View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Dinosaurs, Mushrooms, and Geometric Forms -- Conversations with Young Children about Natural Science and Mathematics

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Dinosaurs, Mushrooms, and Geometric Forms -- Conversations with Young Children about Natural Science and Mathematics
Language: English
Authors: Ingunn Skalstad (ORCID 0000-0002-8904-4100), Anne-Line Bjerknes (ORCID 0000-0002-7129-9789), Siv Svendsen
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2026 54(2):603-617.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Adult Education
Descriptors: Early Childhood Teachers, Natural Sciences, Mathematics, Early Childhood Education, Dialogs (Language), Student Role, Teacher Role, Student Participation, Multisensory Learning, Continuing Education, Foreign Countries, Discussion (Teaching Technique)
Geographic Terms: Norway
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-025-01850-w
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: In this case study, we explore how early childhood education and care (ECEC) teachers can foster children's participation in conversations about natural science and mathematics and what factors influence it. Data consisted of 29 conversations between ECEC teachers and children. The results showed that eight of the conversations were open dialogues in which the teachers and children participated equally. In 19 of the conversations, the ECEC teachers led the conversation, and the children, to various degrees, were active and engaged participants. Two conversations were led by the children. The results showed that the children participated more actively in conversations about natural science than mathematics, and that multisensory artifacts and physical activities enhanced their participation in the conversations. The study suggests that ECEC settings should provide more opportunities for multisensory experiences and physical activities, and that teachers need more guidance on how to explain concepts and phenomena, within natural science and mathematics, to children of different ages.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1507347
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH2l3rPvMgyruK8lRgyBXxuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJCHdyfuY0RSdSlkFgIBEICBmwtFJr0EU-irOGh2FpkLa2uCD4njwGJqbfbndbn5DHkll28L-Z49zVXHi1501gvcZEFmxrMQgqLgHfNzLme8pFok0ZCcZpW_riDt8weYblrdVZdyc1K1-ZWj_aa4b6-sXiPl_xmzH1ukuPJO82UqBAprZfE-aA29vdA_evNCrPYRqukGySaNm4fOyGHsRd5UdZFAwH_8sFZ7XTGQ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191573887;5mx01feb.26;2026Feb17.02:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191573887-1">Dinosaurs, Mushrooms, and Geometric Forms - Conversations with Young Children About Natural Science and Mathematics </title> <p>In this case study, we explore how early childhood education and care (ECEC) teachers can foster children's participation in conversations about natural science and mathematics and what factors influence it. Data consisted of 29 conversations between ECEC teachers and children. The results showed that eight of the conversations were open dialogues in which the teachers and children participated equally. In 19 of the conversations, the ECEC teachers led the conversation, and the children, to various degrees, were active and engaged participants. Two conversations were led by the children. The results showed that the children participated more actively in conversations about natural science than mathematics, and that multisensory artifacts and physical activities enhanced their participation in the conversations. The study suggests that ECEC settings should provide more opportunities for multisensory experiences and physical activities, and that teachers need more guidance on how to explain concepts and phenomena, within natural science and mathematics, to children of different ages.</p> <p>Keywords: Early childhood education; Natural science; Mathematics; Conversations</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-01850-w.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The aim of this study was to gain more insight into how ECEC teachers involve children in conversations that promote learning in natural science and/or ma, thematics, and to identify factors that affect children's engagement in these conversations. Understanding the society in which we live, mastering everyday life, and meeting future global challenges require knowledge in natural science and mathematics (NSM) (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>]). Young children have a natural predisposition to explore the world around them (Gopnik, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]). Exposing them to science through high-quality conversations (e.g., Siraj-Blatchford et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]), can enhance their motivation and further interest in both mathematics and natural science. Scholars also claim that exposing children to natural science can foster positive attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (Dilek et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]; Kastriti et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref5">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children's natural science interest is abundant in ECEC. However, research shows that although ECEC teachers consider both natural science and mathematics as important in ECEC, teacher professional development programs do not offer the knowledge in scientific processes needed to attain a certain level of expertise for teachers working with very young children (Kim & Fortner, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref6">10</reflink>]). Additionally, research has shown that children who initially had an intrinsic interest in science, their interest diminished when they started school due to the way science was taught (Krajcik et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]) referred to in Swarat et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>To support children's interest in and curiosity about science, ECEC teachers need to have knowledge about their conversation topics and know how to converse with young children about STEM topics (Skalstad & Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]). It is also essential for ECEC teachers to create motivation and involve the children, as this is essential for achieving learning outcomes (Siraj-Blatchford & Siva, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on this, we asked the following questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent do ECEC teachers include children as active conversational partners in NSM conversations?</item> <p></p> <item> How does context influence the level of children's engagement in NSM conversations, as measured by their verbal and non-verbal participation?</item> <p></p> <item> How does subject matter appear in the NSM conversations?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191573887-3">Theoretical Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573887-4">Enhancing Children's Learning Through Dialogues</hd> <p>Conversations play a significant role in a child's learning processes. The best opportunities for children to benefit from conversations occurs when they get to participate in conversations in which the child and the adult are equal conversational partners. This means that neither the teacher nor the child dominates the dialogue, and both parties cooperate and contribute to the conversation (Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]). These dialogues are called open dialogues (Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]) or "sustained shared thinking" (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]). In this study, we use the term "open dialogues" for these conversations. Siraj-Blachford and Sylva ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>], p. 718) defined such dialogues as "an interaction where two or more individuals 'work together' in an intellectual way to solve a problem, clarify a concept, evaluate activities, or extend a narrative." They also stated that learning will only be achieved when the child is motivated and involved, and that this applies for the teacher as well. Siraj-Blatchford and Silva ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]) found that in many situations where open dialogues occur, the interactions are initiated by the children. Creating intersubjectivity, in which the ECEC teacher pays attention to the children, engages in their activity, and shares their perspectives, is central in this concern (Fridberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref16">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other forms of conversations are triadic dialogues (Mehan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]). These conversations follow triadic patterns consisting of three repeating utterances. Two such triadic patterns are Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) pattern, and Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) pattern (Lemke, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>]; Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). In conversations following an IRE-pattern the teacher typically initiates the conversation with a question or prompt (Initiation), the child responds (Response), and the teacher evaluates the response (Evaluation) (Lemke, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]; Mortimer & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref22">16</reflink>]; Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Like the IRE-pattern, the IRF-pattern involves the teacher initiating the conversation and the child responding. However, instead of evaluating the response, the teacher provides feedback that encourages further exploration and discussion. This approach supports a more dynamic and interactive learning process compared to conversations following an IRE-pattern (Mortimer & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]; Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>The characteristics of the three different types of dialogues are presented in Table 1 and are also applied as an analytical framework in this study.</p> <p>Table 1 Description of IRE, IRF, and open dialogues, as described by Lemke ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]), Mortimer and scott ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]), and Munkebye ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>])</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dialogic pattern</p></th><th align="left"><p>Description</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>IRE</p></td><td align="left"><p>An IRE conversation follows a triadic pattern consisting of three units—initiation (I), response (R), and evaluation (E)—that are repeated in the conversation. The teacher <bold>i</bold>nitiates the conversation by asking a question, the child <bold>r</bold>esponds to the teacher's question by giving an answer, and the Teacher then <bold>e</bold>valuates the child's response as right or wrong.</p><p>Teacher controls and dominates the conversation and drives the conversation on, while the children become more passive participants in the conversation.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IRF</p></td><td align="left"><p>An IRF conversation with triadic pattern consists of three units: initiation (I), response (R), and feedback (F). The teacher does not evaluate the children's response as right or wrong but follows up on the children's response by providing the children with feedback in the form of, for example, asking a new question, adding new information, or confirming the children.</p><p>Teacher leads the conversation, but children are more involved and contribute more to the conversation than in the IRE conversations.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Open dialogue</p></td><td align="left"><p>Open dialogues are conversations in which the interlocutors cooperate and contribute to the conversation, by taking turns initiating, asking questions, and coming up with new ideas. The interlocutors are equal partners, as both parties contribute equally. Nobody dominates the conversation.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191573887-5">First-Hand Experiences Promote Curiosity and Interest</hd> <p>Sensing and gaining first-hand experience are important for children's learning (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]). According to Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref30">33</reflink>]/1986), concepts become richer when language is rooted in personal experiences. When children experience through their senses, they are stimulated to develop and understand the meaning and content of concepts (Pexman, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Skalstad and Munkebye ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]) found that getting first-hand experiences with various natural science topics in natural outdoor environments increased children's curiosity and interest in natural science topics and was central to building children's natural science knowledge. To support children's developing interests, the teacher must be able to provide a good social climate and show mutual respect (social congruence). The teacher must also be able to align the teaching methods with the child's understanding (cognitive congruence), as well as supporting the children by having subject matter expertise (Rotgans & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref34">22</reflink>]). Encouraging children to explore natural elements is important in this concern, as this prolongs the conversation and maintains focus on the topic of interest (Skalstad & Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-6">The Role of Artifacts and Non-Verbal Language in Mathematical Conversations</hd> <p>Research on mathematical conversations with children shows that physical artifacts play an important role in the structure of the conversation and provide opportunities for children to use different forms of communication (Carlsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]). Carlsen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>]) and Nergård ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref39">20</reflink>]) showed that verbal reasoning in mathematical activities is often supported by various types of non-verbal communication, such as gestures and the movement of artifacts. With the support of non-verbal expressions, the children have an increased opportunity to act and think more freely; this increases the discovery of mathematical relationships, and the children use a more varied mathematical language to express their actions and mathematical reflections (Nergård, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref40">19</reflink>]). Fosse ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>], p. 147) argued that if a conversation in ECEC is to be called a mathematical conversation, it requires "the inclusion of more wondering questions than may be found in an everyday conversation." This means that the teacher's initiative is important and may be crucial for the rise of mathematical reflection and opportunities for further learning.</p> <p>According to Van Oers ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>]), children do not spontaneously engage with mathematics on their own in play. The adult needs to react in a mathematical way to the children's actions to gain mathematical meaning. For example, by giving the action a mathematical name or showing one of its mathematical implications. This means that the teacher interventions support the children's mathematical discourse (Farrugia, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]). The teacher's role is to extend the play by adding new concepts and perspectives to the children's experiences (van Oers, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref44">32</reflink>]) and promote mathematical reflections (Fosse, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref45">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-7">Combining Natural Science and Mathematical Activities</hd> <p>According to Simensen and Anundsen ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]), combining natural science activities and mathematical activities in ECEC strengthens both topics, especially when the activities take place in an outdoor environment. The ECEC teachers participating in their study found it easier to create wonderment in activities related to natural science topics than in mathematical topics. However, combining these two subjects also increased wonderment in mathematics. Other studies found that when outside in gardens (McClain, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>]) or in nature (Speldewinde & Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref48">29</reflink>]), appropriate ECEC teacher/adult guidance affords myriad opportunities for young children to develop mathematical and scientific thinking, ecological awareness. and positive affective responses to the natural world.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-8">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573887-9">Research Design</hd> <p>The aim of this qualitative study was to gain more insight into how ECEC teachers involve children in conversations that promote learning in natural science and/or mathematics, and to identify factors that affect children's engagement in these conversations. The research question focused on situations and contexts that occurred naturally and examined in-depth how ECEC teachers engage children in NSM-conversations. The study, thus, provides detailed descriptions of the phenomena being investigated within the contexts in which they occur. This aligns with the case study research design as defined by Yin ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref49">34</reflink>]). Since the number of conversations that constitute the total data material is low (<emph>n</emph> = 29), no statistical analysis is undertaken. However, we have provided the number of conversations for each type of conversation (see Table 4) to better illustrate our findings.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-10">Participants</hd> <p>The participants in this study were students who attended the continuing education program, "Natural Science and Mathematics in Early Childhood Education and Care" at a university in Norway. The program included a lesson topic that taught the ECEC teachers' techniques for having high-quality conversations related to natural science and mathematics (NSM) with children in ECEC. This included theoretical knowledge about how to communicate with children about NSM topics (e.g., Carlsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]; Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>]; Skalstad, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref52">26</reflink>]) and a practical mandatory assignment in which the ECEC teachers conducted, transcribed, and reflected upon the NSM conversations they had with children in their kindergartens.</p> <p>To be included in the study, the participants had to follow at least 80% of the lessons, and to have their practical assignment approved by the ECEC education teachers. The selection of participants in this study is thus performed by applying a purposeful sampling strategy, as described by Patton (2002). All the 29 students attended the course fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and all consented to participate in the study. Table 2 provides an overview over the participants demographics.</p> <p>Table 2 Participant demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left"><p>Details of the participants demographics (<italic>n</italic> = 29)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Age range</p></td><td align="left"><p>26 to 50 years</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>25 women, 4 men</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Geographical representation</p></td><td align="left"><p>Various regions of Norway, both urban and rural areas</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Educational background</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bachelor's degree from various ECEC teacher training courses in Norway (<italic>n</italic> = 29)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Current employment</p></td><td align="left"><p>All in ECEC, except one in a science center that often has ECEC teachers and children as visitors</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Work experience in ECEC or similar</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ranging from 2 to 31 years</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As all the students were trained ECEC teachers, and all worked in ECEC, except for the one who worked in a science center that often has ECEC teachers and children as visitors, we use the term "ECEC teachers" for the participants in this study.</p> <p>The diverse geographical representation, range of experience, age diversity, and gender representation make the sample a good representation of the broader population of ECEC teachers in Norway. This diversity helps ensure that the findings in this study are applicable to a wide range of ECEC teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-11">Data Material</hd> <p>As a part of the mandatory assignment, the ECEC teachers were required to out a conversation about an NSM subject with one or more children in their own kindergartens. The ECEC teachers could decide for themselves whether it should be a planned or spontaneous conversation. The conversation was audio recorded, and then transcribed and anonymized.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-12">Transcription Process</hd> <p>The ECEC teachers were instructed on how to transcribe conversations using specific guidelines to ensure accuracy and context. The guidelines are outlined in points a-f below. The transcribed conversation also included additional information, such as notes about the children's actions and indications of how utterances were expressed. The students were encouraged to take notes immediately after the conversation, or to have a colleague observe and take notes during the conversation.</p> <p>The transcription guidelines included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> A description of the context of the conversation, including a description of the activity, the number of participants, and whether the conversation was planned or spontaneous.</item> <p></p> <item> Identifying speakers using fictitious names for children to maintain anonymity and clearly mark adults (e.g., "Teacher").</item> <p></p> <item> Numbering each utterance sequentially.</item> <p></p> <item> The content of the utterances must be accurately represented, using standard language (not dialect) to avoid misunderstandings.</item> <p></p> <item> Description of how something was said, including tone, volume, and pauses, laughing etc. For example: "Ella: Come and see. I found an insect! <emph>(shouts loudly and eagerly)</emph>".</item> <p></p> <item> Description of non-verbal signs and body language. For example: "Fred: Look how big it is! <emph>(Runs to the footprint and lies down on it).</emph>"</item> </ulist> <p>Points e) and f) serve as indicators of whether the children were expressing engagement and interest or if they appeared uninterested or uncertain. Point f) is also essential as it illustrates the children's non-verbal actions, which may, for example, reflect mathematical activities and/or natural science explorations.</p> <p>The students shared this transcribed conversation with a fellow student, and, together, they reflected upon the two transcribed conversations based on the given assessment criteria and linked their reflections to relevant theory. The reflections were delivered as texts or podcasts. The data material in this study consists of the transcribed NSM-conversations submitted by the ECEC teachers. All of the 29 ECEC teachers that attended the course consented to participate in this study.</p> <p>Ethical Approval was obtained from SIKT, previously NSD (the Norwegian Centre for Research Data). Prior to sharing the transcribed conversations, the participants signed an informed consent form. In addition, parents of the children consented to the ECEC teachers taping the conversations and immediately deleting them after transcription. When we received the transcribed conversations, all personal data was removed.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-13">Data Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573887-14">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>As a first step to identify the children's participation in the NSM conversation, the first author applied Lemke ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref53">12</reflink>]), Mortimer and Scott ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref54">16</reflink>]) and Munkebye's ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]) descriptions of (i) open dialogues, (ii) dialogues that follow an IRE-pattern, and (iii) dialogues that follow an IRF-pattern as the theoretical framework for the analysis (see Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-15">IR Analysis of the NSM Conversations</hd> <p>To identify the dialogic patterns of the conversations (Table 1), the first author applied a simplified initiation-response (IR) analysis, as described by Linell and Gustavsson ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref56">13</reflink>]) and Munkebye ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]). In an IR analysis, the interlocutors' utterances in the conversations are analyzed in terms of identifying the initiation and response(s) in the conversation, as well as how these affect the dynamics and who dominates the conversations.</p> <p>An <emph>initiation</emph> drives the conversation forward, as it demands that the interlocutors respond. Some initiatives are strong, whereas others are weaker. A question is a strong initiative, as this demands a response to a larger degree than a claim, which is a weak initiative (Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]). A <emph>response</emph> is a reaction to a former utterance. Some responses do not add anything new beyond what is asked for in the previous utterance, whereas others do. These are called minimal and extended responses, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-16">Identifying Children's Engagement in Conversations</hd> <p>Children can participate in conversations with various degrees of engagement. Engagement can be expressed verbally by applying words and utterances that express positive emotions, such as "Wow" or "Look! This one is nice!" by loud and rapid speaking, and/or by approach-oriented actions (Skalstad & Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]). Based on the additional information in the transcripts, which included notes about the children's actions and indications of how utterances were expressed (see subsection "Transcription process"), we identified the extent to which the children expressed engagement in the conversations.</p> <p>Prior to the IR analysis, the three authors read one third of the 29 conversations each and made notes related to the context—who drove the conversation (ECEC teacher, the child, or both equally) and whether the children responded to the teacher with engagement or not. To increase credibility, the results of the IR analysis were compared with the notes made by all the authors. Discrepancies were resolved through re-reading and discussing the conversation.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-17">Categories of Conversations</hd> <p>Based on the results of the IR analysis, the applied framework (Table 1), and of identifying the children's expressions of engagement in the conversations, the following main categories (M) and sub-categories (S) of conversations were identified:M1: Conversations that follow an IRE pattern.M2: Conversations that follow an IRF pattern. SI: Teacher-led conversation. Children respond by engaging. SII: Teacher-led conversations. Children respond with little or no engagement.M3: Open dialogues.M4: Child-directed conversations.</p> <p>The main categories M1–M3 were theoretically derived(see for example, Munkebye's ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref60">17</reflink>]) description of open dialogues and IRE/F-conversations), whereas the main category M4, and the subcategories SI and SII, belonging to the IRF conversations (M2), were inductively derived. Category M4, "Child-directed conversations," includes conversations in which the child (and not the teacher) led the conversation, and the teacher had a more passive role. Further, we present different dialogue examples of and how IR analysis was applied.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-18">Examples of Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573887-19">Example 1. IRE Conversation: "Sorting Bricks"</hd> <p>"Sorting bricks" was a planned conversation that took place during an activity about sorting bricks in various shapes, colors, and sizes. The child was four years old.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Teacher: What colors are they?</item> <p></p> <item> Child: Mmm...green, green, green, green, orange, orange, orange.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Yes <emph>(in a rising voice)</emph>. Now you have sorted the bricks by putting them one after the other in a row.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: What is [the] different with these, compared to this? <emph>(Shows a red and larger brick.)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Child: This one is bigger! <emph>(Points to the red one.)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Yes, it actually is!</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Are they the same color?</item> <p></p> <item> Child: (<emph>Shakes his/her head)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: No, it's not.</item> </ulist> <p>The teacher asks a question (I) in line 1, the child responds (R) to the question in line 2, and the teacher evaluates (E) the response in line 3. This is repeated in lines 4–6 and 7–9, which thus constitute an IRE pattern. The teacher's questions are strong initiatives, and the child's responses are minimal, as they do not add anything new beyond what was asked for in the previous utterance. The teacher thus dominates the conversation and decides on the direction of the conversation, whereas the child is a passive participant in the conversation. The child expressed little or no engagement other than answering the teacher's questions.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-20">Example 2. IRF Conversation: "Woodlouse"</hd> <p>"Woodlouse" occurred spontaneously as a girl ("Ella") discovered a woodlouse on the way to a playground. Two girls (five years) and one teacher took part in the conversation.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Ella: Come and see. I found an insect! <emph>(shouts loudly and eagerly)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Wow...What have you found? <emph>(in an eager voice).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Ella: It's a woodlouse <emph>(in an eager voice).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: How do you know it's a woodlouse? <emph>(in a wondering tone of voice).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Ella: I just know.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: How does it look then? <emph>(bends down to study the woodlouse).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Beth: It's a bit gray (pause)...and flat <emph>(in an eager voice).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: And the body is also made up of several joints, do you see that?</item> <p></p> <item> Beth: Yes. And there are also two things pointing out in the front.</item> </ulist> <p>The teacher asks a question (I) in line 2, based on the girl's finding in line 1. The girl responds (R) to the question (line 3), and the teacher follows up (F) by asking a new question, which also functions as a new initiative. The teacher does not evaluate the child's responses but follows up with new questions that prompt the child to observe and investigate the woodlouse further (line 6). The teacher adds new information in line 8 and encourages the children to observe and look more closely.</p> <p>The questions in lines 2, 4, and 6 are strong initiatives, whereas the information presented by the teacher in line 8 is a weak initiative. The child's responses in lines 3, 5, and 7 are weak, whereas in line 9, the child adds something new beyond what is asked for, thus an extended response. The children talk loudly and eagerly (lines 1, 3, and 7), which indicates enthusiasm and engagement. As in example 1, the conversation in example 2 is dominated by the teacher, but the nature of the teacher's initiative and feedback, as well as the children's responses, indicate that the children, to some extent, contribute to and engage in the conversation. Example 2 is, thus, a conversation that follows an IRF pattern, led by the teacher, and the children respond by engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-21">Example 3. Open Dialogue: "The Dinosaur Footprint"</hd> <p>"The dinosaur footprint" is an extraction of a longer conversation between the teacher and two children, "Mia" (4 years) and "Fred" (5 years). The kindergarten had "dinosaurs" as a topic for the last two months and the teacher had measured and cut out an original footprint of a Tyrannosaurus rex. The aim of the activity and conversation was to use their bodies to measure the size of the footprint.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Teacher: Look over here <emph>(pointing to the footprint)</emph>. Whose foot is that?</item> <p></p> <item> Mia: A dinosaur! <emph>(in an eager voice).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Fred: A Tyrannosaurus Rex' foot <emph>(in an eager voice.)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: It is.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Is the foot big or small?</item> <p></p> <item> Mia & Fred: Big!! (<emph>in unison</emph>).</item> <p></p> <item> Fred: Look how big it is! <emph>(runs to the footprint and lays down on it).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Mia: It is bigger than Fred.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Wow, yes, it's bigger than Fred <emph>(in a surprised voice).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Mia: Look. <emph>(runs to the footprint).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher:...look, now there is room for both in there <emph>(points to the footprint on the floor).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Fred: YES!! <emph>(jumps to the footprint and lies down).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Mia: <emph>(Lays down next to Fred)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Do you think there is room for me as well?</item> <p></p> <item> Fred: YES!!</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: If you lay down there, at the end of the footprint <emph>(pointing to where she means)</emph>, I'll lay down in the middle <emph>(teacher lays down in the middle)</emph>.</item> <p></p> <item> Fred: It's even bigger than you! <emph>(in an eager voice).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Mia: Now you are in the middle <emph>(gets a little sad).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Oh, do you want to lie in the middle too?</item> <p></p> <item> Mia: (<emph>Nods</emph>).</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Then you and I, Fred, lie at the far end <emph>(children and the teacher swap places).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Mia: <emph>(Laughs when they swap places)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: (<emph>Laughs</emph>) Now Mia is in the middle and you and I, Fred, where are.</item> </ulist> <p>we?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Fred: Now I want to lie in the middle.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: OK. Then you can lie in the middle <emph>(teacher and the children swap places).</emph></item> </ulist> <p>Eventually, teacher and children began to measure the length of the dinosaur footprint by counting how many feet it was, and the conversation continued.</p> <p>This planned conversation starts with a typical IRE pattern (lines 1–9), where the teacher asks a question (I) (lines 1 and 5), the children respond (R) (lines 2, 3, 6, and 8), and the teacher evaluates the children's responses (E) (lines 4 and 9). The conversation quickly turns into a conversation in which both teacher and children take turns initiating, asking questions, and coming up with new ideas. The children take the initiative to observe the footprint more closely (lines 7 and 10) and to lie down in the dinosaur footprint (line 7) and suggest who should lie down where (lines 20–30). Children's utterances, such as "Look how big it is!" (line 7), "Look here!" (line 10), and "Now I want to lay in the middle" (line 24), are strong initiatives, as they demand response in the form of activity from others (looking and moving). The children are thus active partners in the dialogue.</p> <p>The teacher alternates between asking closed and open questions, confirming the children, encouraging the activity, and applying mathematical concepts (e.g., lines 5, 9, and 16). By asking closed questions, the teacher leads the children's attention to the dinosaur footprint (line 1), as well as its size (line 5), which is the focus of this activity and conversation. The closed question in line 5 may also function to create engagement as well as include the children in the conversation, as the answer to the question is obvious for the children, and as the size of the footprint itself may create interest and engagement. This is confirmed by the boy running toward the footprint (line 7). The dinosaur footprint conversation in Example 3 is thus categorized as an open dialogue, as the children and teacher participate equally and with engagement, and neither the teacher nor the children dominate the dialogue.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-22">Example 4. Child-Directed Conversation: "Sorting Plastic Boxes"</hd> <p>"Sorting plastic boxes", is an excerpt from a conversation in which the teacher and a child (4.7 years) were placing plastic boxes in a suitcase. The boxes had different sizes and shapes and were to be put in place correctly to accommodate all the boxes. The aim of the activity and conversation was to name the shapes (square and rectangle) and gain experience with and apply concepts related to different sizes.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Child: Maybe we must...<emph>(tries with a box).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: That was a good idea! But now there is a hole here....</item> <p></p> <item> Child: <emph>(Interrupts the teacher).</emph> Yes, yes, I KNOW!</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Okay <emph>(smiles).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Child: But you must take it out.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: Then we must take it out.</item> <p></p> <item> Child: First that one, the biggest one <emph>(talks silently to himself).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: <emph>(Confirms).</emph> Then we'll take the biggest one there.</item> <p></p> <item> Child: And then this and this <emph>(almost finished).</emph></item> </ulist> <p>The teacher and child cooperate in problem-solving. The child leads the conversation and is occupied with where to put the boxes. The teacher asks no questions and does not add any new concepts or new knowledge to the conversation. In line 7, the child uses the word "the biggest one," which the teacher repeats in line 8. Overall, the teacher confirms the child's ideas and adds little to the conversation.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-23">Analysis of the Macro-Contexts</hd> <p>To identify whether and how the contexts in which the NSM conversations take place ("macro-context") affect the children's participation in the NSM conversations, we analyzed the macro-contexts according to: (i) NSM topic of the conversation, (ii) physical objects applied, (iii) planned or spontaneous conversations, and (iv) age of children. An overview of all the NSM conversations and their associated macro-contexts are presented in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3 Overview of NSM conversations (<emph>n</emph> = 29), including type of dialogue and macro-context of each of the conversations</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Conversation pattern</p></th><th align="left"><p>Conv.#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Topic</p></th><th align="left"><p>Main NSM topic</p></th><th align="left"><p>Setting/</p><p>number of children</p></th><th align="left"><p>Physical objects applied</p></th><th align="left"><p>Spontaneous (S)/</p><p>Planned (<italic>P</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Age/</p><p>years</p></th><th align="left"><p>Subject matter for conversation</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Dialogue</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sorting by height</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Own body</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, reasoning/problem solving</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Measuring volume</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside, group room/1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Glass, water,</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, experiencing size and volume</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Meteorite stone</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outside/4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Stone, body</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>4–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, non-standardized units of measurement</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Dinosaur</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Body, footprint in cardboard</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, non-standardized units of measurement, placements words</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mushroom</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outside/1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mushroom</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, facts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Human body</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside, group room/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Photos</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Earthworm</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Earthworm</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Earthworms and snails, facts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Water ponds</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside, group room/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>None</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Wondering about water as rain</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IRF with engage-ment</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sorting geometrical representations</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside, small room/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Geometrical figures</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>Birds</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Birds</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>Puffball mushroom</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outside/3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mushrooms</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>3–4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Temperature</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/4</p></td><td align="left"><p>thermometer, ice cube, three bowls, water</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4–5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts. Rain, snow, wondering about temperature</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moon</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside, group room/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Photos</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>No subject matter presented. Misleading factual knowledge, as the teacher confirms and/or repeats the children's wrong understandings.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fly</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/3</p></td><td align="left"><p>A fly</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>Floating and sinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside, group room/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>various concretes, water, pencil, and paper</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experiencing, explanations.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>Woodlouse</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outside, playground-area/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Woodlouse</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, characteristics, counting</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside, group room/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>various concretes, water</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experiencing, non-academic explanations.</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>Melting ice cubes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ice cubes and plastic figure</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, sensing</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IRF</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>Geometric forms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cubes (tangram)</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, explanations, counting</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Without engagement</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sorting figures</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Figures of animals</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>2–3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, sorting</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bicycle 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pictures</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bicycle 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pictures</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, numbers, counting, measuring</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>Floating - orange</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat. Sc.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concrete (orange)</p><p>Testing</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>3–4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Explaining, testing, concepts (floating/sinking)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IRE</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sorting</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside, meeting rom/1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Different sized, geometrical shaped and colored play bricks</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts, reasoning, problem solving</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moss and leaves</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat. Sc.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outside, in a forest/4 (2)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moss, leaves</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concepts (tree species), comparing, explaining</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>26</p></td><td align="left"><p>Trees</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat. Sc.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outside, in a forest/6 (4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Trees</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Naming colors, explaining (with some wrong explnations)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>Autumn</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nat. Sc.</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pictures</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Colors, explaining</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Child-directed</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>Classifying plastic boxes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plastic boxes</p></td><td align="left"><p>P</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Problem solving</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>Chess</p></td><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inside/2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Chess</p></td><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>5–6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Counting, calculating</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191573887-24">Results</hd> <p>In this section, we present the findings related to the three research questions (RQ) that guide this study. Each research question is addressed in a separate section.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-25">RQ1:</hd> <p>To what extent do ECEC teachers include children as active conversational partners in NSM conversations?</p> <p>The results of the IR analysis of the NSM conversations showed that most conversations (19 of 29) were led by the ECEC teacher, where the children to various degrees were active and engaged in the conversation. These conversations constitute the IRF and IRE conversations presented in Table 4.</p> <p>Children and ECEC teacher participated equally in eight of the conversations (that is, the open dialogues). In these conversations the children contributed largely to the conversations and were active and engaged participants. Two conversations were led by the child, with little response from the teacher. The numbers of conversations representing the different types of NSM topics and types of conversations are presented in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4 Overview of the number of conversations representing the different NSM topics and types of conversations</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Type of conversation/</p><p>dialogue</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mathematics (<italic>n</italic> = 12)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Natural science</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 17)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Total</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 29)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Open dialogue</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>IRF</bold> with engagement</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>IRF</bold> without engagement</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>IRE</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Child-directed</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Total</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>12</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>17</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>29</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The number and age of the children participating in the conversations varies, as well as the settings and topics, and if the conversation was planned or spontaneous (see Table 3). In what follows, we first present the results of the analysis of the macro-context, that is, how factors related to context may affect the children's participation and engagement in the different types of NSM conversations. Next, we present how subject matter appears in the conversations.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-26">RQ2:</hd> <p>How does context influence the level of children's engagement in NSM conversations, as measured by their verbal and non-verbal participation?</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-27">Physical Activity and First-Hand Experiences Promote Equal Conversational Partners in the Con...</hd> <p>Of all 29 NSM conversations, eight were open dialogues that followed a dialogic pattern, where children and teachers participate equally in the conversation (e.g., example 3). Four of these conversations were related to a mathematical topic, and four to a natural science topic. Most of these open dialogues (5 of 8) were with children aged 5–6 years, whereas three conversations were with 4–5-year-olds.</p> <p>In all four conversations with a mathematical topic that followed a dialogical pattern, the children were physically active, using their bodies when comparing, measuring, and sorting (#1, 3, 4) or when filling water in different glasses (#2). Three of these conversations were planned, such as example 3, "Dinosaur footprint". The conversation topic for example 3 was "measuring," and the children used their bodies to measure the footprint size and to experience the mathematical concepts physically. The teacher encouraged the children to lay down and change places, and she also participated in the activity herself (e.g., lines 11, 16, 21). This enhanced the children's activity and participation in the conversation, as well as prolonged the conversation. Three of these four conversations were related to and/or involved firsthand experiences with objects from nature (#2, water; #3, stone; #4, dinosaur footprint).</p> <p>Concerning the four open conversations related to natural science topics, two of these occurred spontaneously because of the children's own findings of a mushroom (#5) and a worm (#7), where the children get first-hand experiences with the object from nature. The other two conversations, which were planned by the teacher, were based on topics that the children had shown interest in and previously had gained first-hand experiences with (#6, the human body and #8, water ponds).</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-28">Conversations led by the ECEC Teacher</hd> <p>Of the 29 NSM conversations, 15 followed an IRF pattern. Five of these concerned mathematical topics and 10 natural science topics. All five IRF mathematical conversations involved the use of physical objects, such as cubes, bricks, or pictures (e.g., #9, 19, 20, 21). None of them involved physical activity other than moving objects from one place to another. In most of the IRF conversations (10 of 15), the teacher led the conversation, and the children responded by expressing engagement, whereas in five conversations, the children responded without engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-29">First-Hand Experiences with Nature Objects Promote Children's Engagement</hd> <p>Of the 10 IRF conversations in which the children responded with engagement; nine conversations concerned natural science topics. Eight of these involved first-hand experiences with various nature objects (woodlouse, fly, water, etc.), whereas one involved using pictures (of the moon). Four of the natural science conservations were spontaneous, and five were planned. Example 2, "Woodlouse," is an example of a spontaneous conversation about a natural science topic in which the child had first-hand experience with woodlouse. Only one of the IRF conversations where the children responded by engagement concerned a mathematical topic. Interestingly, this conversation was spontaneous. Most of these conversations (7 of 10) were with 4–6-year-olds, one with 3–4-year-olds, and two were with younger children (1–2-year-olds).</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-30">Planned Conversations and Difficult Explanations and Questions Hinder Children'S Engagement</hd> <p>Five of the 15 IRF conversations were teacher-led, and the children responded without engagement. Four of these five conversations concerned a mathematical topic, and one concerned a natural science topic. All five conversations were planned. In the natural science conversation, #23, ("floating– orange"), the teacher and children put orange peel into a tub of water to see whether the orange peel can float. During the conversation, the teacher provided the children with long explanations, applied difficult concepts, and asked difficult "why questions," such as, "Why does the (orange) peel float on the surface membrane?" None of the children answered the teacher. One child asked whether they were going to eat, and another child said, "splash, splash" and put an orange boat into the water. Thus, the children did not show any further engagement in the conversation. Three of these conversations were with children aged 4–6 years, one with 3–4-year-olds, and one with 2–3-year-olds.</p> <p>Four conversations were clearly led by the teacher and followed a typical IRE pattern (#24–27. Two of these (#24 and 27) were planned, comprising children aged 4–5 years. The teachers had clear goals for the activities and conversations. Conversations #25 and 26, were spontaneous, comprising children aged 1–2 years.</p> <p>Conversation #24 (example 1) concerned a mathematical topic, whereas #25–27 concerned natural science topics. The two IRE conversations with the youngest children were spontaneous and related to natural science topics, which offered the children first-hand experiences (moss and trees). In one of these conversations (#25), the teacher's and children's foci were divergent. In conversation #24, the context was not optimal, with one child and one teacher presented in a meeting room. Therefore, the surroundings and the context are not on the child's premises.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-31">Child-Directed Conversations</hd> <p>The two child-directed conversations did not extend the children's NSM knowledge, as there were no clear subject matter concepts or facts presented during these conversations. An example of this is presented in example 4. Except for the comparing word "the biggest" in line 8 (Example 4), the teacher does not apply any subject matter concepts, but rather non-specific words, such as "the [...] one" and "it" (lines 6 and 8, example 4). The child seems to be occupied with the activity, and neither the child nor the teacher tries to engage the other in the conversation.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-32">RQ3:</hd> <p>How does subject matter appear in the NSM conversations?</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-33">Mathematical Conversations</hd> <p>Subject matter in conversations about mathematical topics appeared in the form of focusing on concepts, problem solving, reasoning, and the physical movement of artifacts and the children themselves (see Table 3). An example of this can be seen in example 3, where subject matter appeared, as in applying terms related to measuring (measurement concepts) and practicing direct comparison. For example, "It is even bigger than you" (line 17). The children also applied placement words such as "Now you are lying in the middle" (line 24) and were involved in problem-solving as both children wanted to fit their whole bodies within the dinosaur footprint. The teachers rarely provided the children with explanations in the mathematical conversations.</p> <p>The mathematical conversation all over seemed to have a clear focus on subject matter. Exceptions are the two child-directed conversations that both concerned mathematical topics (#28 and 29) where the teachers did not provide new knowledge to the conversation.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-34">Conversations Related to Natural Science Topics</hd> <p>In most of the conversations related to natural science topics, the teachers focused on concepts, facts, experiences, and explanations. An example of how subject matter was presented and appeared is shown in the following example (example 5), which is an extract from conversation #15 "The mushroom".</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-35">Example 5. The Mushroom</hd> <p>A boy (5 years) sits down on the playground and examines a cluster of mushrooms in the grass. He asks the teacher if they can pick the mushrooms, take them to the kindergarten and eat them. The teacher explains that they must be careful because some mushrooms are poisonous.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Boy: But which ones <emph>(mushrooms)</emph> did you pick?</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: I picked birch bolete (<emph>Leccinum scabrum</emph>), and then I picked penny bun.</item> </ulist> <p>(<emph>Boletus edulis</emph>).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Boy: What is a penny bun?</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: It's a type of mushroom that can get very, very, big (showing a.</item> </ulist> <p>picture on the phone) [...].</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Boy: There's a hole here <emph>(points to a hole in the mushroom)</emph>, so maybe.</item> </ulist> <p>there's something inside (excited voice).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Teacher: Yes... What do you think has made that hole?</item> <p></p> <item> Boy: An insect.</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher: An insect? Should we open it, and see?</item> <p></p> <item> The boy nods, and the teacher opens the mushroom.</item> <p></p> <item> The conversation continues, and they talk about how the mushroom looks, that some mushrooms are poisonous, and that mushrooms and trees, according to the boy, are "friends."</item> </ulist> <p>In this conversation, which is an open dialogue, subject matter appeared in the form of naming species of mushrooms (lines 2, 3), what might live in the mushroom (lines 5–8), the mushroom's appearance, and other characteristics (line 10). In example 2, "Woodlouse" subject matter is seen as the girl gained information about the woodlouse's observable characteristics, for example, in lines 6 and 7, where the teacher asked the girl how the woodlouse looks and the girl answered, "It's a little gray... and flat."</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-36">Wondering and Misconceptions</hd> <p>One conversation focused on the children's wondering, with no new knowledge or understanding occurring (#8). In addition, in conversation #8 the children's misconceptions were not addressed or reflected on by the teacher. This also applies for example 2, where the girl identifies the woodlouse, which is a crustacean, as "an insect" (line 1).</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-37">Difficult Explanations in Natural Science</hd> <p>Unlike the mathematical conversations, subject matter in conversations about natural science often included explanations provided by the teacher. In some conversations, the teacher provided the children with misleading or wrong explanations (#13, 17, 26). whereas other conversations included long and difficult explanations (#23). In all three IRE-conversations related to natural science (#25, 26, 27), and in the IRF-conversation #23, the teacher asked difficult "why questions" or presented explanations. For example, "...and it is called chlorophyll when the leaves are making sugar inside, and to make sugar, they need lots and lots of sun..." (#27) and "Do you know why there will be such colors (on the leaves)?" (asked to 2-year-olds, #26).</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-38">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this study was to examine how ECEC teachers involve children in NSM conversations that aim to promote learning in NSM, and to identify factors that affect children's engagement in these conversations. The results of the IR analysis indicated that the teachers largely succeeded in involving children in NSM conversations through open dialogues or in teacher-led conversations in which the children actively engaged. However, we observed that the children tended to participate more actively in conversations about natural science topics compared to mathematical ones. The results also indicate that the teachers found it more difficult to present subject matter in natural science topics than in mathematics. In the following sections, we discuss factors that may explain these discrepancies.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-39">Bodily Engagement</hd> <p>An interesting finding in our study is that all the open dialogues related to mathematical topics took place in activities in which the children used their bodies actively (see Example 3, the dinosaur footprint). This supports Nergård's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref61">19</reflink>]) notion that children need physical activity because they need to use non-verbal forms of expression to create mathematical understanding. It also resonates with Dewey ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>]) and Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref63">33</reflink>]/1986) who emphasize that children learn through active experiences. There is, as far as we can see, little research on how bodily engagement can promote children's learning in mathematics. This is, therefore, a field of research that needs to be addressed.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-40">First-Hand Experiences</hd> <p>The results in our study also show that when children are active in form of applying multiple senses, they are more engaged in the conversations compared to when few of their senses are applied. Skalstad and Munkebye ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref64">27</reflink>]) found that when children are allowed to have first-hand experiences with natural elements, such as insects, plants, and cones, this enhances curiosity. Nature is constantly changing, which may facilitate surprising discoveries that can trigger children's curiosity and interest, which in turn allows spontaneous conversations to occur. In our study, the children engaged actively in 13 out of 17 natural science conversations, where nine were spontaneous. The large number of spontaneous conversations about natural science can be due to the children's discovery of interesting objects, as illustrated in examples 2, and 5. According to Skalstad ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]), many exploratory conversations occur when children freely explore nature. This observation also resonates with Siraj-Blatchford and Silva ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref66">24</reflink>]), who found that child-initiated interactions foster SST and that learning only is achieved when children are motivated and involved in the situation. All spontaneous conversations about natural science occur when children discover natural elements (e.g., earthworm, woodlouse, mushrooms). Facilitating inquiry, wonderment, and curiosity is central for children's learning in STEM (Bjerknes et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>]; Carlsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>]; Thulin, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding the mathematical conversations, the children engaged actively in five conversations, where two were spontaneous (one open dialogue, and one IRF conversation). Whereas natural science topics often are concrete and tangible, many mathematical topics are abstract, pre-defined, and stable. They do not by themselves trigger curiosity and wonderment in children, as natural science topics.</p> <p>The results show that children show more engagement in conversations where they have multisensory experiences with the artefacts/object applied (e.g., animals, water), compared to when artefacts/objects with few sensory experiences, such as cubes and pictures, are applied (see e.g., conversations 4, 5, and 9).This resembles with Skalstad and Munkebye ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref70">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref71">28</reflink>]), who found that gaining first-hand experiences with various natural elements triggers children's curiosity, which, in turn, is central for building children's knowledge and developing interest in natural science. This is also consistent with Dewey's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>]) and Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref73">33</reflink>]/1986) ideas that getting first-hand experiences is important for children's learning and understanding of concepts. Applying artifacts that offer multisensory experiences in mathematics, such as in conversation #3, "Measuring volume," therefore contributes to engaging the children in the dialogue. In this open dialogue, the children experienced measuring volume by filling water in different glasses. These included multisensory experiences as the children can hear the water, feel the temperature and wetness of the water, and observe the color and movement of the water. Applying objects/artefacts from nature affords several senses compared to pictures, figures, and cubes made of plastic, for example. This is also in line with the work of Simensen and Anundsen ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref74">23</reflink>]), who found that when mathematical tasks are related to objects from nature, this increases children's understanding of mathematics. The "meteorite stone" (#14) is an example of this.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-41">Promoting Curiosity</hd> <p>When orchestrating activities, it is important that teachers engage the child in the topic by, for example, by creating curiosity or interest in the topic in the child. Presenting many and various artifacts, as well as artifacts that provide multisensory experiences, can create curiosity, and interest and stimulate the children to activity. This, in turn, can open up conversations that are based on something the children are already interested in (see Skalstad & Munkebye, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]). An example of this is seen in conversations 16 and 18, which both concern the natural science topic "floating and sinking." In conversation 16, in which the children participated with engagement, the children could try out the floating and sinking of several different objects, whereas in conversation 18, in which the children showed no special engagement, there was only one object available for testing.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-42">Conversations that Aim to Facilitate Learning</hd> <p>Most of the NSM conversations in this study facilitated increased NSM knowledge for the children, for example, by applying concepts, stimulating reflection, or presenting explanations. The conversations led by the teacher, in which the children responded without engagement, were characterized by the fact that the teacher seemed to have a clear learning objective with the conversation and activity. This is seen in the IRE conversations in which the teacher asked closed questions and evaluated the children's answers (see example 1), as well as in the IRF conversations. When the teacher's intention and aim with the conversation differs from the children's interest in and motives for the conversations, it becomes challenging for the teacher to engage the children in the conversation. To create intersubjectivity, it is not sufficient to simply share a focus on the same topic or object. It is also essential to share the intention/goal and engagement (Fridberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref76">7</reflink>]). This can be compared to establish social congruence, which is important to support children's interest (Rotgans & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref77">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>The challenge in natural science conversations, however, is that it can be difficult for children to understand natural science explanations. The teacher must be able to explain the topic in an understandable way, which includes choosing concepts that should be explained as well as when/whether it should be explained, that is, showing cognitive congruence (Rotgans and Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref78">22</reflink>]). It also demands that the teacher understands the phenomena to be explained (i.e., subject matter expertise). The results in this study show this to be the greatest challenge in conversations about natural science topics.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-43">Conclusion</hd> <p>In this study, we found that having multisensory experiences and being physically active had a positive effect on the children's engagement in the conversations. This is also in line with Dewey's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>]) and Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref80">33</reflink>]/1986) notion that children learn through their senses and personal experiences. Therefore, facilitating multisensory experiences and physical activities is important. ECEC teachers can support the children by taking part in the activities themselves, not only "instructing" the children. This is also important to creating intersubjectivity, that is, showing interest in, and taking part in the activities together with the children.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-44">Contribution, Implications, and Future Research</hd> <p>Our study underscores the importance of incorporating sensory experiences and physical activities to promote children's engagement in NSM-conversations in ECEC. When planning these activities, it is therefore essential for ECEC teachers to facilitate experiences that actively engage children's senses and involve physical movement. This approach not only enhances children's participation but also supports more effective learning as well as the children's interest in mathematics and in natural science topics.</p> <p>Our findings indicate that objects from nature facilitate children's engagement in conversations about both mathematics and natural science topics. Using nature as a learning environment for both natural science and mathematics in ECEC can therefore be highly beneficial (Simensen & Anundsen, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]). ECEC teachers should therefore be encouraged to use nature as a learning environment for both natural science and mathematics.</p> <p>More research is needed on how ECEC teachers can facilitate activities that combine mathematical and natural science topics, and support children's engagement and learning in these areas. To gain more insight into conversations that include both topics, future studies could compare dialogues intended to integrate natural science and mathematics. Additionally, there is a lack of research on the importance of using the whole body in mathematical activities and conversations, and how teachers can support children in creating mathematical understanding in these situations.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-45">Limitations</hd> <p>One of the primary limitations in our study is the relatively small sample size. With a larger number of participants, we could have achieved more robust and generalizable findings. Future research should aim to include a broader participant base to address these limitations and build upon the insights gained from this study.</p> <p>Another potential limitation of our data is the way the transcriptions were conducted. It is possible that certain nuances and details were missed in the transcription process, as each student transcribed their own conversation. Using video recordings of the conversations could have provided a more comprehensive understanding, capturing non-verbal cues and interactions that are not evident in audio transcriptions alone.</p> <p>An additional limitation in this study, is the training the ECEC teachers received as a part of their program. This training may have influenced their approach to involve children in NSM conversations, potentially leading to strategies that might not occur that often in everyday ECEC classroom settings. Also, as the activities and conversations were part of an assignment, the ECEC teachers may have been more motivated to apply certain techniques or follow specific guidelines, which could differ from the natural interactions and spontaneous engagement typically observed in everyday ECEC classroom settings. These factors should be considered when interpreting the results, as it may limit the generalizability of our findings to broader ECEC contexts. However, as all the participants are educated ECEC teachers, and the conversations took place in the participants' own workplace, and not "ordinary" students with little or no practical experience from ECEC classrooms, many of the participants in our study bring a wealth of experience from working with children. Their extensive background in ECEC thus ensures that their interactions with children are grounded in practical, real-world experience.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-46">Author Contribution</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Ingunn Skalstad, Anne-Line Bjerknes, and Siv Svendsen. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Ingunn Skalstad, Anne-Line Bjerknes, and Siv Svendsen and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-47">Funding</hd> <p>Open access funding provided by University Of South-Eastern Norway</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-48">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191573887-49">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>Ethical approval was obtained from SIKT, previously NSD (the Norwegian Centre for Research Data).</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-50">Consent to Participate and Publish</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-51">Competing Interests and Funding</hd> <p>The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-52">Electronic Supplementary Material</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary Material 1</p> <hd id="AN0191573887-53">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191573887-54"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref67" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bjerknes AL, Wilhelmsen T, Foyn-Bruun E. A systematic review of curiosity and wonder in Natural Science and Early Childhood Education Research. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2024; 38; 1: 50-65. 10.1080/02568543.2023.2192249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Carlsen, M, Erford, I, & Hundeland, P. S. (2010). Orchestration of mathematical activities in the kindergarten: The role of questions. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. January 28–February 1st 2009 (pp. 2567–2576). Institut National De Recherche Pédagogique.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref29" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey J. How we think. Health. 1910. 10.1037/10903-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Dilek H, Taşdemir A, Konca AS, Baltacı S. Preschool children's science motivation and process skills during inquiry-based STEM activities. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health. 2020; 6; 2: 92-104. 10.21891/jeseh.673901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref43" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Farrugia, M. T. (2021). Mathematics through play. The influence of adult intervention on young children's shifts between play and mathematical discourses. In M. Planas, & M. Schütte (Eds.), Classroom research on mathematics and language: Seeing learners and teachers differently (pp. 134–150). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref41" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Fosse T. What characterises mathematical conversations in a Norwegian kindergarten?. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education. 2016; 21; 4: 135-153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref16" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Fridberg M, Jonsson A, Redfors A, Thulin S. Teaching chemistry and physics in preschool: A matter of establishing intersubjectivity. International Journal of Science Education. 2019; 41; 17: 2542-2556. 10.1080/09500693.2019.1689585</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gopnik A. Scientific thinking in young children: Theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science. 2012; 337; 6102: 1623-1627. 10.1126/science.122341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref5" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Kastriti E, Kalogiannakis M, Psycharis S, Vavougios D. The teaching of Natural Sciences in kindergarten based on the principles of STEM and STEAM approach. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research. 2022; 2; 1: 268-277. 10.25082/AMLER.2022.01.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, C, & Fortner, R. (2007). Educators' views of collaboration with scientists. American Secondary Education, 29–53. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/41406088">www.jstor.org/stable/41406088</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krajcik, J. S, Czerniak, C. M, & Berger, C. F. (2003). Teaching science in elementary and middleschool classrooms: A project-based approach (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Ablex.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linell, P, & Gustavsson, L. (1987). Initiativ och respons: Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens. Linköping University, Department of Communication Studies.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClain, C. (2015). The green bean has to be longer than your thumb: An observational study of preschoolers' math and science experiences in a garden Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler. International Journal of Early Childhood, 3(1), 8. https://naturalstart.org/sites/default/files/journal/journal_pages_8-27.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mortimer, E. F, & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munkebye, E. (2012). Dialog for læring: Den utforskende naturfaglige samtalen i uteskole. [Doctoral thesis]. Universitetet i Oslo.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nergård, B. (2022). Barnehagebarns matematiske språk og kommunikasjon– En kvalitativ kasusstudie av hva som kjennetegner barns matematiske språk og kommunikasjon i barnehagen. [Doctoral thesis] NTNU. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2975997</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nergård B. Preschool children's mathematical arguments in play-based activities. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 2023; 35; 1: 193-216. 10.1007/s13394-021-00395-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pexman PM. The role of embodiment in conceptual development. Language Cognition and Neuroscience. 2017; 34; 10: 1274-1283. 10.1080/23273798.2017.1303522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rotgans, J. I, & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). The role of teachers in facilitating situationalinterest in an active-learning classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1),37e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simensen AM, Anundsen IW. Matematikk i naturfag– et kompetansehevingsprosjekt i barnehagen. MONA. 2013; 2: 7-23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siraj-Blatchford I, Sylva K. Researching pedagogy in English pre-schools. British Educational Research Journal. 2004; 30; 5: 713-730. 10.1080/0141192042000234665</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siraj-Blatchford, I, Muttock, S, Sylva, K, Gilden, R, & Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy in the early years. Research Report no. 356, London, DfES</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skalstad I. Oi! Sjå på den!– funn av naturelement som utgangspunkt for utforskande naturfaglege samtalar mellom barn (5–6 år) og pedagogar. [Wow! Look at this!– findings of nature elements as starting points for exploratory scientific dialogues between children (5–6 years) and teachers]. Nordic Studies in Science Education. 2020; 16; 2: 199-214. 10.5617/nordina.7396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skalstad I, Munkebye E. Young children's questions about science topics when situated in a natural outdoor environment: A qualitative study from kindergarten and primary school. International Journal of Science Education. 2021; 43; 7: 1017-1035. 10.1080/09500693.2021.1895451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skalstad, I, & Munkebye, E. (2022). How to support young children's interest development during exploratory natural science activities in outdoor environments. Teaching and Teacher Education, 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Speldewinde C, Campbell C. Mathematics learning in the early years through nature play. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2022; 30; 4: 813-830. 10.1080/09669760.2022.2122026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swarat S, Ortony A, Revelle W. Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2012; 49; 4: 515-537. 10.1002/tea.21010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thulin, S. (2010). Barns frågor under en naturvetenskaplig aktivitet i förskolan. [Children's questions during science education in ECEC]. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 3(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.7577/nbf.255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Oers. Emergent mathematical thinking in the context of play. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2010; 74; 1: 23-37. 10.1007/s10649-009-9225-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5. ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ingunn Skalstad; Anne-Line Bjerknes and Siv Svendsen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref69"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1507347
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Dinosaurs, Mushrooms, and Geometric Forms -- Conversations with Young Children about Natural Science and Mathematics
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ingunn+Skalstad%22">Ingunn Skalstad</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8904-4100">0000-0002-8904-4100</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anne-Line+Bjerknes%22">Anne-Line Bjerknes</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7129-9789">0000-0002-7129-9789</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Siv+Svendsen%22">Siv Svendsen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 54(2):603-617.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Teachers%22">Early Childhood Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Natural+Sciences%22">Natural Sciences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics%22">Mathematics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dialogs+%28Language%29%22">Dialogs (Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Role%22">Student Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multisensory+Learning%22">Multisensory Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Continuing+Education%22">Continuing Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discussion+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Discussion (Teaching Technique)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Norway%22">Norway</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-025-01850-w
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this case study, we explore how early childhood education and care (ECEC) teachers can foster children's participation in conversations about natural science and mathematics and what factors influence it. Data consisted of 29 conversations between ECEC teachers and children. The results showed that eight of the conversations were open dialogues in which the teachers and children participated equally. In 19 of the conversations, the ECEC teachers led the conversation, and the children, to various degrees, were active and engaged participants. Two conversations were led by the children. The results showed that the children participated more actively in conversations about natural science than mathematics, and that multisensory artifacts and physical activities enhanced their participation in the conversations. The study suggests that ECEC settings should provide more opportunities for multisensory experiences and physical activities, and that teachers need more guidance on how to explain concepts and phenomena, within natural science and mathematics, to children of different ages.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1507347
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1507347
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-025-01850-w
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 603
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Natural Sciences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dialogs (Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multisensory Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Continuing Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discussion (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Norway
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Dinosaurs, Mushrooms, and Geometric Forms -- Conversations with Young Children about Natural Science and Mathematics
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ingunn Skalstad
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anne-Line Bjerknes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Siv Svendsen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1