Experience, Explicitation, Evolution: Processes of learning in a free-choice science museum activity for children up to 6 years of age l Montserrat Pedreira l Conxita Márquez Keywords: science education, early childhood Abstract education, science museums, free­choice learning, Using a qualitative methodology and based on the natural sciences observations of children in a free­choice activity in a science museum, this research focuses on determining which learning processes take place Introduction during these sessions. The learning processes of In January 2011, the Natural Science Museum of the activities were analysed based on three Barcelona opened its new building, with a view to phases: Experience, Explicitation and Evolution. offering content for the youngest age groups, thus an exclusive space was reserved for children up to The results obtained indicate that the value of six years of age. The Niu de ciència (Science Nest) the scientific learning of the activity is found in was conceived to offer young children access to the providing children with direct experience with the natural assets of the museum based on the child’s material. This also favours the explicitation of their personal initiative and free exploration. ideas and provides abundant stimuli that can generate the evolution of ideas. However, this The activity researched for this article, Puc tocar? evolution requires co­operation from other (Can I touch?) is made up of various independent contexts, and greater continuity. and differentiated proposals that bring children closer to natural materials and instruments Seed rattlers Hollow canes for making sounds Materials table (rocks and minerals) Materials table Bones basket (skulls) le tab ght Ultraviolet light Li Tree stumps Library Materials tables Stones (skins) baskets Odor containers Ultraviolet light Materials tables (fruit and seeds) Materials tables Sand box (natural curiosities) Figure 1: Distribution of the space and materials for the activity Can I Touch? (Source: Alba Carbonell, Niu de ciència). Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 19 inherent to scientific work (magnifying glasses, place in a free­choice scenario with limited time, binocular magnifying glasses, tweezers, etc.). such as the one described. Some of these proposals are X­rays of animals exhibited in a light table; minerals that change colour under ultraviolet light; seeds to be classified Learning science at the youngest ages using tweezers; collections of natural material Recent literature (Ferrés, Marbà & Sanmartí, 2015; (skins, skulls, antlers, shells, stones and minerals, Minner, Levy & Century, 2010) points to an idea seeds, etc.); seed rings (diversity of colours, sizes, widely shared in science education research that forms, sounds, etc.); a collection of objects from the process most aligned with scientific knowledge, the natural world to be looked at through the and most interesting from the learning standpoint, binocular magnifier; a large container with sand is what is called inquiry­based focus (or foci, given and remains of animals from the marine the variability). It is a focus that the Natural Science environment; and a library with books and tales of Education Standards (National Academy of science, amongst others. All materials are distributed Sciences, 1996) define as a process that includes as shown in Figure 1 on the previous page. asking oneself questions, planning and carrying out research using instruments and techniques for data Children had free access to the materials for over gathering, thinking critically and logically about the half an hour, accompanied by two museum relationships between evidence and explanations, educators who took an active, but not directing, building and analysing alternative explanations and role (Bulunuz, 2013; Kallery & Psillos, 2002). In the communicating scientific reasoning. This idea has Can I Touch? activity, the child is the protagonist been qualified in recent publications to put and the adults must be very careful to consider the scientific practice at the centre of teaching and relevance of their intervention. They are adults who learning (Garrido & Simarro, 2014; Monteira & do not make interventions aimed at the whole Jiménez­Aleixandre, 2015; Osborne, 2014), so that group, so that the attention of all the children is not a transition is made from the concept of teaching distracted from what they are doing; instead, they science as ‘inquiry’ to one of teaching it as directly address children or small groups of children ‘practice’. This scientific practice includes the in a discrete voice using the right volume to reach processes of inquiry, reasoning and explanation the interlocutors. based on models (Osborne, 2014). Two basic areas of intervention are identified for A review of different authors from several research the adults. On the one hand, educators are an traditions from different countries on how scientific important reference in maintaining a sense of learning takes place makes it possible to identify security and as a guarantee of wellbeing for the regularities or phases with a certain homogeneity whole group participating in the visit. On the other, that can be observed by reading the vertical axis of they should be aware to ensure that learning the table (Table 1 overleaf). opportunities are provided that do not ‘overtake or swamp the ideas of the children but sensitively The first phase focuses on the acquisition of direct engage with them as they explore their questions’ experience with reality. Physical contact activities, (Sands, Carr & Lee, 2012, p.558). In this regard, the direct action over the natural world, investigating role of the educator is not easy. into the tangible world…different names to highlight the importance of the experience lived From the beginning, Can I Touch? has been out, of contact with reality as a source of primary extremely popular among teachers and children, as information, as a base from which to ask oneself shown by the evaluations gathered by the museum questions or launch investigations. and the steady increase in demand for the activity from pre­schools. In a prior study, it was found that A second phase focuses on the value of language free choice among high quality natural materials as an individual’s expression of the ways of promotes an atmosphere that is both relaxed and thinking. Certain authors place greater emphasis stimulating, and propitious for learning (Pedreira & on pre­existing ideas that will be the basis for the Márquez, 2017). This article focuses on highlighting construction of new ideas, while others underscore the learning processes related to science that take the communicative process itself. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 20 Table 1: Phases of the science learning process according to various authors. Osborne Researching the Generating hypotheses: Evaluating: (2014) tangible world: developing explanations based on the evidence, observing, measuring, based on what’s been data, theories and gathering data, etc. observed. models. Harlen Direct physical action on Language as a basis for From specific ideas to (2010) objects and materials. building abstract ideas. the ‘big ideas’ on science and the construction of scientific knowledge. Pujol Doing: perceiving, Communicating: putting Thinking: asking oneself (2003) observing, handling, it into words, describing, questions, imagining Sanmarti monitoring the finding explanations, solutions, predicting, (2006) phenomenon… reasoning. portraying, modelling, evaluating. Arcà & Mazzoli Experience: doing, Language: speaking, Knowledge: the ongoing (1990) working with one’s specifying what exchange between hands, sensibility, experience and language and perception. perception have made experience builds accessible. individual knowledge that in turn feeds off socialised ‘culture’. Saçkes Physical contact Starting from Reaching shared (2014) activities. pre­existing ideas. discussions to give meaning to the facts. The third phase focuses on high­level cognitive Another condition is time. The approximate skills: reviewing, evaluating, building ‘big ideas’, duration of a session, around half an hour, is a modelling, predicting, portraying, etc. These are significant limiting factor. It must be remembered processes whose purpose is to achieve a reasoned that participating in Can I Touch? can promote change in individuals’ ways of thinking – in other other learning opportunities beyond the museum, words, to achieve learning. but the research presented is solely focused on specific aspects that occurred during the visits. This reiterated organisation in three phases suggests the possibility that the analysis in the Can Lastly, it seems relevant to emphasise that the type I Touch? activity can be carried out based on a of materials in Can I Touch? are fixed in a natural parallel approach, although certain specific aspects science museum; this does not allow for should be considered. experimentation, understood as the direct intervention in materials to intentionally modify them (Pedreira, 2006; Poddiakov, 2011; Sanmartí, Specific aspects of Can I Touch? Márquez & García, 2002), as this possibility is not An initial condition is the age of the subjects, from offered. Attempts to answer the questions that two to six years of age. They are in development, emerge during the sessions can only be made in with limited mastery of language and pre­ situ through a process of searching for explanations operational thought (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). by interacting with others and/or consulting books or visiting the adult museum. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 21 Specification of the research problem The data in this research were gathered from the The research discussed in this article aims to observation of three school sessions in the Can I determine which scientific learning processes are Touch? activity, participated in by three different promoted in a visit to Can I Touch? schools from Barcelona province, and covering the range of ages to which the activity is geared To answer this question, two goals are addressed: (Table 2) p Goal 1: To define the type of analysis needed to evaluate the scientific learning processes; and For the analysis of the data, units have been established based on the logical sequence of p Goal 2: To identify evidence of the scientific action, understood as that set of acts that follow a learning processes in Can I Touch? single line of logic, a narrative unit that takes place with certain players, intentionality, and with a beginning and an end. Methodology This research is based on a qualitative To complete the data, a focus group was held with methodology, as what is intended is in­depth the teachers responsible for the participating understanding of educational phenomena, groups, and a survey conducted among the transformation of practice, and decision­making museum educators responsible for the activity. (Sandín, 2003), as well as emphasising the meaning that individuals give their own realities, which To address ethical issues related to the research, provides the phenomena with depth and a consent form and an information sheet were interpretative richness (Sabariego, 2004). It was provided to responsible adults, with the commitment decided to conduct a case study, as what was to make no further use outside of academia. intended was a systematic, in­depth examination Pseudonyms replaced the name of participants. of a unique phenomenon or educational entity (Bisquerra, 2004). Results and discussion An essentially inductive research strategy has been Goal 1: To define the type of analysis to evaluate used, in which work is done based on flexible, open the scientific learning processes guidelines that are adapted depending on what Considering the contributions from research, occurs over the course of the research. specificities discussed and based on the observation of the children’s behaviour in the Lastly, analysis within the natural context was sessions established an analysis of the learning decided. Despite the drawback of impeding the processes that might take place in the Can I Touch? isolation or control of variables, this has the activities. This is based on a three­phase advantage that comes with the richness and organisation, parallel to that presented in Table 1. complexity of real situations. Age Date Duration Number Number of of children sequences identified 2 year­olds February 27, 2014 42 minutes 22 60 4 year­olds September 27, 2013 27 minutes 13 59 3, 4 and 5 year­olds April 4, 2014 30 minutes 12 143 Table 2: Basic data on observations made, ordered by age of the children. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 22 The three phases are entitled Experience, use of these were observed. In other words, Explicitation and Evolution. Their justification follows: observations took place when it was clear that the children intended to make scientific use of p Experience the instrument, either correctly (for example, If the subjects are children of the youngest ages, keeping the right distance between the apprentices to the world, it seems logical to attach magnifying glass and the eye) or, if they were more relevance to an initial phase, experience, just trying it out, trying to find the right way which is based on gathering information from to use it. contact with reality. The observation of the sessions made evident three different types of p Explicitation actions focused on gaining experience: The second phase emphasises the showing of m Use of the senses: this is an especially relevant children’s pre­existing ideas, which must be used aspect of the Can I Touch? activities given the for the construction of new ideas. To do so, we rely sensory wealth in colours, shapes, textures, on the one hand on communicative processes, weights, sounds, smells, etc. of the natural because when something is given a name, when it material, but also because early childhood is a is defined or explained, this is done based on the stage in which sensory information is existing theories about the world (Gómez, 1998), recognised as being very important by authors but also with the operations related to the of classical pedagogy (Montessori, 1972), by the formation of concepts (Jorba, 1998; Kamii & science museum realm (Dierking, 1991; Falk & DeVries, 1978; Piaget, 1964), such as comparing or Dierking, 2000) and by the contributions from classifying, as basic cognitive skills through which neuroscience (Mora, 2013). Therefore, in the information is structured. Most of the material in analysis of the activity, situations are sought in Can I Touch? are collections (of stones, skins, skulls, which it is identified that the senses are being antlers, etc.) that are presented, grouped with the used in an intentional way. idea of helping children ‘group the things that go together’, identifying the qualities that are shared m Exploratory actions: understood as ‘action among all the elements of the collection while also sequences that respond to the interests of the pointing out what sets them apart. Arcà, Guidoni child, who organizes and structures them and Mazzoli (1990) stress the importance of autonomously, the result of which is the underscoring similarities and differences as a attainment of information on the object or gateway to conceptualisation. phenomenon’ (Weissmann, 2014, p.31). Authors such as Poddiakov (2011), who appreciate Harlen (2010) states that experience gradually natural objects as activators of the brings about the construction of abstract ideas, and development of exploratory activity, also refer that grouping and classifying by different criteria to the importance of children’s activities to lead to the development of concepts. Zohar (2006) actively understand the world based on their advocates the value of actions such as comparing own actions. Other such authors include Sands, or classifying, which she defines as activities of a Carr and Lee (2012) who state that one of the higher order, given the fact that the formation of ways in which research is developed in children concepts is an act not only of perception but also is through dialogue between them and the one that is intimately related to the use of a objects, often without spoken language as a theoretical reference model. mediator and only through direct action. m Use of instruments: the importance of Recognising ‘what goes together’ can be done with instruments as cultural mediators and the need or without words and, given the age of the subjects for them to build scientific facts is addressed by of this research, especially in the case of the several authors (Falk & Dierking, 2000; youngest children, it makes sense to take into Izquierdo, 2006; Sanmartí et al, 2002). In Can I account and evaluate the actions by which children Touch?, children are given access to magnifying specify what they think, while also considering the glasses, binocular magnifying glasses, strainers linguistic skills that make it possible to share their or tweezers. Within the research process, the thoughts. With a view to integrating both occasions when the children made exploratory processes, the cognitive and communicative, which Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 23 are so intimately linked, the suggestion of Inan, Considering the age of the children, not only Trundle and Kantor (2010) was followed. They their specific questions but also the statements emphasised the value of labelling information with or actions to which adults can give the value a name that has a meaning shared with others of a hypothesis have been considered to help (naming), indicating similarities and differences question ideas and facilitate the possibility (comparing), organising the information into of change. significant units based on comparison (classifying) and sharing this information with others m Introduction of new knowledge: understanding (communicating). In the latter category, based on learning as change means attaching value to the contributions of several authors (Jorba, Gómez the entry of new ideas as a basic factor to & Prats, 1998; Naylor, Keogh & Downing, 2007) and achieve a change in pre­existing ideas. taking into account the observations recorded, two Situations in which children’s ideas are specific cognitive­linguistic skills have been reconsidered, as related to the contribution of considered: describing and reasoning. Regarding new information, are taken into account. Three the latter, it should be noted that, at such young ways of introducing new ideas were identified: ages, it is not meant to find complete reasoning by direct contributions from the adult; with the need for acceptability, belonging, triggering the contrast of ideas among peers; completeness and precision, but that the cases in and also the consultation of books. which the child contributes some explanation on the object or phenomenon are identified. Table 3 on page 25 sums up the categories of analysis identified based on the alignment between p Evolution the existing literature on science learning at the Understanding learning as change (Pozo, 2008) youngest ages and the observations made in means attributing value to the evolution of Can I Touch? children’s ideas, which is manifested in two ways in Can I Touch? Goal 2: Identify evidence of scientific learning m Emergence of questions: this is determined by all processes in Can I Touch? authors to be a fundamental step to approach After finishing the definition of the categories, their any problem, and a significant first step to application in the observed sessions was necessary. consider the possibility of changing ways of To do so, all appearances of each category in each thinking. Mora (2013) states that anything that sequence were tallied up. To compare the data is different and stands out from its surroundings from session to session, the number of appearances sparks excitement and, with that, the windows was divided by the total of sequences in each of attention are opened in a focus necessary session, resulting in a frequency of around 1. for the creation of knowledge. An example of the identification of each of the Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (2009) categories in the sequences is shown in Table 4 propose a learning paradigm in museums that on page 26. begins with the need to attract the subject’s attention (the ‘hook’) and is based on curiosity p Experience (probability of investing mental energy in a new Figure 2 on page 27 shows the comparison among stimulus) to reach the interest (probability of frequencies of appearance of each experience investing mental energy in one stimuli more phase categories in the different sessions, than others). It is the same idea that corresponding to different ages. Wagensberg postulates (2008, p.24), when he highlights the importance of the ‘stimulus, that The frequency of opportunities to acquire direct is useful to go from one mood – in which an experience with reality through the three individual is not especially interested in knowing highlighted categories is clearly high – 1.68 overall. anything specific – to another, in which they do This is proof of one of the values of the activity. seek to know something, even with urgency’. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 24 Table 3: Analysis categories of the science learning process in Can I Touch? EXPERIENCE Use of the senses Looking with reality Touching Listening Smelling Exploratory actions Picking up, putting down Shaking Filling­emptying Tapping Fitting into Passing on Building towers Exploratory use of instruments Hand­held magnifying glass Binocular magnifying glasses Strainers Tweezers EXPLICITATION Cognitive­linguistic Naming of children’s ideas Comparing Classifying Describing Reasoning EVOLUTION Emergence of questions As questions of children’s ideas As statements As actions Introduction of new knowledge Contributions from the adult Contrasting of ideas between peers Consulting books The results are irregularly distributed within each senses, suggest the possibility of introducing category. Looking and touching are by far the modifications in the design and presentation of two most used ‘sense actions’. Shaking, fitting into the materials to achieve results more in line with and passing on are the most recurrent exploratory what is intended. actions. Hand­held magnifying glasses are the instruments that generate the most interest By ages, the high value of the exploratory actions and activity. in the case of the 2 year­olds studied is noteworthy. This coincides with the behaviour descriptions for Some observations, such as the use of specific this age made by various authors (Kamii & DeVries, instruments like hand­held and binocular 1978; Quintanilla, Orellana & Daza, 2011; Weissmann, magnifying glasses as observation instruments 1999). Compared to older children, this age group appearing to increase the frequency of use of the shows little activity in the use of instruments. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 25 Table 4: Sequences from each category for analysis of the science learning process in Can I Touch? EXPERIENCE with reality Use of the senses 31:26 / Touching (...) 2 year­olds The girl answers, and lies down over the skins again and begins to touch two skins with both hands. The adult leaves. The girl touches the skins a little while longer. Then she gets up and goes to the stones table, where there are several children. 31:50 Exploratory actions 14:27 / Shaking Rattles are heard. There is a boy next to the panels shaking a rattle with 2 year­olds each hand. A girl approaches, takes one in each hand and shakes them. They look at each other. The girl leaves both rattles on the floor and leaves. (…) 14:50 Exploratory use 6:01 of instruments A boy approaches the magnifying glass table and picks up the cylindrical / hand­held magnifying glass. He brings it close to his eyes, backwards. He turns it, magnifying glass and looks again. Then he puts it down and leaves. 4 year­olds 6:15 EXPLICITATION of children’s ideas Cognitive­linguistic 3:50 / reasoning (...) 4 year­olds Teacher: Creatures, from where? She retraces the X­ray of the snake. She stops and shrugs her shoulders as if to say, ‘I don’t know.’ She looks at the camera. Teacher: Are they all the same? Child 14: No Teacher: Oh? They aren’t? Child 14: No, because this one is smaller and this one is bigger (comparing the two snake X­rays. He touches them with his hands). And these (the small snake and the lizard) look the same, but they aren’t. (...) 4:47 EVOLUTION of children’s ideas Emergence of questions 0:00 / As actions (...) 4 year­olds The boy goes to pick up a skull. There are four children speaking while holding skulls in their hands. Another child goes to the horse skull, and opens and closes the jaw. He takes a tooth from the box and tries to fit it into the lower jaw. A boy picks up a skull and places it on his head. Boy: I put it on here! He puts the skull back in its place, picks up another one, and looks at it. (...) 1:05 Introduction of 11:16 new knowledge (...) / Contrasting of ideas Educator 5: What do you think this is, [Boy 8]? Boy 8: Skin. among peers Educator 5: [Girl 4] says that it is from a snake. 3, 4 and 5 year­olds Girl 4: And that it is skin, too. Educator 5: It is snakeskin, says Girl 4. The boy leaves. Girl 4 tries to open the cylinder. Educator 5 takes it from her, apparently to open it for her. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 26 Figure 2: Frequency of appearance of each experience phase category over the various sessions. 1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 2 year-olds 0,60 4 year-olds 0,40 3, 4 & 5 year-olds 0,20 0,00 Use of the senses Exploratory actions. Exploratory use of instruments p Explicitation while ‘comparing’, ‘classifying’ and ‘reasoning’ Figure 3 shows the frequencies of appearance of appear on very few occasions. This is apparently the explicitation phase categories. attributable to the fact that, as Zohar (2006) states, they are demands of the highest cognitive level. Once again, the distribution is shown to be very irregular. Some of the categories show high The data evidence a relationship between frequencies, such as ‘naming’ and ‘describing’, explicitation of children’s ideas and their age. 0,80 0,60 0,40 2 year-olds 4 year-olds 0,20 3, 4 & 5 year-olds 0,00 Naming Comparing Classifying Describing Reasoning Figure 3: Frequency of appearance of each explicitation phase category over the various sessions. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 27 As it is an area closely related to language, logically, nose or backs as a reflection of their hypotheses), the group of the youngest age has the lowest the difficulty of the adults in recognising them as frequencies. This suggests the importance of such was also confirmed. finding ways to favour young children’s ideas being made clearer through actions, not just language. p Overall results of the three phases The distribution of frequencies by phases and ages p Evolution is reflected in the graph on the following page. Figure 4 shows the frequencies of appearance of the evolution phase categories. Figure 5 shows that the essential strong point of Can I Touch? is made up of the possibilities provided The graph shows a notable difference between the by acquiring direct experience with reality at all frequency with which questions emerge and the ages, but most especially in the youngest children. introduction of new ideas. This suggests that the The activity also facilitates, although to a lesser visit to Can I Touch? favours starting points for the degree and mostly in children of three years of age, emergence of curiosity that can lead to inquiry the explicitation of their ideas. As regards the itineraries, but does not promote the introduction evolution phase, points of curiosity are generated of new ideas. that can then give rise to a process of change in ways of thinking. In an analysis by age, the idea of a revision phase seems out of reach for the youngest children. Although this seems logical, as it is related to a Conclusions higher level of cognitive development, it must also Goal 1: To define the type of analysis to evaluate be remembered that it is largely evaluated based the scientific learning processes on language. Although the research confirmed the Research into science learning for children of young possibility of identifying physical actions that have ages and in the context of isolated sessions in a no spoken form as questions asked by children (for museum makes it necessary to adapt the type of example, placing antlers over their heads, on their research used with adults. 0,30 0,20 2 year-olds 4 year-olds 3, 4 & 5 year-olds 0,10 0,00 Emergence of questions Introduction of new ideas Figure 4: Frequency of appearance of each evolution phase category over the various sessions. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 28 Figure 5: Overall frequencies of the 3 phases by age groups. 2 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 2 year­olds 1 4 year­olds 0,8 3, 4 & 5 year­olds 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 Experience Explicitation Evolution The definition achieved in this study for the specific it facilitates the explicitation of children’s ideas, case of the educational activity Can I Touch? although irregularly, and it allows the emergence of proposes phases that are parallel to those used curiosities that can be starting points for inquiry with adults, but bearing in mind specificities: an itineraries. activity aimed at children of the youngest ages, of limited duration over time and restricted to In research with adults, great emphasis is placed on natural sciences. the phase of greatest abstraction, incorporating processes such as modelling or evaluation, which The structure of the three phases, Experience, have not been observed in the free­choice situation Explicitation and Evolution, is proposed as a analysed. Considering that the children only had groundwork to face the analysis of learning half­an­hour of autonomous exploration, it seems processes in a free­choice science learning activity, logical that no evolution is observed in their ideas, and for the youngest ages. The three phases are beyond momentary contributions. On another likewise divided into categories (see Table 3 for the note, it seems that the activity offers important case of Can I Touch?) that can be expanded or possibilities as a generator of stimuli (emergence of modified depending on the specific case in which questions), which can be an important first step to the analysis is to be applied. initiate inquiry processes that will require continuity in other contexts. Given the fact that Goal 2: To identify evidence of scientific learning these are school visits, the most appropriate course processes in Can I Touch? of action should be the school itself, following the Applying analysis based on the three phases, ideas of Kisiel (2005), Guisasola (2013) or Viladot Experience, Explicitation and Evolution, as has been (2015), who suggested integrating the visit to the explained and justified throughout the text, defines museum as part of the class planning to obtain Can I Touch? as an activity of great educational learning results that can involve aspects such as value. It is valuable because it provides direct discussion about facts, modelling, or the evaluation experience of contact with natural material, of new ideas. Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 29 Like any research process, this one concludes by Gómez, I. (1998) ‘Bases teòriques d’una proposta opening up new questions: would more evidence of didàctica per afavorir la comunicació a l’aula’. In the idea of evolution be generated in a free­choice Parlar i escriure per aprendre. Barcelona: ICE de la school context in which, as opposed to the UAB museum, children have sufficient time to take part Guisasola, J. (2013) ‘Luces y sombras en la enseñanza in experiences with continuity? Can the ­aprendizaje de las ciencias fuera de la escuela’, environment be modified (inquiries, organisation, IX Congreso Internacional Sobre Investigación En the role of the adult) to increase the occasions in Didáctica de Las Ciencias, 1704–1707 which evidence of idea evolution is produced? Harlen, W. (2010) Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield: Association for Science Lastly, it is relevant to note that two of the three Education schools participating in the research introduced Inan, H.Z., Trundle, K.C. & Kantor, R. (2010) changes in their classrooms following the visit to ‘Understanding Natural Sciences Education in a the museum, incorporating natural materials and Reggio Emilia­Inspired Preschool’, Journal of various scientific instruments, and generating Research in Science Teaching, 47, (10), 1186–1208 awareness about the value of getting questions to Izquierdo, M. (2006) ‘Por una enseñanza de las arise in children over teaching them the answers. ciencias fundamentada en valores humanos’, This suggests the possibility of informal education Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa being an element with which to streamline (Julsept.), 11, (30), 867–882 educational change in formal education. This shows Jorba, J. (1998) ‘La comunicació i les habilitats the importance of reflection and pedagogical cognitivolingüístiques’. In Parlar i escriure per research set outside the classroom. aprendre (pp. 37–58). Barcelona: ICE de la UAB Jorba, J., Gómez, I. & Prats, À. (1998) Parlar i escriure per aprendre. Ús de la llengua en situació References d’ensenyament­aprenentatge des de les àrees Arcà, M., Guidoni, P. & Mazzoli, P. (1990) Insegnare curriculars. Barcelona: ICE de la UAB scienza : come cominciare : reflessioni e proposte Kamii, C. & DeVries, R. (1978) Physical knowledge in per una educazione scientifica di base. Milano: preschool education: Implications of piaget’s Franco Angel theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice­Hall Arcà, M. & Mazzoli, P. (1990) ‘Fer, parlar, entendre. Kisiel, J.F. (2005) ‘Understanding Elementary Educació científica a nivell preescolar’, Papers, (1), Teacher Motivations for Science Fieldtrips’, 35–40 Science Education, (89), 936–955 Bisquerra, R. (2004) Metodología de la investigación Minner, D.D., Levy, A.J. & Century, J. (2010) educativa. Madrid: Editorial La Muralla ‘Inquiry­based science instruction – what is it and Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Hermanson, K. (2009) does it matter? Results from a research synthesis Intrinsic motivation in museums: why does one years 1984­2002’, Journal of Research in Science want to learn? (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Teaching, 47, (4), 474–496 Dierking, L. (1991) ‘Learning theory and learning Monteira, S.F. & Jiménez­Aleixandre, M.P. (2015) styles: an overview’, Journal of Museum ‘The practice of using evidence in kindergarten: Education, 16, (1), 4–6 The role of purposeful observation’, Journal of Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (2000) Learning from Research in Science Teaching, 1–27. museums: visitor experiences and the making of https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21259 meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press Montessori, M. (1972) The discovery of the child. Ferrés, C., Marbà, A. & Sanmartí, N. (2015) New York: Ballantine ‘Trabajos de indagación de los alumnos: Mora, F. (2013) Neuroeducación: solo se puede instrumentos de evaluación e identificación de aprender aquello que se ama. Madrid: Alianza dificultades’, Revista Eureka Sobre Enseñanza y National Academy of Sciences (1996) National Divulgación de Las Ciencias, 12, (1), 22–37 Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C. Garrido, A. & Simarro, C. (2014) ‘El nou marc Naylor, S., Keogh, B. & Downing, B. (2007) d’avaluació de la competència científica PISA ‘Argumentation and Primary Science’, Research in 2015: Revisió i reflexions didàctiques’, Ciències, Science Education, (37), 17–39. (28), 21–26 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165­005­9002­5 Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 30 Osborne, J. (2014) ‘Teaching Scientific Practices: Sandín, M.P. (2003) Investigación cualitativa en Meeting the Challenge of Change’, Journal of Educación. Fundamentos y tradiciones. Madrid: Science Teacher Education, 25, (2). McGraw­Hill https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972­014­9384­1 Sands, L., Carr, M. & Lee, W. (2012) ‘Question­ Pedreira, M. (2006) ‘Dialogar con la realidad’, asking and question­exploring’, European Early Educación Infantil. Orientaciones y Recursos (0­6 Childhood Education Research Journal, 20, (4), Años). CISS­Praxis 553–564 Pedreira, M. (2016) «Puc tocar?» Anàlisi d’una Sanmartí, N. (2006) ‘Aprendre ciències: connectar proposta educativa del Museu de Ciències Naturals l’experiència, el pensament i la parla a través de de Barcelona per a infants de 2 a 6 anys. Retrieved models’. In Curs d’actualització de l’ensenyament­ from: http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/386493 aprenentatge de les ciències a l’educació infantil Pedreira, M. & Márquez, C. (2017) ‘Learning i primària. Barcelona: Departament d’Educació. environments to enjoy science from the youngest Generalitat de Catalunya ages’, Journal of Emergent Science, (4), 7–15. Sanmartí, N., Márquez, C. & García, P. (2002) Retrieved from: https://www.ase.org.uk/ ‘Los trabajos pràcticos: punto de partida para journals/journal­of­emergent­science aprender ciencias’, Aula de Innovación Educativa, Piaget, J. (1964) ‘Part I: Cognitive development in (113), 8–13 children: Piaget development and learning’, Viladot Barba, P. (2015) Motivacions, expectatives Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, (3), i objectius del professorat en les visites als museus 176–186 de ciència. Retrieved from: Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969) The psychology of http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/396192 the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Wagensberg, J. (2008) El gozo intelectual (2a ed.). Poddiakov, N. (2011) ‘Searching, Experimenting Barcelona: Tusquets and the Heuristic Structure of a Preschool Child’s Weissmann, H. (1999) ‘El juego exploratorio en la Experience’, International Journal of Early Years educación infantil’. In III Jornades d’Innovació en Education, 19, (1), 55–63 l’Etapa d’Educació infantil (pps. 51–59). Barcelona: Pozo, J.I. (2008) Aprendices y maestros: la psicología ICE de la UAB cognitiva del aprendizaje. Madrid: Alianza Weissmann, H. (2014) La reflexión sobre la Editorial pràctica...el motor del cambio. Una mirada desde Pujol, R.M. (2003) Didáctica de las ciencias en la las ciencias naturales. Buenos Aires: Mandioca educación primaria. Madrid: Sintesis Zohar, A. (2006) ‘El pensamiento de orden superior Quintanilla, M.R., Orellana, M.L. & Daza, S.F. (2011) en las clases de ciencias : objetivos, medios y ‘La ciencia en las primeras edades como resultados de investigación’, Enseñanza de Las promotora de competencias de pensamiento Ciencias, 24, (2), 157–172. Retrieved from: científico’. In La enseñanza de las ciencias http://redined.mecd.gob.es/xmlui/handle/11162/ naturales en las primeras edades: su contribución a 22331 la promoción de competencias de pensamiento científico (Vol. 5, pps. 58–81). Colombia: GRECIA (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Montserrat Pedreira, Department of Childhood Sabariego, M. (2004) ‘Investigacion educativa: Education, University of Vic­Central University of génesis, evolución y características’. In Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain. @MontsePedreira Metodología de la investigación educativa (pp. 52– E­mail: mpedreira@umanresa.cat 87). Madrid: La muralla Saçkes, M. (2014) ‘Parents who want their PreK Conxita Márquez, Department of Science and children to have science learning experiences are Mathematics Education, Autonomous University outliers’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, (29), of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 132–143 E­mail: conxita.marquez@uab.cat Main Article JES17 Summer 2019 page 31