A Framework for Scientific Inquiry in Preschool

Abstract

Preschool children have the capacity to engage in scientific practices and inquiry and develop understanding at a conceptual level. While engaging in inquiry with preschool students, teachers transition from being transmitters of knowledge to facilitators in the educational process as students take on an active role in this learner-centered approach. Although studies have explored how preschool students can engage in inquiry-based science, there is a dearth of research on what teachers need to do to ensure their students are engaging in meaningful, inquiry-based science. Considering the nature of preschool students’ play—curious exploration throughout the day—this study sought to review the literature on preschool scientific inquiry and report on significant themes. The purpose of this paper is to develop a research-based framework for inquiry-based science exploration in preschool settings that cuts across specific interventions, science concepts, or activities to provide teachers with strategies to build and sustain a culture of inquiry that permeates all aspects of their preschool program. To create this framework, 15 studies were analyzed, and five major themes were uncovered regarding how teachers engaged students in inquiry. With students’ curiosity, wonderings, and interests as an essential starting point, the framework outlines these five themes as teacher strategies to support scientific inquiry in preschool. These strategies, rather than implemented in isolation, blend together to assist teachers in transforming play and teacher-initiated or child-initiated activities into rigorous learning and support the creation of a culture of inquiry that is part of their classroom environment.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Early Childhood Education Journal
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01259-1
A Framework forScientific Inquiry inPreschool
GurupriyaRamanathan1 · DeborahCarter2· JulianneWenner3
Accepted: 17 August 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021
Abstract
Preschool children have the capacity to engage in scientific practices and inquiry and develop understanding at a conceptual
level. While engaging in inquiry with preschool students, teachers transition from being transmitters of knowledge to facili-
tators in the educational process as students take on an active role in this learner-centered approach. Although studies have
explored how preschool students can engage in inquiry-based science, there is a dearth of research on what teachers need to
do to ensure their students are engaging in meaningful, inquiry-based science. Considering the nature of preschool students’
play—curious exploration throughout the day—this study sought to review the literature on preschool scientific inquiry and
report on significant themes. The purpose of this paper is to develop a research-based framework for inquiry-based science
exploration in preschool settings that cuts across specific interventions, science concepts, or activities to provide teachers
with strategies to build and sustain a culture of inquiry that permeates all aspects of their preschool program. To create this
framework, 15 studies were analyzed, and five major themes were uncovered regarding how teachers engaged students in
inquiry. With students’ curiosity, wonderings, and interests as an essential starting point, the framework outlines these five
themes as teacher strategies to support scientific inquiry in preschool. These strategies, rather than implemented in isolation,
blend together to assist teachers in transforming play and teacher-initiated or child-initiated activities into rigorous learning
and support the creation of a culture of inquiry that is part of their classroom environment.
Keywords Preschool· Scientific inquiry· Preschool inquiry cycle· Science education
Introduction
Preschool children are curious, active explorers who learn
about the world through observations, interactions, and com-
munication with one another and teachers in the course of
play and daily routines (Rogoff, 2003). Gelman etal. (2009)
labeled children of this age ‘scientists-in-waiting’, noting
that they can and do show interest in scientific concepts.
Research reveals that young children have the capacity to
learn scientific concepts as well as the ability to exercise
reasoning and engage in inquiry (NRC, 2012; Samarapun-
gavan etal., 2009; Trundle & Saçkes, 2012). Supporting
this observation, the National Science Teaching Associa-
tion (NSTA, 2014) in its position statement on early child-
hood science education has recognized that children have
the capacity to engage in scientific practices and develop
understanding at a conceptual level. NSTA (2014) has
also recommended that teachers tap into, guide, and focus
children’s natural interests and abilities through carefully
planned open-ended, inquiry-based explorations. But what
do such explorations look like? How can teachers encourage
young children’s inquiry in a way that is developmentally
appropriate and can be flexibly implemented throughout
daily activities?
Inquiry-based learning here is defined as student ques-
tioning and exploration of new knowledge for the purpose of
integration with prior knowledge and skills (Johnson etal.,
2019). Often, inquiry is established through an overarching
problem broken down into smaller components. Here, teach-
ers do not establish themselves as purveyors of knowledge;
rather, their students are positioned as “central movers and
* Gurupriya Ramanathan
gxramanathan@salisbury.edu
1 Department ofEarly andElementary Education, Seidel
School ofEducation, Salisbury University, 1101 Camden
Avenue, Salisbury, MD21801, USA
2 Department ofEarly andSpecial Education, College
ofEducation, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive,
Boise, ID83725, USA
3 Department ofTeaching andLearning, College ofEducation,
Clemson University, 101 Gantt Circle, Clemson, SC29634,
USA

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
actors in their own education” (Khales & Meier, 2013, as
cited in Johnson etal., 2019, p. 1). Inquiry-based science
exploration, having the propensity to engage young children,
promote scientific thinking, and develop conceptual under-
standing (Bulunuz, 2013; Fleer, 2011), can be integrated into
play (Saçkes, 2015).
Despite this, science is frequently neglected in preschool
classrooms. Classroom observation studies suggest the pre-
dominance of language and literacy in preschool classrooms,
reporting that teachers rarely engaged in formal (4.5% of
the time) or informal (8.8% of the time) science instruc-
tion (Tu, 2006). Historically, science has been viewed as
an additional, rather than essential, component of thepre-
school curriculum (Pendergast etal., 2017) and has taken a
backseat due to other curricular demands (Greenfield etal.,
2009). Another factor influencing the lack of emphasis on
preschool science is teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards
science education. Preschool teachers disinclined to teach
science report: (a) feelings of discomfort or anxiety due to
a sense of low self-efficacy, believing they will not succeed
(Greenfield etal., 2009); (b) beliefs or misconceptions that
science is a difficult content area to teach and thus avoid
it (Yoon & Onchwari, 2006); and (c) feelings that science
is too hard and abstract for young children to learn, often
underestimating the foundational knowledge preschool stu-
dents already have about science topics (Brenneman, 2010,
as cited in Pendergast etal., 2017). These findings help us
understand why teachers avoid engaging students in experi-
ential science learning.
Quality teacher–child interactions are integral to chil-
dren’s engagement in scientific inquiry. These interactions
require teachers to have a sciencing attitude (Fleer etal.,
2014), wherein they value and intentionally foreground sci-
ence learning. When teachers are intentional in foreground-
ing science learning, it opens up a wider range of opportu-
nities to engage in scientific inquiry within their existing
classroom environment and routines rather than having to
design isolated experiments that end up becoming teacher-
centered and with little or no connection to the broader
classroom environment and curriculum. For instance, teach-
ers may connect phenomena to students’ previous experi-
ences, point out unexpected events, and listen to students’
explanations (Andersson & Gulberg, 2012). Such a respon-
sive teaching approach or attitude results in stronger learn-
ing of science concepts and language than explicit, didactic
instruction (Hong & Diamond, 2012).
Another important factor to be considered here is the
physical environment itself. The mere presence of tools and
objects of scientific inquiry is not enough to entice students’
interest in science. Materials provided in the classroom, par-
ticularly when accompanied with intentional introduction
and instruction, can enhance teacher-student interactions
(Fleer etal., 2014). For instance, Nayfeld etal. (2011) report
in their study that it was only after a teacher showed inter-
est in and demonstrated how using a tool (balancing scale)
enriched and expanded observations on objects’ weight that
children autonomously entered and explored a classroom
center dedicated to science, and named and used the tool
functionally. Given this, how do we support early childhood
educators in adopting a sciencing attitude and intentionally
integrating scientific inquiry throughout their environment
and routines?
Although studies have explored how young students can
engage in inquiry, exploring what teachers need to do to
ensure their students are engaging in meaningful scientific
inquiry is an idea that has been overlooked. Most studies
have explored young students’ inquiry through the lens of
specific instructional interventions (Hadziegeorgiou, 2002;
Hobson etal., 2010; Kallery, 2011; Opfer & Siegler, 2004).
Additionally, these studies suggest that early science instruc-
tion can enhance young students’ learning of science con-
cepts, but have focused on the teaching of specific science
concepts over a short period of time. Curricular programs
designed for preschool exclude certain fundamental stand-
ards-based science concepts such as those in the earth and
space sciences and mainly focus on life science concepts
while devoting limited attention to physical science con-
cepts (Saçkes etal., 2019). Additionally, these curricula are
limited in that they introduce science concepts in isolation
from, and not integrated with, other content, save for the
occasional mathematics or literacy connection (Sackes etal.,
2019).
Considering the nature of preschool students’ play—
curious exploration throughout the day—this study sought
to review the literature on preschool scientific inquiry and
report on significant themes found in that literature. Attend-
ing to these themes, the purpose of this paper is to present a
research-based framework for inquiry-based science explo-
ration in preschool settings that cuts across classroom rou-
tines and activities. The stance this paper takes goes beyond
defining what inquiry in preschool means to exploring what
teachers can do to build and sustain a culture of inquiry that
permeates all aspects of their program.
Inquiry Cycle
Adults who engage children in scientific inquiry can provide
developmentally appropriate environments that take advan-
tage of what children do as part of their everyday life prior to
entering formal school settings. These skills and abilities can
provide a helpful starting point for developing scientific rea-
soning in young children (NRC, 2007, p. 82). The Next Gen-
eration Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013)
contains performance expectations for K-12 students that
include the interconnected dimensions of Disciplinary Core

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting
Concepts. Although scientific inquiry at the preschool level
could potentially support developmentally appropriate ver-
sions of each of the three dimensions of the NGSS, its key
benefit may be in providing opportunities for preschool stu-
dents to begin enacting the Science and Engineering Prac-
tices. And although some may argue that certain Practices
are out of reach for preschool students, the Practices can be
easily adapted from the K-2 level in the NGSS progression
(NGSS Lead States, 2013, Appendix F) to be developmen-
tally appropriate for preschoolers. For example, one of the
Practices is Developing and Using Models, which can be
quite sophisticated. However, the K-2 progression suggests
that models can be drawings, a physical replica, or even a
dramatization. Further, the K-2 progression suggests that
students should be able to distinguish between the model and
the actual thing or process being modeled; compare and con-
trast models; develop models to demonstrate relationships
or patterns in the world; and create simple models based on
evidence (NGSS Lead States, 2013, Appendix F). Therefore,
preschool students drawing a picture or acting out their ideas
of how a caterpillar changes over time is preparing them for
more sophisticated modeling in K-12 education. Similarly,
other Practices can be supported and explored via scientific
inquiry at the preschool level, as will be seen below.
In this paper, the notion of preschool scientific inquiry is
based on Trundle and Smith’s (2017) Preschool Learning
Cycle (see the Preschool Inquiry Cycle section of Fig.1),
which is an adapted, three-part version of the 5E model
(Bybee, 2015). Described as an ongoing process, the cycle
begins with play, moves to exploration, and incorporates
discussion. During the ‘play’ phase, children engage with
familiar and new materials, ask questions, and wonder
about the materials they engage with and the phenomena
they observe. For example, while playing in the block area,
students may start to build towers. They may also enjoy
knocking down the tower once they build it or knocking
each other’s towers down. In another part of the classroom,
children may be creating paper airplanes of their own design,
seeing how far they can get them to fly or seeing whose
plane can fly the fastest.
In this manner, play becomes the starting point for
inquiry as teachers observe children’s interests and begin
to ask questions to draw out their ideas. This transitions
into the ‘explore’ phase which fosters more explicit and
intentional learning. In this phase, teachers continue asking
questions to expand ideas children initially expressed dur-
ing play. By asking questions that guide children to plan,
predict, observe, and record data, teachers can build on their
incidental learning with intentional instruction (Trundle &
Smith, 2017).With children building towers out of blocks
and knocking them down, for example, teachers may ask
children questions such as “What might happen if you make
the tower even taller?” or “Why do you think some of the
towers fall down more easily?” Additionally, teachers may
listen carefully to children’s words and encourage them to
expand on their ideas, such as “I heard you say that one fell
down the fastest. Why do you think that is?”. With the paper
airplanes, teachers might ask children to consider the simi-
larities and differences of various plane designs. They might
encourage children to draw the flight path of each plane and
to measure and record how far each one travels.
Children and teachers can then take a step back to look at
what they did during the ‘explore’ phase, construct reason-
able explanations from their data, and discuss their findings
together (Trundle & Smith, 2017). This discussion begins
to move children’s ideas toward more scientific understand-
ings of the concepts they explored during this inquiry cycle.
Teachers can encourage children to develop their reasoning
skills by drawing attention to the data they collected during
the ‘explore’ phase and help them construct explanations.
For example, children may share that the block towers with
bigger blocks on the bottom were stronger and did not fall
down as easily. Children who had recorded data on paper air-
planes by drawing flight paths and recording distance flown
may discover that certain plane designs flew the straightest
and the farthest. After these discussions, children return to
play and engage with materials in new ways and ask new
questions. Teachers can follow these new interests to pro-
mote scientific inquiry following the cycle as highlighted
above. Importantly, during the Preschool Learning Cycle,
several of the NGSS Practices can be implemented and
practiced, such as Asking Questions and Defining Problems,
Planning and Carrying Out Investigations, and Engaging in
Argument from Evidence, to name a few.
The NGSS Practices and the Preschool Learning Cycle
focus on student skills and behaviors—what children do
during the process—but adults play an essential role in pre-
paring the environment, focusing children’s observations,
and providing time and space for young children to engage
in science exploration (NSTA, 2014). Children’s learning
is enhanced when teachers use an integrated approach to
inquiry-based science. An integrated approach here means
an instructional approach integrating the teaching of science
with other disciplines through the infusion of the practices
of scientific inquiry, technological and engineering design,
and mathematical analysis. The National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC) crafted guidelines
for ‘developmentally appropriate practice’ (DAP) in early
childhood programs that support integration across learning
domains. The DAP guidelines emphasize that curriculum
content from various disciplines such as math and science
should be integrated into a diversity of activities, including
projects and play, so that children can develop conceptual
understanding and draw connections across disciplines to
enhance and deepen learning (Copple etal., 2013). Young

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
children’s questions and interests in their surroundings and
the natural world span a range of topics, and teachers can
capitalize on these interests to integrate science with other
content areas to present a realistic and practical approach to
science rather than an isolated approach targeting specific
science concepts.
In order to promote a culture of inquiry in the classroom
that goes beyond predetermined science lessons or instruc-
tional interventions, integrating content areas when imple-
menting these strategies is key. MacDonald etal. (2020)
explain how students’ inquiry has potential for integrating
disciplines, for example, when cooking or baking, discussing
the concept of weight (heavy vs. light) and quantity (full vs.
empty) which incorporate mathematics as well as English
Language Arts (ELA) in providing students the vocabulary
to articulate their observations. The authors provide another
example where students’ inquiry into insect habitats saw
them dive into mathematical concepts and questions along
the way—how many legs, length of insects, exploring meta-
morphosis with caterpillars, insects that camouflage, and
nocturnal insects, as well as explore the meanings of such
language.In the example with paper airplanes, teachers may
bring in books with a variety of paper airplane designs or
books with images of real planes to enhance children’s ideas.
They may bring in measuring tapes or encourage children to
measure the distance planes flew by counting steps or lying
on the floor and seeing how many children’s body lengths
the plane travelled. They may discuss size, weight, distance
and trajectories—integrating mathematical language.
Importantly, teachers “play a central and important role in
helping young children learn science” (NSTA, 2014), essen-
tially using thoughtful observation and intentional strate-
gies to ignite a spark of curiosity and turn it into a flame of
inquiry and discovery. While the Preschool Learning Cycle
(Trundle & Smith, 2017) outlines scientific inquiry in pre-
school and how students participate in an ongoing process of
inquiry beginning with play, the question remains as to what
teachers can do to intentionally support and deepen inquiry-
based learning in their classroom. How can teachers kick-
start engagement in inquiry and intentionally support explo-
ration and discussion that supports scientific understanding
and sparks new questions and inquiry? The remainder of this
paper will discuss strategies, rooted in the literature, that
teachers can implement to prompt, encourage, and enrich
children’s engagement in a cycle of inquiry.
Methods forLiterature Review
A thorough literature review was conducted to identify key
features of scientific inquiry in preschool environments.
An initial search was conducted using ERIC via EBSCO
and Academic Search Premier using a combination of the
following search terms: early childhood science, inquiry,
science, preschool, and STEM in early childhood. A total
of 221 records were identified in this initial search.Each
record was assessed using the following inclusion criteria:
(a) Empirical study - The article needed to include
research carried out in preschool classrooms so as to
focus on scientific inquiry in preschool and identifying
key features of scientific inquiry that can aid preschool
teachers in supporting and promoting inquiry in their
classrooms.
(b) Participants were preschool students—The article
needed to describe inquiry in the preschool classroom
and studied how students responded to it, as the pre-
school setting is unique from K-12 classrooms that
have specific science standards to attend to.
Consequently, records were not considered if they were:
(a) book chapters, commentaries, letters to the editor, white
papers, or reports; or (b) focused on teacher perceptions, pre-
service and in-service teacher education, and/or parent–child
interactions when engaging in inquiry; or (c) focused on
research in Kindergarten (or older) or infant/toddler set-
tings.Of the 221 initial records, 184 were excluded based
on the title. For example, if the title included the word ‘Kin-
dergarten’, ‘teachers’ beliefs’, ‘pre-service teacher’, ‘after-
school environment’ or ‘parental guidance’, it was not con-
sidered. The abstracts of the remaining 40 articles were
screened for inclusion in the review, of which 15 articles
fulfilled the screening criteria and were used in the current
review.
Analysis of the 15 articles focused on the identification
of aspects related to a culture of inquiry-based science in the
preschool classroom. Aspects of this culture were broken
down into three categories: science knowledge and prac-
tices; engagement in activity; and features of the learning
environment. While reviewing the articles, themes related
specifically to what teachers did or how they engaged stu-
dents in inquiry were pulled out and grouped under one of
the three categories. For example, open-ended materials and
small groups were included under ‘features of the learn-
ing environment’; following students’ interests and asking
open-ended questions were included under ‘engagement in
activity’; and scientific language and an integrated approach
to scientific inquiry were included under ‘science knowl-
edge and practices’. After this initial analysis, the authors
distinguished between these themes in terms of: (a) what the
teacher should do/teacher strategies, and (b) the classroom/
physical environment itself. Ultimately, it was determined
that each of these themes related to supporting preschool
inquiry arise as a result of conscious decisions on the part
of the teacher as opposed to physical aspects of the envi-
ronment itself. For instance, open-ended materials could
be regarded as a ‘feature of the environment’. However,

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
open-ended materials in and of themselves do not support
preschool inquiry. It is only through the teacher’s conscious
decision to follow children’s interests and then provide open-
ended materials to take those interests forward that the mate-
rials are of meaning/value to supporting preschool inquiry.
Therefore, all themes were considered teacher strategies to
support and sustain a culture of inquiry in the preschool
classroom. Once this was decided, the authors considered
the importance of following children’s interests, especially
as the first step in this process, recognizing that it is only
once the teacher observes children’s interests or questions
that they can plan for the open-ended materials to provide,
the types of questions to ask, and so on. For that reason,
students’ curiosity, wonderings, and interests and a teacher’s
ability to follow them were highlighted as the ‘heart’ of the
framework and the essential first step to what follows.
Our analysis led to a framework of inquiry-based sci-
ence in preschool (Fig.1). This framework is independent
of interventions or curricula and does not center on specific
science concepts taught over a short period of time (e.g.,
butterflies, weather, motion). Rather, this framework focuses
on supporting scientific inquiry throughout daily classroom
practice; including planned and routine, as well as child-
initiated activities. With students’ curiosity, wonderings, and
interests as an essential starting point, the framework out-
lines five teacher strategies that support scientific inquiry: (a)
following children’s interests, (b) having open-ended materi-
als available for students to manipulate in a variety of ways,
(c) providing time and space to work in small groups, (d)
asking open-ended questions to move exploration forward,
and (e) using scientific language to name and notice.The
following sections will describe the framework, detail teach-
ing strategies to support inquiry in preschool, and provide
examples of implementation in context.
Note that although these framework components were
seen repeatedly across review articles, we have chosen not
to quantify these findings in terms of how many articles
(e.g., 4 of 15 articles) described a particular component.
Underscoring how elusive descriptions of inquiry at the pre-
school level can be, there were not always sufficient details
for the authors to decide if (a) a particular component was
‘assumed’ (e.g., It is assumed open-ended materials are
present and available during preschool) or (b) a particular
component was missing or deliberately not enacted (e.g.,
Open-ended materials were not given, and students were
given particular materials for a particular purpose.). There-
fore, we felt that providing a numerical count of the compo-
nents could be misleading.
Framework forScientic Inquiry
The following sections will focus on teacher scaffolding to
enrich the Preschool Learning Cycle and support scientific
inquiry once children’s curiosity and interests are sparked.
To put the framework in context, we will discuss each fea-
ture as it was implemented in a classroom exploration of
wrecking balls that grew from children’s interests in building
and knocking down block towers. As readers consider this
example, they should reflect on the ways in which a variety
of disciplines are integrated into the learning process. See
Fig.2 for the contextualization of using children’s interests
to spur inquiry.
Following Children’s Interests
At the heart of this framework for supporting inquiry in
preschool science lies children’s curiosity, wonderings,
and interests. Children’s interests can be sparked in numer-
ous ways and recognizing those interests requires keen
observation on the part of early educators throughout the
day. Interest may come from a teacher-directed activity
Fig. 1 Framework for scientific
inquiry in preschool

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
like reading a story on the rug, from children’s observa-
tions and exploration during play, from sharing about life
outside of school, or even in the form of a challenge pre-
sented by the teacher.
Young children can be presented with a challenge or
problem relevant to their lives. They can be encouraged
and supported to imagine, plan, create, and improve their
solutions to these challenges or problems. Examples range
from fairly simple questions or problems like those dis-
cussed earlier with exploring the sturdiest design for block
towers or recording and analyzing the flight patterns of
paper airplanes, to more complex challenges like designing
playground renovations (Blank & Lynch, 2018), construct-
ing homes for birds (Tippett & Milford, 2017), or design-
ing and understanding an open and closed circuit using
a variety of tools (Torres-Crespo etal., 2014). Addition-
ally, examples can include questions or problems focused
on other areas of science, such as exploring how seeds
travel, what certain animals eat, or what is needed for a
habitat. All of these examples are in line with research
that increasingly acknowledges that instead of assuming
a receptive role, preschool students can and should adopt
an active role by engaging in research projects, asking
questions, collecting data, and presenting and reporting
it while having a skilled teacher guiding the experience
(Torres-Crespo etal., 2014).
A common theme across these examples is building on
children’s curiosity, wonderings, and interests. Often that
takes the form of children or teachers identifying a problem
or question that needs a solution. Perhaps students identi-
fied something in the playground that needs fixing or have a
question about how a tool works. Perhaps during a lesson on
habitats, students want to know more about birds and where
they live. No matter the starting point for students’ interest
in a topic, acute focus by the teacher, intentional introduc-
tion of novel materials, and thoughtful posing of a problem
or question can build on students’ interests and push them
toward inquiry on a topic that is engaging and meaningful
to them.
Open‑Ended Materials
Open-ended materials are natural or synthetic, found,
bought, or upcycled materials that students can move,
manipulate, control and change within their play (Daly &
Beloglovsky, 2014). They are materials that can be used in
multiple ways to create something or to interact with (e.g.,
loose parts such as popsicle sticks, paper clips, binder rings,
string, and cardboard). All articles in the review described
some collection of open-ended materials for students to
manipulate. For example, Raven etal. (2018) describe pre-
school students’ investigation of floating and sinking using
open-ended materials. At one station, children were given
Fig. 2 Wrecking-ball scenario: building on children’s interests

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
a variety of open-ended materials (e.g., balls made of dif-
ferent materials, rocks, fruits, Styrofoam) and investigated
if the object would float or sink. At another station, students
used a variety of recyclable objects (e.g., toilet paper rolls,
empty bottles, aluminum cans) to create a sailboat. At the
third station, students were observed making boats using
aluminum foil and testing their designs by seeing how many
pennies their boats could hold before sinking. After testing
their designs, students were encouraged to redesign their
boats to increase their carrying capacity. Such a study high-
lights the opportunities to engage in scientific inquiry and,
investigate how structure impacts function. The real-world
application along with provision of open-ended materials
allowed students to manipulate the materials as they saw fit
and test their designs.
Finally, MacDonald etal. (2020) described a real-life
problem that preschool students faced in their outdoor area:
how to get their bikes over a creek. To solve this prob-
lem, students came back to their classroom, brainstormed
possible ideas for constructing a model of a bridge and
experimented with different open-ended materials in the
classroom. Open-ended materials allowed students to bring
their solutions to life. There was “a lot of trial and error” as
the teacher reported and they were “still working through a
workable plan for a bridge”. However, this example illus-
trates the value of providing open-ended materials to stu-
dents to flesh out their ideas and support their inquiry. See
Fig.3 for more insight into how open-ended materials can
support preschool science inquiry.
Small‑Group Time
Collaboration goes hand-in-hand with scientific inquiry,
especially when involving a problem-based approach (Dur-
kin, 2018), as seen in inquiry work during small group time.
This gives the students time and space to engage in a deeper,
more meaningful investigation that started based on their
initial interests/questions. Here, small group time is defined
as any group work that has fewer members than the whole
class. For example, Bradley etal. (2019) introduced the
Fig. 3 Wrecking-ball scenario: using open-ended materials

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
Engineering Design Process to preschool students through
a problem scenario based on a popular children’s story-
book The Three Little Pigs during whole group time. The
teacher began asking questions about what the pigs in the
story needed (i.e., a big strong house) and summarized the
problem based on their responses (i.e., the house built out
of weak materials such as straw and sticks fell down too eas-
ily, and the pigs needed a stronger house). This kick-started
students’ investigation in small groups as to how to build
a strong house for the pigs in the story. Students in small
groups were observed gathering around boxes with a variety
of open-ended materials and exploring samples to consider
what made some materials better for constructing a house
than others.
McCormick and Twitchell (2017) described preschool
students’ construction of skyscrapers to support students’
inquiry into building, foundation, and balance while foster-
ing their interests. To create an environment where students
communicated with each other about what they were doing,
the teachers paired students together to work collaboratively.
Each team selected materials, designed, and constructed
their skyscrapers at a station. The researchers explain how
constructing, deconstructing, and then reconstructing the
skyscrapers with partners ensured that students’ ideas about
the spatial relationship between the materials were heard and
further investigated. Students were also observed comparing
the size of boxes and discussing measurable attributes of the
boxes used to construct their skyscrapers.
Similarly, Miller (2016) described a lesson on sounds in
the classroom wherein students used different materials to
create noise and investigate different sounds that are made
from different materials. It was noted that the use of learn-
ing centers allowed small groups to deepen understanding,
practice problem-solving, communication, and collaboration
through hands-on exploration and activities. Students were
able to be more intentional in investigating the different
sounds and how to create louder or softer sounds when col-
laborating in small groups as opposed to a whole-group
exploration where the number of students and materials may
be prevented collaboration and intentional exploration of
the materials. Figure4 provides more detail as to how small
group time can support preschool science inquiry.
Asking Open‑Ended Questions
The reviewed articles demonstrated the importance of open-
ended questions when discussing science and inquiry. Rojas-
Drummond and Zapata (2004) indicate that teachers who
use open-ended questions achieve higher levels of student
involvement, which in turn promotes learning. Thompson
etal. (2012, as cited in Cremin etal., 2015) also note that
by asking open-ended questions teachers promote specula-
tion by modeling their own curiosity, potentially generating
new questions on the part of the students, and ‘develop-
ing intrigue’ (Poddiakov, 2011), a core capacity of young
scientists.
Trundle and Smith (2017) describe the value in ask-
ing students questions as they engage in inquiry as a way
to expand ideas expressed during play. They provide the
example of students’ play with blocks and Oobleck and
trying to use Oobleck as cement for building with blocks.
Use of questions such as, “How are you going to use the
Oobleck?” and “What are some other ways you can use
Oobleck?” allows students to think critically about the
materials they are using, what they are doing with it and
why they are using it. The focus here is not on arriving
at the correct answer; rather, it encourages students to
think deeper and creatively about solutions to the problem
Fig. 4 Wrecking-ball scenario: small group time

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
they are investigating. Where before, students may have
been incidentally learning during play, through the use of
open-ended questions, this incidental learning is trans-
formed into intentional learning through inquiry.
Martin etal. (2005) explain how open-ended questions
can engage students in thinking deeper and more criti-
cally about the activities they are involved in, the science
concept behind it, and plan next steps. For example, when
a teacher asks a student an open-ended, “What would hap-
pen if…?” question, they are asking the student to pre-
dict or describe what would happen if they were to do
something based on observation, experience, or scientific
reason. Prediction is essential in doing science and asking
open-ended questions during science activities is critical
to the process of inquiry. Similarly, open-ended questions
such as, “What did you notice?” after observing an event
can invite students to make inferences based on observa-
ble evidence. Inferential reasoning is also another process
critical to science and scientific understanding (Martin
etal., 2005). In the process of inferring, students have to
communicate their reasons for their inferences to teachers
and peers, which builds their capacity for critical-thinking
skills as well as communication.Figure5 describes how
open-ended questions were used in the wrecking ball
activity to support student learning.
Scientic Language
In the literature, specific mention is made to the kind of lan-
guage teachers use when participating alongside students in
inquiry projects, specifically how teachers model vocabulary
that either describes a scientific term or represents a scien-
tific concept to students during an inquiry investigation. For
instance, MacDonald etal. (2020) give the example of stu-
dents’ exploration of the concepts of floating and sinking at a
station. Teachers introduced language such as balance, com-
pare, and weight while investigating the different weights of
objects that float or sink using a balance scale with students.
The researchers described how a major focus of the teach-
ers’ role was on providing children with the language to talk
about science, introducing and modeling the use of words
such as experiment, hypothesize, predict, record results, and
evaluate while performing these actions with students, and
then encouraging students to use these terms in their con-
versations. For the purpose of this article, this is referred to
as ‘scientific language’; that is, language that describes what
students are doing using scientific terms and intentional use
of science vocabulary when communicating about inquiry
projects. In this review five articles focused on scientific
language.
Raven etal. (2018) describe an activity focused on cat-
apults to help preschool students investigate the relation-
ship between structure and function—the way an object is
shaped or structured determines many of its properties and
functions. Students were observed breaking into groups
and rotating through stations in order to create their own
Fig. 5 Wrecking-ball scenario: asking open-ended questions

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
catapults. At each station, students asked questions, used
models, designed solutions and tested them out. At one
of the stations, teachers set up a large plank of wood and
smaller wooden blocks for students to make a large cata-
pult to launch projectiles. Students were invited to launch
different-sized objects and observe how the size of an object
impacted how far it traveled. While engaging students in this
investigation, teachers introduced and modeled the use of
words such as catapult, trebuchet, and projectile and once
again encouraged students to use these words in their con-
versations about their activities.
Conezio and French (2002) highlight an example of
preschool students’ inquiry into the concept of light and
shadows. Students collected a variety of materials to see
which ones would create a shadow, and which ones the light
would pass through. After several observations and days of
experimentation, students realized that while opaque materi-
als create shadows and transparent materials allow light to
pass through easily, there are some materials that do not fit
either category (translucent) and cause very light shadows.
The authors note the teachers’ use of terminology such as
transparent, opaque, and translucent to describe students’
observations and provide them with the vocabulary to articu-
late their findings, especially in the context of their inquiry.
Students need multiple opportunities to begin engaging
in Practices such as Planning and Carrying out Investiga-
tions, but equally important, they need multiple exposures to
the language of science Practices and their scientific ideas.
This is where teachers’ modeling of scientific language and
encouragement to use the ‘new’ language when the oppor-
tunity presents itself is valuable. This is consistent with the
actions taken during the Explain phase of the 5E Learning
Cycle in that it is suggested that both during and after stu-
dents share observations and conceptual understandings of
their explorations, the teacher “introduce a formal label or
definition for a concept, practice, skill, or behavior” (Bybee,
2015, p. 72). Figure6 demonstrates how teachers can use
scientific language to enhance the learning inherent in the
wrecking ball activity.
Summary andRecommendations
forPractice
Inquiry-based science in preschool is a cyclical process
where students’ inquiry into one topic can lead to questions
or curiosity about parallel topics. Rather than a traditional
approach to instruction wherein students are expected to
take up information presented directly by teachers, within an
inquiry approach, students make sense of the world around
them by co-constructing their worldview based on their sci-
entific interests and curiosity. Such a process begins with
play as teachers observe students’ interests and ask ques-
tions to draw out their ideas and then transition to explora-
tion and discussion as seen in the Preschool Learning Cycle
(Trundle & Smith, 2017). Teachers transition from being
Fig. 6 Wrecking-ball scenario: scientific language

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
transmitters of knowledge to facilitators in the educational
process as students take on an active role in this learner-
centered approach.
It is worth noting that the literature reviewed here pre-
dominantly focuses on science activities and investigations
related to physical science and engineering. Whether design-
ing a catapult to investigate the relationship between struc-
ture and function (Raven etal., 2018), constructing bridges
(MacDonald etal., 2020), or investigating the physics of
sound (Miller, 2016), students’ inquiry in the articles that
met our selection criteria revolved around concepts in physi-
cal science and engineering design. If we claim that scien-
tific inquiry at the preschool level can serve as a foundation
for NGSS-aligned learning in K-12, then we would hope
that preschool science would touch on life and earth/space
science as well as physical science and engineering. We
hypothesize that the Framework for Scientific Inquiry in
Preschool (Fig.1) applies to life and earth/space science
topics as well (Table1), but further observation of how
teachers can support inquiry within these topics is worth
investigating.
Another topic worth further investigation is the
influence of and overlap between preschool teach-
ing approaches. Areljung (2019) notes that a common
approach to science in early childhood education is to
frame it as a “playful investigation” (p. 239), with the
Table 1 Additional preschool scientific inquiry ideas and examples
Children’s interest/topic Suggested open-ended materi-
als
Small group suggestions Open-ended questions Scientific language
Floating a boat Toilet paper rolls
Empty bottles
Craft sticks
Foil
Paper
Small plastic toys or animals
Place students in pairs or small
groups to share ideas and
build
What happened when you
tested your boat?
Why do you think that hap-
pened?
What could you try next time
to improve your boat?
How could you hold more
(animals, coins, etc.) on your
boat?
Float
Sink
Heavy
Light
Design
Build
Paper airplanes Various types of paper
Paperclips
Tape
Place students in pairs to com-
pare their designs and trials
How could we measure how
far your plane flies?
How is your design similar to/
different than your partner’s
design?
How does the shape of the
wings, type of paper, or
placement of weights affect
how the plane flies?
Weight
Design
Trial
Similarity
Difference
Flight
Measure
Block tower Various types/ shapes of blocks Place students in 2–3 small
groups to provide more
blocks and builders per
group. Suggest students take
turns sharing building ideas
How could you build the tallest
tower?
What types of blocks at the
bottom keep the tower
stable?
How might you change your
tower to hold (animals, figu-
rines, etc.) at the top?
How could we measure the
height of your tower?
Height
Stable
Unstable
Measure
Plants Various types of soil, sand,
rocks
Various types of seeds
Different locations around the
room
Various containers
Place students in pairs to take
care of plants and observe
growth
What do you think might
happen when you place your
plant in this location?
How might the type of dirt
affect how the plant grows?
How could we track how our
plants change each day?
Plant
Grow
Sunlight
Water
Soil
Measure
Weather Cups
Sticks or rulers
Paper or cardboard
Sidewalk chalk
Place students in ‘weather
teams’ to think about how to
track and observe the weather
How could we track the
weather?
How could we tell others about
the weather?
How does the weather impact
your life?
Weather
Sunlight
Clouds
Rain
Temperature

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
Table 2 Teacher strategies to support scientific inquiry
Questions to Ask Yourself Ideas to Try Within the Preschool Learning Cycle (Trundle &
Smith, 2017)
Open-ended materials Do the children have a variety of materials to
manipulate to solve the problem?
Are the materials ‘leading’ children to a certain pro-
cess, or are they open to possibilities?
Are children supported in manipulating the materi-
als in a variety of ways or do you need to support/
teach particular skills (e.g., cutting, hot-glue,
stamping, etc.)?
Go on a nature walk around your classroom and col-
lect items (e.g., leaves, pinecones, acorns, rocks,
etc.)
Ask families to consider keeping little things they
may otherwise throw away or recycle (e.g., puzzle
or game pieces from a broken puzzle/game, tops
from twist-off pouch food, ribbon, rubber bands,
etc.)
Consider teaching children new skills and tech-
niques that may allow them to use materials in
new ways (e.g., stapling, gluing, breaking, tearing,
etc.)
This is key in the Play phase, as children are interact-
ing with new and familiar materials
In the Explore phase, children may need more exist-
ing materials or new materials to expand upon their
investigation. Children may also need materials that
will allow them to consider how to record data
To Discuss what they have discovered, children may
need to make a representation, a model, or dem-
onstration that requires materials. Additionally, as
children move on from the Discuss phase, they will
begin playing with materials in new ways, or may
be looking for different materials to extend their
knowledge
Small group time Do the children have opportunities to work in pairs,
in small groups, and with the whole group on this
inquiry?
Are children supported in sharing ideas with others?
Do children have adequate time to ‘dig in’ with
their groups, but not so much time that it becomes
unproductive?
Consider a variety of groupings: Child choice,
strategic grouping, grouping by idea (similar or
different), grouping by skills, etc
Consider providing mini-goals for groups to work
on that will scaffold towards the larger goal
Depending on the inquiry and the goals of the
groups, you may want to have different groups
working on different things or different groups
working on the same goals/ideas
Children may pair/group up naturally during Play, but
you may consider intentionally grouping children
according to their ideas, preferences, modes of play,
or personal goals
During the Explore phase, you may have groups
investigating different aspects of an idea (either
child-led or teacher-directed) You may also
consider having children work in small groups to
record their data (a group that prefers drawing, a
group that prefers writing stories, etc.)
Depending on how the Explore phase was structured,
the Discuss phase could allow children from dif-
ferent groups to come together to share their ideas/
findings. Small group time may also allow deeper
discussions about the investigation than a whole-
group circle time

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
Questions to Ask Yourself Ideas to Try Within the Preschool Learning Cycle (Trundle &
Smith, 2017)
Asking open-ended questions Are you ‘giving away’ the ‘correct’ answer to the
questions, or are you providing encouraging, yet
neutral prompts?
Are you asking questions that will allow children to
make their thinking visible?
Questions/prompts such as the following are useful
for allowing children to make their thinking vis-
ible:
What might happen if…?
Why do you think that is?
Why do you think that did (not) work?
Tell me more about that
Can you give me an example of what you’re saying?
I heard you say ____. What do you mean by that?
How might ____ change your thinking?
In the Play phase, teachers may simply ask children
what they are doing, what they wonder, what they
notice. These are the questions/answers that will
lead to deeper investigation
The Exploration phase is driven by open-ended ques-
tions that move children to dig deeper into what
they are seeing and what they might be able to do
next. Open-ended questions may also nudge chil-
dren to consider how they can document what they
are seeing so they may share their ideas with others
In the Discuss phase, open-ended questions prompt
children to share what they noticed with others and
engage in sense-making of investigations and phe-
nomena. These questions may also push children to
consider what they would like to do next
Scientific language Are you capitalizing on the big ideas and concepts
children are noticing by naming them with scien-
tific language or are you throwing out vocabulary
before children have an experience with the
concept?
Are you encouraging children to use newly learned
scientific language when they share their think-
ing?
Are teachers (correctly) using newly learned scien-
tific language to reinforce ideas?
When conducting an inquiry project, teachers may
want to think about what scientific concepts may
come into play and be ready with the vocabulary
they would want to introduce if the opportunity
arises
Consider sharing literature such as Ada Twist,
Scientist or What Do You Do With an Idea?
These books get at what it means to be a scientist
and will allow for conversation using scientific
language (e.g., “WE are all scientists because we
observe what is around us!”)
Children love to impress adults with big words that
they have heard, but may not know what these
mean. When these words are introduced, press by
asking, “I heard you say ____. What do you mean
by that?” If the learner is unsure of what it means,
use this as a learning opportunity!
During both the Play and Exploration phases, teach-
ers can use scientific language to name and notice
what children are interacting with and doing.
However, this should come naturally rather than
artificially teaching vocabulary
In the Discuss phase, teachers may want to use
scientific language to name larger processes or
phenomena that children are thinking through.
This may also be an ideal phase to summarize the
scientific practices that children engaged in, such as
observing, using evidence to support arguments, or
solving problems

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
vision of the preschool student as a natural explorer align-
ing well with the Reggio Emilia approach. Key features of
the Reggio Emilia approach include: (a) the view of the
child as a competent, curious, and capable learner; (b) an
integrated, emergent curriculum and project work; (c) the
teacher–child relationship; (d) the documentation of chil-
dren’s thinking and work. These concepts are compatible
with early childhood science (Stegelin, 2003), however,
are there science practices and ideas missing within such
an approach that make it not truly “science”? Crucially, for
teachers who are already implementing other approaches
in their classrooms, the scope for thoughtful planning and
inclusion of Science and Engineering Practices within the
approach while honoring the questions, ideas, and capa-
bilities of the students should be further considered.
Although inquiry can happen in any area of the class-
room, the difference between students’ incidental learning
during play and intentional scientific inquiry lies in the
approach teachers take in encouraging students to think
critically and participate in hands-on exploration. The
Framework outlined in this paper describes what teach-
ers can do to intentionally promote a culture of inquiry
in the classroom. Beginning with children’s interests
and questions is essential to encourage inquiry that goes
beyond a single science concept, activity, or intervention.
Table2 provides a checklist of questions to keep in mind
and examples of what each strategy can look like when
implemented in the classroom.
While the Framework presented here is not intended
to be exhaustive, the research-based components outlined
are key to inquiry-based science in preschool. As seen
in the literature, most, and sometimes all, the strategies
blend together when students embark on the inquiry pro-
cess. Therefore, it is important to note that inquiry can-
not simply be implemented piece by piece, but rather as a
whole, while being mindful to incorporate these essential
features. In this manner, teachers can transform curiosity
and play into rigorous learning in which students guide the
process based on their experiences, worldview, scientific
interests and curiosity. In turn, this can support the crea-
tion of a culture of inquiry that is a part of everything we
do and the way we think in preschool environments.
Funding Not applicable.
Declarations
Conflict of interest None.
Availability of Data and Material Not applicable.
Code Availability Not applicable.
References
Andersson, K., & Gullberg, A. (2012). What is science in preschool
and what do teachers have to know to empower children? Cul-
tural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 275–296. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s11422- 012- 9439-6
Areljung, S. (2019). Why do teachers adopt or resist a pedagogical
idea for teaching science in preschool? International Journal
of Early Years Education, 27(3), 238–253. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 09669 760. 2018. 14817 33
Blank, J., & Lynch, S. (2018). The design process: engineering prac-
tices in preschool. YC Young Children, 73(4), 89–93. https://
www. jstor. org/ stable/ 26783 668
Bradley, B., Thomas, K., & Bradley, A. (2019). A home for three
little pigs. Science and Children, 57(3), 40–49. https:// www.
jstor. org/ stable/ 26901 541
Bybee, R. W. (2015). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Creating
Teachable Moments. NSTA Press.
Bulunuz, M. (2013). Teaching science through play in kindergarten:
Does integrated play and science instruction build understand-
ing? European Early Childhood Education Research Jour-
nal, 21(2), 226–249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13502 93X. 2013.
789195
Conezio, K., & French, L. (2002). Science in the preschool class-
room: Capitalizing on children’s fascination with the everyday
world to foster language and literacy development. Young Chil-
dren, 57(5), 12–25. https:// eclkc. ohs. acf. hhs. gov/ sites/ defau lt/
files/ pdf/ scien ceint hepre schoo lclas sroom. pdf
Copple, C., Bredekamp, S., Koralek, D., & Charner, K. (2013).
Developmentally Appropriate Practice: Focus on Preschools.
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Cremin, T., Glauert, E., Craft, A., Compton, A., & Stylianidou, F.
(2015). Creative little scientists: Exploring pedagogical syner-
gies between inquiry-based and creative approaches in Early
Years science. Education 3-13, 43(4), 404–419. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 03004 279. 2015. 10206 55
Daly, L., & Beloglovsky, M. (2014). Loose Parts: Inspiring Play in
Young Children (Vol. 1). Redleaf Press.
Davis, M. E., Cunningham, C. M., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2017).
They can't spell "engineering” but they can do it: Designing
an engineering curriculum for the preschool classroom. Zero
to Three,37(5), 4–11. https:// www. zerot othree. org/ resou rces/
1835- vol- 37- no-5- build ing- stem- scien ce- techn ology- engin
eering- math- skills- from- birth
Durkin, A. (2018). Can Providing Young Children with Opportuni-
ties to Participate in STEM Activities Encourage Cooperative
Learning? (Publication No. 13424228) [Master's thesis, Hofstra
University] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Fleer, M. (2011). ‘Conceptual play’: Foregrounding imagination
and cognition during concept formation in early years educa-
tion. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(3), 224–240.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 2304/ ciec. 2011. 12.3. 224
Fleer, M., Gomes, J., & March, S. (2014). Science learning affor-
dances in preschool environments. Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, 39(1), 38–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 18369
39114 03900 106
Gelman, R., Brenneman, K., Macdonald, G., & Román, M. (2009).
Preschool Pathways to Science (PrePS [TM]): Facilitating Sci-
entific Ways of Thinking, Talking, Doing, and Understanding.
Brookes Publishing Company.
Greenfield, D. B., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenberg, A., Maier,
M., & Fuccillo, J. (2009). Science in the preschool classroom:
A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness.
Early Education and Development, 20, 238–264. https:// doi. or g/
10. 1080/ 10409 28080 25954 41

Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2002). A study of the development of the concept
of mechanical stability in preschool children. Research in Sci-
ence Education, 32(3), 373–391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10208
01426 075
Hobson, S. M., Trundle, K. C., & Saçkes, M. (2010). Using a planetar-
ium software program to promote conceptual change with young
children. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(2),
165–176. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10956- 009- 9189-8
Hong, S. Y., & Diamond, K. E. (2012). Two approaches to teaching
young children science concepts, vocabulary, and scientifc prob-
lem-solving skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2),
295–305. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecresq. 2011. 09. 006
Johnson, L., McHugh, S., Eagle, J. L., & Spires, H. A. (2019). Project-
based inquiry (PBI) global in kindergarten classroom: Inquiring
about the world. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(5),
607–613. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10643- 019- 00946-4
Kallery, M. (2011). Astronomical concepts and events awareness for
young children. International Journal of Science Education,
33(2), 341–369. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09500 69090 34690 82
McCormick, K., & Twitchell, G. (2017). A preschool investigation:
The skyscraper project. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(6),
340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5951/ teacc hilma th. 23.6. 0340
MacDonald, A., Huser, C., Sikder, S., & Danaia, L. (2020). Effec-
tive early childhood STEM education: Findings from the little
scientists evaluation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(3),
353–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10643- 019- 01004-9
Martin, D. J., Jean-Sigur, R., & Schmidt, E. (2005). Process-oriented
inquiry—A constructivist approach to early childhood science
education: Teaching teachers to do science. Journal of Elemen-
tary Science Education, 17(2), 13–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
bf031 74678
Miller, J. (2016). The Physics of Sound: Using a learning center to
promote STEM development in early childhood. Science and
Children, 54(4), 34.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning
and teaching science in grades K–8. National Academies Press.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 17226/ 11625
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science edu-
cation. National Academies Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17226/ 13165
National Science Teaching Association (2014). Early childhood science
education: Position statement. Retrieved from http:// www. nsta.
org/ about/ posit ions/ early child hood. aspx
Nayfeld, I., Brenneman, K., & Gelman, R. (2011). Science in the class-
room: Finding a balance between autonomous exploration and
teacher-led instruction in preschool settings. Early Education and
Development, 22(6), 970–988. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10409 289.
2010. 507496
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For
States, By States. The National Academies Press. https:// doi. org/
10. 17226/ 18290
Opfer, J. E., & Siegler, R. S. (2004). Revisiting preschoolers’ living
things concept: A microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in
basic biology. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 301–332. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. cogps ych. 2004. 01. 002
Pendergast, E., Lieberman-Betz, R. G., & Vail, C. O. (2017). Attitudes
and beliefs of prekindergarten teachers toward teaching science
to young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(1),
43–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10643- 015- 0761-y
Poddiakov, N. (2011). Searching, experimenting and the heuristic struc-
ture of a preschool child’s experience. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 19(1), 55–63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
09669 760. 2011. 571000
Raven, S., Al Husseini, D., & Cevik, E. (2018). We are engineers!
Engineering design activities for preschoolers introduce practices
and encourage scientific habits of mind. Science and Children,
56(1), 55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2505/4/ sc18_ 056_ 01_ 55
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Harvard
University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ CBO97 80511 610400.
011
Rojas-Drummond, S., & Zapata, M. P. (2004). Exploratory talk, argu-
mentation and reasoning in Mexican primary school children.
Language and Education, 18(6), 539–557. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 09500 78040 86669 00
Saçkes, M. (2015). Kindergartners’ mental models of the day and night
cycle: Implications for instructional practices in early childhood
classrooms. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(4),
997–1006. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12738/ estp. 2015.4. 2741
Saçkes, M., Trundle, K. C., & Shaheen, M. (2019). The effect of Bal-
anced Learning® curriculum on young children’s learning of
science. Early Childhood Education Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s10643- 019- 00985-x
Stegelin, D. A. (2003). Application of the Reggio Emilia approach to
early childhood science curriculum. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 30(3), 163–169. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10220 13905
793
Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., Patrick, H., & French, B.
(2009). The development and validation of the science learning
assessment (SLA): A measure of kindergarten science learning.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(3), 502–535. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 19322 02X09 02000 306
Tippett, C. D., & Milford, T. M. (2017). Findings from a pre-kinder-
garten classroom: Making the case for STEM in early childhood
education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 15, 67–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10763- 017- 9812-8
Torres-Crespo, M. N., Kraatz, E., & Pallansch, L. (2014). From fearing
STEM to playing with it: The natural integration of STEM into
the preschool classroom. Journal of the Southeastern Regional
Association of Teacher Educators, 23(2), 8–16. https:// doi. org/
10. 18178/ ijlt.1. 1. 73- 76
Trundle, K., & Saçkes, M. (2012). Science and early education. In
R. Pianta (Ed.), Handbook of Early Childhood Education (pp.
240–258). Guilford.
Trundle, K. C., & Smith, M. M. (2017). Preschool: A hearts-on, hands-
on, minds-on model for preschool science learning. Young Chil-
dren, 72(1), 80–86.
Tu, T. (2006). Preschool science environment: What is available in a
preschool classroom? Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(4),
245–251. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10643- 005- 0049-8
Yoon, J., & Onchwari, J. A. (2006). Teaching young children science:
Three key points. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 419–
423. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10643- 006- 0064-4
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.