Books And Stories In Children’s Science:
The preliminary findings of the BASICS Project
John F. McCullagh
Glenda Walsh
Julian G. Greenwood
Stranmillis University College
Belfast
BT9 5DY
Northern Ireland
Abstract
We report on a project that examined the benefits of introducing books and stories
into science teaching in the early years of primary school. Student teachers used
fiction and non-fiction books to introduce science lessons. We wished to determine
whether their use promoted pupil engagement for the science topic being taught. Data
were gathered using questionnaires and interviews administered to children, students
and teachers. It was found that the use of books and stories within science enhanced
pupil engagement; in particular observation and communication skills were enhanced,
as were their confidence, decision making and problem solving abilities.
Key words
Science-enquiry
Stories
Books
Introduction
This paper reports on the preliminary findings of the BASICS Project (Books And
Stories In Children’s Science), funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust.
The three year project explores how books and stories can support the smooth
transition of children’s experience of science between Foundation Stage and Key
Stage 1. The project involves principals, science coordinators and teachers from a
cluster of primary schools working with staff and undergraduate students from
Stranmillis University College Belfast, and science advisers from the South Eastern
Education and Library Board. During this first ‘modelling’ phase of the project (20062007), the class teachers engaged in structured observation, as the students planned
and taught a series of enquiry-based science lessons making use of books and stories.
This paper reports on the findings from the perspective of both the teachers and the
pupils. In phase 2, the ‘scaffolding’ phase (2007-2008), the class teachers, will adopt
this approach in their teaching, with the student providing assistance and support. The
final ‘autonomous’ phase 3 will see the class teachers continuing to develop this
practice. It is hoped that this model for development will enhance science teaching
across each of the cluster of schools involved and beyond.
Background
Science in the curriculum
This project comes at a time of curriculum change in Northern Ireland and therefore
seeks to support schools as they adapt their approaches to science at lower primary
level. Within the Revised Northern Ireland Curriculum, science, along with History
and Geography is included as one of the six learning areas called ‘The World Around
Us’. The Revised Curriculum promotes subject integration and encourages teachers to
make relevant connections’ in children’s learning (CCEA, 2007). Teachers also are
encouraged to have considerable flexibility to select from within the learning areas
those aspects they consider appropriate to the ability and interests of their pupils
(CCEA, 2007). In the previous curriculum, science was included alongside Numeracy
and Literacy as a core subject. We therefore feel that science may now be perceived
as less important and therefore marginalised. In order to counter any such notions it is
more important than ever that science teaching is linked to other aspects of the
curriculum (in this case Literacy), and that its potential for supporting skills
development is fully realised.
The revised curriculum also introduces a Foundation Stage where a less formal
approach to learning is to be adopted. The principles underpinning the Foundation
Stage are that young children learn best when learning is interactive, practical and
enjoyable for both children and teachers (CCEA, 2007). Recent evaluation of the
‘Early Years Enriched Curriculum’ (a pilot for the Foundation Stage) by Sproule et al.
(2005) supports this approach but identifies clear differences between the experiences
of Year1/2 teachers and Year 3/4 teachers with regard to the availability of training
and resources. The potential exists for disruption to children’s progress if teaching
moves too abruptly to the more formal approach of Key Stage 1 and the principles of
the Foundation Stage are not fully developed. We see here the potential for bridging
this transition from Foundation into Key Stage 1, and highlighting the closeness of the
play-based approaches within Early Years settings and the enquiry-based practical
work at Key Stages 1 and 2 (Harlen et al., 2003).
Supporting development in science
Despite the progress made in primary science (OFSTED 2002), teachers’ confidence
and training continues to be the most significant issue currently facing primary
science (Murphy & Beggs, 2005). Murphy and Beggs’ (2005) scoping study also
reported teachers’ concern at the lack of resources and continual professional
development available and their view that making science more relevant to pupils’
experience is the best way to improve the teaching and learning of science. One
possible way to make science more relevant and accessible to children is to
incorporate books and stories within science lessons. Whilst this is by no means a new
idea (Gould, 1900), there have been many recent examples of different approaches,
for example, using poems (Speedie, 2002; Feasey, 2006), story webs (Oliver, 1999),
and making ‘Big Books’ (McMahon, 1999). It is the use of books and stories as an
introduction to enquiry-based science which is the focus of this project. Cavendish et
al. (2006) report how stories can be effectively used as starting points for science by
liberating and channelling the energy and enthusiasm of young children as they
explore their world. This is particularly relevant when adopting an enquiry-based
approach, when we are exploring children’s ideas through discussion. The importance
of talk in developing reasoning and scientific understanding has been outlined by
Keogh and Naylor (2006) and by Goldsworthy (2004). Nevertheless Murphy and
Beggs (2005) report that only a small fraction of teachers make use of stories in
science.
The aim of this project was therefore to allow teachers from a cluster of primary
schools to observe first hand the merits of using books and stories within enquirybased science. This ‘modelling’ phase of the project will hopefully provide the
prerequisites for change in professional practice of effective adequate time, resources
and support (Fullan, 2001). We have previously used this model for teacher
development with great success (Murphy et al., 2004).
Project aims and details
Phase 1 of the project involved a partnership between the project team: 12 student
teachers, principals, science coordinators and teachers from a cluster of five primary
schools, during the period September 2006 to June 2007. The students, supported by
the project team and their host teachers, planned and taught science over a period of
six weeks. The science lessons were enquiry-based and used a book or story as an
introduction and often during the concluding discussion. During the lessons the
classroom teachers engaged in a structured observation activity. A training and
planning seminar was held prior to the teaching phase, whilst a concluding seminar
was held a few weeks after the teaching had finished to share experience between the
participating schools. The overall aim of the project was to promote the smooth
transition of children’s science experience by supporting a common approach to best
practice in the final year of Foundation Stage into the first year of Key Stage 1. The
‘best practice’ approach is one which is stimulating and relevant to children (books
and stories) and child-centred (enquiry-based). The project design supported transition
by providing the opportunity for the teachers of the two year groups to plan together
and to adopt a common approach. During this phase, the teachers observed and
compared lessons involving both their own cohort of pupils and the pupils on the
other side of the Foundation/Key Stage 1 interface. This practice provided the
teachers with the opportunity to identify the different levels within children’s
progression in science enquiry skills.
The science topics were chosen by the host schools in accordance with their science
programme for the term. Each student planned a series of six enquiry-based lessons
which included the use of a book or a story. The lesson plan required the student
teachers to identify learning intentions and identify skills relating to both the science
enquiry aspect and the literacy aspect of the lesson. During each lesson the teacher
engaged in a structured observation activity. The teachers were also required to record
any signs where they felt the book or story was enhancing the children’s learning
experience.
Project Evaluation
Data collection methods
The data were collected using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group
interviews (pupils), and a structured observation activity using a modified version of
Walsh’s Quality Learning Instrument (Walsh & Gardner, 2005). This enquiry-based
science Quality Learning Instrument (QLI-ebs) was used by teachers during their own
science lessons before and after the students’ intervention. The student teachers also
applied it to lessons at the very start and at the end of the teaching phase.
Questionnaires were administered to teachers, science coordinators and student
teachers before the initial planning seminar and then after the students had completed
their period of teaching. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with principals,
science coordinators, teachers and student teachers on completion of this phase of the
project.
A key aspect of the project examined responses of the children to the greater use of
stories in their science activities as an array of research (e.g. Walsh et al., 2006)
emphasizes that what young children have to say is of interest and is informative and
should not be overlooked in any project concerning them. Evidence was therefore
obtained by use of two data collection methods: the observations of children during
their science lessons and focus group interviews with six groups of approximately
eight children chosen by the class teacher.
The observations
The key aim of the observations was to evaluate whether the quality of the scientific
experience had improved as a result of the inclusion of books and stories into the
lessons. Based on this premise it was intended not to focus on outcomes (i.e. had
children’s scientific knowledge improved), but rather to focus into the learning
processes during the lessons in terms of children’s learning dispositions and use of
scientific skills. In this way it could be argued that the aim was to capture what Katz
(1995) terms the ‘bottom up’ perspective of quality i.e. how does it feel to be a child
in this particular activity.
The QLI is a process measure of quality which aims to capture the quality of the
learning experience on offer in a given early years setting. In this way it challenges
the pre-existing notion that quality can only be determined in terms of learning
outcomes, teaching style and context. Instead, as argued by Walsh et al. (2006), the
QLI rates the quality of a setting according to the way it meets the developmental
needs of the children. It is embedded in an experiential model of how young children
learn and develop and it focuses on nine key themes, namely motivation,
concentration, confidence, independence, wellbeing, socials interaction, respect,
multiple skill acquisition and higher order thinking skills. The QLI has proven to a
highly reliable and valid instrument (Walsh & Gardner, 2005), its formulation
mediated by evidence from a series of pilot observations, the views of early years
experts, a calibration study and a Krippendorf’s alpha test showing a high level of
inter-rater reliability (0.73-1.0).
The QLI-ebs maintains its focus on the themes of ‘motivation’, ‘concentration’ and
‘confidence’ (drawn directly from the QLI) but with the addition of ‘observation and
communication’, ‘predicting’, ‘problem-solving’ and ‘decision-making’. Although the
Higher Order Thinking Skills indicator in the QLI touches upon these, it does so in
quite a generalized way and the intention was to make these skills more specific and
pronounced for this science-focused study. Unlike the QLI which considers the entire
triangle of interaction in its evaluation (i.e. the children’s actions, the teaching
strategies and the role of the environment), the QLI-ebs focuses solely on the
children’s actions as a means of capturing the children’s responses to the use of
stories and books in their science lessons. Each of these seven themes are rated on a
high (3) to low (1) basis and a general picture of practice is captured (i.e. the majority
of children), rather than targeting specific children. The observation is carried out
over the course of the entire science lesson and after the lesson has been delivered, a
rating is made against the QLI -ebs based on a best fit model.
For the purposes of this study, the QLI-ebs was used both by classroom and student
teachers. The teachers (n = 6) used the QLI-ebs on a science lesson before the
intervention and then after the intervention; while the students (n = 10) used the QLIebs immediately after their first Science lesson within the intervention and then after
their last science lesson.
Focus Group interviews
Six focus group interviews were conducted with approximately 6 - 8 pupils (aged 6-7
years) in each group. A puppet or toy was used on each occasion to act as a stimulant
for discussion. Approximately six questions were posed in an effort to encourage the
children to talk about their experience of using books and stories in their science
lessons.
Findings
Comments from teachers
All the teachers reported that the use of books and stories greatly enhanced the
learning experience of the children. The book or story was seen to provide a relevant
and child-friendly context for the science which in turn provided the opportunity for
developing children’s language and thinking skills. This synergy was a common
theme which emerged from this study, highlighting the merits of adopting a more
integrated approach to teaching. The three most cited advantages related to children’s
motivation and enjoyment, language development, and the support which a story can
provide for developing science concepts.
The teachers commented on how children love stories so therefore from the very start
of the lesson they were engaged and motivated. Thus the story was seen as the ideal
way to introduce the science, as one teacher explained: I realise what a valuable
introduction this can be (using a story) and how it engages children immediately
through what they are familiar with.
The narrative form of the story was seen as providing a structure and meaning to the
lesson which developed into an activity with real purpose. Children were judged to be
more involved in their learning, often empathising with the characters in the story and
therefore motivated to help come up with a possible solution or advice regarding the
particular problem or scenario. In this way a positive disposition to ‘finding out’ was
developed which sustained children’s focus throughout the lesson. The revisiting of
the story or book during the conclusion or plenary was also valued: When they went
back to the story you could see what they had learned. They also would help thinking
about a different possible ending, using their new knowledge.
The use of a second and slightly different story was also considered an ideal way to
support children in transferring or applying their ideas to a new situation. This use of
stories or books seemed to have developed teachers’ awareness of where ‘science’ can
be accommodated within the curriculum, as suggested by: Being involved in this
project has made me more aware of how much ‘science’ is an integral part of our
everyday lives. The information we can gleam is not just restricted to ‘facts’. Fiction
in stories, poetry and song can provide a jumping off point and reinforce the learning
process. I am enjoying resourcing stories and poems for my future lessons.
There was marked increase in teachers’ awareness of the role of fiction in science
lessons as evidenced by the comment: I think I will be more inclined to use fiction
books or a combination of fiction and factual books in the future. I will also be on the
look out for science opportunities in the books that we already use.
This use of book and stories was also considered to greatly support the development
of children’s general use of language and their ‘science talk’. The secure environment
brought by the use of a story was felt to encourage even the more shy children to offer
opinions and comments. This approach was considered to make science more
accessible. The resultant increase in talking and listening was seen to develop
children’s vocabulary, both scientifically and generally. For example, lessons on
materials using a feely box allowed the idea of ‘opposites’ to be explored and
descriptive language to be developed. The story could often provide a stimulus for
talking as suggested by the observation: I found it useful to compare how some of the
children are motivated and willing to use scientific language.
The opportunity, which the introductory story or book provided for exploring
children’s current thinking, was considered by several teachers to be a key advantage
of this approach. For example children’s ideas on melting and freezing could be
accessed via a discussion of the story of ‘The Snowman’. The more abstract concepts
such as heat, insulation and changes of state could now be accessed by talking about
the sun, the Snowman’s coat and his inevitable melting. The story was considered to
provide a shared experience in which children’s ideas could be explored and
developed. This twinned development of both science and literacy was outlined by the
comment: The project exemplifies how literacy can fit so naturally into science.
Young children love to learn through shared reading. The children responded very
positively to the stories which puts the science into context for them and provides the
opportunity to refer back to the story.
The QLI-ebs
Overall, the findings would suggest that the greater use of books and stories in the
science lessons increased the overall quality of the scientific experience from the
children’s perspective. The mean total scores on the QLI-ebs as rated by the teachers
increased significantly (t5 = 5.4, P = 0.001) as a result of the inclusion of books and
stories to the science lessons (fig. 1). Similarly there was a significant (t9 = 4.6, P =
0.0006) increase in the students’ scores over the teaching period which can be
explained by the fact that the students became more competent in integrating more
books and stories into the content of their science lessons (fig. 2).
A fuller exploration of the QLI-ebs scores was undertaken to determine those
indicators that teacher and students felt gave the greatest number of increases in terms
of the children’s responses. Figure 3 displays how teachers reported an increase on
each separate indicator. Those indicators that scored the highest in terms of the
number of increases were decision making, problem-solving and confidence. The
students also reported a number of increases for each indicator, in particular problemsolving, observation and communication and confidence (fig. 4).
Children’s comments
During the focus group interview the children were invited to talk about the lesson
and if they had enjoyed the work. It was interesting that several children’s accounts
included aspects of both the story and the science activity. The support for the science
provided by the story is clear from the comments: Bertie Bunnie helped me realise
that some things can be made from more than one material, like a spoon in the
kitchen, metal and plastic and I often spill things at home and now I know never to use
a plastic bag again to wipe it up! – Like Naughty Nora.
While all the children seemed to welcome this approach only the older group of
children were able to articulate how the story had helped: Yes I like books, because
you know what you are going to do and you know what it is about and the story
teaches us more stuff. The relevance which this methodology brings to science is clear
in the comment.
Comments from the children themselves would support these findings included: I now
know why my daddy uses bricks instead of straw.
Discussion
The view of teachers’ practice obtained from the pre-project questionnaire indicated
that their use of books and stories was quite varied and restricted to the use of nonfiction texts. Enquiry-based science was also an area in which the teachers were less
confident. The following comments therefore indicate that the project has effectively
modelled the merits of this approach and will now influence future teaching
intentions: I now feel more confident in using an enquiry-based approach, simply
because of the opportunity to observe very good practice. I got to see how the
resources and equipment can be easily obtained and I will make even more use of
books and stories in my science. I used to use ‘Big Books’ and usually books on facts.
Now I will start to use fiction and even poetry.
The data obtained from both the QLI-ebs and from teachers’ general observations
indicate that books and stories greatly enhanced children’s learning environment and
supported their development in both science and in language development. We
therefore believe that teachers’ greater use of books within their science lessons would
address issues regarding the relevance (Murphy & Beggs 2005) and accessibility of
science and provide stimulating and motivating opportunities for developing
children’s thinking and communication skills. This view is totally consistent with
Oliver’s (1999) observation of how science can be given meaning and that literacy
skills can be developed in a purposeful context. Questions raised relate to a shared
experience of the text, the structure is already in place and an understanding of
science can be developed through dialogue. Indeed the case for this potential to
development language has been recently highlighted by Keogh and Naylor (2007) and
Goldsworthy (2004). However the use of books and stories in science lessons still
remains quite low (Murphy & Beggs, 2005) and may, as suggested by Asoko (1997),
be incidental to, rather than the focus of, their science activity.
We therefore recommend that teachers, already aware and skilled in the use of books
and stories, extend these approaches to enquiry-based science. We feel that this
relatively minor modification of current practice could yield maximum benefits in
terms of children’s disposition to and engagement with learning. We hope that these
and other findings will be effective in influencing teachers’ thinking whereby, as
Keogh and Naylor (2007) contend presenting possible changes in professional
practice as quick, simple and effective, without requiring major shifts in values,
beliefs or curricula, makes it much more likely that teachers will take a step in that
direction.
In the second phase of the project the teachers will have the opportunity to try out
these approaches, with the student teacher playing a supportive role. This ‘scaffolding
phase’ should embed this methodology in teachers’ classroom practice and that the
opportunities for critical reflection provided by the project should result in better
science experiences for their pupils. We feel that children’s basic love of story and
enquiry presents teachers with the challenge of how best to harness their enthusiasm
and sense of wonder. This task is central to all planning for effective science teaching
and is well described by Lemke (2001): If we want to erase the looks of
disappointment and anxiety that greet the end of the story and our return to more
scientific forms of discourse, we have to work harder to make these strange forms
more familiar. We have to unpack and display the organization and logic of scientific
ways of using language.
References
Alderson, P. (2005) Children’s Rights: A New Approach to Studying Childhood. In
H. Penn Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Asoko, H. (1997) ‘Reading for science learning’. Primary Science Review, 50,
(Nov/Dec), 4-6.
Cavendish, J., Stopps, B. & Ryan, C. (2006) ‘Involving young children through
stories as starting points.’ Primary Science Review, 92 (March/April), 18-20.
Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) (2007) The
Revised Northern Ireland Primary Curriculum, Belfast: CCEA.
Dillon, J., Osborne, J., Fairbrother, R. & Kurina, L. (2000) ‘A study into the
professional views and needs of science teachers in primary and secondary schools in
England’. Online: www.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/ files/science-teachers/kostfin1.pdf
[accessed December 2007]
Feasey, R. (2006) ‘Using stories and poems in science’. Primary Science Review, 92
(March/April), 14-18.
Fullan, M. (2001) The new meaning of educational change. 3rd edition. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Goldsworthy, A. (2004) ‘It’s good to talk’. Education in Science, (April), 8-9.
Gould, A.W. (1900) Mother Nature’s Children. London: Ginn.
Harlen, W., Macro, C., Reed, K, & Schilling, M. (2003) Making Progress in Primary
Science. London: Routledge.
Jones, M. & Watson, C. (2004) “Understanding Science: How do you Teach
Scientific Concepts to Children with Poor Language Skills” Special Education,
(July/August), 18-21.
Katz, L. G. (1995). Talks with teachers of young children: A collection. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Keogh, B. & Naylor, S. (2007) ‘Talking and thinking in science’. School Science
Review, 88 (324) March, 85-90.
Lemke, J. (2001) cited in Language and Literacy in Science Education Wellington, J.
& Osborne, J. Buckingham: Open University.
McMahon, K. (1999) ‘A “big book” project linking science and literacy’. Primary
Science Review, 59 (Sept/Oct), 7-9.
Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Carlisle, K. & Greenwood, J. (2004) ‘Students as ‘catalysts’ in
the classroom: the impact of co-teaching between science student teachers and
primary classroom teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science’.
International Journal of Science Education, 26 (8), 1023-1035.
Murphy, C. and Beggs, J. (2005) ‘Primary science in the UK: a scoping study.’
Report to the Welcome Trust. Belfast.
Oliver, A. (1999) ‘Science story webs’. Primary Science Review, 59 (Sept/Oct), 1418.
Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) (2002) ‘Primary subject reports 2000/01
Science’ .London: Ofsted.
Speedie, J. (2002) ‘Using poems in primary science lessons’. Primary Science
Review, 74 (Sept/Oct), 19-20.
Sproule,L., McGuiness,C., Trew,K., Rafferty,H., Walsh,G., Sheehy,N. & O’Neill,B.
(2005) ‘The Early Years Enriched Curriculum Evaluation Project.’CCEA :Belfast
Taggart, G., Ridley, K., Rudd, P. & Benefield, P. (2005) Thinking Skills in the Early
years: a Literature Review. London: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Walsh, G. & Gardner, J. (2005) ‘Assessing the Quality of Early Years Leaning
Environments’,
Early
Childhood
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html
Research
and
Practice,
(7),(1)
Walsh, G., Dunn, J., Mitchell, D. & McAlister, M. (2006) ‘Giving Young Children a
Voice: accessing the Views of 3-4 Year Old Children in Playgroups’, Representing
Children, 18, (5) pp. 79-95.
Figure 1. Teachers’ QLI-ebs mean score before and after intervention
Mean score (& 95% c.l.)
25
20
15
10
5
0
before
after
Figure 2. The students’ QLI-ebs mean score at the start of and at the end of the period
of intervention
Mean score (& 95% c.l.)
25
20
15
10
5
0
start
end
Figure 3. The number of teachers that reported an increase in score for each indicator
in the QLI-ebs (n = 6)
Decision Making
Problem solving
Predicting
Observation and Communication
Confidence
Concentration
Motivation
0
1
2
3
4
Number of increases
5
6
Figure 4. The number of students that reported an increase in score for each indicator
in the QLI-ebs (n = 10)
Decision Making
Problem solving
Predicting
Observation and Communication
Confidence
Concentration
Motivation
0
2
4
6
Number of increases
8
10