Advertisement

Children’s Collaborative Learning in Science Scaffolded by Tablets

  • Marie Fridberg
  • Andreas Redfors
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development book series (CHILD, volume 22)

Abstract

This chapter discusses a project aiming to extend current understandings of how emerging technologies can be used in preschools to support collaborative learning of real-life science phenomena. Based on the theoretical framework of phenomenography and a mixed-methods approach, the study examined the potential of computer tablets to support collaborative inquiry-based science learning in preschools, with a special interest in explanatory models, active involvement, collaboration and reflective and critical thinking. The research specifically investigated the role of time-lapse and stop-motion animations in developing children’s understanding of science phenomena. In synthesising two domains of science learning, content (concepts, explanatory models) and investigations (hypotheses, problematising, questions, experiments), the study reported in this chapter shows how stop-motion animations help children to more consciously consider concepts and explanatory models. The reported analysis of the empirical data from the first phase of the project shows the potential for the use of stop-motion for teachers and children in preschools to jointly develop, enact and evaluate learning activities in science scaffolded by ubiquitous technologies.

References

  1. Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2012). A ‘semantic’ view of scientific models for science education. Science & Education, 22(7), 1593–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erduran, S., & Dagher, R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. In Contemporary trends and issues in science education, 43. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Eshach, H. (2006). Science literacy in primary schools and pre-schools. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Fleer, M. (2009). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39, 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleer, M. (2013). Affective imagination in science education: Determining the emotional nature of scientific and technological learning of young children. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2085–2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleer, M., & Hoban, G. (2012). Using ‘slowmation’ for intentional teaching in early childhood centres: Possibilities and imaginings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(3), 61–70.Google Scholar
  10. Fridberg, M, Redfors, A., & Thulin S. (2017). Preschool children’s communication during collaborative learning of water phases scaffolded by tablets. Research in Science Education. (Accepted – in print).Google Scholar
  11. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Galili, I., & Bar, V. (1997). Children’s operational knowledge about weight. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoban, G. (2007). Using Slowmation for engaging pre-service elementary teachers in understanding science content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  14. Johansson, E., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2006). Lek och läroplan. Möten mellan barn och lärare i förskola och skola [Play and curriculum; in Swedish] (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 249). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  15. Lindner, A.-C., & Redfors, A. (2007). Partikelmodell som utgångspunkt för elevers förklaringar av avdunstning. NorDiNa – Nordic Studies in Science Education, 3(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography – Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marton, F. (2014). Necessary conditions of learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2013). Learning through the affordances of representation construction. In V. Prain, R. Tytler, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 67–82). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pramling, I. (1990). Learning to learn. A study of Swedish preschool children. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the preschool Lpfö 98 revised 2010. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  23. Thulin, S., & Redfors, A. (2016). Student preschool teachers’ experiences of science and its role in preschool. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(4), 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tytler, R. (1998). The nature of student’s informal science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 901–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tytler, R. (2000). A comparison of year 1 and year 6 students’ conceptions of evaporation and condensation: Dimensions of conceptual progression. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education. Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Council for Educational Research. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/AER51_ReimaginingSciEdu.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LISMAKristianstad UniversityKristianstadSweden

Personalised recommendations