Keywords

1 Introduction

Policy-documents in science education internationally emphasize that there is great value in teaching science to children already in preschool (Delserieys et al., 2018; Akerblom & Thorstag, 2021). Several studies have shown that 6-year-old children are able to think scientifically, using deductive reasoning and hypothesizing, and demonstrating at least an incipient command of the skills that scientists use in their work (Canedo-Ibarra et al., 2010). Obviously, these abilities are still in development in children, and this development requires that children be provided with various opportunities and contexts for learning (Sutton-Smith, 1970; Gelman & Brenneman, 2004). In that way, intellectual development follows manipulation and interaction with objects and phenomena, but also with other people (peers or adults).

1.1 Science Process Skills (SPS)

Notwithstanding the relevance of scientific concepts (phenomena, theories and models), science must be understood as a tool to understand the way the world works, with joy and pleasure. As such, the teaching of science at school should seek to equip children with skills to continue exploring and learning throughout life, which is achieved through the development of basic skills, by exposing them to situations in which science is done (Harlen, 1999). Indeed, doing science involves unique process skills, which can be defined as “a set of broadly transferable abilities, appropriate to many science disciplines and reflective of the behaviour of scientists” (Padilla, 1990), and which include actions such as critical thinking, hypothesizing, manipulating and reasoning skills. The basic (simpler) process skills – observing, inferring, measuring, communicating, classifying, predicting – provide a foundation for learning the integrated (more complex) skills – controlling variables, defining operationally, formulating hypotheses, experimenting, formulating models – and SPS are inseparable in practice from the conceptual understanding that is involved in learning and applying science (Harlen & Gardner, 2010; Ilma et al., 2020).

The development of SPS depends on the maturation of the child, which may constrain or limit the development of more complex process skills. Some authors recommend that only the basic SPS be taught to young children (Rezba et al., 2007, cited in Vartianen & Kumpulainen, 2019). Others, however, such as Ergül et al. (2011), suggest that children develop thinking by using the different SPS. Furthermore, Ergül et al. (2011) suggests that the SPS are hierarchical so that children need to acquire the basic SPS first before they can acquire the more advanced SPS. In conclusion, the learning of SPS should never be neglected with excuses, such as lack of time or overloaded programmes.

1.2 Facilitating the Learning of Science in the Classroom

Undoubtedly, free play provides a variety of opportunities for learning and developing SPS. However, the intervention of the adult can be pivotal in moving children from their actual development zone to the proximal development zone (sensu Vygotski), overcoming the limitations of discovery learning. This adult intervention may include a range of actions, from providing adequate environments that facilitate the development of their experiences (Santer et al., 2007; van Limped et al., 2020), to guiding exploration with timely clues.

The first factors supporting the development of science concepts and skills are adequate spaces and materials, i.e. materials that are safe, natural, open-ended, scientifically rigorous and quotidian (Pedreira & Márquez, 2017) in stimulating spaces that promote exploration (Santer et al., 2007).

The second factor is language, which is foundational to science learning. Not only technical vocabulary allows the learner to be more precise; also, dialogic talk, in which there is an interchange with the aim of exploring an event in depth. This provokes thinking and can help students to construct new representations that they did not have yet (Canedo-Ibarra et al., 2010). Furthermore, depending on how the questions are formulated and when the teacher intervenes, their effect can vary greatly, from promotion to inhibition of exploratory learning (Harlen, 2018).

In this vein, asking a good question is the first step towards a good answer because that question invites the students to continue exploring where the answer can be found. As Fine and Desmond (2015) state, open-ended questions that follow the learning objectives are capable of directing the child’s thinking. In this sense, productive questions (Martens, 1999) engage the children in deep exploration, increase the time they spend focusing their attention on the task that is being done, or prompt them to establish relationships among concepts and ideas.

All things considered, the attitude of the teacher, and the degree and the intent of adult intervention may determine the outcome of the instruction, and more specifically the development of skills. Indeed, the scaffolding provided – including the degree of intervention, timing and format as depending on when the instruction is given – determines the orientation and intensity of exploratory behaviour (Bonawitz et al., 2010). Productive teaching should support children in generating powerful ideas and coherent arguments (Granja, 2015). This involves finding a careful trade-off between giving direct instructions and letting children explore.

According to Pedreira (2018), adult intervention can be based on the level of directivity (adult’s choice as to whether to give new ideas or not) and also in tune with the child considering what he or she is doing. If these two dimensions are interrelated, the different types of standard intervention appear (Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1
An illustration. It has 2 bidirectional arrows labeled, directivity along the y-axis and tune with the child along the x-axis. Ignores, listens, dialogues, and imposes are in clockwise order.

Styles of adult intervention

Full size image

1.3 Objectives

The objectives of the research were two-fold: first, to describe the effect of a proposal intended to develop SPS in the learning of science among young children; and second, to describe the impact of adult intervention on the engagement with science tasks and their impact on learning.

More precisely, we aimed to answer the following two research questions:

  • Does a proposal built around basic SPS also improve knowledge on the selected topics?

  • How does the style of adult intervention impact the development of SPS and content acquisition?

2 Research design and method

2.1 Participants

The participants included a convenience sample of 42 children, aged four to six, belonging to three classes (A: n = 14; B: n = 13; C: n = 15), all attending the same public school. The institution approved the execution of the study.

The leader teacher was a pre-service teacher, who had received specific training on the development of Inquiry-Based Science Education and productive questioning, accompanied by three teachers (female; aged 38–47; 14–21 years of experience). Both the in-service and the pre-service teachers were instructed on the style of adult guidance to apply during each intervention.

Each group was divided into three subgroups, which followed three different types of adult intervention: adult-led (directive; ‘imposed’ in Fig. 4.1), children-led (discovery; ‘listening’ in Fig. 4.1) and guided (exploration guided by productive questions; ‘dialogue’ in Fig. 4.1).

2.2 Design of the Intervention

Groups A and B (second course, 4–5 years old) participated in a proposal related to magnetism, and C (third course; 5–6 years old) carried out an observation of ants. Despite the different themes, the three proposals specifically targeted the development of process skills and included phenomena that are within reach and belong to the everyday context of children. Therefore, they served as a context to attempt different degrees of adult intervention.

The first proposal, the ‘ant observation’, comprised seven sessions, which involved looking at the ants in the school yard and taking care of an anthill inside the classroom, as well as some sessions for discussion about facts and findings. SPS were mainly observing and communicating, but also inferring, predicting, measuring or interpreting data.

The activities were adapted to the styles of adult intervention (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Adaptation of the activities in the ‘ant observation’ according to the different styles of adult intervention
Full size table

The second proposal, ‘magnetism’, included six activities, which included exploring the properties of magnetic and non-magnetic materials, and magnetic interactions. SPS included observing, communicating, comparing, inferring and predicting, but also interpreting data and measuring.

2.3 Data Collection and Analysis

Annotations and audio recordings were transcribed and analysed by applying techniques of content analysis to ascertain learning gains and the presence and degree of development of SPS. Each of the literal transcripts (see, for example, Table 4.4) were skimmed for evidence of SPS (instances of observation, description, making inferences, etc.) and then graduated according to the level of complexity. For example, for communication, judgements were made on the precision in the use of language, meaningful introduction of technical vocabulary; for predicting, making predictions based on the observed phenomena or models, and not just on everyday experience or intuition. In addition, drawings and written productions were taken at different moments of the process. These served to measure the progression in knowledge.

Given the small sample size and the difficulty in gathering systematic data from children at this age, the variety of evidence collected was used just to illustrate the range of answers produced in each situation. No quantitative comparisons were made.

When analysing the drawings, attention was given to the anatomy (number and proportion of body parts, number of legs, and presence of antennae), behaviour (number of ants, gregarious behaviour) and environment (anthills).

3 Findings

Following the ant observation sequence, the three groups improved the knowledge of the anatomy and behaviour of these insects (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Sample drawings, before and after the intervention, for each group
Full size table

When we analysed the knowledge gains, in terms of both contents and SPS, it became clear that pupils in the child-led group got lost more frequently, and even had difficulties persisting with the exploration. In turn, students in the adult-led group demonstrated the highest retention of concepts, with no improvement in SPS (inferring, predicting, interpreting data, etc.). Last, children in the guided exploration group advanced most in SPS, although not all the concepts were mastered. In this last group, teachers’ productive questions were decisive to trigger processes (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Productive questions and answers. Guided exploration group
Full size table

In the same vein, in the proposal about magnetism, all the groups acquired the basic concepts: there are magnetic and non-magnetic materials, magnets have two poles, oppositely charged magnetic poles repel each other, magnetic attraction (or repulsion) is a weak force that acts at a certain distance, and it is possible to temporally turn some metallic objects into magnets. Children showed some degree of development in certain basic and integrated SPS, including predicting, making inferences or posing hypotheses (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 Examples of the development of SPS
Full size table

Regarding the effect of adult intervention, pupils in the adult-led intervention proved less autonomous and more dependent on adult supervision. In the children-led group, conceptual development was scarce, while those in the guided investigation made better observations and better inferences. Indeed, making productive questions increased the detail of the answers provided (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Comparative outcomes following open and productive questions
Full size table

4 Discussion

Contrary to the commonly held belief, this proposal has shown that infant children are able to think scientifically and progress in their scientific thinking (Canedo-Ibarra et al., 2010; Robbins, 2005). Specifically, they have demonstrated understanding of some a priori complex concepts, such as magnetic attraction or the anatomy and social organisation of insect communities. Throughout the proposal, the children progressed in the use of SPS, confirming that children may develop their SPS when given appropriate contexts (Sutton-Smith, 1970). This requires that children be exposed to suitable environments and materials (Santer et al., 2007) that are safe and supportive, but also challenging.

The type of questions that are asked is crucial for the development of good thinking (Elstgeest, 1985), with productive questions that prompt the children to focus their attention or find a solution leading to much more accurate and complete answers. The choice of the topic and contexts for the research, and the instruments and materials provided, were key to the development of SPS: The development of scientific skills has increased, especially in the guided exploration group (dialogue). The key factors that supported this improvement were: to start from an interesting topic for the students, to ask them productive questions, to ensure an adequate classroom climate in which to carry out their inquiry, and, last, to provide them with instruments and materials, such as magnifying glasses and marbles of magnets, which increase their interest.

Maximum development of SPS was achieved by the guided exploration group, following a higher interest in exploration, due to the questions and challenges that were being set (Bonawitz et al., 2010).

Indeed, experience does not directly generate knowledge (Hodson, 1994; Kite et al., 2021), unless there are some intellectual interplays happening (Couso, 2014). For this, the intervention of the adult guiding the class talk is crucial (Harlen, 2018). Better results in the guided exploration group (similar content acquisition with better SPS development) can be explained by a better and more sustained exploration, following the questions and challenges set (Bonawitz et al., 2010). However, SPS had a limited development in the adult-led group: While they participated in observation, they only rarely formed hypotheses or made adequate predictions. In turn, students in the child-led group had difficulties following the processes and thus did not go deeper into the properties and behaviour of the materials.

Also, the type of questions proved decisive to promote thinking (Elstgeest, 1985). Simple, closed questions that aim at knowledge reproduction do not have an effect on the development of SPS. On the contrary, questions that help focus attention result in answers that are much more accurate and complete. Preschool teachers have a big responsibility to help students open their minds, hook them with open but productive questions following the scientific method and education by inquiry, as it makes children critical and empowered in their learning (Fine & Desmond, 2015).

All this confirms that at preschool, the adult plays a central role, not only in the acquisition of concepts, but essentially in the development of SPS that equip the students for learning throughout life. However, in-service preschool teachers are often reluctant to engage in science projects that they perceive as too difficult for their students. Hence the importance of teacher trainings, which make teachers feel confident, prepared, open-minded and capable of reaching new horizons (Elstgeest, 1985).

5 Conclusion

When provided with adequate support and stimulating situations, children at the preschool age show at least an incipient command of some SPS. The style of adult intervention strongly determined the outcome of the activity, with guided exploration (autonomous exploration guided by productive questions) producing more insightful observations and interpretations, as compared to adult-led and discovery approaches.