2.2: Developing a Science Area
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
- Page ID
- 64308
- Heather Bridge, Lorraine Melita, and Patricia Roiger
- State University of New York Corland via Milne Publishing
Teaching Challenge
Lack of a well-developed science area in a Pre-K classroom.
Background
Strategy: Creating a designated science area to improve children’s scientific learning.
Context: The action research took place over one semester in a rural Head-Start pre-kindergarten classroom for 4-5 year olds. Full daycare was provided to children of all abilities including those with exceptional learning needs. There were 16 children in the class with a teacher and an assistant teacher. The High/Scope curriculum was used in the classroom.
Findings
- The number of observed science learning indicators demonstrated by children increased from 16 to 74.
- The number of science categories in which science indicators were observed increased from three to six.
- A designated science area in the classroom resulted in educators giving science a higher priority in the curriculum.
- Multiple examples of the same materials increased children’s exploration.
- Children most frequently used their senses of sight and touch to explore science materials.
- Children engaged most with materials they could manipulate.
- The presence of an adult in the science area resulted in children staying in the area for longer periods of time, using more language, and socializing more.
- Literacy and math concepts in the science area needed to be purposefully supported by adults.
- Time and materials needed to be made available to children in the science area for them to record their science observations.
- Science concepts that children explored in the science area were extended during adult-guided small group activities.
Summary of the Action Research
The aim was to create an area specifically designed to improve children’s scientific learning. Providing children with adequate time and materials to explore in the science area resulted in increased instances of science learning and use of scientific language; increased use of senses; and increased socialization. Educators more effectively supported children’s active learning in the science area, and gave science a higher priority in the curriculum. Children spent more time in the science area, and their science learning was extended into directed small group and whole group times. A speech therapist used the science area to support a child with language delay. This was a change from taking him out of the classroom for speech therapy.
The Teaching C hallenge
The teaching challenge was presented as a lack of a well-developed science area to support children’s learning in that discipline.
Four reasons existed to explain this challenge. First, access to appropriate science materials was limited, but the team knew that children could still use everyday materials to explore science concepts, e.g., manipulating nuts and bolts with their hands to explore shape. The use of portable science kits provided one solution but the circulation between several Head-Start settings made consistent availability a problem.
Second, the emphasis on literacy in the Head-Start curriculum resulted in the neglect of science provision. At the time of the challenge, science provision was sporadic at best, but the team wanted to feature it in the curriculum on a daily basis to stimulate the children’s scientific curiosity.
Third, educators’ confidence in their own ability to teach science was problematic. Educators favored more science in the curriculum, and they wanted it to be fun for children, but they were not confident that their own knowledge of biology, physics, and chemistry would enable them to do this. And lastly, children were rarely drawn to the existing science area or the materials in it.
Team Values
The team highly valued science in the preschool curriculum. Science provided children with opportunities to explore concepts, investigate materials, and develop a sense of wonder about the world around them. Science provision was strong during adult-directed small-group times, e.g., making play-dough, hatching chicks, growing pumpkins, and cooking spaghetti, but science was not well resourced as a free-choice. Educators believed that scientific concepts and materials should be made freely available to children to build their literacy, mathematics and problem-solving skills.
Aim of the Action Research
The aim of this action research was to: (1) create a well-resourced science area that would support each child’s scientific exploration and learning; (2) enable all children to have access to the science area during free-play times on a daily basis; (3) align science provision with NAEYC Standards (2009); (4) provide teacher candidates with a Practicum field experience in which these standards—and college course content regarding the teaching of science—was consistent; and (5) improve teacher candidates’ opportunities to plan and implement science assignments during Practicum that reflected NAEYC Standards (2009).
Alignment with NAEYC Standards (2009)
The importance of teaching content in the early childhood curriculum is emphasized in NAEYC Standard 5: Using Content Knowledge to Build Meaningful Curriculum. Teacher candidates are required to use academic disciplines to design, implement, and evaluate experiences that promote security and regulation, problem solving and thinking, and academic competence in every young child. Teacher candidates are required to further support their science teaching and children’s science learning by identifying and using developmentally appropriate practices and resources that include books, standards, documents, web resources, and to utilize individuals who have specialized content expertise.
Baseline Assessment
A 20-minute long video was recorded to form a baseline assessment of how children used science materials during free-choice time, a component of the High/Scope curriculum. Four girls played in a newly designated science area of the classroom. The team chose to use the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework for Science to analyze the video (see below Table 3.1), as it corresponded with their curriculum requirements. The video was analyzed for the frequency of observed science indicators.
Indicators | Frequencies |
Use senses and a variety of tools and simple measuring devices to gather information, investigate materials and observe processes and relationships | 10 |
Observe and discuss common properties, differences and comparisons among objects and materials | 3 |
Participate in investigations to test observations, discuss and draw conclusions and form generalizations | 0 |
Collect, describe, and record information through discussion, drawings, maps and charts | 0 |
Make predictions, explanations and generalizations based on past experiences | 0 |
Observe, describe, and discuss the natural world, materials, living things and natural processes | 0 |
Know about and respect their bodies and the environment | 0 |
Know ideas and use language related to time and temperature | 0 |
Know about changes in materials and cause-effect relationships | 3 |
Table 3.1: Frequency of Head Start Child Outcomes Framework for Science |
Data Analysis and Team Reflection
16 science indicators were recorded on the video. As children investigated the geo-boards, feely boxes, and colored lenses, they used their senses of sight, hearing, language and touch. Children mostly played in parallel as they manipulated rubber bands and stretched them over geo-boards. A child asked another, “What are you doing?” and the other child replied, “I’m playing with the feely box.” The child peered into the feely box, felt objects, and matched them to a corresponding picture card, e.g., the child matched a puppet with a picture card of a puppet.
The team identified three main themes about their science provision. First, the new science area gave science a higher priority in the curriculum than before. The new area occupied a better position than the previous science shelves. However, the space was not fully utilized. The new science area was not yet attractive to children, and a abscene of recorded frequencies for many of the indicators suggested that a full-range of scientific outcomes for children was not yet evident.
Second, children explored materials in the ways educators had hoped they would. The geo-boards with rubber bands, magnifying boxes, colored lenses, and feely box with matching cards all provided children with opportunities for sensory and manipulative exploration. However, the team agreed that science provision was weak in the curriculum, and questioned what science content children learned through such free-play activities. The team wondered if children had had experiences at home that provided them with prior knowledge or curiosity about scientific concepts. The team questioned what the children understood about concepts they had been exposed to.
Third, the results of the baseline assessment prompted the team to improve the science area. Plans were aimed at providing children with a broad range of materials that supported their learning in all areas of science. Educators aimed to use teaching strategies that supported children’s active learning through free-choice, initiative, investigation, persistence, understanding cause and effect, and predicting outcomes.
Selected L iterature
The teacher candidate worked with the college librarian to identify key words to search for journal articles that would help the team improve their teaching challenge. The following articles published in Young Children were found and read by the team:
(1) Hoisington, C. ( 2002 ) . Using photographs to support children’s science inquiry. Young Children 57 (5): 26-32.
(2) Jones, J., & Courtney , R. ( 2002 ) . Documenting early science learning. Young Children 57 (5): 34-40.
(3) Buchanan, B.L., &. Rios , J.M. ( 2004 ) . Teaching science to kindergartners: How can educators implement science standards? Young Children 59 (3): 82-87.
(4) Ross, M.E. ( 2000 ) . Science their way. Young Children 55 (2): 6-13.
The article, “ Science their way ,” was selected by the team because a strategy outlined in the article to create “ explorer kits ” appealed to them . The strategy consisted of gathering and organizing science materials, tools, and science-themed literature into kits . The strategy reinforced the team’s goals of wanting children to learn science through manipulation of materials, open-ended inquiry and the use of literature to support content learning during free-play times. The role of the educator describ ed in the article was appealing. I t required that educators not teach science directly to children, but to facilitate science learning by providing children with time, space, equipment and literature. Educators thought the provision of science literature in the science area was an effective way to increase educators’ science knowledge, and thereby, increase their confidence in teaching the subject . The use of science literature was also thought to support the teaching of more content knowledge as required by NAEYC Standards (2009).
Assessment of the Strategy for Developmental Appropriateness
The team confirmed that the strategy of explorer kits was de velopmentally appropriate for 4 to 5-year-olds . Wood, (2007) stated:
Learning goes from the hand to the head. Teachers in four- year-old classrooms need to focus on observing and redirecting behavior and asking children questions that lead them to the next level of cognitive exploration and understanding. Manipulative experiences are important in the classroom, e.g., magnets and pulleys in the science area.”
Implementation of the Strategy : First Stage
The team created five explorer science kits containing materials based on Ross (2000) around the concepts of light, magnification, balance, manipulation and color. Examples of ex plorer kits are shown in fig 3.2
Light Explorer Kit Materials:
|