is a lack of research that focuses on children’s initiatives and how these are responded to by preschool teachers in ways that promote children’s agency (Sairanen et al., 2022).

Preschool Children’s Agency in Science

Recent studies by Siry and Gorges (2020), and Siry et al. (2016) suggest that children’s agency can be promoted if they are allowed to investigate content issues relevant to themselves in informal, open-ended, and dialogical ways where a range of communications resources are allowed. Learning science is seen as a collective activity where participants do science in interactions with others and with a variety of resources (Siry et al., 2012). In a similar way, Caiman and Lundegård (2014) discuss agency in democratic activities in relation to education for sustainability.

The interplay between play-oriented activities and semiotic resources is highlighted in several studies (Areljung et al., 2021; Kewalramani & Veresov, 2022) as an important aspect in supporting children’s science meaning-making. One example is a study conducted by Cho (2023), who found that children’s agency was promoted through integration of different pedagogical approaches such as storytelling and guided play when science phenomena were examined. Another current discussion regarding children’s agency is preschool teachers’ participation (or not) in play (Lagerlöf et al., 2019), where some argue that teachers’ participation in play jeopardizes children’s agency. Another argument is that teachers’ participation in play is necessary to support and develop children’s learning to promote agency. Hence, Lagerlöf et al. (2019) propose that teachers can promote children’s agency by inviting them as co-creators in play, and incorporate their ideas and suggestions into the play-narrative. Other studies, for example, Fridberg et al. (2018), and Otterborn et al. (2023), examined technologies in relation to science. Fridberg et al. (2018) argued that if children are given the opportunity to create representations of science phenomena, children’s ability to discuss develops, which in turn encourages innovation and problem solving. Although Fridbergs’ et al. (2018) study does not focus explicitly on children’s agency, it illustrates an educational setting where children’s active participation is encouraged, which can be connected to agency. The study by Otterborn et al. (2023) showed how teachers managed to create varied science activities through integrating digital and analogue tools, play, empathy, aesthetic expressions and investigations that reinforced social learning, inclusion, and agency. Thus, the use of digitalisation in early childhood science education and its potential for agency is a research area that needs more attention.

Aim and Research Questions

The aim is to contribute knowledge about how preschool children’s agency is supported in activities that integrate play and science content, with a special focus on the use of representations.

The following research questions are examined:

  • How is children’s agency supported in activities that integrate play and science?

  • In what ways are representations used in the studied play-activities?

Theoretical Framework

Play-Responsive Early Childhood Education and Care (PRECEC)

Play-responsive early childhood education and care (PRECEC) has been developed empirically and theoretically through a combined research and development project by Pramling et al. (2019). In the project, teachers were encouraged to participate with children in play-activities that were either initiated by themselves or by children (Pramling et al., 2019). Responsiveness is understood as something that take place in interaction between participants, as they use verbal- and nonverbal communication to signal play and teaching (Pramling et al., 2019). Teaching is defined as wanting someone else to see or realise something, where teachers in a responsive way can engage children in a mutual play-activity that aims to support children’s learning and development (Pramling et al., 2019). In play-activities, participants are constantly shifting between the fantasy dimension of play, and reality. These shifts can be described in terms of as if (fantasy) and as is (reality) (Henriksson et al., 2023; Pramling et al., 2019). Teachers can also introduce characters that challenge children’s imagination in terms of as if, or by asking problem-solving questions that aim to evoke children’s interest in content in terms of as is. (Henriksson et al., 2023). This way of directing someone else’s attention towards content is referred to as triggering (Pramling et al., 2019), thus, triggering is understood “as closely related to initiations to scaffold children’s understanding or problem solving” (Pramling et al., 2019, pp. 173). Furthermore, Wallerstedt et al. (2021), describes triggering as an action that intends to make room for new ideas and approaches to engage children as co-creators of play. PRECEC (Pramling et al., 2019) emphasises the importance of teachers showing responsiveness to children’s initiatives and introducing children to new knowledge or new ways of playing. This could be achieved in a variety of ways and the play-responsive teaching activity does not necessarily have to start in play but needs to be responsive to play (Pramling et al., 2019). The framework emphasises that teachers can participate together with children in play. Instead of using the term “free play” PRECEC refers to play as with or without teacher support (Pramling, 2023). In this study, the concepts as is/as if and triggering are used to explore how preschool children’s initiative and agency are promoted in activities that integrate play and science content. Children’s agency can be understood as their possibility to participate, to choose and create science content, and communicate their interest (Petersen, 2020). By showing responsiveness to children’s initiatives, and by inviting children as co-creators in play (see Lagerlöf et al., 2019) teachers can trigger children’s learning and development (see Pramling et al., 2019). Thus, children’s initiatives and suggestions can contribute to how play-activity with science develops, both regarding the fantasy (as if-dimension) and its connection to reality (as is) (Pramling et al., 2019), which in turn promotes their agency.

Mediating Artefacts - Focus on Representations

In socio-cultural theory, participants use symbols and artefacts as representations to give new meanings to subjects, objects, and actions. Vygotsky (1986) describes tools either as material tools (artefacts) or as symbolic tools (gestures, language, sign systems). He contended that material tools serve as a mediator between the object and what the object is intended to signify (Vygotsky, 1933/2015). For examples in play, children give toys, props, and actions different meanings than they have in reality. For example, when a stick becomes a horse in play, the child does not view the stick as a stick, instead the stick is attributed with the characteristics of a horse (Vygotsky, 1933/2015). In science teaching, representations (verbal explanations, symbols, texts, and diagrams) are used to symbolise a concept (Tang et al., 2014), or to enhance meaning-making (Kewalranani & Veresov, 2022). Much of the material available in the preschool environment can be used as representations (Kalkusch et al., 2021). In this study, ‘representations’ refer to mediating artefacts that children and teachers use in activities that integrate play and science content.

Design of the Study

The study was conducted in one preschool with six work-teams, that already worked with science as part of their practice. The first author contacted preschools in a nearby municipality, and the principle and teachers at the participating preschool volunteered to take part of the research project. Data was generated over a three-month period from April to June 2022, and the empirical material consists of four video-observations, which in total generated approximately two hours of video-recordings. One preschool teacher, Alex, and one school-age educator, Billie (from two work-teams), participated during all the video-recorded sessions together with different children (4 to 5 at a time). Participating teachers both had a teacher education degree (3-3,5 years, academic level) and long teaching experience. The work-teams participated in an initial workshop where they took part in discussions of how to approach science integrated with play, but they were not informed about play-responsive teaching (PRECEC) as a concept. During the workshop, the teachers were encouraged to draw inspiration from a fairytale, to establish a play-frame and introduce a specific science area. To use a fairytale as a way of approaching a science content was inspired by the work of Leden et al. (2022). A fairytale can present a realistic image of science working processes and support children to develop their imagination, an intellectual ability that is important in science (Hadzigeorgiou, 2016). The teachers acquired inspiration from the fairytale “Torsten’s journey out into the wide world” (Swedish: “Torstens resa ut i vida världen”, Holmgren, 2010). In the book, a boy named Torsten and his grandmother fly around the world sitting in her rocking chair. The fairytale deals with environmental issues in relation to human life (i.e., climate crisis, extinction of animals, and the lack of water). After the workshop, the teachers were asked to try to include science in play and participate in the play themselves.

Ethical Considerations

The study follows the Swedish Research Council (www.vr.se) ethical guidelines for research. Teachers and children’s guardians were given consent forms and information about the study, such as purpose, implementation, and the use of data. They gave written consent to participate in the study. Flewitt (2006) argues that adult and especially children’s consent should be viewed as “temporary”, which means that the participants’ agreement to partake in research needs to be continually re-established. The researcher is responsible for interpreting children’s expressions to consent both verbally and non-verbally (Pálmadóttir & Einarsdóttir, 2016). Before and during each video-recorded session, children’s verbal- and non-verbal expressions were considered as a way of communicating consent. In this way, the child always had the opportunity to choose not to participate, and they could choose to leave the session at any time. All participants are treated confidentially, and they could end participation at any time. All names are pseudonyms.

Analysis Process

Video-sequences of activities that incorporated both play and science content were transcribed and analysed with qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Each transcript was coded with unit name, video-observation session, turn numbers, and participants. Teachers’ names were written in uppercase letters and children’s names in initial capital letters followed by lowercase letters. Bodily actions and non-verbal expressions are commented. Secondly, initiatives made by children, as well as how teachers responded to these, were highlighted, together with representations used. These representations included projected images, an abacus (representing a motor), a carpet containing geographical areas and depictions of animals. From this analytical process, excerpts including play, science, and representations were highlighted by the first author. The three authors jointly reviewed and discussed the analysis process and its findings repeatedly, to provide deepened perspectives on how children’s agency is supported in connected to environmental issues. In the section below, three narratives are presented that have been constructed to exemplify how children’s initiatives were negotiated and supported in ways that promoted agency in various ways. Narrowing focus to study specific situations in data is common in research that use a case study approach (Larsson, 2013; Siry et al., 2016; Varelas et al., 2015). There are also studies (see Siry et al., 2013) that zoom in on episodes in data to provide a diversity of illustrative examples that are central to the study. This work by Siry et al. (2013, 2016) has inspired the use of narratives to address this study’s aim and research questions. However, the examples here are chosen as representative of trends in the empirical material (parallels can also be drawn to a previous study by Henriksson et al. (2023). The narratives presented in this article are examples of how play and science can be integrated in an educational setting, and how teachers and children show responsiveness to each other’s initiatives in the activities. Children’s introduction of science content and initiatives regarding both science and play stem from prior knowledge and experiences that they have, most likely, gained both in preschool and at home. Most of the science content is not described in the book that framed the play-activity.

Three Narratives Framed by Play and Science in Relation to Children’s Agency

Three narratives based on activities where play, science and representations were integrated have been constructed to answer the two research questions in an integrated manner. In this study, the science content relates to environmental issues in relation to human life, such as the melting of polar ice, extinction of polar bears, and humans’ use of fuel. Representations used in the activities are either spontaneously introduced by the children or planned in advanced by the teachers.

”But it doesn’t have an engine…” —Children’s Initiative Triggers Focus on Science Content

The first narrative is built around the excerpts in Tables 1 and 2. During the activity, the teachers ALEX and BILLIE, and five children (3-4 years old) sit together on a carpet with a large map of the world and pictures of animals. They have just read the fairytale about Torsten’s journey (Holmgren, 2010). Before the excerpt begins, the teachers have placed a wooden chair (intended as a representation of the rocking chair in the fairytale) next to them on the carpet. The teacher(s) strive to initiate an activity that integrate play and science, by fantasising about where they would travel if they had a magic chair, like the one in the fairytale. ALEX directs the children’s attention to the chair, an initiative Bengt responds to by suggesting that they need an engine (see turn 35, Table 1 below).

Table 1 Introduction of an engine (Video-sequence 1)
Full size table
Table 2 Comparison between gasoline and electric motors (Video-sequence 1)
Full size table

In the excerpt, ALEX, takes the opportunity to trigger science learning (fuel and engines) by responding to Bengt’s spontaneous suggestion (turn 35), by first encouraging his initiative (turn 36), and then further develop its connection to science (turn 38). In this way, the fantasy dimension of the play (as if) is developed based on the child’s initiative to use an abacus as a representation of an engine. Furthermore, the initiative is used as an opportunity to explore science content (as is). This exploration of fuel and engines while playing is further developed and continues in turn 373 (see excerpt, Table 2 below).

This second excerpt shows how ALEX shifts from the as if-dimension of the play to communicate about environmental issues in terms of as is (turn 373). Bengt answers the teacher’s question, first by responding in as is-terms (turn 374, 377), and then in as if-terms when he fantasises that the engine emits electric smoke (turn 380). BILLIE responds by first promoting the child’s suggestion (turn 378, 379), then by highlighting and further developing the science content (as is) by asking about fumes and gasoline (turn 381). ALEX ends the communication by encouraging the children when calling them “earth-guardians” (turn 387), acting on behalf of the climate. The child’s initiative to introduce the abacus as an electric engine becomes a permanent feature in all forthcoming play-activities. This way, children’s initiatives are given space to evolve and enrich play –a way for children’s agency to develop and be expressed. At the same time, the initiative becomes valuable for the teachers’ opportunities to trigger and further explore science. In summary, this narrative shows how children’s agency is promoted by giving space to their initiatives in ways that enrich both play (as if) and connections to science (as is).

“I’ve seen a turtle once... and it lived” — The Science Content is Overshadowed by Children’s Conflicting Initiatives

The second narrative is built around the excerpt in Table 3. This narrative takes place during the play-activity described in the narrative in the previous section. During the activity the teachers try to coordinate and negotiate between the children’s various initiatives. Bengt suggest that they should go to Greenland, while Mats wants to travel to a country where there are turtles, and Britta wants to fly on her unicorn. After a while, ALEX decides: ”Let’s start with the turtles, and we’ll let Mats decide!”. ALEX’s decision is confirmed by the other teacher BILLIE, who says:” They are huge, the turtles!”. Then, in the play-activity, Mats continues to develop his initiative by sharing factual knowledge about turtles (Table 3, turn 168, 173, 175).

Table 3 Different children’s initiatives during play (Video-sequence 1)
Full size table

This excerpt (Table 3) shows how ALEX tries to encourage the children’s participation, by asking a question within the as if- dimension of the play-activity (turn 156). Bengt responds by directing focus (both verbal and non-verbal) towards a representation of a turtle on the carpet (turn 160). This way of acting shifts the other participants’ focus, and the representation of the turtle becomes a shared ground for communication in terms of as is. ALEX confirms Bengt’s initiative verbally and by moving towards the representation (turn 161), an action that the some of the children follow. This becomes apparent when Evert (turn 162, 164) approaches the turtle-representation and begins to describe its shape and colour. Mats tries to shift the dialogue from the turtle-representation on the carpet by repeatedly sharing factual knowledge about real, live turtles in terms of as is (turn 163, 165, 168, 173, 175). Mats initiative might have served to develop the ongoing play-activity, but his initiative is in conflict with other children’s suggestions. Even though Mats emphasises that he has seen a real turtle, the teacher responds by summarising Mats’ description (turn 170, 172) and directs the perspective back to the representation of the turtle (turn 177). In the excerpt we see how Mats abandons his initiative and begins to follow the teacher’s response (turn 178). Instead of sharing the other participants’ focus, Bengt tries to shift their attention to the previous pretend play of traveling with the chair (turn 169, 174, 176, 180). This act can be understood as shifts from as is to as if. Bengt’s initiative is overlooked by the other participants (apart from Mats response in turn 181), as their attention is still directed towards the turtle-representation (178, 179). In summary, this narrative shows examples of how teachers in an activity constantly need to respond to different children’s initiatives and balance them both in relation to the as is and as if-dimension of the play. Furthermore, it shows that this balancing act can result in missed opportunities for science learning.

“The polar bears will die then!” —Digital Representations Support Children’s Participation and Trigger Science Learning

This concluding narrative is built around the excerpt in Table 4. The play-activity takes place in front of a projector screen, where the teachers in advance have prepared a computer tablet with images from different climates and environments (e.g., desert, Greenland, jungle, and a city) that can be connected to the previously read fairytale. The participants pretend to be in the desert when ALEX, suggests that they should continue their journey, and she moves over to the computer tablet to switch image. Gustav responds by suggesting that they travel to Greenland and at that moment, an image appears on the projector screen, showing houses and green nature with elements of ice. In the periphery of the image are glimpses of snow-capped mountains. The play-activity continues in front of the projector screen, and after a while, ALEX switches to a new image since the children begin to focus on who lives in the houses. By switching to an image of a large iceberg and a small ship, the teacher interrupts the current discussion. When the image of the iceberg and the small ship appears on the projector screen, the children begin to pretend to shoot at the iceberg-image, to prevent the ship from colliding with it. In this way, the fantasy dimension of the play (as if) is developed based on the child’s initiative to interact with the image on the projector screen. BILLIE uses the children’s initiative as an opportunity to explore science content (as is), related to climate change such as melting of polar ice, and extinction of polar bears, by asking a question that makes the play shift from as if to as is (Table 4 turn 242).

Table 4 Digital representation as an integrated part (Video-sequence 3)
Full size table

The excerpt (Table 4) shows how the teachers try to challenge and engage the children in issues related to climate change in terms of as is, by emphasizing what could happen to the polar bears if all the icebergs would melt (turn 242). BILLIE proceeds by asking a new question (turn 244) and this time Mats responds by sharing the factual knowledge (as is) that polar bears will die, while he looks at the projector screen (turn 245). ALEX responds to this by changing the image on the projector screen (turn 246), creating an opportunity to explore polar bears living conditions (as is). Bengt responds to ALEX’s action by describing the projector image as the polar bears seems to be drowning (because the image is showing that the polar bears are approaching water) (turn 247). BILLIE tries to initiate a shift to the play-activities’ as if-dimension (turn 248); meanwhile ALEX asks (turn 249) what the children think about the image on the projector screen (as is-dimension). Mats responds to ALEX question by describing that the polar bears are going to drink water (turn 250). BILLIE’s initiative to shift to the as if-dimension (turn 251) is then responded to by the participants, as they imagine themselves sitting on ice floes (turn 252-258). In summary, this narrative shows how digital representations (a wide range of pictures) can be used to support play and science learning in various ways. They can communicate and share a mutual focus and they can trigger both the as is- and as if-dimension of the activity. The use of representations enables children to take part in play and make initiatives that enrich the narrative, and at the same time manifest agency.

Discussion and Conclusion

The three narratives presented in this article serve as examples of how preschool children’s agency is supported in activities that integrate play and science, with a special focus on the use of representations. The narratives show how teachers and children act as co-creators of the play-narrative by taking initiatives that develop and enrich both play and the connections to science. Previous research (Caiman & Lundegård, 2014; Hansson et al., 2021) argues for the need to expand the current view on what science teaching in preschool can entail, specifically in relation to children’s agency. Narratives in this study expands on similar issues and conclusions in our previous study (Henriksson et al., 2023). That is, teachers have an important role in participating in activities that integrate play and science, as they can inspire and support children’s participation and exploration by shifting between as if and as is (Pramling et al., 2019). In this study, both teachers and children contribute by directing focus towards science. There are, however, also examples of when science that is introduced by children is not fully considered by the teacher, leading to missed opportunities for science teaching as well as promotion of the individual child’s agency. At the same time, it highlights the difficulties for teachers to focus on specific science content when navigating between children’s conflicting ideas about the play. Further, both teachers and children make contributions (e.g., abacus-engine, problem-solving questions) that can be understood in terms of triggering (Pramling et al., 2019), as they intend to enrich and evolve both the as if and as is-dimension of the play-activity. The narratives show how activities that integrate play and science can serve as a space for children to in pretend way engage with real-world science issues.

Children’s Agency and Participation in Activities that Integrate Play and Science

The narratives in this study are in line with arguments in Lagerlöf et al. (2019) that teachers’ participation in play is necessary to support and develop children’s learning and agency. The narratives show that even though it is the teachers who initiate these mutual play-activities, the children are encouraged to act as co-creators, developing the play. This is made possible as teachers show responsiveness to the children’s initiatives and suggestions through incorporating these into the play or through triggering an exploration of science content (as is) (Pramling et al., 2019). The activities can be described as having an open-ended structure, which according to Siry et al. (2016) can promote children’s agency. There are also arguments that preschool education needs to rest on a democratic foundation, which thus creates opportunities for each child to gain influence (Ärlemalm-Hagsér et al., 2017). The present study shows that children’s initiatives are valuable contributions when the teachers use them to trigger (Pramling et al., 2019) and immerse science content. In this way, an individual child’s suggestion or initiative can become a collective activity, making each child an asset in the group. The Swedish preschool curriculum (SNAE, 2018) states that teachers should provide space for the individual child’s suggestions, interests, and ideas. However, as the study shows, it may be difficult to execute these instructions as teachers in preschool are faced with the dilemma of handling several children’s initiatives at the same time. This dilemma is also highlighted by Sairanen et al. (2022) and depending on how teachers show responsiveness, they can either hinder or promote an individual child’s agency. Another dilemma might arise in relation to as is and as if as it might be difficult for children to distinguish between these dimensions and what can be regarded as facts or fantasy, in relation to the science content. It might also be difficult for teachers to determine what they should do if they regard children’s understanding of a science concept as ‘wrong’ and they don’t want to risk interfering in a way that hinders children’s initiative and fantasy.

The use of Representations Facilitates Children’s Agency

This study gives examples of how children during play spontaneously pick or use items (props such as an abacus and pictures on a carpet), that are available in the physical environment at the preschool. Unlike the children, the teachers make plans for the use of representations (e.g., the wooden chair, images on a computer-tablet). This shows the importance of the preschool environment containing a variety of materials, and that children are free to move these between areas. Representations are integrated in the activities, to promote both play, children’s ability to participate in play, and the exploration of science. This study indicates that the use of a projector screen, while playing, can serve to develop science teaching in preschool and promote agency.

Implications for Preschool Teachers and Preschool Practice

Based on the discussion in the previous section this study suggests that:

  • teachers must take an active role as participants in mutual play-activities with children, and consider how to balance between science (as is) and fantasy (as if),

  • when teachers design activities, these should be open-ended enough for children to take initiatives,

  • teachers must reflect on which of the children’s initiatives are promoted, as they affect both play, learning, and the individual child’s agency. These may need to be balanced both momentarily and over time,

  • teachers reflect on how digital representations can be integrated in play-activities to connect to science. Representations can provide support, as they direct children’s focus both to the exploration of science (as is) and the development of play (as if).

Further, we emphasize that science and play can be integrated as a mutual activity, without compromising the preschool education tradition of intertwining care, play, learning, and teaching. These suggestions might be useful to discuss and develop in preschool teacher education and preschool practice. However, to develop PRECEC as a theoretical framework, more studies in this area are needed. Interesting aspects in future studies might be how teachers deal with children’s conceptions of science in relation to as is and as if, and how this influences activities that integrate play and science. An important contribution to such studies is teachers’ own perspectives on challenges and benefits connected to taking part in activities that integrate play and science. This is something that we will explore in future studies.