RUNNING HEAD: Science in ECE Classrooms
Inclusion of Science in Early Childhood Classrooms Rachel Jones
Vanderbilt University February 28, 2007
Inclusion of Science in Early Childhood Classrooms Introduction
Members within the field of education know that science often is “forgotten” in early childhood classrooms. It is not readily determined as to why educators leave out science education, but there have been numerous suggestions about this issue.
Suggestions range from teachers are not comfortable with the subject matter to there is not enough time in the day to include science education (Wirag, 1997). No matter what the reason for our lack of science content in the curriculum, it is an important area to remember and teach in early grades and there are currently numerous theories as to what the best way to teach science is.
Currently, there are students who believe they are failures in academic subjects because of their passion for science related topics (Owens, 1999). These students feel forgotten, much like their beloved subject, and have difficulty meeting grade-level requirements. What better way to reach these students than to include science frequently and in varying, integrated forms (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997)? As previously
mentioned, science in essence has demonstrated itself as the forgotten subject and has undergone a number of changes throughout the years (Vasquez, 2005). As Vasquez mentions, science instructors seem to have “given up for the drill and kill” associated with No Child Left Behind (2005). However, most educators do not believe this is the best way to reach students, especially not young students. It appears that science
instructors have to fight for the time they need and deserve to effectively teach students science concepts (Vasquez, 2005).
The problem of leaving out science is not the only one our country is currently attending to within the realm of education. Educators are also attempting to meet national science standards. Currently the United States lags behind other countries in promoting science, technological, engineering and mathematical careers (Vasquez, 2005). The government as well as educators see this as a problem and want to promote science in developmentally appropriate ways (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). However, before students feel comfortable pursuing these types of careers, they are going to have to engage and be a part of science instruction (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Vasquez, 2005).
The current body of research provides a base for understanding what types of changes need to occur in order to better prepare our students in varying science content
knowledge.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Focus on Students as Scientists
One option presented within the body of research presents science education as making students more like scientists. The research in this area looks at how presenting what scientists do in order to complete their jobs contributes to students’ knowledge, understanding and achievement within the various science themes. Within these articles students learn what scientists do as well as complete work that resembles that of career scientists.
Data Participants
When looking at participants within the students as scientists’ area, one can see that most of the participants are members of a classroom environment. Specifically, the research looks at five fourth grade classrooms and a first grade classroom (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004). The research did not account for male vs. female
information or for numbers of students in the classrooms (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004). Additionally the exact numbers of students used within the study are not mentioned (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004). However, the two studies did draw from different groups as one group of students was from North Carolina while the other group of students was from South Carolina (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004).
Methods
The studies utilized to illustrate students, as scientists were both case studies.
Therefore the manner of obtaining information is similar for both. The two studies both utilize information from teachers and students (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004).
The researchers observed and interviewed teachers about their instructional methods to get a better idea of what was going on in the classroom (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004). Specifically, Edmonson et al used writing prompts about experiments
conducted in the classroom to create discussion between students at other schools while Nesbit et al utilized science notebooks, like lab books, to give students ownership and a written record of the experiments conducted within the classroom (Edmonton et al, 2006;
Nesbit et al, 2004). Both studies show that the teachers wanted their students to walk
away with hands-on experiences that then provide additional writing experiences that show what scientists do throughout their careers (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004). Additionally, researchers described what the classes did in order to provide other educators with the possibilities that are available to them and thus to improve science education in their classrooms (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004).
Results
In the end both studies illustrate that when students are scientists they come away with a better idea of what a career scientists do (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004). Additionally, students learned how to explain and discuss their procedure,
materials and results in explicit terms so that others could easily understand what they did in order to complete their experiments (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004). Both studies also integrated writing into their science lessons, thus providing another entry point for learners (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004).
Focus on Experiences
Within this set of writings, researchers demonstrate how inquiry and natural science experiences are perhaps the best way to instruct students. The research illustrates the importance of naturalistic experiences and experiments in general in the early
childhood classroom. Each study assumes that students are scientists conducting experiments within science instruction.
Data Participants
Within this grouping of research there is more variety in the type of participant.
All of the research uses young learners, but some have a number of different grade levels while others have only one (Keena & Basile, 2002; Ash & Luckey, 1998; Basile &
White, 2000, Wu & Tsai, 2004). Additionally, the research accounts for different cultures and different areas of the country (Keena & Basile, 2002; Ash & Luckey, 1998; Basile &
White, 2000, Wu & Tsai, 2004). Specifically, the research includes students from Taiwan as well as Texas and a number of other states across the United States (Basile & White, 2000, Wu & Tsai, 2004). Not only did the research account for different cultures, but it also looks at students from different socio-economic backgrounds. For example students came from urban areas as well as from university schools (Keena & Basile, 2002; Basile
& White, 2000, Wu & Tsai, 2004).
Methods
Most of the research includes case studies where observational techniques and interviews are utilized in order to draw conclusions about student achievement within science instruction. Specifically Basile and White interview participants on four
components, which deal with science instruction and respecting the environment (Basile
& White, 2000). On the other hand some of the research looks into naturalistic curriculum development and how teaching in this manner benefits student learning (Keena & Basile, 2002; Ash & Luckey, 1998). Within this area students and teachers work together to develop performance tasks that incorporate developmentally appropriate
and standards based learning into their new curriculum (Ash & Luckey, 1998) Finally, Wu and Tsai use a true research study to look at constructivist teaching methods vs.
traditional teaching methods (2004). In this study a two groups are utilized, one group receives traditional science instruction while the other group receives constructivist style science instruction.
Results
Each of the studies illustrates positive results for naturalistic science education.
For example Basile and White’s research shows that students who are exposed to teachers and classmates that demonstrate respect for living things develop into just and caring individuals (2000). These students also foster respect while completing science naturalistic science activities (Basile & White, 2000). Additionally, the research on naturalistic curriculums show results that prove students benefit in not only science achievement when instructed in this manner, but also develop their own confidence and citizenship within science content areas (Keena & Basile, 2002; Ash & Luckey, 1998).
Finally, Wu and Tsai illustrate the idea that students who had constructivist science instruction demonstrate higher achievement in science content knowledge (2004).
Additionally, the research shows that instructors should utilize multiple constructivist teaching strategies and activities to best promote science knowledge construction (Wu &
Tsai, 2004).
Implications for Future Studies
There have been numerous studies on the best way to teach science to young children. However, a majority of these studies are case studies, observational studies or simply what others believe is good practice. The aforementioned studies illustrate the trend in case studies. Of course, these appear to work in some classrooms and this would lead to the conclusion that what benefits some might benefit all.
However, in order to truly make this conclusion, research projects help to determine what actually makes a difference in a more quantifiable manner. Therefore, although, case studies are useful and certainly valid, in true research conditions would help make “the best” science instruction technique more easily identifiable. Currently, the research points to providing students with hands-on experiences that allow for student inquiry and exploration (Gullo, 2006). Additionally the research shows that instructing students on concrete ideas that focus on their immediate environment help students achieve more in science education (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). The aforementioned studies promote integrating science content with other curricular areas to reinforce knowledge as well as illustrate how different curricular areas tie together (Edmonton et al, 2006; Nesbit et al, 2004). Research also illustrates the importance of naturalistic and constructivist instruction to improve science achievement with early learners (Keena &
Basile, 2002; Ash & Luckey, 1998; Basile & White, 2000, Wu & Tsai, 2004). In conclusion, studies have given educators much insight into what appears to benefit student learning science content knowledge, however, we cannot stop our research until there are more true research studies demonstrating similar results.
Concluding Statements
Although a significant amount or research shows similar results about the science instruction for early learners much more needs to be done before we can conclusively say what helps students achieve the most science knowledge. Specifically, more quantifiable and controlled research needs to be conducted in order to best define science instruction.
Without taking into consideration the fact that science is often left out of the curriculum, educators need to remember to include and teach science in the most effective and engaging manner possible so that our students are not left without knowledge, so that our students are not forgotten.
Reference:
Ash, L. & Luckey, J. Outdoor Achievement. Science Teacher, 65(4).
Basile, C. & White, C. (2000). Respecting living things: Environmental literacy for young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(1).
Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education: Revised edition. Washington D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Edmonton, E., Leonard, W.H., Peters, C., Baldwin, A.O. (2006). Talking science, modeling scientists. Science and Children, 43(8).
Gullo, D. (Ed.). (2006). K today: Teaching and learning in the kindergarten year.
Washington D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children Keena, K. & Basile, C. (2002). An environmental journey. Science and Children, 39 (8),
30-33
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Nesbit, C., Hargrove, T., Harrelson, L., & Maxey, B. (2004). Implementing science notebooks in the primary grades. Science Activities, 40(4).
Owens, C. (1999). Caught between a rock and a hard place: A natural scientist writes.
Language Arts, 76(3).
Vasquez, J.A. (2005). You may be the only scientist your students will ever know.
Science Teacher, 72(4).
Wirag, D. (1997). Share your bench with a bug. Science and Children, 34(8), 24-25.
Wu, Y. & Tsai, C. (2004). Development of elementary school students’ cognitive structures and information processing strategies under long-term constructivist- oriented science instruction. Wiley Periodicals.
