CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Science Education and PedagogyScience Education and PerceptionsEvolution and Science Education

When Children Do Science: Collaborative Interactions in Preschoolers’ Discussions About Animal Diversity

Open access
Frejd, Johanna·2021·Research in Science Education
DOI 10.1007/s11165-019-9822-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the aim of exploring how science is done in collaborative interactions when children discuss reasons for animal diversity, this paper provides insight into the relationships between acts of doing science and collaborative interactions. Video data from four small-group discussions (N = 14) were analysed using Lemke’s (1990) talking science framework and Granott’s (1993) collaborative interaction framework. During their interactions, the children make use of their prior experiences and the materials provided as they engage in acts of doing science. The findings reveal that 6-year-old children are able to engage in science dialogue as they use observations and comparisons as data to generate, describe and discuss ideas. Moreover, while engaged in highly collaborative interactions, the children use observations to evaluate, challenge and question each other. Overall, the study sheds light on how acts of doing science can be perceived in young students’ discussions about science phenomena. The study indicates that the character of the collaborative interactions is an important factor for how acts of doing science are carried out.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11165-019-9822-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • From the age of 4-6 years, children are able to generate predictions, use observations as evidence, and evaluate and question each other.

    “from the age of 4-6 years, children are able to generate predictions, use observations as evidence, and evaluate and question each other (Frejd 2019;Kim and Roth 2018;Metz 2011;Manz and Allen 2017;Ruffman et al. 1993;Siry et al. 2012).”

    From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Frejd 2019

    The Acts of Doing Science and Discussion sections report that children used observations as evidence and evaluated and questioned one another. But the study’s participants were about 6 years old, not ages 4–6, and its findings describe generating ideas rather than explicitly generating predictions. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Collaboration among students enables the co-construction of knowledge in elementary school children.

    “Although previous studies have shown that collaboration among students enables the co-construction of knowledge in elementary school children”

    From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Frejd 2019

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that child–child interaction supports and enriches ideas, and that children evaluate, question, and challenge one another’s ideas. That supports the collaborative knowledge-building point, but the study concerns six-year-olds in a preschool class, not elementary school children generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Therefore, children's evidence-based reasoning was not limited to their observations, but they also relied on previous information and personal experiences.

    “Therefore, children's evidence-based reasoning was not limited to their observations, but they also relied on previous information and personal experiences, as also reported by Frejd (2019) and Varelas and Pappas (2013).”

    From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Frejd (2019)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Andersson, K., & Gullberg, A. (2014). What is science in preschool and what do teachers have to know to empower children? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 275-296.
  2. Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: the science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88(6), 855-884.
  3. Frejd, J. (2018) "If It Lived Here, It Would Die." Children's Use of Materials as Semiotic Resources in Group Discussions About Evolution. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(3), 251-267.
  4. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.
  5. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489-1522.
  6. Granott, N. (1993). Patterns of interaction in the co-construction of knowledge: separate minds, joint effort, and weird creatures. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fisher (Eds.), Development in context: acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 183-207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Granott, N. (1998). Unit of analysis in transit: from the individual's knowledge to the ensemble process. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 42-66.
  8. Herakleioti, E., & Pantidos, P. (2016). The contribution of the human body in young children's explanations about shadow formation. Research in Science Education, 46(1), 21-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9458-2. · DOI
  9. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
  10. Howitt, C., Upson, E., & Lewis, S. (2011). 'It's a mystery!': a case study of implementing forensic science in preschool as scientific inquiry. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 45.
  11. Hsin, C.-T., & Wu, H.-K. (2011). Using scaffolding strategies to promote young children's scientific under- standings of floating and sinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 656-666. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10956-011-9310-7. · DOI
  12. Jaipal-Jamini, K. (2011). A semiotics discourse analysis framework: understanding meaning making in science education contexts. In S. C. Hamel (Ed.), Semiotics theory and applications (pp. 191-208). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc..
  13. Jaipal, K. (2010). Meaning making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: a multimodal semiotics discourse analysis. Science Education, 94(1), 48-72.
  14. Jewitt, C. (2011). The routledge handbook of multimodal Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
  15. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: the multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5-18.
  16. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). BDoing the lesson^or Bdoing science^: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  17. Kohlhauf, L., Rutke, U., & Neuhaus, B. (2011). Influence of previous knowledge, language skills and domain- specific interest on observation competency. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 667-678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9322-3. · DOI
  18. Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 117).
  19. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: the grammar of visual design (2 ed.). London: Routledge.
  20. Larsson, J. (2013). Contextual and conceptual intersubjectivity and opportunities for emergent science knowl- edge about sound. International Journal of Early Childhood, 45(1), 101-122.
  21. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed., [rev.] ed ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  22. Mueller, M. F. (2009). The co-construction of arguments by middle-school students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2-3), 138-149.
  23. Murphy, C., Murphy, C., & Kilfeather, P. (2011). Children making sense of science. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 283-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9165-6. · DOI
  24. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17-39.
  25. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
  26. Parkinson, D. D. (2001). Securing trustworthy data from an interview situation with young children: six integrated interview strategies. Child Study Journal, 31(3), 137-156.
  27. Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86(3), 368-385.
  28. Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children's thoughts on the origin of species: a study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147-177.
  29. Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J.-O. (2001). Heavenly talk: discourse, artifacts, and children's under- standing of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44(2-3), 103-118.
  30. Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
  31. Yoon, J., & Onchwari, J. A. (2006). Teaching young children science: three key points. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 419-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-006-0064-4. · DOI
  32. Ødegaard, M., Arnesen, N. E., & Klette, K. (2016). Talk and use of language in the science classroom: characteristic features. In K. Klette, O. K. Bergem, & A. Roe (Eds.), Teaching and learning in lower secondary schools in the era of PISA and TIMSS (pp. 101-112): Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frejd, J.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Frejd, Johanna
ORCID
Frejd, Johanna
Venue
Research in Science Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-02-12
Volume
51
Issue
S1
Pages
21-42
ISSN
  • 0157-244X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1898
DOI
10.1007/s11165-019-9822-3
OpenAlex
W2912664360
Cited by
24
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
6.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Research in Science Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Linköping University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
Keywords
children's science learning, preschool science, collaborative interaction, animal biodiversity, small group discussion, prior experience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review