Teaching chemistry and physics in preschool: a matter of establishing intersubjectivity

Abstract

This paper describes analysis of teaching instances that are part of an in-service preschool teachers programme about chemistry and physics in preschool. The aim is to develop knowledge about the communication established between teacher and children in relation to an object of learning, specifically the role of intersubjective communication in relation to an object of learning. A set of science activities with a specified object of learning was developed in groups of teachers and researchers. A qualitative analysis of the communication in relation to the chosen object of learning was performed. The focus of the analysis was excerpts representing differences in intersubjectivity related to the object of learning and what can be said to characterise the communication between teachers and children in these situations. The results show that intersubjectivity can occur in different ways with different consequences for children's opportunities to experience the intended object of learning. In connection to this, the importance of teachers having a mutual simultaneity in the communication with children about a specific content is highlighted. The teachers have to create links between the child's perspective and the object of learning. Intermediary objects of learning are discussed as supporting elements in the conquest of new knowledge.

The Role of Intermediary Objects of Learning in Early Years Chemistry and Physics

“…Intersubjectivity as an analytical tool refers to communication where the teacher and children seek to share perspectives, not only attention, when addressing aspects of the object of learning. The communication then appear coordinated enough to keep the (Fridberg et al 2019) excerpts showing intersubjectivity in relation to the object of learning of 8-20 turns, where the communication was interpreted to have intersubjectivity related to the object of learning, had been identified. By 'turns' we mean participants responding to each other by verbal and sometimes non-verbal expressions.…”

“…According to Rommetveit (1974), intersubjectivity during communication should be seen as an ongoing process rather than a state, where participants seek to establish enough joint understanding, temporarily sufficient to keep communication or an activity going. In an earlier report (Fridberg et al 2019), verbal communication between teachers and children in science learning situations in preschool were analysed for intersubjectivity. That study focused on excerpts representing qualitative differences in intersubjectivity during teacher-child and child-child communication, related to the object of learning.…”

“…That study focused on excerpts representing qualitative differences in intersubjectivity during teacher-child and child-child communication, related to the object of learning. Two qualitatively different ways to describe varieties of intersubjectivity were found; sufficient and illusory intersubjectivity (Rommetveit 1974;Ivarsson 2003;Fridberg et al 2019). Sufficient intersubjectivity entails a communication with mutual and simultaneous understanding between the teacher and the child/children.…”

“…For example, words such as 'it' instead of 'the water' markedly hindered the intersubjective communication of different aspects of the activities. Based on this previous study (Fridberg et al 2019), we here further analyse excerpts of communication during the teaching of various science phenomena with a focus on aspects of the object of learning.…”

“…We have previously shown the importance of the teacher finding ways to support the creation of links between the children's perspectives, the use of local (contextualized) language and a more exact (de-contextualized) language, including scientific language belonging to the object of learning, and the consensus theoretical science model. The teacher needs to pay conscientious attention to the use of language when working with children towards an object of learning, otherwise risking illusory intersubjectivity (Fridberg et al 2019).…”