Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood (Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, 55) 3031081579, 9783031081576

Citation preview

Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 55

Jean-Marie Boilevin Alice Delserieys Konstantinos Ravanis   Editors

Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood

Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education Volume 55

Series Editor Dana L. Zeidler, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA Editorial Board Members John Lawrence Bencze, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Michael P. Clough, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA Fouad Abd-El-Khalick, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Marissa Rollnick, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Troy D. Sadler, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Svein Sjøeberg, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway David Treagust, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Larry D. Yore, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

The book series Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education provides a forum for innovative trends and issues impacting science education. Scholarship that focuses on advancing new visions, understanding, and is at the forefront of the field is found in this series. Authoritative works based on empirical research and/or conceptual theory from disciplines including historical, philosophical, psychological and sociological traditions are represented here. Our goal is to advance the field of science education by testing and pushing the prevailing sociocultural norms about teaching, learning, research and policy. Book proposals for this series may be submitted to the Publishing Editor: Claudia Acuna E-mail: Claudia.Acuna@ springer.com

Jean-Marie Boilevin Alice Delserieys  •  Konstantinos Ravanis Editors

Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood

Editors Jean-Marie Boilevin Brest University, Research Centre for Education Learning and Didactics (CREAD) Brest, France

Alice Delserieys Aix-Marseille University, ADEF Laboratory Marseille, France

Konstantinos Ravanis Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education University of Patras Patras, Greece

ISSN 1878-0482     ISSN 1878-0784 (electronic) Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ISBN 978-3-031-08157-6    ISBN 978-3-031-08158-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08158-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

I remember a young girl, possibly 5  years old, playing outside by a sunny day. Observing her, I noticed she looked estranged by her shadow on the ground. She first noticed that the shadow was following her and appeared surprised. Running away, she tried to get rid of the shadow, indeed without effect. Turning to the shadow, she attempted to grasp it, again in vain. Then, she began to express fear on her face, and finally cried, as if she was threatened by this immaterial dark spot mimicking her on the soil. This short scene evoked for me the primitive fears of humans in front of nature and their unsuccessful attempts to act against the laws of nature. In Chamisso’ story, after losing his own shadow, even against a fabulous fortune, Peter Schlemihl is rejected from the human society… Slowly, the elaboration of myths and the construction of science has come to name the phenomena, then understand them, dissipating or relocalizing the fears. Eclipses will become shadows and not wrath of nature! I hope that, during her preschool and school years, exposed to science education, this young girl will construct in her mind a useful model of shadows, and enjoy looking later at their color in Van Gogh’s paintings, then wondering why they are blue. How will her teacher proceed? What do we know about the changes of her mental processes? Do these changes properly resonate with an authentic construction of a rational mind? These questions, and many related ones, are the subject of the present Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood, a remarkable book, authored by a group of researchers who work together since many years, in Greece, Mexico, Spain, and France. Through their work, they care not only to better understand basic cognitive phenomena but also to contribute to the best training of future teachers in primary schools, in order for science to be properly taught to children. Observing the last decades on these matters, let us first observe that science education has been the focus of many efforts worldwide, in developed as well as in developing countries, building up on the contributions of Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Under various names such as STEM or STEAM, this education finds several justifications: from a necessary contribution to a sound development of children’s mind and personality, from the duty to transmit a wonderful heritage to v

vi

Foreword

societal needs in order to prepare “human capital” to new jobs or to adequately equip the youth to deal with the ecological transition and its challenges for humanity. Whatever the justifications of these different rationales, there is a consensus to recognize that beginning early, at the age of 5 or even earlier, is a key to success, as it accompanies the formidable explosion of neural connectivity during this developmental period of the child. Science, but which science? Should one establish a clear separation between mathematics, natural sciences, and technology, or aim at addressing these together, or at least connect them strongly? The answer varies among countries, and the present book does not take a stand on this issue, since it exclusively focuses on natural sciences at ages 5–8. During these last decades, at least four directions have been explored in various countries and advocated to implement or practice science education in schools. Let’s briefly mention these directions: 1. Thorough research efforts on the child’s learning process have developed a theoretical and observational basis, established by didacticians and psychologists. Besides fundamental research, the goal is also to establish a conceptual framework for an efficient action in teacher training and classroom pedagogy. This is clearly the contribution developed in the present book. 2. Rare teachers, although having little or no background on theory of science education, may carefully notice the curiosity and questions of students in front of nature and build up on it. Their own interest for science meeting this child’s curiosity, they will spend more time to prepare their lessons, dispense an active pedagogy with observations and experiments, hence empirically becoming good science teachers. Fortunately, such teachers have always existed: I believe I owe to such persons my own taste for science. 3. Professional scientists in “hard science” – physicists, mathematicians, and others – have considered it was their duty to care for the state of early science education. Lacking the theoretical background of the first group, they based their action on a more intuitive approach of the child cognitive development, capitalizing on motivated teachers and providing them with adequate resources. Although this effort is somewhat empirical, it aims at large-scale changes in science education in primary schools and therefore has to connect with political decisions, curriculum construction, and teachers’ professional development. 4. Finally, I would like to stress the growing importance of science education in societies. Even if not properly implemented in practice, the importance of science education has been recognized and that led to develop international evaluation programs and comparisons of countries in their achievements. As examples, the PISA and TIMMS programs heavily focus on science education. Through their results, they tend to establish standards of achievements, with the risk of becoming norms which ignore the cultural diversity of education or the multiple paths of cognitive development. Having myself been an actor in some of these directions and seen their parallel development over the last decades, I sadly observed how often they act

Foreword

vii

independently of each other. We aim to share with all children the extraordinary human adventure named science, to equip them with adequate ways of thinking and acting along a life exposed to a changing and somewhat dangerous world, and to resist to the fallacies carried by social networks. Isn’t it obvious that this goal will be achieved only if the above four directions are intimately connected and working together? The present book, Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood, explores in depth the first direction. Its authors, being often in charge of teachers’ professional training, have understood that a common in-depth collaboration between “hard science” expertise and social sciences is the good way to establish sound research protocols, where observation of children, analysis, and assessment of results converge to establish firm conclusions and – as every sound research does – open to new questions. Too often, the teachers’ training in science remains superficial. For them, one briefly summarizes classical rudiments of physics (mechanics, optics, electricity), chemistry (reactions), and biology (cell, human body, evolution). Then one hopes that, with such a rudimentary baggage, with so little epistemology and historical considerations, they will be able to answer and develop the curiosity of their students. This is hopeless, and the large-scale enterprises above have shown how most teachers, no matter how motivated, need an informed scaffold to build upon, as so cleverly analyzed by Wynne Harlen. The value and strength of Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood is to have developed the “precursor model” introduced in the 1970s. The successive chapters apply in detail this model to a number of scientific themes often encountered in pre-schools or early schools: the classical “float or sink,” the freezing and boiling of water, the clouds, the air, and the shadows. These are mostly physical concepts, but one chapter addresses living species and the variations among a population. Indeed, contrary to a common opinion and the feeling of many teachers, simple physical situations are much easier to transform into a sound science education topic than the complexity of the living, despite the fascination the latter often exerts on children. The precursor model is defined as “a tool able to trigger the construction of a zone of potential development, enabling pupils to appropriate very difficult concepts.” It is developed and experimented for each of the topics mentioned above. Needless to recall how long it took for humans to establish these concepts, along the lengthy history of science! At the same time, teachers will be amazed, once they use the model, how well it guides them to progress in the mastering of the concepts. For me, new questions arise from the chapters of this book. How universal are their conclusions? How dependent may they be from the cultural or social background of the children? Are there alternate routes, possibly explored by gifted teachers, to reach the same goals? The reader will elaborate on these, and possibly on many others. Today, many names are given to the science adventure proposed to children in schools: discovery, guided research, inquiry, investigation, exploration, trial-and-­ error. Rather than quarrelling about their meaning and use, the authors offer an in-­ depth and fascinating exploration of the way children of today may become actors

viii

Foreword

of tomorrow’s science and human societies. No matter in which of the directions mentioned above has engaged the reader, they will find here a remarkable source of inspiration. I would like, in conclusion, to express my admiration to the editors, and partly authors, namely Jean-Marie Boilevin, Alice Delserieys, and Konstantinos Ravanis. I know the editors since many years, and I have enjoyed collaborating with them on these matters. I had also the occasion to discover, especially in Rhodos, the vitality of the Greek school in science education, of which this volume testifies through Konstantinos Ravanis and his collaborators. My thanks go to the three editors to have offered this occasion to me. Académie des sciences, Paris, France Emeritus Professor, Observatoire de Paris et Université de Paris, Paris, France Co-founder, La main à la pâte, Paris, France

Pierre Léna

Contents

Part I About Precursor Models 1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    3 Jean-Marie Boilevin, Alice Delserieys, and Konstantinos Ravanis

2

 What Is a Precursor Model? ������������������������������������������������������������������   11 Annick Weil-Barais

3

What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic Perspectives������������������������������������   33 Konstantinos Ravanis and Jean-Marie Boilevin

Part II Precursor Models in Research Practices 4

Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model During Preschool Education����������������   53 Sabrina Patricia Canedo Ibarra and Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo

5

Precursor Model and Preschool Science Learning About Shadows Formation����������������������������������������������������������������������   75 Alice Delserieys, Corinne Jégou, Jean-Marie Boilevin, and Konstantinos Ravanis

6

Teaching Interaction Strategies with Children 5–6 Years in the Mental Construction of a Precursor Model: The Case of Water State Changes����������������������������������������������������������   95 Konstantinos Ravanis, Maria Kambouri, Alain Jameau, and Jean-­Marie Boilevin

7

Encouraging the Construction of a Precursor Model About Air Through Experimental Activities in Preschool������������������������������  111 Vanessa Sesto Varela, María Lorenzo Flores, and Isabel García-­Rodeja Gayoso ix

x

Contents

8

Constructing a Precursor Model for Clouds and Rain in the Thinking of 4–6-Year-Old Children��������������������������������������������  131 Akrivi Georgantopoulou, Glykeria Fragkiadaki, George Kaliampos, and Konstantinos Ravanis

9

 The Axes of a Precursor Model for Electricity in the Thinking of 5–6-Year-­Old Children��������������������������������������������  155 Konstantinos Ravanis, George Kaliampos, Danai Arnantonaki, and Panagiotis Pantidos

10 The  Idea of ‘Precursor Models’ in Biology Learning Environments for Young Children: The Cases of Genetic Inheritance and Natural Selection����������������������������������������������������������  169 Marida Ergazaki 11 A  System to Identify Young Children’s Reasoning About Variations Within Populations����������������������������������������������������  193 Corinne Jégou, Julie Gobert, Alice Delserieys, and Marida Ergazaki Part III Epistemological Discussion of Precursor Models 12 Precursor  Models Seen Through the Lens of the Idea of “Theoretical Model”����������������������������������������������������������������������������  221 Agustín Adúriz-Bravo 13 Developmental  and Epistemological Perspectives as Key Elements of the Precursor Model Research Programme ��������������������  241 Manuel Bächtold

Part I

About Precursor Models

Chapter 1

Introduction Jean-Marie Boilevin, Alice Delserieys, and Konstantinos Ravanis

Preschool science education offers a challenging context for educators and science education researchers. As such, the place of science in preschool, and the way researchers approach it, takes very different forms. The aim of this book is to propose the original framework of “precursor model” based on a psychological, epistemological and didactical point of view. The work presented in this book aims at supporting the development of science education at an early age using the framework of “precursor model” in order to mediate teaching and learning science at school during early childhood. The book proposes three parts. The first part introduces the conceptual framework and its theoretical underpinnings, subsequently, a second part presents several empirical studies based on a precursor model in early science educational settings, and finally, the third part proposes a critical analysis of the framework of “precursor model”. The idea that physical and natural sciences should be introduced as early as possible has been supported for many years by different fields of the scientific community (Baillargeon, 2000; Eshach & Fried, 2005; Kamii & De Vries, 1978). As such, this early introduction to science has been the centre of attention of several research studies in areas such as psychology, epistemology or didactic (seen as the study of teaching and learning related to a specific content knowledge). J.-M. Boilevin (*) Brest University, Research Centre for Education, Learning and Didactics (CREAD), Brest, France e-mail: [email protected] A. Delserieys Aix-Marseille University, ADEF Laboratory, Marseille, France K. Ravanis Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, Patras, Greece © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J.-M. Boilevin et al. (eds.), Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 55, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08158-3_1

3

4

J.-M. Boilevin et al.

Several studies (Allen & Kambouri-Danos, 2017; Canedo-Ibarra et  al., 2010; Delserieys et  al., 2018; Driver et  al., 1985; Ledrapier, 2010; Chanoine, 2018; Ravanis, 2010) highlight that children can approach the empirical world, objects and substances, express some representations of reality, solve problems and gradually gain an understanding of natural phenomena. Building from the hypotheses that each individual, in a given situation, uses their own personal explanatory systems, it can often be stressed that children mental representations can become obstacles to the appropriation of scientific knowledge (Driver et  al., 1994). These representations, seen as the product of individual, collective and social history of a child, are in constant interaction with the socio-cultural and educative context (Sikder & Fleer, 2015). As such, they present dynamic characteristics. For each individual, multiple representations coexist depending of the context and they change, restructure and adapt to serve as mediating tools between the individual and its environment. Teaching science at school should therefore support children in order to help them gain progressively conceptions and explanatory mental forms from their spontaneous representations of phenomena. Some studies in the didactics of science aim to construct and implement didactical interventions with teachers, with such objectives in view. Within these research studies in the didactic of science with young children, a research trend is particularly interested in spontaneous representation of children, and the gradual process in which these representations are destabilised, enriched and restructured. For several years, different teams of researchers have been developing projects based on the conceptual framework of precursor model, related to scientific concepts, mainly in physics (Ravanis, 2010). The idea of a precursor model was first introduced by Lemeignan and Weil-Barais (1994). It considers learning of scientific concepts using modelling activities in a developmental perspective of learning. According to Weil-Barais (2001, p. 188), “these ‘precursors’ are cognitive constructions (…). They constitute the moulds for subsequent cognitive constructions, which, without their help, would be difficult or impossible”. Several characteristics of a scientific model are embedded in a precursor model and it is considered precursor in the sense that it prepares the definition of other models (Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1993, p. 26). The definition of precursor models must take into account the cognitive resources expressed by learners facing a situation as well as the epistemological grounds of the underlying scientific model. It adopts a developmental perspective by considering the non-linear progressive nature of learning. Students can be helped to build a succession of precursor models in order to support this progressive learning and not be imposed big conceptual jumps that very few students are ready to assume (Ibid). A precursor model is therefore a model that shares certain characteristics of a given scientific model, the most important of which are the focus on the critical factors of the phenomena and the underlying causes of the changes. In that sense, the focus on critical factors, or threshold factors, gives specificity to the definition of precursor models. A precursor model also prepares the subsequent progression toward more elaborated models. Moreover, basing the approach on a developmental conception of learning, we can rely on a

1 Introduction

5

first precursor model and enrich it according to students needs from a phenomenological or epistemological point of view. Therefore, the definition of precursor models is a didactical construction proposed by researchers with several complementary interest in mind: –– To frame the definition of targeted didactic interventions, in a way similar to the “Model of Educational Reconstruction” (Duit et al., 2012). The didactical interventions proposed are based both on a detailed analysis of the knowledge at stake, and what learners are able to access; –– To equip teachers in their mediating role by allowing for transitional spaces between what students already know and the new knowledge that they are able to construct, giving an important place to language and system of signs in the expression of precursor models (Delserieys et al., 2018); –– To guide students to gradually access scientific models. In other words, models that are precursor on a cognitive level, are proposed to students in order for them to gain a new representation helping them to think the activity they are engaged in (Delserieys et al., 2018). The conceptual framework of “Precursor Model” has been presented in a book in French when first introduced in 1993 (Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1993). However, at the time, only the context of high school physics was considered, and the audience of the book was limited to French-speaking researchers. Since that first book, the use of precursor models in science education has proven to be relevant for the specific context of early childhood education. This led to various published work in English in science education journals (e.g. Canedo-Ibarra et  al., 2010; Delserieys et al., 2018; Ergazaki et al., 2016; Ravanis et al., 2008). We therefore considered that it was time to bring together the different international perspectives of the teams basing their studies on the conceptual framework of precursor models in a single book to present the interests of precursor models for preschool or primary school science to a large international community of scholars and educators in science education or early childhood education. With this book, we cover several unique interests, starting with the presentation of an original conceptual framework highly operational to support science education in early childhood. Based on a developmental approach of science education, the framework of “Precursor Model” brings a different and complementary perspective from the well-developed approach of “cultural-historical” perspective (Fleer & Pramling, 2015; Roth et al., 2013). This trend strongly supports the idea that there are many opportunities for teachers to engage young children in science activities, in formal and informal contexts, often without an explicit link to a science activity. It takes a step back from scientific concepts, considering children’s construction of scientific meaning in its social dimension. Play is often seen as a particularly relevant activity for engaging young children with scientific content. The conceptual framework of precursor models that we propose in our book is not in opposition with a cultural-historical perspective, especially when considering the precursor model as a mediating tool for learning scientific concepts. However, it is also a distinct approach to the teaching and learning of science concepts in kindergarten,

6

J.-M. Boilevin et al.

rooted in a social-cognitive theoretical framework. It brings together social developmental psychology and research in physical science didactics. As such, it complements other publications covering the broader topic of science education in early childhood. Preschool or early primary school science education is a topic that lacks development in the current literature. However, interest in science in early childhood has increased in recent years within the science education research community and several books have been published. One example is the book by Trundel and Saçkes (2015) which provides an overview of various research projects in the context of science education in early childhood classrooms. No specific conceptual framework or methodology is developed. The aim is to provide a broad international perspective on early science education. The book coordinated by Charles (2021) also provides a broad overview of science education in French preschool that highlight the diversity of research to explore preschool science education. Several chapters are anchored in a curricular perspective aiming at describing a variety of preschool teachers’ practices and the conditions for these practices to refer to scientific objects. In this social or curricular perspective, preschool science can essentially be viewed as a teaching context. As such, everyday activities provide experiences and objects that are merrily related to science and essentially interesting for their potential for young children’s social and linguistic development. Within the operational framework of “precursor model” for early childhood education, the authors of the present book go beyond a descriptive approach. In particular, they propose practical examples of teaching interventions covering various scientific topics (physical and natural science), with a very consistent and coherent approach thanks to the common theoretical framework supporting the design of the teaching interventions. These teaching interventions are contextualised in each countries’ preschool educational setting, providing an international perspective to the many different ways of considering preschool education. The book is divided in three parts. In a first part, the theoretical framework of precursor model is presented and discussed with a historical, psychological and didactical perspective. The history of the invention of the “precursor model” concept is recounted in Chap. 2 by Annick Weil-Barais. This Chap. 2 can be considered as a historical context and self-reflection by the original developer of the “precursor model”. It explains the theoretical origins, the heuristic value and the constraints to the adoption of such a concept in the design of curricula and pedagogical practices, in particular, the language interactions between teacher and students and the role of semiotic systems involved in the construction and use of scientific concepts to anticipate and explain the physical situations explored. Following this historical context, Chap. 3 presents the framework of “precursor model” conceptualised for early childhood science education. The aim pursued by Konstantinos Ravanis and Jean-­ Marie Boilevin in Chap. 3 is to present a socio-cognitive theoretical framework for studying the construction of knowledge of the physical world in kindergarten and primary schools’ students. This framework articulates different theoretical elements from theories of social interactionism, social developmental psychology and research in didactics of physical sciences. In addition to the precursor model, different concepts are presented and discussed. Different aspects of this approach will be

1 Introduction

7

illustrated by the presentation of significant research results based on the precursor model concept. The discussion of the different elements of this socio-cognitive theoretical framework is an opportunity to show how to create effective didactic interventions to guide children aged 5–9 years towards the construction of knowledge about physical and biological phenomena. The second part of the book focuses on the presentation of several empirical studies concerning learning of scientific concepts in different areas of science, and in various educational contexts (Spain, France, Greece, Mexico, UK etc.). The objective is to highlight the effective use of a precursor model framework to support science education in early educational settings. Chapter 4, proposed by Sabrina Patricia Canedo Ibarra and Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo, presents the results of empirical research, in a public kindergarten in Mexico, on the construction of a precursor model of floating and sinking taking into account social interactions. The aim of this chapter is to identify the discursive elements that reinforced this construction. The authors use discourse analysis to identify the moments when students demonstrate procedural or conceptual abilities, as well as their emotions. They also analyse the teacher’s role in motivating students and promoting positive interactions. Chapter 5, presented by Alice Delserieys, Corinne Jegou, Jean-Marie Boilevin and Konstantinos Ravanis, concerns a study conducted in France and Greece that tests the effectiveness of an educational intervention based on a precursor model of shadow formation to help young children construct an explanation of this physical phenomenon within an early scientific framework. Analysis of the children’s ideas after teaching shows that the teaching intervention has a positive effect but that differences remain in the progress of some children compared to others. These differences are much more pronounced in the experimental conditions, where the teachers were involved in the work with the researchers, than in a standard classroom setting. Chapter 6 presents the results of an empirical research on the construction of a precursor model of the phenomenon of water state change in the thinking of Greek preschool children. The research, conducted by Maria Kambouri, Konstantinos Ravanis, Jean-Marie Boilevin and Alain Jameau, is based on an 8-step protocol, in which predictions and explanations were made for simple cases of water state change. Analysis of the responses shows that children of this age can construct the basic features of a precursor model to understand the specific phenomenon. In addition, the analysis of the dialogues with the children shows which are the critical points for overcoming barriers and how appropriate communication strategies can change children’s thinking. Chapter 7 proposed by Vanessa Sesto Varela, Isabel García-Rodeja Gayoso and María Lorenzo Flores, presents the results of empirical research on the construction of a precursor model of air in Spanish preschool children. It is based on an educational intervention specifically designed to address the ideas that air exists, has mass and occupies volume in space, and in which children are encouraged to make predictions for everyday phenomena using air and test them experimentally. The results of the study suggest that the teaching sequence allows young children to build an air-related precursor model that is likely to support the development of their understanding in the conceptual domain of matter.

8

J.-M. Boilevin et al.

The study presented by Akrivi Georgantopoulou, Glykeria Fragkiadaki, George Kaliampos and Konstantinos Ravanis in Chap. 8 is a systematic approach to Greek preschool children’s mental representations of the natural phenomenon of clouds and aims at the creation of a precursor model. The study focuses on capturing children’s mental representations of the general characteristics of clouds, their reasoning about the constituent elements and procedures of cloud formation, the entity of clouds in time and the origin of rain. The results reveal that, despite the knowledge gained in the context of a formal didactic intervention, children continue to foreground their everyday experience, their intuitive knowledge of the phenomenon and their imagination. Konstantinos Ravanis, George Kaliampos, Danai Arnantonaki and Panagiotis Pantidos proposed in Chap. 9 a study synthetically describes the results of two studies on the mental representations of Greek children aged 5–6 years about the construction of an electrical circuit, the main components of the circuit and their role, and about electrical devices and their function. Based on the analysis of the children’s thinking, the authors show that they are able to construct a precursor model of elementary electricity. Young children are extremely curious about the biological world. And when they enter kindergarten, they already have their own ways of explaining the biological phenomena that attract their attention. But the transition from this naive biology to explanations based on biological mechanisms, however rudimentary, is very difficult and has to be done step by step. The question addressed in Chap. 10 by Marida Ergazaki is whether the idea of “precursor models” could be an ally in designing these intermediate steps to help children more effectively. This chapter aims to shed light on this issue by providing concrete examples, in the Greek context, of how precursor models could be integrated into the early introduction of biologically demanding topics such as body functions or family resemblance. The last chapter of the second part, Chap. 11, proposed by Corinne Jégou, Julie Gobert, Alice Delserieys and Marida Ergazaki, is also related to biology education. It presents the development of a precursor model on population thinking, a mode of thinking that is indispensable for understanding the concept of natural selection, which is at the heart of the theory of evolution. The aim of the study is to identify, through individual interviews, the conceptions and reasoning on the idea of variation within animal populations in French 5–6 years’ old children. The authors present and discuss the results obtained and then propose a precursor model to overcome the obstacle of essentialist thinking for children of this age. The third part of the book proposes a critical analysis of the first and second parts of the book. It aims at discussing the interest of precursor models in teaching and learning science at school during early childhood from a psychological, epistemological and didactical point of view. Two researchers working in different geographical and scientific contexts, Agustin Adúriz-Bravo and Manuel Bächtold, have agreed to discuss, independently, the studies presented in the second part, but also the theoretical contributions of the first part. Thus, Chap. 12 allows Agustin Adúriz-­ Bravo to present some theoretical considerations on the concept of the precursor model with the help of the epistemological notion of “theoretical model”. Theoretical

1 Introduction

9

models are characterised here from the semantic philosophy of science, a school of the last quarter of the twentieth century. Precursor models, understood as analogical models deliberately designed to teach science, are compared with theoretical models along seven different dimensions. Furthermore, the very notion of precursor model, itself a theoretical model of science didactics, is put into context. In Chap. 13, Manuel Bächtold provides a comparative analysis of the different chapters in order to characterise the contours of the research programme focused on precursor models and to situate it in relation to the literature. Two key elements are identified and discussed: these studies are all part of a developmental perspective and, for most of them, attach great importance to the epistemological dimension of precursor models by attributing to them the same operative functions as scientific models. The book is therefore a collective work aiming at discussing different international views of early childhood education. It brings together different objects, concepts, methods, and results, all regarding the conceptual framework of “precursor model”. Bringing together the reflexion of each contributor, with the expertise they share on their view and use of “precursor models” in their own country, enriches in turn, the international scientific community in science education, as well as teacher education in science for preschool and early primary school level.

References Allen, M., & Kambouri-Danos, M. (2017). Substantive conceptual development in preschool science: Contemporary issues and future directions. Early Child Development and Care, 187(2), 181–191. Baillargeon, R. (2000). La connaissance du monde physique par le bébé. Héritages piagétiens [The knowledge of the physical world by the baby. Piagetian heritage]. In O. Houdé & C. Meljac (Éds.), L’esprit piagétien (pp. 55–87). Paris: PUF. Canedo-Ibarra, S. P., Castelló-Escandell, J., García-Wehrle, P., & Morales-Blake, A. R. (2010). Precursor models construction at preschool education: An approach to improve scientific education in the classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 4(1), 41–76. Chanoine, C. (2018). Pour une approche curriculaire de l’éducation scientifique à l’école maternelle : Une entrée par les objets [For a curricular approach to science education in kindergarten: an entry through objects]. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France. Charles, F. (2021). Graines de scientifiques en maternelle : Explorer le monde du vivant, des objets et de la matière [Budding scientists in Kindergarten: Exploring the world of life, objects and matter]. Grenoble : UGA Editions, EDP Sciences. Delserieys, A., Jegou, C., Boilevin, J.-M., & Ravanis, K. (2018). Precursor model and preschool science learning: Efficiency of a teaching intervention on shadow formation. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(2), 147–164. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. In R.  Driver, E.  Guesne, & A.  Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp.  1–9). Open University Press. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary school science. Routledge. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction – A framework for improving teaching and learning science1. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe. Cultural perspectives in science education (Vol. 5, pp. 13–37). SensePublishers.

10

J.-M. Boilevin et al.

Ergazaki, M., Valanidou, E., Kasimati, M.  C., & Kalantzi, M. (2016). Introducing a precursor model of inheritance to young children. International Journal of Science Education, 37(18), 3118–3142. Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336. Fleer, M., & Pramling, N. (2015). A cultural-historical study of children learning science: Foregrounding affective imagination in play-based settings. Springer. Kamii, C., & De Vries, R. (1978). Physical knowledge in preschool education: Implications of Piaget’s theory. Prentice-Hall. Ledrapier, C. (2010). Découvrir le monde des sciences à l’école maternelle : Quels rapports avec les sciences ? [Discovering the World of Science in Kindergarten: How does it relate to science?]. Recherches en Didactique des Sciences et des Technologies, 2, 79–102. Lemeignan, G. & Weil-Barais, A. (1993). Construire des concepts en Physique [Building concepts in Physics]. Paris: Hachette. Lemeignan, G., & Weil-Barais, A. (1994). A developmental approach to cognitive change in mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 99–120. Ravanis, K. (2010). Représentations, Modèles Précurseurs, Objectifs-Obstacles et MédiationTutelle : concepts-clés pour la construction des connaissances du monde physique à l’âge de 5-7 ans [Representations, Precursor Models, Objective-Obstacles, Mediation-Tutoring: key concepts for the construction of knowledge of the physical world at the age of 5-7 years]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación en Educación en Ciencias, 5(2), 1–11. Ravanis, K., Koliopoulos, D., & Boilevin, J.-M. (2008). Construction of a precursor model for the concept of rolling friction in the thought of preschool age children: A socio-cognitive teaching intervention. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 421–434. Roth, W.-M., Mafra Goulart, M. I., & Plakitsi, K. (2013). Science education during early childhood: A cultural-historical perspective. Springer. Sikder, S., & Fleer, M. (2015). Small science: Infants and toddlers experiencing science in everyday family life. Research in Science Education, 45(3), 445–464. Trundel, K.-C., & Saçkes, M. (2015). Research in early childhood science education. 390 pages. Springer. Weil-Barais, A. (2001). Constructivist approaches and the teaching of science. Prospects, 31(2), 187–196.

Chapter 2

What Is a Precursor Model? Annick Weil-Barais

2.1 Preamble When Jean-Marie Boilevin and Kostas Ravanis contacted me to tell me about the existence of the Franco-Greek working group they were leading on “precursor models” and, subsequently, to propose that I contribute to a work on that subject, I was somewhat surprised. It is, indeed, quite common for innovators to have limited awareness of the scope of proposals that are quite often tantamount to intellectual tinkering and intuition, as in the case of the “precursor model” concept. Most often, it is only at a later stage that the originality and heuristic value of ideas become apparent, generally after the originators have died, thus depriving them of the narcissistic gratitude they might have enjoyed! Unfortunately, as the co-inventor of the concept (Gérard Lemeignan1) is no longer with us, I alone will assume the difficult task assigned me: an introspective look back at the fabrication of an idea jointly constructed in action and reflection over a now long-distant period (the end of the last century!) lasting almost 10 years, in a scientific and institutional context conducive to new ideas in science education. Although I was well-aware of the pragmatic value of the precursor model concept, since I had invited one of my doctoral students to use it to study the link between science learning and intellectual development in preschool-age children (Resta-Schweitzer & Weil-Barais, 2006, 2009), I did not expect a new generation of researchers to take it up with the speed and relevance evident in this work.

 Gérard Lemeignan (1932–2017).

1

A. Weil-Barais (*) Université d’Angers, Angers, France © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J.-M. Boilevin et al. (eds.), Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 55, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08158-3_2

11

12

A. Weil-Barais

In my view, it is a sound idea to start a work tackling the subject of precursor models as benchmarks for teaching and learning science in school with a chapter revealing the genesis of the concept itself. Knowing the conditions in which educational concepts emerge and are used is indeed important. Although teachers of so-­ called “hard” or “exact” sciences (as in the case of teachers of physical sciences), on the basis of the universal value of science, may sometimes consider knowledge of the elaboration of concepts to be non-essential (leading them to minimize the importance of the history of science and epistemology), such a position is not tenable for social and human sciences which cover science didactics, in particular the teaching-­ learning field of study that concerns us here. Indeed, it concerns human subjects within a culture: children assigned the role of pupils, having to appropriate knowledge which, for them, does not satisfy any primary need; teachers tasked with conveying said knowledge to them; and an entire social system that organises, controls or validates the teaching content as well as the activities and forms of certification and assessment. With regard to the learning encouraged in children at school, teachers’ and researchers’ ideas are largely dependent on a whole set of conceptions, presuppositions, conceptual systems, values and even norms that determine their apprehension of the facts, their questioning and investigations. In particular, it is important to know about their ideas regarding the child and his or her pupil status, the interests and aptitudes required, the methods and processes for intellectual development and learning, their ideas about the knowledge to be conveyed (teacher epistemology – Larochelle & Desautels, 1992), and the teachers’ role, notably what interventions they deem beneficial to the pupil and, similarly, it is important to know the problems, difficulties or questions faced by the researchers. For all the above reasons, the “precursor model” idea can only be taken up appropriately based on knowledge of the observations and questioning from which it stemmed and the various presuppositions that provided its basis and legitimacy. This knowledge is essential to correct use of the concept and to its enhancement and any critical approach. In human and social sciences, it is indeed advisable to watch out for the always-­ detrimental processes of simplification and dogmatization.

2.2 Background: Institutional and Theoretical Contexts The “precursor model” concept was proposed during research conducted in collaboration with Gérard Lemeignan between 1985 and 1993 on teaching and learning physical science concepts in the field of mechanics at secondary school level (lower and upper). Gérard Lemeignan was a physicist who had written a thesis on nuclear physics. Like other physicists, chemists and biologists concerned about pupils’ loss of interest in the different branches of science, he had assembled the Inter-university

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

13

Research Laboratory on Scientific and Technological Education (LIREST).2 Teachers working in lower and upper secondary schools were included in this laboratory, contributing together with researchers to the design of teaching content and pupil activities. They tested out the laboratory-designed innovations in their classes and, more rarely, with small groups of pupil volunteers. This involved assessing the feasibility of the proposed activities from a cognitive and pedagogical perspective. The same single didactic sequence could be reproduced with variants. This “action-­ research” framework (maintained by Jean-Louis Martinand3), which was being widely debated at the time, allowed the emergence of new issues, such as those concerning the construction of scientific concepts and the modelling activities mentioned in this chapter. Feedback also led to the writing of innovative textbooks for use in lower secondary school (pupils aged 11–15).4 The pupil textbook consisted5 of activity sheets and various resources, whereas the teacher’s version of the textbook explained the foundation for the proposals in terms of conceptual content, proposed activities and the pupils’ intellectual functioning. These textbooks contain a whole set of proposals compatible with a developmental conception of learning: use of objects from the pupils’ environment, familiar graphic representations and formulation of relations in a natural language, prior to the introduction of mathematical formalisms. It entails building up new knowledge in pupils by using the cognitive resources assumed to be at their disposal as well as playing on the element of amazement and destabilization. The text written for the children is designed to be instantly intelligible to them, which implies abandoning, to a large degree, the orthodoxy of scientific formulations so as to make the knowledge pupil-accessible (these formulations are, of course, included in the teacher’s version of the textbook). When LIREST was first set up, the major intellectual reference in child psychology at that time was Piaget, whose work had been studied in depth, notably his entire “Studies in Genetic Epistemology” series. The activities designed for teaching purposes aimed to implement the assimilation and increasing accommodation assumed to be the major processes in the transformation of mental structures. The problem-solving strand of cognitivism was quite quickly deployed thanks, notably, to Michel Caillot (e.g. 1991), a physicist who was then retraining as a science didactics researcher and who had spent a year’s sabbatical in a laboratory at Berkeley

 This exemplary story of a process of transforming an area of teaching supported by a university research group involving teachers interested in changing pedagogical practices is reported in a book (Goffard & Weil-Barais, 2005). 3  Jean-Louis Martinand played an essential role in the development of science and technology didactics rooted in the study of teaching content and teaching practices in reference to an epistemological approach to knowledge and social practices (Martinand, 1986). 4  “Libre Parcours” collection, published by Hachette. 5  We use the past tense as the publisher quickly stopped distributing these works although they still constitute a source of inspiration, judging by their continued circulation on sites selling old works. 2

14

A. Weil-Barais

(USA), run by Frederick Reif; it was during that period that I, as a psychologist, began collaborating with the team.6 Following the publication of research to which I had contributed regarding experimental reasoning in children and teenagers (Cauzinille-Marmèche et  al., 1979, 1983, 1985), I had in fact been asked to analyse the physics problems included in school textbooks from the point of view of the cognitive processing they required (a priori analysis). We had, indeed, studied the implementation of the hypothetico-­ deductive reasoning in pre-teens from an Information Processing perspective, based on a critique of the structural perspective adopted by Inhelder and Piaget (1958). Research showed there was great variation in the processing pertaining to the different phases of the experimental approach (formulation of hypotheses, planning and undertaking of experiments, data collection and notation, and inferences regarding the validation of hypotheses). The level of mastery of these activities by the pre-­ teens observed was very mixed. Consequently, it seemed that the development of experimental reasoning could not be apprehended in an overall sense in terms of transformation of mental structures, but in the diversity of the thinking operations at work in the activities, an idea which was then beginning to be shared by numerous cognitive development psychologists.7 The research also highlighted the importance of the conceptualisation of situations, whether it is a case of the child imagining which class of objects or phenomena is comparable to the situations to which he or she is asked to turn their attention (e.g. the combustion of a candle, mould on bread, absorption of water by plants), or of grasping them in terms of physical quantities (length, duration, weight, surface area, volume, speed, etc.) to record changes in state and the transformations observed. Within the small team of psychologists working on experimental reasoning, I turned out to be the one most convinced about the role of conceptualisation in cognitive development and functioning. So, I agreed with the theoretical, methodological and strategic proposals put forward by Gérard Vergnaud, a psychologist and research director at the CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research), who at that time was leading an interdisciplinary research group entitled “Didactics and Science Learning”. Gérard Vergnaud proposed taking account of the full complexity and components of concepts, carrying out very detailed observations, observing children’s conduct over an extended period of time and conducting research into

 In the decades following the 1968 “revolution”, in France, university academics were allowed great freedom as regards their choice of research subjects and links with research laboratories. At the time, I was teaching cognitive and developmental psychology at Université Paris 8 (the university where I held a post). However, I was able to conduct my research within a laboratory based at Université Paris 7 (LIREST Inter-university Research Laboratory on Scientific and Technological Education), aimed at providing guidance on the reform of science teaching, in particular the introduction of sciences in lower secondary school. This laboratory was included in a network of teams specialising in didactics research, a newly emerging field of research at that time. 7  This led to research specialisation by field of knowledge and skill (learning numbers, arithmetic operations, reading, etc.). 6

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

15

well-­defined conceptual fields8 (he himself studied, in particular, the learning of numbers and arithmetic operations). He invited psychologists to work in collaboration with didacticians and teachers interested in pedagogical innovation. Although possible, at that time there were not so many specialist cognitive development psychologists visiting educational establishments, and laboratory-based research with quantitative methods took precedence over field research. The “cognition in context” stream of study (Flavell, 1977; Rogoff & Lave, 1984) then served to legitimize an already well-formed paradigm.

2.3 Concept Construction According to the empiricist tradition, which is widespread in the writing aimed at science teachers, concepts are conceived as an invariant association of perceptible properties. For example, a definition of a “square” found in primary school textbooks: “A geometric figure corresponding to a section of flat space, demarcated by four sides; these sides are equal and create four right angles”. It is generally acknowledged that the construction of this type of concept comes from encountering both examples of the concept (it’s a triangle) as well as counter-examples (it’s not a square but a diamond). The succession of encounters with examples and counter-­examples of concepts would enable the child to identify the constituent invariant attributes of these concepts. Concepts are thus assumed to be formed through a process of empirical abstraction, which has given rise, in psychology, to a host of works based mainly on the use of images representing examples or counter-­ examples of artificial concepts conceived for research purposes. In her criticism of these approaches, Ellen Rosch (1978) proposed considering “natural” concepts and put forward the idea that the existence of a prototype (an exemplar of the category that would group together the most salient and most distinguishing properties of the class of objects denoted by the concept) facilitated the apprehension of concepts. So, reference to a familiar object with a square format could be an access route to the concept of “square”. Now, while the formation of concepts denoting categories or classes of objects may be subject to such a process, the same cannot be said for concepts that refer to hypothetical entities such as Force, a physical quantity describing interactions between systems that are either visible (for example, between a book and a table), invisible or presumed (between Newton’s fabled apple and the Earth). The invariants defining these concepts cannot be perceptively grasped (at best, one might perceive their effects) and, of course, there can be no prototypes of

 The “conceptual field” idea expounded by Gérard Vergnaud takes into account the fact that concepts are interconnected. A conceptual field is made up of the set of concepts used to deal with a class of situations. The complete work of Gérard Vergnaud can be found on the website https:// gerardvergnaud.wordpress.com 8

16

A. Weil-Barais

Table 2.1  Differences between formal concepts and categorial concepts Formal, relational concept Propositions-relationships Thought-based control, activation Reflective abstraction

Categorial concepts Attributes, prototypes, exemplars Perception-based control, pointing Empirical abstraction

Source Weil-Barais (1994b, p. 370)

these concepts. Epistemologists and rational psychologists put forward the idea that the construction of such concepts (described as “formal” by the epistemologist E. Cassirer) is subject to a process of abstraction concerning the products of thought itself, an idea expounded by Piaget, who made the distinction between empirical abstraction and “reflective” abstraction. For Cassirer (1910/1977), formal concepts have a hypothetical status: they are not derived but presumed.9 In the chapter on concept formation in Vygotsky’s first work (Thought and Language), he highlights the processes, in regard to scientific concepts, of social transmission through use of symbolic representation systems. Table 2.1 summarizes the fundamental differences between formal and categorial concepts from the point of view of the cognitive processes that their learning implies. It was in Gérard Vergnaud’s work that I found a representation of formal concepts likely to account for the complexity of the related construction processes, on an individual level (cf. Figure 2.1). Vergnaud proposes defining concepts as a triplet of three sets: (1) the set of reference situations where the concept is in use (the empirical level); (2) the set of operational invariants that constitute the concept (the signified level); and (3) the set of signifiers (symbolic systems) symbolically representing the concept and its properties (the signifier level). The schematization proposed by Vergnaud consists of three symbolic representation systems, but this is not of a fixed nature. In physical sciences, it is quite common to make use of various kinds of figurative drawings, flowsheets and diagrams and formal languages such as algebra. The characteristics of the representation systems determine possible inference accuracy. Picking up on a Piagetian argument, Vergnaud postulates that the subject’s activity plays a decisive role in the formation of invariants, “as they are transformations engendered by the actions that allow the construction of the first invariants”. Next to material actions on objects, the inferences that subjects draw are important as “it is this dual working on the objects, on the one hand, and on the invariants on the other, that gradually ensures the matching of the latter to the former and the gradual enhancement of the representation” (Vergnaud, 1987, p. 827). The representation is enhanced in three ways: through complexification (taking account of increasingly numerous properties and relationships), the requirement for coherence (coordination of separate fields, for example) and differentiation.

 These ideas were developed in an article published in 1990 (Weil-Barais & Lemeignan, 1990).

9

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

17

ASPECTS OF REALITY

TRANSFORMATIONS, SUBJECT’S ACTIONS

EFFECTS

OPERATIONAL INVARIANTS

RELATIONAL CALCULATIONS

RULES OF ACTION PREDICTIONS

SIGNIFIED

SYMBOLIC SYSTEM A

SIGNIFIER REPRESENTATION

SYMBOLIC SYSTEM B

SYMBOLIC SYSTEM C

Fig. 2.1  Representation of concepts according to Vergnaud (1987, p. 827)

The conceptual framework proposed by Vergnaud (1990, 2009) greatly contributed to our adoption of a critical stance in relation to the dominant conceptions in terms of “conceptual change”. In closely analysing the fundamental quantities of mechanics (Force, Energy and Momentum) considered in our research, it in fact appeared to us that there was an enormous gulf between the different cognitive processing that their construction and use implied, and the processing methods spontaneously used by pupils. Consequently, it seemed to us that it was unrealistic to think elucidation of “naive conceptions” would suffice for devising teaching methods liable to aid pupils in their learning: “The basic assumption was that to enhance an understanding of the difficulties that students encounter in acquiring concepts and models in physics, it was necessary to know more about the cognitive activities involved in the construction and use of these concepts and models, and be able to describe the nature of the changes that take place in thinking processes. This would be the starting point for designing learning environments to help students acquire new concepts” (Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1994).

18

A. Weil-Barais

2.4 When the Researcher’s Ignorance Becomes a Resource In order to expound still further on the reasons leading us to propose the construction of precursor models, it is necessary to look back at certain aspects of my career. Convinced of the importance of conceptualisation processes in a child’s intellectual development, I naturally collaborated on several research programmes on conceptual development and modelling, piloted by the LIREST.  At the start, my major handicap was that my mastery of physics concepts only just allowed me to solve the pencil-and-paper problems in the school textbooks I had previously analysed with a view to elucidating the cognitive processes called upon to solve them. Although I had a science-based Baccalauréat qualification, I was completely incapable of using physical quantities to tackle even quite simple material situations. When I was pregnant, I even narrowly avoided electrocuting myself when using a sponge to clean an electric oven that I had omitted to unplug. In short, my physical science skills were limited to knowing how to deal with the terms of problems where the objects in Mechanics are points, situations are idealised (no friction, objects fall into empty space or move over an air track), physical quantities are specified and formalised by literal symbols, some numeric values are given and others not. In such cases, if you know the “formulae”, it is possible to work out the unknown values, so long as you know how to solve a system of equations. It is not even necessary to have to be aware that these famous formulae express relations between a model’s constituent physical quantities, which we were able to observe among pupils aged 15–16 during a teaching sequence on Momentum.10 So, at the start of the research, I was highly representative of the failure of physics teaching to train minds capable of appropriately deploying concepts to understand the physical world and turn them to practical use, for example to design or repair a technical device, diagnose a fault, foresee how situations will develop, avoid accidents, etc. So, the failure of teaching to facilitate the construction of concepts likely to be put to use for modelling purposes to predict and intervene appropriately was the starting point for research aimed at transforming it. I was given the opportunity to engage in a process of deconstructing and reconstructing my knowledge of Mechanics by following one of the continuing professional development courses run by Gérard Lemeignan at Université Paris 6. At that time, considerable importance was placed on the teaching of Mechanics in lower secondary school programmes in France. Many studies had described the cognitive obstacles encountered by pupils.11 The courses were aimed at teachers who had agreed to teach physics at lower secondary school level (which was a new

 Within the LIREST, these problems were studied and critiqued by Andrée Dumas Carré, Michel Caillot and Monique Goffard; these researchers contributed in France to the transformation of the problems used for training and assessment purposes. 11  Many studies were conducted on the cognitive obstacles pertaining to concepts grouped under the expression “cognitive change”. 10

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

19

development in France at that time), although they had very little or even no university training in the subject (Weil-Barais, 1994a). Gérard Lemeignan developed an approach by solving problems through creating situations with ordinary objects, quite far removed from usual laboratory equipment. For each situation, the approach was always the same. Assuming a change of situation: (1) requirement to predict variations in measurement (the same, more or less); (2) requirement to justify the prediction; (3) carrying out the action and recording findings; (4) comparison of predictions with findings; and (5) review of explanations together with guidance on proceeding to model the situation. Through this questioning, course participants had the opportunity to articulate their representation of the material situations involved and the formalisation they proposed for them in reference to physics concepts. The apparent simplicity of the situations, and even the triviality of the material used, were justified by the young age of the pupils for whom they were intended. By way of example, we present a material system used with a view to constructing the concept of Force, called “Scales”, after the name of the measuring device used. A person is asked to stand on a set of scales while holding a stick in their hand. They are asked to read the value indicated by the position of the needle on the dial. This is the baseline reference (situation D in the diagram). Three cases are envisaged: A. the person presses the stick on the scales, B. the person presses the stick on the ground on which the scales are standing, C. the person pushes the ceiling with the stick. The person carries out the required actions with the scales screen concealed. The questions relate to the change in value shown on the dial (identical, larger or smaller, compared to baseline reference D.). The predictions are recorded in writing and then compared with readings of the values shown on the scales screen. These situations and the graphic representations of them, constructed according to the conventions of the “interaction” precursor model (shown later by way of example) are represented in Fig. 2.2. It is the grouping together of the objects (person and stick) in a single system that allows the comparison to be made. This was a group task and I was responsible for noting down participants’ predictions and explanations. The variation in them did not fail to surprise and test the group of teachers. This provided the opportunity to prompt discussion of the difference between “personal opinions”, “data from experience” and “scientific explanation”. The instructor took advantage of my presence to get people to be very clear about the malaise felt in the face of this variation in responses and failure of predictions to match the empirical observations (the counter-intuitive situations were very familiar to Gérard Lemeignan, as a highly experienced instructor, and he made very clever use of them). Teachers generally do not like showing they are wrong and making mistakes. This provided the opportunity to talk about the fact that acknowledgement of mistakes and attempts to understand them are sources of progress, for both the individual and the history of science. I was also quite often asked to carry out an

20

A. Weil-Barais

Fig. 2.2  Figurative diagram of an experimental situation explored to construct the concept of Force and represent it graphically, according to the “interaction” precursor model. (Extract from Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1993, p. 113)

introspective exercise consisting of explaining how I, as a novice, dealt with the situations. On that occasion, the teachers discovered that in order to learn physics, it was not enough to be intelligent, logical, interested, motivated, thoughtful or attentive (the explanatory factors generally put forward to explain pupils’ failure to learn). The teachers were invited to help me and I was encouraged to express all my feelings, doubts and difficulties. Very gradually, the group of teachers, who had initially been reticent, engaged in collective introspection and became aware of the difficulty in using concepts deemed to be known, which they were tasked with teaching. In fact, just like me, the teachers found it very difficult to formalize the situations in terms of Force. The instructor then proposed temporarily abandoning these and only retaining what was needed to compare the different situations: identify the invariant system in the different situations and the objects interacting with it. He gradually led us to understand that it was not a case of applying formulae, but of analysing the physical situation in terms of interaction. As the comparison was required in terms of direction of variation in the measurement (greater, smaller,

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

21

identical), it was appropriate to compare interactions. This proposal was justified by the fact that the teachers were trained to address pupils not yet equipped with mathematical tools. Following an analysis of the situations in terms of interaction between systems, the teachers received guidance in analysing them in terms of Force, which helped to identify the connections and differences between the two approaches. The teachers and I ended up becoming aware of the intellectual operations required by the use of Force. Unfortunately, discussions during the course involving the teachers and researchers were not recorded. At the time, I was too focused on “the subject learner” and not yet interested in the interactional system (guiding tasks, symbolic representation systems and teacher-pupil discussions) from which conceptual learning emerges (we will return to this point at the end of the chapter). From my recollection, it was these discussions (which took place during the 5 days following the first course in which I participated) that saw the start of the process of systematizing the concept-building approach that was then under construction. At the end of each day, I would write up the notes, which constituted the discussion aid that later enabled us to devise conceptual frameworks aimed at designing innovative teaching-learning approaches. These approaches and experiments with them are described below.

2.5 In Search of an Approach to Guiding Pupils in Their Conceptual Learning and Modelling Approaches Following this personal experience as an occupational training consultant for physical science teachers, the design of approaches to enable pupils to construct concepts and be able to make use of them to construct calculable representations of situations (modelling, in other words) became a research priority. The earlier work on teaching the concepts of mechanics was based on a lot of research that established the persistence of “misconceptions” (notably in regard to Force), evident among pupils, students and teachers alike.12 Conceptual change was then envisaged in terms of “cognitive change”. In the aim of stimulating these changes, the expression of conceptions described as “spontaneous”, either in spoken form (e.g. say what a Force is and give examples) or in written form (produce a graphic representation, etc.) was then advocated. It was suggested that pupils’ proposals should be debated jointly, without any value judgement, before introducing the concept in its educational form.13 The advantage of this approach is that pupils  Reference to this work can be found in an article published in 1994 (Lemeignan & WeilBarais, 1994). 13  This research is discussed in an article published in “Education Permanente” magazine: Que. faire des représentations des élèves? [What to make of pupils’ representations?] (WeilBarais, 1994c). 12

22

A. Weil-Barais

are valued and involved in the activities. Its limitations become evident on the in-­ depth analysis of ruptures in the methods of processing situations entailed in the use of the fundamental quantities of mechanics. Detailed analyses of these quantities based on the general framework proposed by Gérard Vergnaud (shown above in Fig. 2.1) highlighted the fact that pupils were a long way from having assimilative structures at their disposal to enable them to appropriate them in the elaborate form proposed by teaching (Lemeignan & Weil-­ Barais, 1994). Due to their characteristics, these concepts are unassimilable, in the Piagetian sense of the word. Indeed, at the point when these concepts are taught in lower secondary school and even in upper secondary school, pupils do not have the cognitive resources at their disposal to enable them to appropriate them. This observation presupposes going beyond a reductive conception of concepts which often only retains the predicative component of knowledge and chooses to overlook its operational component which is constructed in action. Now, from the developmental point of view, knowledge’s operational dimension very often precedes the expression of knowledge in language (this has been amply demonstrated for numbers and arithmetic operations). Starting with the observed discrepancy between the methods used for the spontaneous processing of physical situations and their scientific conceptualisation by means of the fundamental concepts of Newtonian physics, it seemed advisable to us to envisage a constructive approach. This approach is expressed through the elaboration and gradual appropriation of procedures for processing situations, and propositions of a hypothetical nature with “model” status, that is to say, a “calculable” representation system, in the sense that it allows predictions to be made. This initial phase is fundamental as it allows awareness of the rupture or separation between natural thinking and scientific thinking: the former is sensitive to objects’ perceptual properties; the latter comes from use of models (the difference between the two forms of thinking is expressed diagrammatically in Fig. 2.3.). Bearing in mind the complexity of the physical quantities of interest to us, it proved necessary to envisage a succession of models, with the first model serving as the basis on which to construct the next. Expansion of the experimental field tackled justifies making the initially constructed model more complex. For example, expanding the movements of mobile objects (firstly in a single direction and just one way, then both ways, then in regard to the plane) leads to a change in the nature of the momentum quantity (at the start, it is conceived as numeric, then algebraic and then vectorial). Besides the fact that this development allows the gradual introduction of complexity, it enables pupils to be introduced to a fundamental scientific principle, the principle of economy: only use what is necessary - a principle that is sometimes forgotten, even by researchers! The design of the constructive approaches we perfected in regard to the concepts of mechanics is based on concept analysis (in reference to the schematization proposed by Vergnaud), knowledge of the cognitive resources at the pupils’ disposal, and Gérard Lemeignan’s expertise as an instructor. Like any design approach, it is

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

23

Properties Functions

Effects

Physicist’s reasoning

Observations

Predictions

Representation Fig. 2.3  Students’ initial reasoning and a physicist’s reasoning. (Weil-Barais, 1994b, p. 373)

founded on the conducting of tests, ongoing observations, diagnostics based on feasibility criteria and numerous discussions14 based on the observation data gathered. The sequences implemented could be reviewed with alterations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the proposals with pupils, for example the experimental situations implemented or the proposed methods of graphic representation. This interplay between tests, assessments and revisions with modifications prompted by the observations made is quite characteristic of design approaches quite far-removed from classic approaches in psychology and even in didactics, which sometimes had an unfortunate impact on the distribution and reception of the research work. With regard to the three fundamental quantities of mechanics, three series of tests of teaching sequences based on a developmental constructive conception of learning were carried out. They are summarized in Table 2.2. With details of: (1) the physical quantity concerned, (2) the educational level concerned, (3) the test conditions: teacher-led activities in class, or lab testing (in the latter case, Gérard Lemeignan acted as teacher to the pupils), and (4) the type of data collected (writing on the board, pupils’ written work, and audio recordings of discussions between the teacher and pupils). The table also details the major publications in English.

 In addition to the discussions within our little research group, which involved many students, mention should be made of the role played by Jean-Louis Martinand and all the participants in LIREST’s weekly seminar. Without their critical rigour, we would undoubtedly not have succeeded in formulating our proposals in such detail. 14

24

A. Weil-Barais

Table 2.2  Research on the fundamental concepts of mechanics Physical quantities Momentum

Energy

Force

Education level 5th year of secondary school 5th year of secondary school 4th year of secondary school

Test conditions Classroom

Classroom

Lab (pupil volunteers)

Data Audio recordings & written output

Publications Lemeignan and Weil-Barais (1989)

Pupils’ individual written work (problem-solving) Audio recordings & written output

Weil-Barais and Lemeignan (1990) Weil-Barais (1994b)

2.6 An Example of a Precursor Model: Interaction as a Precursor of the Force Model As an example of a precursor model, we briefly show how the construction of the interaction model may constitute a precursor of the Force model. We tested it out with teenagers who were “good pupils” for the most part but who, in some cases, declared themselves to be “sick of science” because they found it “completely baffling”. The agreement made between the researchers and teenagers was that they were invited to express all the questions, thoughts or even concerns raised by the proposed activities and that they could end the agreement to take part in the study at any time, subject to consenting to be interviewed in that event. Of course, they gave their consent for the work sessions to be recorded and a transcription was produced and made available to them after each session. The pupils’ reading of these transcriptions during the breaks between sessions often amazed them and prompted them to have new thoughts. This certainly helped maintain their interest in participating in the experimental workshop. The Force concept is known for its difficulty, justifying the many research studies of which it continues to be the subject (Kholer, 2020). In its form as taught in upper secondary school, it is a vectorial quantity that describes interactions (through contact or remotely). Force describes a symmetrical relationship between systems, which distinguishes it from the other physical quantities taught from elementary school through to the start of upper secondary school which describe the characteristics of objects or systems. It constitutes a major cognitive obstacle, well-­ documented by research. The difficulty is reinforced by the fact that in common language, force describes a property (for example Peter is stronger  - has more force - than James). Gérard Lemeignan put forward the idea that, before presenting the quantity Force in its elaborate form, which is completely impenetrable for pupils, especially given they can still see little difference between the quantity categories (scalar, algebraic and vectorial), it would be wise to construct the idea of

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

25

interaction between physical systems. This gave rise to the idea of the Interaction model as a precursor to the Force15 model. We were able to establish that this model allowed the setting up of new cognitive processes for pupils (e.g. the grouping of objects in a system, use of a principle, induction and deduction) starting from a set of gradually constructed propositions. These propositions are summarized in Box 2.1. Box 2.2 gives a diagrammatic description of the experimental situations explored in constructing the model.

Box 2.1: The Interaction Model (According to Lemeignan & Weil-­ Barais, 1994)

A

X

B

This model is formulated through a series of hypotheses which we ask students to bear in mind when exploring a set of situations concerning immobility or unidirectional translation: (a) The ‘act on’ hypothesis. An object acts or does not act on another object. The verb ‘act’ is used instead of a whole series of verbs that students spontaneously suggest such as ‘push’, ‘draw’, ‘retain’, ‘support’, etc. These verbs express modes of relationships between objects which are highly constrained by their intrinsic properties. (For example, a big slab of iron ‘holds’ a spring, the tabIe ‘supports’ a book, etc.) ‘Act’ expresses the feature common to a relationship between objects, the fact of existing or not, regardless of the objects in question. (b) The reciprocity hypothesis. If an object A acts on an object B, then object B acts on object A, regardless of the nature of objects A and B. Objects A and B interact or do not interact. (c) The hypothesis of the ‘strength’ of the relationship between act and events. Two types of events were approached: immobility and changes in motion:

 A detailed description of this model and the experimental situations used is given in an article published in the International Journal of Science Education (Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1994). 15

26

A. Weil-Barais

immobility: object X is immobile, if under the influence of two objects A and B, these objects act on X equally. change in motion: object X changes motion if it is influenced by another object or if, when under the influence of objects A and B, one acts on X more than the other. Box 2.2: Predict and Explain – Diagram of the Experimental Situation (Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1994)

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

27

The significance of the interaction model as designed is that it is defined by a fairly restricted set of propositions and the usage conditions (immobility, setting in motion) are easily controllable. For example, if two pupils are asked to pull on a rope with a knot in the middle of it, and they are required to ensure this knot does not move, they readily explain that the two people are acting in the same way on the rope but in the opposite direction to one another. The action verbs used can vary greatly (pull, push, hold, resist, etc.) At first, this variety is accepted and then, giving reasons to do with simplicity, the suggestion is made that there should be uniformity in terms of action expressions: the expression “act on” thus replaces all the verbs that were used spontaneously, which allows a sensory-controllable general relationship to be expressed: if an object (x) is immobile and in interaction with two other objects (A and B), then A acts on B as much as B acts on A, in the same, but opposite, direction, regardless of the objects involved in the activities (string, spring, magnet, etc.). We demonstrated that it is possible to use the interaction model as the basis for making a formalised presentation of Force acceptable and intelligible to teenagers. This presentation was based on a critique of the constructed model in terms of limits to the experimental field that can be explored by the model and in terms of measurement precision. In order to do this, more complex situations were presented, requiring the use of Force as an algebraic and then vectorial quantity. Aware of the fact that the pupils were not yet equipped with the mathematical tools, we informed them that they would have the opportunity to encounter this quantity at a later stage in their studies.

2.7 Precursor Models: Status, Function and Prospects One function of precursor models is to lead children to construct the frameworks of thinking needed to accommodate often very complex conceptual constructions, as is the case with the concept of Force and Newtonian physics in general. From the developmental point of view, in Vygotskian terms, the proposal of such models in fact amounts to triggering the construction of a zone of potential development, enabling pupils to appropriate very difficult concepts, such as the Force concept (in a study conducted with a Portuguese colleague, we were able to demonstrate that many upper secondary school teachers had a very limited mastery of it when the problems came from academic exercises, Lopes et al., 1999). The significance and value of the proposed model is that it is not specific to an age group, the mental operations it entails may be accessible at an early age, provided the necessary care and time are taken to establish them. It would therefore be entirely possible to start its construction in children much younger than those involved in our study. Indeed, the proposed activities are based on handling familiar, harmless objects: string, magnets, springs, scales, etc. Moreover, the graphics used to formalize the propositions and relationships are accessible from a very early age: “bubbles” and “arrows”. It concerns a simple way of formalizing ideas that are apparently simple but which

28

A. Weil-Barais

in fact prove very difficult for novice pupils to accept: from the point of view of the Force concept and Newtonian model, everything is an “object” and everything is an “action on”. For example, the teenagers involved in our study had a lot of difficulty accepting that the action of a hand on a spring is equivalent to the action of a big piece of metal on a table where the other end of the spring is attached to the metal. They took pleasure, however, in discovering that, by representing the “actions on…” graphically, it was possible to make deductions that were confirmed by their observations. They told us they finally understood the point of graphic representations in science! It is a safe bet that, by giving young children such learning experiences, they would derive just as much pleasure from them and would thus be introduced to the modelling approaches that are fundamental in science. At the end of the process that led us from the exposition of our questioning about conceptual learning in science, our approaches and the institutional and relational conditions that allowed the research mentioned to be carried out, it is possible for us to propose a definition of the “precursor model” concept. The definition given to it in a work aimed at science teacher trainers and at the teachers themselves (Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1993, p. 26) is a fairly good summary of our point of view. “The term ‘precursor’ together with the word ‘model’ means it is a case of models that prepare for the elaboration of other models. Consequently, precursor models consist of a certain number of elements characteristic of the scholarly models towards which they strive. These elements may concern hypothetical entities and thinking operations associated with the handling of these entities or symbolic representations. Precursor models necessarily have a reduced field of validity compared with scholarly models. They are, however, calculable in the sense that they allow predictions to be made regarding the direction of change in physical quantities or effects produced. For example, the interaction model proposed for introducing the force model allows predictions to be made when all the actions are in the same direction. Predictions can be made regarding the setting in motion and direction of movement of many different objects. Precursor models thus constitute didactic constructions designed to help pupils access scholarly models. They are therefore precursors in regard to cognitive development. They are not historic precursors. The evolution in scientific models proceeds more from ruptures or breaks than filiations or continued connections. Just as, at the cognitive level, connections or filiations are easier to produce than breaks or ruptures, it is desirable from a didactic point of view to organise filiations. However, it is as well to note that, given the differences between the operating method for natural thinking and for thinking in mechanics, ruptures are key. Any precursor model necessarily introduces ruptures in the pupils’ ways of thinking. By helping pupils to construct a succession of precursor models, it is possible to avoid imposing overly abrupt ruptures on them which very few of them, for various reasons, are ready to assume (cognitive overload, lack of self-­ confidence or confidence in the teacher, lack of interest caused by the fact that the pupil cannot immediately grasp the point of the Game they are being made to conduct, etc.” (Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1993, p. 26).

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

29

2.8 Assessment and Prospects In this chapter, I have mainly endeavoured to evoke the institutional, scientific and pragmatic context in which the “precursor model” idea emerged. In fact, the concept was “in action” before being formalized, which confirms a powerful Piagetian idea according to which knowledge originates in action. The explicitation of the concept through discussions with other researchers and doctoral students, as well as in publications allowed the idea to be developed, shared and enhanced. Other people (teacher trainers and researchers) have taken up the idea, as is demonstrated by this work. It is interesting to note that it is, above all, the work of people concerned about science education for young children, before the written language is acquired, as though a developmental viewpoint of knowledge-building only concerned young children. This is a point of view I cannot share, in light of the research to which I have contributed. Intellectual development is indeed a life-long matter. Development is, above all, a process of adaptation and, consequently, it takes place throughout life. The pandemic which surprised us all and hindered us in our customary activities, really forced us to change our operating methods, learn new ways of interacting with our fellow creatures and assimilate various kinds of information regarding the new virus. On countless occasions, I thought to myself that I lacked precursor models to understand the scholarly models regarding the spread of a virus. This leads me to consider that there might be some value in thinking about precursor models in terms of model categories. The interaction model, presented by way of example, is quite representative of the formal models of closed state systems. Provided the elements that interact within the system are known, it is possible to make certain predictions about its evolution. In other words, it is a deterministic model. The construction of this chapter around the presentation of the origins and genesis of the precursor model idea led me to neglect the importance of tutoring and interactions in general between the teacher and pupils or between the pupils themselves in the learning process. However, it would be a serious mistake to disregard knowledge-building’s interlocutory dimension, the study of which we have contributed to in the course of several research programmes (Dumas-Carré & Weil-Barais, 1998). Analysis of the corpus of transcriptions of the audio recordings made in the course of the experimental sequence dedicated to constructing the interaction precursor model revealed specific, recurring conversational formats associated with the setting up of specific cognitive processing methods (Franceschelli & Weil-Barais, 1998, 1999). They constitute conversational routines gradually introduced by the teacher. At the start, it is the teacher formulating the questions and answers. Everything takes place as though the pupils were internalizing the discussion format since they themselves quite quickly take the initiative to pose questions, for example: What is acting on the object (the scales, spring, etc.)? Which direction? Which way? This type of exchange leads to cognitive processing focused on the interaction between the system’s component elements.

30

A. Weil-Barais

Another point to which we paid insufficient attention in our presentation of precursor models concerns symbolic representations (graphic and literal). Now this is a very important point. Firstly, symbolic representations obey the conventions that it is good for pupils to learn to know and, secondly, it is advisable to ensure they make sense for pupils and constitute real tools to aid thinking. The opaqueness of notations at the start of the learning process indeed constitutes a major obstacle. The F arrow cannot be properly understood if the pupil is unable to understand the vectorial nature of the Force quantity. So, the Arrow is often interpreted as the expression of a direction of movement. The symbolic representations we used merely represent the system concerned by means of a chart in the form of a bubble diagram (see Fig. 2.3), and the action of the objects acting on it by means of an arrow pointing in the direction of the action. As we were not certain this graphic representation would be fully intelligible for the pupils, we gave them the reasons and asked their opinion. This proved the opportunity to talk about the arbitrary nature of signs and the need to agree on the conventions regarding representation. Of course, we raised the fact that these conventions could evolve and that they would encounter others in the course of their education. Such discussions proved to be really interesting to the pupils, teenagers in this instance, which led us to think that conceptual learning is indissociable from discussions of an epistemological nature. Without such exchanges and debates, there is a major risk of precursor models only being impoverished conceptual systems. It is worth bearing in mind that, like any model, a precursor model is made up of: (1) a set of propositions, some of which may be hypothetical, (2) a set of operational invariants (the thinking operations associated with use of the propositions), and (3) a symbolic representation system. Like any model, there is a field of validity which is defined by the experimental field that can be explored, i.e. the physical situations and related questions. It is important to ensure these model characteristics are explicit and coherent, which is not always easy to design. To finish, we would like to remind people that there is a quite commonly-held view (particularly in France, where mathematics has an almost sacred status) that only representation systems of a mathematical nature (geometry, and linear and vector algebra) can provide access to the physical sciences. Precursor models help to call such dogma into question. While constituting a tool for constructing the cognitive resources needed for appropriating scholarly models, they enable pupils who have acquired some mathematical knowledge and skills, without really knowing what purpose they serve, to discover their significance and power. Younger pupils who have not yet acquired mathematical knowledge may find in the inferential activities required for using precursor models the opportunity to be trained to compare their expectations regarding the propositions they hold to be true with the data derived from experience. Precursor models can indeed lay claim to introducing children and teenagers to the game of science.

2  What Is a Precursor Model?

31

References Caillot, M. (1991). The design of a learning environment in mechanics: Two case studies. In A. Tiberghien & Mandl (Eds.), Intelligent learning environment and knowledge acquisition in physics (pp. 217–228). Springer. Cassirer, E. (1910/1977). Substance et Fonction [Substance and Function]. Paris: Minuit. Cauzinille-Marmèche, E., Friemel, Ε., Mathieu, J., & Weil-Barais, A. (1979). Approche du raisonnement expérimental [Approach to experimental reasoning]. Bulletin de Psychologie, XXXII(340), 665–674. Cauzinille-Marmèche, Ε., Mathieu, J., & Weil-Barais, A. (1983). Les savants en herbe [Budding scientists]. Peter Lang. Cauzinille-Marmèche, E., Méheut, M., Séré, M. G., & Weil-Barais, A. (1985). The influence of a priori ideas on the experimental approach. Science Education, 69, 201–211. Dumas Carré, A., & Weil-Barais, A. (Éds) (1998). Tutelle et médiation dans l´éducation scientifique [Tutoring and mediation in Science Education]. Berne: Peter Lang. Flavell, J. H. (Ed.). (1977). Cognitive development. Prentice-Hall. Franceschelli, S., & Weil-Barais, A. (1998). La routine conversationnelle comme stratégie de changement conceptuel : apprendre à modéliser en mécanique [Conversational routine as a conceptual change in Mechanics]. In A.  Dumas Carré & A.  Weil-Barais (Eds.), Tutelle et Médiation dans l’éducation scientifique [Tutoring and mediation in Science Education] (pp. 211–238). Peter Lang. Franceschelli, S., & Weil-Barais, A. (1999). Interactions professeur-élèves dans la construction d’un modèle en mécanique [Teacher-pupil interaction in the construction of a model in mechanics]. In M. Gilly, J. P. Roux, & A. Trognon (Eds.), Apprendre dans l’interaction: analyse des médiations sémiotiques [Learning in interaction: Semiotic mediation analysis] (pp. 241–257). Presses Universitaires de Nancy. Goffard, Μ., & Weil-Barais, Α. (Eds.). (2005). Enseigner et apprendre les sciences [Science teaching and learning]. Armand Colin. Inhelder, Β., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. Basic Books. Kholer, A. (2020). Approches psychologiques de situations de malentendu dans des activités de didactique des sciences [Psychological approaches to situations of misunderstanding in Science teaching activities]. Thesis, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland. Larochelle, M., & Desautels, J. (1992). Autour de l’idée de science. Itinéraires cognitifs d’étudiants et d’étudiantes [The notion of Science. Students’ cognitive routes]. Presses de l’Université Laval & De Boeck-Wesmael. Lemeignan, G., & Weil-Barais, A. (1989). Enseignement et apprentissage d’un concept par les élèves: La quantité de mouvement en classe de seconde [Teaching and learning of a concept by students: The quantity of motion in the second grade]. Bulletin de l’Union des Physiciens, 716, 1013–1030. Lemeignan, G., & Weil-Barais, A. (1993). Construire des concepts en physique; l’enseignement de la mécanique [Concept construction in Physics: Teaching Mechanics]. Hachette. Lemeignan, G., & Weil-Barais, A. (1994). Developmental approach to cognitive change in mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 99–120. Lopes, J. B., Costa, Ν., Weil-Barais, Α., & Dumas-Carré, Α. (1999). Évaluation de la maîtrise des concepts de la mécanique chez des étudiants et des professeurs [Assessment of students’ and teachers’ mastery of mechanics concepts]. Didaskalia, 14, 11–38. Martinand, J. L. (1986). Connaître et transformer la matière ; des objectifs pour l’initiation aux sciences et techniques [Knowing and transform matter; Objectives for an introduction to Science and Technology]. Peter Lang.

32

A. Weil-Barais

Resta-Schweitzer, M., & Weil-Barais, A. (2006). Education scientifique et développement intellectuel du jeune enfant [Science education and the young child’s intellectual development]. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 1(1), 63–82. Resta-Schweitzer, M., & Weil-Barais, A. (2009). Initiation scientifique et développement intellectuel de l’enfant à l’âge préscolaire [The preschool child’s intellectual development and introduction to Science]. Les dossiers des Sciences de l’Education, 21, 101–113. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Harvard University Press. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorisation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum. Vergnaud, G. (1987). Les fonctions de l’action et de la symbolisation dans la formation des connaissances chez l’enfant [The functions of action and symbolization in the formation of knowledge in children]. In J. Piaget, P. Mounoud, & J. P. Bronckart (Eds.), Psychologie, Encyclopédie La Pléiade (pp. 821–843). Galimard. Vergnaud, G. (1990). La théorie des champs conceptuels [The theory of conceptual fields]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 10(2/3), 133–170. Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52, 83–94. Weil-Barais, A. (1994a). Les apprentissages en sciences physiques [Learning processes in Physical Sciences]. In G. Vergnaud (Ed.), Apprentissages et didactiques (pp. 95–126). Hachette. Weil-Barais, A. (1994b). Heuristic value of the notion of zone of proximal development in the study of child and adolescent construction of concepts in physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(4), 367–383. Weil-Barais, A. (1994c). Que faire des représentations des élèves? [What to make of pupils' representations?] Education Permanente, 119, 79–88. Weil-Barais, A., & Lemeignan, G. (1990). Apprentissage de concepts et modélisation [Learning models and modelling]. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5, 391–415.

Chapter 3

What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic Perspectives Konstantinos Ravanis and Jean-Marie Boilevin

3.1 Introduction There has been support in the scientific community for many years for the idea that children should be introduced to Physical and Natural sciences concepts and phenomena from as early an age as possible (Ravanis, 1994; Eshach & Fried, 2005). This is a matter for consideration in various scientific fields and epistemological contexts. So, this early introduction to science is central to several research projects in fields such as psychology, epistemology and pedagogy or didactics (regarded as the study of teaching and learning in connection with knowledge of specific content). These various research works study the conditions for fostering children’s first organised contact with the world of Physical and Natural sciences. However, the multiplicity of routes adopted creates complexity in terms of approach. This complexity must be organised such as to enable integration of multiple routes in specific research and teaching contexts in order to be productive. The objective of this chapter is to present a theoretical socio-cognitive framework for studying the construction of knowledge of the physical world in nursery school, kindergarten and primary school pupils. This framework is based on the importance and fundamental role of social interaction in the development of cognitive operations and learning. It links various theoretical elements produced by the K. Ravanis (*) Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, Patras, Greece e-mail: [email protected] J.-M. Boilevin Brest University, Research Centre for Education, Learning and Didactics (CREAD), Brest, France e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J.-M. Boilevin et al. (eds.), Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 55, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08158-3_3

33

34

K. Ravanis and J.-M. Boilevin

theories of social interactionism, the psychology of social development and research on Physical Sciences teaching methods. In addition to the precursor model, this theoretical framework is based on various concepts presented. Discussion of them shows how to create effective teaching interventions to guide children aged 4–8 towards construction of knowledge about physical, chemical and biological phenomena.

3.2 A Classification of Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks for Construction of the Physical World Between the Age of 4 and 8 The approach based on theoretical conceptualisations, research results and proposed activities for children aged 4–8 highlighted notable differences in the objectives, contents, organisation and implementation of science activities but also in the teaching materials, setups and devices used, as well as in the role of the children and teachers and the assessment tools used. This approach, enhanced over the course of time, has led to a proposed classification of science activities for young children based on four different perspectives (Ravanis, 2005, 2017, 2020): • The first category, which we call empiricist, can be described as a simplifying, empirical perspective, brings together activities that are developed within frameworks where empiricism and behavioural streams dominate. Under this approach, the teacher prepares the setups and devices, presents the chosen Physical Sciences elements, leads the lesson, asks the pupils questions, formulates problems and gives explanations, trying to convey knowledge according to the traditional teacher-as-transmitter and pupil-as-recipient type of school-based communication model. These choices are hardly ever justified in relation to the children’s capabilities or potential, cognitive resources or logical needs (Conezio & French, 2002; Harlan, 1976). • The second theoretical and methodological framework, the Piagetian, is connected with the teaching traditions developed in the context of genetic epistemology, i.e. the research trend that has emerged from the perspective of the Piagetian legacy (Kamii & Lee-Katz, 1982; Kato & Dykstra Van Meeteren, 2008). Within this framework, children are offered opportunities for the assimilation of physical knowledge through experimentation and handling of specially constructed, selected and organised teaching material. The teacher plans the general lines of activity, observes, encourages and questions the children, intervenes depending on the circumstances and the children’s difficulties, and assesses the results of the work done by the children to improve all these conditions (Crahay & Delhaxhe, 1988; Kamii & De Vries, 1978). • The socio-cognitive framework has been formed on the basis of theories (post-­ Piagetian theories about learning and/or Vygotskian theory) which underline the importance of cognitive development and show the obstacles to thought for

3  What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic…

35

young children and the means to surmount said obstacles through appropriate didactic interaction. These aspects laid the theoretical foundations for the development of modern science teaching (Christidou & Hatzinikita, 2006; Kaliampos & Ravanis, 2019; Kalogiannakis et al., 2018; Kambouri, 2015; Kampeza, 2006). • The fourth framework, the socio-cultural, consists of a series of teaching approaches underlining the essential role of a holistic perspective in understanding young children’s development by emphasizing the dialectical interrelations between the active, affective and intellectual factors. These sociocultural and cultural-historical approaches are primarily based on the broader theories of the Vygotskian legacy (Fleer, 2017; Fragkiadaki, 2020; Pantidos, 2017; Plakitsi, 2011; Vidal Carulla & Adbo, 2020). Admittedly, the first perspective seems something of a special case as it is not really based on an explicit conceptual and methodological framework. However, despite the common direction, in each of the other three frameworks there is a great variety of theoretical tools, methodological approaches and research options. Agreement is not self-evident within the various traditions, although these differences enhance the three frameworks. So, in the socio-cognitive framework, a number of concepts are invoked to develop a particular approach for teaching science to young children.

3.3 Precursor Models in the Conceptual Frameworks for a Socio-cognitive Approach The socio-cognitive approach emphasizes potential transformation in children’s thinking supported by their social background. It is based on a number of concepts whose status is examined below, with particular focus on the precursor model concept.

3.3.1 Representations The question of the construction of representations of the physical world in children’s thinking constitutes a field of psychological and epistemological research that has been well explored. In reality, these aspects relate to the origins and genesis of representations and are focused on the social conditions for the construction and modification of representations during development (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992; Piaget, 1954). In several research projects, often driven by different or even opposing, contradictory theoretical points of view, we can observe that children approach the physical world right from birth, formulate and reformulate certain representations, resolve related problems and gradually acquire physical knowledge. The problem of construction and change of representations at school age also has an

36

K. Ravanis and J.-M. Boilevin

important place in the context of Physical and Natural Sciences teaching methods (Johsua & Dupin, 1993; Kampourakis & Zogza, 2009; Tiberghien, 2008). As representations are the product of the child’s individual social history, they continually interact with the sociocultural and educational context and are of a dynamic, developmental and evolving nature. So, insofar as the representations through which the child interprets physical world phenomena are remote or in contradiction to certain elements of scientific models, the dominant ideas in streams of research on Physical Sciences teaching methods are aimed at designing teaching interventions and situations liable to encourage the move from naive, implicit, local, non-conscious representations of notions or phenomena to explanatory mental forms and conceptions that are closer to scientific knowledge.

3.3.2 Objectives-Obstacles Representations, whatever their origin, are all potential sources of difficulties in the learning process. Research work with children of different ages, but primarily with children in early childhood education, has shown that working out and transforming their representations are very often hindered by obstacles of different nature. Perhaps the most serious issue is the developmental level of children which imposes specific forms of thinking that are usually dominated by ways of reasoning that are not compatible with integrated adult rational: animistic, artificialist, finalist or egocentric explanations, and sometimes concentration of attention and thought on limited aspects of a physical situation that are not relevant to the appropriation of knowledge (Laurandeau & Pinard, 1972). An important obstacle are limitations imposed by children’s fields of experience which are inevitably narrow (Kampeza et al., 2016). There are also major problems caused by the limitations arising from the level of language development and communication or interaction skills (Convertini, 2021). Consideration of these multiple difficulties encountered leads us to refer to our didactic objectives in terms of overcoming obstacles. According to Martinand (1986), the idea of formulating objectives-obstacles is based on two fundamental presuppositions (Martinand, 1986, pp.  109–114). The first is that it “is possible to find a limited number of decisive advances, not made spontaneously but which have some significance from the point of view of scientific or technological thought, attitudes and corresponding capabilities”. The second assumption is that, at a given moment on the educational pathway, there is in an activity “a decisive obstacle, the dominant aspect of which lies within one of the major categories of objectives and attitudes to method, knowledge, languages and know-how”. The objective-obstacle concept seems to be highly productive in research with young pupils. Numerous studies have led to verification of the position according to which, in each teaching situation, there are decisive obstacles which children aged 4–8 overcome, provided they participate in socio-educational interaction leading to

3  What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic…

37

new cognitive controls (Delserieys et al., 2018). Consequently, the issue at stake in the teaching interventions we build is the children’s scaling of obstacles. In these teaching interventions, the linking of teachers’ actions with teacher-pupil interactions and the planning and conducting of teaching activities may lead simultaneously to the construction of precursor models.

3.3.3 Precursor Models The historic presentation by Weil-Barais (2022) of the precursor model concept above all develops a psychological approach, tackling the learning of scientific concepts and modelling approaches according to a developmental aspect. We supplement this approach with a didactic perspective backed up by an epistemological approach to the notion of the science model. 3.3.3.1 Model as a Concept in Science Education The attempt to move from pure science and/or scientific disciplines to formulating didactic material in order to teach them still poses significant problems. This is due to the fact that pure science training and science teaching are two completely different social practices, developed under different conditions. In addition, the younger the age of the pupils on whom we focus, the more complex these problems become. From a purely cognitive point of view, the greatest problem we encounter in the learning of Physical Sciences is perhaps in relation to the pupils’ mental representations, i.e. entities of their thinking, based on which they form natural phenomena and their interpretations. It is well known, after many years of research, that pupils’ naive mental representations often differ to a large degree from the scientific knowledge we formulate for teaching purposes. So, in the context of Science Education, identifying children’s representations and striving to transform them is a constant priority. However, Physical Science knowledge is not a sum of mental representations but distinct sets of abstract intellectual tools such as theories or laws, with an internal structure, organisation, specific concepts, symbolic systems and scope (Adúriz-Bravo, 2013, 2016, 2022; Bächtold, 2013, 2017, 2022). Models constitute one type of these sets as they are constructed entities placed between theoretical constructions and reality in order to offer “local” structured solutions in the representation, formation and arrangement of phenomena. Roy and Hasni (2014) provide a reminder that models play a central role in science as they are basic tools for developing scientific thought. They add that the construction of a model is done through modelling, which is a dynamic, non-linear process. According to Roy and Hasni (2014, p. 351) “models are many and various, owing to the multiple phenomena they can explain and the diversity of methods of

38

K. Ravanis and J.-M. Boilevin

representation (hands-on material, written language, mathematical symbols, gestures, etc.) that may be used to represent them”. Based on analysis of scientific documentation, at least four main characteristic attributes of a model emerge: 1 . A model is a simplified representation of a real-world entity. 2. Different models may represent a single referent and a single model may represent multiple referents. 3. A model is an intermediate object between theory and phenomenon, the function of which is to represent, explain and predict. 4. A model is subject to revision. Models are also of particular interest to education but teaching and learning about models and modelling pose major challenges in school. Indeed, although the structural and functional characteristics of a model undergo (or rather should undergo) the transformation needed to adapt to the capabilities of children of different ages and to their educational needs, there is absolutely no doubt that the direction taken by teaching practices in the construction of models in children’s thinking increases the difficulties and complexity. The attempt to form scientific models in children’s thinking requires generally demanding, lasting pathways, as it is hampered by multiple obstacles. Often the mental pathways the children need to take to get from their individual constructions to scientific models are so demanding that the chances of success for the teaching processes concerned are low. Consequently, the issue as regards efforts to introduce children to Physical Sciences may not be the acquisition of the model itself. If one remains faithful to the basic idea of constructivism, according to which pupils’ intellectual activity is fundamental to the learning process, one must adapt to their cognitive resources. That is to say, consideration must be given to the children’s representations of the physical world and work on turning these representations into conceptions with characteristics that are compatible with those of scientific models. Discussions on the role of models in teaching and learning but also on the processes for construct models in thought have been a significant area of research in Science Education (Adúriz-Bravo, 2013; Bächtold, 2017; Cheng et al., 2019; Hasni, 2010; Potvin et al., 2020). Despite the different approaches envisaged depending on the researchers concerned, it appears that a model stemming from the field of Physical Sciences, modified for education, permits three distinct functions (Genzling & Pierrard, 1994): 1. Description. The level of description to which models allow us to select the effective, appropriate illustrations of phenomena. The description of systems, relations and their transformation in Science Education does not coincide with simple observation. Indeed, firstly observation and then description require and presuppose use of criteria which only a model can offer. 2. Explanation. The level of explanation, in which use of elements and the relations between elements of a model enables us to create causal relationships and interpret the processes observed and results produced.

3  What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic…

39

3. Prediction. The level of prediction to which models allow thinking to use and combine elements for successful application on new but relevant subjects and areas of scope. Use of a model’s specific elements and interrelations leads thinking to the formation of a creative ability to deal with new problems and phenomena by formulating hypotheses, creating correlations and reconstructing the observed events in an abstract way. Children’s ability to use these three functions indicates the successful construction of a model stemming from Physical Sciences. In such a context, there are significant questions to be considered regarding the process of acquiring these functions and the gradual appropriation of them. This discussion takes on a new dimension in light of the precursor model concept which, at the same time, provides the potential to grasp the children’s state of thinking and prospect for development. This discussion is of particular value and interest to young children’s thinking as the approach to Physical Sciences in early childhood education becomes extremely complex, owing to the children’s cognitive limitations. It is obvious that at the age of 4–8, it is not possible to talk of the formation of models and modelling. However, any attempt to introduce young children to Physical Sciences is pointless if it is limited to a sequence of experiments and fragmentary images of the physical world. So, in the socio-cognitive stream, several research and teaching approaches are focused on the need for the formation of entities in young children’s thinking, which intervene between the naive mental representation and models; namely, frameworks for thinking that can facilitate attempts at the mental construction of real models. These entities are recognised as precursor models. For example, if one of the learning objectives in school physics is the appropriation of the energy model of thermal equilibrium, the creation in children’s minds of a stable pattern for understanding state changes as phenomena related to thermal exchanges is equivalent to a precursor model (Kambouri-Danos et al., 2019). 3.3.3.2 Precursor Models in Early Childhood Education The precursor model concept was first proposed by Weil-Barais & Lemeignan in France (Weil-Barais, 2001; Weil-Barais & Lemeignan, 1990), resulting from a sound theoretical environment which uses concepts important to learning, such as “reflective abstraction” (Piaget, 1977/2001), “zone of proximal development” (Vygotski, 1934/1962) and “knowledge in action” (Vergnaud, 1987). As Weil-­ Barais reminds us (2022), the concept acquired empirical content for the first time as part of in-depth research into the way in which pupils aged 16–18 construct the basic concepts of mechanics (force, energy and momentum) (Lemeignan & WeilBarais, 1993). It concerns a mental formation, compatible with the scientific model, since a precursor model is constructed on the basis of certain elements included in the relevant scientific model; it has limited scope and prepares children’s thinking. These precursor models are cognitive constructions (concepts, models, procedures, etc.) generated by the educational context. They constitute the moulds for

40

K. Ravanis and J.-M. Boilevin

subsequent cognitive constructions which, without their help, would be difficult or even impossible. In precursor models, the elements and relations between them are compatible with those of the scientific models currently used in Physical Sciences teaching and learning processes. At a structural and functional level, they connect individual constructions in children’s thinking about natural phenomena with academic knowledge and may serve as the basis for a process of devising more complex models. But what are the resources used by the scientific community to develop the structure of a precursor model in a way that may be explicit? Given that at the heart of the discussion is a cognitive entity that must be transformed in order to be compatible with the Physical Sciences we teach in school, we obviously make reference to three dimensions expounded simultaneously: children’s thinking as well as naive mental representations and sundry obstacles, teaching practices and elements of scientific knowledge as adapted for school purposes. Although these three elements always coexist, their significance is different and should therefore constitute a subject of future research and development. The idea of using precursor models in Science Education from early childhood was first introduced in the 2000s (Ravanis, 2000, 2005). Even through its initially limited application to older pupils, this concept seemed dynamic and revealed the apparent weakness of a small number of studies that had already begun to appear in the study of the mental representations of 4–8-year-olds for Physical Sciences phenomena and concepts. Indeed, these research studies, despite their indisputable descriptive interest, did not lead to fruitful perspectives as, on the one hand, they gave similar results to those obtained with primary school pupils and, on the other, their attempts to transform these mental representations for the given age spectrum were extremely discrete, isolated from broader proposed models and entirely absent from the content of early childhood teaching programmes. With regard to young children, one distinct problem consisted of the absolute necessity of tackling the particular matters stemming from the limitations in their thinking, i.e. of activating theoretical tools for interpreting science which deal with the characteristics of the development of children’s thinking. There is no doubt that this issue also ought to matter for older children too, as the characteristics of development in their thinking undoubtedly affect issues to do with learning, but we will not extend our investigations to this area as it is outside the framework of our study. In the case of young children, it is impossible to focus on matters regarding initiation to Physical Sciences if we are not able to interpret their way of reasoning stemming from the prologue nature of their mental composition. For example, when we discover that kindergarten school children fail to realise that different types of entities, such as light, heat or sound, are capable of “travelling in space” from the sources of production to the potential “receivers”, this must not simply be attributed to ignorance or poor understanding of the phenomena. It must be attributed, rather, to constraints as regards their intellect which we must be able to interpret in order to incorporate them into a specific teaching and learning plan of activities. Taking young children’s intellectual means into consideration in this way also leads to the taking of other precautions. So, when research results in “successful”

3  What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic…

41

teaching interventions, such as getting from naive mental representations to others compatible with scientific knowledge, a general framework is quite often formulated, according to which this study sits within the limits of the “zone of proximal development”. Such a general statement has no specific contents, regardless of the age of the pupils who have been the subject of investigation. However, it is inconceivable when it applies to young children as, at that age, the “zone of proximal development” has strictly specific contents. In fact, it combines the structural and functional characteristics of the children’s intellect with the Physical Sciences knowledge of interest to us. In other words, if we assume, for example, that we are working with young children in the “zone of proximal development” as regards the natural phenomena of clouds and rain, the object of our work should not only be to do with the concepts of condensation and liquefaction, as would be the case with older pupils, but also with the pre-logical reasoning often illustrated by young children on the origin and composition of clouds. At the same time, while from a functional point of view science models allow descriptions, explanations and predictions, as we have already mentioned, precursor models developed for young children can only incorporate some of these functions, mainly confined to the notions of description and prediction. Such a function is perfectly compatible with the precursor model concept as it simultaneously presents a static and dynamic character as it captures a state of thought that incorporates the seed of change.

3.3.4 Tutoring and Mediation While we accept the idea that devising and constructing precursor models are productive in introducing young children to a structured exploration of the physical world, and while we want to facilitate the formation of these models, we need theoretical, methodological options able to produce the dynamics of pupil intelligence, envisage the difficulties encountered, lead to rational teaching decisions and build didactic sequences focused on overcoming obstacles. For this, we refer to two theoretical points of view that have influenced our socio-cognitive approach. The first, of psychosocial origin, is inspired by the hypotheses of social interactionism (Vygotsky, 1934/1962) and the social psychology of cognitive development and functioning (Doise & Mugny, 1984; Perret-Clermont, 1979). On the one hand, we find the importance Vygotski attaches to the social interactions which allow the move from interpersonal regulation to intrapersonal development. The child’s transformations, conditioned by their activity in the system of social relations, not only call upon development of their faculties but also on fundamental changes in the sphere of needs and motivations. On the other hand, research works on the mental mechanisms linking social and individual dynamics emphasize that children are better at constructing their tools for thinking and their knowledge when they interact, owing to the fact that they internalise social processes. Despite some differences in the various approaches, these research works, as a whole, give priority to a

42

K. Ravanis and J.-M. Boilevin

microanalysis of cognitive development, in communication and interaction situations, and they reveal some of the social mechanisms involved in the acquisition of knowledge. Within this framework, we can observe the benefits produced by forms of interaction such as cognitive or socio-cognitive conflict, social marking, the coordination of points of view, co-construction, joint elaboration, confrontation with disagreement, etc. The second theoretical point of view influencing our socio-cognitive framework is based on a didactic approach which strives to analyse the roles, functions and actions of teachers and pupils during interactions (Dumas Carré & Weil-Barais, 1998). Weil-Barais and Dumas Carré (1998), distinguish between two types of didactic interaction: tutoring and mediation. The idea of tutoring has already been explored in research on knowledge construction. For example, according to Winnykamen (1998, p. 33) “any interpersonal situation (often dyadic) where the following three main conditions are met will be regarded as tutoring or guidance interaction for the purposes of building or acquiring know-how or knowledge: dissymmetry, whether general or of varying degrees of specificity faced with the knowledge to be acquired; actual enrolment of partners, and different but complementary interaction aims”. Bruner (1983), for his part, in analysing the components of effective scaffolding recognises six main functions of a tutor: enrolment of the subject in the task; reduction of difficulties; maintaining focus in regard to the central objective or intermediate objectives; the marking of determining characteristics; control of frustration, and demonstration. In the conception of class tutoring developed by Weil-Barais and Dumas Carré (1998, p. 5), the teacher “is a tutor who acts on the pupil (puts situations and questions to the pupil, guides their activity, reduces possibilities, proposes subgoals, shows them, informs them, etc.) and explains” (Weil-Barais & Dumas Carré, 1998, p. 5). The tutoring action is effective if there is a good match between pupil conduct and the intentions behind the tutor’s action. Drawing inspiration from the conception of mediation in the field of social intervention, these same authors define academic mediation as “a process aimed at preventing and/or resolving a conflict or cognitive difficulty… a strategy for preventing and resolving cognitive incompatibility […] the notion of mediation regards verbal intervention as an act” and not as “simply an expression of a piece of knowledge to be conveyed and/or independent mental representation of the terms and the context of the enunciation” (Weil-Barais & Dumas Carré, 1998, p. 8). In this conception of mediation, the teacher “…. is a mediator in the sense that they are an intermediary between the world of scientific knowledge and practices on the one hand and, on the other, the pupils. Their function is to negotiate cognitive changes with the pupils. These changes relate both to the matters to be dealt with, the relevant experimental setups, the procedures, explanatory models, symbolic representation systems, forms of causality and forms of exchange between people” (Weil-Barais & Dumas Carré, 1998, p. 6). “The concept of shared meaning emerging in exchanges supplants the concept of information being processed” (Weil-Barais & Dumas-Carré, 1995, p. 3). Inspired by the concept of intercomprehension as defined by Habermas (1984), mediation is thus regarded by these authors as a process for constructing a joint

3  What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic…

43

reference, a prerequisite for a shared language, common to all participants (Weil-­ Barais & Dumas-Carré, 1995). So, mediation is characterised by recognition of the differences between the pupils’ knowledge and the amassed knowledge for which the teacher vouches, as well as by recognition of the potentially conflicting aspect of the building up of this knowledge. The directions of analysis of teachers’ tutoring and/or mediation interventions focused on the children’s activities and reasoning correspond to different socio-­ cognitive fields of identification (Dumas Carré & Goffard, 1998, pp. 147–148): the field of subject knowledge, the educational field consisting of the teachers’ knowledge and conceptions regarding lesson management, work and relations, the field concerning teachers’ educational choices and the field of their beliefs and values as regards science.

3.4 Discussion and Conclusion These two previously mentioned theoretical aspects, social interactionism and the social psychology of cognitive development and functioning, prescribe a highly worthwhile framework for studying the construction of knowledge and implementation of Physical Sciences activities for young children. Indeed, on the one hand, a firm rooting in the theoretical position in which development of intelligence has a social nature and, on the other, the research approach directed at studying interactions for appropriating scientific knowledge at the age of 4–8, enabled us to highlight the effort to overcome the obstacles faced by young children and construct precursor models. Researching and developing precursor models for teaching science in early childhood creates an interesting perspective as it moves us on from the area of naive mental representations to an array of structured knowledge which prepares young children to encounter characteristic Physical Science models in their future school career. In our view, it is certainly a learning and teaching line of direction which it makes sense to take on a larger scale with older children who would be able to construct a full precursor model. The last twenty years have seen a wealth of research output on the theoretical framework presented here. Besides the examples mentioned in this chapter, many authors have published research data on various concepts such as floatation (Canedo-­ Ibarra et  al., 2010), air (Lorenzo Flores et  al., 2018), shadows (Delserieys et  al., 2018; Resta-Schweizer & Weil-Barais, 2007), changes in the state of water (Kambouri-Danos et al., 2019), friction (Ravanis et al., 2008) and butter manufacture as a physico-chemical phenomenon (Resta-Schweizer, 2010). These results suggest it is possible to work with young children going beyond the traditional approach of presenting experiences of the physical world. Indeed, participation in certain didactic interactions, particularly those organised around overcoming obstacles to thought, can lead to the construction of precursor models. In addition, research involving this theoretical framework has recently been opening up to

44

K. Ravanis and J.-M. Boilevin

scientific concepts going beyond the framework of Physical and Chemical Science to tackle, for example concepts from Biology such as the inheritance (Ergazaki et al., 2015) or the variations within populations (Jégou et al., 2022). There is absolutely no doubt that, on the one hand, such a research and teaching perspective still has a long way to go to constitute a solid proposition and, on the other, must be able to provide answers to a number of important questions such as the potential relationship with early childhood teaching programmes and the important affective aspects of children of this age. However, the most recent research results and the related teaching activities create fertile ground for continuing efforts in this vein. Regardless of the traditions of the teams working within this framework, the rollout of research work greatly increases the number of questions that may be considered as regards methodological planning, results gathered and praxeological choices. In 2005, Ravanis wondered: “Can one apply the idea of using a precursor model more generally? What are the differences between experimental work with small groups of children, individual children, and standard classes? Can a school activity based on didactic interaction of the tutoring or mediation type always be effective for all children? What are the variables that may influence such effectiveness?”. Now that this theoretical issue has really begun to spread, new questions are emerging that call for fresh thoughts and elaboration and especially for answers at the cognitive level and/or pedagogical and didactic level: • Which are the most frequently encountered obstacles identified in Science Education from a very early age? What is the nature of them? • How can we incorporate research results into curricula or school programmes or use them properly to construct new programmes? • Might a comparative approach to the research work conducted in various educational settings facilitate the systematisation of representations and obstacles on a scale that goes beyond local output? • What specific contribution might information technology make to introducing young children to Physical and Natural sciences and above all, to constructing precursor models? • What is the influence and role of Science Education in a young child’s intellectual development? Another equally essential series of questions must be considered as regards teacher training if we wish to see the precursor model concept spread within the teaching community: What type of training might we envisage to involve them in an active, conscious way in the construction of educational setups that make use of precursor models? If one assumes that transformation of practices involves the objectivation of educational interaction by the teachers, didactics research may provide the tools to analyse classroom practices and, in particular, those concerning the building up of knowledge in didactic interaction (Boilevin, 2013). Research-training or collaborative research arrangements of the Design-Based Research type therefore seem highly relevant (Boilevin, 2019). They might thus lead teachers of young

3  What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic…

45

children to receive training in the basic concepts such as representations, obstacle objectives and precursor models. This might help them construct teaching activities: clarify the programme’s objectives in regard to the curriculum, prepare teaching materials and the necessary setups and devices, identify progress in cognitive terms, analyse activity sessions in terms of development or stagnation, if any, in the children’s thinking or in terms of knowledge attained. This line of approach to the development of activities aimed at the end of kindergarten and start of primary school may enable children to formulate worthwhile questions, seek and discover certain properties of objects and phenomena, connect individual or group activities with the effects produced and solve problems posed by themselves or constructed jointly with the teacher. In our view, this line of approach constitutes a crucial avenue for research to be pursued in future years to allow the dissemination of research results concerning the precursor model. In our opinion, the thesis currently in progress de Danai Arnantonaki constitutes a good example (Arnantonaki et al., 2021). The theoretical framework presented in this chapter offers us the chance to reflect and ask questions in a fruitful way in different theoretical, methodological and empirical fields but is undoubtedly limited. Despite the interaction and operational linking of its concepts and educational scope, we must not forget that its focus is purely socio-cognitive and refers above all to the development of teaching activities and, at most, the construction of a Physical and Natural sciences curriculum for young children aged 4–8. There are undoubtedly other subject areas such as epistemology, developmental and educational psychology, sociology of knowledge and early childhood education from whose contributions we may derive most value by comparing them with those of our theoretical framework. This comparison might contribute to awareness of the complementary nature or potential areas of incompatibility in approaches and in balancing the teachers’ work in class.

References Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2013). A semantic view of scientific models for science education. Science & Education, 22(7), 1593–1612. Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2016). Recent semantic developments on models: Book review: Michael Weisberg: Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1245–1250. Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2022). Precursor models seen through the lens of the idea of “theoretical model”. In J.-M. Boilevin, A. Delserieys, & K. Ravanis (Eds.), Precursor models for teaching and learning science during early childhood (pp. 221–239). Springer. Arnantonaki, D., Boilevin, J.-M., & Ravanis, K. (2021). L’appropriation de modèles précurseurs par des professeurs pour enseigner les sciences en maternelle. Le cas de la lumière [the appropriation of precursor models by teachers to teach science in kindergarten. The case of light]. Recherches en didactique des sciences et des technologies, 22, 151-176. Bächtold, M. (2013). A pragmatic approach to the atomic model in chemistry. In J.-P.  Llored (Ed.), The philosophy of chemistry: Practices, methodologies, and concepts (pp.  426–451). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

46

K. Ravanis and J.-M. Boilevin

Bächtold, M. (2017). Comment analyser et modéliser l’activité des enseignants en sciences ? Une tentative de synthèse comparative (how to analyse and model science teachers’ activity? An attempt at a comparative synthesis). In M. Bächtold, J.-M. Boilevin, & B. Calmettes (Eds.), La pratique de l’enseignant en sciences: Comment l’analyser et la modéliser ? [the practice of the science teacher: How to analyse and model it?]. Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Bächtold, M. (2022). Developmental and epistemological perspectives as key elements of the precursor model research programme. In J.-M. Boilevin, A. Delserieys, & K. Ravanis (Eds.), Precursor models for teaching and learning science during early childhood (pp. 241–261). Springer. Boilevin, J.-M. (2013). Rénovation de l’enseignement des sciences physiques et formation des enseignants. Regards didactiques [Renovation of physical science teaching and teacher training. Didactic perspectives]. De Boeck. Boilevin, J.-M. (2019). Ingénieries coopératives et recherches collaboratives en éducation [Cooperative engineering and collaborative research in education]. In Dans C. Goujon (Éd.), Actes du congrès : La TACD en questions, questions à la didactique (Vol. 2, pp.  25–34). CREAD.  Retrieved from: https://tacd-­2019.sciencesconf.org/data/ACTES_SessionX_ Congres_TACD_Rennes_2019.pdf Bruner, J.-S. (1983). Le développement de l’enfant : savoir faire, savoir dire [Child development: knowing how to do, knowing how to say]. Presses Universitaires de France. Canedo-Ibarra, S. P., Castelló-Escandell, J., García-Wehrle, P., & Morales-Blake, A. R. (2010). Precursor models construction at preschool education: An approach to improve scientific education in the classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 4(1), 41–76. Cheng, M., Wu, T., & Lin, S. (2019). Investigating the relationship between views of scientific models and modelling practice. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11165-­019-­09880-­2 Christidou, V., & Hatzinikita, V. (2006). Preschool children’s explanations of plant growth and rain formation: A comparative analysis. Research in Science Education, 34(2), 187–210. Conezio, K., & French, L. (2002). Science in the preschool classroom: Capitalizing on children’s fascination with the everyday world to foster language and literacy development. Young Children, 57(5), 12–19. Convertini, J. (2021). Psychosocial obstacles in young children argumentative interactions. Education Sciences, 11(5), 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050224 Crahay, M., & Delhaxhe, A. (1988). Agir avec les rouleaux. Agir avec l’eau [acting with the rollers. Acting with water]. Labor. Delserieys, A., Jégou, C., Boilevin, J.-M., & Ravanis, K. (2018). Precursor model and preschool science learning about shadows formation. Research in Science and Technological Education., 36(2), 147–164. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Pergamon Press. Dumas Carré, A., & Goffard, M. (1998). Objectivation des pratiques de tutelle d’un enseignant au cours de séances de résolution de problèmes en Physique [Objectivation of a teacher’s tutoring practices during problem solving sessions in Physics]. In A. Dumas Carré & A. Weil-Barais (Éds.), Tutelle et médiation dans l’éducation scientifique (pp. 145–155). Peter Lang. Dumas Carré, A., & Weil-Barais, A. (Éds) (1998). Tutelle et médiation dans l’éducation scientifique [tutoring and mediation in science education]. Peter Lang. Ergazaki, M., Valanidou, E., Kasimati, M.  C., & Kalantzi, Μ. (2015). Introducing a precursor model of inheritance to young children. International Journal of Science Education, 37(18), 3118–3142. Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336. Fleer, Μ. (2017). Scientific playworlds: A model of teaching science in play-based settings. Research in Science Education, 49, 1257–1278. Fragkiadaki, G. (2020). Conflicts during science concept formation in early childhood: Barriers or turning points? Review of science. Mathematics and ICT Education, 14(1), 113–128.

3  What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic…

47

Genzling, J.-C., & Pierrard, M.-A. (1994). La modélisation, la description, la conceptualisation, l’explication et la prédiction [Modelling, description, conceptualisation, explanation and prediction]. In J.-L.  Martinand et  al. (Éds.), Nouveaux regards sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la modélisation en sciences (pp. 47–78). INRP. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press. Harlan, J. (1976). Science experiences for the early childhood years. Charles E. Merrill Publishing. Hasni, A. (2010). Modèles et modélisation en enseignement scientifique: Quelques aspects prioritaires à considérer [Models and modelling in science education: Some priority issues to consider]. Spectre, 40(1), 10–13. Jégou, C., Gobert, J., Delserieys, A., & Ergazaki, M. (2022). A system to identify young children’s reasoning about variations within populations. In J.-M. Boilevin, A. Delserieys, & K. Ravanis (Eds.), Precursor models for teaching and learning science during early childhood (pp. 193-217). Springer. Johsua, S., & Dupin, J.-J. (1993). Introduction à la didactique des sciences et des mathématiques [Introduction to the science and mathematics didactics]. Presses Universitaires de France. Kaliampos, G., & Ravanis, K. (2019). Thermal conduction in metals: Mental representations in 5-6 years old children’s thinking. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika ‘Al-BiRuNi’, 8(1), 1–9. Kalogiannakis, M., Ampartzaki, M., Papadakis, S., & Skaraki, E. (2018). Teaching natural science concepts to young children with mobile devices and hands-on activities. A case study. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 9(2), 171–183. Kambouri, M. (2015). Children’s preconceptions of science: Ηow these can be used in teaching. The Journal of Early Years Educator, 16(11), 38–44. Kambouri-Danos, M., Ravanis, K., Jameau, A., & Boilevin, J.-M. (2019). The water state changes in 5-6 years old children’s thinking: The construction of a precursor model. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(4), 475–488. Kamii, C., & De Vries, R. (1978). Physical knowledge in preschool education: Implications of Piaget’s theory. Prentice-Hall. Kamii, C., & Lee-Katz, L. (1982). Physics in preschool education: A Piagetian approach. In J. G. Brown (Ed.), Curriculum planning for young children (pp. 171–176). National Association for the Education of Young Children. Kampeza, M. (2006). Preschool children’s ideas about the earth as a cosmic body and the day/ night cycle. Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 119–122. Kampeza, M., Vellopoulou, A., Fragkiadaki, G., & Ravanis, K. (2016). The expansion thermometer in preschoolers’ thinking. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(2), 185–193. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: A basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity. A developmental perspective on cognitive science. MIT Press. Kato, T., & Dykstra Van Meeteren, B. (2008). Teaching strategies: Physical science in constructivist early childhood classrooms. Childhood Education, 84(4), 234–236. Laurandeau, M., & Pinard, A. (1972). La pensée causale [Causal thinking]. Presses Universitaire de France. Lemeignan, G., & Weil-Barais, A. (1993). Construire des concepts en Physique [Building concepts in Physics]. Hachette. Lorenzo Flores, M., Sesto Varela, V., & García-Rodeja, G. (2018). Una propuesta didáctica para la construcción de un modelo precursor del aire en la Educación Infantil [A didactic proposal for the construction of a precursor model of air in early childhood education]. Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 2(2), 55–68. Martinand, J.-L. (1986). Connaître et transformer la matière [Knowing and transforming matter]. Peter Lang. Pantidos, P. (2017). Narrating science in the classroom: The role of semiotic resources in evoking imaginative thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(4), 388–401.

48

K. Ravanis and J.-M. Boilevin

Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1979). La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale [the construction of intelligence in social interaction]. Berne: Peter Lang. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1977/2001). Studies in reflecting abstraction. Taylor and Francis. Plakitsi, K. (Ed.). (2011). Activity theory in formal and informal science education. Sense Publishers. Potvin, P., Nenciovici, L., Malenfant-Robichaud, G., Thibault, F., Sy, O., Mahhou, M. A., Bernard, A., Allaire-Duquette, G., Blanchette Sarrasin, J., Brault Foisy, L.-M., Brouillette, N., St-Aubin, A.-A., Charland, P., Masson, S., Riopel, M., Tsai, C.-C., Bélanger, M., & Chastenayet, P. (2020). Models of conceptual change in science learning: Establishing an exhaustive inventory based on support given by articles published in major journals. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 157–211. Ravanis, K. (1994). The discovery of elementary magnetic properties in pre-school age. A qualitative and quantitative research within a Piagetian framework. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2(2), 79–91. Ravanis, K. (2000). La construction de la connaissance physique à l’âge préscolaire : Recherches Sur les interventions et les interactions didactiques [the construction of physical literacy in the preschool years: Research on didactic interventions and interactions]. Aster, 31, 71–94. Ravanis, K. (2005). Les sciences physiques à l’école maternelle: éléments théoriques d’un cadre sociocognitif pour la construction des connaissances et/ou le développement des activités didactiques [physical sciences in kindergarten: Theoretical elements of a socio-cognitive framework for the construction of knowledge and/or the development of didactic activities]. International Review of Education, 51(2/3), 201–218. Ravanis, K. (2017). Early childhood science education: State of the art and perspectives. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(3), 284–288. Ravanis, K. (2020). Precursor models of the physical sciences in early childhood education students’ thinking. Science Education Research and Praxis, 76, 24–31. Ravanis, K., Koliopoulos, D., & Boilevin, J.-M. (2008). Construction of a precursor model for the concept of rolling friction in the thought of preschool age children: A socio-cognitive teaching intervention. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 421–434. Resta-Schweizer, M. (2010). Initiation scientifique et développement intellectuel du jeune enfant [Scientific initiation and intellectual development of young children]. Thèse de doctorat (phD thesis), Université d’Angers, France. Resta-Schweitzer, M., & Weil-Barais, A. (2007). Éducation scientifique et développement intellectuel du jeune enfant [Science education and intellectual development of young children]. Review of Science, Mathematics & ICT Education, 1(1), 63–82. Roy, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Les modèles et la modélisation vus par des enseignants de sciences et technologies du secondaire au Québec [Models and modelling as seen by secondary school science and technology teachers in Quebec]. McGill Journal of Education / Revue Des Sciences De l’éducation De McGill, 49(2), 349–371. Tiberghien, A. (2008). Connaissances naïves et didactique de la physique (Naïve knowledge and didactics of physics). In J. Lautrey, S. Rémi- E. Giraud, E. Sander, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Les connaissances naïves (pp. 103–153). Armand Colin. Vergnaud, G. (1987). Les fonctions de l’action et de la symbolisation dans la formation des connaissances chez l’enfant (the functions of action and symbolisation in the formation of knowledge in children). In J. Piaget, P. Mounoud, & J. P. Bronckart (Eds.), Psychologie, Encyclopédie la Pléiade, XLVI (pp. 821–844). Gallimard. Vidal Carulla, C., & Adbo, K. (2020). A study of preschool children’s motive orientation during science activities. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 14(1), 47–67. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and Language. MIT Press. Weil-Barais, A. (2001). Constructivist approaches and the teaching of science. Prospects, 31(2), 187–196.

3  What Use Is a Precursor Model in Early Science Teaching and Learning? Didactic…

49

Weil-Barais, A. (2022). What is a precursor model? In J.-M. Boilevin, A. Delserieys, & K. Ravanis (Eds.), Precursor models for teaching and learning science during early childhood (pp. 11-32). Springer. Weil-Barais, A., & Dumas-Carré, A. (1995). Essais d’objectivation et de transformation des pratiques médiatrices des enseignants dans l’éducation scientifique [Attempts to objectify and transform teachers’ mediating practices in science education]. Rapport final. Université Paris 7, LIREST – GDSE P7. Weil-Barais, A., & Dumas-Carré, A. (1998). Les interactions didactiques : tutelle et / ou médiation ? [Didactic interactions: tutoring and/or mediation?]. In A.  Dumas-Carré & A.  WeilBarais (Eds.), Tutelle et médiation dans l’éducation scientifique (pp. 1–15). Peter Lang. Weil-Barais, A., & Lemeignan, G. (1990). Apprentissage de concepts et modélisation [concept learning and modelling]. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5, 391–437. Winnykamen, F. (1998). Approche psychologique de la tutelle [psychological approach to tutoring]. In A. Dumas-Carré & A. Weil-Barais (Eds.), Tutelle et médiation dans l’éducation scientifique (pp. 29–58). Peter Lang.

Part II

Precursor Models in Research Practices

Chapter 4

Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model During Preschool Education Sabrina Patricia Canedo Ibarra and Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo

4.1 Introduction To this day, preschool education is mainly focused on motor, language, and socialisation skills, leaving aside scientific ones. For example, in schools from Mexico and Spain, scientific curricular activities are mainly centred around hands-on activities, but discussions and explanations about natural phenomena are not portrayed. This is frequently related to the lack of teacher knowledge about disciplinary and didactical content. At this educational level, scientific activities appear to be fragmented and they lack any articulation in promoting the development of scientific concepts and skills (Ravanis & Bagakis, 1998). Children perform many activities which bare similarities to anecdotes. These heterogeneous experiences are studied in a disjointed way, looking at phenomena as macroscopic descriptions without paying attention to theoretical issues. Although there is debate concerning the possibility of incorporating the development of theoretical constructions with a certain degree of abstraction at this educational level (Eshach & Fried, 2005), it is also generally accepted that rich and contextualised educational situations are necessary to promote knowledge construction. With these situations children learn by themselves, take advantage of their own knowledge, and use their resources with a certain degree of autonomy (Alfieri et al., 1995; Malaguzzi, 1994).

S. P. C. Ibarra (*) Virtual University of the State of Michoacán, Morelia, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] A. A. G. Galindo Cinvestav Monterrey, México City, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J.-M. Boilevin et al. (eds.), Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 55, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08158-3_4

53

54

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

Social interaction is a key issue in these educational situations in order to promote the incorporation of scientific ideas, as well as the construction of precursor models. If learning can be understood as a situated practice, it can be assumed that many of the emerging ideas are constructed between teacher and student interactions and among students. In this view of learning, “situations” are dynamic constructions generated while people organise themselves to attend and make sense of certain concerns based on ongoing social interaction (Lave & Packer, 2011). From this perspective, students hold an active role on giving sense to the activity, to do this they generate new ideas, make actions and involucre their emotions. In the construction of precursor models, ideas about scientific knowledge is learned during communication and meaningful negotiation processes. Children are able to make meaningful questions, predictions, review their explanations, present their conclusions clearly, and communicate their findings (Mantzicopoulos et al., 2009). As Boilevin, Delserieys and Ravanis state in Chap. 1 of this book, a precursor model is a model that shares certain characteristics of a given scientific model and prepares the subsequent progression towards more elaborated models. On the other hand, as cognitive constructions, precursor models constitute the moulds for subsequent cognitive constructions that support knowledge enrichment. In a sociocultural perspective, discourse plays a central role for children to make sense of their everyday and educational experiences. Likewise, the relationship between ideas and practice, which lies between theories and facts of the world that explain it, is the main aspect in student autonomy construction. Social interactions related to procedures generate direct links with experience, and that is the reason why children make sense of their ideas or concepts in construction. Science thinking, instead of being a disembodied set of procedures, becomes a complex process of intellectual development. The major challenge children face is not that of acquiring correct experimentation strategies, but of developing the ability to coordinate their existing ideas with the new evidence in an explicit, conscious, and controlled way. Interactions between children, teachers, and materials, also possess an affective dimension that acts as a constitutive force of the conditions that make science teaching and learning possible (Kayumova & Tippins, 2016); there is a strong relationship between emotional, cognitive, and linguistic development (Blair, 2002), which in turn, makes it important to take emotions into consideration in social interactions taking place in the classroom. In this chapter, the way in which children – aged 6 – are able to construct a robust and well thought floating and sinking precursor model based on density is demonstrated through the organisation, reflection, and communication of ideas using various semiotic supports (such as speaking, drawing, and gesturing). At the same time, the way in which children’s procedural skills take a relevant place in the construction of this precursor model is illustrated, as well as the way in which their emotions are involved.

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

55

4.2 Research Contributions on Flotation with Preschool Children There are several studies that have addressed the phenomenon of buoyancy. These studies show that explanations of young children (4–7 years old) do not correspond to their observations. Children explain the phenomenon in terms of either an animistic or moral necessity or use a single object’s property, such as weight associated with an object’s purpose (Piaget, 1930; Piaget & Inhelder, 1974). From 5 to 7 years old, some of the children’s explanations depend on their observations, but they tend to believe that an object should float because it is strong or heavy (Biddulph & Osborne, 1984; Laevers, 1993; Piaget, 1930; Piaget & Inhelder, 1974; Smith et al., 1985) or because of its size, presence of holes. Other children combine more than one variable, but not use it in appropriate way (Dentici et al., 1984; Howe et al., 1990; Laevers, 1993; Rodríguez, 1980; Tenenbaum et  al., 2004). Other children consider volume as a factor affecting buoyancy both in objects and in water (Biddulph & Osborne, 1984; Rodríguez, 1980). Other studies have shown that many children give explanations about the phenomenon of floating related to the presence of holes, air, and weight (Biddulph & Osborne, 1984), and that they have an intuitive idea about density that led them to correct predictions about floating and sinking (Khon, 1993; Koliopoulos et al., 2004), although they are not able to relate the factors to formulate the concept of density (Havu-Nuutinen, 2000, 2005). In recent studies, Leuchter et al. (2014) and Kallery (2015), examined whether the implementation of a problem-based, structured learning environment, is an adequate means of stimulating conceptual development in young children, in terms of constructing a concept of floating and sinking of solid and hollow bodies made of different kind of materials. Larsson (2016) analysed activities where children were collaborating and exploring a range of aspects related to floating and sinking. In these activities children used everyday language to talk about size, holes, weight, amount of water, and what changing preconditions would mean when different objects were placed in water. Their vocabulary was enhanced during the activity and seemed to foster emergent notions of density and Archimedes’ principle, indicating that the language used has the potential to mediate the progress of both spontaneous and scientific concepts, where scientific concepts are understood as emergent. In summary, these studies show that preschool children can develop scientific thinking of the phenomenon even though the concepts of volume and density do not necessarily have to be used. Studies in recent decades show that the physical properties used by children in explaining the phenomenon are only marginally relevant to the density. Moreover, research performed by Biddulph and Osborne (1984), Khon (1993), Koliopoulos et  al. (2004) and Havu-Nuutinen (2005) demonstrate that experimental activities encourage children to establish their own relationships and trials and, were such activities be of interest and understood, the children are able to successfully solve scientific problems. That which helps to establish a basis for formal reasoning depends on the concepts that children have acquired (Havu-­ Nuutinen, 2005).

56

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

4.3 Methods 4.3.1 The Procedure In order to address the relevance of social interaction on floating and sinking precursor model construction, the study was divided into three phases. (A) Pre-instruction phase Work was carried on with a class of 24 six-year-old children (14 girls and 9 boys). At the beginning of the lessons, the teacher (the first author) interviewed the whole group of students. In the first part of the interview children were asked to explain what they understood about “this object floats” and “this object sinks”, and about what kind of objects they knew or had seen floating or sinking, and to explain the reason why they thought it happened. Most children asserted that an object floats when “it remains on the water” and sinks when “it goes down in the water”. When children were not clear, the teacher asked them to clarify these concepts. In addition, they were asked to talk about their experience with the phenomenon and to draw the objects that floated or sank to clarify their thoughts. In the second part of the interview children were asked to make predictions about some objects that float or sink. (B) Scientific floating and sinking precursor model characterization The scientific precursor model for flotation was determined by the researchers based on the scientific model that considers Newton’s laws, research contributions on children’s ideas about the phenomenon, and the participating children’s initial ideas that were identified during a pre-test. At precursor model characterization we consider four levels of the phenomena comprehension based on: (1) water rules, (2) objects rules, (3) relation between properties’ objects and (4) interaction between objects and water, the last one been the highest level of scientific comprehension. Children’s ideas at research contributions and children’s ideas in our study at the pre-test were located at level 2) objects rules, appearing weight frequently and other properties. Considering this fact, the precursor model was determined based on a density approach, thus children’s cognitive activity was orientated to promote the construction of this precursor model. (C) Interactive phase The interactive phase was conducted in a public school in the city of Barcelona, Spain. The class of 24 children was divided into groups of 4–5 children to facilitate the exchange of ideas among themselves and the teacher, as well as to support the development and construction of the precursor model for flotation. This grouping was done by selecting boys and girls for the subgroups to be mixed. The teacher used a guided discovery learning strategy (Ausubel & Robinson, 1969; Havu-­ Nuutinen, 2005) in which children observed, predicted, explored, described, and developed hypotheses about objects floating or sinking in water. First, they observed

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

57

the objects, made predictions and assumptions about their behaviour in the water, and recorded their predictions on worksheets. After that, they tested the objects in the water, discussed and evaluated their predictions and hypotheses. During these activities, the use of worksheets supported the children in order to compare their predictions with the results obtained through testing.

4.3.2 Data Collection Pre-instruction phase: Interviews were audio-recorded and transcripted. The data analysis was based on the transcriptions from the recordings, as well as personal observation protocols. Interactive phase: All sessions were videotaped and transcripted. The data analysis was based on coding to identify verbal language regarding floating and sinking.

4.3.3 Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted based on content analysis of verbal data (Chi, 1997). Data analysis focused on children’s conceptions of the phenomenon of buoyancy at specific times and contexts. Based on these conceptions, categories were set, and an explanation of how children understood the phenomenon was provided. Moreover, the study sought to explain the way these concepts were extended and reconstructed based mainly on the topics discussed during the training process. The content analysis from the discourse, aimed to investigate the nature of children’s representations about the physical phenomenon in an instructional context. Once the codes successfully described all data, a whole categorization pattern was established, and all transcripts were re-coded using the final scheme. In the scientific floating and sinking precursor model characterization the elements of the scientific model, the children’s ideas about the phenomenon that research contributions have shown, and the participating children’s initial ideas were analysed and integrated.

4.4 Results In this section, the results of the three phases of the study are presented, starting with the categorization of initial ideas from the children, followed by the floating and sinking precursor model definition, finalizing with the way in which the teacher and children social interactions promote the floating and sinking precursor model construction.

58

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

4.4.1 Children Initial Ideas The categorization of the children’s justification, retrieved from the initial interview, is shown in Table  4.1. At first, some children gave no answer or used irrelevant properties to explain the phenomenon. Most of them justified the phenomenon based on a single object property, mainly weight. In several cases they also used other properties, such as type of material and size. Similarly, some of the children used several properties by putting together the type of material, size, air, and hollowness. Other children combined weight with the presence of air and type of material to explain the phenomenon. Only a few children justified the phenomenon based on an interaction model relating objects and water properties (see Table 4.1). As a result, it is assumed that most children had an initial flotation model based on the weight of the objects, which is consistent with previous studies (see Biddulph & Osborne, 1984; Havu-Nuutinen, 2000, 2005; Laevers, 1993; Piaget, 1930; Piaget & Inhelder, 1974; Smith et al., 1985).

4.4.2 Scientific Floating and Sinking Precursor Model Characterization From a scientific point of view, a simple interpretation of a body flotation and sinking phenomenon may come in two different ways: (A) considering the balance of forces or the comparison of forces, and (B) considering the balance of densities or

Table 4.1  Children criteria at pre-instruction Criteria Irrelevant/no scientific answers Justifications based on properties of the objects or of the water (no interaction)

Justifications based on interactions between the object and the water

Weight Size Effect of the air/water Kind of material Solid (something inside) Hollowness Properties put together different from weight Relevant properties put together with weight Force Weight of the object/Weight of the water Force of the object/Force of the water

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

59

comparison of densities. The first argument is related to the comparison between the values of the forces acting on the solid body and is based on the classical definition of Archimedes’ principle. The second specification requires the definition of “density” (or the relevant term “specific weight”) and is related to the comparison between the densities of the solid and the liquid where the body floats or sinks. Based on these, the phenomenon of floating and sinking can be explained in four different ways with regards to force, weight, and volume: 1. When a stationary object is floating in the water, the weight of the material is acting down and the water should provide an upward force called “upthrust”. These forces must be balanced so that the object floats. 2. If an object floats in water, it displaces an amount of water whose weight is equal to the force of upthrust. Archimedes’ law precisely describes this equality between upthrust (equal weight of water displaced) and the weight of the floating body. If a body floats, the weight of the volume of water displaced equals the weight of the object. 3. When a body floats in water, volume displaced water is the same as the object on the water surface. The flotation of an object is determined directly by its density (more precisely, the density of the substance that the object is made of). Objects made of a substance with a lower density than water, or equal to it, will float, while those that are made of a substance with a density greater than water will sink (Jardine & Kennedy, 1997; Khon, 1993). 4.4.2.1 Precursor Model for Flotation Based on Density The precursor model was defined considering the scientific model based on density, that is, objects with a density lower than water, or equal to it, will float, whereas objects with density greater than water will sink (see Fig. 4.1). Most children in the study initially based their judgments on the weight of the objects, and sometimes they related weight with form and size. In this sense, it was feasible that children would develop an understanding of the phenomenon by relating the weight of objects with properties related to volume and, consequently, they built the concept of density. On the other hand, this approach is considered to be more relevant to illustrate the phenomenon and seems appropriate for children to develop a scientific idea of flotation in early childhood education, although the concepts of volume and density are not used (Havu-Nuutinen, 2000, 2005; Koliopoulos et  al., 2004). It seems that a model based on interactions of forces is more difficult for children to understand due to its high degree of complexity and abstraction (Lemeignan & Weil-Barais, 1993; Goffard & Weil-Barais, 2005).

Water rules

Object rules

Properties relation

Interaction

Force of the water

Force of the object

Hollow object

Weight of the water

Shape of the object

Size of the object

Weight and solid

Volume

Density

Weight and size

Weight and kind of material

The volume of the displaced water = volume of the object under surface water

Weight and shape

Mass

The density of the object < density of the water

Weight, hollownes and air

The weight of the displaced water = weight of the object

The weight of the displaced water = weight of the object

Air/water/material inside the object

Solid object

The force of gravity = the force upwards

The force of gravity = the force upwards

Fig. 4.1  Scientific precursor model characterization

CHILDREN’S IDEAS

SCIENTIFIC MODEL

Flotation

Newton´s laws

60 S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

61

4.4.3 Social Interactions and Precursor Model Construction Using the density approach selected for this study, it is believed that children could understand and explain floating and sinking by establishing the relationship between the mass and volume of objects as a factor that can affect the phenomenon. The main intention during the interactive phase was for children to increase their understanding. In a preliminary stage, children should explain the phenomenon in terms of the relationship between weight and properties of the objects related to volume, and not only in terms of weight, or isolated properties of the objects as they used to do before the instruction phase. During the activities, children worked in collaborative groups, predicting, making hypothesis, testing the objects in the water, and solving problems. They were extremely engaged in an active, enthusiastic, and interesting way of looking at, exploring, and evaluating their predictions and hypotheses. In this phase, the teacher’s role was to guide and support children identification of relevant objects’ properties related to the precursor model. In the analysis of floating and sinking precursor model construction from social interaction, content analysis was made following categorization as stated on Table  4.2. The conceptual, procedural, and affective-­ motivational aspects of the conversations between teacher and students, and between students themselves is considered, hence their inclusion in the discourse analysis. Several examples of this type of conversation are presented.

4.4.4 Conceptual Conversations This kind of conversation included issues related to conceptual development and conceptual clarification. The teacher and children discussed about objects’ properties and the way they are likely to affect the phenomenon. The following subcategories can be found here: identifying children’s previous ideas, conceptual definition and clarification, and objects’ properties.

Table 4.2  Main categories identified during conversations Conceptual conversations Discussions regarding the factors that affect the flotation phenomenon Procedural conversations Discusiones acerca de aspectos prácticos, de supervisión y regulación de las actividades

Previous ideas identification Clarification and definition of concepts Properties of the objects Solving problems Making predictions and hypothesis Results discussion Explanation construction base on scientific precursor model

Affective-motivational conversations Expressions in which affective feelings and interest in activities are shown

62

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

4.4.4.1 Identifying Children’s Previous Ideas At the beginning of the interactive phase, the children’s previous ideas about floating and sinking are identified and used by the teacher to activate their knowledge: Context: The teacher (T) asks the children to talk about objects that float and sink in water. Activity 1, team 4. T: JP, have you seen objects floating and sinking? JP: Yes T: What have you seen? JP: The stones sink T: Why do they sink? JP: Because they are very heavy Activity 1, team 1. T: Ok. Tell me about some objects that sink, what objects sink? - ARI and JM raise their hands – ON: Tennis ball will sink. T: Tennis ball will sink. And why will the tennis ball sink? ON: Because it is very heavy. T: Because it is very heavy. T: ARI, what have you observed? ARI: That .... the clay ball sinks, and the tennis ball floats, and the flat one floats, and the other goes down T: And the clay one, why will it sink? ARI: Because with clay it sinks, and water will dissolve it. T: And the tennis one, why does it float? ARI: Because it is big…. It has some kind of air and floats. In these conversations, the children brought up their initial ideas about floating and sinking, indicating as the main reason for the phenomenon to be the weight of the objects. Sometimes they talked about air or irrelevant properties. Here, the role of the teacher was to promote children’s thinking, encouraging them to talk not only about which objects float or sink but also why they do so, thus activating their knowledge in this way. Diversity in children’s previous knowledge and experiences was a broad basis of resources for collaborative new constructions from stemming from reflection and talking together. 4.4.4.2 Concepts Clarification and Definition During the pre-instruction phase, some children were confused when they tried to discuss when an object floats or sinks, so the teacher helped them to clarify these ideas. Context: The children and the teacher talk about floating and sinking at the beginning of the activities.

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

63

Activity 1, team 1 T: ON, what does it mean an object does not sink? ON: It means that it is made of plastic. T: No…. Not why…. What does it mean it does not sink? Where does the object remain? –ARI rises her handT: What does it mean that it does not sink? ARI: Ahhhh that is that… when something does not sink, it floats like puuuuuuuaaaa –rise her hands upT: Ahhhhh, it floats, and where does the object remain? ON: Up – rising her hands upARI: In the air. T: Up, but we are talking about it in the water, Ok? Does it stay up in the water? JM, ON, ARI: Yesssss. T: And when it sinks, what happened with the object? SAN, ARI, ON: It goes down. T: It goes down. Very good. Look SAN…… JM: If it were bigger, it should go down. T: Would it go to the bottom? JM: Yes…. SAN: Because it is heavier…. Context: Children talk about floating and sinking at the beginning of the activities. Activity 1, team 4 T: What does it mean to float an object? Does it remain up or go down? AR: Up… T: Ok, it remains up…. And what happens when it sinks? MIRI: Remains down. T: Ok, it goes down… The teacher contextualised the phenomenon in water. The children identified an object that floats when it remains on the water surface and sinks when it goes down. On the other hand, all materials used in the activities were presented to children using their real names and they occasionally asked the teacher for clarification. 4.4.4.3 Objects’ Properties The children were describing and discussing their observations. They looked at different relevant objects’ properties related to the phenomenon. Weight was the main property used when explaining the phenomenon at the beginning, but as they progressed in the discussion, the children looked at other properties such as the type of material, form, size, and whether the objects had something inside or were hollow. Context: The children talk about how different properties of the objects affect the balls floating and sinking.

64

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

Activity 1, team 1. T: …. Air… Very good! ON, what else is important? Besides weight and air? JM: Material. T: Kind of material. Very good! Kind of material objects are made. ON: I was going to say that…. T: Were you going to say that? Can you say something else? ON: The form… T: The form…Ok… ARI: But all of them are round T: Ahhhhh! Later we will see how form also is important. All balls have a round form, that’s a very good observation, ARI…. Context: The children talk about similarities and differences between a tin can and a screw with a nut: type of material, size, solidity. Activity 5, team 5. T: Ok everybody, let’s start to work! I have a… OR: A can… T: Yes! A can and this screw. Are they the same or are they different? OR, EST, PA: Different… -they talk at the same timeT: Remember rice up your hand to take your turn OR: They are different CAR: Different T: Why are they different? What makes them different? CAR: Because this can is bigger, and the screw is smaller T: Ok, they are different in size, another difference ES? ES: Inside the can and the screw not T: Inside the can… what? ES: Inside is white… OR: Is empty ES: Upss! Yes! Is empty, and this –the screw- is filled with something… T: Does it have material inside? ES: Yes! T: And the metal can is hollow? OR: Yes! CAR: The can is hollow, and the screw has material inside… The children used one or more properties in the description of the objects, but they do not discuss how these properties affect the phenomenon. However, talking about these properties and the introduction of solid and hollow concepts enriched the children’s vision about the properties of the objects.

4.4.5 Procedural Conversations These kinds of conversations included those that guided the children’s tasks on collaborative work, as well as those that guided the children’s experimental work. Conversations related to solving problems, making predictions and hypotheses, discussing results, and floating and sinking construction explanations were identified.

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

65

4.4.5.1 Solving Problems The children must decide how aluminium foil sheets that float could sink and how aluminium foil balls that sink could float. Context: The children are talking to the teacher and explaining how aluminium foil sheets could float. Activity 5, team 1 SAN: It’s the same with both sheets –he is seeing both sheets are sinking- Of course! Of course! T: Ah! But this is sinking. What can I do? I want it to float…. ON: You must undo it and put it very slowly on the water…. –she is manipulating the sheet and putting it on water surface, but it sinksT: That float…. I want that this sheet that is sinking, does float…. –they are trying with the sheets but they sinkSAN: It does not float… -he is manipulating his sheet probing on waterT: What form must the sheet have to float? ON: It must be very stretched… SAN: I want this sheet… I want this sheet –he is manipulating the sheet- I want this sheet that sinks then floats... I want floats… How could I do it…? T: Maybe if I would change the form… If I want that sheet floats, what form should it have? JM: Such as a ball…. T: But, the ball sinks… ARI: One of different materials. T: We are not talking about another kind of material –putting the aluminium ball in the water that sinksSAN: Oh! It sinks… T: Now we are talking about the form... If I would change the form of this aluminium ball, what form should it have for floating? SAN: I do not know! It’s very difficult! JM: Thin? ON: I know! I know! Like a boat! SAN: A boat! Like a boat! T: Ahhhhh! Like a boat! JM: I just wanted to say that! T: Then try it! You make your boats. Take another sheet and construct your boats… SAN: It must be a boat form, so it won’t sink! Context: The children are talking to the teacher and explaining how aluminium foil sheets could sink. Activity 5, team 4 T: Today I’m going to place a problem and I need you to help me. LID: Let’s see… What’s happening? T: I have here this sheet made of aluminium foil. What happens if I put it in water? LID: Which one? This?

66

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

T: Yes, this sheet… LID: Will float T. Ok… but I want it to sink… how can I do that? But I can’t push it down… it has to sink to go down without pushing… AIN: I know! MIRI: Put more water T: No, I can’t put more water in, I can’t do anything just put it on water… LID: Nooo! T: That’s what I want to do. Just bring it back from the water and then put it again there, but it has to sink. How can I do that? MIRI: Taking off some water? LID: Noooo. T: I can’t put in more water, I can’t take off water… LID: Wait, wait… I’m thinking… T: I wait for you... LID: Ay! I want to try with water but…. I can push it down… T: No, without pushing… LID: I… AR: I don’t know… LID: We don’t know, I don’t understand… I don’t understand T: You don’t know how to do it? AIN: I already know T: Do you? Let’s see… AIN: Ehhhhh ...... I lost the idea T: Ok, Ok… I have to change one aspect of the sheet. What should you change? What can you change? AR and MIR: The form? LID: The form! T: The form AR: I said it first. T: Let’s look… change the form and probe on the water LID: It will sink…. AR: It sinks!!! Several of the children’s difficulties in solving problems about flotation have been addressed in other studies (Laevers, 1993; Tenenbaum et  al., 2004; Havu-­ Nuutinen, 2005). These difficulties are rooted in the multidimensionality that characterises flotation. Preschool children lack cognitive abilities and the experience to do generalisations, which is the reason why they must be exposed to experiences that promote progressive construction of these abilities.

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

67

4.4.5.2 Making Prediction and Hypothesis Predictions and hypotheses were always present at the instructional phase. In the beginning of each experiment, the teacher asked the children to predict what would happen when objects were in water and why it would be so. After that, the children evaluated their predictions by looking at the phenomenon. The children’s hypotheses were based on everyday ideas, irrelevant properties, the presence of air or the weight of the objects. Sometimes, the children used one or various properties other than weight, such as the type of material, solidity, hollowness, and they also used one or more properties together with weight. Context: The children talk to the teacher about which factors affect the flotation of a can. Activity 5, team 5. T: PA, what do you think about this can? Will it float or will it sink? PA: It is made of another material and is silver-plated T: The colour will affect floating or sinking? PA: Yes SER: No. T: Do you think so PA? Colour is important for floating or sinking? PA: No, no, no, no, no. T: I think that kind of material does because the can is made of a different kind of material. PA: Yes, and it is a little heavy. I think because is a little heavy will sink ES: Things are made of iron, but there are things made in other ways… T: Do you mean other kinds of materials? –OR rises her handES: Yes, another kind of material T: Ok. OR, what do you want to say? OR: If the can is made of a kind of iron and weighs 90 g, and is very heavy, and if we put it in water, it will sink… Context: The children test different objects in water. Activity 4, team 2 T: What will happen with the baby pacifier? MIRE and NIL: Will float T: Why will the baby pacifier float? NIL: Because that makes it float -pointing to the baby pacifier T: Why? Why does this part float? NIL: Because it’s light T: Ok, Any other reason? NIL: Eehhhhhh… may be… perhaps doesn’t have the same material inside… is hollow… T: Probe it in water… In this conversation, the children place weight together with other factors to elaborate their predictions and hypotheses. The teacher’s role is to encourage children to

68

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

look at other relevant factors, for example those different than weight, the type of material, the hollowness or solidity, and why these may affect the phenomenon. In this sense, both, the children and the teacher, began to construct the precursor model for flotation. 4.4.5.3 Results Discussion In the results discussion, children tested their predictions and hypotheses looking at relevant properties of objects, placing weight together with size and form. This procedure was encouraged by the teacher, while the children seemed to be very active throughout the results discussion, sharing ideas with their classmates and thinking aloud. Most of the time, the children not only provided and verified information about their results, but also debated and discussed their ideas, giving reasons for their observations. Context: Children are talking about the results of the experiment with balls. Activity 1, team 1 T: Let’s see… this ping pong ball in the water… is it heavy or light? SAN: It’s light T: It’s light. And, what happened? Does it float or sink? SAN: Floats T: And this ball that is made of clay? I think it is light…. SAN: But that is not the difference I’m talking about… T: What? SAN: That is not the difference I’m telling you T: Let’s see, what’s the difference you mean? SAN: Look. This one –clay one- if you look very well, inside has clay. T: Inside has clay SAN: And in this –in the ping pong one- there is air, then it floats and that with clay inside sinks. T: Very good, SAN. Listen to what SAN has said: this clay ball inside has… SAN: Clay. T: Clay. And this one –ping pong- has… SAN y JM: Air! 4.4.5.4 Construction Explanation Based on the Scientific Precursor Model The children added additional relevant properties of the objects, other than weight, to their conceptual structure, as previously shown. They began to view the phenomenon in a multidimensional manner, so they were able to explain the phenomenon in terms of weight, size, and form, put together, or looking at the emptiness and hollowness of the objects.

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

69

Context: The children are discussing the reason that a boat floats and a bottle with water sinks. Activity 2. Team 1 T: JM, why is the boat floating? JM: Because it doesn’t have… because it is not the same as the bottle… because they don’t have the same weight, the boat is lighter and the bottle is heavier because it has water inside. SAN: And it’s different in… -he takes the boat- size ARI: Yes, in size. SAN: And in material. T: Material and size… very good… and how size and weight affects flotation? ARI: Well… although the boat is bigger is lighter and floats… SAN: But, besides, this boat is made of different plastic and has a different form… T: Ahhhhh! SAN: And its weight… is not as heavy as the bottle, and doesn’t have anything inside like the bottle, I mean there’s only air, only air. T: Very good… and what can you tell me about the form? How does the form make an object float? JM: As we looked at the metal sheets and balls, sheets were extended and touched the water… and floated… the boat has an extended form and floats. Context: The children test different objects in water. Activity 4, team 3 T: PAU, tray another object PAU: Hmmm the little jar… T: What will happen? Floats or sinks PAU: Sinks T: Put it in water CAT: Don’t throw it, PAU T: What happened? CAT: It sinks T: Why? AN: It has something inside, is not hollow… PAU: It has more weight inside and is made of glass and the glass is very heavy T: Very good…

4.4.6 Conversations Related to Affective and Motivational Issues In this kind of conversation, expressions showing affective feelings and interest in doing the activities were included. Enthusiasm and positive emotions were identified, due to successful results in the experiments, as well as disappointment and anger when the results were wrong. In the latter, the teacher’s role was to promote

70

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

reflection with the children regarding the entire process, emphasizing the testing of their ideas and predictions, seeking to communicate that this is not a game of “win or lose”. It was found that conceptual understanding is reinforced if activities are interesting and motivating for children, and whether they feel comfortable when doing them. Context: The children are trying to build a boat with the aluminium foil sheets Activity 5. Team 3. T: Ok… let’s do the boats. The boat must float, Ok? What do we have to avoid getting into the boats? EVERYBODY: Water! T: Then the edges must be well raised so that no water gets inside. MERI: Look at my boat… T: Very good, Meri. Put it on water and look if it floats… MERI: It doesn’t –putting the sheet on the waterT: Look why it does not… AN: Here it’s mine… T: Let’s look if it floats. AN: Bravo! Bravo! It does! My boat does float! T: Haha! CAT: That is very funny! AN: I like to do that! Context: The children test balls in the water. Activity 1. Team 1. SAN: Look JM, I am winning T: You have to remember that we are not doing these activities to see who wins or who loses… SAN: That’s true. T: Or who is right or who is wrong. Why are we doing these activities? SAN: To search and find out if it is true or not T: To find out if the ideas we have correspond to what we are observing and if they’re not, try to… SAN: Improve… T: Yes, to improve… to think in a different way ARI: I was wrong –sadlyT: Don’t worry, darling. It Is important to be wrong so you can think much more about what’s happening, why you are wrong and maybe think differently… The children showed several emotions throughout the activities. To analyse these emotions, they were classified as positive (such as joy, pride, and gratitude), negative (such as fear, anger, aversion, and guilt), or neutral (such as surprise). Positive emotions involve pleasant feelings that last short periods of time that mobilise little resources to face them on. Conversely, negative emotions involve unpleasant feelings that mobilise a lot of resources to face them on. Neutral emotions don’t

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

71

produce either pleasant or unpleasant reactions, but they facilitate the appearance of subsequent emotional states (Fernández-Abascal et al., 2001). In this case, the teacher’s role was to enable children to learn how to manage their emotions thought scientific and creative activities used in the teaching and learning context; that the children learn how to manage negative emotions and link them to pleasure, pride, satisfaction, joy, and trust, generated from the possibility of an action, as well as to communicate and solve problems that they faced. It should be noted, though, that when looking at social interactions, it is done in the development of metacognitive and meta-affective skills, which in the long run, are also precursors of skills linked to the regulation and promotion of learning to know.

4.5 Conclusions The objective of the instructional process in this study was to support the children’s active role in the learning process, intended to promote the construction of a scientific precursor model for flotation based on density. The teaching and learning approach based on the precursor model construction helped children to look at basic scientific ideas on how to explain floating and sinking, changing their initial models to more complex ones. It seems that the activities that the children carried out led to a better understanding of the floating and sinking phenomenon. They looked at new variables and how these different variables were related to each other. These results show, similarity to other studies, that the physical properties the children initially used in explaining the phenomenon were marginally relevant (see Biddulph & Osborne, 1984; Dentici et  al., 1984; Howe et  al., 1990; Laevers, 1993; Havu-­ Nuutinen, 2000, 2005), although sometimes they used properties of partial relevance such as the weight, size, and form of the objects. In this study, the children seemed to begin viewing flotation from a descriptive and multidimensional perspective. During the activities, they worked in collaborative groups solving problems and testing different objects in the water, exploring, and evaluating their predictions and hypotheses. This instructional approach proved to be suitable for children of this age, as most of them were extremely engaged in the learning process in an active, enthusiastic, and interested way. In the interactive phase, the teacher constantly questioned them and encouraged them to talk about their predictions, hypotheses, and results. Children reflected on and discussed, with the teacher and their partners, the scientific concept understanding they were developing (see Coll, 2005). Correspondingly, they used new concepts and situations for constructing and reconstructing their explanations. In this process social interactions were the main developer of scientific knowledge in children (see Chinn, 1998) and in this way they found relevant properties of the objects in order to explain the phenomenon being studied, sharing their ideas explicitly. Thus, knowledge was shared and constructed socially. The nature of this case study was wrapped in language; children’s discursive skills were encouraged, as well as the conceptual and procedural ones. In our study science education was viewed as promoting a way of

72

S. P. C. Ibarra and A. A. G. Galindo

thinking socially, and in the development of this way of thinking, language and discourse played a significant role besides scientific procedural skills and attitudes. Through the conversations during the learning activities, children used language to express knowledge, emotions, and feelings. Construction of scientific precursor models may be a useful approach in guiding and supporting teaching and learning processes in the classroom. Also, this study has showed that children are able to develop a scientific understanding in a dialogical instructional context. Results have enabled us to identify relevant aspects in learning about a physical micro-domain such as flotation, and these aspects are useful to match and improve scientific curriculum at preschool education.

References Alfieri, F., Arcà, M., & Guidoni, P. (1995). Il senso di fare scienze. Un esempio di mediazione tra cultura e scuola [The meaning of doing science. An example of mediation between culture and school]. Edizioni Bollati Boringhieri. Ausubel, D.  P., & Robinson, F.  G. (1969). School learning. An introduction to Educational Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Biddulph, F., & Osborne, R. (1984). Pupil’s ideas about floating and sinking. Research in Science Education, 14, 114–124. Blair, C. (2002). Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s function at school entry. American Psychologist, 57(2), 111–127. Chi, M.  T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(6), 271–315. Chinn, C.  A. (1998). A critique of social constructivist explanations of knowledge change. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change. Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 77–132). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Coll, R. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198. Dentici, O. A., Grossi, M. G., De Borghi, L., Ambrosis, A., & Massara, C. I. (1984). Understanding floating: A study of children aged between six and eight years. European Journal of Science Education, 3(6), 235–243. Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336. Fernández-Abascal, E., Martín, M., & Domínguez, J. (2001). Procesos psicológicos [Psychological processes]. Ediciones Pirámide. Goffard, M., & Weil-Barais, A. (2005). Enseigner et apprendre les sciences. Recherches et practiques [Teaching and learning sciences. Research and practices]. Armand Colin. Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2000). Changes in children’s conceptions through social interaction in pre-­ school science education. Academic dissertation, publications in education, 60. University of Joensuu. Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2005). Examining young children’s conceptual change process in floating and sinking from a social constructivist perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 259–279. Howe, A. C., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1990). Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and the understanding of floating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4(5), 459–475.

4  Social Interaction in the Construction of a Floating and Sinking Precursor Model…

73

Jardine, J., & Kennedy, J. (1997). Forces and motion. In J.  Kennedy (Ed.), Primary science. Kowledge and understanding (pp. 128–147). Routledge. Kallery, M. (2015). Science in early years education: Introducing floating and sinking as a property of matter. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(1), 31–53. Kayumova, S., & Tippins, D. (2016). Toward re-thinking science education in terms of affective practices: Reflections from the field. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 11(3), 567–579. Khon, A. S. (1993). Preschoolers’ reasoning about density: Will it float? Child Development, 64, 1637–1650. Koliopoulos, D., Tantaros, S., Papandreou, M., & Ravanis, K. (2004). Preschool children’s ideas about floating: A qualitative approach. Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 21–24. Larsson, J. (2016). Emergent science in preschool: The case of floating and sinking. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(3), 16–32. Lave, J., & Packer, M. (2011). Hacia una ontología social del aprendizaje [Towards a social ontology of learning]. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 40, 12–22. Laevers, F. (1993). Deep level learning: An exemplary application on the area of physical knowledge. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1(1), 53–68. Lemeignan, G. & Weil-Barais, A. (1993). Construire des concepts en Physique [Building concepts in Physics]. Hachette. Leuchter, M., Saalbach, H., & Hardyc, I. (2014). Designing science learning in the first years of schooling. An intervention study with sequenced learning material on the topic of ‘floating and sinking’. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1751–1771. Malaguzzi, L. (1994). Your image of the child: Where teaching begins. Child Care Information Exchange, 3. Retrieved from https://www.reggioalliance.org/downloads/ malaguzzi:ccie:1994.pdf Mantzicopoulos, P., Samarapungavan, A., & Patrick, H. (2009). We learn how to predict and be a scientist. Early science experiences and kindergarten children’s social meaning about science. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 312–396. Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). Psicología del niño [child’s psychology]. Buenos Aires Editor. Ravanis, K., & Bagakis, G. (1998). Science education in kindergarten: Sociocognitive perspective. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(3), 315–327. Rodríguez, D. (1980). Notions of physical laws in childhood. Science Education, 64, 59–84. Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concept of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177–237. Tenenbaum, H., Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., & Vogel Zanger, G. (2004). Children’s learning about water in a museum and in the classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 40–58.

Chapter 5

Precursor Model and Preschool Science Learning About Shadows Formation Alice Delserieys, Corinne Jégou, Jean-Marie Boilevin, and Konstantinos Ravanis

5.1 Introduction Many early childhood educational settings encourage the development of science activities with young children (Eshach & Fried, 2005; Saçkes et al., 2011) where science learning is “not only meaningful for science sense-making while children are young, but also for their future science learning” (Larimore, 2020, p.  706). These activities are often anchored in children’ everyday experiences, with empirical or descriptive approaches of the natural world, using discovery activities, free play, artistic display, etc. (Fleer & March, 2009; Papandreou & Terzi, 2011; Ravanis, 2010). They tend to target a holistic development of each child with a focus on socialisation and construction of personal identity (Eurydice, 2019), but rarely emphasise scientific concepts or reasoning. Moreover, the structure of a concept or phenomenon is not clearly separated. In other words, the object of an activity and its function in concrete circumstances is rarely explored or articulated.

A. Delserieys (*) · C. Jégou Aix-Marseille University, ADEF Laboratory, Marseille, France e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] J.-M. Boilevin Brest University, Research Centre for Education, Learning and Didactics (CREAD), Brest, France e-mail: [email protected] K. Ravanis Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, Patras, Greece e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J.-M. Boilevin et al. (eds.), Precursor Models for Teaching and Learning Science During Early Childhood, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 55, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08158-3_5

75

76

A. Delserieys et al.

In this chapter we use the example of the phenomena of shadow formation to consider how young children can structure first conceptual understanding of physical science. Through everyday life experiences, children acquire ideas about shadow formation and subsequently can express representations about it (Chen, 2009; Delserieys et al., 2017; Ravanis, 1996). According to relevant research about shadow formation in preschool settings (Ravanis, 1996), some of these representations relate to difficulties for children to recognise that shadows are formed due to a non-­ transparent object obstructing a light beam. Whatever their origin, these representations can hinder learning. Further elaboration or transformation of these representations is often inhibited by a number of obstacles. Considering these difficulties leads us to identify specific didactical objectives targeting in terms of overcoming obstacles. This framework is in line with the idea of “objective-obstacle” first introduced by Martinand (1986). Ortiz-Revilla, Greca and Arriassecq (2021, p. 13) describe and analyse the didactical propositions of objective-obstacles and reminds that it “starts from students’ representations or obstacles to improve their competency development”. It is based on two main hypotheses: (a) It is possible to find a limited number of decisive advances, not acquired spontaneously but which have significance from the point of view of scientific or technological thought, attitudes and corresponding capacities. (b) There is, at a certain moment of the process of every didactical activity, a threshold obstacle whose overcoming leads to new cognitive regulations. The challenge of the didactic interventions about shadow formation is to support children to overcome specific threshold obstacles and in consequence, to build a precursor model about shadow formation. The precursor model is constructed from the joint integration of children’s representations about shadow formation and a scientific explanation based on the underlying scientific model of light propagation and interaction with matter (Delserieys et  al., 2018). This chapter explores how 5–6  years-old children describe, explain and predict the phenomenon of shadow formation within a framework of precursor model (Weil-Barais, 2001). Moreover, the efficiency of a teaching intervention in two different educational contexts are discussed: an experimental context in Greece and standard classroom situation in France.

5.1.1 Research on Shadow Formation with Pre-School Children Several studies have been conducted to explore teaching and learning of the physical phenomena of shadow formation with young children. We have therefore built on these previous studies to propose a socio-cognitive teaching approach to construct a precursor model and destabilize children’s representations. In particular, we note that shadow formation, being part of children’s everyday experiences, is a natural phenomenon for which children are likely to have developed their own representations (Chen, 2009). Previous work, using drawings,

5  Precursor Model and Preschool Science Learning About Shadows Formation

77

highlights the capacity of young children to express their scientific ideas about shadow formation (Delserieys et  al., 2018) and the interest, in terms of development, to elicit children’s first ideas when designing a teaching intervention (Gallegos-­Cázares et  al., 2009). In particular, Weil-Barais and Resta-Schweitzer (2008) stress the importance to support young children in recognising observables that challenge their initial thoughts, in order for them to build new representations and develop an understanding of a physical phenomenon. In that sense, the phenomenon of shadow formation has a lot of potential because it allows multimodal approaches that can easily involve verbal communication mediated by adults, bodily expression and graphical expression (Delserieys et al., 2018; Impedovo et al., 2016; Pantidos et al., 2017). Meaning can therefore be expressed and constructed through these various modes, with teaching interventions that allow children to progress in their interpretation of reality (Weil-Barais & Resta-Schweitzer, 2008). Following a trend initiated a few years ago (Delserieys et  al., 2018; Ravanis et  al., 2005; Weil-Barais & Resta-Schweitzer, 2008), the study presented in this chapter adopts an approach that particularly recognises the importance of knowing the representations commonly expressed by children about shadow formation, in order to design a didactic intervention that fosters development. There is an apparent simplicity in the phenomenon of shadow formation linked to the familiarity of its observation. However, as Parker (2006) stresses, explaining how shadows are produced actually requires a complex synthesis of several physics’ concepts, from the concepts of light as an entity produced by a light source and propagating into space, the concepts associated to light interaction with an object and the opacity of that object (reflection and absorption), the concept of shadow as an area of darkness, and the role of the eye as a receptor. Consequently, it is complex for young children to build a relational understanding of shadow formation, between an emitted light, an opaque object and its resulting shadow. Piaget’s work (1985) highlighted that young children tend to adopt a substantialist perspective, considering that shadows come out of an object. Chen (2009) goes beyond by showing the cognitive abilities of 5 years old children to manipulate light sources and objects to produce shadows consistently, indicating some understanding of the relationship between light and shadows. Similarly, Gallegos-Cázares et  al. (2009) found that 5–6 years old children can produce several explanations: shadow can be identified as an autonomous entity sometimes coloured like the corresponding object, as a reflection of the light off the object, or as the product of light being blocked by an opaque object. Building on these previous research as well as our previous findings on shadow formations with young children (Delserieys et al., 2017; Ravanis, 1996), we observe there are three sub-obstacles to children’s understanding of shadow formation: Sub-obstacle 1: difficulty to recognize that the opaque object blocks light. Sub-obstacle 2: difficulty to define the place of a shadow with respect to the place of the light source and the opaque object. Sub-obstacle 3: difficulty to identify the correspondence between the number of light sources and the number of shadows.

78

A. Delserieys et al.

All these sub-obstacles are intrinsically linked to building a relational understanding of the system: light source – object – shadow. Within this system, we focus our attention on the blocking object, and consider that a main threshold obstacle for young children is to explain the phenomenon of shadow formation by identifying the object that blocks the light path. We will see in the subsequent section how we define a precursor model taking into consideration this threshold obstacle.

5.1.2 Definition of Precursor Model of the Phenomenon of Shadow Formation and Research Question

Development of a precursor model

The definition of a precursor model arises from a cross analysis of children’s representation explaining a given scientific phenomena and an epistemological analysis of the underpinning scientific model. From the elements presented in the previous paragraph, we draw a map of how we can define a precursor model adapted to the explanation of shadow formation with children aged 5–6 years old (see Fig. 5.1). This map is inspired by the work of Canedo-Ibarra et al. (2010) on flotation and the map presented in Chap. 4. The map presented in Fig. 5.1 insists on the transition from an object centred ideas to relational ideas. With this map, we want to represent the construction of a precursor model within a system based on children’s initial ideas, the identification of different observables and their properties (light, opaque object) and the relational understanding of shadow formation. The precursor model of shadow formation is therefore built from the relational ideas that 1) an opaque object blocks the path of light and 2) that light travels in a straight line. It explains a topological relationship between 3 entities: a light source, an opaque object and a projection plane, where a shadow is seen as light being blocked by an object.

First scientific model of light propagation and interaction light-matter

Light travelling from a light source is blocked by an opaque object and a shodow is formed Light travels in a straight line

Relational ideas Object properties approach

Light is an independent entity

First relational ideas

Object centered ideas

An opaque object blocks the path of light

Multiple light source give multiple shadows

A shadow has the shape of its corresponding object Object

Light Shadow seen as an independent entity Focus on the light source

Focus on the light spots

Focus on the brightness

When there is shadow, there is a dark area

A shadow is a shape

Fig. 5.1  Presentation of the precursor model on shadow formation and the steps identified in children’s representations, from the shadow seen as a material object to a first understanding of shadow as a physical phenomenon

5  Precursor Model and Preschool Science Learning About Shadows Formation

79

In this chapter, we propose a teaching intervention based on experimentations specifically thought to highlight this relational understanding of shadow formation. This teaching intervention was then tested in two different contexts: in Greece, in an experimental setting were teachers and researchers worked together with small groups of children, and in France in a regular classroom setting, where the teachers were informed about the teaching intervention and implementation was done in their standard class organization. This chapter present and discusses the efficiency of this teaching intervention referring to a precursor model on shadow formation to trigger the evolution of children’s ideas. It therefore addresses the following research questions: What is the efficiency of a teaching intervention based on a socio-cognitive didactical strategy to trigger the evolution of children’s ideas? What is the efficiency when the teaching intervention is passed on to teachers in standard teaching conditions? The didactical strategy refers here to a precursor model on shadow formation to describe, explain and predict the phenomenon of shadow formation.

5.2 Methods To address the efficiency of a teaching intervention on shadow formation, we adopted an approach of development – test – implementation with a study organised in two successive phases. 1. Phase 1 aimed at testing the efficacy of a socio-cognitive teaching intervention on shadows, based on the construction of a precursor model, and the reliability of the pre-tests and post-tests. It was tested, by teachers with the help of researchers, in experimental conditions out of the regular classroom organisation and compared to a control group where teachers used their usual empirical approach to present shadows to children. 2. Phase 2 aimed at testing the same socio-cognitive teaching intervention on shadows, based on the construction of a precursor model, when teachers adopt it within their regular teaching. For that, the teaching intervention was implemented by teachers in their standard classroom organisation (within their normal teaching routine). The teachers involved in the study are experienced teachers who have been teaching in preschool for over 10 years. Researchers were involved at different levels: they support the teachers’ activities regarding the socio-cognitive teaching intervention (phase 1), write a description of the teaching intervention so that teachers can adopt it in their standard classroom organisation (phase 2) and they conduct semi-­directive interviews during the pre-tests and post-tests.

80

A. Delserieys et al.

5.2.1 Description of the 2 Phases 5.2.1.1 Phase 1 Phase 1 was developed in a Greek preschool. In Greece, preschool education is compulsory and free to children 4–6 years old, and preschool teachers hold a bachelor degree in preschool education. There is a national curriculum and physical phenomena are studied within the more general framework of “approach of natural environment”. The aim of phase 1 is to compare a control group (CG) and an experimental group (EG1). It allows us to test the effect of the teaching intervention on the apparent evolution of children’s representations, according to the significance of the difference between the results in the post-test of the two groups. It also tests the reliability of the pre-test and the post-test. This first phase involves 70 children (5–6 years old) divided into two groups. 35 children in the control group (CG) were involved in a traditional empirical approach. 35 children in the experimental group (EG1) were involved in the socio-cognitive teaching intervention, described in Table 5.1, which aimed at the destabilisation of their naive ideas and the construction of a precursor model. The activity of the CG was considered ‘empirical’ on the basis that the teachers, although experienced, were not involved with the team of researchers and their teaching was not explicitly based on research results or planed by researchers. The teaching activities involved games with shadows using different light sources, everyday objects (transparent and opaque) and a doll character with her shadow as a friend. They were introduced with a fiction with divers’ questions (i.e: “The doll loses her friend. How can we find it again? How can we make the doll’s friend move?”). The teacher’s goal was set to raise children’s interest on the conditions to form shadows and the relations between the light sources, the doll and the place, shape and number of shadows. The children were encouraged to express their own ideas, manipulate the different objects, observe phenomena and explain how to produce specific activities (move a shadow from the floor to the wall, produce a shadow on a specific location, produce two shadows). The activities were adapted according to children’s propositions. A description of this type of activities has been previously described (Ravanis et al., 2005). The experimental group (EG1) was involved in the socio-cognitive teaching intervention on shadow formation described in Table  5.1. It consisted in 5 main activities where children were invited to (1) form a shadow with a lamp and a standing stick and explain the phenomenon; (2) form shadows at positions predetermined by the teacher; (3) solve an “impossible” activity consisting in forming a shadow of the stick between the lamp and the stick; (4) form several shadows; (5) predict the position and the number of shadows according to the position and the number of lamps. The teaching interventions were conducted by experienced teachers who followed a specific training, at the university with members of the research team, about socio-cognitive science teaching and the specific teaching intervention on

5  Precursor Model and Preschool Science Learning About Shadows Formation

81

Table 5.1  Description of the socio-cognitive teaching intervention on shadow formation Activity Children’s tasks A Form a shadow with the equipment provided (1 lamp and 1 vertical stick) Explain the phenomenon of shadow formation

B

Form the shadow of the stick at positions predetermined by the teacher

C

“Impossible activity”: Try to form the shadow of the stick between the lamp and the stick

D

Form several shadows of the stick

E

Predict the position and the number of shadows of the stick according to the position and the number of lamps

Teacher’s tasks Provides a lamp and places a vertical object on the table Asks each child to form a shadow with the lamp and give an explanation Focuses children’s attention on where the object is lighted by the lamp and asks children if the light can go through the object. Asks children to predict the position of lamp and object to form a shadow at designated places. Brings children to an agreement on the fact that the shadow is form on the other side than the lamp with respect to the object Asks children to realise the “impossible activity” Engages a discussion on why the activity is impossible Provides several lamps to the group (at least one per child) Asks children to form more than one shadow Asks children to predict the number of shadows with 2 lamps Guides children in successively turning on and off the different lamps while predicting the results of these operations. Helps children making the correspondence between number of shadows and number of lamps

shadow formation. It was not organised in the standard classroom environment with a full class but in a separate room in the school with small groups of children. Each intervention lasted 15–20 min with groups of 2–3 children (Table 5.2). 5.2.1.2 Phase 2 Phase 2 was developed in French preschools. In France, preschool is compulsory and free for children aged 3–6. Teachers hold a master degree in primary education covering both the context of preschool and elementary school. The national curricula encourage teachers to introduce situations where children can observe, question, manipulate in order to “explore the world of living things, mater and objects” around them. Following the results of phase 1 in Greece, the objective of phase 2 is based on the idea that the study could be replicated in another educational context, and in a real teaching situation (Scott & Usher, 2010). The teaching intervention was

82

A. Delserieys et al.

Table 5.2  Analysis of the socio-cognitive teaching intervention Activities Precursor model (A) Form the shadow of the stick Light travelling from a source is blocked by an object (B) Form the shadow of the stick A shadow has the at positions predetermined by the shape of the teacher projection of an opaque object (C) Impossible activity: Form the shadow of the stick between the lamp and the stick

(D) Form several shadows of the stick (E) Predict the position and the number of shadows of the stick according to the position and the number of lamps

Multiple light sources give multiple shadows

Interactions Taking into account previous knowledge Bringing new knowledge Helping to formulate knowledge Encouraging comparisons Synthesis of different conceptions Synthesis of different conceptions

Cognitive functions Explaining

Formulation of predictions Testing experimentally Identifying and managing disagreement Explaining Adopting new ideas Thinking and working collaboratively Formulation of predictions Testing experimentally

therefore implemented in a context close to the regular classroom organisation of the preschool classes involved (Delserieys et al., 2014). We consider ‘regular’ an organisation with no specific modification from the teacher in terms of classroom organisation, other than the content of the teaching intervention proposed by researchers. It differs from the ‘empirical’ conditions of the control group in phase 1. For both groups the children were in their class with their teachers working on shadows, but the content of the teaching intervention was entirely left to the teacher for the control group, and the content of the teaching intervention was designed with researchers for the experimental group 2. Throughout this article we call that group, experimental group 2 (EG2). The designation of the groups (control, experimental 1 and 2) is used in a descriptive way adapted to the deployment of the experimentation. In this regular organisation, each class is divided in 5 groups of 5–6 children. In turn, one group does the activity with the teacher while the others focus on autonomous tasks. Two experienced teachers implemented the teaching intervention (lasting about 20  min) with each group in their class. The teaching material and equipment required were provided. A detailed written document informed the teachers about the sociocognitive teaching intervention and its theoretical grounds. The sample of the study consisted of 2 classes with 52 children in total aged 5–6. The children had not studied the topic of light and shadow at school before.

5  Precursor Model and Preschool Science Learning About Shadows Formation

83

5.2.2 Description of Each Step of Phases 1 and 2 For each phase, the same procedure was implemented, and similar choices were made regarding the teachers and children involved in the study. It consisted in three steps: pre-test, teaching intervention and post-test with 2 weeks between each step. The overall description is summarised in Table 5.3 at the end of this section to help the reader. 5.2.2.1 A Socio-cognitive Teaching Intervention on Shadow Formation The teaching intervention used in both phases is based on a socio-cognitive approach. Ravanis (2010) defines such an approach by the combination of social and cognitive psychology and research in science education. The main theoretical underpinning relies on the importance of considering children’s previous knowledge in the learning process of scientific phenomena. Furthermore, the teaching intervention is organised to focus on targeted concepts which have been identified as critical obstacles to children’s understanding (Ibid). The aim of such teaching intervention lies in overcoming these predetermined obstacles (Ravanis et al., 2013). In this intervention, the teacher plays a role of mediator where learning is understood as a product of social interactions focusing on targeted concepts (Dumas Carré & Weil-Barais, 1998). Finally, the intervention is designed to target specific elements of the underlying scientific model aimed at destabilising children’s Table 5.3  Overview of the two phases of the study Phase 1 Phase 2 Three steps: Pre-test, teaching intervention, post-test Control group (CG) Experimental group 1 (EG1) Experimental group 2 (EG2) Groups of 2–3 children Groups of 2–3 children Groups of 5–6 children Experienced teachers Experienced teachers Experienced teachers Teaching intervention out of Teachers specially trained Teachers informed about the regular classroom for the teaching intervention teaching intervention with a organisation Teaching intervention out of written document Empirical teaching regular classroom Teaching intervention within the intervention organisation classroom 15–20 min Socio-cognitive teaching Socio cognitive teaching intervention intervention Experimental situation Standard situation 15–20 min 15–20 min Sample 35 children 35 children 52 children Urban schools, mixed public Urban schools, mixed public Urban schools, mixed public Data collection Interviews recorded and Interviews recorded and Interviews videotaped transcribed transcribed Non-verbal observation Non-verbal observation

84

A. Delserieys et al.

representations and helping them construct a precursor model explaining the formation of shadows. In this precursor model, a shadow is defined as an absence of light and the phenomenon explained by the fact that light travelling from a source is blocked by an opaque object (Fig.  5.1). The teaching intervention, lasted about 20 min, is described in Table 5.1. In Table 5.2, we propose an analysis of the teaching intervention with respect to the theoretical underpinning of such a socio-cognitive approach: the knowledge linked with the precursor model, the nature of the interaction between the children and the teacher and the cognitive functions developed by children (Ravanis et al., 2013; Venville et al., 2003). 5.2.2.2 Pre-test and Post-test Protocol The research protocol includes identical pre and post interviews within two weeks of the teaching intervention to test its efficiency. Semi-directive interviews were individually conducted by researchers in a classroom allocated for these tests within each school (Delserieys et al., 2014). Three tasks were defined to collect children’s ideas in order to allow the children to express their idea of shadows seen as light being blocked by an object, and the relational ideas between light, opaque object and shadow. These tasks used everyday objects (pencil pots, bedside lamps...). In task 2 and 3, the lamps are never lit. • Task 1: The child is invited to observe the shadow of an object formed by natural light or artificial light in the room, and to describe and explain how shadows are formed. • Task 2: A lamp and an object are placed in front of the child. He is asked to predict where there would be shadow if the lamp was lit and explain his prediction. • Task 3: Two lamps and one object are placed in front of the child. He is asked to predict where there would be shadow if the two lamps were lit simultaneously and explain his prediction. 5.2.2.3 Data Collection Phase 1: Pre-test and post-test were audio-recorded. The researchers completed an observation table designed to record non-verbal language. The data analysis was based on the transcriptions of the recordings as well as personal observation protocols. Phase 2: All three steps of the protocol were videotaped. The data analysis was based on video coding to identify verbal and non-verbal language regarding shadow formation. For this chapter, data from the pre and post-tests were analysed and treated statistically.

5  Precursor Model and Preschool Science Learning About Shadows Formation

85

5.3 Results We present here the results of the two phases of the study, starting with the categorisation applied to produce the results from the interviews of the pre and post-tests. Firstly, results from the experimental group in experimental situation (EG1) is compared with the results from the control group (CG) (Phase1). Secondly, the results from the experimental group in regular classroom situation (EG2) are compared with the results from the experimental group in experimental situation (EG1) (Phase 1 and 2).

5.3.1 Data Analysis: Categorisation The analysis is based on the scientific meaning and not on the linguistic form of the answers. Although the analysis is not strictly referring to a fine semiotic framework, verbal and non-verbal language (such as pointing the shadow, the object or the light source) were considered. In Table 5.4, we present the three categories used to analyse children’s answers with respect to the precursor model previously defined (Fig.  5.1): adequate answers (AA), non-relational answers (NRA), non-scientific answers (NSA). A statistical treatment was then used (Mann-Whitney test). In the following, we give examples of children’s answers to illustrate the way the categories are used. An adequate answer (AA) refers directly to an explanation of the phenomenon based on a relation between light-source, object and projection-­ plan and identify shadows as the absence of light (Fig. 5.1): • Task 1: children recognise the mechanism of shadow formation: “...the chair prevents the light… it cannot go through and a black chair is formed on the wall...”,

Table 5.4  Categorisation scheme for the description of children’s understanding of shadow as a physical phenomenon Adequate answer (AA): The child explanation gives evidence that he can consider shadows as a physical phenomenon. He can establish a relation between a source of light, an opaque object and the formation of a shadow. Non-relational answer (NRA): The child explanation gives evidence of a partial understanding of the physical phenomena. (a) Explanation only attributes the presence of a shadow to the presence of light. (b) Explanation only attributes the presence of a shadow to the presence of an object. Non-relevant and non-scientific answer (NSA) (a) Explanation shows a confusion between shadows and darkness (b) Explanation shows a confusion between shadows and spot of light (c) The child does not mention any physical properties or gives incoherent answers (d) The child does not answer or does not recognise the formation of shadows

86

A. Delserieys et al.

• Task 2: children recognise and correctly explain the position of the shadow of an object with respect to the light source: “... anywhere we put the lamp... it gets created behind the object...”, • Task 3: children recognise the correspondence between the number of light sources and the number of shadows: “... for us to see two shadows... we need two lamps”. Non-relational answers (NRA) were considered when children’s explanations only consider partially the relation between light, object and shadow, and as such, cannot predict the position or the number of shadows with respect to the position or number of light sources. For example: • Task 1: children do not mention the relation between the light and the object for the formation of a shadow: “...there is the lamp and my hand; that’s why the shadow is like my hand; the shadow gets creates from my hand”, • Task 2: children do not explain the position of the shadow, the object and the light source: “The shadow is... in front... no... behind; I don’t know; in front or behind”, • Task 3: children do not recognise the correspondence between the number of light sources and the number of shadows: “[Researcher: If I turn on the two lamps, how many shadows will be created?] “...One”. The explanation of some children were found to be difficult to link to any scientific meaning, refereeing more to the child’s own imagination or fantasies. As such, the answers were considered non-relevant or non-scientific (NSA) when: • Task 1: children refer to elements or situations that are not linked in any way to the phenomena of shadow formation: “...the shadow is in the villages...”, “the moon... it’s a shadow...”, • Task 2: children do not make any link between lamp-object-shadow: “A shadow do not have colour... it is black... [Researcher: Yes but where is it... I am talking about the shadow of the object?]... It is everywhere, in any part it is black”, • Task 3: once again, children do not express explanations in terms of relation between lamp-object-shadow: “We will see shadow... that reach the wall... [researcher: and how is the shadow formed?]… on the wall...”.

5.3.2 Efficiency of the Teaching Intervention Overall, the results of the analyses of the pre-test and post-test indicate that the socio-cognitive teaching intervention has an effect on preschool children and their ability to construct a precursor model on shadow formation. In phase 1 of the experiment, this effect is strong when the EG1 is compared to the CG who went through the empirical teaching intervention. For all three tasks used in the pre and post-tests, the results (Table 5.5) show that a large number of children give adequate explanation of shadow formation after the socio-cognitive teaching intervention, when few

5  Precursor Model and Preschool Science Learning About Shadows Formation

87

children of the control group reach such level of explanation. As such, these results are very conclusive regarding the relevance of the teaching intervention referring to a precursor model on shadow formation. The teaching intervention has the potential to trigger shifts in children’s representation on shadow formation, and the pre-tests and post-tests used allow to discriminate the progress of children from one group to another. However, the results were obtained with a strong involvement of researchers to train teacher and involve them in research activities, and specific classroom settings that are not common to everyday preschool teaching and therefore replicable in real-life teaching. The data presented in Table 5.5 also refer to the results obtained for the case of the socio-cognitive intervention in a regular classroom situation. The number of children giving satisfactory answers in EG2 is much lower than in EG1. However, it is still higher than the number of children succeeding in the CG. Such a tendency can be observed for all three tasks. We can therefore conclude that the teaching intervention has a notable level of efficiency in the sense that it gives better results than the empirical intervention used in the control group.

5.3.3 Children Progress To go deeper in the analyses, we present (Table 5.6) the evolution of children’s representations in terms of shifts from the objects rules to the precursor model of shadow formation in a relational system (Fig. 5.1). According to the categorisation scheme of the answers, we defined this shift within four groups, in terms of progress, partial progress, no progress or regression. We define the progress to be the shift from NSA or NRA to AA (Table 5.4). The partial progress corresponds to the shift from NSA to NRA. A reverse shift constitutes a regression while adherence to either explanation from pre to post-test is regarded as no progress. Table 5.5  Frequency of answers for each group of children (%): socio-cognitive group in experimental conditions (EG1), socio-cognitive group in regular classroom organisation (EG2) and empirical group (CG)

Task 1

Task 2

Task 3

AA NRA NSA AA NRA NSA AA NRA NSA

Pre-test EG1 n = 35 8.6 51.4 40 2.9 20 77.1 11.4 17.1 71.4

EG2 n = 52 3.8 57.7 38.5 9.6 11.5 78.9 3.8 15.4 80.8

CG n = 35 5.7 48.6 45.7 5.7 17.1 74.3 14.3 20 65.7

Post-test EG1 n = 35 77.1 5.7 17.1 74.3 0 25.7 85.7 5.7 8.6

EG2 n = 52 27 65.4 7.6 48 11.5 40.5 34.6 7.7 57.7

CG n = 35 14.3 57.1 28.6 17.1 31.4 51.4 45.7 34.3 20

88

A. Delserieys et al.

Table 5.6  Frequency of children’s answers indicating a shift between pre and post-test in each group: socio-cognitive groups (EG1, EG2) and empirical group (CG)

Task 1

Task 2

Task 3

Progress Partial Progress No Progress Regression Progress Partial Progress No Progress Regression Progress Partial Progress No progress Regression

EG1 (%) n = 35 68.6 0 31.4 0 71.5 0 28.5 0 74.3 5.7 20 0

EG2 (%) n = 52 23 27 50 0 38 6 52 4 31 4 62 4

CG (%) n = 35 8.6 14.3 77.1 0 11.4 22.9 62.9 2.8 31.4 31.4 37.2 0

The observed shifts in children’s explanation about the phenomena of shadow formation in all three tasks for the EG1 seam to validate the relevance of the socio-­ cognitive teaching intervention. In task 1, the children from the EG1 exhibit significantly more progress than those of the CG who did not follow a socio-cognitive intervention. In this first task, 24 children of the EG1 against 3 in the CG progress (Mann-Whitney: p