Abstract
In this paper I discuss the challenges of teaching science concepts and discourse in preschool in light of the study conducted by Kristina Andersson and Annica Gullberg. I then suggest a complementary approach to teaching science at this level from the perspective of social construction of knowledge based on Vygotsky’s theory (1934/1987). In addition, I highlight the importance of the relational aspect of knowing using feminist standpoint theory (Harding 2004). I also draw from feminist research on preservice elementary teachers’ learning of science to further underscore the connection between learning content and everyday experiences. Combining these research strands I propose that science needs to be grounded in everyday experiences. In this regard, the idea is similar to the choices made by the teachers in the study conducted by Andersson and Gullberg but I also suggest that the everyday experiences chosen for teaching purposes be framed appropriately. In and of itself, the complexity of everyday experiences can be impediment for learning as these researchers have demonstrated. Such complexities point to the need for framing of everyday experiences (Goffman 1974) so that children can do science and construct meaning from their actions. In the conclusion of my discussion of science and its discourse in preschool settings, I provide examples of everyday experiences and their framings that have the potential for engaging children and their teachers in science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (2000). Learning science through contexts: Helping pupils make sense of everyday situations. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 239–252.
Dawkins, K. R., Dickerson, D. L., McKinney, S. E., & Butler, S. (2008). Teaching density to middle school students: Preservice science teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical practices. The Clearing House, 82, 21–26.
Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York: Routledge.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: Analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 952–984.
Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory:Where are we now? Hypatia, 25, 778–796.
Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132–141.
National Research Council (NRC). (2008). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Reif, F., & Larkin, J. H. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 733–760.
Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D., & Nichols, S. (1995). Gender-inclusive science teaching: A feminist-constructivist approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 897–924.
Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D. J., & Scantlebury, K. (1995). Science is all around: A gender-inclusive science teaching. In D. R. Baker & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Science “co-education”: Viewpoints from gender, race, and ethnic perspective (Monograph #7, pp. 108–124). Reston, VA: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 147–174.
Shepherd, L. J. (2007). Lifting the veil: The feminine face of science. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, Inc.
Siry, C., & Kremer, I. (2011). Children explain the rainbow: Using children’s ideas to guide science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 643–655.
Siry, C., Ziegler, G., & Max, C. (2012). “Doing science” through discourse-in-interaction: Young children’s science investigations at the early childhood level. Science Education, 96, 311–336.
Varelas, M. (1996). Between theory and data in a seventh-grade science class. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 33, 229–263.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987). The problem and method of investigation. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 43–52). New York: Plenum Press. (Originally published in 1934).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Lead Editors: K. Scantlebury and A. Hussénius
This paper responds to issues raised by K. Andersson and A. Gullberg’s paper: What is science in preschool and what do teachers have to know to empower children? doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9439-6.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roychoudhury, A. Connecting science to everyday experiences in preschool settings. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 9, 305–315 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9446-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9446-7