View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Free Play Matters: Promoting Kindergarten Children's Science Learning Using Questioning Strategies during Loose Parts Play

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Free Play Matters: Promoting Kindergarten Children's Science Learning Using Questioning Strategies during Loose Parts Play
Language: English
Authors: Han Qi Zeng, Siew Chin Ng (ORCID 0000-0003-1353-5971)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(7):2373-2388.
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: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Play, Kindergarten, Questioning Techniques, Young Children, Science Process Skills, Scientific Concepts, Preschool Teachers, Science Instruction
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01741-6
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Early science inquiries and experiences increase young children's awareness and interest for science. The importance of promoting science process skills which bolster children's confidence to formulate and communicate personal ideas have been emphasised by international guidelines. As Loose Parts Play (LPP) is a form of free play involving open-ended play materials, its flexible nature promotes active exploration with materials that encourages children's interaction with science-related experiences. This teacher action research aims to explore the influence of open-ended questions on children's science process skills, as well as the scientific concepts that children are capable of exploring independently during play experiences. Analyses draw on video- and audio-recorded observation, child observation notes, and teacher journals. A total of 180 open-ended questions were employed by the teacher-researcher and 155 instances of science process skills were observed in a group of five-year-old children. Findings revealed that periods of uninterrupted play time followed by open-ended questions, extend children's science process skills, and add complexity to their scientific exploration. Furthermore, children were observed to self-initiate exploration of scientific concepts, such as transforming materials and changing motion, during these uninterrupted play periods. Overall, this teacher action research highlights the pivotal role that educators play in young children's playful learning experiences, where their timely use of open-ended questions has the capacity to facilitate children's early science learning during LPP. This study serves to define an educator's role within student-driven or child-initiated learning experiences, as well as guide educators in the utility of loose part materials, provision of uninterrupted play periods, and planning of open-ended questions to stimulate children's science exploration.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483246
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHm0-9JeM5zn24yNZe-nfzwAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNk0mIozoFRbRYGczgIBEICBmtHVK2ZdrO_m21FnTv32LkKr5LddodhNN9mHjn7j_kZJsw9DYuXzGY-d271ohKqGtkSCf6CrVp3X_vVB6lTRPtfSzN3wblFXMCaxp7E_wdobUpX71FxpvKQkk7O8ndXUcqPguyUXQpUUusc68GcXyxz91xwrjEB2OXsyoU0VPPKSVOWXDHSJ8XUPeyZ7VXKL4BHyzFIr3Ry32qg=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187863962;5mx01oct.25;2025Sep12.06:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187863962-1">Free Play Matters: Promoting Kindergarten Children's Science Learning Using Questioning Strategies during Loose Parts Play </title> <p>Early science inquiries and experiences increase young children's awareness and interest for science. The importance of promoting science process skills which bolster children's confidence to formulate and communicate personal ideas have been emphasised by international guidelines. As Loose Parts Play (LPP) is a form of free play involving open-ended play materials, its flexible nature promotes active exploration with materials that encourages children's interaction with science-related experiences. This teacher action research aims to explore the influence of open-ended questions on children's science process skills, as well as the scientific concepts that children are capable of exploring independently during play experiences. Analyses draw on video- and audio-recorded observation, child observation notes, and teacher journals. A total of 180 open-ended questions were employed by the teacher-researcher and 155 instances of science process skills were observed in a group of five-year-old children. Findings revealed that periods of uninterrupted play time followed by open-ended questions, extend children's science process skills, and add complexity to their scientific exploration. Furthermore, children were observed to self-initiate exploration of scientific concepts, such as transforming materials and changing motion, during these uninterrupted play periods. Overall, this teacher action research highlights the pivotal role that educators play in young children's playful learning experiences, where their timely use of open-ended questions has the capacity to facilitate children's early science learning during LPP. This study serves to define an educator's role within student-driven or child-initiated learning experiences, as well as guide educators in the utility of loose part materials, provision of uninterrupted play periods, and planning of open-ended questions to stimulate children's science exploration.</p> <p>Keywords: Early science learning; Play-based learning; Loose parts play; Questioning strategies; Curriculum; Science process skills; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01741-6.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-2">Introduction</hd> <p>According to the National Research Council [NRC] ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref1">50</reflink>]), early science education is shifting away from an emphasis on children's memorisation of scientific facts; moving towards early science learning experiences underpinned by problem-solving and inquiry approaches – where children are recognised as curious and active learners. With this image in mind, this teacher action research is guided by Piaget's ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref2">60</reflink>]) Theory of Cognitive Development, which put forward that children gain knowledge by observing and interacting with the world around them. When applied to science learning, this suggests that children can participate in early science experiences and construct science-related knowledge. Also informed by Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref3">73</reflink>]) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which highlights the notion of a knowledgeable presence to scaffold children's learning, this study explores how educators can employ questioning strategies to scaffold and extend children's science-related exploration and curiosities during play-based experiences. When playing, children are capable of processing and formulating new insights through variations and repetition of their actions (Hauser, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref4">33</reflink>]), which present optimal conditions for developing cognitive functions (Leontjew, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref5">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>As Loose Parts Play (LPP) is a form of free play involving open-ended play materials, its flexible nature supports children's autonomy to express and act on their innate curiosities and ideas during play. Thus, LPP offers opportunities for active exploration and interaction as an approach to science learning in the early years. Empirical studies have delved into various scientific concepts that children have explored (e.g., Andersson & Gullberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]; Bulunuz, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]; Worth, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref8">77</reflink>]), while Singapore's national curricular framework (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref9">48</reflink>]) includes various recommended strategies that early educators can enact to encourage children's investigations and discovery of the daily science phenomena around them. Despite these, there exists limited studies in the Asian and the local context that detail the types of scientific concepts that children explore, as well as early educators' facilitation strategies in supporting children's scientific conceptual exploration or conceptualisation during play-based experiences (Hammer & He, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref10">31</reflink>]; Siry & Kremer, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref11">69</reflink>]). The gap of knowledge in this area could undermine educators' confidence and ability (Garbett, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref12">26</reflink>]; Olgan, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref13">57</reflink>]) to perceive and identify the science possibilities embedded within play-based settings (Fleer et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>]). Internationally, even though an increasing amount of research has shown that play is an optimal context for young children to participate in meaningful early science learning (Fleer et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]; Siry, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref16">68</reflink>]), and that educators play a critical role in boosting children's positive learning outcomes through the use of questioning strategies (Siry & Lang, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref17">70</reflink>]; Trawick-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref18">72</reflink>]), most of these studies are based in western contexts. As children's social and cultural context influence their development, the purpose of this teacher action research study is to explore how educators may employ questioning strategies to promote children's science learning, as well as to enhance their scientific concept exploration during LPP in Singapore.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-3">Loose Parts play – A Means for Active Exploration and New Discoveries</hd> <p>In 1972, Simon Nicholson developed the Theory of Loose Parts, which denotes the idea of integrating manipulable and open-ended objects, or 'loose parts', within children's play environments to present endless opportunities for their creative interaction and usages with these objects (Nicholson, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref19">56</reflink>]). Recycled loose parts can include straws, buttons, and bottles, while natural loose parts can include sand, twigs, and pebbles. This is different from close-ended play materials that typically have one method or purpose to use them, such as puzzles and knobbed cylinders. Although close-ended materials also support children's learning and development, the differences between loose parts and close-ended play materials lie in the skills that children develop when playing with the materials, and the extent to which children can freely interpret the materials' usage (Besse-Patin, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>], July). The open-endedness of loose parts provides opportunities and empowers children to consider and invent diverse ways to use their loose parts and thus, increases the depth, scope, and quality of children's play-based learning experiences. Perry ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref21">59</reflink>]) as well as Flannigan and Dietze ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]) further affirmed that intriguing loose parts evoke children's curiosities, motivating their utilisation of loose parts to investigate and experiment, and thereafter, realise new discoveries and formulate conceptual understandings. Similarly, Neill ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref23">51</reflink>]) highlighted that the repetitive use of loose parts engages children in experimentation and trial-and-error processes before affirming their hypotheses. Thus, these processes demonstrate that LPP is beneficial in enriching children's play-based learning experiences and is optimal for supporting children in exploring inquiries and developing science process skills.</p> <p>LPP experiences go beyond placing loose parts in the classroom, and instead, calls upon the knowledge and expertise of early educators. The level of support children receive influences their divergent thinking abilities, thus requiring an educator to identify appropriate moments to either render support or encourage independence during children's LPP (Casey & Robertson, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]; Dockett, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]; Killiala, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>], August). Yet, Mclnnes' et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref27">47</reflink>]) study of educators' perspectives on play suggested that educators are hesitant about facilitating children's play and may be uncomfortable with open-ended play experiences directed by children's preferences. This underlies a challenge with LPP, where the open-endedness of loose parts means that there is no definite way to anticipate how children may decide to use or engage with the materials, thereby adding a challenge for educators to realise and support learning (Holland, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref28">34</reflink>]; Houser et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref29">35</reflink>]). Therefore, our study aims to explore children's science exploration during LPP experiences; to uncover some of the teachable or incidental learning moments on which educators could build.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-4">Inquiry-based Approach for Early Science Learning</hd> <p>Prior studies have shown that children, as young as infants, can identify causal relationships and understanding physical laws (Lohaus & Vierhaus, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref30">45</reflink>]), which are imperative to understanding simple scientific relationships. They actively seek for a coherent cause or explanation to an effect, if a cause to an effect is not obvious to them (Lohaus & Vierhaus, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref31">45</reflink>]). Numerous constructivist theories have affirmed that children express and act on curiosities by manipulating and exploring their environment (Kohlberg, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref32">41</reflink>]; Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref33">60</reflink>]), which require guidance to develop them into scientific exploration. Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref34">73</reflink>]) cultural-historical theory may apply to science learning where social interaction with a more knowledgeable person is critical (Alves, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]). This underpins an educator's role to observe, recognise, and further stimulate children's interests and curiosities during play (Adbo & Vidal, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]; Kübler et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref37">42</reflink>]; Siry, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref38">68</reflink>]). Thereafter, these can be capitalised to initiate discussions or to scaffold children's thinking, thereby prompting children to play and deepen their discoveries (Ismail et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref39">36</reflink>]; Samuelsson & Carlsson, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref40">64</reflink>]). When children are prompted or challenged during playful experiences, such as LPP experiences, they are more inclined to take risks and seek new knowledge (Hauser, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref41">33</reflink>]). The inquiry-based early science learning approach exemplifies this – where educators utilise questions that prompt and guide children to autonomously investigate, problem-solve, experiment, test their own spontaneous questions or ideas, formulate conclusions, and apply various process skills (Kallery et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]), which foster their scientific attitude (Loxley et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref43">46</reflink>]). Essentially, educators' questions aid children in making sense of their learning experiences, whilst motivating the extent to which they seek answers to address their curiosities.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-5">The Power of Science Process Skills</hd> <p>In Singapore, where this teacher action research study was conducted, the national guidelines (Nurturing Early Learners framework; NEL) consisting of the Discovery of the World (DOW) Framework (Ministry of Education [MOE], [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref44">48</reflink>]) affirm children's application of science process skills in their learning experiences. Science process skills are the cognitive abilities and procedural techniques that are utilised to participate in scientific inquiry and investigation (Harlen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]), and are developed through hands-on experiences and guided inquiry (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref46">48</reflink>]). These skills include <emph>observing</emph>,<emph> comparing</emph>,<emph> classifying</emph>,<emph> communicating</emph>,<emph> predicting</emph>,<emph> recording</emph>, and <emph>experimenting</emph> (refer to Appendix A for a detailed description). Young children's intrinsic curiosity towards science presents authentic and meaningful opportunities to develop these critical process skills (Gomes & Fleer, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref47">27</reflink>]; Guarrella, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref48">29</reflink>]), that can bolster their subsequent scientific conceptual learning beyond the preschool years. These critical skills also boost children's self-confidence in their critical learning abilities to formulate and convey ideas for future learning (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref49">48</reflink>]). Crucial for these will be educators' facilitation of children's budding science process skills during play (Griffin, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref50">28</reflink>]), where children are then empowered to expand their scientific curiosities which extend their scientific learning.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-6">Integration of Loose Parts Play and Early Science Learning</hd> <p>LPP derives from Nicholson's ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref51">56</reflink>]) recognition that children intuitively enjoy interacting with various media such as gases and liquids; variables such as shapes and materials. Such active and physical interaction with various loose parts and their surrounding environment afford children opportunities to experiment and formulate theories. Bulunuz ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>]) found that children who had ample time to explore and experiment with various objects progressively demonstrated competencies in predicting and rationalising. For instance, predicting and explaining that a big cube would float on water because it <emph>'has air in it'</emph> (Bulunuz, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref53">11</reflink>], p. 240). In this sense, LPP encourages science learning when children manipulate loose parts to construct knowledge about their physical world. The use of natural, reusable, and everyday synthetic materials has been associated with the promotion of thinking in Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) (Bairaktarova et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>]). Natural materials, such as leaves and seeds, promote trial-and-error and cause-and-effect exploration and bolster children's cognitive development; increasing children's motivation to extend their own learning and explorations (Bairaktarova et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref55">7</reflink>]; Kiewra & Veselack, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]). Despite the increasing widespread interest in utilising LPP to support children's early science learning and overall cognitive development, there are limited studies that explore how early science learning is enacted during children's LPP experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-7">Open-ended Questions' Relevance to Children's Loose Parts play and Scientific Learning</hd> <p>Questioning has frequently been observed in promoting various skills in early childhood activities in classrooms where educators' facilitation skills are integral to support children's learning. More specifically, the use of questions have been observed in the Singapore context to promote social-emotional skills (Ng & Bull, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref57">53</reflink>]; Ng & Sun, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref58">54</reflink>]), language and literacy (Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref59">55</reflink>]), and sustainability learning (Bautista et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref60">9</reflink>]). However, similar evidence was lacking in LPP and science learning experiences, particularly in the context of this study. Open-ended questions elicit multiple word responses and entail several possible answers (Wasik & Hindman, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref61">74</reflink>]), which significantly influence children's science learning (Andersson & Gullberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]). This applies especially if the questions are built upon children's existing knowledge whilst presenting challenges to them. For example, building upon children's knowledge that a Lego piece could float by asking whether all the pieces would still float if they were placed into water together, prompted children to initiate their own prediction and experimentation processes (Andersson & Gullberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>]). Open-ended questions also encourage children to hypothesise and infer possible cause-and-effects during their scientific exploration (Lee & Kinzie, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref64">43</reflink>]). For instance, in response to an open-ended question about what would happen after some seed skins started to wrinkle up, children predicted that the seed skins would peel off (Lee & Kinzie, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref65">43</reflink>]). These examples suggest that open-ended questions are integral in facilitating children's science process skills.</p> <p>Elsteeg ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref66">20</reflink>]) categorised distinct types of open-ended questions and outlined their impact on children's science learning. These include <emph>attention-focusing</emph>,<emph> measuring and counting</emph>,<emph> comparison</emph>,<emph> action</emph>,<emph> problem-posting</emph>, and <emph>how and why questions</emph> (refer to Appendix B for detailed description). For example, an action question such as, '<emph>What happens if you threw the magnet into the water?'</emph>, prompt children to analyse their prior knowledge or observation and speculate possible outcomes (Lee & Kinzie, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref67">43</reflink>]). Typically, action questions also challenge children to execute experiments to affirm or refute their predictions. In response to an observed phenomenon, educators can also pose open-ended questions to motivate children's reasoning. For example, <emph>why</emph> questions such as, <emph>'Why do you think this did not work?'</emph>, stimulate reasoning because children are prompted to reflect on observed relationships before formulating generalisation that are reinforced by their prior observations (Elsteeg,1985). Posing open-ended questions serves to stimulate investigations and in-depth explorations that require observing, predicting, and gathering data; making connections across experiences; seeking relationships that warrant understanding of the physical world (Eti & Sığırtmaç, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>]; Kallery et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref69">38</reflink>]; Worth, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref70">77</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-8">Children's Scientific Concept Exploration</hd> <p>Educators' responsive guidance supports children's curiosities, prior understandings, and capabilities to obtain greater conceptual understandings (Bybee et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref71">12</reflink>]). Children's abilities to make scientific sense of their observation and experiences, as well as distinguish various scientific concepts, are also closely related to an educator's ability to support children's early concept creation (Åkerblom & Thorshag, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>]; Saçkes, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref73">63</reflink>]). Rather than viewing children's understanding of scientific concepts as a means to "test" their knowledge, this teacher action research study seeks to investigate children's exploration and perception of scientific concepts to gain insight into the way they perceive daily science phenomena as well as to inform responsive play materials and facilitation strategies. Scientific concepts present a framework for explaining and supporting children's understanding of daily-occurring phenomena, thereby serving as the building blocks for them to make sense of the world around them (Nersessian, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref74">52</reflink>]). Engaging in conversations with children enables educators to gain insights into how children interpret science experiences (Fleer & Pramling, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref75">23</reflink>]; Siry & Kremer, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref76">69</reflink>]) and conceptualise science phenomena (Rogers & Russo, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref77">62</reflink>]). These can be leveraged to plan for responsive science experiences, where the children's ongoing understandings, observations, and curiosities can be incorporated into subsequent science experiences. For example, educators may intentionally present new materials, activities, or questions that specifically challenge children's existing conceptual understandings (Bybee et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref78">12</reflink>]), consequently deepening their scientific exploration and inquiry processes. Thus, it is vital to uncover the scientific concepts that pique children's curiosity and interests, as well as the types of science-related exploration that children naturally gravitate towards during LPP experiences.</p> <p>Through this study, we aimed to explore the influence of open-ended questions on children's science process skills during LPP, as well as the scientific concepts that children are capable of exploring independently during play experiences. Findings from this study may guide educators in equipping their classrooms with relevant loose parts materials related to science concept exploration, as well as in developing and implementing open-ended questions relevant to children's spontaneous play explorations and curiosities. Therefore, the questions guiding this teacher action research study were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do open-ended questions support children's science process skills during Loose Parts Play?</item> <p></p> <item> What scientific concepts do children independently explore during Loose Parts Play?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187863962-9">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863962-10">Setting and Participants</hd> <p>This study was conducted in a commercial childcare centre, School A (pseudonym), that provides childcare services to children from eighteen months to six years of age in the Central region of Singapore. School A's inquiry-based curriculum is guided by the national curricular framework's (NEL framework) Discovery of the World volume (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref79">48</reflink>]) which is related most closely to science learning amongst six learning domains and volumes. As part of the teacher-researcher's (first author) three-month practicum, she was assigned to the Kindergarten one (K1) class by School A's principal. Prior to commencing this teacher action research, the teacher-research had observed that the K1 children engaged in LPP freely with no educator facilitation on a daily basis. The teacher-research had also gathered information about the children and the classroom practices from the main K1 class educator. This included information on the K1 children's emerging curiosities and interests towards daily science phenomena.</p> <p>This teacher action research study included the participation of five K1 children, who were four to five years of age. The selection of these participants were based on their parents' written consent (via consent forms) and the participants' assent. Prior to implementing the teacher action research, the teacher-researcher had observed the participants during their daily LPP sessions and noted that the participants' initial knowledge of and interest with scientific exploration and concepts varied. Field notes and anecdotal observation were recorded. These observation showed similarity to the information provided by the main class educator.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-11">Ethical Considerations</hd> <p>Parent consent was sought through the consent forms, with the teacher-researcher addressing any parental queries face-to-face. An informal, in-class discussion on the research activities was also conducted to obtain children's assent (Dockett & Perry, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref80">18</reflink>]). The teacher-researcher also observed for children's behavioural cues to seek their assent throughout the LPP sessions. For instance, when children avoided research-related materials or activities, like various loose parts or science-related conversations, the teacher-researcher deemed this as a sign of dissent (Dockett & Perry, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref81">18</reflink>]) and omitted them from this research. The children who had expressed assent and whose parents consented were selected as participants for the study.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-12">Procedure</hd> <p>The teacher-researcher implemented various open-ended questions with the participating children twice a week for thirty minutes each time during LPP, over a period of five weeks. Distinct types of questions, outlined in Elsteeg's ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref82">20</reflink>]) categorisation of open-ended questions (Appendix B), were posed. These open-ended questions were designed in three ways: planned prior to each LPP session; during each LPP session while considering children's ongoing spontaneous interests or exploration; after completing teacher journal records where questions were refined for subsequent LPP sessions. The NEL framework's science process skills (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref83">48</reflink>]) guided the observations and responses to the science process skills (Appendix A) displayed by the children. All teacher-child interaction were video- and audio-recorded. Children began their LPP in the indoor LPP corner and were also free to move to bigger areas or to the outdoor LPP areas. According to their preferences, the children usually engaged with their LPP activities in pairs and small groups of three to four children.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-13">Data Collection Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863962-14">Child Observation Checklist</hd> <p>During the study, the teacher-researcher captured and transcribed video and audio recordings of the LPP sessions. Observation were recorded to ensure that the children's verbal and nonverbal responses, and their interaction with loose parts, with peers, and with the teacher-researcher were captured. The recordings were also reviewed against a child observation checklist (Appendix D). This checklist served to support the teacher-researcher in focusing on and recording key aspects of children's responses, behaviours, and inquiries in relation to the distinct types of open-ended questions as well as science process skills.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-15">Teacher Journal</hd> <p>The teacher journal (Appendix C) was completed at the end of each session by the teacher-researcher to note any reflections contingent to her implementation of the distinct types of open-ended questions. The teacher journal also served to support the teacher-researcher in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of her questions in various situations, identifying questions that were observed to be more useful in prompting children to engage in several science process skills, and self-reflecting on her own body language and responses during the LPP session.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-16">Data Analysis</hd> <p>To address the two research questions, inductive content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref84">19</reflink>]) was conducted. Transcriptions from the video and audio recordings included descriptions of the settings, activities, and children's actions and verbiage, as well as the teacher-researcher's actions and questions. Following a teacher-research study design, the teacher-researcher conducted multiple reviews of the recordings to ensure that data was transcribed or reflected upon, and objectively analysed. Coding and analysis of data were continually reviewed, compared, and refined by both authors to increase the trustworthiness of findings. To establish reliability following a teacher action research design, reflexivity in the form of continuous reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action (Attia & Edge, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref85">6</reflink>]; Schon, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref86">66</reflink>]) was adopted through the teacher research journals. Coder reliability was established when there were consistent codes through re-coding and reviewing themes that categorise information effectively to determine the explicit themes that emerged from the observational data.</p> <p>To address the first research question, open-ended questions posed by the teacher-researcher were coded and categorised according to Elsteeg's ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref87">20</reflink>]) categorisation of open-ended questions (Appendix B), while the children's physical, verbal and non-verbal responses were categorised according to the list of science process skills in the NEL framework (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref88">48</reflink>]) (Appendix A). The frequency distribution of the types of open-ended questions employed by the teacher-researcher as well as the frequency distribution of the types of science process skills demonstrated by children were tabulated.</p> <p>To address the second research question, instances of children's actions and verbiage related to their exploration of scientific concepts were coded and categorised according to scientific areas (i.e., Physics, Chemistry, and Biology). These coding and categories were re-examined to formulate new codes that described the section more succinctly and accurately. For example, the instances under the broad category of 'Physics' were coded into subcategories of 'speed', 'friction', and 'state of materials'. These subcategories were named after the specific scientific phenomenon that the children were exploring, as demonstrated by their repeated actions and verbiage. Thereafter, all subcategories were further compared and refined. The finalised content categories relevant to children's self-initiated science exploration are presented in the findings. Note that these content categories in this study might not necessarily align with formal scientific terminologies for science topic (e.g., force and motion) and concept (e.g., "gravity is a force that makes things fall"; see e.g., Deakin University, n.d.) – which were not specifically observed in the children's playful exploration or actions.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-17">Findings</hd> <p>To explore the influence of open-ended questions on children's exercise of science process skills, and the scientific concepts that children are capable of exploring independently during LPP, the instances of children's independent science-related exploration and verbiage, as well as their verbal and nonverbal responses to the teacher-researchers' open-ended questions were examined. Findings revealed that open-ended questions posed by the teacher-researcher extended children's engagement in science process skills and added complexity to their scientific exploration. During their LPP, children were observed initiating their own explorations into scientific concepts (i.e., coding subcategories) like transforming materials and changing motion without any adult intervention. An unexpected finding was that presenting initial periods of uninterrupted play time followed by open-ended questions, facilitated children's explorations and application of science process skills. These findings will be elaborated in the respective sections below.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-18">RQ 1: Influence of Open-ended Questions on Children's Science Process Skills During LPP</hd> <p>A total of 180 open-ended questions were posed by the teacher-researcher, and 155 instances of science process skills were exhibited by the children. The frequencies of the types of open-ended questions utilised by the teacher-researcher over five weeks, from most to least frequently employed, are depicted in Table 1 below. <emph>Attention-focusing</emph> questions were most frequently employed (31.11%) while <emph>measuring and counting</emph> questions were least frequently utilised (5.56%) during LPP.</p> <p>Table 1 Frequency distribution of the types of open-ended questions employed by the teacher-researcher</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Type of Open-ended Question (Elsteeg, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">1985</xref>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Frequency</p></th><th align="left"><p>Example</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Attention-focussing -</p><p><italic>Questions that direct children's attention towards details. </italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>31.11% </p><p>(56 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher-researcher: What do you notice about the colour of the water? <italic>(Attention to the change of the colour of the water)</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Problem-posting –</p><p><italic>Questions that require children to consider the materials' attributes and examine practicalities within a context</italic>,<italic> to formulate responses. </italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>21.11%</p><p>(38 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher-researcher: What can you do to make sure the planks would not fall off the blocks? </p><p>(<italic>Consider knowledge about the attributes of planks and blocks to formulate responses on how to secure the planks onto the blocks) </italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Action –</p><p><italic>Questions that encourage children to execute simple experimentation processes to obtain answers.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>17.22%</p><p>(31 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher-researcher: What would happen if you added the green chalk into the water?</p><p>(<italic>Experiment with adding green chalk into water to observe its reaction</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Comparison –</p><p><italic>Questions that prompt children to examine and differentiate qualitative attributes of several materials.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>15.56%</p><p>(28 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher-researcher: Which kinds of chalk would you use? </p><p>(<italic>Differentiate the sizes and colours of chalks</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How, Why –</p><p><italic>Questions that prompt children to reflect on observed relationships or experiences to formulate generalisations.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>9.44%</p><p>(17 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher-researcher: Why do you think that a lower stack of blocks made you slide down slower? </p><p>(<italic>Reflect on the observed relationship between the height of the blocks and the speed of the downward motion</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Measuring and Counting –</p><p><italic>Questions that prompt children to examine and consider the quantifiable attributes of materials.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>5.56%</p><p>(10 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher-researcher: How many blocks would you use to make a taller slide?</p><p>(C<italic>ount the number of blocks used</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>Total: 180 open-ended questions</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Concurrently, the frequency of the types of science process skills demonstrated by the children over five weeks, from most to least frequently demonstrated, are depicted in Table 2 below. From the total of 155 instances of science process skills observed, the skill of <emph>observing</emph> was most frequently demonstrated (24.52%) while <emph>recording</emph> was least frequently demonstrated (2.58%).</p> <p>Table 2 Frequency distribution of the types of science process skills demonstrated by children</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Type of science process skill (MOE, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2013</xref>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Frequency</p></th><th align="left"><p>Example</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Observing –</p><p><italic>Utilising senses of sight</italic>,<italic> smell</italic>,<italic> touch</italic>,<italic> taste</italic>,<italic> or hearing to observe and understand surrounding environment or materials. </italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>24.52%</p><p>(38 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children leaned closer to examine and touch the chalk powder. </p><p>(<italic>Utilised their senses of sight and touch to understand the chalk powder's texture</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Experimenting –</p><p><italic>Raising questions</italic>,<italic> formulating</italic>,<italic> and testing hypotheses through trial-and-error processes.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>23.23%</p><p>(36 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Child D crushes plastic cup against chalk</p><p>(<italic>Tested his hypothesis that objects can be used to crush chalk)</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Communicating –</p><p><italic>Expressing ideas or questions through non-verbal and verbal communication. </italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>19.35%</p><p>(30 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Child A: The water is turning peach-pink!</p><p>(<italic>Verbally communicated his observation of the water changing colour</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Predicting –</p><p><italic>Reflecting on prior knowledge and analysing ongoing observation to formulate informed guesses about potential outcomes.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>17.42%</p><p>(27 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Child M: The plank would fall because it is slippery here.</p><p>(<italic>Reflected on her knowledge about the slipperiness of surfaces to predict an outcome</italic>) </p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Comparing –</p><p><italic>Identifying similarities and differences between materials.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>8.39%</p><p>(13 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Child K: This block is too big...that one... is smaller. Here is bigger... (Gestures to the width of the planks)</p><p>(<italic>Identified that one block was bigger by comparing the width of the blocks)</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Classifying –</p><p><italic>Organising materials into groups based on distinctive characteristics.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>4.52%</p><p>(7 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Child D: Take all the white chalk. Make sure they are this size. We cannot use the long ones.</p><p>(<italic>Distinguished the chalks according to their colours and sizes</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Recording –</p><p><italic>Utilising writing or illustration to document observation and ideas.</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.58%</p><p>(4 Times)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Child K uses a class camera to take a photograph of the slide.</p><p>(<italic>Utilised a camera to document construction</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p>Total: 155 science process skills</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Below, we present two sets of interactions to highlight how <emph>attention-focusing</emph> questions prompted children to apply their science process skill of <emph>observing</emph> to observe specific aspects of their environment, to challenge their prior knowledge about the world around them, or to utilise their prior knowledge to build more complex structures. These two examples also highlighted how providing children with initial periods of uninterrupted play, enabling the teacher-researcher to observe children's playing or learning interests to pose questions accordingly, can influence children's responses and application of science process skills.</p> <p>The first set of interactions details an instance when the teacher-researcher posed <emph>an attention-focusing</emph> question at the commencement of the LPP session, followed by a <emph>problem-posting</emph> question further in the interaction. Child K and Child M were creating ramps by slanting some CitiBlocs against some cardboard boxes (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Child K and Child M placing some CitiBlocs against cardboard boxes to create ramps</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Teacher-researcher: The CitiBlocs are leaning against the edge of the boxes. What do you think might happen to the CitiBlocs if they are leaning like that? (Attention-focusing question)</item> <p></p> <item> Child K and Child M: (<emph>Leans closer to inspect the connecting points between the CitiBlocs and cardboard box)</emph> (Observing skill).</item> <p></p> <item> Child K: Maybe it would fall. (Predicting skill)</item> <p></p> <item> Child M: (<emph>Touches CitiBloc surface</emph>) Yes...Because it is slippery. See? (Observing and Predicting skill)</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher-researcher: How can you make sure that the CitiBlocs would not fall? (Problem-posting question)</item> <p></p> <item> Child K: Erm, don't know. (<emph>Turns away to search through the container of CitiBlocs</emph>)</item> <p></p> <item> Child M: (<emph>No verbal response; Adds more CitiBlocs against another cardboard box</emph>)</item> </ulist> <p>In response to the <emph>attention-focusing</emph> question, Child M utilised her sense of touch to explore and understand the CitiBlocs' texture (i.e., <emph>observing</emph> skill), which aided her <emph>prediction</emph> that the CitiBlocs would fall. However, the children's disinterest towards the <emph>problem-posting</emph> question posed by the teacher-researcher, prompted the teacher-researcher to reflect on the reason for the children's unconcerned response to her question. In the teacher-researcher journal record for this instance (see Fig. 2), the question was deemed to have been posed prematurely right at the start of the LPP session. Thus, the teacher-researcher had not taken sufficient time to observe the children's ongoing exploration and interests, resulting in a question that did not pique the children's interest to respond or apply any science process skills. The teacher-researcher's reflection (Fig. 2) also highlighted areas for her to improve on to better support children's application of science process skills during LPP. This prompted a change in her approach of posing questions; enacting the novel approach of commencing each LPP session with approximately ten minutes of uninterrupted play time before employing any open-ended questions to the children. The decision to incorporate specifically ten minutes of uninterrupted play time was a response to the children's desired interval of free exploration according to the her observation throughout the preceding weeks. This was an incidental decision that emerged from ongoing reflections of the teacher-researcher as the study progressed. In subsequent weeks, the teacher-researcher made conscious efforts to incorporate this novel approach.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Excerpt of Week 3's Teacher Journal</p> <p>The second set of interaction below details an instance when the same two children (Child K and Child M) were provided with approximately ten minutes of uninterrupted play time to independently explore and manipulate loose parts in an outdoor setting before the teacher-researcher posed any question. Both children were creating a slide by placing some planks against a stack of square blocks (Fig. 3). In this instance, the teacher-researcher posed an <emph>attention-focusing</emph> question and a <emph>problem-posting</emph> question after the initial ten minutes of uninterrupted play time. This timely use of questions interestingly led to children's application of several science process skills, prompting them to hypothesise solutions for a problem.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Child K sliding down two planks placed against three square blocks</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<emph>Teacher-researcher provided ten minutes of uninterrupted play time</emph>)</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher-researcher: These planks are leaning against the blocks. What do you think would happen to the planks when they are leaning like that? (Attention-focusing question)</item> <p></p> <item> Child M: (<emph>Traces along the gap between the wooden planks</emph>) They would fall...because of the holes. <emph>(Pulls the wooden planks further apart</emph>) Look! (Observing skill)</item> <p></p> <item> Child K: Then you might fall down there (<emph>points to the gap</emph>), or this will drop (<emph>taps the wooden planks</emph>). (Predicting skill)</item> <p></p> <item> Teacher-researcher: What can you do to make sure the planks would not fall off the blocks? (Problem-posting question)</item> <p></p> <item> Child M: Maybe we can tie it with strings? Then this will close (<emph>pushes the planks together to close the gap</emph>). (Experimenting skill)</item> <p></p> <item> Child K: Then we need to put glue here also, so that they stick together (<emph>points to the connecting point between the planks and square blocks</emph>). (Experimenting skill)</item> </ulist> <p>The <emph>attention-focusing</emph> question prompted both children to demonstrate the science process skills of <emph>observing</emph>, <emph>predicting</emph>, and <emph>experimenting</emph>. After <emph>observing</emph> the gaps between the wooden planks, both children drew upon their prior knowledge of how gaps in between objects caused other objects to fall through; and that gaps present instability within structures. Their observation supported them in <emph>predicting</emph> whether the planks would drop and its implications thereafter. The <emph>problem-posting</emph> question facilitated Child K and Child M to further demonstrate <emph>experimenting</emph> skills. Evident from their suggestions, both children considered the functions of strings and glue and hypothesised that such tools could close the gap between the planks – of which are thinking processes related to <emph>experimenting.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0187863962-19">RQ 2: Scientific Concepts that Children Explored Independently During LPP</hd> <p>Analyses revealed two categories pertaining to scientific concepts which children self-initiated and self-explored during LPP, which include: <emph>Transforming materials</emph> and <emph>Changing motion.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0187863962-20">Transforming Materials</hd> <p>This category denotes LPP experiences where children crushed, broke, scraped, added, and mixed materials. Through these actions, children changed (i.e., transformed) the shape, size, colour, and consistency of their materials. The following instance illustrates Child A and Child D's exploration involving a container of water, chalk, and recycled containers. Both children explored different ways to transform pieces of chalk into powder that can be added into water. Child A was scrapping a piece of chalk against the rim of a container. Sliding his finger along the rim, he gathered some chalk powder on his finger. He rubbed his thumb and finger together to sprinkle chalk powder into the water. Child D briefly watched Child A before placing a piece of chalk on the floor.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Child D: (<emph>Picks up a plastic cup and crushes it against the chalk on the floor</emph>) How about like this? Now we have more powder (<emph>pinches and sprinkles the powder into the container</emph>). Now it can mix to become water (<emph>stirs the water).</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Child A: That's a good one (<emph>runs to take an empty container and uses it to crush another piece of chalk</emph>)! (Fig. 4)</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Child A using a container to crush a piece of chalk on the ground</p> <p>Child A and Child D experimented with different ways to change the chalk's form. By scraping chalk against a container rim, Child A understood that chalk can be forcefully rubbed against another object to change into smaller particles (i.e., powder). <emph>Observing</emph> this phenomenon, Child D <emph>hypothesised</emph> that exerting a stronger force may result in greater changes to the chalk's form. He <emph>tested</emph> his hypothesis by using a harder plastic cup to crush the chalk. Child D's <emph>prediction</emph> ('Now it can mix to become water.') and stirring action also highlighted his understanding that chalk can dissolve in water (i.e., change from solid to liquid form). The children self-initiated their scientific exploration relating to friction and force, and theorised that the composition of materials can transform into varied sizes and forms. This instance also highlighted the children's exercise of various science process skills, such as <emph>observing</emph>, <emph>predicting</emph>, <emph>experimenting</emph>, and <emph>communicating</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-21">Changing Motion</hd> <p>This category denotes LPP experiences where children explored motions by creating inclines and experimenting with height and speed. The following instance illustrated Child K and Child M's exploration involving wooden blocks and varying the height of a stack of blocks to modify their travelling speed down the slanted planks. Child K placed two planks against a stack of two square blocks. She sat and slid down the planks (see Fig. 3<emph>above</emph>).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Child K: This one is too slow. Not fun.</item> <p></p> <item> Child M: Make it higher so that we can go down faster (<emph>adds another square block</emph>).</item> <p></p> <item> Child K: (<emph>Slides down the planks</emph>) (Fig. 3).</item> <p></p> <item> Yeah, it is so fast!</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>(Both children add another square block).</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> Child K: Now let's test it (<emph>slides down the planks).</emph> No, it's too scary. Too fast. Make it lower (<emph>removes the fourth square block</emph>).</item> </ulist> <p>In the instance above, Child K and Child M <emph>experimented</emph> with adjusting the incline of the planks to vary the speed of their motions. Through tilting the planks against a stack of blocks, both children demonstrated their knowledge of how slanting an object against another creates an incline that enables a downward motion. The children <emph>hypothesised</emph> that the height of the stack of blocks affects the incline of the planks, and thus, their speed down the planks ('Make it higher so that we can go down fasterly' and 'Too fast. Make it lower.'). They <emph>tested</emph> their hypothesis through varying the height of the blocks – adding or removing blocks to slide down faster or slower. The children's verbal communication of their observation ("This one is too slow.", "It is so fast.", etc.), also highlighted their abilities to <emph>compare</emph> the speeds of their downward motion. The children self-initiated exploration of motion and theorised that a faster or slower motion can be created by changing the height and incline of the blocks and planks. This occasion also highlighted the children's demonstration of the science process skills of <emph>observing</emph>, <emph>predicting</emph>, <emph>comparing</emph>, <emph>experimenting</emph>, and <emph>communicating</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-22">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, it was found that <emph>attention-focusing</emph> questions were most frequently employed by the teacher-researcher, and the science process skill of <emph>observing</emph> was most frequently demonstrated by children in response to open-ended questions. <emph>Observing</emph> entails the use of one's sense of smell, sight, taste, hearing, and touch to notice details (Guarrella, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref89">29</reflink>]). Essentially, <emph>observing</emph> is a sensorial exploration process which contribute to children's understanding of the world around them (Foti et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref90">25</reflink>]; Sim & Xu, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref91">67</reflink>]). Their learning process is dependent on active and physical engagement with environmental stimuli (Alves, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>]; Deans & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref93">16</reflink>]). Such sensory-based learning processes are enacted through science learning, where children naturally rely on their observation to explore and understand phenomena around them.</p> <p>Yet, <emph>observing</emph> is a skill that requires scaffolding. As play and learning co-exist in a sociocultural context (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref94">73</reflink>]), educators' facilitation during children's scientific exploration and LPP is crucial to their science learning process. The types of questions which educators pose, and their timely use of these questions influence whether children engage in deep thinking and consider various concepts, extend their experimentation with increased complexity, or discontinue their ongoing exploration altogether (Chaille & Britain, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref95">14</reflink>]; Hamel et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref96">30</reflink>]). <emph>Attention-focusing</emph> questions align with children's innate curiosity and tendency to explore their surroundings (Andersson & Gullberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref97">5</reflink>]), thereby directing their attention to observe critical aspects of their exploration and environments. As children typically observe for evidence that can explain the scientific phenomenon they are exploring (Andersson & Gullberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref98">5</reflink>]; Monteira & Jiménez-Aleixandre, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref99">49</reflink>]), this explicates why the science process skill of <emph>observing</emph> was most frequently demonstrated.</p> <p>The current teacher action research study yielded an interesting finding that presenting initial periods of uninterrupted play opportunities to children (i.e., free play time without educators' intervention) influenced their subsequent response to open-ended questions and their science learning process. As illustrated in our analyses, children were uninterested and less motivated to investigate and respond to the teacher-researcher's open-ended questions when such questions were utilised right at the beginning of the LPP session. However, when the teacher-researcher began the LPP session by presenting around ten minutes of uninterrupted free play time prior to posing open-ended questions, the children were more responsive and motivated to ponder the reasons behind their observations, to predict, and to experiment to find solutions. This was supported by Pyle and Danniels ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref100">61</reflink>]) who identified a continuum of play-based learning, with free play and inquiry play as more child-directed play that provide opportunities for exploration. Along this line, Worth ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref101">77</reflink>]) asserted that 'uninterrupted play' and 'teacher intervention' (i.e., educators posing open-ended questions) are not exclusive of one another but instead are integrally linked. Presenting children with uninterrupted play time allows them to conduct independent exploration, encourages their scientific self-discoveries (Widger & Schofield, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref102">76</reflink>]) which positively boosts their self-confidence in science (Oppermann et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref103">58</reflink>]) and is fundamentally important in early science learning (Andersson & Gullberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref104">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nevertheless, uninterrupted play opportunities alone are insufficient in supporting children's holistic science learning process (Weisberg & Zosh, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref105">75</reflink>]). Educator facilitation is integral in building children's scientific exploration and understandings. Conceptual development in science occurs when children reach the limits of their understanding towards an observed phenomenon (Ismail et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref106">36</reflink>]). According to Piaget ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref107">60</reflink>]), individuals experience cognitive disequilibrium, also described as a state of cognitive imbalance, when they encounter new discrepant information. To resolve such disequilibrium, individuals typically need to accommodate or assimilate the discrepant information or experiences (i.e., make sense of new information or experience) against information that is already known to them. Similarly, when children observe a phenomenon that they do not understand or have not observed before, it brings them into a state of cognitive disequilibrium. This disequilibrium then marks the starting point of learning, where educators can further stimulate children to reflect, hypothesise, or experiment until they can arrive at a more coherent and consistent interpretation of their observation (Alfieri et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref108">3</reflink>]). In other words, educators' open-ended questions can stimulate processes of more structured investigations and in-depth exploration, which encourages children to observe for, hypothesise, and gather data; test their own inquiries; problem-solve and formulate generalisation (Kallery et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref109">38</reflink>]) that ultimately support children in making sense of the newly observed phenomenon when they encounter new information. This reaffirms Piaget's belief, that cognitive development arises due to explorations that start out as egocentric processes and unfold into social processes (Jansen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref110">37</reflink>]), as well as Vygotsky's theory that learning processes entail children's agency and exercise of their prior knowledge alongside social interaction with a more competent person (Alves, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref111">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>The current study also revealed that children self-initiated their own explorations into the science concepts of <emph>transforming materials</emph> and <emph>changing motion</emph> without the teacher intervention. Children construct knowledge through active exploration and interaction with objects and people (Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref112">60</reflink>]). In the context of LPP, the open-ended nature of loose parts offered opportunities for children's active experimentation, discovery, creativity, and enjoyment (Nicholson, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref113">56</reflink>]). Children are aware of this stimulating component of loose parts, and thus, will naturally gravitate towards interacting with loose parts (Sando et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref114">65</reflink>]) – without needing any adult prompting or intervention. Along this line, children are also innately curious towards their surroundings (Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref115">60</reflink>]), including daily scientific phenomena around them, and hence will naturally gravitate towards exploring or trying to understand such phenomena. Similarly, prior studies indicated that children possess an intrinsic curiosity towards exploring matter in their environment (Yoon & Onchwari, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref116">79</reflink>]) and are drawn to the fundamental elements of scientific inquiry (i.e., the process of studying and discovering), aligning with their natural tendency to explore, experiment, and learn about the physical world (Worth, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref117">77</reflink>]; Hamel et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref118">30</reflink>]). This also highlighted that children will physically move and manipulate matter to act on their curiosities and facilitate their own understandings about objects and the relationships between objects (Smith-Gilman, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref119">71</reflink>]). Therefore, our findings underscored the symbiotic relationship among children's innate tendencies towards their surrounding science phenomena, the way they discover and learn, and the stimulating environment provided by LPP.</p> <p>This study also affirmed that children construct knowledge through opportunities to actively explore and manipulate objects, as well as through interactions with the people around them. This aligns with Piaget's ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref120">60</reflink>]) Theory of Cognitive Development which highlights that children gain knowledge by observing and interacting with the world around them, suggesting that they are capable of participating in early science experiences and constructing science-related knowledge. It also concurs with Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref121">73</reflink>]) ZPD theory, as educators, serving as the 'more knowledge counterpart', play an influential role in scaffolding children's early science learning; such that educators can encourage children to observe, reflect, problem-solve, experiment, and arrive at their own conclusions and discoveries. Applied in early childhood classrooms, educators can support children's science learning not only by utilising open-ended questions as a facilitation strategy, but also by balancing educator facilitation with uninterrupted play time during the children's LPP experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-23">Limitations and Implications</hd> <p>As this teacher action research study involved a small and specific sample, the findings are not generalisable to other contexts where curricular practices and age-groups of children vary. Worth ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref122">77</reflink>]) noted that a critical component of early science learning entails explorations that occur over time, from multiple perspectives, and in depth. Given that the participating children kept their structures after every LPP session, future studies could consider investigating how an educator's open-ended questions may evolve when children place their loose part structures in the same spot for prolonged periods (i.e., continuity of experimentation). In this study, the decision to present ten minutes of uninterrupted play time was purely based on prior observation of the children's interests by the teacher-researcher. Therefore, future studies could examine if differing durations of uninterrupted play time influenced children's response to educators' open-ended questions or their science-related exploration. Moreover, as children have diverse verbal and cognitive abilities across different age groups, the influence of open-ended questions on children's scientific learning may differ with each age group. Hence, future studies could consider extending the study across several age groups to investigate how diverse types of open-ended questions would influence children's science learning during LPP. Further training in posing appropriate questions in professional learning programmes of early educators could also be investigated as early educators reported the highest level of need for training in Discovery of the World (relating to science) (Bautista et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref123">8</reflink>]). At the same time, considering different questioning techniques and classroom strategies, through action research projects similar to this one, might inform the development of culturally sensitive curriculum across contexts (Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref124">78</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-24">Conclusion</hd> <p>As approaches to early science learning are shifting away from traditional practices that emphasise the memorisation of scientific facts and concepts, this teacher action study showed that educators can support children's early science learning through diverse types of open-ended questions during children's LPP experiences. Albeit children's abilities to initiate their own exploration in scientific concepts, such as transforming materials and changing motion when presented with open-ended materials like loose parts, educators still play a critical role in facilitating children's playful learning experiences. Findings from this study affirmed that educators' open-ended questions during children's LPP experiences may streamline or add depth to children's scientific exploration by encouraging them to engage with loose part materials to discover, create, and experiment with things, thereby honing their science process skills and enriching their early science learning experiences. This study may also serve as a resource for local educators by informing them of the scientific concepts that children can explore independently during LPP experiences, as well as of the influence of open-ended questions on children's exercise of science process skills during these experiences. Moreover, this teacher action research contributes to existing knowledge in the importance of providing children with moments of uninterrupted play time prior to posing open-ended question to encourage deep learning and engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-25">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This paper is based on Han Qi Zeng's teacher-inquiry project under the supervision of Siew Chin Ng. The authors wish to thank the Singapore University of Social Sciences Early Childhood Education faculty and the participating school for the field opportunity, as well as the children and teachers for participating in this research. The views expressed in this paper are the authors' and do not necessarily represent the views of the institution.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-26">Declaration</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863962-27">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-28">Electronic Supplementary Material</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary Material 1</p> <hd id="AN0187863962-29">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187863962-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref36" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adbo K, Vidal CC. Learning about science in preschool: Play-based activities to support children's understanding of chemistry concepts. International Journal of Early Childhood. 2020; 52; 1: 17-35. 10.1007/s13158-020-00259-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref72" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Åkerblom A, Thorshag K. Preschoolers' use and exploration of concepts related to scientific phenomena in preschool. Journal of Childhood Education & Society. 2021; 2; 3: 287-302. 10.37291/2717638X.202123115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref108" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alfieri L, Brooks PJ, Aldrich NJ, Tenenbaum HR. Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2011; 103; 1: 1-18. 10.1037/a0021017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alves PF. Vygotsky and Piaget: Scientific concepts. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 2014; 7; 3: 24-34. 10.11621/pir.2014.0303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Andersson K, Gullberg A. What is science in preschool and what do teachers have to know to empower children?. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2014; 9; 2: 275-296. 10.1007/s11422-012-9439-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref85" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Attia M, Edge J. Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research. 2017; 4; 1: 33-45. 10.1080/23265507.2017.1300068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref54" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bairaktarova D, Evangelou D, Bagiati A, Brophy S. Early engineering in young children's exploratory play with tangible materials. Children Youth and Environment. 2011; 21; 2: 212-235. 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.21.2.0212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref123" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bautista A, Ng SC, Muñez D, Bull R. Learning areas in holistic education: Kindergarten teachers' curriculum priorities, professional development needs, and beliefs. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2016; 10; 8: 1-18. 10.1186/s40723-016-0024-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref60" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bautista A, Moreno-Nuñez A, Ng SC, Bull R. Preschool educators' interaction with children about sustainable development: Planned and incidental conversations. International Journal of Early Childhood. 2018; 50; 1: 15-32. 10.1007/s13158-018-0213-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Besse-Patin, B. (2018). July 11–13). How to play without toys? A playwork experimentation in Paris. [Paper presentation]. 8th International Toy Research Association World Conference Toys and Material Culture: Hybridisation, Design and Consumption, Paris, France.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bulunuz M. Teaching science through play in kindergarten: Does integrated play and science instruction build understanding?. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2013; 21; 2: 226-249. 10.1080/1350293X.2013.789195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bybee, R. W, Taylor, J. A, Gardner, A, Van Scotter, P, Powell, J. C, Westbrook, A, & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. BSCS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey, T, & Robertson, J. (2016). Loose parts play: A toolkit. Inspiring Scotland. https://<ulink href="http://www.playscotland.org/resources/loose-parts-play-a-toolkit-pdf-2/">www.playscotland.org/resources/loose-parts-play-a-toolkit-pdf-2/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaille, C, & Britain, L. (2003). The young child as scientist: A constructivist approach to early science education (3rd ed.). Harper Collins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deakin University (n.d.). Resources for teaching science: Force and motion. https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/sci-enviro-ed/early-years/force-and-motion/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deans, J, & Wright, S. (2021). STEAM through sensory-based action-reaction learning. In C. Cohrssen, & S. Garvis (Eds.), Embedding STEAM in early childhood education and care (pp. 135–153). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dockett, S. (2010). The challenge of play for early childhood education. In S. Rogers (Ed.), Rethinking play and pedagogy in early childhood education. Concepts, contexts and cultures (pp. 32–48). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dockett S, Perry B. Researching with young children: Seeking assent. Child Indicators Research. 2011; 4; 2: 231-247. 10.1007/s12187-010-9084-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. Leading Global Nursing Research. 2008; 62; 1: 107-115. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elsteeg, J. (1985). The right question at the right time. W. Harlen, primary science: Taking the plunge (pp. 36–46). Heinemann Educational.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eti I, Sigirtmac A. Developing inquiry-based science activities in early childhood education: An action research. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES). 2021; 7; 3: 785-804. 10.46328/ijres.1973</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flannigan C, Dietze B. Children, outdoor play, and loose parts. Journal of Childhood Studies. 2018; 42; 4: 53-60. 10.18357/jcs.v42i4.18103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleer, M, & Pramling, N. (2015). A cultural-historical study of children learning science: Foregrounding affective imagination in play-based settings. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleer M, Gomes JJ, March S. Science learning affordances in preschool environments. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2014; 39; 1: 38-48. 10.1177/183693911403900106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foti F, Martone D, Orrù S, Montuori S, Imperlini E, Buono P, Petrosini L, Mandolesi L. Are young children able to learn exploratory strategies by observation?. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. 2018; 82; 6: 1212-1223. 10.1007/s00426-017-0896-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garbett D. Science education in early childhood teacher education: Putting forward a case to enhance student teachers' confidence and competence. Research in Science Education. 2003; 33; 4: 467-481. 10.1023/B:RISE.0000005251.20085.62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gomes J, Fleer M. Is science really everywhere? Teachers' perspectives on science learning possibilities in the preschool environment. Research in Science Education (Australasian Science Education Research Association). 2020; 50; 5: 1961-1989. 10.1007/s11165-018-9760-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, P. (Ed.). (2014). Assessment for teaching. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guarrella, C. (2021). Weaving science through STEAM: A process skill approach. In C. Cohrssen, & S. Garvis (Eds.), Embedding STEAM in early childhood education and care (pp. 1–19). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamel E, Joo Y, Hong SY, Burton A. Teacher questioning practices in early childhood science activities. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2021; 49; 3: 375-384. 10.1007/s10643-020-01075-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammer ASE, He M. Preschool teachers' approaches to science: A comparison of a Chinese and Norwegian kindergarten. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2014; 24: 450-464. 10.1080/1350293X.2014.970850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harlen W. Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice. 1999; 6; 1: 129-144. 10.1080/09695949993044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hauser, B. (2016). Spielen: Frühes lernen in familie, krippe und kindergarten. Kohlhammer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holland, R. (2010). What's it all about? How introducing Heuristic play has affected provision for under-threes in one-day nursery. In C. Cable, L. Miller, & G. Goodliff (Eds.), Working with children in the early years. Open University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houser NE, Cawley J, Kolen AM, Rainham D, Rehman L, Turner J, Stone MR. A loose part randomised controlled trial to promote active outdoor play in preschool-aged children: Physical literacy in the early years (PLEY) project. Methods and Protocols. 2019; 2; 2: 27. 10.3390/mps2020027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ismail NGA, Pahl A, Tschiesner R. Play-based physics learning in kindergarten. Education Sciences. 2022; 12; 5: 300. 10.3390/educsci12050300</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jansen, J. (2011). Piaget's cognitive development theory. In S. Goldstein, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 1104–1106). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kallery M, Sofianidis A, Pationioti P, Tsialma K, Katsiana X. Cognitive style, motivation and learning in inquiry-based early-years science activities. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2022. 10.1080/09669760.2022.2052819</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiewra C, Veselack E. Playing with nature: Supporting preschoolers' creativity in natural outdoor classrooms. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education. 2016; 4; 1: 70-95</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Killiala, M. (2009). August 26–29). 'Look at me!' Does the adult see the child in a Finnish daycare centre? [Paper presentation]. 19th European Early Childhood Education Research Association: Diversities in Early Childhood Education. Strasbourg, France.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohlberg L. Early education: A cognitive-developmental approach. Child Development. 1968; 39: 1013-1062. 10.2307/1127272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kübler, M, Buhl, G, & Rüdisüli, C. (2020). Connect play and learning—with game-based learning environments. Hep. https://<ulink href="http://www.hepverlag.de/sites/999193.buchhandelsweb2.de/files/preview/spielenundlernenverbinden.pdf">www.hepverlag.de/sites/999193.buchhandelsweb2.de/files/preview/spielenundlernenverbinden.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee Y, Kinzie MB. Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science. 2012; 40; 6: 857-874. 10.1007/s11251-011-9193-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leontjew, A. N. (1977). Tätigkeit Und Bewusstsein. <ulink href="http://www.ich-sciences.de/media/texte/leo%5f1973.pdf">http://www.ich-sciences.de/media/texte/leo%5f1973.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lohaus, A, & Vierhaus, M. (2015). Kognition. In A. Lohaus, & M. Vierhaus (Eds.), Entwicklungspsychologie des kindes- und jugendalters für bachelor (pp. 116–130) Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45529-6_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loxley, P, Dawes, L, Nicholls, L, & Dore, B. (2017). Teaching primary science: Promoting enjoyment and developing understanding (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624594</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McInnes K, Howard J, Miles G, Crowley K. Differences in practitioners' understanding of play and how this influences pedagogy and children's perception of play. Early Years. 2011; 31; 2: 121-133. 10.1080/09575146.2011.572870</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2013). Nurturing early learners: A curriculum for kindergartens in Singapore: Discovery of the world. MOE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monteira SF, Jiménez-Aleixandre MP. The practice of using evidence in kindergarten: The role of purposeful observation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2016; 53; 8: 1232-1258. 10.1002/tea.21259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neill P. Open-ended materials belong outside too!. High Scope. 2013; 27; 2: 1-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concept. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7967.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng SC, Bull R. Facilitating social emotional learning in kindergarten classrooms: Situational factors and teachers' strategies. International Journal of Early Childhood. 2018; 50; 3: 335-352. 10.1007/s13158-018-0225-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng SC, Sun H. Promoting social emotional learning through shared book reading: Examining teacher's strategies and children's responses in kindergarten classrooms. Early Education and Development. 2022; 33; 8: 1326-1346. 10.1080/10409289.2021.1974232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng SC, Vijayakumar P, Yussof NT, O'Brien BA. Promoting bilingualism and children's co-participation in Singapore language classrooms: Preschool teacher strategies and children's responses in show-and-tell. Policy Futures in Education. 2021; 19; 2: 216-241. 10.1177/1478210320960864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicholson, S. (1972). The theory of loose parts, an important principle for design methodology (Vol. 4). Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology. 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olgan R. Influences on Turkish early childhood teachers' science teaching practices and the science content covered in the early years. Early Child Development and Care. 2014; 185; 6: 926-942. 10.1080/03004430.2014.967689</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oppermann E, Brunner M, Eccles JS, Anders Y. Uncovering young children's motivational beliefs about learning science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2018; 55; 3: 399-421. 10.1002/tea.21424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, B. (2004). Maltreatment and the developing child: How early childhood experience shapes child and culture [Inaugural lecture]. The Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System: https://<ulink href="http://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/903124DF-BD7F-3286-FE3330AA44F994DE/maltreating%5fand%5fthe%5fdeveloping%5fchild.pd">www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/903124DF-BD7F-3286-FE3330AA44F994DE/maltreating%5fand%5fthe%5fdeveloping%5fchild.pd</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In D. R. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. B. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1–11). McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyle A, Danniels E. A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development. 2017; 28; 3: 274-289. 10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers A, Russo S. Blocks: A commonly encountered play activity in the early years, or a key to facilitating skills in science, maths, and technology. Investigating. 2003; 19; 1: 17-20. 10.3316/aeipt.126466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saçkes M. How often do early childhood teachers teach science concepts? Determinants of the frequency of science teaching in kindergarten. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2014; 22; 2: 169-184. 10.1080/1350293X.2012.704305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samuelsson IA, Carlsson MA. The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2008; 52; 6: 623-641. 10.1080/00313830802497265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sando OJ, Sandseter EBH, Brussoni M. The role of play and objects in children's deep-level learning in early childhood education. Education Sciences. 2023; 13; 7: 701. 10.3390/educsci13070701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sim ZL, Xu F. Learning higher-order generalisations through free play: Evidence from 2- and 3-year-old children. Developmental Psychology. 2017; 53; 4: 642-651. 10.1037/dev0000278</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siry C. Exploring the complexities of children's inquiries in science: Knowledge production through participatory practices. Research in Science Education. 2013; 43: 2407-2430. 10.1007/s11165-013-9364-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siry C, Kremer I. Children explain the rainbow: Using young children's ideas to guide science curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2011; 20; 5: 643-655. 10.1007/s10956-011-9320-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siry CA, Lang DE. Creating participatory discourse for teaching and research in early childhood science. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2010; 21; 2: 149-160. 10.1007/s10972-009-9162-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith-Gilman S. The arts, loose parts and conversations. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies (JCACS). 2018; 16; 1: 90-103. 10.25071/1916-4467.40356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trawick-Smith, J. (1994). Interaction in the classroom: Facilitating play in the early years. Macmillan College Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasik B, Hindman A. Realising the promise of open-ended questions. The Reading Teacher. 2013; 67; 4: 302-311. 10.1002/trtr.1218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisberg DS, Zosh JM. How guided play promotes early childhood learning. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. 2018; 119; 1: 31-35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Widger S, Schofield A. Interaction or interruption? Five child-centred philosophical perspectives. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2012; 37; 4: 29-33. 10.1177/183693911203700405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worth, K. (2010). Science in early childhood classrooms: Content and process. Early Childhood Research and Practice. https://ecrp.illinois.edu/beyond/seed/worth.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang W, Peh J, Ng SC. Early childhood teacher research and social-emotional learning: Implications for the development of culturally sensitive curriculum in Singapore. Policy Futures in Education. 2021; 19; 2: 197-215. 10.1177/1478210320983499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoon J, Onchwari JA. Teaching young children science: Three key points. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2006; 33; 6: 419-423. 10.1007/s10643-006-0064-4</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Han Qi Zeng and Siew Chin Ng</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref124"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483246
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Free Play Matters: Promoting Kindergarten Children's Science Learning Using Questioning Strategies during Loose Parts Play
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Han+Qi+Zeng%22">Han Qi Zeng</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Siew+Chin+Ng%22">Siew Chin Ng</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1353-5971">0000-0003-1353-5971</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(7):2373-2388.
– 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: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questioning+Techniques%22">Questioning Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Process+Skills%22">Science Process Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Concepts%22">Scientific Concepts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01741-6
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Early science inquiries and experiences increase young children's awareness and interest for science. The importance of promoting science process skills which bolster children's confidence to formulate and communicate personal ideas have been emphasised by international guidelines. As Loose Parts Play (LPP) is a form of free play involving open-ended play materials, its flexible nature promotes active exploration with materials that encourages children's interaction with science-related experiences. This teacher action research aims to explore the influence of open-ended questions on children's science process skills, as well as the scientific concepts that children are capable of exploring independently during play experiences. Analyses draw on video- and audio-recorded observation, child observation notes, and teacher journals. A total of 180 open-ended questions were employed by the teacher-researcher and 155 instances of science process skills were observed in a group of five-year-old children. Findings revealed that periods of uninterrupted play time followed by open-ended questions, extend children's science process skills, and add complexity to their scientific exploration. Furthermore, children were observed to self-initiate exploration of scientific concepts, such as transforming materials and changing motion, during these uninterrupted play periods. Overall, this teacher action research highlights the pivotal role that educators play in young children's playful learning experiences, where their timely use of open-ended questions has the capacity to facilitate children's early science learning during LPP. This study serves to define an educator's role within student-driven or child-initiated learning experiences, as well as guide educators in the utility of loose part materials, provision of uninterrupted play periods, and planning of open-ended questions to stimulate children's science exploration.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483246
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483246
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01741-6
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 2373
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Play
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questioning Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Process Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Concepts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Free Play Matters: Promoting Kindergarten Children's Science Learning Using Questioning Strategies during Loose Parts Play
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Han Qi Zeng
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Siew Chin Ng
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1