Cult Stud of Sci Educ (2014) 9:275296

DOI 10.1007/s11422-012-9439-6

What is science in preschool and what do teachers have

to know to empower children?

Kristina Andersson Annica Gullberg

Received: 30 January 2011 / Accepted: 28 July 2012 / Published online: 16 October 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract In this article we problematize the purpose of teaching science in preschool and
the competences preschool teachers need in order to conduct science activities in the
classroom. The empirical data were collected through an action research project with five
preschool and primary school teachers (K-6). In the first section of this paper we use one
situation, a floatingsinking experiment, as an illustration of how two different episte-
mological perspectives generate different foci on which kind of science teaching compe-
tences can be fruitful in preschool settings. In the first perspective, the central goal of
science teaching is the development of the childrens conceptual understanding. With this
perspective, we found that the science activities with children were unsuccessful, because
their thoughts about concepts did not develop as expected, the situation even enhanced a
misconception concerning density. Moreover, the teacher was unsuccessful in sup-
porting the childrens conceptual learning. The second perspective uses a feminist
approach that scrutinizes science, where we investigate if the floatingsinking activity
contributes to a feeling of participation in a scientific context for the children and if so how
the teacher promotes this inclusion. This second perspective showed that the childrens
scientific proficiency benefited from the situation; they had a positive experience with
density which was reinforced by the teacher. The children discovered that they had power
over their own learning by using an experimental approach. On the basis of these findings,
we conclude that there are competences other than subject matter knowledge that are also
important when preschool teachers engage children in scientific activities. Through pro-
cess-oriented work with the teacher group, we identified four concrete skills: paying
attention to and using childrens previous experiences; capturing unexpected things that

Lead Editors: K. Scantlebury and A. Hussenius.

K. Andersson (&)
A. Gullberg

Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gavle, 801 76 Gavle, Sweden
e-mail: kns@hig.se
A. Gullberg
e-mail: agg@hig.se

K. Andersson
A. Gullberg
Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Box 634, 751 21 Uppsala, Sweden

123
276 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

happen at the moment they occur; asking questions that challenge the children and that
stimulate further investigation; creating a situated presence, that is, remaining in the
situation and listening to the children and their explanations. We discuss possible ways to
move preschool teachers away from their feelings of inadequacy and poor self-confidence
in teaching science by reinforcing this kind of pedagogical content knowledge.

Sammanfattning Forskning om larare som undervisar naturvetenskap for barn i unga

ar har i stor utstrackning fokuserat pa dessa larares bristande amneskunskaper. Flera studier
har ocksa slagit fast att forskollarare och tidigare larare har daligt sjalvfortroende vad galler
undervisning i naturvetenskap och manga gor kopplingen att de bristande amneskunska-
perna ar orsaken till det daliga sjalvfortroendet. Losningen blir da att se till att lararna far
okade amneskunskaper. I den har artikeln vill vi diskutera syftet med naturvetenskap i
forskolan och vilka amnesdidaktiska kompetenser forskollararen behover for att kunna
genomfora denna naturvetenskapliga verksamhet. Det empiriska materialet ar hamtat fran
ett aktionsforskningsinspirerat projekt tillsammans med forskollarare och tidigarelarare
(F-6). Vi utgar fran en situation dar barn tillsammans med forskollarare undersoker om
olika foremal flyter eller sjunker i vatten och analyserar sedan denna situation med tva
olika epistemologiska utgangspunkter. Den forsta analysen tar avstamp i ett synsatt dar
utvecklande av begreppsforstaelse och naturvetenskapligt tankesatt hos barn ar det centrala
malet for naturvetenskaplig undervisning. Genom denna analys framkommer att aktiviteten
med barnen inte var sa framgangsrik eftersom barnens naturvetenskapliga tankande inte
utvecklades; de larde sig inte nagra nya begrepp utan till och med missforstod densitets-
begreppet. Den andra analysen utgar fran att naturvetenskapen i sig inte ar oproblematisk.
Att lara sig naturvetenskap innefattar ocksa att lara sig om den sociala praktiken, det
sprak och den kultur som rader dar. Analys 2 visar att situationen har varit vardefull for
barnens naturvetenskapliga kunnande; de har fatt en erfarenhet av densitetsbegreppet som
de senare kan bygga vidare pa, erfarenheten var positiv och forstarktes av lararen; barnen
upptackte att de kan fa makt over sitt eget larande genom det experimenterande ar-
betssattet. Utifran dessa resultat drar vi slutsatsen att det finns andra kompetenser an
amneskunskaper som ocksa ar relevanta for forskollararen for att bedriva meningsfull
naturvetenskaplig verksamhet. Tillsammans med det processinriktade arbetet med lararg-
ruppen har fyra konkreta fardigheter kunnat identifieras: Uppmarksamma och anvanda sig
av barns tidigare erfarenheter; Fanga det ovantade som intraffar i stunden; Stalla fragor
som utmanar barnen och stimulerar till vidare undersokningar; Situerad narvaro.Stanna
kvar i situationen och lyssna pa barnen och deras egna forklaringar. I artikeln diskuterar
vi hur man genom att forstarka den har typen av amnesdidaktiska kunskaper hos for-
skollararna, och inte enbart fokusera pa bristande amneskunskap, kan arbeta sig bort fran
kanslan av otillracklighet och daligt sjalvfortroende inom de naturvetenskapliga amnena.

Keywords Empowerment
Feminist perspective
Pedagogical content knowledge

Preschool
Science education

In several countries, including Sweden, science is being taught to students of increasingly

younger ages. One of the arguments for introducing science in preschool is the notion that
childrens early familiarity with scientific language can positively influence the develop-
ment of scientific concepts and, thereby, scientific thinking. Young children enjoy
exploring and investigating their surroundings, and if this natural inclination is applied to
science activities, their interest in these subjects may be greater later in life as pointed out

123
Science in preschool 277

by Haim Eshach (2006) and Svein Sjberg (2000) among others. Sweden has recently
updated the national curriculum for preschool, 1- to 5-year-olds (Lpfo98 revised 2010).
The goals for teaching science are listed under the heading: Development and learning
and are as follows:
The preschool shall work so that every child can:
acquire and nuance the meaning of concepts, see connections and discover new ways to
understand his/her surroundings,
develop an interest in and understanding of cycles in nature and how people, nature and
society influence one another,
develop his/her understanding of science and relationships in nature, such as
knowledge of plants and animals as well as simple chemical processes and physical
phenomena,
develop his/her ability to differentiate, explore, document, pose questions about and
discuss science. (Lpfo98 revised 2010, p. 10)
The national curriculum text is general in nature, not identifying specific fields of
knowledge or concrete knowledge goals. The consequence of this generality is that pre-
school teachers must choose relevant subjects and subject content before planning and
designing their activities with the children. The preschool teacher has autonomy in
choosing science topics, but this also places greater demands on her/his science compe-
tence. Concurrently, the research on science primary teachers for young children has
reported that these teachers have inadequate knowledge of the subject and pedagogical
content knowledge (Appleton 2008). Deborah Smith and Daniel Neale (1989) have
interviewed teachers about both content knowledge in physics and their conceptions about
science teaching. The teachers expressed that they avoid teaching science since they
thought they did not have the accurate knowledge. They also stated that they thought
science is for smart people. In a study by Maria Kallery and Dimitris Psillos (2001)
preschool teachers knowledge about physical phenomena was explored. The researchers
concluded that the preschool teachers had insufficient subject matter knowledge and they
could not answer childrens questions about complex natural phenomena in a scientific
way. Similar focus on student teachers lack of science subject matter knowledge was
shown in Dawn Garbetts study (2003), when first years early childhood students con-
ceptual science knowledge were tested in a multiple choice test. This line of research, for
the most part, has looked at primary school teachers, and to date few studies have focused
on preschool teachers. Also, results regarding secondary teachers show that even indi-
viduals with sound knowledge in one field in natural science do not necessarily have
sufficient subject-related or pedagogical content knowledge to conduct efficient and quality
instruction in other fields (Appleton 2008). Furthermore, in the extensive body of research
on teachers conceptual knowledge in the natural sciences (see Duits bibliography of
1,120 articles 2009), several studies e.g., Ineke Frederik et al. (1999), Paul Jasien and
Graham Oberem (2002) and Huann-shyang Lin et al. (2000) have shown that secondary
teachers can have the same science misconceptions as their pupils. How developed must
preschool teachers knowledge be in the various scientific disciplines? How many subject
areas must they master? How long will their education take to achieve mastery in science?
Among others, Marilyn Fleer (2009) and Ken Appleton (2006) have also shown that
primary and preschool teachers have low self-confidence for teaching science. Thus,
researchers including Kallery and Psillos (2001) and Smith (1999) suggest that teachers
lack of scientific knowledge contributes to their low self-confidence, and recommend that
teacher preparation programs ensure that teachers acquire this knowledge. However,

123
278 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

Shirley Hord and Leslie Huling-Austin (1986) considered that 3 years of support and
encouragement are required before a teacher can begin to feel secure and comfortable to
successfully implement a new curriculum (or equivalent) in science. The question is,
thus, whether it is reasonable to believe that preschool teachers with low self-confidence
are better prepared by acquiring more subject-specific knowledge. Instead of regarding
teachers as the problem we want to investigate what happens if the natural sciences
per se and the view of the sciences are scrutinized. The natural sciences have had an
undisputable authority in the twentieth-century within Euro-western societies, mainly
because of technological and medical conquests, and these successes have also led to the
dominant view of scientific knowledge as value neutral and context independent (Keller
and Longino 1996). However, during the last four decades feminist scholars such as
Donna Haraway (1991), Sandra Harding (1986) and Evelyn Fox Keller (1996) have
questioned this dominant view. They argue that the natural sciences are culturally sit-
uated and their communities have developed a hierarchal and elitist organization.
According to Harding (1986) the dominant view in Euro-western societies of how sci-
entific knowledge is constituted as well as narratives about the scientific enterprise such
as the male genius are also reproduced in school and create problems that can result in
pre-school/primary teachers low self-confidence. The ability to acquire an understanding
of the scientific concepts as an indication of success is also predominant in the extensive
research around scientific concepts and conceptual change. Conceptual change scholars
have not problematized what knowledge counts as scientific and have ignored the cul-
tural aspects of learning (Scantlebury and Martin 2010). When bringing in a sociocul-
tural perspective on teaching and learning, feminist science education researchers have
offered several suggestions. For example, Jane Gilbert (2001) emphasized a new
approach to science education where the aim of teaching is to educate pupils about
science, instead of training them to become scientists. Gaell Hildebrand (2001) has
stressed that the conceptual change model merely increases women/girls positions as
inadequate knowers:
I also want students to be actively thinking, informed and engaged critics of: the
social world of scientists as it construct their practice; of the impact that science has
on society; and of the power dimensions involved in the scientific community and the
ways these are used politically, economically and socially to support particular
authoritative positions and to oppress other perspectives in society. (Hildebrand
2001, p. 11)
Hildebrand proposes that it is important for the learner to actively critique the culture of
science, and not reproduce science as it is. She argues that this approach could be one
way of transforming school science into something new.

Research setting

In the present article, we problematize the purpose of preschool science instruction and
discuss the competences preschool teachers need to successfully teach science. In the first
part of the paper we examine these issues from two different epistemological perspectives
during a professional development research project in a Swedish preschool. In the second
part of the article we have chosen one of these perspectives as a theoretical assumption for
the collaborative work together with the participating teachers in order to improve their
science pedagogical content knowledge. The purpose with this article is to investigate how

123
Science in preschool 279

a different interpretation of science learning and teaching can produce different outcomes
for childrens views of science and the required teacher competences.

The professional development project

The present study is inspired by action research (Herr and Andersson 2005) and is part of a
teacher professional development project on science and gender (Berge and Ve 2000). The
overall project aimed to investigate if an increase in teachers gender awareness would lead
to changes in the way science is taught regarding both content and performance. The
concept of action research used in this study was a collaborative model located in a specific
situation. Researchers together with teachers on the floor define a specific problem in the
context they are working in and try to find solutions for that problem. It is characterized by
a desire to bring about changes in school practices with the researcher participating in this
working process. The project had also an emancipatory feminist aim in concordance with
Brenda Capobiancos (2007) and Gaby Weiners (2004) work. Female pre- and primary-
school teachers voices are usually not heard in the public sphere and they also have
limited acting space and power to influence and change their working situation. As Sandra
Hollingsworth (1994) and Weiner (2004) argue, a project like this has the potential to
improve the participating teachers positions in the organization and make them feel valued
for the work they daily perform.
The project occurred from fall 2005 to spring 2010 in Sweden with teachers responsible
for preschool or K-6 classes. The core group, who participated during the entire period,
consisted of three preschool teachers, one recreational teacher (in primary school in
Sweden there are recreational teachers with a specific education and certification that work
with the children in the afternoons after they have finished the school schedule. The
recreational teachers are also participating in classes when more resources are needed), one
grade 17 math/science teacher and the two science education researchers. Over the years,
other teachers have joined the group, left the project or were absent for longer periods
owing to parental leave or illness. When the collaboration with the current teacher group
began, the teachers reported feeling competent and secure in dealing with gender issues,
but teaching science/technology was new, unproven ground, particularly for the preschool
teachers. They included only a few aspects of science (primarily biology) in their teaching.
One reason the teachers chose to participate in the project was to begin activities in
physics, chemistry and technology with their children while receiving professional support
for their own learning.
The group met approximately once a month for 2 hours, for a total of 57 months. At the
beginning of every academic year, the participants discussed which science/technology
subjects or themes they would plan together to teach the children. Participants read rele-
vant journal articles, book chapters and reports on science/technology and science teaching
and/or gender, considered important to the project and the group discussion meetings.
From fall 2007 to spring 2009, researchers collected and transcribed 38 hours of audio
recordings from 19 seminars. The teachers verified the researchers seminar notes. The
notes allowed the teacher to recapitulate and refer back to previous discussions, and to
follow up on the teachers planned and done activities in the preschool. Over the years, we
have video-recorded the children and teachers 16 times during science/technology activ-
ities. Some of these video-recordings, or sequences, have served as material for stimu-
lated recall (Calderhead 1981), twice during seminars with the entire group and separately
with three of the teachers. Stimulated recall is a method where teachers, together with the
researcher, view a video-recorded teaching sequence in order to increase the awareness of

123
280 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

the teachers behavior and with the goal of improving their teaching. The method provides
an opportunity for practitioners to relive a complex situation, remember their thoughts in
that context and reflect upon the situation. Before the individual sessions of stimulated
recall, the teachers viewed the films and identified sequences for discussion. They had the
following reflective questions: What was their learning goal with the activity? How did
they achieve that goal? Similarly the researchers chose several teaching sequences to
discuss and the teacher and researchers met for about 1 hour. Some of the sequences were
also discussed in the group. In addition, researchers interviewed three teachers at the end of
spring 2008. Transcripts from the seminars were also used as material for stimulated recall.
On these occasions, the teachers read excerpts from their statements to illustrate a par-
ticular pedagogical issue that they wished to improve their teaching. The teachers have also
been involved in the process of writing this specific article by reading drafts and com-
mented on the text which has been taken into account.

The floatingsinking-experiment in preschool

In order to discuss the aim of preschool science and which competences preschool teachers
need, we choose to use an example of activity from empirical data taken from the pro-
fessional development project. The activity was performed during thematic work with
children of various ages in preschool. The theme was water and the concept was density.
Among all the activities that were documented in the project a floating-sinking-experiment
was chosen as an illustration in this research because it is frequently used in preschool as a
scientific activity as well as in the research literature (Pramling and Pramling Samuelsson
2001). The empirical material consists of videotape transcripts in which children and their
preschool teacher are investigating the tendency for various objects to float or sink and the
transcripts from several of the seminars where the teachers and researchers discussed the
situation. The experimental setting contributes in highlighting the contrast between the two
different interpretations of the learning in the situation.

The theoretical framework for the analysis

We used Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarkes thematic analysis (2006) to review the data
in several rounds (Andersson 2010). The result section is organized in two parts Science
activities in the preschool and The teacher groups work with developing teaching
skills. The first part begins with an illustration of an activity (Illustration 1) in which three
children are investigating whether certain objects float or sink in water. We then carry out
two analyses of this situation from different epistemological perspectives. The basis of the
first analysis is that natural sciences are primarily viewed as a product grounded in laws,
models and theories, and that, where children are concerned, the central goal of science
instruction is to develop their conceptual understanding and a scientific way of thinking
(Andersson 2008). In the second analysis, the science content is problematized from a
feminist perspective where science is a cultural expression, hierarchical and excluding,
given that it claims to be objective, rational and able to reveal the truth about the world.
These critical stands have been claimed and elaborated by feminist science philosophers as
Harding (1986) and Keller (1996) and also been used and explored by science education
researchers as Nancy Brickhouse (2001). From this perspective, learning in science is
not only a matter of learning scientific content and concepts, but is also connected to the
experiences and knowledge of the social practices of science, and of the prevailing lan-
guage and culture as stated by for example Anna Sfard (1998) and Roger Saljo (2005).

123
Science in preschool 281

We chose to do an analysis from a feminist perspective to foreground the impact

different aspects of social life have on school practice, instead of just looking at human
human interactions (Harding 1986). This kind of analyses provides tools for highlighting
hierarchies and power within science education regarding knowledge production/repro-
duction in preschool/school. Thereby the feminist perspective gives an opportunity to
question or even more deconstruct the canonical science knowledge that is taught in school
and problematize who has the prerogative of what knowledge is valued.
The feminist approach also includes the idea that teachers and childrens experiences
are valuable and have to be taken into account within science teaching. Instead of seeing
the children and teachers as having subject-related shortcomings, we start the second
analysis from their strengths and abilities (Howes 2002). The assumption is that their
voices should be heard and listened to and this is a way of empowering both teachers and
the children.
Based on results from the two analyses, we investigate what consequences these two
perspectives have for preschool science instruction. Thereafter, under the heading The
teacher groups work with developing teaching skills, we also share insights from the
second analysis in order to explore what kind of competences preschool teachers can
articulate and develop to improve science teaching.

Results

Part I: science activity in the preschool

One of the preschool teachers, Molly, planned and organized a science activity where she
and three 5-year-old girls investigated objects buoyancy in water. The girls each had a
plastic tub filled with water and a smaller plastic container with several different objects
e.g., Lego pieces, scissors, nails, erasers, bits of styrofoam, straws, corks. The activity
began when the teacher choose a few objects for the children to test. But before the
children began the buoyancy experiment, the teacher asked them to make a prediction
about what could happen, document their prediction and then try the experiment. A grade
17 teacher inspired the preschool teacher to use this activity, and they had made a table on
which the children could fill in their predictions and record the results. Because of their
young age the children couldnt read and did not have the skills to fill in a table. Com-
pleting the table, rather than conducting the experiment, became the major focus for the
lesson. The children then sorted the objects, putting the ones that floated and the ones that
sank in different piles. After 24 minutes of work, the teacher (Molly) asked the children to
discuss the differences and similarities between the objects in the two piles:
Illustration 1
1 Molly, the teacher: Yes, but why is it that these [objects] sank and these floated?
2 Brenda: Because these are so heavy.
She reaches forward and points to Sophies pile of sinkers. Sophie is using her straw to
blow air down into the tub, and Alison is doing something on the table; her back is
facing the camera.
3 Molly: Okay, but then what about the things that floated?
4 Brenda: Theyre a little
5 Alison fills in: Lighter right.
6 Sophie: Lighter. These are heavier.

123
282 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

She points at the pile of sinkers.

7 The teacher: And these are heavier.
8 Brenda: Should we drink up all the water?
9 The teacher: No, put your things down on the table now.
She takes the straw from Sophie and puts it on the table.
Molly noticed that the children lost their concentration. She changed the activity
4 minutes later so that the girls would have some time for free experimentation. The
children continued with the structured working method introduced by the teacher, and
they placed every object that floated in the previous experiment in the water:
Brenda puts the small Lego pieces in her water tub. Alison does the same.
10 The teacher: Do you think those float too?
11 Alison: Uh huh
Meanwhile, Sophie throws her Lego pieces in the water. She and Brenda even put
pencils in their respective tubs.
12 The teacher says to Alison: What if you put them together? I saw you were about to
do that. Do you think theyll still float?
Alison puts her small Lego pieces together. Brenda watches. Sophie watches as well and
then picks up her Lego platform and the small Lego pieces.
13 Brenda: Im going to build an experiment of all my things.
Alison looks at Brenda.
14 The teacher: Yes
15 Sophie: How will you do that?
At the same time she is putting her Lego pieces together.
16 Brenda: I dont know. Ill try.
Sophie puts her Lego platform and the pieces attached to it into the water and turns to
the teacher.
17 Sophie: This floats.

The teacher turns to Alison who has put her Lego pieces together, attached them to the
Lego platform and put other floating objects on top.
18 Alison: Mine floats.
19 The teacher: It does.
20 Alison rolls up her sleeves: These were all the things that float!
21 The teacher: What if you take one of the things that sink and put it on top?
Alison picks up the metal cork and puts it on the Lego platform; at the same time the
teacher says:
22 The teacher: Will everything sink then?
23 Alison: No (she sees that the platform is still floating even with the metal cork on it).
Ill add more things?
She looks inquiringly at the teacher.
24 The teacher: Yes, you can if you want to.
Brenda piles objects onto her Lego platform while it is floating in the tub. Sophie has
picked up her platform and is loading it with objects while it is on the table. They work
silently and look very pleased and concentrated.
25 Brenda: There
Brendas Lego platform is floating after she has loaded it with all the objects that float.
26 The teacher: Yes, thats great.
27 Brenda: And Im going to add this.

123
Science in preschool 283

She picks up her eraser, which had sunk, and puts it on the floating Lego platform.
28 Brenda: It doesnt sink!
Sophie and Alison look over, but continue with their own projects the whole time.
29 The teacher: Well
Then Brenda takes her metal cork and puts it on the Lego platform. It sank when she
tested it before.
30 At the same time the teacher asks: How can that be, do you think?
31 Brenda: And this one but it [the Lego platform] doesnt sink for me! Even though
there are heavy things.
32 The teacher: Uh huh
33 Brenda: Its weird, isnt it!
34 The teacher: Yes
After about 45 minutes, the teacher ended the experiment but the children did not want
to stop. Brenda announced as she left the room that she would continue experimenting at
home.

Analysis and interpretation 1

The point of departure of Analysis 1 is that the purpose of science activities with younger
children is to give them the opportunity to practice a scientific way of thinking by using
and understanding scientific concepts (e.g., Kallery and Psillos 2002). During the inves-
tigation, the concepts the children used were float (e.g., line 17, 18), sink (line 28, 31)
heavy (line 31, heavier line 6) and light (lighter, line 5, 6). The teacher intro-
duced the activity by saying now were going to do a little experiment here, and on line
13, 28 minutes later, Brenda says she is going to put all her objects together into one
experiment. Brenda appears to have acquired the concept of experiment, but does not
understand what it implies and how it is used in scientific contexts. The teacher introduced
a number of scientific concepts that the children then used during the activity.
When the teacher asked the children why certain objects float and others sink (line 1),
they concluded that heavy objects sink and that light objects float. The teacher did not
follow up on the childrens conclusions, or discuss how an objects volume is related to its
density. This could result in the children developing a common misconception. Objects
do not sink just because they are heavy, but because they have a higher density than water
and density are dependent on the relationship between the objects mass and volume. In a
similar way the conception of why objects float is more complex as it also depends on the
buoyancy from the water on the items.
Analysis 1 assumes that the implicit goal of science instruction is to ensure that stu-
dents develop conceptual knowledge. According to this view, the children had negligible
learning during the activity, as they did not develop any substantial conceptual under-
standing. Furthermore, they may have developed misconceptions. It is worth noting how
the teacher handled the situation. She did not pursue the childrens conclusions even
though she actually created a conceptual change occasion by asking the children about
the things that previously sank (line 21). One explanation may be that she does not fully
understand the concept of density. Several researchers would suggest that the teacher needs
to improve her subject matter knowledge, but without explicitly discussing what scientific
facts/concepts a teacher of young children needs to know. In their study, Smith and Neale
(1989) examined primary school teachers knowledge of light and shadows. They stressed
the importance of teachers knowledge about childrens level of science understanding and

123
284 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

of strategies that could challenge possible misconceptions, but noted that the precise
knowledge teachers should have of light and shadows is conventional and not appropriate
to the childrens age groups. For example:
With one exception, teachers content knowledge was limited, both in science in
general (as revealed in their spring lessons), and in the physics of light and shadows.
For example, in the different spring lessons, teachers made mistakes such as
implying that birds migrated because they were cold-blooded, or switching the terms
rotation and revolution when referring to the motion of the earth. (Smith and Neale
1989, p. 7)
Thus, the teachers limited knowledge of science subjects is general. This means that
there is an implicit, general scientific knowledge base that all teachers should have mas-
tered regardless of the age groups of the children they teach. In addition, Smith and Neale
(1989) discussed 16 target conceptions for teachers with regard to light and shadows
conceptions they failed to discuss in terms of appropriateness for children of different ages.
Kallery and Psillos (2001) study on preschool teachers subject matter knowledge focused
on childrens questions about various scientific phenomena and the knowledge teachers
need to answer those questions. They concluded that preschool teachers do not have
sufficient knowledge to explain these phenomena in a scientifically adequate manner. The
implicit message of their study is that teachers should provide the correct explanations
for childrens science questions. In other words, what is most important is for preschool
and other teachers to possess the appropriate subject matter knowledge. Nothing is said
about how this knowledge should be imparted to preschool children. It is the subject one
must know, for its own sake. Science stands firm.
As we have seen, there is a substantial body of research in science education that has
examined and reported on primary school teachers shortcomings with science subject
matter knowledge, and teachers feelings that they are lacking in such knowledge. But
these studies, rarely examine the preschool and primary school teachers school experi-
ences of science, which is an aspect of teachers self-confidence in science (one important
exception is Wynne Harlen and Colin Holroyd 1997). During our work with the teachers
on science and gender, we have seen several examples of teachers low self-confidence and
negative experiences in science. For example, Kate, one of the pre-school teachers,
described her school experiences as highly negative and physical:
If I think about myself, when I had science and technology in school, I would rather
have run home crying and hidden somewhere.
What Kate experienced in the science classroom made her feel belittled and stupid. Such
experiences can contribute to teachers poor self-esteem and self-confidence. These
negative emotions may surface when a teacher working with pupils is confronted with
situations like those she experienced at school. Appleton (2003) suggests that placing a
strong focus on preschool teachers poor conceptual knowledge of science may increase
their feelings of inadequacy in the subject and thus avoid teaching science.

Analysis and interpretation 2

In Analysis 2 we examined how preschool science activities can develop other values and
knowledge than childrens conceptual understanding. In this analysis with a feminist
approach we investigated whether the floating-sinking activity contributed to the childrens
feeling of participation in science and, if so, how the teacher promoted this inclusion.

123
Science in preschool 285

In Illustration 1, the children conducted their own investigation; they placed all the
items that floated into the water. On line 12, the teacher posed a question (encouraging
Alison to complete an activity she had hesitantly started) that prompts the girls to test new
ways of investigating the material. Because of the teachers question about whether the
Lego pieces continue to float if you put them together, Brenda decided to place all her
objects together in the water, and with the other girls, she used the large Lego platform as a
raft, loading onto it all the objects that float. On line 21, the teacher again posed a question
that directs the childrens attention to how these objects behave in water. She wondered
what would happen if an object that sank earlier was placed on the Lego platform. Brenda,
who had all the objects that floated on her Lego platform (line 27) began loading it with the
objects that sank. Her cries of surprise (line 28 and 31) showed that her observations were
challenging her earlier experiences of how the same objects behaved in waterexperi-
ences that caused her to have expectations about what would happen. When her predictions
about which objects would sink were not supported, the situation evoked in Brenda a sense
of wonder (line 33: Its weird, isnt it!). These moments of cognitive dissonance and
wonder pique childrens interest and promote their willingness to continue investigating a
phenomenon. Brendas surprise showed how she, through her own experimentation, had
developed an understanding of floating/sinking, and how her earlier notion that objects sink
because of their weight, was challenged. The experiments outcome provided the teacher
with a good starting point for later discussions about the fundamentals of Archimedes
principle and the concept of density.
At the end of the situation, the teacher gave the children permission to design their own
experiments. Although no longer required to work in a systematic way, they choose to
continue using this working method. After the initial activity, when much of the childrens
energy was devoted to filling in a table, they started playing with the objects (after line 8).
Through her thought-provoking questions, the teacher inspired the children, who used their
initiative to conduct systematic investigations. Moreover, with her statement Im going to
build something with all of my things to make one experiment, Brenda indicated that she
is doing something other than playing. Thus, the children chose to continue with one
working method, which they perceived as something other than what they usually do.
The fact that this led to a feeling of personal satisfaction among the children was observed
on the video. By working in this systematic fashion, the children independently acquired
new knowledge: their investigation provided answers that led to new questions that in turn
led to new investigations. We claim that working systematically is not just a tool for
acquiring scientific knowledge, but is also crucial to personal satisfaction, in that it helps
give the individual a feeling of having mastered her own learning through curiosity-based
investigation. This working method also gives rise to a repertoire of scientific experiences
that facilitate recognition in new situations. Gustaf Hellden and Joan Solomon (2004)
presented empirical data showing that childrens early experiences play an important role
in their later knowledge development. Children experience a feeling of empowerment
when they take charge of their own learning. Kathleen Metz (2008) described this
positive spiral in a different way:
As their conceptual knowledge empowers their inquiry, so does their inquiry
empower the advancement of their conceptual knowledge. (Metz 2008, p. 151)
This is what Brenda expressed with enthusiasm when she said she would continue her
experimenting at home. This way of working thus generates in children something com-
pletely different than if the teacher had given a demonstration and conveyed special
knowledge to them.

123
286 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

In what way then, did the teacher facilitate the childrens investigative working methods
and feelings of empowerment? The teachers questions were challenging and were based on
knowledge the children developed earlier in the activity; to the children, these questions were
irresistible. They engaged with experimenting and tried to answer the questions through
investigation. They also understood that their activities were important, because the teacher
was showing great interest and continuously asked thought-provoking questions. Moreover,
the teacher responded to their various results. On line 26, when Brenda placed her floating
objects on the Lego platform, the teacher exclaimed thats greata positive response
indicating that the work not only provided intellectual stimulation, but also a positive emo-
tional satisfaction in a science-learning situation. The teachers and the childrens focus were
on what was happening in the tubs of water, and created around this focus were mutuality,
interaction, and positive feelings. The childrens responses and engagement also triggered the
teachers curiosity, which in turn caused her to pose new questions. The situation was posi-
tive; positive feelings were evoked when the children and the teacher interacted, important
features for learning advocated by Kenneth Tobin (2006) and Michalinos Zembylas (2004).
These feelings helped to reinforce self-confidence in both the children and the teacher.

Conclusions

According to Analysis 1, the initial situation was unsuccessful from the perspective of
learning science, because the children did not acquire new concepts and misunderstood
certain science concepts. Moreover the teacher did not introduce concepts in a scientifically
correct way. On the other hand, through Analysis 2, we have shown that the scientific situation
benefited the childrens learning and personal development: They had an experience with the
concept of density that they could later build on, and this experience was positive and
reinforced by the teacher; the children discovered that they could take charge of their own
learning through experimentation. The teacher had an important role in challenging and
encouraging the children in learning science, including performing systematic investigations.
The results from this first part Science activity in preschool show that the feminist
perspective, used in Analysis 2, was productive in that sense it extended alternative ways
of comprehending knowledge and learning in science. By choosing this classical
floating and sinking activity, which has been examined a lot within science education
research, we wanted to challenge the view held by many science educators: the undis-
putable position of the science subject and what it means to understand a concept, the view
represented by Analysis 1 above. The activity illustrates a phenomena considered by
science educators as difficult and hard to grasp and by exploring what other values
and meanings this activity can elicit, this view has to be reconsidered. Even more, it is an
attempt to shift the power balance between the subject and the practitioners. Of importance
for preschool teachers and children is not primarily to be able to define concepts (like
density, buoyancy, etc.) and explain why objects float or sink, but rather to study these
phenomena in a playful and creative way that can generate experiences and knowledge for
the children to build on. Instead of being filled with feelings of insufficiency concerning
science concepts, teachers can rely on the idea that qualified observations and experiments
are good enough. This will be further discussed below.

Part II: the teacher groups work with developing teaching skills

One way of defining the feminist perspective in this action research project is that it is non-
exploitative, grounded in the female teachers experiences as argued by Angela Calabrese

123
Science in preschool 287

Barton (1998) and Gaby Weiner (2004), with the aim of increasing gender awareness
regarding science education. Moreover, the feminist perspective on science and science
education was used as a theoretical framework to interpret the collaborative work together
with the teachers.
The project has used the situation in Illustration 1, above, and similar occurrences to
establish and develop the teachers science teaching skills. At the teaching group seminars,
the preschool teachers and the recreational teacher described the difficulties introducing
science/technology activities to children. The action research group identified four areas of
teachers concerns: (1) their negative feelings about science/technology subjects; (2)
worrying about posing questions and answering the childrens questions; (3) lack of
knowledge of the subject matter; and (4) difficulties planning age appropriate activities,
particularly with the youngest children (12 years of age). During Seminar 8, one of the
preschool teachers said:
Joyce: And then I need to develop, just like Kate says. What do I say if they (the
children) say I dont know? What do I do then? Because it happens that the girls
just say that right away. And then I get so super stressed out. What should I do now,
help, like that. So I think its sort of hard when I dont know what questions I should
ask or how I should ask them. How can I get them to move on if they say I dont
know? How can I get them (the children) to think about it? (Preschool teacher;
Seminar 8)
One method used to strengthen the teachers professional competences involved
exemplifying key situations for conducting science/technology work with children and
using the video recordings to identify and stress the skills teachers already possessed to
teach science/technology. The group used stimulated recall to identify these skills from the
video or by reading the transcripts. Based on this process-oriented work with the teachers,
we identified four competences in pedagogical content knowledge that are important for
preschool teachers: (1) paying attention to and using childrens previous experiences; (2)
capturing unexpected things that happen at the moment they occur; (3) asking questions
that challenge the children and that stimulate further investigation; and (4) situated pres-
ence, that is, remaining in the situation and listening to the children and their
explanations.
1. Pay attention to and using childrens scientific experiences and know-how. This is an
important part of teacher proficiency that has previously been discussed by David
Ausubel (1968), but within a feminist perspective it is also of importance to value
childrens own knowledge and experiences. When dealing with elementary school
children, the teacher inquires about pupils knowledge and experiences as a way to
map their knowledge level, but also as a strategy to interest them in the subject. At the
preschool level, on the other hand, the childrens previous experiences constitute the
point of departure and direction of the activities.
2. Capture the unexpected things that happen at the moment they occur. In the context of
everyday activities, children independently do science, and the teacher must be
attentive to situations in which something unexpected happensan event that
the children might otherwise have missed. The teacher can capture and expand on the
science situation, making it something meaningful for the children. In this sense, the
teacher must understand that unexpected situations can serve as a test of childrens
ideas and provide an intellectual challenge.

123
288 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

3. Situated presence. Remain in the situation and listen to children and their
explanations. Preschool teachers carry with them notions of what science activities
with children should lead toamong other things that children should be able to
provide the correct explanation for scientific concepts. This implicit demand causes
teachers to aim toward a set goal and to see childrens contributions as unnecessary
digressions (Kallery and Psillos 2002). This is reinforced by the teachers insecurity
about teaching science because of their limited content knowledge, as they are unsure
that they can provide the children with answers to questions that arise during the
lesson. Remaining in the situation means, instead, that the teacher trusts in her/his
ability to actively listen to the children. The teacher is then involved in a close
observation, an activity similar to research. She/he tries to understand the child and the
childs actions through an emotional, empathic engagement. This perception of the
child resembles Kellers (1983) description of Barbara McClintocks science work and
her feeling for the organism. Important for new discovery, as Keller puts it, is the
ability to be a part of the system instead of observing it from a distance. The same
ability facilitates this situated presence.
4. Ask questions that challenge the children and stimulate further investigations. The
teacher can develop her ability to ask questions that encourage children to investigate
and continue thinking about and discussing a scientific phenomenon. Wynne Harlen
and Anne Qualter (2009) called these kinds of questions productive questions. In this
type of competence, we also include the ability to reformulate childrens why
questions to make them investigable (Jelly 2001). It is these investigations teachers
should focus on, since it provides opportunities for children to produce their own
knowledge, an important aspect to challenge the hierarchy within science education.
To be clear, we think teachers primarily should pick up science activities that
spontaneously occur in their daily work together with the children. But of course
teachers also can plan and carry out organized experimental activities. However it is
important to remember that these experiments have different aims and goals than
corresponding experiments within elementary school.
One example of Skill 1 (Pay attention to and use childrens previous experiences) is
described by Molly during a seminar when she discussed what had happened after the
floating-sinking activity with the three girls in Illustration 1:
Molly: At lunch, Alison said that all the things they had tested that didnt float, that
she didnt know how it would have turned out in salt water. Shed been in some other
country and it was easy to float in the water there, she said. Then I thought I wouldnt
just continue with the experiment with different kinds of fruit in the water, but
instead we should test what happens in salt water. Its important to spin off of
their thoughts. (Seminar 10)
We return to Illustration 1, in which Molly had planned an activity from her school
science experiences. The activity plan was not appropriate for the group of children,
probably because Molly had relied on her colleague, a grade 17 teacher with more
expertise in the sciences. She had the children work from a data table, even though they
were only 45 years old and could not read. She realized her error and commented on the
plan later on during a teacher group seminar:
Molly: When we leave the table, and they get to work on their own, thats when it
happens, thats when it gets exciting Theres no reason for 3- and 4-year-olds to
be filling in a table../../And Mick (one of the children) who understood this, he

123
Science in preschool 289

looked and said: This is starting to look like a regular school lesson (Molly
laughs). (Seminar 11)
Molly considers science as different and strangesomething unrelated to her daily
activities with children, which is probably why she did not initially rely on her experience
and knowledge about teaching children when planning and implementing the activity. In a
non-science context, she would probably not have asked children to fill in a data table.
Below are excerpts from a seminar in which transcripts are used from the videotape of
the floating-sinking activity with the girls (see Illustration 1) and from a situation with the
same preschool teacher and three boys, also involved in the floating-sinking activity.
During the seminar, Kristina, one of the researchers, discussed how Molly succeeded in
observing and capturing important situations and when these teachable moments were
missed. Kristina read the transcripts aloud for the teachers and then highlighted the situ-
ations. The quotes from the transcripts are within quotation marks.
Illustration 2
1 Kristina: Should we look at the next example, there are also some good parts there.
This is when the boys have finished the table and Molly wants to summarize and looks at
Brians pile and says:
Look at your pile. Here are the things that float and here are the things that sink.
I mostly have things that float, he says.
Right, says Molly, and here you have your pile of sinkers and here is your pile of
floaters you can look at them a little, see if theyre similar in any way.
What? says Brian
Well, these three things sank, are they similar in any way? Molly asks.
No, says Brian.
Then Mick says: I think these three are alike in some way. Brian looks again after
hearing Mick. He says: Well, these two are alike (the nail and the scissors). These
two are iron.
Molly says (to Brian) What are you thinking?
Then Brian says, That this is iron and that is iron. They have to be the same.
And now Molly asks a good question, when she points at the eraser: But then why did
this sink? Thats really good because it makes them rethink things.
2 Several: Yes
3 Kristina: Then he picks up the eraser and says its because its too fat.
Its too fat, says Molly.
Then Brian says, The water is so thin.
At the same time, Molly points at the other pile and says, If you think about these
things that float.
Brian says: They are so small, so thin that they can float.
Okay, what do you think then Mick?, Molly asks.
That these two are iron, so they go together, says Mick.

4 Kristina: But this part here is really exciting, I think.
5 Alice: Yeah really.
6 Kristina: And what I want to stress is this. Heres a place where you want to keep the
children a bit. Remain here with them. When Brian says the eraser is too fat and thats
why it sinks. And then he says that the water is thin. Then you could ask questions.

123
290 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

Can you explain this a bit more? How would you describe it? What do you mean that the
water is thin? What did he mean by that?

7 Kate: Did you (Molly) feel like you understood what he meant by thin, or didnt you
think about it?
8 Molly: No, I thought, oh boy, lets get out of here, because I dont get it. (Seminar 11)
Kristina pointed out how Mollys question challenged the childrens answer that the
scissors and the nail were alike because they were made of iron. The question Molly posed
led to Brians explanation (line 3). He said that the eraser did not float because it was too
fat, while the water was thin. This is, according to Skill 3, a situated presence opportu-
nitythat Molly let pass. Kristina used this situation to encourage the teachers to practice
observing and reflecting upon their work with the children. Teachers can develop the
ability to stop and really listen to children, instead of attending to oneself and the planned
activity. The example showed that Molly felt insecure in the situation and wanted to move
along as quickly as possible. She felt she must respond to Brians explanation in the right
way, perhaps by providing a correct explanation of the phenomenon, and at this point her
poor self-confidence about her science knowledge affected her and she felt she couldnt
master the situation. On line 8 she says: oh boy, lets get out of here, because I dont
get it. What Kristina stressed in the discussion was the possibility for teachers to shift the
focus away from their insecurity about not understanding the physics, to the childrens
ideas. Molly could have explored new opportunities for questions or investigations if she
had asked Brian what he meant when he said water is thin (Aberg and Lenz Taguchi 2005).
Illustration 3 is the continued seminar discussion where Kristina directed the teachers
attention to Skill 2, Capture the unexpected by reading aloud from the transcript. In this
example Mick fetched a wooden elephant and wanted to investigate whether it would float
or sink:
Illustration 3
1 Kristina: Molly asks what Mick thinks about the object, a big wooden elephant.
Sink, says Mick with certainty. He places the elephant in the tub of water. But the
water only comes up to the elephants legs, and so it stands there. And when he puts it
down, hes so determined that it, its so heavy. Itll sink easy, he says and puts it down
and it stands there.
And Molly laughs. Yes, Molly says
and Brian says: Yours stood there. And then Mick, he cant ever just let his things be,
starts moving the elephant around. Im swimming, Im swimming, he keeps on like
that and then suddenly the elephant turns on its side and its floating there!
2 Alice laughs.
3 Kristina: Look! says Molly. And then, It floats! says Mick.
4 Alice: What fun youre having there (laughs heartily).
5 Kristina: And then Brian stands up, because that was interesting, and Peter is also
watching. If you put it on its side like this, says Mick. If youd put it on its side,
Molly acknowledges. Thats what he thought, and Molly acknowledged it.

6 Kristina: Is there anything here that could have been latched on to?
7 Kate: On the last page?
8 Lynn: Have to add more water for the elephant, to make it float even with its feet
down.
9 Molly: Yes, sure, we could have done that.

123
Science in preschool 291

10 Kristina: Just that kind of thing. We can add more water, what happens then? Does it
keep standing?
11 Several others agree.
12 Molly: And then what their thoughts were, about why it floated?
13 Alice: In one position, right.
14 Molly: Or when its so big And got it to float and then taken the beaver (made of
some kind of ceramic material) that Alison had. It sank like a stone. And it is smaller
than the elephant. Then we could have discussed it.
15 Kristina and Lynn: The material.
16 Kristina: The fact that the material matters, right. And here I think there are all sorts
of associations Because then Brian and Mick would have said that the fat things sink.
17 Lynn: It was a very fat elephant.
18 Kristina: It sank. Right and now something comes up that doesnt fit in: The eraser is
fat and it sinks, and this elephant is really fat and it floats on its side. You can keep the
children here because there is something of a clash of ideas. We have to investigate this
more so that the children can think about it more and move forward, so to speak. Can we
see any patterns here? You could also have stopped here, because then there is really
something exciting to look forward to on the next occasion. We will investigate this next
time. Then we have to find more fat things. How do we define what we mean by fat
things and thin things and then study them. (Seminar 11)
Mick was certain that the big, heavy elephant would sink, and when he put it in the tub
with so little water, it stood on the bottom. Micks expectation was confirmed. But when he
began playing with the elephant and moving it in the water so it could swim, then the
unexpected happened. The elephant turned on its side and floated. This situation is
similar to Illustration 1 when Brenda exclaimed Its weird. Both children had strong
ideas about what should happen, but instead an unexpected event occurred. Kristina asked
the teachers (line 6) how they could have taken advantage of this unexpected event to
develop the childrens scientific knowledge and understanding. The teachers proposed
several ideas for challenging the children. Lynn suggested increasing the amount of water.
Molly, the teacher who participated in the activity, provided ideas for new investigations
(line 14), in which one could compare two different objects of the same size and shape, but
different material, to see how they would behave in water. Kristina used this idea to discuss
how a new investigation could proceed (line 18). The children in the example were
motivated and fascinated, by taking advantage of the situation and building on it through
discussion and more experimenting, the teacher had a chance to give the children pre-
requisites for a cognitive leap, in accordance with Lev Vygotskys theory (1978) on the
proximal zone of development.
By using a concrete situation for professional development, the teachers offered sug-
gestions on improving the activities and thus increasing their confidence to teach science.
These discussions also provided a positive moment of community, joy and great interest.
For example, when Alice (line 4, Illustration 3) engaged in the situation, she made a
positive comment and laughed. Just as Brenda assumed responsibility for her own learning,
the teachers can also assume responsibility for their learning and teaching of science. The
seminar work empowered the teachers and increased their self-confidence in teaching
science. At the last seminar, Molly noted an improvement in her questioning technique.
She explained how she now can use an everyday situation in a playful way and connect the
current activity to the childrens earlier science/technological experiences. (The children
completed a project were they dismantled different technical devices such as video

123
292 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

recorders, telephones, toasters etc. and then re-assembled the devices in new, artistic
ways):
Molly: We were about to fetch ice-cream for the 34 year olds and the children said that
they should fetch it by themselves. No, I said. Then I have to put a padlock on the
fridge.
Well, then I will take an axe to break it, Brian said.
I dont, said Louise. I will take a saw (Molly laughs). And this is what this project
has gained. Because then I started to ask each and every child: What kind of tool would
you like to use? They would use a hammer, an axe, a saw, a knife, a truck.
Kristina: It seems like fun!
Alice: No key, no? (laughs)
Molly: No. And then I asked Barbara (another teacher): What will you use? And she
answered: I will fetch a water pistol, point it to you and say, Give me the key!
(Laughter from several)
Molly: But I replied: Then I swallow the key. And the childrens eyes were big and
they were really following. And Barbara answered that she would put a pot in front of
me. Why would she do that? I asked the children. Because you would poop the key
out, the children cried out.
Alice: Oohh that was fun! They are funny.
Molly: But before this project I shouldnt have thought about posing these questions.
(Seminar 19)
Molly chose to describe in detail this occasion for the seminar group in order to
highlight how her questioning skills had improved. In her narrative, Molly emphasized the
playful application of the science/technological project, but also the interplay between the
children and the teachers.
Listening as pedagogy is an important aspect in feminist perspectives on learning and
teaching. By listening both to teachers and children their experiences and emotions will be
valued as real knowledge (Howes 2002). The way we have worked with pedagogical
content knowledge in this project, together with teachers using real hands-on situations to
illustrate and discover skills needed for teaching science, has made the teachers feel they
actually are entitled to teach science. The feminist approach opened up new ways of
understanding knowledge (Barton 1998). Instead of feeling subordinated the authority of
science and obliged to reproduce science knowledge, the teachers, together with the
children, found ways to create new knowledge.

What is the purpose of science in preschool?

Science in preschool and primary school can, and should be, more than children acquiring
core scientific concepts. In our view, the benefit of young children engaging in science
activities is not primarily that it may stimulate their interest, because young children are
inherently curious about exploring their environment (Eschach 2006). Nor is the benefit a
question of meeting societys need for new scientists. Instead, the primary importance of
science activities, as revealed and supported in our empirical data, is that they can give
children a strong sense of satisfaction and a feeling of empowerment. By conducting their
own questions and investigations, children guided their own learning, which can promote
their self-confidence in science as well as in other areas. It creates in the individual a
certainty that she/he can deal with difficulties in other situations and develop self-reliance.

123
Science in preschool 293

The teachers negative feelings about science from their own school experiences had the
opposite effect. As schoolchildren, they learned that science was highly hierarchical and
intended only for a chosen few, which made them feel belittled and unintelligent. It would
seem, then, that science practices in the schools have two sides: there is a potential to give
individuals a feeling of empowerment; or school science can break down individuals self-
esteem and self confidence in their ability to learn the subject.
Finding answers to ones own questions through investigations and observations are
considerable strengths and promote confidence for the individual. In this way, science can
give people a sense of power and, on a general level, contribute to a culture charac-
terized by positivism. Science stands firm; the disciplines per se have authority. This is true
in schools as well as in science education, for the public, as well as for scientists them-
selves. Knowledge generated in this way is irrefutable, and there is no question as to what
one must know and what must be taught. Only those who understand and have
mastered scientific concepts are granted access to and have interpretative privilege in the
sciences. And at this point we are back where we started: The same power and empow-
erment that can have such a positive effect on the individual can also be used to create an
elitist practice which, by definition, everyone does not have access to (Harding 1986).
Thus, in science education and in preschools and schools we should consider what science
from a democratic perspective means. This poses an extra challenge to those of us with a
science background, because it requires that we change our outlook. Even if we take a
critical approach, looking at the sciences in terms of their cultural and sociological aspects,
it is easy to assume that science education for children is learning concepts. Marilyn Fleer
(2009) has highlighted the traditional view of science within science education by criti-
cizing constructivist research for being too centered on the individual and ignoring culture.
She has also questioned research that connects preschool teachers limited scientific
knowledge with teachers inadequate self-confidence and ability to teach these subjects.
However, in the empirical part of her study Fleer (2009) concluded that children had not
acquired a kind of scientific thinking through their activities. For example, they did not use
any scientific concepts. She studied children having an outdoor activity where they
explored different liquids like oil, water, vinegar:
The children took note, but focused on making different oils. The activity did not
support scientific thinking, but rather provided the children with a playful event
where they expanded their experiences of playing with cooking oil. (Fleer 2009,
p. 81)
In this way, Fleer (2009) draws her conclusion based on a constructivist perspective that
the goal of science activities was to acclimatize 4- to 5-year-olds to the scientific culture,
which is opposite of the intentions expressed in her introduction.

A starting point to develop pedagogical content knowledge in science

for preschool teachers

The present study showed that there are competences, other than just having subject matter
knowledge, that are relevant to a preschool teacher. It is not essential that preschool
teachers provide correct answers to childrens questions about scientific phenomena.
However, they must turn childrens questions into productive experiences which encourage
children to investigate or discuss scientific phenomena (Jelly 2001). We have identified
four skills preschool teachers can develop and benefit from when teaching science. Those

123
294 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

are: (1) paying attention to and using childrens previous experiences; (2) capturing
unexpected things that happen at the moment they occur; (3) asking questions that chal-
lenge the children and that stimulate further investigation; and (4) situated presence, that is,
remaining in the situation and listening to the children and their explanations. In teacher
education and in-service courses, teachers can develop pedagogical content knowledge by
practicing these four skills in scientific activities.
Research in early childhood education has stressed pedagogical skills that are important
to childrens learning and development. Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson and Ann-Charlotte
Mardsjo (1997) discuss three principles:
create and capture situations that children can think and talk about
encourage children to think, reflect and express themselves, verbally and in other ways
take advantage of the diversity in childrens ideas.
These are practical teaching skills that minimize the step from preschool teachers
pedagogical competences to skills in scientific pedagogical content knowledge. Rein-
forcing this kind of pedagogical content knowledge, and not simply focusing on insuffi-
cient subject matter knowledge, may allow preschool teachers to work through and divest
themselves of feelings of inadequacy and poor self-confidence in relation to science
subjects. Such teaching competence allows teachers, together with children, to explore and
conquer the world in a new way. Thereby they participate in scientific practice and con-
tribute to developing both the science content knowledge and the culture of science.

References

Aberg, A., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (2005). Lyssnandets pedagogik: etik och demokrati i pedagogiskt arbete
[The pedagogy of listening: Ethics and democracy in pedagogical work]. Stockholm: Liber.
Andersson, B. (2008). Grundskolans naturvetenskap. Helhetssyn, innehall och progression [The compulsory
school science. Holistic view, content and progression]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Andersson, K. (2010). Its funny that we dont see the similarities when thats what were aiming for
Visualizing and challenging teachers stereotypes of gender and science. Research in Science Edu-
cation, 42, 281302.
Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an under-
standing of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 125.
Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In
K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education. International perspectives on contemporary
issues and practice (pp. 3154). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Academic Press.
Appleton, K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary
teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 523545.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Berge, B.-M., & Ve, H. (2000). Action research for gender equity. Feminist educational thinking. Buck-
ingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3, 77101.
Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38, 282295.
Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 51, 211217.
Capobianco, B. M. (2007). Science teachers attempts at integrating feminist pedagogy through collabo-
rative action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 132.
Duit, R. (2009). http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html. Received April 23, 2012.
Eshach, H. (2006). Science literacy in primary schools and pre-schools. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.

123
Science in preschool 295

Fleer, M. (2009). Supporting scientific conceptual consciousness or learning in a roundabout way in play-
based contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 10691089.
Frederik, I. E., van der Valk, A. E., Leite, L. S. F., & Thoren, I. (1999). Pre-service physics teachers and
conceptual difficulties on temperature and heat. European Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 6174.
Garbett, D. (2003). Science education in early childhood teacher education: Putting forward a case to
enhance student teachers confidence and competence. Research in Science Education, 33, 467481.
Gilbert, J. (2001). Science and its other: Looking underneath woman and science for new directions in
research on gender and science education. Gender and Education, 13, 291305.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers understanding of concepts of science: Impact on
confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93105.
Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2009). The teaching of science in primary school. London and New York:
Routledge.
Hellden, G., & Solomon, J. (2004). The persistence of personal and social themes in context: Long- and
short-term studies of students scientific ideas. Science Education, 88, 885900.
Herr, K., & Andersson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation. A guide for students and faculty.
Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
Hildeband, G. (2001). Con/testing learning models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), St. Louis, MO, March, 2001.
Hollingsworth, S. (1994). Feminist pedagogy in the research class: An example of teacher research. Edu-
cational Action Research, 2, 4970.
Hord, S. M., & Huling-Austin, L. (1986). Effective curriculum implementation: Some promising new
insights. Elementary School Journal, 87, 96115.
Howes, E. V. (2002). Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: What do preservice teachers
bring? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 845869.
Jasien, P. G., & Oberem, G. E. (2002). Understanding of elementary concepts in heat and temperature
among college students and K-12 teachers. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 889895.
Jelly, S. (2001). To teach the children to ask questionsAnd to answer them. In W. Harlen (Ed.), Primary
science: Taking the plunge (pp. 6476). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2001). Pre-school teachers content knowledge in science: Their understanding of
elementary science concepts and of issues raised by childrens questions. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 9, 165179.
Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2002). What happens in the early years science classroom? The reality of
teachers curriculum implementation activities. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 10, 4961.
Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism. The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York:
W. H. Freeman and Company.
Keller, E. F. (1996). Feminism and science. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism and science
(pp. 2840). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keller, E. F., & Longino, H. E. (1996). Feminism and science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lin, H., Cheng, H., & Lawrenz, F. (2000). The assessment of students and teachers understanding of gas
laws. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 235238.
Lpfo98, Laroplan for forskolan, reviderad. 2010. [National curriculum for the preschool, revised 2010].
Skolverket: The Swedish National Agency for Education.
Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school science
classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 138161.
Pramling, N., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2001). It is floating cause there is a hole: A young childs
experience of natural science. Early Years, 21, 139149.
Pramling Samuelson, I., & Mardsjo, A.-C. (1997). Grundlaggande fardigheteroch fardigheters grun-
dlaggande [Basic skillsAnd lay the foundation of the skills]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Saljo, R. (2005). Larande och kulturella redskap. Om larprocesser och det kollektiva minnet [Learning and
cultural tools. About learning processes and the collective memory]. Stockholm: Nordstedts aka-
demiska forlag.
Scantlebury, K., & Martin, S. (2010). How does she know? Re-visioning conceptual change from feminist
research perspectives. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/structuring science education: Reuniting sociological
and psychological perspectives (pp. 173186). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27, 413.

123
296 K. Andersson, A. Gullberg

Sjberg, S. (2000). Naturvetenskap som allmanbildningen kritisk amnesdidaktik [Science as general

educationA critical science education]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Smith, D. C. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary
science. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge
(pp. 163197). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5, 120.
Tobin, K. (2006). Aligning the cultures of teaching and learning science in urban high schools. Cultures
Studies of Science Education, 1, 219252.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA and London, England: Harvard University Press.
Weiner, G. (2004). Critical action research and third wave feminism: A meeting of paradigms. Educational
Action Research, 12, 631643.
Zembylas, M. (2004). Emotional issues in teaching science: A case study of a teachers views. Research in
Science Education, 34, 343364.

Author Biographies

Kristina Andersson holds a PhD in science education. She has also a masters degree in biology and a
secondary science teacher degree. Kristina is a lecturer at the University of Gavle and a guest researcher at
the Centre for Gender Research at Uppsala University.

Annica Gullberg holds a PhD in genetics. During the last 8 years her research interest has been in science
education. Annica is a senior lecturer at the University of Gavle and a guest researcher at the Centre for
Gender Research at Uppsala University.

123