Free play has a long tradition in many early childhood settings in which children have limited contact with teachers and adults’ role is primarily to create the learning environment according to children’s play interests, needs, and developmental growth (Grieshaber 2010). However, The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) in Australia recommends intentional teaching in a play-based context, and play-based learning is one of the central tenets of the EYLF (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE] 2022). The EYLF emphasises intentional teaching and suggests educators to be “intentional in all aspects of the curriculum and act deliberately, thoughtfully and purposefully to support children’s learning through play” (AGDE 2022, p. 22). While the EYLF was published in 2009 and revised in 2022, it is still difficult to conceptualise the pedagogical relationship between play-based learning and intentional teaching (Grieshaber, Krieg, McArdle and Sumsion 2021). Early childhood educators find it challenging to enact their role in play-based learning “in ways that promote children’s educational progress and achievement rather than development alone” (Grieshaber 2010, p. 40). It is suggested by Sue Edwards (2017) that play is not oppositional to teaching, and it is evident from the research that all play types, either free play or purposeful play, have equal pedagogical value (Edwards and Cutter-Mackenzie 2011).

According to national and international research, educators or adults can enhance children’s learning; however, scientific learning in the early years requires advanced support from educators or adults in play-based settings (Sikder and Fleer 2018). Thus, it is imperative to establish a better understanding of the role of intentional teaching in early childhood centres (Thomas, Warren and deVries 2011) in Australia to build a play-based learning culture as culture is formed by people’s interests, choices, and practices in the societal context (Vygotsky 1994).

One of the current needs identified by the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering is that our children need to have Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) skills more than any previous generations as we are transitioning to an increasingly digital future [Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE) 2019]. The Australian Industry Group (2017) shows concerns about not producing a STEM-qualified workforce. It is evident from the current literature (Lippard, Lamm and Riley 2017) that there is a growing demand to incorporate teaching practices for STEM learning activities in school and early childhood settings.

This paper will unpack how intentional teaching could support children’s STEM (science and engineering focus) learning process through play as part of an established cultural context in the early childhood setting. A brief literature review about STEM learning will be presented to unpack the problem, followed by a theoretical understanding, then the research methodology, concluding with the findings, discussions, and implications for early childhood STEM education.

Literature review

STEM education at an early age could create multiple rich possibilities for children’s learning and development in the future, such as content knowledge (Fleer 2017); planning to achieve a goal, process skills, problem-solving, design skills, system thinking and creativity (Lippard, Lamm, Tank and Choi 2019); communication, collaboration, cognitive thinking (Siry, Ziegler and Max 2012); and enhance their self-belief in their ability to learn STEM (Campbell, Speldewinde, Howitt and MacDonald 2018). The importance of science learning in early years is evident in multiple research, such as STEM play is a source of children’s development (Fleer Fragkiadaki, and Rai 2020), parental support to science learning (Sikder 2015), children’s motivation for science learning (Sikder 2018) and infants-toddlers science learning as part of adult’s conscious collaboration (Sikder and Fleer 2018). As yet, however, STEM or engineering education is still not a focus in young children’s play and learning (Fleer 2020). There are multiple reasons for the limited focus on integrated STEM learning in early childhood settings, in particular, the research on science and engineering learning in the same context. Some studies found that preschool teachers are not well prepared to teach science and engineering (MacDonald, Danaia, Sikder and Huser 2021) and there are also limited curricula resources for teaching science and engineering in early childhood settings (Zucker, Williamsa, Bell, Assel, Landrya, Monsegue-Baileya, April Crawforda and Bhavsar 2016), especially educational resources for early engineering on an international level (Bagiati and Evangelou 2016).

There is some research conducted on engineering education in the early childhood education context. Aikaterini Bagiati (2011) shows that preschool has the necessary resources and related play-based experiences to enhance children’s engineering thinking through engaging with other children and by observing other children in construction play. In another research (Bairaktarova, Evangelou, Bagiati and Brophy 2011), play environments in early childhood enhance engineering knowledge and actions while children are involved in free play with artefacts that may link the existence of precursors to engineering thinking. There are some online resources for STEM learning, but very few complete engineering curricula are available to teachers (Bagiati et al. 2015). Research on teachers’ experience with engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom found that a teacher’s collaboration, intrinsic motivation, and sense of experimentation were crucial factors for implementing early engineering curriculum in early childhood education (Bagiati and Evangelou 2016). The researchers found that teachers need to identify age appropriate play-based experiences for planning an early engineering curriculum.

Gold et al. (2015) examined preschoolers’ engineering play behaviours across traditional playgrounds, dramatic play, and large blocks. They found that carefully selected materials can stimulate STEM learning processes in play. Aikaterian Bagiati and Demetra Evangelou (2016) explored children’s building blocks in free play over four months in early childhood and found the research that practising engineering while building with blocks supports children’s engineering thinking in relation to goal-oriented design, problem-solving thinking, innovation stemming from the synthesis of multiple designs, pattern repetition, and design testing.

The above research has identified the strong possibilities for developing science and engineering knowledge, skills, or thinking from an early age in early childhood educational settings. The researchers mainly focus on free play and appropriate age, developmentally appropriate learning and educational materials for enhancing children’s engineering learning in early years settings. However, educators’ engagement is absent through the above studies.

Lippard et al. (2017) did a systematic review of 27 papers and the results show that engineering thinking can be displayed when children are actively engaged with materials and meaningful adult–child interactions could engage children in engineering thinking. Intentionality is the key to promoting children’s engineering thinking as they suggest. The limited literature shows the research in engineering in early childhood settings is still underdeveloped, and a lack of understanding of teacher-initiated engineering learning in everyday settings is evident. Lippard et al. (2019) examined pre-engineering thinking in preschool settings and termed it engineering habits of mind, which are systems thinking, optimism, communication, collaboration, creativity, and ethical consideration. It is found that children’s engineering thinking can occur if the classroom settings have a variety of materials with a combination of adequate time and freedom. In addition, educators can facilitate engineering habits of mind if they are experienced or confident in engaging children in specific play-based experiences, with engineering-specific training recommended for teachers’ professional development on classroom environments, materials, and interactions. However, teachers’ own interest or intentionality is missing in this research.

In the Little Scientist program, educators have considered children’s interest in play-based learning and set materials to implement STEM learning in the education settings (MacDonald et al. 2020). However, they did not consider the centre’s current established culture, and there was limited focus on teachers’ intentionality.

In Marilyn Fleer’s (2020) research of an engineering Playworld for young children, it is evident that the teachers’ role is important to support children’s engineering learning in play-based settings where teachers create motivating conditions for engineering exploration. It is the only research that found the educators’ role is critical in an engineering program; however, the research only focuses on solving problems arising from the story. Another research by Fleer (2020) found that young girls have limited access to engineering activity settings during free play time. This paper mainly emphasises girls’ opportunities to be engineers in free play.

A critical literature review is conducted by Fleer (2021) and 38 papers are reviewed based on examining learning engineering concepts in play-based settings. The paper recommends creating scope for a broader set of analytical categories in doing engineering research, such as using a range of materials for play-based experiences beyond block, sand, or puzzles to promote free play and to undertake further research on teachers’ confidence, competence, and planning in early engineering learning.

We do not yet know enough about how real-life needs or desires can be solved through engineering practice in early childhood settings as “engineering practice starts with a problem, desire or need” (National Research Council 2012, p. 50). Previous research as above suggests that early childhood education has the potential for science and engineering learning and more relevant research is needed in the early childhood context to understand how to draw on a play-based pedagogy for supporting children’s STEM (science and engineering focus) learning. And, there is a dearth of research evidence of teachers’ engagement in children’s engineering learning (Fleer 2020). In this study, children’s science and engineering learning will be examined through collective play moments based on a demand of their real-life needs where educators’ intentional teaching plan is central as educators, children (aged 3 to 5 years), teenagers from secondary school, and secondary teachers are purposefully involved in the play.

Unpacking theory to inform the study

In cultural-historical research, children’s conceptual learning and development is viewed as a dynamic process (Vygotsky 1987) where children’s everyday conceptual learning occurs in an everyday context as in a social plane as part of their regular cultural practices or experiences. For example, flying kites is a common play culture in many countries around the world. Young children start to learn to fly kites with someone who already has enough practical knowledge about this. Common everyday concepts such as steady wind (not too light or not too hard) required to fly kites, and light materials to build a kite are exposed during the experience. Children learn these everyday concepts while interacting with the practical experience of how things work at the everyday level. Initially, children imitate knowledgeable others, seek some instructions if needed to fly the kites, and then gradually learn to fly the kites independently. During repeated similar experiences, children gradually mature these everyday concepts when they consciously think of the concepts and also with the explanation of knowledgeable others, which is a pathway towards the development of scientific concepts (Vygotsky 1987). Therefore, Vygotsky (1987) argued everyday concepts are the foundation for children’s scientific (academic) concepts, such as science and engineering, as the development of scientific concepts requires a particular level of maturation of everyday concepts.

The development of scientific concepts is a complex process, as explained by Vygotsky (1987):

“Scientific concepts do not develop in a final form or are not an automatic mental habit in children’s minds; rather, it requires children to understand a system of concepts that are interrelated. Children’s everyday concepts develop from below to above, from the more elementary and lower characteristics to the higher. Scientific concepts can arise in the child’s head only on the foundation provided by the lower and more elementary forms of generalisation that previously existed. Instruction is a basic source of developing the child’s concepts and an extremely powerful force in directing this process. The Everyday concept acquires a whole series of new relationships with other concepts as it comes to stand between the science concepts and its objects. This is because the science concept is not related to its object directly, rather, the relationship is mediated by existing concepts. The strength of the scientific concepts lies in the higher characteristics of concepts, in conscious awareness and volition.” (pp 167–241).

Therefore, the development of scientific concept formation requires a certain degree of maturation of everyday concepts, useful instructions that move aead of development, conscious awareness of the concepts and how children consciously apply their conceptual learning in different contexts. For example, designing a kite requires a conscious awareness of everyday concepts and initial instructions from knowledgeable others at the beginning, such as the shape of the kite, using light paper materials, strong and long string, and a tail for stability. A child who grows expertise in flying kites in everyday life, the child’s maturation of everyday concepts could support the progression of a science concept formation. For example, how the shape and size of an object (the kite) affect the nature of airflow around it, hence the air resistance (Deakin University 2021). Furthermore, designing and problem-solving as part of the children’s emerging engineering skills could be enhanced while designing and flying a kite. The children’s scientific learning will progress when they can use their academic learning skills to design several types of kites to make them fly higher or longer. Thus, children’s scientific learning process will gradually progress to a final form when the child learns relevant concepts with the useful instructions of adults or knowledgeable others through everyday experiences (Vygotsky 1987). In this paper, the learning process of concept formation (not a final form of science concept) with the support of knowledgeable others will be unpacked in detail.

Shukla Sikder and Marilyn Fleer (2015) argue everyday play experiences can support young children’s (infant-toddlers) learning with the support of adults, referred to moreover as small science learning. However, small science learning is not a final form of scientific concept formation, rather it develops through social interactions as a relation between the real and ideal forms between adults and children and also requires consciousness of both groups (Sikder and Fleer 2018). For example, small science learning such as push, pull, and roll could be learned while making playdough and these small science learning experiences might support understanding academic concepts of force during the school year. Vygotsky argues the development of consciousness forms differently in different age groups, “infants’ consciousness is characterized by a lack of differentiation in the separate functions, and the development of consciousness as a whole form in early childhood age (one to three years old) when perception is the dominating function of activity, and the development of memory is dominant in preschool age” (Vygotsky 1987, p189). It is understood that developing consciousness, perception, and memory are prerequisites of conscious awareness and voluntary control, which are the essential characteristics of scientific concept formation in the school age (Vygotsky 1987). Therefore, it is important to understand how early childhood and preschool age children develop their concept formation relevant to small science and engineering learning processes which are the elementary forms to develop higher forms of final scientific concept formation later. In this paper, children’s (3–5 years old) small science and early engineering-related learning processes will be examined in everyday cultural contexts.

Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1994) emphasises the cultural development of the child is conditioned by outward influences which are the socio-cultural experiences of the child. This paper focuses on an early childhood centre’s culturally valued risk play practices in children’s play settings. Educators of the centre value risk play as it is a cultural tradition of the local community, and the centre adopts the culture. Risk play is recognised as beneficial play for children’s physical, cognitive, and social development and acceptance of risk play is exercised with children depending on cultural context or cultural factors (Liu and Birkeland 2022). Children’s cultural identity is an evolving process, and it is shaped by experiences while they explore physical, social, emotional and intellectual cognitive aspects through play and other relationships (AGDE 2022).

Considering Vygotsky’s socio-cultural processes as primary influences on cultural development, it is argued (Penuel and Wertsch 1995, p. 84), “Identity formation must be viewed as shaped by and shaping forms of action, involving a complex interplay among cultural tools employed in the action, the socio-cultural and institutional context of the action, and the purposes embedded in the action”. Children’s cultural identity can be formed in many ways in the institutional context, such as by involving children in building cultural artefacts (e.g., traditional painting, building flags) and engaging children in culturally valued practices (e.g., risk play, storytelling) by educators. Educators could support children to develop their social and cultural heritages with elders and community members and provide children with examples of the many ways in which identities and cultures are recognised and expressed (AGDE 2022). Vygotsky (1966) argued that play is the work for children and is a leading source of children’s learning and development as part of their social-cultural experiences.

Cultural development is viewed as a whole, in which cultural identity is formed through varied valued socio-cultural experiences of a child in multiple contexts. To understand the process of children’s cultural development, this paper particularly investigates children’s small science and early engineering learning process in their culturally valued risk play practices to support their sense of cultural identity. The research design will be described in the next section, where small science and engineering-related activities will be examined in everyday practice.

Research design

Digital video observations

The cultural-historical research methodology looks at the whole process and relationships of the child in the environment to understand the cultural development of the children (Fleer and Ridgway 2014). Digital video observations (Hedegaard and Fleer 2008) support taking a 360° view to understand the whole process of children’s cultural development. In this research, the researcher focuses on the centre’s established culture, specifically what socio-cultural experience educators apply to examine children’s small science and early engineering learning process while planning for children’s play, learning, and development.

Research questions

This study examined teachers’ intention to use science and engineering play-based experiences by engaging children in a collective play encounter to achieve a real-life goal as part of established cultural contexts in early childhood settings. Specifically, this paper investigates:

  1. 1.

    How can early childhood educators’ intentional teaching plan support children’s small science and engineering learning process, in culturally valued practice?

  2. 2.

    How can children’s cultural identity be shaped during STEM learning in a play-based context?

Participants

Eight staff and a total of 64 children aged 10 months to 5 years participated in this study. The early childhood centre is situated next to a mountain in a regional area in NSW in Australia. The centre is full of cultural materials of the local community, a country atmosphere, and natural environments. Children are from low and middle socio-economic backgrounds, and there is a mixed group of staff and children, who are from Indigenous and English ethnicity.

Procedure

  1. 1.

    One professional development (PD) session was organised to unpack the aim, relevant concepts, and data collection procedure of the project for the staff in the centre. During the PD session, the relevant science and engineering concepts were linked to the centre’s materials, culture, or play experiences. The researcher found risk play is a common culture in the centre and the director showed one mosaic art effect, which was made as part of the centre’s risk play. Intentional teaching, culturally valued play experiences, and STEM learning were all explicitly linked in the PD session.

  2. 2.

    Around 50 h of video data were collected from the educators’ and children’s investigation moments, play encounters, educators’ interviews in the centre, and the data from family homes during seven weeks of data collection. The centre director and the educators provided several interviews regarding the activities of children’s play experiences as required. Necessary field notes were also taken when the cameras could not be used.

  3. 3.

    A culturally valued experience of building an Aboriginal flag made from mosaic tiles was selected and 95 min of video data on this event was used for analysis in this paper. Play with dangerous tools such as hammers to break the mosaic tiles to build the Aboriginal flag is identified as one of the categories of risk play (Sandseter 2007). The risk play as part of centre’s established culture was set up for toddlers and preschool children in their outdoor play area, where six children (aged 3 to 5 years), two educators, four high school children, and two high school teachers were involved in the settings. Three researchers collected the data and they were involved in the activity as the event demanded. A part of the educator’s interview is also analysed in relation to the Aboriginal flag experience.

  4. 4.

    Research protocols have been developed for each session by transcribing video data, using photographs, video logs, and field notes.

Ethical consideration

Ethical approval was sought in accordance with human research ethics for this research project and the Charles Sturt University (CSU) Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approved the project (H18177). Consent was taken from all the participants involved in the study. Pseudonyms are used throughout the paper.

Analysis

The analytical framework of the dialectical-interactive approach, which focuses on the wholeness approach has been used to analyse the data as it covers societal, institutional, and individual perspectives (Hedegaard and Fleer 2008). In this research, culturally valued practices in everyday play settings are counted as societal; educators’ role, intentional teaching plan, and creating play settings are viewed as institutional practice; and children’s learning processes are observed as individual perspectives. Theoretical analysis is a must for qualitative research data; otherwise, digital tools are worthless (Fleer 2014). Three levels of analysis (Hedegaard and Fleer 2008) were undertaken:

  1. 1.

    Common sense interpretation unpacks how children were engaged through the project and does not require an understanding of explicit concepts, but some common patterns and relationships stand out in interaction.

  2. 2.

    Situated practice interpretation examines the video data with a theoretical understanding and finds common conceptual patterns, patterns of interaction and dominating motives across the data set. For example, frequent patterns of social interactions, consistent evidence of scientific learning, dominating motive of children’s actions and educators’ roles.

  3. 3.

    Thematic level interpretation directly links to the research aim, excludes identical patterns and finds meaningful patterns in relation to the research questions. Explicit relations need to be established by using theoretical concepts to find the patterns for answering the research questions considering the institutional-level practice.

Three levels of analysis allowed us to understand the data as a whole, supporting the framework for defining the relations between cultural practices and the cognitive learning process.

Findings

The findings in relation to culturally valued practice and cognitive development have been derived based on the 95-min mosaic play video clips from the data set. Six vignettes and interpretations of the vignettes are presented below after three levels of analysis.

Planning phase—Identify a practical (social) need

The centre has a community partnership program with a local high school and the high school students and their teachers visit the centre to support the centre’s children in their play, learning, and wellbeing. The centre director plans with the educators, children, high school students, and their teachers that they are going to make a mural on the front wall to represent contemporary Aboriginal art. The director also shares the plan with the researcher, and they discuss STEM learning opportunities that might occur while building the flag with children. The people involved in this play are as follows: Cody (educator 1), Nel (student 1), Ana (child 1), Del (child 2), Jem (student 2), Kira (student 3), Mal (child 3). Hari (child 4), Cas (teacher 1), Tana (student 4), Ambi (child 5,), Son (child 6), Pal (educator 2), Moli (teacher 2), and three researchers. High school students are identified as student, centre children are called as child, centre educators are levelled as educator and high school teachers are identified as teacher.

In vignette 1, the director (Cody) explains to an educator and a researcher the initial plan as identified in the video footage in Vignette 1 and the interpretation of the vignette is presented.

Vignette 1: team plan

Cody (educator 1): So, what we will do in the centre is put the mosaic Aboriginal Flag on the wall. The director measures arms width from window to wall with arms.

Kal (educator) marks the wall with a stick and paint. So, we will paint the mural and put the flag right in the middle. We might do like the painting that we did with the kids, like, all white with the base coat and then cut the triangle patterns in it and use the earthy tones as the browns, the greys, and the blacks for the triangles. And then add big bright pop colours of circles.

Interpretation of vignette 1

The team discussed an Aboriginal mosaic flag would fit well with the mural art and a cultural representation would reflect through the flag and the art. Thus, they planned to build a mosaic flag as part of the outdoor play activity.

The educators identify a practical need to build a mosaic Aboriginal flag for completing the mural art as it is suggested an engineering practice needs to begin with a problem, need, or desire (National Research Council 2012). The educators’ desire is to showcase a cultural artefact on the front wall by hanging the Aboriginal flag along with the mural art in which the centre’s identities and culture are recognised and expressed (AGDE 2022). Planning to build a cultural flag as part of engineering learning could support the foundation of developing a higher form of scientific learning in future (Vygotsky 1987). Educators also identified children might learn relevant concepts of STEM while building the flag as supported by William Peunel (2016) that children need to learn science and engineering to address practical human needs. It reflects the educators’ goal to build a mosaic Aboriginal flag as part of their deliberate and purposeful intentional teaching plan (AGDE 2022). Additionally, goal-oriented thinking that addresses a problem or need is defined as engineering thinking according to the description of engineering by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) (NAE 2016).

Play-based action phase 1—Set up a culturally valued play experience in the social context

A culturally valued play experience has been set up for preschool children in an outdoor setting. The educators supplied resources from the centre, which were three colours (red, yellow, and black) mosaics, hammers (long and short), pillowcases and cotton bags, a wooden board, glue, and a sitting mat. Vignette 2 shows some active initial moments of everyone involved in the intentionally planned play experience resulting from the video log and the interpretation of the vignette is depicted here.

Vignette 2: Measuring, drawing, and setting the play

In the risk play setting, children are sitting around the wooden board on a mat with high school students, educators, and teachers. High school students and children work in pairs, and educators and teachers support them. Cody (educator 1) measures a circle on the board with a metal bowl (see Fig. 1), measures with a ruler on the edge of the board and draws the flag design using a pencil on the board. High school students start to smash tiles into smaller pieces in the pillowcases with hammers. First, children observe how older students break tiles using hammers; then, they directly take part in the experience as a team (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Design the flag

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Work as a pair in a team

Full size image

Interpretation of vignette 2

Children are encouraged to build the Aboriginal flag with competent others in a play-based social context, which is supportive in shaping children’s sense of cultural identity, such as valuing their flag and forming respectful behaviour towards their culture as part of their socio-cultural experience (Vygotsky 1994). Engaging children in culturally valued practice in the institutional context could support them in forming their cultural identity (AGDE 2022).

Children are paired with high school students where educators and teachers support them as needed in this context and work in collaboration as a team to build the flag (Vygotsky 1987). As supported by Lippard et al. (2017), concepts of engineering need to be explored with hands-on materials with active partners to achieve the goal, and the activity needs to be meaningful and joyful to children and other parties. Children use hammers to break the mosaic tiles into smaller pieces with the support of more knowledgeable others in this context is viewed as risk play (Sandseter 2007) and as a common socio-cultural experience in the centre. This planned experience might be viewed as risky from the adult point of view, whereas children find this an exciting activity (Sandseter 2007).

Play-based action phase 2—experiencing science and engineering in a play-based setting

Vignette 3: Observing, hammering, smashing, and breaking the tiles

Students and children use hammers to tap tiles in pillowcases.

Cody (educator 1): You need to smash the tiles in the bag. Because, when you hit the tiles, shards can get into your eyes. So, we need to make sure when we are smashing them, they are in the bags.

Nel (student) takes a hammer and shows Ana (child) how to tap on the tiles. Nel begins tapping on the pillowcase, Ana observes the activity. Ana begins smashing tiles with a hammer with the support of Nel.

Pal (educator 2): Be careful of your fingers.

Ana and Nel hit the tiles with a hammer in each hand. Pal: That’s it, Ana, smashing it very hard, push hard, up, and down. Nel opens the bag and looks inside, then shakes the bag. Nel: There are still some really big ones in there, she rolls the bag and closes it again. Nel continues hammering the tiles in the bag.

Hari (child) hits tiles while the bag is open. Tana (student): Watch out, we can’t do that and takes the hammer from Hari. Tana hits the tiles in the bag and passes Hari the hammer to try. Hari holds the hammer with both hands and begins hitting the bag. Cas (teacher): That’s excellent. Cas: They are really hard to break.

Del (child) taps the wooden board with a hammer. Students redirect Del back to tapping tiles in the bag. Del begins smashing tiles in the bag with a hammer. Students hammer fast and hard on the bag. Pal: Watch out for your hands, girls! Jem: Are you finished with the yellow ones, Del? Are they small enough? Pal: Umm, maybe do them a little bit smaller?

Pal sets up a tiles bag for Mal (child) at one side, and Mal starts to smash the tiles. Son (child) joins there. Kira provides another hammer to Mal. Son and Mal are hammering tiles. Pal: Up down, up down, wow, that’s a big one. Son: This is a hammer. Pal: It is a hammer, a big one. Pal: Son, are they big or small? Son is using the hammer to bang the pillowcase. He stops and looks inside the bag.

Interpretation of vignette 3

The team uses everyday technology hammers to smash the tiles. The educator’s explanation about the process of smashing the tiles and provides safety precautions (Fig. 3), and how things need to be built at the beginning provides the educator’s active role in supporting children’s learning of engineering concepts (Fleer 2020). Each child observes and imitates how the high school students and educators smash the tiles using a hammer (Fig. 4) before they start their actions. Vygotsky (1987, p. 210) argues, “imitation is the source of instruction’s influence on development” at this age. Observing is a science process skill to gain information from educators (Campbell and Chealuck 2015) and others who are skilled, in the task. The cause and effect of hammering are perceived by children while smashing the tiles, which are the learning process of concept formation while interacting with how things work at an everyday level (Vygotsky 1987). Children are actively engaged, and they receive support from competent persons in the context as learning occurs in the social context while meaningful interactions occur between an individual and a competent person (Vygotsky 1987).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Educator’s instructions

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Educator’s demonstration, and hammering

Full size image

Educators’ purposeful interactions with children regarding small science learning throughout the process, such as “they are really hard to break”, are evident, and children’s small science learning occurs with the support of adults, such as smashing it very hard, up and down, push hard, shake, big, small and rolling (Sikder and Fleer 2015). Educators are conscious of the risk play and constantly remind children to be aware of their fingers and eyes during hammering (Sandseter 2007). The collective experience of teamwork supports children's cultural development as outward influences and creates conditions for them to develop engineering learning skills through everyday play (Vygotsky 1994). The team works together to build a mosaic flag for achieving the specific goal where construction and goal orientation are evident as part of engineering skills (Bagiati and Evangelou 2016).

Vignette 4: Classifying and comparing

Cas passes the bowl for sorting tiles to a student. Tana tips tiles in a brass bowl. She begins sorting the smashed tiles into groups. She takes out big tiles that have not been smashed and places them back in the pillowcase, and Ambi helps Tana. Tana sorts tiles to find the right size and shape to fit on board. Tana: Can you help me find some little ones and open the bag? Tana and Hari sort black tiles in the bag.

Jem: We need to wait for the red one to glue on the board. Cas: Where is the bag that had all the red ones? Nel points to the bag that Ana is hammering. Nel: Yeah this one, so it is small. Cody: Those are really good sizes to use.

Cas: Do we want to help them do the red one first? What are we going to do with the yellow tiles?

Del and Jem sort the yellow tiles. Jem: You have to put the yellow in here by pointing to the circle drawn on board in the centre. Cas: Are these too big? Do you want to put them back in the bag to smash, and chuck those (small sizes) in the bowl? The student sorts the smashed tiles into groups.

Cody: Ambi, do you know about the Aboriginal flag? Do you know what does black mean? What is the black, who knows the black? Nel: The sky! Cody: The people? And sky? The red is the land, and the yellow is the sun and the black is the people so that is why we know it’s an Aboriginal flag.

Interpretation of vignette 4

High school students sort the tiles based on sizes and children learn from them and help to sort the tiles as supported by teachers and educators. Adults constantly support and asks questions about the sizes of the tiles and colours to match them on the board to students and children. For example, “are these too big”, “put big one back in the bag to smash, and chuck those small sizes in the bowl”, "those are really good sizes to use”, “help them do the red one first”, “what are we going to do with the yellow tiles”. Adults’ questioning and supporting dialogue for children help them for developing small science concepts (Sikder and Fleer 2018) such as grouping the tiles (Fig. 5) and comparing (Fig. 6) the sizes of the tiles and identifying the colours to design the Aboriginal flag. The science process skill classifying (Campbell and Chealuck 2015) is experienced while children are classifying the tiles, and science in practice is needed to understand “how science and engineering figure in and are developed through those social practices” (Penuel 2016, p. 90). For children, play is their regular social practice as they are actively communicating and collaborating as part of engineering habits of minds (Lippard et al. 2019) to use science in practice to achieve the goal of science and engineering in the play context. The educator’s questions and supporting dialogues about the Aboriginal flag such as “what does black mean”, “black means people”, to the toddler and other children specifically promote their thinking to develop their consciousness and understanding of symbols of the colour of the flag, as meaningful perception grows at early childhood age (Vygotsky 1987). The flag reflects their cultural experience and children are forming their cultural identity through participating in the flag-building action, in the socio-cultural (Vygotsky 1994) and institutional context of the action, and a clear purpose embedded in the action (Penuel and Wertsch 1995).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Classifying

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Comparing the tiles

Full size image

Vignette 5: Gluing the tiles on the wooden board

Tana passes Hari a paintbrush and points to the glue pot next to the board. Hari places a small black tile on board on the far edge. Pal: Make sure they are nearly touching, Hari. Then she shows practically how to glue tiles together, and Hari follows the instructions. Pal: That’s how you need to stick them, and that’s perfect. Hari carefully aligns tiles together. Pal: Stick it a little closer again. Great work, that’s really good. Hari continues sticking black tiles down, swapping and rotating tiles to fit in the gaps.

Ambi places a tile on the board with glue, and Tana provides instructions. Jem shows Del how to place tile pieces on the glue carefully and Del begins putting glue on the board. Ana begins adding red tiles to glue on the board. Ambi puts a black tile on the red side and Jem intercedes. Jem: Oh, put the black ones up there (points to black tiles in the opposite corner of the board). Ambi paints glue on the board and then sticks a single piece of tile down one at a time.

Cas: Tana can you explain to the kids why we are putting the colours where? So how come the black is going up the top? Cas: And what are we making? Nel: the Aboriginal flag. Cas: Yeah that’s right, the black goes on the top. Cas: So, make sure you push them down, guys, so they stick. Ambi sticks the tiles and pushes the tile down hard with her fingertips.

Cas: Hari, what goes in the middle? What colour goes in the middle? Hari: Yellow! They spread glue in the centre of the board in the circle and start placing yellow tiles in the circle. Pal: Try and get the pieces right next to the other one. Cas: Push on them like this and leave a little space. Ana: Only the yellow goes in the middle. Cas: Good girl Hari, push it in the middle.

Cas: So, remember Cody wants us to keep a 1-mm space between the tiles, so move tiles close together as she will grout it. Jem: So, we have to push them together. Cody returns to the play corner. Cody: How is it going? It looks really good, so with the gaps, we want to keep them really close together. Cody: The hardest part is you have to set them as tessellating, so, try and get the same shape triangles to align it. If we use too much grout, the grout will crack, and the tiles will fall out, so that’s why we need it really close, like a millimetre, particularly for round a circle.

Students and children continue sticking small pieces of tiles down to fill gaps. Pal: We have to make sure we put all the little tiles in the gaps to fill it up so there is no space. They are rotating tiles and using trial and error skills to find gaps.

Interpretation of vignette 5

Educators consciously demonstrate how to stick the tiles on the board using glue (Fig. 7), and children and students repeat the process of applying glue and sticking tiles down one by one (Fig. 8). This everyday experience supports children in understanding the relationships between concepts and objects (Vygotsky 1987), which enhances their small science learning, such as pushing hard, sticking the tiles with glue (Sikder and Fleer 2018), and the educators use simple scientific narration to explain the cause and effect of the moment (Sikder and Fleer 2015). To design the Aboriginal flag correctly, students and children need to place the three coloured tiles in the right place on the board based on the drawing done by the educator. A child makes an error to put a black tile piece on the red side, and school students provide instructions on where to put them. The teacher asks questions such as “How come the black is going up the top?” and school students explain which coloured tiles will go where. Children apply the instructions successfully, and instructions move ahead of development when children grow to a certain level of maturation, which leads to concept formation (Vygotsky 1987). Children learn from knowledgeable others and act accordingly in constructing the flag, and they select the best actions, and solve the problem as a team to design the flag, which progresses children’s engineering (scientific) learning process through collaboration (Vygotsky 1987).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Gluing instruction by educator

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Gluing in action by children and students

Full size image

The scientific language tessellation and grout are used by the educator to explain the design and construction of the flag and children understand the science language through actions (Penuel 2016). Children develop engineering skills such as problem-solving, constructing, and design testing (Bagiati and Evangelou 2016) in the play-based context. The educator explains the cause and effect in a simple narration to build the flag such as “keep a very small gap of a millimetre between the tiles”, then the team finds the gaps and refills the tiles in the gap. In every step of constructing the flag, collective dialogue (Sikder and Fleer 2018) is evident whether educators ask questions or provide logical explanations to students and children or vice versa to extend children’s thinking and STEM learning process (AGDE 2022). Constructing the Aboriginal flag in the play-based social context provides a rich cultural experience to the children in which they form cultural behaviour through social interactions (Vygotsky 1994).

Outcome phase or product phase

The team finally built the Aboriginal mosaic flag after spending 95-min together in the play context.

Vignette 6: Completion of the flag-building process

Ana: Does that go in the middle? It goes red, black and yellow, that’s the colour of my flag. Cas: Oh, can you sing me the song?

Pal (sings): Here is the land, here is the sky, red black and yellow is the colour of my flag… is the flag for me. Ana sings softly along with Pal. Cas: yeah cool! Beautiful singer!

A high school student: I think we are done. Pal: Alright guys a few more minutes. Pal: Ana, you popped that one down the wrong way, can you fix that one up? Tana flips the tile for Ana and they begin sorting tiles, finding small tiles, and rearranging tiles that will fit the remaining gaps.

Ness (a researcher): You guys are working really well together, it’s like you are an engineer designing this flag. Ana and Nel look back and smile. Nel: It’s red, black, and yellow.

Ana places tiles on glue in space and pushes down with fingertips. They rearrange tiles to fit the gap.

Pal: Hari, Ana you say thank you for the girls helping you and they thank each other. Pal: A really good job, that’s amazing.

Field Notes: Ana and Hari told their parents that they made the flag while they dropped them off in the centre and they looked very happy and proud to see their constructed flag on the wall. They also tell their extended family that they have made the Aboriginal flag as engineers do.

Interpretation of vignette 6

The team continuously constructs the mosaic flag for about one and a half hours, and educators and senior students continuously support children in solving the issues, such as finding the wrong coloured tiles in the wrong place and finding the gaps on the board. The team rotated tiles to fit into different gaps, sorting shapes and sizes for filling the gaps and putting the correct coloured tiles in the right place on the board. Children build the flag as a team (Fig. 9) with the support of knowledgeable others. As Vygotsky (1987) argued, “With collaboration, direction, or some kind of help, children can always do more and solve more difficult tasks that they can do independently” (p. 209). Demonstrating, questioning, explaining, mediating concepts, and engaging in shared thinking and problem-solving extend children’s small science and early engineering learning process in the context (AGDE 2022). Educators engage children throughout the process, and children show their patience and confidence in constructing the flag for a long time and enjoying the process, such as singing the song about the Aboriginal flag. Play provides a satisfactory experience to children when they fulfil their roles and rules (Vygotsky 1966) as children are satisfied and fulfil their end goal through constructing the flag, which supports building their early engineering skills.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Final product by the team

Full size image

Creativity is evident as children strive to fulfil their goal and optimism is reflected through children’s motivation to engage in the task for a long time (Lippard et al. 2019). The researcher named them as engineers, and children’s facial expressions ensure they would like to be an engineer in this culturally valued play-based setting. Children proudly told their parents and relatives that they were involved in constructing the Aboriginal flag as engineers, and they felt valued to be part of the activity. Children’s social positioning as engineers engages them in constructing the flag, which is part of culturally valued practices, supporting them to develop their social and cultural heritages (Vygotsky 1994) with elders and community members in which identities and culture are recognised and expressed (AGDE 2022). The Aboriginal flag as a final product is hung on the front wall (Fig. 10) of the centre, representing an achievement of children’s specific goal of being an engineer in need-based practice (NAE 2016) as part of their play.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Aboriginal flag in the mural art

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

4P phases model for STEM learning based on the chosen culturally valued play experience

Full size image

Pedagogical reflection phase

Cody has been interviewed several times based on the activities she sets up for children as part of the STEM project. She chooses culturally valued practice as she is confident about her cultural knowledge and capably links discipline knowledge with cultural activities. Cody reflected that the mosaic Aboriginal flag activity had multiple impacts. First, cultural identity is recognised during the flag-building process, and children feel empowered when involved with ‘elder’ students as part of a community partnership program (AGDE 2022). This experience will have a long-term effect on the children’s memory as they are actively engaged in the process, and children’s memory is dominant during the preschool age for concept formation (Vygotsky 1987). It is suggested that children need to be engaged in STEM-related activities to produce STEM-qualified workforces (Australian Industry Group 2017) in the future.

The director stressed in her interview that it is their cultural belief that children are competent and confident from birth and will mature their knowledge with various experiences such as risk play and the support of knowledgeable others. Risk play is a way of experience that supports children to be mature in their real-life activities (Sandseter 2017). Thus, they use some tools such as a hammer in some play activities with the support of educators in the centre. She emphasises that one play-based experience could support children’s conceptual learning in many ways, such as science or art; however, adults need to be conscious to link with the discipline knowledge (Sikder 2015). The director shows confidence that a similar culturally valued play-based experience could be arranged to support children’s science and engineering learning in play-based settings.

Discussion

This paper analyses how culturally valued rich play experience (Vygotsky 1994) can support children’s STEM learning process, specifically focusing on small science and early engineering learning in practice and how the engineering activity extends relevant social skills and shapes their cultural identity in the institutional context (AGDE 2022).

Four phases are outlined to understand the holistic process of how children’s STEM learning process and cultural identity are developed in a culturally valued play experience. The four phases model (Fig. 11) is derived based on the chosen culturally valued play activity, which is the Planning phase, Play-based action phase, Product or outcome phase, and Pedagogical reflection phase (4P phases) as discussed below.

Planning phase

Building a mosaic Aboriginal flag as part of a cultural understanding of risk play has been chosen based on a practical need (Peunel 2016). The flag was hung on the wall as a part of the mural artwork in the centre. Two goals are planned, an end-specific visible goal is to construct the mosaic Aboriginal flag, which supports their small science and engineering learning within play-based settings (Vygotsky 1966), and the invisible goal is to support and shape children’s cultural identity during the engineering play-based experience (Vygotsky 1994). Drawing specific goals (NAE 2016) as part of the culturally designed play activity and educators’ intentions (Lippard et al. 2017) are key to implementing the engineering activity in the planning phase.

Play-based action phase

Educators set up the activity for children as part of outdoor play, and they play a supportive role in engaging children thoroughly, as observed in play. Educators’ explanation, demonstration, and questioning (AGDE 2022) assist children in mediating concepts of early engineering process and relevant small science learning as part of progressing scientific concept formation (Vygotsky 1987). STEM language learning through the activity could impact the children’s learning for a long time as scientific concepts need to be saturated with concrete (Vygotsky 1987).

Consciousness is the key to any concept formation (Vygotsky 1987), and the team consciously solve many problems, such as which size of the tiles was suitable, how much gap was needed between the tiles, placing the right colour tiles in the designated spot, and gluing the tiles correctly while building the flag. Brainstorming occurred between educators, teachers, students, and children, and they solved each problem as a team through consulting, design testing, and finally making a decision based on the most promising idea suitable for constructing the flag (Bagiati and Evangelou 2016). The collective conversation (Sikder and Fleer 2018) is evident while solving problems or deciding the most promising design, and children’s questions, and opinions are observed throughout the vignettes. Children’s creativity is enhanced as they are engaged in each step, such as smashing, classifying, and gluing and their opinions are considered while solving problems (Lippard et al. 2019). Children learn the meaning of the three colours of the Aboriginal flag and form their cultural respect and values throughout the process (Vygotsky 1994).

Product phase

Two significant outcomes are evident through the play-based experience (Vygotsky 1966), one visible and the other invisible outcome. The Aboriginal flag as part of the visible outcome could create a long-term effect in the children’s minds as they can see the flag regularly on the centre’s wall and discuss their contribution to the flag-building process with their parents and relatives. Children feel empowered and valued as they express their contributions with pride. The invisible outcome is embedded in the process in which children experience STEM language such as smashing hard, size of the tiles, using hammers, and engineering skills such as teamwork, problem-solving, decision-making, collective conversation, designing and many more in the play-based context which are the preliminary forms of scientific concept formation (Vygotsky 1987). Throughout the process, children also develop social skills such as communication and collaboration, which are also important for progressing engineering habits of mind (Lippard et al. 2019). For this culturally valued practice, educators engage children through collective conversation and questioning in shared thinking to understand the symbol of the three colours of the flag, and they conclude by singing the song of the Aboriginal flag, linking their learning with their culture. It is evident, as educators support and shape children’s cultural behaviour, cultural reasoning and, to some extent, cultural identity (Vygotsky 1994), that the children will grow their cultural identity as an invisible outcome of this activity.

Pedagogical reflection phase

The fourth phase focuses on educators’ reflection on the overall process and how this culturally valued experience could be planned for future learning. It was supported that the culturally valued experience had been chosen as the educator was firstly confident to teach discipline knowledge through the mosaic planned experience, and secondly that it could provide important links between STEM conceptual knowledge and the local community culture (e.g., Indigenous). Through this experience, educators developed an understanding of how they could teach small science and engineering in culturally valued play-based settings where children’s cultural identity could be shaped throughout the process.

Conclusion

Culturally valued play-based experience (e.g., risk play) could provide opportunities for children’s small science learning, early engineering skills, and social skills and help shape their cultural identity. The prerequisite of the final form of scientific concepts at school age is to form a certain degree of maturation of a system of interrelated concepts at everyday levels, which could be formed through consciousness of meaningful perception and memory at early childhood and preschool age (Vygotsky 1987). Educators might progress their learning and confidence to teach small science and early engineering skills in play-based settings when they could choose the activity from their community culture or centre-based practice. It has often been argued that teachers have a lack of confidence in teaching STEM, specifically teaching science and engineering (MacDonald et al. 2021). However, educators need to be conscious about discipline knowledge in the planning phase and their intentional teaching plan to support children’s small science learning and early engineering skills.

Instructions in processing concept formation play a convincing role in the child’s mental development, however, children’s particular level of maturation is needed for instruction (Vygotsky 1987). Therefore, adults' instructions in the play-based experience or explanation of any concepts need to be delivered to children based on their level of mental maturation. It is established that small science learning through simple scientific narrations could be understood by children from infants-toddlers age (Sikder and Fleer 2015). It is found collective dialogue of small science moments in the environment could enhance children’s small science learning (Sikder and Fleer 2018) in the risk play, such as smashing the tiles, smashing them very hard, up and down, push hard, shake and rolls, identify the different coloured tiles and sorting, grouping and classifying based on shape and size and much more. It is argued small science learning could support the development of children’s academic science concepts for the future (Sikder and Fleer 2015). For example, using a hammer to smash the tiles could support children in understanding smashing as small science learning in practice, which will lead them to understand the abstract concept of momentum in the future.

This culturally valued play creates conditions of an engineering working culture for children (Vygotsky 1994) as they follow the roles and rules, work as a team to achieve the goal and finally, gain satisfaction with their outcome (Vygotsky 1966). Children worked for a visible goal which was to build the Aboriginal flag based on social needs. To achieve their goal, they became little engineers, experienced small science concepts, and progressed their cultural identity throughout the process. This would count as the invisible outcome of this intentional play-based experience. Collective conversation and actions support children’s early engineering skills, which form their mental habits and methods of reasoning, such as problem-solving, design testing, and decision-making, and this is because all of them are aware of the final goal (Vygotsky 1994). Children ask questions, observe, and are guided by competent others throughout this experience, and the collaboration with competent others is the initial process of any scientific concept formation (Vygotsky 1987). They also explored the characteristics of the hands-on materials with active partners and received educators’ explanations and demonstrations for engineering actions, such as construction, redesigning, and rebuilding as needed. Cultural identity has been shaped while educators explain the symbol and meanings of the flag, sing the song together or work to build the flag as part of a collaborative effort. It is important to understand that children’s cultural sense of identity does not develop instantly, rather it grows gradually through culturally rich experiences (Vygotsky 1994) in the institutional context (AGDE 2022).

The 4P phases (plan, play-based action, product, and pedagogical reflection) model provides a conceptual framework for undertaking STEM (science and engineering focus in this paper)-based research in culturally valued play-based practice. The flexibility of the model is that educators could choose the culturally valued or centre-based play experience in the planning phase based on their expertise and set the expected goal to link with the STEM-related discipline knowledge. In this paper, the goal is to shape children’s cultural identity as they learn about the Aboriginal flag and link their play experience with small science and engineering learning processes. Gradually, educators could develop expertise if they apply the model in teaching science and engineering in play-based experience, where intentional teaching pedagogy is central to this model. It is argued pedagogical relationships between intentional teaching and play-based learning are still unresolved (Grieshaber et al. 2021); however, the 4P phases model is more than simply a pedagogical model for educators to understand intentional teaching in play-based learning. Rather, the model provides clear guidelines on how to teach early STEM concepts in a play-based setting based on educators’ confidence, choices, and expertise as part of the intentional teaching plan. Further research is recommended for children’s play-based STEM learning based on the diversity or culture of the early childhood centre, which will help educators plan for intentional teaching for the early STEM conceptual learning process along with currently available resources.