To Örebro University

General description on research questions, objectives and theoretical framework

Transitions across educational cultures

Internationally public spending on early childhood education has increased due to growing attention towards the benefits of an early start for children’s learning. At the same time a growing number of research suggests that the benefits of these spendings may disappear during the first years of primary school due to pedagogical discontinuities (OECD 2017). One potential reason for pedagogical discontinuity are a range of substantial historically and culturally formed differences between prior-to-school and compulsory school settings. The teachers attend different teacher educations and the school forms are governed by separate curricula that harbour divergent views of the child, learning, teaching and knowledge, thus shaping discrete educational cultures (Huser, Docket & Perry, 2016). Many researchers have described this as a gap that somehow needs to be bridged. Others have emphasized the importance of continuity as well as discontinuity to mark borders between different school forms (Ackesjö 2014).

In Sweden, where this project is conducted, 83 percent of all children in ages between 1-5 years are enrolled in preschool. The year children turn six they will transfer to the compulsory preschool class and the succeeding year they will start year 1 at primary school. The preschool class was specifically introduced into the educational system to enable a smooth transition between prior-to-school education and school by intertwining their divergent pedagogies. However, in accordance with the international studies reported by the OESD, pedagogical discontinuities  are still reported, describing missed opportunities to use children's subject learning experiences from preschool and preschool class in the first year of primary school (Skoog 2012, Ackesjö 2014). 

Science teaching across early childhood school forms

The growing attention towards the benefit of an early start for children’s learning is also reflected in a growing research field around early childhood learning, and the field of early years science (defined as science activities for children between 0 and 8 years of age) is no exception (ESERA e-proceedings 2018). The rapidly expanding research field now encompasses theoretical and ideological discussions about what early years science in preschool can or should be. Also, studies focusing on children’s learning of particular science subject areas as well as broader concepts such as learning and teaching Nature of Science (NOS) and different aspects of teacher student’s and in-service teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge. To our knowledge there are however no studies of pedagogical (dis)continuities in early childhood science across the school forms. In our project we seek to contribute with new knowledge within this particular field.

Objectives and research questions

The aim of this project is twofold: first, we want to report observed obstacles to and opportunities for pedagogical continuity in science education across preschool, preschool class and grades 1-3 .

Second, we want to study the potentials of formative interventions as a tool for bringing together teachers across school forms to analyse and develop pedagogical continuity in their own practice.

We hope to provide knowledge about science learning continuity across early years school forms, and about the mechanisms behind (dis)continuities. Our approach is based on a collaborative research between practitioner and researcher to ensure results with relevance to educational research, authorities, practice and teacher education.

In this presentation we will focus on the boundary work of teachers across early childhood education, based on data from interviews and focus groups.

Our research questions are:

1. What views do teachers in preschool, preschool class and years 1-3 express concerning science teaching in their own and in adjacent sectors?

2. In what ways do teachers across these school forms define discretion and autonomy but also negotiate boundaries, when brought together in focus groups?

Methods/methodology

This project is guided by expansive learning, third generation models of Activity Theory (Engeström, 2001) and formative interventions (Penuel 2014). The combination of these theoretical and methodological frameworks enables us to describe obstacles to and opportunities as revealed when  teachers of discrete local educational cultures meet to jointly construct a shared object: pedagogical continuity in science education.

Our data was collected in three Swedish school units (unit Y, O and Ö), each comprising at least one preschool, one preschool class and one class from grade 1-3 of primary school. Together the three units comprise 4 preschools, 4 preschool classes and 4 grade 1-3 classes. We conducted focus group discussions (10) with teachers across the school forms within each unit, classroom observations of implementations (49) and individual interviews with 21 teachers, before and after the project (35 in total).

The “driving force” of the project was a cyclical intervention process, where teachers across school forms met with us researchers in groups to discuss a focal problem: pedagogical (dis)continuity in science teaching. The whole process begun with a workshop where all participating teachers of one unit were brought together to discuss the science related goals of preschool, preschool class and grade 1-3. To start up a conversation about similarities, differences and perhaps inconsistencies between the curricula (i.e. National Agency for Education, 2016 and 2018) all science goals from each of the three curricula were cut out and mixed together. The teachers were then asked to sort them into themes of their own choice. Based on their results, the teachers were then asked to identify possible areas of continuities, and ways to promote continuity across the three school forms. The next step was to develop and implement a “design for support of continuity” in their practice.

In this presentation we focus on the teachers’ boundary work across the school forms as revealed in group discussions and individual interviews. Boundary work “takes place as teachers create, maintain, tear down, and transform boundaries, for example by separating “us” and “them”, and evaluate certain practices” (Mausethagen 2013, p. 135). Our research questions are guiding us when analyzing transcripts from interviews and focus group meetings. To investigate how boundaries are drawn and redrawn we also seek for critical incidents such as statements or parts of dialogues that either reveals tensions or contradicting views within and across school forms or moments of insights across school forms.

Preliminary results and implications

Teachers views of science teaching in their own and in adjacent school form?

All teachers, regardless of what school form they represent, view children’s interests and curiosity as integral aspects of science teaching. Also, scientific concepts and basic science facts are considered as most important learning objects. The major difference is that voluntary attendance is described as important in the lower ages but as the children grow older mandatory attendance becomes more important.

Preschool teachers generally has an understanding of compulsory school science teaching as teacher-led transfer of facts, with little integration of creative activities and outdoor activities. This is often contrasted to their own practice, described as a combination of many different creative forms of learning, outdoor experiences and focused on children's own curiosity and joy. Teachers in preschool class and grade 1-3 only have vague views of what preschool science might be, and tend to refer to a broader picture of preschool practice as a place for social schooling, play and practical activities where science learning is not central. In contrast, they have a more articulated view of science teaching in forthcoming stages.

In what ways do teachers across these school forms define discretion and autonomy but also negotiate boundaries, when brought together in focus groups?

Boundary work became visible especially during some focus group discussions when the teachers compared how much children’s interests and curiosity was allowed to guide science teaching in different school forms. Here, boundaries were created by comparing frame factors to justify differences perceived as less desirable.

Furthermore, the focus group meetings provided opportunities for a broadened understanding of prerequisites of other school forms, thus laying a foundation for collaborative learning and joint ideas about how to form continuity for science education between school forms.

References

Ackesjö, H. (2014) Barns övergångar till och från förskoleklass: Gränser, identiteter och (dis-) kontinuiteter. [Children’s transitions to and from preschool class.  Borders, identities and (dis-) continuities] Doctoral Thesis Växjö, Linnaeus University Press 148.

Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14 (1) 133-156

Finlayson, O.E., McLoughlin, E., Erduran, S., & Childs, P. (Eds.) (2018).  Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference. Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University. ISBN 978-1-873769-84-3

Huser, C. Docket, S. & Perry, B. (2016) Transition to school: revisiting the bridge metaphor. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24 (3) 439-449

Mausethagen Solvi (2013) Talking about the test. Boundary work in primary school teachers’ interactions around national testing of student performance. Teaching and Teacher Education 36 132-142

National Agency for Education, (2016). Curriculum for the Preschool Lpfö 98. Revised 2016 Lpfö 98/2016. Stockholm: Skolverket.

National Agency for Education (2018). Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool class and school-age aducare. Lgr 11. Revised 2018 Stockholm: Skolverket.

OECD (2017) Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en.

Penuel, W. R. (2014). Emerging Forms of Formative Intervention Research in Education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 97-117. doi:10.1080/10749039.2014.884137

Skoog, M (2012) Skriftspråkande i förskoleklass och årskurs 1. Örebro Studies in Education 33.