You are here

Provoking opportunities for science in early childhood education

Sola Freeman
Abstract: 

This article presents findings from a doctoral study which examined the ways teaching teams in six New Zealand early childhood education (ECE) centres fostered and supported young children’s scientific experiences. The focus of this article is the pedagogical practice of using provocations to facilitate scientific opportunities. The way provocations fostered science occurrences will be explored drawing on the experiences of teachers in two of the centres involved in the research. The article will discuss where the pedagogical approach of provocations originates and provide examples of how provocations can facilitate opportunities for investigations around scientific concepts.

Provoking opportunities for science in early childhood education

Sola Freeman

This article presents findings from a doctoral study which examined the ways teaching teams in six New Zealand early childhood education (ECE) centres fostered and supported young children’s scientific experiences. The focus of this article is the pedagogical practice of using provocations to facilitate scientific opportunities. The way provocations fostered science occurrences will be explored drawing on the experiences of teachers in two of the centres involved in the research. The article will discuss where the pedagogical approach of provocations originates and provide examples of how provocations can facilitate opportunities for investigations around scientific concepts.

Introduction

International research indicates that the occurrences of scientific experiences for children is limited and often rests with the knowledge, beliefs, and attitude towards science of the teacher (e.g., Pendergast et al., 2017; Piasta et al., 2015). Literature suggests this is also the case in New Zealand ECE services where a lack of confidence and capabilities with science among ECE teachers (Edwards, 2010), a complex and non-prescriptive curriculum (Hedges & Cullen, 2005), and a predominantly hands-off play-based philosophy of practice (Zhang & Birdsall, 2016) means a small amount of scientific experiences occur. Literature has identified a lack of content knowledge within pedagogical practices in New Zealand ECE centres (Hedges, 2002). Furthermore, the teaching strategies teachers use when supporting scientific learning are influenced by their beliefs, attitudes, confidence in, and knowledge of, science (Edwards, 2010; Zhang & Birdsall, 2016).

The study this article draws from investigated pedagogical approaches that have been shown to have a positive influence on scientific learning for children, such as taking a fearless approach to science (Bond et al., 2010), accessing communities’ funds of knowledge (Hedges, 2007), and the cultural-historical approach conceptualised by Fleer and Pramling (2015). Data were gathered between mid-2017 and mid-2018 and involved the researcher working with teaching teams in their centres over a 12-week period. Together these teachers investigated how they could provide more opportunities for science through their environment, the resources they brought in, and/or their pedagogical practices.

Fleer and Robbins (2003) suggest that using a sociocultural perspective in science education provides a more inclusive way to capture children’s thinking and learning around scientific concepts. Others argue that sociocultural practices ask for an intentional approach from teachers to actively support children’s scientific explorations and working theories (Kumar & Whyte, 2018). This research wanted to discover how science could be enabled through the lived experiences of teachers and children in their own centres. The researcher worked alongside teachers investigating what supports such as curriculum, resources, and the environment, and what teacher capabilities or pedagogies were needed to help foster scientific experiences.

This article examines one subquestion of the study: How do teachers’ pedagogical approaches enable children’s scientific experiences? The pedagogical approach of using provocations was found to be one of the key enablers of science experiences in the centres in this study. Provocations are a teaching strategy used in Reggio Emilia settings to prepare activities that provoke a response from children through interacting with resources, having conversations, asking questions, and exploring ideas (Biermeier, 2015; Edwards, 2002; Kashin, 2017). Provocations are used to invite children to explore ideas further (Edwards, 2002), and to introduce new concepts (Vecchi, 2010). The Reggio approach emphasises the role of the environment, identifying it as the third teacher, where it is flexible and reflective of children’s interests, inspiring creativity, and imaginative thinking (Biermeier, 2015). Relationships are at the heart of the Reggio philosophy and is an emergent curriculum based on the interests of the children (Biermeier, 2015; Davis & Tsung-Hui, 2008), which reflected the teachers’ strong relationships with the children in this study. This therefore links with a key practice in ECE curricula and pedagogy, also identified by Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 2017), for teachers to support children’s interests (Birbili, 2019). Provocations, therefore, fit within the sociocultural approaches identified earlier; the practice asks teachers to purposefully respond to children’s interests, actively participate alongside children, incorporating their prior knowledge and experiences, and be fearless of where the children’s investigations may go.

Methods

This study involved two phases: a national survey and collaborative action research (CAR) with teaching teams from six different ECE centres. The national survey provided a broad view of science experiences in ECE. The survey was sent via email to 3,325 kindergartens and education and care centres throughout New Zealand, taken from the publicly available addresses held in the Ministry of Education database. There were 378 responses (11%) to the survey.

The second phase involved CAR with six different ECE centres based in the Wellington region who responded to the survey’s invitation to be part of the next phase in the research project. As the researcher, my role as a critical friend required motivating teachers to contribute throughout the study and guiding them to critically examine their practice and their centre programme. Action plans were set collaboratively with each teaching team. Data were collected over 12 weeks in each centre through focus groups, reflective journals, observations, field notes, and through two research hui with participating teachers from all centres. Drawing on my previous experience as an ECE teacher and as a lecturer in initial teacher education, I found my weekly visits provided both observational data and opportunities to critique their practice, model and suggest pedagogical approaches that might enable more scientific experiences in their programmes.

The centres

The six centres included: two kindergartens—one sessional for 2- to 4-year-olds, and one full-day for babies to 4-year-olds; two Montessori centres—one for babies through to 6 years old, and one for 3- to 6-year-olds; one preschool for 3- to 5-year-olds attached to a school in a high socioeconomic area; and one childcare centre catering for babies to 4-year-olds in a low socioeconomic area.

The participants

Four centres had all teachers at the centre involved in the study. The other two centres, with a larger teaching team, had only some of the teachers involved: five in each centre. All except one of the teachers were qualified with at least a Diploma in Teaching (ECE). The years of teaching experience between the teachers ranged from 35 years to being in their first year of teaching.

Ethics

All participants—teachers, parents, and children—gave their consent. Pseudonyms were used for the centres and teachers. Initials were used for any children discussed in the study. Anything the teachers contributed was kept confidential and not identified to them.

Findings and discussion

The value of CAR

Analysis of the data highlighted the value of the CAR process, the influence of my role, and the value of intentional pedagogical approaches for enabling science experiences. Being involved in CAR empowered teachers to critically reflect on their practice and explore different pedagogical approaches. The research provided time where teachers could collaborate as a team with a common focus on science and explore how they could support more scientific experiences through changes to their pedagogy, their centre environment, or with additional resourcing. CAR has been identified as a useful method for teachers to critically reflect on their practice with the intention for change and creation of new knowledge (see also Avgitidou, 2009; Bruce et al., 2011; MacNaughton & Hughes, 2008).

The influence of my role became apparent over the course of the study. The concept of a critical friend corresponds well with how my role was situated in this study. Costa and Kallick (1993) have identified a critical friend as “a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers a critique of a person’s work as a friend” (p. 50). To do this, the critical friend is expected to take time to understand the context of where that person is situated, know their goals, and advocate for their success. It is therefore important to acknowledge the openness of the teachers to me working alongside them and forming a trusting relationship which allowed me to support them in meaningful ways. Others have also identified the value of their role as critical friends in enabling the teacher’s critical reflection of their practice (Goodnough, 2003; Hedges, 2010).

The involvement in the CAR process and my influence as a critical friend all contributed to a shift in teachers’ practice and changes to their programmes that facilitated more scientific experiences in their centres. It motivated and enabled the teachers to focus on science, work collaboratively as a team, take ownership of the action plan, and set goals specific to their needs. They appreciated the chance to improve their knowledge and skills in teaching science, noted the benefits for children in their centre, and observed the changes they could see in their centre’s daily practice.

Shift in practice

The shift in teachers’ practice through their involvement in the study was the key enabler of scientific experiences in their centre. Their use of intentional teaching strategies such as questioning, having conversations that involved sustained shared thinking, introducing scientific language, opening doors for children to co-construct and scaffold new knowledge, and building their working theories are all consistent with the intentions of the revised curriculum Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 2017). As argued by Fleer (2009), these intentional teaching practices facilitate meaningful and authentic engagement in scientific experiences which result in children moving beyond their everyday understandings to connect with scientific concepts.

The teachers’ strong relationships with children and families were also key to their ability to support and extend children’s scientific interests. As the teachers knew the children well, they were able to draw on the children’s funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 2005) to better understand their interests and how to extend them. This reflects the concept of relational pedagogy where teachers are responsive to the interests of children and facilitate knowledge through scaffolding and mediation (Birbili, 2019; Papatheodorou, 2008).

Additionally, the teachers explored how their environment would facilitate more scientific experiences. Most resources or changes to the environment occurred via provocations. Introducing and extending science occurrences for children through provocations was a strategy teachers found very effective.

Provocations

Within this study, provocations were used to describe activities that were set up in a way that invited children to engage with the materials. The activity, for example, might revolve around something that the children can engage with, observe, or draw, with additional material to support the children’s wonderings and exploration. Kashin (2017) explains that the term provocation can be used to describe activities or materials set up on tables, although she contends activities are invitations until they provoke a response from children and then they become provocations. A significant finding in this study was that teachers found that a provocation often did not cultivate a meaningful response from the children unless a teacher remained with the activity. The teacher’s role was key to facilitating children’s engagement with the material in a deep and authentic way through questions, wonderings, and sustained conversations.

Stegelin (2003) has argued for the integration of key concepts from the Reggio Emilia approach into science teaching. She suggests aspects of the philosophy—such as the view of the child as a learner, the teacher–child relationship, an integrated curriculum based on project work, and documentation of children’s thinking—are consistent with an effective science programme in ECE. Additionally, a study by Inan et al. (2010) found that the Reggio-inspired environment created a culture that encouraged children to explore science concepts with hands-on materials and “where their understandings of science and their inquiry skills could be nourished” and socially constructed (p. 1205). Their research indicated that opportunities for science experiences came through teachers’ planned events such as provocations, children’s play and interests, and through what they termed “serendipitous events (e.g., unexpected changes in weather or one day finding a lizard in the classroom) [which became] catalysts for science learning” (p. 1196). This resembles Neuman’s (1972) concept of incidental sciencing. Neuman used sciencing to identify “science-related, process-oriented activities that are appropriate for young children” (p. 215). He categorised three types of sciencing: formal or planned activities; informal, such as individual open-ended exploration; and incidental. Neuman (1972) described incidental sciencing as experiences that are not a regular occurrence or planned by the teacher but “captured the imagination of one or more children and [are] capitalized upon by the alert teacher” (p. 224).

I referred to these incidental sciencing moments as happenstance provocations. These were valuable in enabling scientific experiences; these were situations that were not planned, that captured the children’s interest and were responded to by teachers. The key factor here was how the teacher responded to the opportunities provided by the incidental sciencing or spontaneous events. They became valuable scientific learning occurrences only when they were supported by a teacher. Happenstance provocations are similar to the concept of emergent curriculum, where curriculum comes from children’s interests (Biermeier, 2015), and can come from other sources such as “serendipity—unexpected events” (Jones, 2012, p. 68). However, in this research the events became an opportunity for scientific exploration when the teacher captured the scientific potential of the situation. The key was not the children’s interests but the response of an enthusiastic, intentional, and fearless teacher identifying the science that could be explored (Bond et al., 2010; Fleer et al., 2014).

Planned provocations helped teachers think critically and purposefully about how best to support and extend children’s interests in meaningful ways. These findings were similar to those of Fleer et al. (2014), who found “that a sciencing attitude of the teacher is likely to maximise the scientific learning opportunities of young children immeasurably” (p. 46). They found that, with a sciencing attitude, the teachers were more likely to think consciously about how to make science possible in their centre environment. Accordingly, teachers and children were more likely to think beyond the everyday ideas that were obvious and consider the science concepts in the experience.

Provocations in practice

Provocations, both planned and happenstance, were used by all teachers in this study. For this article, I draw on examples from two centres, Ngaio and Mahoe. At Ngaio, teachers already used provocations in their practice; however, this research highlighted for them how important their role was in facilitating deeper exploration of the science concepts that a provocation could enable.

Planned provocations

At Ngaio, one teacher, Kathryn, was excited to explore provocations further and observed the value in noticing and following children’s scientific interests and providing a provocation that could then extend the learning around that interest. She reflected:

Bringing in some provocations to extend an existing interest, is what I’m finding really valuable at the moment ... extend it or giving another opportunity for the same thing to happen, or else expanding it a little bit by bringing in a book about it or something else that will support that learning, cement it and revisit it. So, provocations is something I’m really big on.

Kathryn reflected that some provocations she introduced raised challenges, and others grew into significant inquiries for children. An example was the bird’s nest she found and put out on a table with photos of nests made by tūī, waxeye, fantail, and pūkeko. She had expected children to compare and explore the various habitats of birds. The children, however, noticed the bits of plastic and paper in the nest, some pieces clearly from the centre, and proceeded to clean up the rubbish in their centre’s outside area.

This then led to further investigations of plastic and rubbish in the environment and the impact on animals, with one child B especially interested. With more provocations from Kathryn and further discussions, she helped B plan a clean-up of the local beach with a class from the primary school. This investigation and learning brought Kathryn to the following conclusion:

I’ve come to accept that sometimes it is ok to lead children’s thinking a little bit and provoke and help them to make connections to prior knowledge that don’t come in that moment, so with B she had the marine thing going on in her head and the plastic and … showing her the two things together, helped … connections to be made. And … maybe three months ago I would have felt like that’s not my place to force that to happen. I don’t feel like I did force it to happen, but it’s okay to prompt those connections.

Another Ngaio teacher, Regan, also identified the vital part the teachers played in bringing provocations alive for children after she set up a table of leaves changing colour that did not go anywhere at all. She observed that:

Unfortunately, it was a flop. This was because I couldn’t sit with the activity, so me being the intentional teacher was the aspect of this activity that would either make it work or not. I was not there to engage the ‘I wonder’ thinking and so in isolation, the resources I displayed did not capture children’s interests.

Likewise, Kathryn noted an experience where she and some children were exploring the death of their centre goldfish by doing observational drawings of the fish using charcoal, with sustained conversations occurring about the parts of the fish and how the children would miss him/her. Kathryn needed to leave the table and asked a reliever to sit with the children and continue the experience. However, a few minutes later the table was empty. As Kathryn observed, it was not just the teacher being there but a teacher who had knowledge of the children and was “able to offer the right level of information for them to remain engaged”. This highlighted the value in relational pedagogy alongside intentional teaching in supporting children’s scientific interests through provocations.

Happenstance provocations

At Mahoe, the teachers found using scientific language when introducing provocations was important, especially being prepared with knowledge around the science that the provocation might initiate. For one teacher, Cynthia, her knowledge and confidence meant she took advantage of provocations and recognised the science in the opportunities that came up. She reflected:

I guess you use any opportunity. [I]t’s like today when the boys were out making the volcanoes in the sand pit … the fact that there is a volcano happening right now, you can ask if they have seen it or know about it … it sort of builds on or taking any opportunity you can to introduce a new idea.

Another teacher, Sharon, thought provocations were utilising the teachable moments that came up during the day; often these came about through weather, visits from animals, or something brought in by a child or family. These were identified as happenstance provocations. Provocations were not a practice the teaching team at Mahoe intended to explore during the study; however, they reflected on when a family loaned the centre a metal detector and how this had created a large investigation into where metal could be found. The teachers saw the value in provocations, how these incidences had enabled science through bringing in new ideas, facilitating conversations, and the sharing of ideas among children. They decided to explore how to make them happen more often in their centre.

One happenstance provocation that created a significant amount of discussion and learning for children and teachers at Mahoe was a hedgehog residing in the centre’s top garden. Cynthia reflected on the value of the hedgehog provocation:

Each time we see the hedgehog we seem to talk about different aspects of what an animal needs to thrive and survive. Today it was the burrow and protection. When Sola visited they talked about what hedgehogs might eat. Another day when it was raining quite hard, one of the children was concerned about the hedgehog’s hole getting flooded.

Finding animals in our environment provides such great provocation for discussion and a chance to encourage children to share their existing knowledge and for teachers to introduce new knowledge in an authentic and meaningful way.

At Mahoe, using provocations influenced the way the teachers set up activities; thinking about the science concepts they could introduce or extend on, based on children’s interests. They also recognised the value in responding in a more purposeful way to the happenstance provocations that happened during the daily life of their centre.

Conclusion

For the teachers at Ngaio and Mahoe, using provocations and responding to happenstance provocations was a key strategy for supporting children’s scientific interests and to creating opportunities for more science to occur. The teachers all noted the value and potential of provocations (planned or happenstance) was realised significantly more if they worked alongside children as they engaged with it.

In this study, being involved in CAR and having my input as a critical friend was a significant catalyst to the teachers’ shift in practice. Once teachers recognised the importance of their role in enabling scientific experiences—either through the intentional strategies they used or being the link between the centre environment and children—they realised the opportunities the environment afforded for science more often. The study highlighted the value of being part of a supportive teaching team who are focused on the same goal, who encourage one another, and on a more practical level protect one another from the demands that could interrupt their sustained engagements with children. For example, noticing when a teacher was involved in supporting children exploring a provocation and stepping in to set up the kai table if that teacher was rostered to do so, so they could remain with the provocation.

Teachers’ attitudes towards science shifted as well. Most teachers were interested in science but lacked confidence to engage with it often. However, the success of the provocations and their intentional teaching strategies with children increased their confidence and they became more excited about regularly provoking children’s scientific learning. Overall, the changes in teachers’ practice and in their attitude towards science, their wondering and enthusiasm for science investigations, resulted in a growing culture of inquiry among children. The consequence was children asked questions, wondered, and even identified themselves as scientists. These resulting positive experiences fostered through this study meant an increase in teachers’ confidence, capability, and enthusiasm for science.

With a focus on science, teachers can choose to notice, recognise, and respond purposefully to children’s scientific interests or to happenstance provocations that come into their centre and take those scientific enquiries to a deeper level. Using planned provocations to extend children’s interests or bring in new investigations can facilitate further explorations and wonderings. Together, these teaching strategies will provoke opportunities for more scientific experiences in ECE centres.

References

Avgitidou, S. (2009). Participation, roles and processes in a collaborative action research project: A reflexive account of the facilitator. Educational Action Research, 17(4), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790903309441

Biermeier, M. (2015). Inspired by Reggio Emilia: Emergent curriculum in relationship-driven learning environments. Young Children, 70(5), 72–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren.70.5.72

Birbili, M. (2019). Children’s interests in the early years classroom: Views, practices and challenges. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 23, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.11.006

Bond, L., Cooper, R., Jordan, B., Sargent, J., Smorti, S., & First Years Preschool over-twos teaching team. (2010). Fearless science: Engaging community. In A. Meade (Ed.), Dispersing waves: Innovation in early childhood education (pp. 57–61). NZCER Press.

Bruce, C., Flynn, T., & Stagg-Peterson, S. (2011). Examining what we mean by collaboration in collaborative action research: A cross-case analysis. Educational Action Research, 19(4), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2011.625667

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234658747

Davis, G., & Tsung-Hui, T. (2008). Mathematics and science in the early years: International perspectives and theoretical views. In P. G. Grotewell & Y. R. Burton (Eds.), Early childhood education: Issues and developments (pp. 23–45). Nova Science Publishers.

Edwards, C. (2002). Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1), 2–14. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED464766

Edwards, K. (2010). The inside story: Early childhood practitioners’ perceptions of teaching science. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.

Fleer, M. (2009). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9085-x

Fleer, M., Gomes, J., & March, S. (2014). Science learning affordances in preschool environments. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(1), 38–48. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/183693911403900106

Fleer, M., & Pramling, N. (2015). A cultural–historical study of children learning science. Foregrounding affective imagination in play-based settings. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9370-4

Fleer, M., & Robbins, J. (2003). “Hit and run research” with “hit and miss” results in early childhood science education. Research in Science Education, 33, 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000005249.45909.93

Gonzalez, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., & Moll, L. C. (2005). Funds of distributed knowledge. In N. Gonzalez, L. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms (pp. 257–271). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613462

Goodnough, K. (2003). Facilitating action research in the context of science education: Reflections of a university researcher. Educational Action Research, 11(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790300200203

Hedges, H. (2002). Subject content knowledge in early childhood curriculum and pedagogy. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Massey University.

Hedges, H. (2007). Funds of knowledge in early childhood communities of inquiry. Unpublished PhD thesis, Massey University.

Hedges, H. (2010). Blurring the boundaries: Connecting research, practice and professional learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.502884

Hedges, H., & Cullen, J. (2005). Subject knowledge in early childhood curriculum and pedagogy: Beliefs and practices. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(1), 66–79. http://cie.sagepub.com/content/6/1/66.full.pdf+html

Inan, H., Trundle, K., & Kantor, R. (2010). Understanding natural sciences education in a Reggio Emilia-inspired preschool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1186–1208. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20375

Jones, E. (2012). The emergence of emergent curriculum. YC Young Children, 67(2), 66–68.

Kashin, D. (2017, May 14). Invitations, provocations and reflective practice. https://tecribresearch.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/invitations-provocations-and-reflective-practice/

Kumar, K., & Whyte, M. (2018). Interactive science in a sociocultural environment in early childhood. He Kupu The Word, 5(3), 20–27. https://www.hekupu.ac.nz/sites/default/files/2018-05/04%20Kumar%20and%20Whyte.pdf

MacNaughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2008). Doing action research in early childhood studies: A step-by-step guide. McGraw-Hill Education.

Ministry of Education Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga. (2017). Te whāriki—He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Author. https://tewhariki.tki.org.nz/en/early-childhood-curriculum/

Neuman, D. (1972). Sciencing for young children. Young Children, 27(4), 214–226. www.jstor.org/stable/42724010

Papatheodorou, T. (2008). Exploring relational pedagogy. In T. Papatheodorou & J. Moyles (Eds.), Learning together in the early years: Exploring relational pedagogy (pp. 3–17). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894163

Pendergast, E., Lieberman-Betz, R., & Vail, C. (2017). Attitudes and beliefs of prekindergarten teachers toward teaching science to young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0761-y

Piasta, S., Logan, J., Pelatti, C., Capps, J., & Petrill, S. (2015). Professional development for early childhood educators: Efforts to improve math and science learning opportunities in early childhood classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037621

Stegelin, D. (2003). Application of the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood science curriculum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022013905793

Vecchi, V. (2010). Art and creativity in Reggio Emilia: Exploring the role and potential of ateliers in early childhood education. Routledge.

Zhang, W., & Birdsall, S. (2016). Analysing early childhood educators’ science pedagogy through the lens of a pedagogical content knowing framework. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 50–58.

Sola Freeman received her PhD from Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) in December 2021. Over the last year she has juggling various roles at VUW: lecturer, marker, visiting lecturer and research assistant. Her research interests are in ECE curriculum and pedagogy, specifically science and intentional teaching.

Email: sola.freeman@vuw.ac.nz