1. Science Education in the Early Years: Understanding and addressing potential Presentation based on Task 2.2 Review of Science and Mathematics Education in Preschool and Early Years of Primary Education and D3.2 Mapping and Comparing Recorded Practices Coordinator: Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou http://www.creative-little- scientists.euhttp://www.creative-little- scientists.eu Lead partners: Institute of Education, University of London, UK: Dr. Esmé Glauert, Dr. Andrew Manches Contributing partners: Ellinogermaniki Agogi: Fani Stylianidou, Dimitris Rossis, Open University, UK: Anna Craft, Teresa Cremin, Jim Clack; Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UK: Ashley Compton, Jane Johnston, Alison Riley; University of Eastern Finland: Sari Havu Nuutinen; University College Aarteveldehogesschool, Belgium: Hilde Van Houte, Kirsten Devlieger, Marike De Smet; Goethe University Frankfurt: Annette Scheersoi; Univerisity of Minho, Portugal, Manuel F.M. Costa, Paulo Varela; National Institute for Laser, Plasma and Radiation Physics: Dan Sporea, Adelina Sporea: Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France: Olga Megalakaki; University of Malta: Suzanne Gatt.

2. Project Partners

3. Purposes of review Role in CLS project Inquiry and creativity growing focus in policy Limited examination in relation to Early Years education Purposes of review Draw together growing evidence about science learning in the early years Examine potential for inquiry, how it might be recognised and fostered Reflect on what this adds to debate about inquiry and emphasis on creativity Consider implications for policy, practice, research

4. Collaborative Approach to review Partner involvement/feedback at each stage Scoping and discussion first project meeting Proposed questions and structure for review Partner contributions to Bibliography and rubrics Draft outline and key points Further contributions to Bibliography and References Full draftFinal report

5. Fields of Inquiry Focus in policy at EU level and in partner countries – science and early years education Growing research in field of early years science Influence of research in Sociologies of Childhood – changing perspectives on childrens rights and capabilities Bridging perspectives from diverse fields: Science, Early Years, Creativity Exploring interconnections between: Policy, Research and Practice

6. Areas for investigation in CLS Rationale for science education Changing perspectives on young children Aims for science education in the early years Rationale for early years science Perspectives on science development and learning Role of the teacher – environment, scaffolding Assessment – new roles and priorities New insights into learning and teaching Beyond the rhetoric of creativity – reviewing potential Issues in policy and practice Implications for research in CLS Issues and implications

7. Rationale and aims for science education Economic imperatives Scientific literacy for citizens Technological developments (See for example: European Commission (2006, 2011), Harlen (2008), Millar and Osborne (1998).) Implications for aims of science education – Focus on nature of science – Community – Positive attitudes – Inquiry Based Learning

8. Aims for science and mathematics education 1.Know use and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world 2.Generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations 3.Understand the nature and development of scientific discourse 4.Participate productively in scientific practices and discourse In what ways might these goals be appropriate in early years science? How might you recognise young childrens emerging capabilities?

9. Changing perspectives on young children Childrens rights – (Mayall, 2004) Early cognitive abilities – insights from new methodologies (For example Angelillo et al. 2007, Robbins 2005, Roth 2000) Theories of cognition – changing epistemological perspectives (Alexander 2007, Duit and Treagust 2003) Impact of early educational experiences (Eshach and Fried 2005, Sylva 2009) Implications for science in the early years – Respecting childrens ideas – Build on experiences and motivations – Adopt holistic perspective of learning – Promote positive dispositions, skills and language

10. Science development and learning Cognitive, social and emotional dimensions Cognitive factors Early drive to explain (Baillargeon 2009, Gopnik et al 2001) Childrens potential in inquiry (Metz 2004) Evidence of metacognitive capacities (Coltman 2006, Goswami and Bryant 2007) Social factors Ability to participate in joint inquiry and dialogue about learning (Brown and Campione 1994, Gallas 1995, Siry and Lang 2010) Emotional factors Importance of affective factors, impact of motivation (Alsop and Watts 2003, Goswami and Bryant 2007 ) However capacities revealed and supported through interactions in the physical environment and social environment

11. Teachers role Siraj-Blatchford et al, (2002)

12. Emphases in the environment Rich opportunities for play and exploration Materials to explore Connections to outdoor and informal learning (Maynard and Waters 2007, Murphy and Beggs 2005) Modes of expression and representation (Manches et al 2010, Brooks 2009, Worthington and Carruthers 2003) Importance of community, fostering collaboration (Gallas 1995, Siry and Lang 2010,) Roles of digital technologies (Plowman and Stephen 2005) Time to develop ideas and inquiries (Glauert 2005, Metz 2004)

13. Nuanced role of the teacher Reviewing Piagetian legacies (Metz 1995) Assumptions about innate curiosity, neglect of diversity, cultural assumptions (Fleer 2006, Harris & Williams 2007) Varying roles for adult – responsive partnerships (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva 2004) Taking the content of childrens inquiries seriously (Feasey 1994, Fleer 2009) Developing metacognitive awareness, fostering alternative strategies and explanations (Siry and Lang 2010)

14. Varied roles over time Kind and Kind 2007, Ryder 2011 Ear GongsRocket Mice http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/educators/classroom_and_homework_resources.aspx

15. Problem solving & agency (Barrow 2010) Question provided by teacher Learner poses a question

16. Assessment as a process supporting learning and teaching Evaluating own and others ideas, metacognition, reflecting on learning within a community – self and peer assessment Dialogue and feedback to develop shared understandings. Vital to inform sensitive and responsive approach to early years teaching Multimodal approaches, including use of digital technologies for representing and expressing thinking Importance of holistic approach – social, emotional as well as cognitive dimensions Assessment in meaningful contexts

17. Key themes Childrens potential to engage in generation and evaluation of ideas Importance of reflection and discussion of alternative ideas in developing new understandings, role of imagination Social and emotional factors and partnerships in developing understanding - collaboration associated with inquiry and creativity Need for sensitive scaffolding over time – challenge to traditional roles for the adult – varying forms of partnership Varied forms of expression and representation Complexities of the issues involved – tensions between efficiency and innovation, challenge to traditional roles Role of creativity…. Leads to our tentative definition….. Generating and evaluating alternative ideas and strategies within a community

18. Implications for research Research processes Multimodal approaches sensitive to childrens capabilities Involvement of children in research processes Worked examples to capture complexities of practice over time Examples of issues to consider Design and resourcing of the environment inside and out to promote inquiry Types of materials to help children externalise their thinking Forms of questioning appropriate with young children to encourage consideration of and evaluation of alternative ideas How productive collaboration between children can be fostered. The extent to which we should focus on the nature of Science Young childrens capacities for peer and self assessment How to capture multimodal, contextual assessment information that can identify progress and have external validity

19. Issues in policy and practice Lack of guidance in translating high level rhetoric related to inquiry and creativity into specific classroom practices Lack of coherence in policy - for example tensions between rationale and assessment requirements Practical issues such as time, resources, staffing, diversity individual needs Assessment particularly under-developed in both policy and practice Need for continuing professional development WP3 explores these issues in more detail based on survey policy and teachers views

20. Translating rhetoric Tuning into childrens learning What to scaffold and how?

21. Acknowledgements Presentation based on work undertaken as part of the: CREATIVE LITTLE SCIENTISTS PROJECT: Enabling Creativity through Science and Mathematics in Preschool and First Years of Primary Education Coordinator Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Greece: Dr. Fani Stylianidou http://www.creative-little-scientists.euhttp://www.creative-little-scientists.eu Task 2.2 Review of Science and Mathematics Education in Preschool and Early Years of Primary School: Addendum to Deliverable 2.2 – 1 of 4 D3.2 Report on Mapping and Comparing Recorded Practices Lead partners Esmé Glauert and Andrew Manches, Institute of Education, University of London Contributing partners: Ellinogermaniki Agogi: Fani Stylianidou, Dimitris Rossis, Open University, UK: Anna Craft, Teresa Cremin, Jim Clack; Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln, UK: Ashley Compton, Jane Johnston, Alison Riley; University of Eastern Finland: Sari Havu Nuutinen; University College Aarteveldehogesschool, Belgium: Hilde Van Houte, Kirsten Devlieger, Marike De Smet; Goethe University Frankfurt: Annette Scheersoi; Univerisity of Minho, Portugal, Manuel F.M. Costa, Paulo Varela; National Institute for Laser, Plasma and Radiation Physics: Dan Sporea, Adelina Sporea: Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France: Olga Megalakaki; University of Malta: Suzanne Gatt. This publication/presentation reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

22. References Alexander, P. A. (2007). Bridging cognition and socioculturalism within conceptual change research: unnecessary foray or unachievable feat? Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 67-73. Alexander, R. J. (2010). Children, their world, their education: Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review: Taylor & Francis US. Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Science education and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1043-1047. Angelillo, C., Rogoff., B., & Chavajay, P. (2007). Examining Shared Endevours by Abstracting Video Coding Schemes with Fiedlity to Cases. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video Research in the Learning Sciences.. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. K. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998- 2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57-79. Baillargeon, R. (2004). Infants' physical world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 89. Barrow, L. H. (2010). Encouraging creativity with scientific inquiry. Creative Education, 1(1). Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment: Granada Learning. Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing, Visualisation and Young Children an Exploration of 'Big Ideas'. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 319-341. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge MA, : MIT press/Bradford books. Coltman, P. (2006). Talk of a number: self-regulated use of mathematical metalanguage by children in the foundation stage. Early Years, 26(1), 31-48. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688. Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315-336.

23. European Commission (2006). Science Teaching in Schools in Europe Policies and Research. Retrieved from:http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_studies_archives_en.php#2006 European Commission (2011). Science Education in Europe: National Policies Practices and Research: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEAE9 Eurydice). Retrieved from:http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/133EN.pdf Fleer, Marilyn (2006) 'The cultural construction of child development: creating institutional and cultural intersubjectivity ' in International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(2), pp127-140.Fleer, Marilyn (2006) 'The cultural construction of child development: creating institutional and cultural intersubjectivity ' in International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(2), pp127-140. Fleer, M. (2009). Supporting Scientific Conceptual Consciousness or Learning in 'Roundabout Way" in Play-based Contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1069-1089. Fleer, M., & Robbins, J. (2003). Hit and Run Research with Hit and Miss Results in Early Childhood Science Education. Research in science education, 33(4), 405-431. French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 138-149. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. London, Teachers College Press. Glauert, E. (1996) Learning from living ihings in an infant classroom, Primary Science Review 45. Glauert, E. (2005). Making sense of science in the reception class. International Journal of Early Years Education 13(3): 215-233. Glauert, E. (2009) How children understand electric circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration, International Journal of Science Education 31, 1025-1049.

24. Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 620. Goswami, U. (2004). Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development: Wiley Online Library. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (2007). Children's cognitive development and learning. In R.Alexander (Ed.), The Cambridge Primary Review Research Surveys (pp. 141-169). London: Routledge. Harlen, W. (2008). Science as a key component of the primary curriculum: a rationale with policy implications. London, Wellcome Trust. Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2004). The teaching of science in primary schools: David Fulton London. Harris, D., & Williams, J. (2007). Questioning 'Open questioning' in early years science discourse from a social semiotic perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(1-2), 68-82. Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Larkin, S. (2006). Collaborative group work and individual development of metacognition in the early years. Research in science education, 36(1), 7-27. Lind, K. K. (1998). Science in Early Childhood: Developing and Acquiring Fundamental Concepts and Skills. Manches, A., & O'Malley, C. (2011). Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 1-15. Manches, A., O'Malley, C., & Benford, S. (2010). The role of physical representations in solving number problems: A comparison of young children's use of physical and virtual materials. Computers & Education, 54(3), 622-640.

25. Mayall, B. (2004). 'Sociologies of childhood', in Holborn, M. Developments in Sociology. An Annual Review, 20. Ormskirk: Causeway Press Ltd. Mayall, B. (2004). 'Sociologies of childhood', in Holborn, M. Developments in Sociology. An Annual Review, 20. Ormskirk: Causeway Press Ltd. Mayall, B. (2006). Values and assumptions underpinning policy for children and young people in England. Children's Geographies, 4(01), 9-17. Maynard, T., & Waters, J. (2007). Learning in the outdoor environment: a missed opportunity? Early Years, 27(3), 255-265. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach: Taylor & Francis. Metz, K. (1995). "Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction." Review of educational research 65(2): 93-127. Metz, K. E. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290. Millar, R. and J. Osborne, Eds. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London, Kings College London. Milne, I. (2010). A Sense of Wonder, Arising from Aesthetic Experiences, Should Be the Starting Point for Inquiry in Primary Science. Science Education International, 21(2), 102-115. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction: what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. Murphy, C. and J. Beggs (2005). Primary science in the UK: a scoping study. London, The Wellcome Trust. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., Downing, B., Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2007). The PUPPETS Project: using puppets to promote engagement and talk in science. Contributions from Science Education Research, 289-296.

26. Piaget, J. (1978). Success and Understanding (London:Routledge and Kegan Paul). Piaget, J. (1977). The Grasp of Consciousness (London:Routledge and Kegan Paul) Robbins, J. (2005). " Brown Paper Packages"? A Sociocultural Perspective on Young Children. Research in science education, 22. Robertson, A. (2002). Pupils understanding of what helps them learn. In P. Adey and M. Shayer (Eds),Learning intelligence. Buckingham: Open University Press. Roth, W. M. (2000). From gesture to scientific language. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(11), 1683-1714. Ryder, J. (2011). Scientific inquiry: learning about it and learning through it. Perspectives in Education: Inquiry-based learning. E. Yeomans. London, Wellcome Trust: 4-7. Siraj-Blatchford, I. and K. Sylva (2004). Researching pedagogy in English pre-schools. British Educational Research Journal 30(5): 713-730. Siry, C. & Lang, D. (2010). Creating participatory discourse for teaching and research in early childhood science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, (2), 149-160. Sylva, K. (2009). Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the effective pre-school and primary education project: Taylor & Francis. Worthington, M., & Carruthers, E. (2003). Children's mathematics: making marks, making meaning: Paul Chapman Educational Publishing.

27. Abstract submitted Here for information only -good abstract need to extract key messages based on subsequent work on 2.2 and 3.2 Aims of Paper 1: Science and Mathematics Education in the Early Years Esmé Glauert and Andrew Manches, IoE In understanding how the term creativity contributes to policy and practice in Early Science and Mathematics Education, it is first important to consider developing perspectives on the nature of these subjects and early childhood. Perspectives on Education, informed by the political and economic landscape, emphasise innovation, democratic participation and the need to motivate learners in interactions between content and process in learning. Meanwhile, there is a greater recognition of young childrens capabilities, their rights of participation and the important impact of Early Years Education on childrens developing aptitudes and attitudes. These changing perspectives suggest that creativity, which emphasises the processes of generating and evaluating new, more personal, ideas, may have value. Yet realising this value requires greater understanding of how creativity maps on to research in this area of learning. Research over the last twenty years suggests a tendency to underestimate childrens predispositions in Science and Mathematics, and the value of informal preschool experiences. Children draw on these experiences in making sense of the more formal ideas presented at school. Whilst young children may find it hard to verbalise their ideas, they may be able to communicate through other modes, such as gestures, visualisations or actions. Young children are not only able to express different ideas but can reason through them at a basic level, although the metacognitive demands may be challenging. This process of evaluation is significant in fostering meaning in childrens learning; helping them to understand how one strategy, explanation or approach may be preferable to another. Research therefore highlights young childrens potential for generating and evaluating alternative ideas, however, the teacher plays a key role in realising this potential. As well as providing materials and activities, indoors and out, to help children explore and articulate their thinking through different modes, teachers can foster dialogue with and between children. Significantly, teachers can scaffold childrens thinking: reducing the cognitive demands involved in engaging with multiple ideas, and modelling ways of reasoning. The effectiveness of teachers to support will be determined by a range of factors, notably approaches to assessment (that recognise childrens diverse forms of expression) including digital tools to help both children and teachers to capture and reflect upon thinking. Whilst many themes discussed are reflected in existing approaches, notably inquiry-based education, emphasising the value of generating and evaluating alternative ideas does signal a role for creativity in Early Science and Mathematics Education.