PRIMARY SCIENCETEACHING TRUST

whyhh &howoo ?w

The Journal ofEmergent ScienceIssue 13 Summer 2017

PRIMARY SCIENCETEACHING TRUST

whyhh &howoo ?w

Editors:Amanda McCrorySuzanne Gatt

Executive Editor: Jane Hanrott janehanrott@ase.org.uk

Cover Photo Courtesy of: Primary Science TeachingTrust (PSTT), see article onpage 31.

Publisher:Association for ScienceEducation (ASE) College Lane,Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9AA, UK

©ASE 2017ISSN: 2046­4754

ContentsIssue 13 Summer 2017

Editorial Contributions

Main Articles

3. Editorial

5. Scientific enquiry and engaging primary­aged children in science lessons:reflections on provision for scientific enquiry in primary schools in England and Wales: Part 1. Amanda McCrory

10. Teachers’ perceptions of Inquiry­Based Science Education and the implications for gender equality in science education. Tamjid Mujtaba, Sue Dale Tunnicliffe and Richard Sheldrake

20. What do children think is inside a crab? Amauri B. Bartoszeck, Sue Dale Tunnicliffe

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) articles

29. Outdoor learning, science trails and inquiry: an introduction to the PSTT article. Amanda McCrory

31. Let’s go and investigate physics outdoors at Foundation and Key Stage 1 level (4­7year­olds). Jeannette Morgan, Sophie D. Franklin, Dudley E. Shallcross

Regular features

36. Resource review

38. Guidelines for authors

40. About ASE

The Journal of EmergentScience (JES) is published by ASE in partnership with the Primary Science TeachingTrust (PSTT).

It is free to access for all.

Editoriall Suzanne Gatt

Editorial JES13 Summer 2017 page 3

Driving my children to school was always aninteresting time for conversations. It was the timewhen they tended to make unusual observationsand ask me the strangest questions. I must confessthat, probably like many parents, I sometimestended to dread these conversations, as often I wasunsure about how to best answer their queries. Iremember vividly one instance when my daughter,barely seven years old, asked whether our brainsmove when we move our heads. As I tried, in panic,to go back to my biology studies to see how best Icould respond in a simple way that she wouldunderstand, I inquired why she was asking aboutthe brain. She explained how, the day before, shehad wondered whether her brain inside her headmoved when she lay down in bed and put her headon the pillow to sleep. I have to admit that at thatmoment I really had no idea how to respond to herobservation. Should I mention the CerebrospinalFluid around the brain, or avoid providing atechnical answer? In the end, I promised that I couldhelp her look up some information about the brain,relieved that the episode was temporarily over.

I am sure that these instances are common andthere are many parents who are often unsure howto react to the multitude of questions that theirchildren pose. It is also why young children areconsidered as intuitive scientists (Gopnik, 2012).

Children are naturally curious and have an intrinsicmotivation to learn, an aspect that has notchanged from one generation of children to thenext, despite all technological developments. Theyalso start learning science from the home context(Sikder, 2015). Young children are always interestedin natural phenomena around them, such assunrise and sunset, thunder, animals and their

babies and many other aspects that we adults takefor granted. From a very young age of a fewmonths, babies are often seen to repeatedly droptoys to test if they will always fall onto the floor. As babies grow older, they will extend theirexplorations, for example, by spending hoursplaying in sand, adding water to sand, and tryingout different activities to see what happens. Thisleads them to ask incessant questions.

Teachers and parents can capitalise on children’sinnate curiosity by providing rich experiences thatpromote questioning and explorations. Intriguingdirect experiences of scientific phenomena,whether involving playing with ice, making boatsout of play dough, adding substances to water,etc., can easily serve to promote inquiry (Johnston& Tunnicliffe, 2014). Inquiry builds on children’snatural disposition to explore. However, childrenneed guidance if we want them to develop theirnatural curiosity into scientific investigation skills.To achieve this, they need to practice how toinvestigate their questions by engaging in richscientific inquiry experiences (Ashbrook, 2016).Scientific inquiry enhances children’s naturalcuriosity, helping them to develop a range ofscientific skills: how to explore objects, materialsand events; to ask questions that can be tested;how to make careful accurate systematicobservations; to record their observations indifferent forms; compare, sort, classify, and ordertheir own observations; identify patterns andrelationships; and eventually develop tentativeexplanations and ideas. They do this as they workcollaboratively in groups, sharing, discussing andconfronting their ideas.This issue of JES considers children's interests andcuriosity about the world and implementing

Editorial

Editorial JES13 Summer 2017 page 3

inquiry. The paper by Bartoszeck and Tunnicliffetackles children’s natural curiosity about the crab inBrazil and their conceptions of what they think isinside their bodies. Natural inquiry leads children toformulate their own ideas and explanations. Theseideas are relevant to the process of learning scienceand thus, children's ideas need to be the startingpoint for learning science.

My colleague Amanda McCrory presents inquirywithin the national primary science curriculum andthe challenges that it presents to teachers. It is thefirst part of our contribution as Editors to thejournal. Inquiry has been promoted in manycountries, in Europe as well as the US.Mainstreaming inquiry in the primary curriculum isthus a struggle for many countries.

Mujtaba, Tunnicliffe and Sheldrake’s articlefocuses on teachers’ perceptions of inquiry­basedlearning following a professional developmentcourse implemented as part of a European Fundedproject, Pri­Sci­Net. The article includes reflectionsparticularly related to the impact on the teachers’practice and on the students. A gender perspectiveis provided.

The Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) hascontributed an interesting article. Morgan,Franklin and Shallcross talk about trails anddescribe how they use out­of­school activities to promote exploration and the understanding ofphysical concepts related to light, sound,

electricity, etc. The article provides an example ofthe variety of different authentic inquiries that canbe organised outside the classroom context. Takingchildren out to gardens, streets and parks builds onchildren’s natural interest in the world andpromotes exploration where children can engagedirectly with scientific phenomena within thescience primary curriculum.

We hope that you enjoy this edition and that itinspires you to organise inquiry activities wherechildren nurture their curiosity about the world andexplore their ideas as a process of learning science.

ReferencesAshbrook, P. (2016) ‘Encouraging curiosity’, Science

and Children, Apr/May 2016, 22–23Gopnik, A. (2012) ‘Scientific thinking in young

children: Theoretical advances, empiricalresearch and policy implications’, Science, 337,(6102), 1623–1627

Johnston, J. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2014) ‘Editorial’,Journal of Emergent Science, (8), 3–4

Sikder, S. (2015) ‘Social situation of development:Parents’ perspectives on infants­toddlers’concept formation in science’, Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 185, (10), 1658–1677

Professor Suzanne Gatt. University of Malta andCo­Editor of JES. E­mail:Suzanne.gatt@um.edu.mt

Editorial JES13 Summer 2017 page 4

AbstractThe first part of this paper reflects on and discussesthe concept of scientific enquiry in primary schools inEngland and Wales, including possible barriers to theprovision of the primary science curriculum viaenquiry. The second part of this paper, which will bepublished in Issue 14 of JES, will report and criticallyreflect upon how schools can deliver a high qualityprimary science curriculum via enquiry to engagechildren in science education and promote a lifelongpassion for learning science.

Keywords: Barriers, curriculum, engagement,enquiry, perceptions, provision

Children’s perceptions of scienceHow do primary­aged (EYFS, Key Stages 1 and 2,ages 0­11) children view science? On the whole,is their attitude to learning about science and theworld around them positive or negative? TheWellcome Trust (2014) notes that children start to‘develop perceptions about whether science is forthem towards the end of primary school,’ (2014: 4)and it is therefore imperative that all, not some,primary school children experience exciting andinspiring science that reinforces theirunderstanding of the nature of science.

Although I now work in Initial Teacher Education(ITE), at heart I am a primary science teacher – and,as a science educator, nothing gives me morepleasure than engaging with children when theyare learning science and with my student teacherswhen they are learning to be effective facilitatorsof the science curriculum. I have never met a childwho is not curious and does not want to exploreand investigate in science, unless they have

experienced the boredom of not being taughtscience effectively or indeed learn to believe thatscience is not for them.

We know from limited research into investigatingprimary­aged (0­11 years) children’s attitudes toscience that, in general, these pupils have positiveattitudes to practical science and that this tends toemerge from a young age (Murphy et al, 2005;Silver & Rushton, 2008; Berland & Reiser, 2011;Tunnicliffe, 2015); thus they are likely, on thewhole, to leave primary school – if they receivegood provision in science education – thinkingpositively about science, even though primary­aged children can find some concepts in sciencedifficult to understand (Loxley et al, 2014).

Teachers can find the more abstract concepts ofscience challenging to teach (Harlen & Qualter,2014) and it is therefore recognised that moreneeds to be done to improve teacher effectivenessin developing children’s conceptual understandingof science via enquiry, not only in primary but alsosecondary schools (Abrahams & Reiss, 2012; 2014).It is hoped that the changes to the Primary ScienceCurriculum in England and Wales (2013) will be astep towards enabling primary science classroomteachers to achieve this.

The primary science curriculum and enquiryAs readers are no doubt aware, science in statemaintained primary schools in England and Walesfocuses on biology, chemistry and physics – viathese disciplines, scientific knowledge andconceptual understanding are taught anddeveloped. Scientific enquiry – referred to in theNational Curriculum for Science as ‘working

Scientific enquiry and engagingprimary-aged children inscience lessons:... l Amanda McCrory

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 5

...reflections on provision for scientific enquiry in primary schools in England and Wales (Part 1)

scientifically’ – is an essential tool for children to askand answer scientific questions about the worldaround them. Understanding the nature, processesand methods of science is an important aim ofscience education in the primary school:

● ‘While it is important that pupils make progress, it is also vitally important that they develop secureunderstanding of each key block of knowledge andconcepts in order to progress to the next stage.Insecure, superficial understanding will not allowgenuine progression: pupils may struggle at keypoints of transition (such as between primary andsecondary school), build up serious misconceptions,and/or have significant difficulties in understandinghigher­order content.

● ‘Pupils should be able to describe associatedprocesses and key characteristics in commonlanguage, but they should also be familiar with, anduse, technical terminology accurately and precisely. They should build up an extended specialistvocabulary. They should also apply theirmathematical knowledge to their understanding ofscience, including collecting, presenting andanalysing data.

● ’The social and economic implications of scienceare important but, generally, they are taught mostappropriately within the wider school curriculum:teachers will wish to use different contexts tomaximise their pupils’ engagement with andmotivation to study science’ (DfE, 2013:3).

In addition, working scientifically specifies theunderstanding of the nature, processes andmethods of science for each year group and should be embedded within the content of biology, chemistry and physics, focusing on the key features of scientific enquiry, so that pupilslearn to use a variety of approaches to answerrelevant scientific questions.

These types of scientific enquiry should include: ● observing over time; ● pattern seeking; ● identifying, ● classifying and grouping; ● comparative and fair testing (controlled

investigations); and● researching using secondary sources.

‘Pupils should seek answers to questions throughcollecting, analysing and presenting data’(DfE, 2013: 3).

Working scientifically will be developed further atKey Stages 3 and 4 (age 11­16), once pupils havebuilt up sufficient understanding of science toengage meaningfully in more sophisticateddiscussion of experimental design and control (DfE,2013: 4). Scientific process skills need to bedeveloped, as they are the bedrock for children tobe able to understand conceptual science, as wellas engage in and enjoy science.

Engaging children in science education viaenquiry – considerations…The collaborative, social constructivist approach to teaching and learning science does much tomotivate and engage students in learning science,and teachers who focus on teaching science viaenquiry, including curiosity and creativity topromote scientific thinking and reasoning skills, are in fact ‘equipping learners with lifelong skills’(Ofsted, 2013). The social constructivist learningperspective is ideal to facilitate an environment of working scientifically (Skamp & Preston, 2015),this being: ● the active process where children make sense ofthe world around them by linking new conceptualknowledge to their existing frameworks (the act ofconstructing knowledge on the basis of taking intoaccount what is already known), ensuring that ideasand concepts in science make sense to them; and● a way to develop understanding via the notionof learning from the more knowledgeable other;where pupils work together to search for meaning,understanding and/or solutions (Vygotsky, 1978),which provide just the right amount of challengefor those taking part – thus learning throughcommunication and interaction with others.

The changes made to the Primary Science NationalCurriculum (2013) in England and Wales nowemphasise the whole scientific process, this being a shift from the sporadic, occasional use of enquiry– often epitomised by teacher­led instruction orindeed class work restricted to a series of formulaicinstructions, which inhibit independence (Ofsted,2013) – to working scientifically being the way inwhich primary­aged children learn scientificconcepts (Smith, 2015).

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 6

In addition to this, the curriculum recognises thatchildren need to understand science as an‘ongoing’ process, where primary­aged children areencouraged to understand that scientific ideaschange and develop over time and see themselvesas scientists in the classroom: ‘the best teachers ofscience look for ways to enable their learners asscientists!’ (Cross & Board, 2014:17), rather thandisconnected from ‘real life’ science.

Therefore, primary science needs to be embeddedin issues that are meaningful to children and taughtusing pedagogies that engage children, as clearlyhighlighted by Bilton, Bento and Dias (2017) in theirengaging book, ‘Taking the First Steps Outside –Under Threes Learning and Developing in the NaturalEnvironment’. Primary science needs to be valuedand taught regularly – the last point is particularlyimportant; children cannot be expected to developtheir process skills or conceptual understanding ifscience is not embedded in the curriculum andvisited regularly.

Ofsted (2013) recognises that the most effectivescience teachers make it a priority to ‘first maintaincuriosity’ (Ofsted, 2013:4) in their pupils and, if thisis adopted as a key principle in the teaching ofscience via working scientifically (via enquiry), thenthis will be fruitful in a number of ways:

● it will foster an enthusiasm and love for sciencewhilst also promote the notion of scholarship in theNational Curriculum – this is the idea that teachersshould be fostering a love of lifelong learning;

● it will combat the stereotypical image of ascientist, which more often than not still, eventoday, predominantly involves a white man, in a labcoat, working alone in a laboratory strictlyfollowing the rules of an inflexible scientificmethod until he makes a discovery – nocollaboration, no communication and no diversity.At some point in history, science has largely beenthe domain of white males, but this is no longer thecase and children need to understand that diversityis not only now the norm, but also facilitatesspecialisation – the notion that different scientistswho specialise in different areas within a field canindeed tackle the same topic from different angles,resulting in a deeper understanding of the topic.This is important for children in the primary schoolto understand if we want them to see themselves as

future innovators and scientists and if we want themto make links between science and other areas ofthe curriculum, e.g. maths or music; taking an in­depth, relational view of science, rather thanunderstanding scientific concepts in an isolated orprocedural way; and

● it will challenge ‘the entrenched viewpoints whichdepict science as boring or just too difficult’ (CBI,2015:3), so that some primary­aged children arenot switched off from science by the age of 11,thereby enabling pupils to fulfill their potential.

Possible barriers to engagement in enquiry in primary scienceFor some primary­aged children, barriers tolearning and enjoying science can sometimes liewith the classroom teacher and his/her [lack of]teaching pedagogies (Sharp et al, 2011), as well asthe learning environment. For some children, thelearning of conceptual science is a challenge – thescientific vocabulary, counter­intuitive concepts,abstract concepts, scientific misconceptions thathave already formed, the overuse of worksheets,use of disengaging teaching strategies or learningfacts, do nothing to engage children in sciencelearning (Allen, 2014; Loxley et al, 2014).

Perception of risk – risk is a necessary andimportance part of science education; we cannotwrap up our children in cotton wool! Children needto learn how to assess risk when workingscientifically, recognising aspects that are bothpositive (engaging with risk encourages children tobe adventurous, brave and innovative, whilstdeveloping decision­making and thinking skills)and negative – risking the possibility of failure,accidents or injury (Sandseter, 2010; Bilton, Bento& Dias, 2017). Risk avoidance, underpinned by aculture of fear by some teachers concerning thesafety of children, does nothing to enable childrento learn to work safely whilst working scientifically;teachers should be supported in this by being givencontinuing professional development (CPD) onplanning for risk in science lessons.

Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge [PCK](Shulman, 1986; 2015) is also important; theinexperienced or ineffectual teacher can focus toomuch on children having ‘fun via exploration’ ratherthan take pedagogical approaches that promote

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 7

understanding in science lessons. Of course,enjoying lessons is integral to engaging children inscientific learning – exploration and enquiry arecrucial in developing process skills for children toconstruct their understanding of conceptualscience. However, without a focus on scientificconcepts, then the outcomes of enquiry will be justthat – fun, without children progressing in theirconceptual understanding of science. Sometimesduring enquiry lessons, teachers can miss theopportunity to make explicit links betweenscientific concepts and the enquiry undertaken.This can happen for a variety of reasons, includingtime management issues; constraints intimetabling and resources; and a lack ofpedagogical scientific content knowledge(Abrahams & Reiss, 2014).

It is argued that the status of primary science as acore subject has been eroded. This is not difficult toagree with when, on average, primary schoolchildren receive 5 hours of English and mathsteaching per week in comparison to (at the most) 2 hours of science (Wellcome Trust, 2016). Cridland(2015) maintained that over half the teacherssurveyed in the Tomorrow’s World report [CBI]stated that they believed that the teaching ofscience in primary schools has become less of apriority. There are immense pressures on primaryteachers to ensure that children perform in Englishand maths, as these are not only regularlymonitored during ‘Pupil Progress Meetings’ andpublished in school league tables, but alsoinextricably linked to a class teacher’s performancemanagement! All of this, coupled with a lack ofconfidence for some primary teachers in subjectknowledge of some areas of the science curriculum(Peacock & Sharp, 2014), as well as a shift inassessment procedures in primary schools (Roden& Ward, 2014), goes some way to account forscientific concepts not always being taught andassessed effectively in primary science lessons.

Resources – teachers who want to teach science viaenquiry often find themselves very quicklychallenged by the lack of resources available inschools to teach science effectively. The NFERTeacher Voice Survey (Wellcome Trust, 2016) foundthat, for the 805 primary teachers and leaders whotook part in the survey from 740 different schools,

the most important barrier to teaching or leadingscience was the lack of budget and resources.Recently I was invited to take part in a ScienceWeek at an inner London primary school, wherethe children were incredibly excited about theirweek ahead; however, the frustrations of someteachers were clear when one teacher confessedthat, during an investigation, measuring jugs wereneeded to measure the growth of yeast, but theschool did not have one measuring jug – anywhere– across the school.

Therefore, Senior Management Teams (SLT) shouldprovide the resources (money, physical resources)necessary for teachers to provide high qualityscience education; SLT should also make provisionfor effective CPD to support teachers’ knowledge,understanding and skills in science so that theyteach and assess the correct conceptual science toall pupils via enquiry, including providing for themore academically able pupils (Wellcome, 2014;CBI, 2015). CPD needs to ensure that teachers areclear on scientific misconceptions, how to identifyand reconstruct them (effective pedagogicalapproaches), both in their own subject knowledgeand that of the children they teach (Allen, 2014),which should improve teachers’ confidence inteaching science effectively.

Ultimately: teachers, school leaders and governorsneed to be clear on the aims of primary scienceeducation and what is achievable; high expectationsof outcomes in science education for all children in primary schools is not simply an expectationfrom the government, but what each and everychild deserves!

References and recommended readingAbrahams, I. & Reiss, M. (2012) ‘Practical work: its

effectiveness in primary and secondary schoolsin England’, Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 49, (8), 1035–1055

Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. & Sharpe, R. (2014) ‘Theimpact of “Getting practical work in science”continuing professional developmentprogramme on teachers’ ideas and practice inscience practical work’, Research in Science andTechnological Education, 32, (3), 263–280

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 8

Allen, M. (2014) Misconceptions in Primary Science –Second Edition. London: McGraw­Hill

Berland, L.K. & Reiser, B.J. (2011) ‘Classroomcommunities' adaptations of the practice ofscientific argumentation’, Science Education, 95,(2), 191–216

Bilton, H., Bento, G. & Dias, G. (2017) Taking theFirst Steps Outside – Under Threes Learning andDeveloping in the Natural Environment.Abingdon: David Fulton

CBI (2015) Tomorrow’s world: inspiring primaryscientists. Retrieved from:https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome­instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF­8#q=tomorrow%27s%20world%20inspiring%20primary%20scientists

Cross, A. & Board, J. (2014) Creative Ways to TeachPrimary Science. Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress

DfE (2013) Science programmes of study: key stage 1and key stage 2. Retrieved from:https://www.gov.uk/government/.../PRIMARY_national_curriculum_­_Science.pdf

Harlen, W, & Qualter, A. (2014) The Teaching ofScience in Primary Schools 6th Edition. Abingdon:Routledge

Loxley, P. & Dawes, L. (2013) Teaching PrimaryScience: Promoting Enjoyment and DevelopingUnderstanding. Abingdon: Routledge

Murphy, C., Beggs, J. & Russell, H. (2005) Primaryhorizons: Starting out in science. London:Wellcome Trust

Ofsted (2013) Maintaining curiosity: a survey intoscience education in schools. Retrieved from:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/379164/Maintaining_20curiosity_20a_20survey_20into_20science_20education_20in_20schools.pdf

Peacock, G. & Sharp, J. (2014) Primary Science:Knowledge and Understanding (QTS series).Exeter: Learning Matters

Roden, J. & Archer, J. (2014) Primary science fortrainee teachers. London: Sage

Sandseter, E. (2010) ‘Categorizing risky play: howcan we identify risk­taking in children’s play?’,

European Early Childhood Education ResearchJournal, 15, (2), 237–252

Sharp, J.G., Hopkin, H. & Lewthwaite, B. (2011)‘Teacher perceptions of science in the nationalcurriculum: findings from an application of thescience curriculum implementationquestionnaire in English primary schools’,International Journal of Science Education, 33, (17), 2407–2436

Shulman, L.S. (1986) ‘Those who understand:Knowledge growth in teaching’, EducationalResearcher, 15, (2), 4–14

Shulman, L.S. (2015) ‘PCK: Its genesis and exodus’,Re­examining pedagogical content knowledge inscience education, 3­13

Silver, A. & Rushton, B.S. (2008) ‘Primary schoolchildren's attitudes towards science,engineering and technology and their images ofscientists and engineers’, Education 3–13, 36, (1),51–67

Skamp, K. & Preston, C. (2014) Teaching primaryscience constructively. Cengage LearningAustralia

Smith, K. (2015) Working Scientifically: A Guide forPrimary Science Teachers. Abingdon: DavidFulton

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Language and thought. Ontario,Canada: MIT Press

Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2015) Starting inquiry­basedscience in the early years ­ look, talk, think anddo. Abingdon: Taylor Francis

Wellcome Trust (2014) Primary science: is it missingout? Recommendations for reviving primaryscience, accessible at:https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/primary­science­is­it­missing­out­wellcome­sep14.pdf

Wellcome Trust. (2016) NFER Teacher voice surveydata, accessible at:https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/nfer­teacher­voice­omnibus­survey­data­apr16.pdf

Amanda McCrory, Institute of Education,University College London. E­mail: a.mccrory@ucl.ac.uk

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 9

Abstract This paper explores the perceived effectiveness of teacher training covering inquiry­based sciencelearning for primary school children in England.Teachers who initially took part in teacher trainingbetween 2011 and 2013 as part of the FP7 project Pri­Sci­Net were interviewed during spring andsummer term 2014; teachers were asked to reflect on their students’ reactions and engagement.Teachers’ responses were thematically analysed, and the implications are discussed within the contextof longer­term implications of primary scienceeducation on girls’ attitudes and aspirations inscience across their subsequent education.

Keywords: Gender, interviews, inquiry,professional development

IntroductionIn England and in many other countries, there is aneed for more students to study science in order tofoster higher scientific and mathematical skills andto accordingly increase both individual andnational prosperity (British Academy, 2015; OECD,2015b). However, concerns remain over therelatively low numbers of students studyingscience subjects in further and higher education,and the low representation of girls studying science(Institute of Physics, 2014; Murphy & Whitelegg,2006; Royal Society, 2006, 2011). Teachers have animportant influence on students’ engagement withscience and their future choices: teachers canprovide direct advice and support, showenthusiasm and help to foster the interest andengagement of students, and develop students’skills and experiences through various teachingand learning approaches (Murphy & Whitelegg,2006; Reiss, 2004).

Attention has recently focused on primary schoolteaching to ensure that students’ initial encounters

with science can ideally be positive (CBI, 2015;Ofsted, 2013; Wellcome Trust, 2014). Fosteringinitial and continuing interest in science remainsimportant, especially as declining attitudestowards science as students grow older have beenconsidered a major cause of the low numbers ofstudents studying science later in their careers,especially girls (Archer et al, 2010; DeWitt & Archer,2015; DeWitt, Archer & Osborne, 2014; Murphy &Beggs, 2003; Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006; RoyalSociety, 2010, 2011).

Primary school students in England generally enjoyscience, but have not necessarily seen themselvesas becoming scientists; these students haveperceived school science as less exciting than theirideas of ‘real science’, for example, and girls havehad lower identification with some areas of sciencethan boys (Archer et al, 2010). Similar results havebeen observed in other countries, where primaryschool students have enjoyed science and believedthat they were good at it, although girls haveexpressed lower views than boys (Denessen, Vos,Hasselman & Louws, 2015). In another studyoutside of England, boys and girls have expressedsimilar attitudes towards a range of areasassociated with science and everyday life, althoughslightly more boys than girls agreed that peopleneed to be ‘clever’ to do science (Kirikkaya, 2011).While primary school students have consideredscience to involve investigation and recognise itsbenefit to society, they have not necessarilywanted to become scientists (Archer et al, 2010;Silver & Rushton, 2008). While they have enjoyedthe practical and collaborative areas of science,their attitudes towards science and technologyhave been seen to decrease over time, and girls’enthusiasm for science has declined more thanthat of boys (Jarvis & Pell, 2002).

Teachers’ attitudes and enthusiasm towardsscience have associated with primary school

Teachers’ perceptions of Inquiry-BasedScience Education (IBSE) and theimplications for gender equality inscience educationl Tamjid Mujtaba l Sue Dale Tunnicliffe l Richard Sheldrake

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 10

students’ enjoyment in learning science, wherefemale teachers’ attitudes especially associate withthose of girls (Denessen, Vos, Hasselman & Louws,2015). In primary schools, teaching practices mayvariously facilitate girls to engage or disengagewith science through implicit gender dynamics, forexample where girls may begin to defer to boysand take less initiative in investigations. Workingtogether in single sex groups, or offering studentsthe freedom to choose how they work, has beenseen to help avoid such issues (Cervoni & Ivinson,2011). Variation across primary school students hasnevertheless been seen, with some girls exhibitingstrong involvement, confidence and assertion(Cervoni & Ivinson, 2011).

Wider research indicates how important it is forteachers to present science in a way that engagesgirls and encourages their learning anddevelopment. Students with a high interest in theirscience lessons were more likely to want tocontinue with non­compulsory physics, and havingthe opportunity to engage in more hands­onlearning was positively associated with secondaryschool girls wanting to study non­compulsoryphysics (Mujtaba & Reiss, 2013). Problematically,compared to boys, girls reported: feweropportunities to explore, discuss, and test theirideas in class; lower perceived support fromteachers in helping them to learn physics; andlower levels of looking forward to and enjoyingtheir physics classes. Girls were also less confidentabout their ability in physics tests (Mujtaba & Reiss,2013). Interviews with girls across primary andsecondary schools have nevertheless highlightedthat girls of all ages were positive about theirschool science experiences, with the older girlsmentioning physical and biological areas as amongtheir favourites, and preferring problem­solvingand hands­on activities; however, teachers wereoften blamed for when science was perceived asboring or irrelevant (Baker & Leary, 1995).

Overall, a large body of research explores students’attitudes and perceptions of science, often relyingon quantitative surveys of secondary schoolstudents, although some also consider primaryschool students (DeWitt & Archer, 2015; DeWitt,Archer & Osborne, 2014; Mujtaba & Reiss, 2013).While these methods are extremely helpful inexploring the relative importance of differentaspects of students’ attitudes to science, more

research is needed in order to determine whatfacilitates students’ engagement with science atprimary school level, especially for girls, and theimpact of different teaching approaches, such asinquiry­based learning.

Within England and across Europe, the importanceof practical work in science has been highlighted atprimary and secondary levels, including throughapplying inquiry­based approaches of learning tohelp foster interest in science (Braund & Driver,2005; European Commission, 2007; Ofsted, 2013;Osborne & Dillon, 2008). Inquiry­based learning ofscience broadly includes more focus on observationand experimentation, facilitated by teachers ratherthan purely focusing on the dissemination ofknowledge by teachers, and on where students canidentify and solve problems (EuropeanCommission, 2007; van Uum, Verhoeff & Peeters,2016). Essentially, on a conceptual level, inquiry­based learning may involve students applying ascientific method or approach during their studies.Inquiry­based learning has indeed been associatedwith improved learning when reviewed acrossmultiple studies (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson & Briggs,2012; Minner, Levy & Century, 2010). In a practicalcontext, for example, Thornton and Brunton (2010)have advocated that practitioners make use of theReggio approach to improve students’ learning atschool; this approach is synonymous with inquiry­based education and suggests that pupils’creativity should also be supported through thelearning environment. Within inquiry­basedlearning, research skills and student­centredlearning are considered to be fundamental todeveloping pupils’ self­reliance, independence andthe ability to identify, investigate and solveproblems. Through these approaches, children canactively construct their knowledge throughpractical activities scaffolded by teachers askingquestions (Chin, 2006) and by facilitating open­ended discussions (Duggan & Gott, 2002). Giventhese various benefits, further research is stilluseful when considering the impact of inquiry­based learning on other areas such as students’interest and engagement with science, especiallyat primary school.

In order to increase the number of peopleproficient in the sciences and to encourage moregirls to pursue science in post­compulsoryeducation, students’ knowledge, skills and

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 11

enthusiasm for science should be encouraged inthe early years and primary education. In primaryschools, teachers’ approaches can link withstudents’ interests and daily lives, and involvegroup work, often via hands­on and problem­solving approaches, although time for student­ledinquiry has often been limited in the primary schoolyears compared to pre­school education (Cremin,Glauert, Craft, Compton & Stylianidou, 2015).Specifically, an implementation of inquiry­sciencein primary schools in Northern Ireland increasedstudents’ engagement through their interest andenjoyment of the classes, and also increased theirconfidence and communication (Dunlop, Compton,Clarke & McKelvey­Martin, 2015). Similarly, inIreland, primary school students’ engagement withand attitudes towards learning science have beenincreased by hands­on and inquiry­basedapproaches (Smith, 2015).

In England, another study involved primary schoolteachers being trained in developing and applyingopen­ended science investigations for theirstudents (Jarvis & Pell, 2002). Following theprogram, primary school girls expressed higherenthusiasm for independent investigative science(and were then more enthusiastic than boys), whileboys expressed relatively unchanged enthusiasm(Jarvis & Pell, 2002). The training was essentiallyable to facilitate the enthusiasm of girls. Inquiry­based learning has also led to increases in primaryschool students asking questions (Gillies, Nichols,Burgh & Haynes, 2014). The wider processes withintheir discussions, involving the students’ inquiries,representations of their ideas, and explanations fortheir reasoning, were considered to be importantfor learning and understanding science (Gillies,Nichols, Burgh & Haynes, 2014). Nevertheless,teachers’ engagement in continuing professionaldevelopment (CPD) does not necessarily requireextensive changes in the delivery of science, andmanagement of change is often difficult and slow(Spooner & Tunnicliffe, 1991).

Within this context, this article has two roles.Firstly, it outlines an implementation of inquiry­based training for teachers and the impact thatteachers felt this training had on their classroomsat Key Stage 1 (Years 1­2, ages 5/6 to 6/7).Secondly, the findings are related to broader issuesin science education, primarily whether a change inteachers’ pedagogy can have a positive impact on

students’ attitudes to science and, more specificallyand in the longer term, to girls’ engagement withscience. Within the context of primary education inEngland, it is useful to remember that at Key Stage1 as well as at Key Stage 2 (ages 7/8 to 10/11), thereare no compulsory teaching times set, althoughthere is guidance available about the number ofhours that teachers need to spend on each subject.Science is allocated approximately 7% of totalteaching time at Key Stage 1, and 9% at Key Stage2, while maths is allocated around 18% percent atboth Key Stages, and English is allocated 24­36% atKey Stage 1 and 21­32% at Key Stage 2 (TES, 2016;QCA, 2002).

MethodsThe trainingThe training referred to in this paper makes up partof the FP7 Pri­Sci­Net project funded by theEuropean Commission. As part of the project,inquiry­based science learning tools weredeveloped by a group of international scienceeducators for use within primary schools. Theactivities were initially developed, selected andthen were trialled for their adaptability. Commentsfrom the trial were reported back to all Europeanpartners; for example, teachers in Englandhighlighted preferences for clear activities forspecific topics that could be applied within onesession. The project partners then collectivelyworked on improving the trialled activities to beused within the main part of the project involvingthe training of teachers. Subsequently, the finalactivities that were used by teachers in Englandwere those that best fitted their work plan at thetime. Teachers did not wish to have data collectionmethods and valuation guidance, insteadpreferring to put together activities for lessons inaccordance with their relevant needs or policies,such as concepts to convey, cross­curricular theses,assessment requirements and their schools’contexts. An example of one of the activities isgiven in Appendix 1.

Training within Pri­Sci­Net was developed forscience teachers, covering the potential benefits of the methods and how they can be applied totheir teaching. Training also involved encouragingteachers to use everyday classroom materials todemonstrate investigations and then fosterstudent­led learning; the training essentially

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 12

showed the teachers how to encourage students to think and do science. Information wasdisseminated throughout the primary sciencenetwork to which we had access at the University,and groups of teachers in England were invited toattend a free training workshop, either in a localschool or in the science department of a largeuniversity. Training in England was limited to oneday, given that there were no funds for supplyteacher cover. Similar events were also undertakenin other European partner countries, although, forincreased contextualisation, the following resultsonly consider teachers in England. The majority ofthe training sessions were provided in the summerterms between 2011 and 2013.

Forty teachers who had attended a training sessionwere subsequently contacted to establish whetherand how the training session had influenced theirthinking and practice. Organising contact andgathering teachers’ views was difficult, given theother demands on their time. Methods wereadapted to maximise accessibility andaccommodate teachers’ other commitments: fiveteachers took part in recorded telephoneinterviews; ten teachers allowed notes to be takenin non­recorded conversations; and three teachersresponded via online interview questions. Teachers’views were gathered between the spring andsummer terms of 2014.

The teachers were from London and the south eastof England. We asked teachers eight corequestions:

ResultsThe responses were analysed by (thematic) contentanalysis (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007):teachers’ responses were read and initial themeswere identified, consolidated and/or refined;responses were then re­read and coded against thefinal themes. The following themes emerged acrossthe teachers’ discussions of the effectiveness of thescience inquiry­based learning activities: intrinsicmotivation (interest); replicability; children’sengagement; the relevance to curriculum; andsupport. Many of the teachers spoke about beinginterested or intrinsically motivated to try out theactivities in their classrooms after having attendedthe training sessions. Teachers who had used theinquiry­based activities had done so because theyfelt that the activities were both replicable andrelevant to the learning goals of England’s sciencecurriculum as set by the National Curriculum(Department for Education, 2013). All the teacherswho tried out the activities within the classroomspoke about how engaged their students were, andbelieved that the activities were an engaging wayfor children to learn about scientific concepts.However, there were some problems with tryingout (and possibly implementing) inquiry­basedactivities in the classroom: the reported barrierslargely concerned the availability of schoolresources and senior management teams notallowing teachers the independence to decide whatwas the most appropriate way to teach sciencewithin their classrooms. It is interesting thatteachers felt that there were barriers to theteaching of science and that they had not raised

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 13

THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

● Do you enjoy teaching science?

● Have you ever used Inquiry­Based Science techniques prior to the training given by the trainer?

● How easy or difficult did you find learning Inquiry­Based Science techniques as demonstrated toyou by the trainer?

● Did you apply the techniques learned at the training day to your classroom?

● How did the children react to your Inquiry­Based Science lessons?

● Was the children’s engagement with science any different to the way children reacted totraditional teaching methods?

● Research suggests that girls are less engaged with science lessons than boys. Did you notice anydifference in girls’ engagement with the Inquiry­Based Science lessons as compared to the use ofmore traditional methods?

● Were girls more engaged, less engaged, or was there no difference?

such issues for other subjects; this may be a genericissue within all primary schools in England, wherelimited time is allocated to science, particularlycompared to English and mathematics.

Intrinsic motivation for teaching scienceIn total, almost all the teachers (94%, or 17 of 18)indicated that they enjoyed teaching science; thisresult was unsurprising as we had expected mostpeople to enjoy their profession. This question wasasked irrespective of what they thought aboutinquiry­based science techniques; there was noindication that those who did not enjoy theirteaching were less engaged with learning new waysto teach their students (although, with the lownumber of teachers who expressed that they did notenjoy their work, this was not necessarily definitive).

We asked teachers to elaborate on why theyenjoyed primary science teaching, and theirresponses resolved into core themes, specifically:wanting to make a difference, and enjoyingscience. As an illustrative quotation, one of theteachers stated: ‘I have always wanted to be ateacher, nothing is more rewarding than knowingthat, by the end of the year, before the children moveon, they are armed with new skills and knowledge alldown to my input…every once in a while I feel I havereally made a difference, not so much in science butin the attitudes of young people… sometimes youknow it’s not about reaching key stage levels, itsknowing that a kid wasn’t interested in school and I made them interested’.

Experience of inquiry­based science educationTeachers were asked if they had used inquiry­basedscience techniques previously. In total, a third ofthe sample (six teachers) reported having usedsuch techniques before in various forms, while twothirds of the sample had not. It is possible,however, that teachers had various interpretationsof inquiry­based learning; for example, workingscientifically (as covered within the NationalCurriculum), or practical work in general, might beinterpreted as inherently involving some degree ofinquiry, while others might only consider inquiry­based learning as applying specific approaches,exercises or tools.

It was also important to establish how easy it wasfor teachers to understand how to teach inquiry­based science techniques. Reassuringly, a large

majority of teachers (78%) felt that they were ableto replicate what they had learnt in the workshops.It was possible that the limited provision of training(covering only one day) was relevant as a potentiallimiting factor. Some teachers cited that theirstudents, rather than their knowledge ofapproaches, could be a limiting or deciding factor.For example, one teacher highlighted that: ‘I don’tthink I will be able to easily replicate these findings;for one, I’d have to have faith in my students thatthey would be able to independently look forinteractions between different parts of theinvestigation, I have trouble getting them to sit stilland focus, let alone encourage them to lead theirown investigations…is there a course on gettingstudents to sit still?!’.

In response to being explicitly asked ‘Did you applythe techniques learned at the training day to yourclassroom?’, around half the teachers reported thatthey had indeed applied aspects of the training.The training they applied were simple examples ofhow to use everyday materials found in classroomsfor science lessons and apply them to inquiry­basedscience lessons (see Appendix 1 for an example),where students were directly involved in anddirected their investigations and learning. Whilstthe subject matter and teaching accessories/equipment may have been the same as intraditional lessons, it was the way that the lessonwas delivered that was the key difference.However, there were indications that lastingchanges could perhaps be less clear, and potentiallylimited by the teachers’ contexts. As an exemplar,one teacher responded that: ‘Hey yes, of course! I left the course feeling really enthusiastic aboutteaching science in this way and even created myown version of an inquiry­based approach. However,it was simply an experiment on my part, kind of funto see how receptive my class would be but, to kindof use it in a long term way, I would need support,learning materials, time to learn and the Head wouldhave to be on board…a whole can of worms isopened when you want to go about changingthings…there’s the parents, could I teach somethingdifferent than the way others are teaching withoutinforming parents? I think the school would have tohave a unified approach to the way lessons aretaught. That doesn’t mean I won’t use thesetechniques and I intend on using them again, but fornow I don’t think I can adopt the approach as a bog­standard way of teaching’.

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 14

Children’s reactions to inquiry­based methodsAlmost all teachers (94%, or 17 out of 18) reportedthat, when they implemented the inquiry­basedlessons, their students appeared to be engagedwith such teaching methods. The majority (61%, or11 out of 18) reported that their students appearedto be more engaged with inquiry­based lessonscompared to their usual teaching techniques.Caution needs to be applied as to what extent afew lessons had on student progress in science overa longer­term period; it was not possible to assessthis within the limits of this research. Even so, theresult is still encouraging, given the context thatteachers were only provided with one day oftraining and had no further support inimplementing inquiry­based learning. As anillustrative quotation, one teacher highlighted that:‘I was quite surprised to find [that one particularstudent] showed leadership skills in a positive way!Usually he is quite disruptive but, for once, ratherthan play the clown he led the group into thinkingabout cause and effect and even helped anothergroup of students repeat the experiment. It is tooearly to say whether such teaching would have aprofound effect on students, their learning and graspof science, but what I can say is my class certainlywere more involved and interested in the lesson thanis the case generally…but then students are alwaysmore excited about practical experiments…whoknows, it went well though’. Another teacherremarked how she had not expected one of herfemale students to be so interested in science:‘Usually [the student] is quite good at getting herhomework done and answering questions aboutanything other than science. I always thought shewasn’t that interested actually. And then I repeatone of the activities I picked up off the Internet,following on from the workshop I decided to lookthings up online, and guess what, [she] was reallyinterested in taking the lead. I paired the class up inno particular order and she was working with [a boy],but it was [she] who was, remarkably, leading theirlittle investigation’.

Girls’ science engagementThe interviews involved highlighting that researchsuggests that girls are less engaged with sciencelessons than boys, and asked teachers to thinkabout such issues within their own settings;teachers were then asked if they had noticed anydifference in girls’ engagement with the inquiry­based lessons compared to the use of more

traditional methods (as being more engaged, lessengaged, or with no difference having occurred).Half the teachers (50%) reported that girls withintheir inquiry­based science lessons were moreengaged with the teaching as compared to usingdifferent teaching styles. As one teacher said:‘Actually I found that girls were more engaged inscience, whether this was because we were doing aninvestigation or whether this was because I expectedthem to think for themselves, I don’t know. What Ican tell you is that if you want more girls to engagewith science you do need to actively engage themwith science – boys seem to take over sometimes andwe as teachers can forget that the quiet ones inscience are probably that way because of confidence’.

Some teachers (22%) nevertheless considered thatgirls were less engaged with science using suchapproaches, whilst others (28%) reported that nodifference in girls’ engagement was apparent. Itwas possible that teachers were not always oreasily able to determine their students’engagement, and preconceptions or priorexperiences may have sometimes been relevant. Asan example, one teacher commented that: ‘Aren’tgirls at this age less interested in science becausethey prefer to be playing with other girls, are lesshands­on than boys? [The teacher was then askedwhat she meant by “less hands­on”]…boys likebreaking things and fixing things, at this age girls justwant to draw pretty pictures. [The teacher was thenasked if she was sure the inquiry­based lessons hadno impact]…well, yes, I suppose girls did try and getmore involved in the task’.

DiscussionThe responses from primary school teachershighlighted that inquiry­based learning wasperceived to be easy to learn and apply; teachersperceived that their students reacted positivelyand, in half the cases considered, teachers believedthat inquiry­based learning facilitated engagementfrom girls within their classes. Nevertheless, thesample was very small, students’ views were notincluded, and teachers received only one day oftraining; more extensive training, undertaken overlonger periods, is usually recommended in order toachieve lasting changes (European Commission,2007; Osborne & Dillon, 2008). The responses fromteachers highlighted that some indeed believedthat further support would be necessary; this

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 15

coheres with earlier research, which highlightedthat inquiry­based learning relies on skills andknowledge from teachers and also from students inorder to direct their own learning, requiringsupport for both teachers and students (Yoon,Joung & Kim, 2012).

In addition, the results highlighted that inquiry­based learning could potentially facilitateengagement between girls and science. Priorresearch has highlighted that girls often reportedlower confidence than boys (OECD, 2015a), and it ispossible that inquiry­based learning can help avoidconfidence issues and similar factors becomingbarriers to engagement, given the comments fromteachers. Similarly, inquiry­based learning, throughpractically considering research questions andexperimentation, may be perceived as morereflective of ‘real science’ by students. In priorresearch in England, primary school students haveperceived differences between ‘real science’ and‘school science’, which may potentially start alonger­term process of disenchantment ordisengagement (Archer et al, 2010); similarly,research with students in the United States hashighlighted that girls strive to make a connectionto science and are able to see the relevance ofscience in their everyday lives, but are largelyunable to come across such understandings in their science lessons (Buck, 2002). Girls do notalways have positive perceptions of science andscientists, and have sometimes perceived that thework of a scientist has little relevance for socialproblems, and that scientists are isolated with littletime for a social life (Miller, Slawinski Blessing & Schwartz, 2006). Engaging girls with science at primary school may help to diminish negativeperceptions or stereotypes about scientists andabout science itself.

Some comments from the teachers highlightedthat it remains important to be mindful of and self­reflective about potential preconceptions aboutwhat students could or should do, and whatstudents may or may not be interested in; forexample, interest may not always be immediatelyapparent. Teachers can help foster students’ owninterest and engagement (Murphy & Whitelegg,2006; Reiss, 2004), but parents and teachers maysometimes encourage boys’ interest in sciencemore than girls’ interest (Jones & Wheatley, 1990),and teachers and their approaches can partially

determine how science is perceived (Baker & Leary,1995). Gender stereotypes or preconceptions mayinadvertently ensure that gender differences andunder­representation persists throughout scienceeducation (Institute of Physics, 2013, 2015).Research has suggested that some teachers do notencourage girls to try and understand scienceconcepts to fit in with their own needs andunderstanding of the scientific world around them,and that traditional teaching approachesthemselves do not necessarily help address suchareas (Buck, 2002); girls often have to adapt toexisting structures or preconceptions already inplace within science education (Carlone & Johnson,2007). Inquiry­based learning does not seek to pushchildren to fit within a structure, but to use theirown knowledge and skills to explore science andunderstand it using approaches with which they arecomfortable, which may facilitate engagement andpersonal identification with science.

Our work has implications for teaching at KeyStage 1. Primary school students have associated‘doing science’ and ‘acting like a scientist’ withhands­on activities and practical work, and havedistinguished science in school from real science(Zhai, Jocz & Tan, 2014). In primary schools inEngland, differences between perceptions ofscience, scientists and students’ perceptions ofthemselves have been considered relevant for girls who did not hold aspirations towards science:for example, notions of ‘femininity’ may beperceived to contrast with notions of ‘being ascientist’ in the sense of a career (Archer et al,2013). Again in primary schools in England,students in Year 2 (age 6/7) have enjoyed sciencelessons and expressed a good understanding ofwhat scientists do and how to be a scientist;students’ attitudes appeared to have developedfrom books, visits to doctors/dentists, televisionand their parents’ jobs, and notions that scientistsare ‘clever’ (Turner & Ireson, 2010). By Year 6 (age10/11), students were still positive about scienceand enjoyed science lessons, but expressed thatthey generally did not undertake science activitiesin leisure time and were not necessarily interestedin science careers (Turner & Ireson, 2010). Thisdecline in science interest could be addressed withclassrooms adopting more student­led approachesto learning, for example, as our teachers hadapplied by implementing inquiry­basedapproaches. This also appeared to increase girls’

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 16

confidence and engagement, according to ourteacher interviews. However, the longer­termbenefits of this approach need furtherinvestigation; we cannot conclude whetherstudents’ engagement and aspirations in sciencewould continue.

On a wider level, the field of social psychologyindicates that, when teachers teach students to set themselves goals, this has a positive impact on enhancing their cognitive efficacy, academicachievement and intrinsic interest in subjects(Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Schunk, 1989). Inquiry­based learning in science aims to achieve all theseoutcomes, although more research, including views from students, is required into the short­termand long­term effects of using a different way toteach science and taking part in more hands­onscience activities.

AcknowledgementsThis paper is partly based on the project Pri­Sci­Net, which has received funding from the EuropeanUnion Seventh Framework Programme (FP72007/13) under grant agreement No.266647. TheInstitute of Education, University College Londonwas partner in the project.

ReferencesArcher, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis,

B. & Wong, B. (2010) ‘”Doing” science versus“being” a scientist: Examining 10/11­year­oldschoolchildren's constructions of sciencethrough the lens of identity’, Science Education,94, (4), 617–639

Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis,B. & Wong, B. (2013) ‘”Not girly, not sexy, notglamorous”: primary school girls’ and parents’constructions of science aspirations’, Pedagogy,Culture & Society, 21, (1), 171–194

Baker, D. & Leary, R. (1995) ‘Letting girls speak outabout science’, Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 32, (1), 3–27

Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. (1981) ‘Cultivatingcompetence, self­efficacy, and intrinsic interestthrough proximal self­motivation’, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 41, (3), 586–598

Braund, M. & Driver, M. (2005) ‘Pupils' perceptionsof practical science in primary and secondaryschool: implications for improving progressionand continuity of learning’, EducationalResearch, 47, (1), 77–91

British Academy (2015) Count us in: Quantitative skillsfor a new generation. London: British Academy

Buck, G. (2002) ‘Teaching Discourses: Scienceteachers’ responses to the voices of adolescentgirls’, Learning Environments Research, 5, (1),29–50

Carlone, H. & Johnson, A. (2007) ‘Understandingthe science experiences of successful women ofcolor: Science identity as an analytic lens’,Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, (8),1187–1218

CBI [Confederation of British Industry] (2015)Tomorrow’s World: Inspiring Primary Scientists.London: CBI

Cervoni, C. & Ivinson, G. (2011) ‘Girls in primaryschool science classrooms: theorising beyonddominant discourses of gender’, Gender andEducation, 23, (4), 461–475

Chin, C. (2006) ‘Classroom interaction in scienceteacher questioning and feedback student’sresponses’, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 28, (11), 1315–1346

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007)Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). Oxford:Routledge

Cremin, T., Glauert, E., Craft, A., Compton, A. &Stylianidou, F. (2015) ‘Creative Little Scientists:exploring pedagogical synergies betweeninquiry­based and creative approaches in EarlyYears science’, Education 3­13, 43, (4), 404–419

Denessen, E., Vos, N., Hasselman, F. & Louws, M.(2015) ‘The relationship between primary schoolteacher and student attitudes towards scienceand technology’, Education ResearchInternational, 2015, 1–7

Department for Education (2013) NationalCurriculum in England: science programmes ofstudy. London: Department for Education.Retrieved 31.08.16 fromhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national­curriculum­in­england­science­programmes­of­study

DeWitt, J. & Archer, L. (2015) ‘Who aspires to ascience career? A comparison of surveyresponses from primary and secondary schoolstudents’, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 37, (13), 2170–2192

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 17

DeWitt, J., Archer, L. & Osborne, J. (2014) ‘Science­related aspirations across the primary­secondary divide: Evidence from two surveys inEngland’, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 36, (10), 1609–1629

Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2002) ‘What sort of sciencedo we really need?’, International Journal ofScience Education, 24, (7), 661–679

Dunlop, L., Compton, K., Clarke, L. & McKelvey­Martin, V. (2015) ‘Child­led enquiry in primaryscience’, Education 3­13, 43, (5), 462–481

European Commission (2007) Science EducationNow: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future ofEurope. Brussels: European Commission

Furtak, E., Seidel, T., Iverson, H. & Briggs, D. (2012)‘Experimental and quasi­experimental studies ofInquiry­Based Science teaching’, Review ofEducational Research, 82, (3), 300–329

Gillies, R., Nichols, K., Burgh, G. & Haynes, M.(2014) ‘Primary students’ scientific reasoningand discourse during cooperative inquiry­basedscience activities’, International Journal ofEducational Research, (63), 127–140

Institute of Physics (2013) Closing Doors: Exploringgender and subject choice in schools. London:Institute of Physics

Institute of Physics (2014) Raising Aspirations inPhysics: A review of research into barriers toSTEM participation for students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds. London: Institute ofPhysics

Institute of Physics (2015) Opening Doors: A guide togood practice in countering gender stereotyping inschools. London: Institute of Physics

Jarvis, T. & Pell, A. (2002) ‘Changes in primary boys'and girls' attitudes to school and science duringa two­year science in­service programme’, TheCurriculum Journal, 13, (1), 43–69

Jones, M.G. & Wheatley, J. (1990) ‘Genderdifferences in teacher­student interactions inscience classrooms’, Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 27, (9), 861–874

Kirikkaya, E. (2011) ‘Grade 4 to 8 primary schoolstudents’ attitudes towards science: Scienceenthusiasm’, Educational Research and Reviews,6, (4), 374–382

Miller, P., Slawinski Blessing, J. & Schwartz, S.(2006) ‘Gender differences in high­schoolstudents’ views about science’, InternationalJournal of Science Education, 28, (4), 363–381

Minner, D., Levy, A. & Century, J. (2010) ‘Inquiry­Based Science Instruction: What is it and does itmatter? Results from a research synthesis Years1984 to 2002’, Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 47, (4), 474–496

Mujtaba, T. & Reiss, M.J. (2013) ‘Inequality inexperiences of physics education: Secondaryschool girls' and boys' perceptions of theirphysics education and intentions to continuewith physics after the age of 16’, InternationalJournal of Science Education, 35, (11), 1824–1845

Murphy, C. & Beggs, J. (2003) ‘Children'sperceptions of school science’, School ScienceReview, 84, (308), 109–116

Murphy, P. & Whitelegg, E. (2006) Institute ofPhysics Report: Girls in the Physics Classroom: AReview of the Research on the Participation ofGirls in Physics. London: Institute of Physics

OECD [Organisation for Economic Co­operationand Development] (2015a) The ABC of GenderEquality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour,Confidence. Paris: OECD Publishing

OECD (2015b) Universal Basic Skills: What CountriesStand to Gain. Paris: OECD Publishing

Ofsted (2013) Maintaining curiosity: A survey intoscience education in schools. London: Ofsted

Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008) Science Education inEurope: Critical Reflections. London: The NuffieldFoundation

QCA [Qualifications Curriculum Authority] (2002)Designing and Timetabling The NationalCurriculum. A Practical Guide for Key Stage 1 and2. London: Qualifications Curriculum Authority.Retrieved 04.09.16 fromhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://education.gov.uk/publications/eorderingdownload/qca02912.pdf

Reiss, M.J. (2004) ‘Students’ attitudes towardsscience: A long­term perspective’, CanadianJournal of Science, Mathematics and TechnologyEducation, 4, (1), 97–109

Royal Society (2006) A degree of concern? UK firstdegrees in science, technology and mathematics.London: The Royal Society

Royal Society (2010) Science and mathematicseducation 5­14: A 'state of the nation' report.London: The Royal Society

Royal Society (2011) A ‘State of the Nation’ Reporton Preparing the Transfer from School and CollegeScience and Mathematics Education to UK STEMHigher Education. London: The Royal Society

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 18

Schunk, D. (1989) ‘Self­efficacy and cognitive skilllearning’. In Ames, C. & Ames, R. (Eds.), Researchon motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp.13–44).Orlando: Academic Press

Silver, A. & Rushton, B. (2008) ‘Primary schoolchildren's attitudes towards science,engineering and technology and their images ofscientists and engineers’, Education 3­13, 36, (1),51–67

Smith, G. (2015) ‘The impact of a professionaldevelopment programme on primary teachers’classroom practice and pupils’ attitudes toscience’, Research in Science Education, 45, (2),215–239

Spooner, W. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (1991) ‘Effects of in­service programs on elementary teachers.Attitudes towards science and the teaching ofscience’, Science Education International, 2, (4)

Thornton, L. & Brunton, P. (2010) Bringing theReggio Approach to your Early Years Practice.Abingdon: Routledge

Times Educational Supplement (2016) The TESFAQ, Timetabling. Retrieved 04.09.16 fromhttp://www.tesfaq.co.uk/timetable

Turner, S. & Ireson, G. (2010) ‘Fifteen pupils’positive approach to primary school science:when does it decline?’, Educational Studies, 36,(2), 119–141

van Uum, M., Verhoeff, R. & Peeters, M. (2016)‘Inquiry­based science education: towards apedagogical framework for primary schoolteachers’, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 38, (3), 450–469

Wellcome Trust (2014) Primary Science: Is It MissingOut? Recommendations for reviving primaryscience. London: Wellcome Trust

Yoon, H­G., Joung, Y­J. & Kim, M. (2012) ‘Thechallenges of science inquiry teaching for pre­service teachers in elementary classrooms:Difficulties on and under the scene’, Research inScience Education, 42, (3), 589–608

Zhai, J., Jocz, J. & Tan, A­L. (2014) ‘”Am I Like aScientist?”: Primary children's images of doingscience in school’, International Journal ofScience Education, 36, (4), 553–576

Dr. Tamjid Mujtaba, Dr. Sue Dale Tunnicliffe and Richard Sheldrake, University CollegeLondon, Institute of Education, University of London, England.

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 19

IBSE TEACHER TRAINING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

Appendix 1

Age range: 6­8 years

Title of activity: Magnetic force

Objective:1. To investigate the strength of magnets.2. To support pupils’ measuring skills and

observation techniques.

Equipment: Everyday objects, both magnetic and notmagnetic, a variety of magnets, ruler andworksheets.

Process:1. Working in small groups, the pupils test awide variety of objects for magnetic properties.2. Within the groups, allocate roles – observers,recorders, planners.3. Record their findings on the table – pupils canwrite or draw their observations.4. Ask pupils to test their magnets – which isthe stronger?5. How will they do this? Pose the question andgive time to investigate.6. Record findings on the table.7. How can we measure the strength?

Outcomes:What have we learnt?How might this be used in ‘real life’?What differences were there in the strengths ofthe magnets?

AbstractChildren start learning about their internal anatomyfrom an early age, as they experience directmanifestations of some of it. They then tend to usethemselves as a template for predicting the anatomyof other living organisms. The study of invertebratesis a very neglected area in pre­school and earlyprimary school curricula. However, we believe thatchildren from Southern Brazil nonetheless have abasic utilitarian knowledge of the internal anatomyof the crab, because crabmeat is a familiar part oftheir diet. In this study, a total of 433 children, 193aged 5; 67 aged 10; and 173 aged 12, from 4 schools(3 public and 1 private) in an urban area of SouthernBrazil, were asked to draw what they think is inside amangrove swamp Brazilian crab. Analysis of thedrawings of the children revealed a range of resultsillustrating what different age groups recognised asorgans within the crab, although few drawingsactually depicted organ systems.

The study showed that children have a poorunderstanding of the internal organs, and organsystems, of crabs, sometimes using their mammalianunderstanding of life functions, (e.g. ‘lung’ instead of‘gills’, ‘dog­bone’ shapes to represent bones) as atemplate for explaining their understanding. Theheart and brain were the organs most represented byboth genders in all the participating age ranges. Thedigestive and respiratory organ systems were onlyrepresented in the drawings of the 12 year­old pupils.

Keywords: Crab, internal organs, drawings, children

Introduction The process of developing scientific literacy,together with the literacy skills of writing andreading, is a complex one for most early yearspupils. One aspect of scientific literacy is to achievea basic understanding of biological forms and thefunction of organisms with respect to theenvironment. As children are part of the biological

domain, and experience living aspects in theenvironment directly, such as breathing and eating,they tend to use their personal understandingwhen examining other biological forms. This isunlike the way children relate to the physicaldomain, to which they are extraneous.

There are many ways of gathering informationabout students' understandings of scientificphenomena. However, despite the richness andvariety of the methods used by science educators,most of these methods tend to rely on studentseither talking or writing about science. Suchmethods include oral interviewing of students,gathering their written responses, recording theirspontaneous conversations and encouraging themto construct written concept maps. As Cox (1992)wrote, a child´s drawing is a way in which s/he maychoose to represent his/her inner mindrepresentation of reality. Mental models arerepresentations of information and experiencesthat the child may have from the outside world(Rapp, 2007). A mental model is a graphicrepresentation of an object or events formed bythe mental activity of a child or adult. The processof forming and constructing models is a mentalactivity of an individual or group (Duit & Glynn,1996). A mental model is the person’s personalknowledge of the phenomenon – in the case of thisarticle, a specific animal species, and will havesimilarities to and differences from thescientifically accepted knowledge, which in thiscase includes the taxonomic position of the animal,its significant morphological features, etc.

Living organisms have an important place inchildren's lives. Children learn about animals andplants from their earliest moments. When childrendeal with living organisms, they experiencecountless opportunities for understanding thenatural world around them; for instance, howinvertebrates differ in form, how animals adapt tohabitats, and this contributes to their science

What do children think is inside a crab?

l Amauri B. Bartoszeck l Sue Dale Tunnicliffe

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 20

learning (Abramson, 1990; Tunnicliffe, 2013;Bartoszeck et al, 2014).

Children come to their biology educationexperience with existing mental models of livingthings encountered in their formal studies in school,outside of school, at home, or elsewhere duringleisure activities. Such mental models may beviewed as representations of an object or an event.

The body forms of invertebrates are relativelyunfamiliar to young children, compared to themore familiar shapes of vertebrates, which can bemapped more easily in comparison to a child’s ownbody. Furthermore, children often express distastewhen faced with invertebrates (possibly because ofthe unfamiliarity of their external morphology andbehaviour, especially when compared to humanbeings). Even so, some invertebrates do attract thecuriosity of some children (Kellert, 1993). Suchexperiences may contribute to further scienceunderstanding.

Research into children´s ideas about the internalorganisation of organs and organ systems invertebrates is more common (see Bartoszeck et al,2011b). There is relatively little study on theunderstanding held by children of the internalanatomy of invertebrates, although there has beensome research carried out on the analysis ofdrawings constructed by learners (Rybska et al,2014; Tunnicliffe, 2015a). Through eliciting theirmental models as expressed in drawings, we canlearn something of the students’ understanding.

Mental models manifested by means of drawings,i.e. the expressed model, can be a child´s fantasy, achild’s exploration or an account of what is onhis/her mind at that moment. Children’s drawingsare not intended to be photographs or exactreproductions, but are instead amateur illustrationsrepresenting objects and organisms belonging tothe environment around them (Anning & Ring,2004; Cox, 2005). Moreover, the interpretation oftraditional drawings depends on the pupil’spossession of visuospatial skills.

Occurrence of crabsThe subtropical Brazilian crab (Neohelice granulataDana, 1851) lives in near­vertical tunnels inmangrove swamps, or among rocks near rivers and

the coast. The crabs may be located in theirburrows close to tree roots, and some climb ontotree branches growing in the swamps.

During January and February each year, low­income families work hard to collect this species ofedible crab to sell to fishmongers and localrestaurants as a source of income. Children living intowns away from the sea or lakeside beaches donot see crabs every day. However, when familiesbuy fish at the market or from fishmongers,children have an opportunity to see theseinvertebrates, which are also used by restaurants,with shrimps and river crabs appearing in dishessuch as Spanish paella. These children may alsoencounter crabs during summer vacations whentheir families rent beach houses at Paraná(Guaratuba) or Santa Catarina (Camboriú).

Children acquire a second­hand familiarity withorganisms from seeing images in the media, video,TV and books. In Brazilian children’s picture books(suggested reading to the age range of 3­4 to 10­12year­olds) about the Brazilian crab, the narrativesonly mention activities that occur in the mangroveswamp in which the animal lives. Recent researchstresses that children’s learning, as well as atransfer of information to the real world, may occurwhen encountered in picture books, even for theyoungest children (Bruguiére, 2015), although suchimages may give an unrealistic impression of theorganism, for instance where the size of the animalis enlarged. Furthermore, such drawings onlyprovide a view of the external morphology.

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 21

Figure 1: Artistic illustration of a crab presented ina children’s picture book.

Drawings as a source of children’s ideasThis investigation sought to examine how youngchildren aged 5, 10 and 12 represent the internalanatomy of a Brazilian crab by means of a drawing.

In this study, the drawings are products of thechild’s imagination kept in his/her memory. There isa tendency for children to apply the knowledgethey may have of the internal anatomy of theirbodies and apply such informal knowledge to otherorganisms. Moreover, drawings, i.e. the expressedmodel, channel graphic information andcommunicate children’s ideas or development of concepts, sometimes in alternative andconfusing ways.

The research question of the study was:What do Brazilian primary school childrenunderstand about the internal anatomy of crabs?

MethodologyThis study sought to elicit the understanding ofpupils aged 5 (n=193), 10 (n=67) and 12 (n=173)when representing the inside anatomy of a crab,from drawings made. Such knowledge was elicitedthough the drawings made by the children fromtheir mental models and identified by them ontheir drawings, by labelling or having an adultannotate the drawings according to the child'sdirection. These data were collected during school time.

An exemplar of a subtropical crab (Neohelicegranulata Dana, 1851), taxidermically prepared by a technician from the Department of Zoology,University of Paraná, was shown to pupilsattending the kindergarten, and primary school 4th grade and 6th grade respectively. Study of the internal structures of a crab does not form part of the 5 year­olds’ curriculum, as the focus is on external parts of the human body, the names of animals, everyday plants, or seasons of the year. This species of crab is mainly used in practical classes when teaching about crustaceain the last year of secondary school, when pupilsare 15 years old, and also during undergraduatebiology courses.

At the beginning of the session, the first researcherasked the class if they knew what a crab was,before showing the preserved specimen of a real

crab (caranguejo in Portuguese). The childreninformed the researcher verbally and the numberclaiming that they knew was noted. Most said thatthey knew what a crab is and that they werefamiliar with the invertebrate, as families boil themin large pots during summer gatherings (in Januaryand February) to eat the flesh inside the claws andlegs, flavoured with tasty spices and enjoyed withcold beer.

Fieldwork was then carried out in southern Brazil,in the Paraná State capital, Curitiba, in 3kindergartens (one private and the others state­funded) and a public primary school. Pupils in eachage range were asked on separate occasions todraw, using a black pencil, what they thought wasinside the crab when it was alive. Pupils were toldto write their first names and age at the top of anA4 blank sheet of paper to allow for easyprocessing of data. The teacher wrote labels on thedrawings for the 5 year­olds when requested, butonly the exact words and in places as dictated andpointed out by the children. The fieldwork wasconducted in whole class settings. Children weregiven 10­15 minutes to complete each drawing.

Ethics permissionPermission to conduct this study was provided bythe headteachers and teachers in the participatingschools. All data were collected subject to the fullconsent of parents and principals of all educationalinstitutions involved. Consent forms were collectedby the school co­ordinator and only the drawingsby children whose consent forms had being signedby parents were included in this study.

Analysis of the drawings The analysis involved used the basic rubric scaleprotocol devised by Tunnicliffe and Reiss (2001) forscoring drawings of the internal anatomy (althoughfor vertebrates, adapted for invertebrates, in thiscase the crab) and used appropriately according tothe class of animals, e.g. Tunnicliffe (2015), in whichthe researchers described stages of developmentof the understanding of organs and organ systems(see Tables 1 and 2). Each occurrence was codedwith either a lower or upper case letter, indicatingwhich organ was represented and the organsystem at least once; for instance, ‘digestivesystem d= for an organ’; or ‘digestive system

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 22

D= tube from mouth to anus’ (Reiss & Tunnicliffe,2001). Exemplars of drawings and grades allocatedare shown in Figures 2 to 6.

The researchers agreed on a definition of particularorgans belonging to a system to complete therubric scale below.

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 23

Level 1 No internal recognisable organs.

Level 2 One or more internal organs shown at random.

Level 3 One internal organ (e.g. heart) in appropriate position.

Level 4 Two or more internal organs (stomach, gills) in appropriate position but no extensive relationships indicated between them.

Level 5 One organ system indicated (e.g. gut connecting mouth to anus)

Level 6 Two or three major organ systems indicated (e.g. digestive, circulatory).

Level 7 Four or more organ systems indicated.

(Adapted from Reiss and Tunnicliffe, 2001).

Table 1. Organ and organ system scoring rubric scale.

Nervous system Cerebroid ganglia, supraesophageal ganglion, circumesophageal ganglion, thoraxic ganglion, abdominal nerve, optic nerve, nerves

Digestive system Cardiac stomach, hepatopancreas, middle (small) intestine, posterior (large) intestine, cecum, anus

Circulatory system Heart, lateral right branch blood vessel, lateral left branch blood vessel

Muscular system Muscles in the legs and claws

Excretory system Bladder, kidney, vas deferens, excretory hole

Respiratory system Branchial chamber, gills, openings to the outside

Reproductive system Testis, deferens channel, ejaculator channel, penial papilae, ovary branches right and left, spermatecae

Table 2. Organs belonging to an organ system.

(Adapted from Felgenhauer, 1992).

Figure 2: A drawing by a 5 year­old boy, whichscored as level 4 according to the grades in Table 1.

Figure 3: A drawing by a 5 year­old girl, whichscored as level 4 according to the grades in Table 1.

FindingsThe significance of the age of the pupilsThe older children knew more of the internalorgans of crabs and just a few pupils understood anorgan system (see Tables 3 and 4). The mostrepresented organ in the drawings for the 5­yearage range was the heart (85% – about the samepercentage for both genders), followed by thebrain (35% – about the same percentage for bothgenders); the least represented were the kidneyand bladder. A similar trend was identified for the10 year­old pupils, who represented the heart (55%– about the same percentage for both genders) andthe brain (43% – about the same percentage forboth genders), whereas the 12 year­olds representedthe heart (47% – about the same for both genders)and the gills (40% – for both genders). The respiratorysystem was the least represented in all the drawings(1%), while more students drew the digestivesystem (30%). Further analysis confirmed that olderpupils attained higher levels than younger ones.

The data scores of 5 year­old children shown inTable 4 indicate that more girls than boys dreworgans. The percentage of organs represented inthe drawings by 5 year­olds varied. The least drawnwas the kidney (1%, both genders) and the mostcommon was the heart (83.0%). 20% drew thestomach and 32% drew the brain, in both caseswith no specific gender difference.

The largest number of respondents’ drawingsscored at level 4 (see Table 1) and the secondlargest at level 2 (‘one or more internal organsshown at random’). However, more girls in this agegroup knew something about internal organs insidea crab. Their knowledge about their own internalanatomy from their personal experience appears tohave served as a guide to what they thought shouldbe present. The girls, in fact, could identify anorgan necessary for life functions.

The largest percentage of boys aged 10 yearsscored at level 4 (see Table 1), with the secondlargest group being at level 2.

The least drawn organ by the 10 year­olds wasblood vessels (1.5%, both genders) while the mostdrawn were the heart (55%) and brain (43%),similar for both genders. The children also drewgills (29%) and lungs (20%), also representedequivalently by both genders.

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 24

Figure 4: A drawing by a 10 year­old boy, whichscored as level 4 according to the grades in Table 1.

Figure 5: A drawing by a 10 year­old girl, whichscored as level 5 according to the grades in Table 1.

Figure 6: A drawing by a 12 year­old boy, whichscored as level 5 according to the grades in Table 1.

The data from the drawings of the 12 year­old agerange show that the least represented organs werethe respiratory and urogenital systems, spleen andbladder (range of 1.1% to 2.3%), and the mostrepresented were the heart (47.5%), gills (23.4%)and brain (26.0%), almost equally across bothgenders. The kidney, muscle, liver, lung, bowel,

stomach and digestive system were represented inthe range of 3.5% to 28.0%, almost equivalently byboth genders.

The levels attained by the children across age andgender showed a modest growth in mean levelacross both age and gender, with the one

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 25

Table 3: Table of knowledge of individual organs (levels defined in Table 1) for each year group and thetotal responses obtained.

Age 5 Age 10 Age 12 Total per n = 193 % n= 65 % n = 171 % organ %

n=429

Brain 67 35 28 43 48 33 143 33

Heart 159 82 36 55 81 47 276 64

Blood vessels 35 18 1 2 0 0 36 8

Spleen 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1

Bowel (intestines) 0 0 11 17 28 16 39 9

Stomach 48 25 25 39 41 24 114 27

Lungs 19 0 13 20 18 11 50 12

Gills 0 0 19 29 57 33 76 18

Muscles 28 15 7 11 9 5 44 10

Bladder 5 6 4 6 3 2 12 3

Kidney 2 1 4 6 6 4 12 3

Liver 0 0 12 19 15 9 27 6

Table 4. Number and percentage of children drawing organs by gender and year group.

Gender Age 5 % Age 10 % Age 12 %Totals n = 193 Age 5 n = 67 Age 10 N=173 Age 12

Boys (218) (50.%) 90 47 33 49 95 55

Girls (215) (50%) 103 53 34 51 78 45

Total 193 100 67 100 173 100

Table 5. Number and percentage of children drawing organ systems by gender and year group.

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girlsn=90 N=103 N =33 N=34 N=95 N=78

Digestive system 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 (4.09%) 35(20.47%)

Respiratory system 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2/ 1.17%

Urogenital system 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 4/2.34%

exception of 10 year­old boys who were at a higherlevel than the 12 year­old boys.

Most of the drawings of kindergarten children (age5) achieved level 2 and/or level 4, with girls havinghigher percentages. The most frequentlyrepresented organ on the drawings was the heart(85%), followed by the brain (35%), and the leastfrequently represented organs were the kidney andbladder. Boys and girls represented almost thesame percentage for the same organs.

The majority of the elementary school children(age 10) achieved level 4. The most frequentlyrepresented organs by the 10 year­olds were theheart and brain and the least represented thekidney and gills. On the other hand, the 12 year­olds achieved level 5. The most frequentlyrepresented organ system was the digestivesystem and a few represented the respiratorysystem. A number of the 12 year­olds did alsorepresent the heart and gills.

A typical misunderstanding of internal organs ininvertebrates that was demonstrated in thedrawings was the gaseous exchange system. Inmost of the drawings of the respiratory system ofthe crab, pupils included the lung, which is typicalof vertebrates and not the plume­like gills that thecrab possesses to breathe. This shows how thepupils used knowledge about themselves as atemplate for what all animals need to live.

Discussion and conclusionsThree previous cross­sectional studies of children’sunderstanding of other invertebrate species, whichdiscussed how children’s drawings of internalanatomy developed, establishing basic transitory

categories (Rybska et al, 2014; Tunnicliffe, 2015a),were identified. Although older children attainedhigher levels than the younger ones whencomparing the levels achieved, very few of thechildren’s drawings attained either levels 5 or 6 –similar to what was found for the understanding ofthe internal anatomy of the human body.

We recognise that only collecting drawings in thisstudy could be considered as a limitation. We arealso aware that the research could have beenenhanced with additional interviews, at least with afew children, as children would most probably beable to explain their understanding of the internalstructures of the crab that they drew. Previousexperience, in the case of a study on butterflies, hasshown that one can attribute meaning better frominterviews and drawings carried out under thesupervision of the teacher.

Capturing the expressed models, i.e.representations of scientific phenomena such asthe internal anatomy of invertebrates and howthey develop and extend throughout othereducational settings in Brazil, can be a collaborativegoal and a subject for future investigations. Suchresearch can provide insights and direction for newdidactic interventions to science teachers, forexample using the local invertebrate species, theriver crayfish (Aegla platensis) for dissection underthe stereomicroscope. This approach highlights the importance of the practice of ‘observing with meaning’, which can be taught from pre­school level.

The information about children’s views of theinternal structure information was obtained from a sample of children that was notrepresentative of children in Brazil of these threeages. Nonetheless, the study did provide insightsinto children’s conceptions of inner structures andhow they use themselves as a template, which hasbeen shown in previous investigations (Reiss &Tunnicliffe, 2001). Making a drawing of structuresthat they presume are inside this invertebrate canbe considered as a spontaneous concept, whichcould be developed into a more scientific conceptthrough formal learning at school, and using otherspecies as a first step.

The data also revealed that children had noknowledge of the mechanism for respiration in

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 26

Table 6. Mean levels attained by children acrossgender and age.

Age Boys GirlsMean N Mean N

5 2.84 91 2.69 103

10 3.18 33 2.75 34

12 3.04 95 3.18 78

N total 219 215

crabs, which is not a lung­based system as in thecase of mammals. However, it did show thatchildren were aware that the organisms needed‘lungs’, presumably to breathe.

Children’s interactions with organisms in schoolactivities, especially during practical classes withinvertebrates, can potentially improve theunderstanding of the internal anatomy oforganisms. A variety of practical work at school canalso contribute to a good grasp of the internalstructures of invertebrates (Blanquet, 2010). It isclaimed that children are initially able to constructvisual representations of their ideas, whichdevelop, and they achieve a higher level ofunderstanding as they grow older. Anotherpedagogical approach that can be adopted involvesthe manufacturing of models made from plastictubes and food containers representing, in 3D, theinner structures of invertebrate species, particularlyorgan systems such as the excretory system.

School authorities can also encourage schools toundertake visits to natural history museums andscience centres in Brazil, especially those that donot charge fees, as this could increase children’sbiological understanding. Brazilian textbooks forthe 10­12 age range cover mainly the externalanatomy of crustacea and a few words on gillrespiration and pigments in the blood. They do notmention the circulatory or other organ systems.Nonetheless, probing children’s thinking about theinternal organs and systems of crustaceans can bea starting point for more effective teaching in theclassroom. This requires that science teachers areable to elicit children’s existing biologicalknowledge, and to promote ways to enable theconstruction of new knowledge.

Educational implicationsThis study has educational implications for scienceteachers from pre­school onwards:● Teachers, in our opinion, need to analyse pupils’big ideas in biology, such as, for example, the vitallife systems, e.g. respiration and excretion, whichvary across differing phyla of organisms, andcontrasting ways in which lungs and gills function; ● More emphasis should be given during pre­service training courses to everyday invertebrates; ● Children’s fictional narrative books on the crabcan be used as a way to familiarise young readers

with different invertebrates, besides the traditionalones;● Freshwater crabs should be obtained from thefishmonger to dissect on trays in the classroom,unless under threat of extinction;● The relevant everyday experiences of thechildren out of school, such as cooking and eatingcrabs, could be utilised; ● Schools can introduce activities, as mentionedpreviously, which use children’s predictions andtheir ideas about the internal anatomy of differentorganisms to promote learning; ● A colour atlas of animal internal anatomy andbiological models can be used to help duringpractical classes; and● Teachers can organise visits to natural historymuseums, which offer rich informal learningexperiences.

ReferencesAbramson, C.I. (1990) Invertebrate learning: a

laboratory manual and source book. Washington:American Psychological Association

Anning, A. & Ring, K. (2004) Making sense ofchildren’s drawings. Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press

Blanquet, E. (2010) Sciences à l´ école, côté jardin: leguide pratique de l´ enseignât. Villefranche­sur­mer: Éditions du Somnium

Bruguiére, C. (2015) ‘When is a cow not a cow?When 6­8 year­old children draw a cowdescribed in a story by another animal’, Journalof Emergent Science, (9), 23–33

Cox, M. (1992) Children’s drawings. London:Penguin

Cox, M. (2005)The pictorial world of the child.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Duit, R. & Glynn, S. (1996) ‘Mental Modeling’. InWelford, G. (Ed.), Osborne, J. & Scott, P.,Research in Science Education in Europe, pp. 166–176. London: Falmer

Felgenhauer, B.E. (1992) ‘Internal anatomy of thedecapoda: an overview’. In Harrison, R. &Humes, A. (Eds.), Microscopic Anatomy ofInvertebrates, pp. 45–75. Hoboken: Wiley­Liss

Kellert, S.R. (1993) ‘Value and perceptions ofinvertebrates’, Conservation Biology, 7, (4), 845–855

Kildan, A.O., Kurnaz, M.A. & Ahi, B. (2013) ‘Mentalmodels of school for preschool children’, EuropeanJournal of Educational Research, 2, (2), 97–105

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 27

Prokop, P., Prokop, M. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2008)‘Effects of keeping animals as pets on children’sconcepts of vertebrates and invertebrates’,International Journal of Science Education, 30,(4), 431–449

Rapp, D.N. (2007) ‘Mental models: theoreticalissues for visualization in science education’. InGilbert, J.K. (Ed.), Visualization in ScienceEducation, pp. 43–60, Dordrecht: Springer Verlag

Reiss, M.J. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2001) ‘Students’understanding of human organs and organsystems’, Research in Science Education, 31, (3),383–399

Rybska, E., Tunnicliffe, S.D. & Sajkowska, Z.A.(2014) ‘Young children’s ideas about snailinternal anatomy’, Journal of Baltic ScienceEducation, 13, (6), 828–838

Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2013)Talking and doing science inthe early years: a practical guide for ages 2­7.Abingdon: Routledge

Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2015 a) ‘What’s inside anearthworm? The views of a class of English 7year­old children’, Journal of Emergent Science,(9), 42–48

Tunnicliffe, S.D. & Reiss, M. (2001) ‘What’s insidebodies: Learning about skeletons and otherorgan systems in vertebrate animals’. In IOSTE,Science and Technology Education: preparing forfuture citizens, pp. 84–94, Paralimni, Cyprus

Amauri Bartoszeck, Universidade Federal doParaná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil and Sue DaleTunnicliffe, University College London Institute of Education.

Main Article JES13 Summer 2017 page 28

Increasing evidence points to how learning outsidethe classroom has the potential to enrich all whotake part: ‘The benefits of the outdoor classroom areclearly not confined to students alone. Teachersnoted improved relationships with students,personal development in their teaching and … jobsatisfaction’ (Dillon et al, 2005; Natural England,2012; Natural Connections DemonstrationsProject, 2016) and can help to combat under­achievement: ‘Outdoor learning may be particularlybeneficial for children who struggle to maintainconcentration in more formal classroom settings andactively seek out ways to introduce direct experienceinto their learning’ (Waite, 2010).

The ASE (2016) is committed ‘to promotingfieldwork as an effective and inspirational way’ forchildren to learn science. There are now manyprojects that provide opportunities for children tolearn outdoors, and Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment (CPD) opportunities for teachers tolearn how to facilitate effective learning outsidethe classroom. A good example of this is the ‘TeachOutdoors – Learning Through Discovery’ project(2016), which aims to raise standards throughoutdoor learning. Leaders of the project argue thatthe benefits of learning through discovery arewide­reaching, which include:● increased pupil engagement as children areinvolved in experiences first hand;● improvement of behaviour for those withbehavioural issues through giving childrenopportunities to be responsible and earn the trustof their peers and adults; ● children being active rather than passivelearners whilst learning lifelong skills;● improved emotional wellbeing and confidence; ● risk assessment opportunities; children are givenopportunities to assess risk whilst being taughtstrategies to identify dangers and stay safe; and● improvement in physical fitness. (TeachOutdoors – Learning Through Discovery, 2016)

In this issue, articles (Bartoszeck & Tunnicliffe,2017; Morgan, Franklin & Shallcross, 2017; Mujtaba,Tunnicliffe & Sheldrake, 2017) and the book review(Bilto, Bento & Dias, 2017) all focus on theimportance of providing children withopportunities for outdoor learning and inquiry.Authors discuss how teachers and facilitators canengage children in meaningful learningexperiences that contextualise science via theenvironment. One interesting way of achieving thisis to plan opportunities for children to undertakescience trails, which can take place almostanywhere and, therefore, capitalise on anyenvironment. Maths and science trails have beenused in schools for a number of years to engagechildren in learning maths and science outside theclassroom, but what specifically is a ‘Maths orScience Trail’?

A ‘Maths or Science Trail’ can be developed bychildren and teachers to stimulate maths orscience conceptual understanding, whilstpractising inquiry skills such as problem­solving,observation, questioning and pattern­seeking, in a setting local to a school. Children and teachersactively take a pre­planned walk around a chosenoutdoor environment to explore and investigate aparticular concept or topic within maths or science.

An example of a simple maths trail would be to ask children to look for numbers or shapes intheir local environment. Science trails can providestudents with opportunities to explore a topic anduncover the science behind that topic. Forexample, when learning about trees (Year 1, KeyStage 1, (age 6) Science National Curriculum – tolearn about coniferous and deciduous trees)children can explore the local environment tocompare the locations and types of plants foundthere, then use their observations and scientificknowledge to explain why certain plants are suitedto certain locations.

Outdoor learning, science trails and inquiry: an introductionl Amanda McCrory

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) JES13 Summer 2017 page 29

Maths and science trails not only can take place inthe local environment, but, in fact, anywhereoutside the classroom. For example, the ScienceMuseum in London provides a number of well­thought­through science trails where children canexplore the galleries and objects that the museumhas to offer. One science trail that is particularlyengaging is called ‘Spectacular Space’, in whichchildren are encouraged to engage with a numberof objects to uncover the science and storiesbehind them. For example, one object on the trail isthe Apollo 10 Mission command module – childrenare asked to examine the module and find evidenceto demonstrate that the module actually went intospace! On close inspection, using their observationskills, children discover that the underside isburned and charred where it re­entered the Earth’satmosphere. Next, the children are asked to take apen and a piece of paper and drop them from thesame height to investigate which will hit theground first. They are then asked to explain whythis happens (using their understanding of airresistance and surface area) before being informedthat the investigation they just did was done on theMoon, but with a different outcome – both objectshitting the floor at the same time; children areasked to explain why, promoting abstract thinkingskills. Therefore, we can see that the activities towhich the children are exposed throughout the

science trail are designed to encourage the childrento use and improve their scientific knowledge andunderstanding whilst practising their inquiry skills.

The following interesting article by Morgan,Franklin and Shallcross (2017) discusses the use ofscience trails to investigate physics with children inthe Early Years Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1(age 5­7), giving readers ideas of how theythemselves can use science trails with the childrenwhom they teach.

For Key Reports and References, please see:https://www.ase.org.uk/resources/outdoor­science/http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6636651036540928https://pstt.org.uk/resources/curriculum­materials/lets­go­science­trailshttp://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/educators/things­to­do/activitysheets­trails­apps/spectacular­space­trail­ks2http://teachoutdoors.co.uk/wp­content/uploads/2016/11/Benefits­of­Teaching­Outdoors.pdf

Amanda McCrory, Institute of Education,University of London and Co­Editor of JES.

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) JES13 Summer 2017 page 30

AbstractOutdoor science trails can be used to explore a widerange of topics in science at primary school level, butare often viewed as being relevant to the moreenvironmental and biological topics. Here wedescribe some science trails developed for childrenaged 5­7 that prompt the children to think aboutelectricity, energy, sound and light. The use ofdiscussion before, during and after the trail and theimportance of planning are described. Havingundertaken the trails and built up a range ofexperiences and photographs, these young learnerswere better equipped to understand topics such aselectrical circuits.

Keywords: Electricity, sound, light, heat, outdoors

IntroductionResearch suggests (e.g. DeWitt & Hohenstein,2010) that visits to science centres and museumsencourage teachers to engage in more open­endedquestions and allow students to exert more controlover experiences that can lead to affective andcognitive gains. In an outdoor setting, childrenhave even more freedom, potentially, to exploreand investigate their surroundings. It is oftenreported that children are more enthusiastic onsuch outdoor trips than in a classroom setting and,provided that suitable support, scaffolding andtime is given, these students can engage in deeplevel learning. One key aspect that facilitates this isallowing discussion and talk­based activities eitherat the site or back in the classroom, where this ismost effective when some rules for discussion havebeen established (e.g. Mercer et al, 2004).

We experience ‘forces’ constantly and yet they aredifficult to see and understand for many types oflearners, not just the young learners addressed inthis paper (e.g. Danielsson & Warwick, 2014). Weuse electricity on a daily basis, in the UK at least,

but what is it (e.g. Summers et al, 1998)? Weobserve the change in light levels on a daily,seasonal and yearly basis and use light and soundto explore the world around us, but what do weknow about these important science concepts (e.g.Parker & Heywood, 1998)? We note that thesescience concepts (energy, light and sound) areoften associated with physics and so we havegrouped them together under that banner, butother groupings of topics in science would workequally well and science trails can be devised for awide range of topics and concepts. Here, we wantto show how topics associated with physics can beexplored outdoors. In the ‘Let’s go Science Trails’project, we have used the outdoor environment toidentify and develop children’s emergent scienceunderstanding and investigative skills in a range ofscience topics and, in this particular study, we havefocused on children aged approximately 5­7 years.

It has already been noted that the outdoorenvironment provides and encourages pupils’engagement and investigative learning and has apositive effect on teacher­child relationships andpupil attendance (e.g. Dillon et al, 2006).

There is a positive correlation between time spentoutdoors and general health and wellbeing, andthe fostering of responsible attitudes to theenvironment (Vitale, 2011). Indeed, Ofsted (2008)notes that a well­planned and implementedoutdoor learning experience makes a significantcontribution to raising standards and improvingpupils’ personal, social and emotionaldevelopment. The outdoor environment has alsobeen shown to promote learning, in particularamongst students who are native speakers, and tobe an excellent stimulus for class discussion (e.g.Osborne, 2010). Irrespective of whether the schoolis based in an urban or rural location, the outdoorenvironment can be used to develop scienceunderstanding and investigative skills.

Let’s go and investigate physicsoutdoors at Foundation and Key Stage 1 level (4-7 year olds)

l Jeannette Morgan l Sophie D. Franklin l Dudley E. Shallcross

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) JES13 Summer 2017 page 31

The development of a science trailThe ‘Science Trail’ concept is a culmination of theexperience of several highly experienced primaryschool teachers of science who have seen the manybenefits of investigating topics using the outdoorenvironment. Much planning is needed to developa trail and refinements and adaptations will alwaystake place but, in summary, all trails described inthis study follow the same development, formatand implementation.

First, a particular topic or science concept is chosenas well as the age range that will undertake the trail.Second, appropriate locations are identified wherethe pupils will encounter many real world examplesof this topic. Third, teachers investigate the potentialtrail themselves to enable pre­trail materials to bedeveloped (e.g. stimuli such as photographs),complete a health and safety analysis and identifyresources needed to prepare for the trail, while onthe trail and then back in the classroom.

ElectricityDuring the primary school years, pupils will look atelectrical circuits, but what do they know aboutelectricity in the (England education system) early

years and at Key Stage 1 (approximately ages 4­7)?In the classroom, before the trail was undertaken(the timing varied from school to school and groupto group, but was typically during the week beforethe trail), the teacher and pupils discussed the usesof electricity, what electricity might be and that itcan be used to produce light, sound, movementand heat (or a change in temperature). On thisscience trail, the pupils were divided into groupsand asked to find electrical appliances thatproduced sound, produced light, causedmovement, or produced heat or a change intemperature. The results from these investigationsare summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that the sets of electrical appliancesthat were identified under the different categorieswere different, and only one item, the coffeemachine in the food store, was reported to haveproduced sound, light, movement and heat. It hada light on the panel and produced hot drinks, whichis why the children agreed that it was generatingheat, and the cup dropped down, which was whythey reported that it produced movement. Thenumber of electrical appliances that were thoughtto produce heat and light was much smaller thanthe number for the other two categories.

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) JES13 Summer 2017 page 32

Dry Cleaners Food Shop Launderette

Sound Alarm Conveyor belt Tumble dryerVacuum cleaner Fridge Washing machineTill Till Change machine(Ticking) clock Printer (Ticking) clockFan Coffee machineSewing machine Lottery machineRadio

Light Lights Light at till LightsCoffee machine

Heat Vacuum cleaner Coffee machine Tumble dryer

Movement Fan Conveyor belt Tumble dryerVacuum cleaner Coffee machine Washing machineTill Till Change machine(Ticking) clock Printer (Ticking) clock Sewing machine Lottery machine

Table 1. Items identified by children that use electricity and produce sound, light, movement or heat.

Apart from lights themselves, only the coffeemachine was recorded as a producer of light. Onlythree items were recorded as producing heat: thecoffee machine, the tumble dryer (because itwarmed up the clothes), and some children knewthat vacuum cleaners produced heat (fromexperiences at home). However, one of thedrawbacks of the trail was the adherence to healthand safety, in that touching potentially hot objectswas prevented and so the children did not have aneasy way to determine whether heat was beinggenerated. So, just these three items wererecorded as producing heat. Back in theclassroom(s), there was much discussion aboutwhether some of the other electrical itemsproduced heat and light. The children rememberedthat it was warm in both the dry cleaners and thelaunderette, and a very interesting discussionfollowed: although most children assumed that theheating was on in both shops, there were a fewchildren who thought that it was warmer becausethe shops were much smaller than the food shop. Itmay be that some children thought that some or allof the machines were generating heat, but they didnot make that connection in the discussion or didnot want to suggest this out loud. Some did knowthat the vacuum cleaner was warm to the touch.

However, children remembered that the food shophad parts that were warmer and certainly parts thatwere cold (‘where the ice cream was’) and said thatthe fridges were making those parts colder. Somechildren then started a discussion about why someof the fridges were open and some had slidingdoors, and a few noted that the food that was inthe ‘closed’ fridges was colder. Although not all thechildren would have used the word ‘energy’, mosthad a concept that electricity was essential to theoperation of the appliance and that it generatedsound, light, heat or movement, or combinationsof these. The children went on two other trails toinvestigate sound and light in more detail.

SoundThe sound trail saw the children embark on a trailthat incorporated the environs of the school andalso a local park or equivalent location. The childrenwere asked to record the various sounds that theycould hear and to identify, if they could, the sourceof the sound. The children had sound meters withthem, which recorded decibel levels.

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) JES13 Summer 2017 page 33

Figure 1. Key Stage 1 children (aged 5­7)investigating electrical appliances in a row of shops in their local environment.

In the parkThese young learners were able to identify anumber of sounds arising from animals, dogsbarking, birds making a variety of noises andinsects buzzing, for example. Other sounds thatthey were able to identify included the windrustling through leaves, people talking, cars drivingby, music from a person’s music player, someoneplaying tennis, a splashing fountain, a street­cleaning cart, and the noise from a train.

Around the school and on the High StreetThere were many sounds identified, including froman ambulance, buses, traffic lights bleeping,someone banging on a glass window and peopletalking. The children used the sound meters andthese confirmed the children’s ideas that theenvirons of the school and High Street were noisierthan the park and, in certain places, much noisierthan the park. Through discussion, the childrencategorised the sounds into those caused byhumans and those that are not, and noted that theonly place that they heard non­human sounds wasin the park. Some children suggested that it was sonoisy on the High Street that they probably couldn’thear any animals and that, apart from dogs, mostanimals would avoid the High Street. A later in­classdiscussion investigated how sound is generatedand, given access to resources in the class, the

children identified a range of musical instruments.There was evidence that children were thinkingabout why these instruments generated sound.

LightSome children also investigated light on the sameor similar trails but, rather than look at objects thatproduce light, they were asked to record placeswhere there were different light levels and had alight meter to help them. In the park, severalgroups of children noted (using the light meterrecordings of lux) how much darker it was in theshady part of the park under the trees and how itwas quieter there too. Here were examples wherethe use of meters added greatly to the explorationand discussion. With help, the children could usethe meters to demonstrate how dark or how quietan area was compared with another. On the HighStreet, they noticed that some parts were inshadow (from tall buildings), but there was noobvious change in noise levels along the streetcompared with the park. The children discussed thedifferences and concluded that, in the park where itis darker, animals are quieter so that they can hearother animals and that they need to use theirhearing more because it is hard to see.

Summary The various trails proved to be a very positiveexperience for the early years and Key Stage 1students. Firstly, they were more aware ofelectricity, sound, light and energy in the worldaround them and started to sort these into naturaland human­made sources. Secondly, giventraining, the use of meters was a positive, asstudents could demonstrate and quantify tothemselves that there was a difference in theamount of sound and light from one place toanother. Thirdly, they started to make someinteresting connections at various parts of the trail,for example, that darker places in the park thatwere shaded by trees were also much quieter.Fourthly, there were the beginnings of the ideathat electrical appliances generate heat, but further(safe) experiments are required to show this. Asimportant, the teachers themselves found that thisactivity built their confidence. They worked ontrails together and, with several schoolscontributing, had feedback and trialling of the trailsby other children and their teachers. Early years

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) JES13 Summer 2017 page 34

Figure 2. Key Stage 1 children (aged 5­7)investigating sound in a variety of outdoor settingsusing a sound meter.

and Key Stage 1 science can be difficult to teach,but using the trail idea provides an opportunity forchildren to make connections, stimulates goodscience discussions and can determine what thechildren already know.

AcknowledgementsWe thank the Primary Science Teaching Trust(formerly the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust)for financial support for the work contained in thispaper. We thank the following schools in theHaringey area of London and their teachers fortheir support and contributions: Alexandra Primary,Campsbourne Schools, Crowland Primary, FerryLane Primary, Muswell Hill Primary, Stroud GreenPrimary, Tiverton Primary, The Green C of EPrimary, Welbourne Primary and Weston ParkPrimary. The studies described in this paper arebased on work carried out in the Haringey projectonly. For more information about the Science Trailsproject, please contact Jeannette Morgan or visitthe PSTT website (www.pstt.org.uk).

ReferencesDanielsson, A. & Warwick, P. (2014) ‘”All we did was

things like forces and motion …”: Multiplediscourses in the development of primaryscience teachers’, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 36, (1), 103–128

DeWitt, J. & Hohenstein, J. (2010) ‘School trips andclassroom lessons: An investigation intoteacher­student talk in two settings’, J. Res. Sci.Teaching, 47, 454–473

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M.,Mee, Y.C., Sanders, D. & Benefield, P. (2006) ‘Thevalue of outdoor learning: evidence fromresearch in the UK and elsewhere’, SchoolScience Review, 87, (320), 107–111

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R. & Sams, C.(2004) ‘Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helpingchildren to use language to learn science’, BritishEd. Res. J., 30, 359–377

Ofsted (2008) Learning outside the classroom.London: Department of Education. Availablefrom www.ofsted.gov.uk

Osborne, J. (2010) ‘Arguing to learn in science: Therole of collaborative, critical discourse’, Science,(328), 463–466

Parker, J. & Heywood, D. (1998) ‘The earth andbeyond: developing primary teachers’understanding of basic astronomical events’,International Journal of Science Education, 22,89–111

Summers, M., Kruger, C. & Mant, J. (1998)‘Teaching electricity effectively in the primaryschool: a case study’, International Journal ofScience Education, 20, 153–172

Vitale, A. (2011) ‘Children’s play: A tool for publichealth interventions’, International Journal ofPediatric Obesity, 6, 57­59

Jeannette Morgan is a primary school teacher and Fellow of the Primary Science Teaching Trust College. Dr. Sophie D. Franklin is Cluster Director of thePrimary Science Teaching Trust and a researchassociate in Science Education at the University of Bristol. Professor Dudley E. Shallcross is a Professor ofAtmospheric Chemistry at the University of Bristoland also CEO of the Primary Science TeachingTrust. E­mail: dudley.shallcross@pstt.org.uk

Primary Science Teaching Trust (PSTT) JES13 Summer 2017 page 35

Resource Review

Regular features JES13 Summer 2017 page 36

Taking the First Steps Outside – Under ThreesLearning in the Natural Environment

Taking the FirstSteps Outside –Under ThreesLearning andDeveloping in theNaturalEnvironmentBy Helen Bilto,Gabriela Bentoand Gisela Dias.Published in 2017by Routledge,Abingdon, UK,price £21.99(Pbk).ISBN 978 113891 989 1

This interesting, informative and highly accessiblebook – the result of a recent research projectundertaken in Portugal – is beautifully illustratedwith photographs of children exploring andengaging with the outdoor environment,complementing and illuminating for the reader thedetailed descriptions of the real events described inthe book.

Written by three experts in the field of earlychildhood education – Helen Bilto, AssociateProfessor of Education at the University ofReading, UK; Gabriela Bento, an educationalpsychologist and PhD student at the University ofAveiro, Portugal; and Gisela Dias, an experiencedearly childhood teacher in Portugal – this bookdemonstrates how children under three can benefit

from exploring the natural outdoor environment,whilst providing teachers and facilitators workingin educational settings for the under­threes with a variety of pedagogical approaches tolearning outside.

The authors argue that, although there has been a longstanding tradition for children over three to play and learn using outdoor environments, e.g. the playground or garden in educationalsettings, this tradition, in Portugal, has notnecessarily extended to younger children in theschool nursery. The dominant reason for this, theauthors assert, is a perception that children underthree can be problematic in relation to theirbehaviour. For example, they cite the idea of the‘terrible twos’ (which the authors argue is a myth),a time when two year­olds can become extremelyangry, frustrated and upset, often resulting intemper tantrums because they do not have theability to perform many of their desired outcomes.This book claims that there are indeed many mythsabout one­ and two year­olds, which it sets out todispel – the point made about young childrenneeding to be constantly entertained is powerfullyeliminated in the authors’ critical discussion of the negative consequences of over­stimulation and the importance of young children being giventime to enjoy Nature quietly and in contemplation.The authors assert that encouraging self­regulationduring childhood encourages young children to be self­motivated without needing constantexternal reinforcement.

The authors are also concerned with a growingtrend of children spending more time on electronicdevices and less time outside and argue that theoutside is an all­encompassing learningenvironment, affording young children theopportunity to learn and practise life skills such as perseverance, overcoming adversity and fear,whilst benefitting from collaborative learning.

In terms of science education, this book focuses onhow to use the outdoor environment to elicit andmaintain curiosity whilst giving young childrenopportunities to observe, explore and question, asthey develop a love for the natural world as well astheir language and thinking skills.

Insights into the crucial role of the adult are given;adults observing and reflecting upon children’slearning is high on the agenda. It is clear that theauthors believe that adults should not feel the needto teach or over­stimulate the children in their carewith constant activities; this is not simply sageadvice but a change in pedagogical approach forthe teachers involved in the project. Necessarychanges in educational practices are highlighted;reasons for these, how these were achieved andtheoretical underpinnings are discussed. The bookalso provides clear advice on choosing the rightresources to create an effective enabling outdoorlearning environment for young children, andguidance on how to undertake a research projectfor children under three – a welcome chapter in thebook, which will hopefully inspire nurserypractitioners, or indeed any reader of the bookinterested in education, to undertake actionresearch or become involved in a research project.

However, for me, the power of this book lies in thefocus on what the authors call ‘risky play’ topromote challenging and positive opportunities inthe natural environment. In today’s politicalclimate, teachers and facilitators are held highly toaccount, and rightly so – all children deserving theabsolute best education undertaken in a safe andstimulating environment; however, this can, as theauthors rightly argue, create a strong riskavoidance approach to prioritise children’sprotection and security. I would agree with theauthors’ premise that ‘absolute safety is not possibleor desirable – it is not possible to keep children in a

bubble­wrapped environment’ (2017:63). Therefore,‘risky play’ is an important trigger for children’ssocial and cognitive development, responding to achild’s need for stimulation of all the senses, andencouraging a child’s natural curiosity. Moreover,the authors strongly argue that, without risks,children are not given the opportunity to developthe attitude of persistence that is needed to notonly develop problem­solving skills but also toundertake challenge; when children seekchallenge, the authors note that they becomecreative in learning the best strategies throughwhich to solve them.

It is important to note that this book is centred on aresearch project undertaken in Portugal, where theauthors state that early childhood education is stilltoo centred on what happens inside the nursery.Portugal also clearly has a different curriculum tothat in the UK. However, all the activities andpedagogical approaches suggested would fit wellinto delivering the EYFS curriculum and what manyteachers in the EYFS setting already do; the ideaspresented are inspiring.

Furthermore, the premise that the nursery teacheris a facilitator of outdoor learning fits well with theidea of teacher­initiated activities, leading intochild­initiated exploration incorporating observationand problem­solving: a clear reflection of goodpractice in teaching science to young children.Therefore, all educators in the field of early yearseducation would certainly benefit from reading thisbook, but I would also go as far as to say that thisbook could inspire teachers and science co­ordinators of older children within the primary­agerange to utilise the outdoor environment morewhen undertaking scientific enquiry.

Amanda McCrory

Regular features JES13 Summer 2017 page 37

About the journalThe Journal of Emergent Science (JES) was launchedin early 2011 as a biannual e­journal, a joint venturebetween ASE and the Emergent Science Networkand hosted on the ASE website. The first nineeditions were co­ordinated by the foundingeditors, Jane Johnston and Sue Dale Tunnicliffe,and were the copyright of the Emergent ScienceNetwork. The journal filled an existing gap in thenational and international market andcomplemented the ASE journal, Primary Science, inthat it focused on research and the implications ofresearch on practice and provision, reported oncurrent research and provided reviews of research.From Edition 9 in 2015, JES became an ‘open­access’ e­journal and a new and stronger EditorialBoard was established. From Edition 10, thecopyright of JES has been transferred to ASE andthe journal is now supported by the PrimaryScience Teaching Trust (PSTT).

Throughout the changes to JES, the focus andremit remain the same. JES focuses on science(including health, technology and engineering) for young children from birth to 11 years of age.The key features of the journal are that it:

● is child­centred;● focuses on scientific development of children

from birth to 11 years of age, considering thetransitions from one stage to the next;

● contains easily accessible yet rigoroussupport for the development of professional skills;

● focuses on effective early years sciencepractice and leadership;

● considers the implications of research intoemergent science practice and provision;

● contains exemplars of good learning anddevelopment firmly based in good practice;

● supports analysis and evaluation ofprofessional practice.

The Editorial Board The Editorial Board of the journal is composed ofASE members and PSTT Fellows, includingteachers and academics with national andinternational experience. Contributors should bearin mind that the readership is both national UK andinternational and also that they should consider theimplications of their research on practice andprovision in the early years.

Contributing to the journalPlease send all submissions to:janehanrott@ase.org.uk in electronic form.

Articles submitted to JES should not be underconsideration by any other journal, or have beenpublished elsewhere, although previouslypublished research may be submitted having beenrewritten to facilitate access by professionals in theearly years and with clear implications of theresearch on policy, practice and provision.

Contributions can be of two main types; full lengthpapers of up to 5,000 words in length and shorterreports of work in progress or completed researchof up to 2,500 words. In addition, the journal willreview book and resources on early years science.

Guidelines on written styleContributions should be written in a clear,straightforward style, accessible to professionalsand avoiding acronyms and technical jargonwherever possible and with no footnotes. The contributions should be presented as a word document (not a pdf) with double spacingand with 2cm margins.

● The first page should include the name(s) of author(s), postal and e­mail address(s)for contact.

Contributing to JES

Regular features JES13 Summer 2017 page 38

● Page 2 should comprise of a 150­wordabstract and up to five keywords.

● Names and affiliations should not be includedon any page other than page 1 to facilitateanonymous refereeing.

● Tables, figures and artwork should beincluded in the text but should be clearlycaptioned/ labelled/ numbered.

● Illustrations should be clear, high definitionjpeg in format.

● UK and not USA spelling is used i.e. colournot color; behaviour not behavior;programme not program; centre not center;analyse not analyze, etc.

● Single ‘quotes’ are used for quotations.● Abbreviations and acronyms should be

avoided. Where acronyms are used theyshould be spelled out the first time they areintroduced in text or references. Thereafterthe acronym can be used if appropriate.

● Children’s ages should be used and not onlygrades or years of schooling to promoteinternational understanding.

● References should be cited in the text firstalphabetically, then by date, thus: (Vygotsky,1962) and listed in alphabetical order in thereference section at the end of the paper.Authors should follow APA style (Author­date). If there are three, four or five authors,the first name and et al can be used. In thereference list all references should be set outin alphabetical order

Guidance on referencing BookPiaget, J. (1929) The Child’s Conception of the

World. New York: HarcourtVygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language.

Cambridge. MA: MIT Press

Chapter in bookPiaget, J. (1976) ‘Mastery Play’. In Bruner, J., Jolly,

A. & Sylva, K. (Eds) Play – Its role inDevelopment and Evolution. Middlesex:Penguin. pp 166­171

Journal articleReiss, M. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2002) ‘An International

Study of Young People’s Drawings of What isInside Themselves’, Journal of BiologicalEducation, 36, (2), 58–64

Reviewing processManuscripts are sent for blind peer­review to twomembers of the Editorial Board and/or guestreviewers. The review process generally requiresthree months. The receipt of submittedmanuscripts will be acknowledged. Papers will thenbe passed onto one of the Editors, from whom adecision and reviewers’ comments will be receivedwhen the peer­review has been completed.

Books for reviewThese should be addressed and sent to Jane Hanrott(JES), ASE, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts., AL10 9AA.

Regular features JES13 Summer 2017 page 39

Interested in joining ASE? Please visit ourwebsite www.ase.org.uk to find out moreabout what the largest subject teachingassociation in the UK can offer you!

The ASE Primary Science Education Committee(PSC) is instrumental in producing a range ofresources and organising events that support anddevelop primary science across the UK andinternationally. Our dedicated and influentialCommittee, an active group of enthusiastic scienceteachers and teacher educators, helps to shapeeducation and policy. They are at the forefront,ensuring that what is changed within thecurriculum is based on research into what works ineducation and, more importantly, how that ismanageable in schools.

ASE’s flagship primary publication, Primary Science,is produced five times a year for teachers of the 3–11 age range. It contains a wealth of news items,articles on topical matters, opinions, interviewswith scientists and resource tests and reviews.

Endorsed by the PSC, It is the ‘face’ of the ASE’sprimary developments and is particularly focusedon impact in the classroom and improving practicefor all phases. Primary Science is the easiest way tofind out more about current developments inprimary science, from Early Years Foundation Stage(EYFS) to the end of the primary phase, and isdelivered free to ASE members. In the past, theCommittee and Editorial Board have workedclosely with the Early Years Emergent ScienceNetwork to include good practice generated in

EYFS across the primary phase. Examples ofarticles can be found at:www.ase.org.uk/journals/primary science/2012

There is now an e membership for primary schools.This enables participating schools to receive all thecurrent benefits electronically, plus free access tothe exciting primary upd8 resources, at adiscounted price. For more information, please visitthe ASE website (www.ase.org.uk)

The Committee also promotes the Primary ScienceQuality Mark, (www.psqm.org.uk). This is a three ­stage award, providing an encouraging frameworkto develop science in primary schools, from theclassroom to the outside community, and gainaccreditation for it.

The ASE Annual Conference is the biggest scienceeducation event in Europe, where over 3000science teachers and science educators gather forworkshops, discussions, frontier science lectures,exhibitions and much more... Spending at least oneday at the ASE Annual Conference is a ‘must’ foranyone interested in primary science. The nextAnnual Conference runs from Wednesday 3rd toSaturday 6th January 2018 at the University ofLiverpool, UK – look out for details on the ASEwebsite (www.ase.org.uk).

To find out more about how you could benefit fromjoining ASE, please visit: www.ase.org.uk ortelephone 01707 283000.

ASE and you!

Regular features JES13 Summer 2017 page 40