International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Early learning about light: mapping preschool

children's thinking about light before, during and
after involvement in a two week teaching program
Marilyn Fleer
To cite this article: Marilyn Fleer (1996) Early learning about light: mapping preschool
children's thinking about light before, during and after involvement in a two week
teaching program, International Journal of Science Education, 18:7, 819-836, DOI:
10.1080/0950069960180707
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180707

Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 101

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
Download by: [University of Aegean]

Date: 03 January 2017, At: 01:21

INT. J. sci. EDUC.,

1996, VOL. 18, NO. 7, 819-836

RESEARCH REPORTS

Early learning about light: mapping preschool

children's thinking about light before, during and
after involvement in a two week teaching program

Marilyn Fleer, University of Canberra, Australia

This paper reports the findings of a study which sought to first, find out four-year-old children's views
on light and dark and second, trace the development of children's thinking about the scientific concept
of light during a two-week teaching program.

Introduction
Over the last ten years a plethora of research has been conducted into older children's understandings of a range of scientific concepts (Leeds National
Curriculum Science Support Project, 1992). Concurrently, it has been shown
that as part of the teaching-learning process, it is important to understand the
alternative views that children are likely to hold, or that have been shown by
research to be formed as children try to make sense of the world around them
(Osborne and Freberg 1985, Leeds National Curriculum Science Support Project
1992). It is through knowing about children's views that educators are able to
anticipate sources of confusion for children and be able to plan appropriate experiences that will lead to scientific rather than alternative views.
In the area of light a range of understanding has been found to be held by
older children (above ten years). Children express many ideas about darkness;
however, they rarely explore the concept of light. Interestingly, they take for
granted the light which surrounds them. In fact many children think that there
are different kinds of light, for example electric light, daylight, sunlight, ultra
violet light, fluorescent light and infra-red light (Leeds National Curriculum
Science Support Project 1992). This research has confirmed that many children
have alternative views about light which are at variance with those that are
generally recognised by the scientific community. Some of the commonly held
views are:
Equating light with its source: some children will commonly perceive light as
being resident on the source, that is it is in the bulbs or the candle.
Light is a state of being: daylight is seen as a result of existing within a sea of
light.
Shadows are sometimes seen as reflections of dark light: there is no understanding of the propagation of light and no attempts are made to explain the
similarity of shape.
0950-0693/96 $12-00 1996 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

820

M. FLEER

Light 'runs out': a candle fails to light the corners of a room because the
source is weak and the light runs out before it gets to the corners. This is
obviously linked to children's perceptions. The light cannot be seen hence it
has stopped.
Magnifying glasses are seen as making the light bigger so that there is more
light behind the glass than in front of it (Osborne and Freeman 1989: 59).
In order for children to make sense of concepts such as transmission, reflection or
vision, they need to firstly understand the concept of light. That is, they need to
come to understand their dark and light world. Consequently the second alternative view outlined by Osborne and Freeman (1989) above, is an important idea for
young children to explore. Without some notion of dark being the absence of light,
children would not be in a position to deconstruct their light world or be able to
think about the generic notion of light. Consequently young children need to
experience dark places, particularly total darkness where they are able to control
the light source and direction.
The other alternative views outlined by Osborne and Freeman (1989),
although important when working with older children, are not as fundamental
in helping very young children to understand the 'sea of light' they perceive or
the darkness often feared. It can be speculated that with younger children this
alternative view alone, when sorted out, could help children avoid developing the
other alternative views summarised by Osborne and Freeman (1989). However,
long term research commencing with very young children is needed if we are to
confirm such propositions or find better ways of working with children so that the
alternative views expressed by older children do not occur.
Research into kindergarten (5-year-olds) children's understandings of shadows by Segal and Cosgrove (1993) provides an interesting focus for identifying
children's understandings of light. By asking children to concentrate upon 'what
they know about shadows' many children personified their human shadows, giving
responses such as 'they follow us; they don't sleep; they climb up the trees when
we climb up the trees'. Similarly, in describing shadows children compared them
with humans, for example 'they have no eyes; they have no noses'. The context for
identifying children's understandings of light through active exploration of shadows focused children's attentions upon the relationship between the shadow and
the object creating the shadow. Since young children's interests clearly focus on
their own shadow, this link personified the shadow, leading to an expression of a
range of alternative views and discussions. This is acknowledged by Segal and
Cosgrove (1993: 280): It is also probable that as our inside context was set for
discussion about this 'thing' called a shadow, young children would predictably
concentrate on its form, rather than on the role of light in forming and seeing
shadows.
However, Segal and Cosgrove's (1993) research is important since it begins to
identify the understandings of children under the age of ten. With the exception of
this study, research into preschool children's understandings of light has not
occurred. Consequently little is known about what ideas preschool children have
about light, or how the intuitive and alternative views develop.

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

821

The study
The purpose of the study was to investigate firstly, what understandings children
have of the scientific concept of light and second, trace the development of children's thinking about light during a two-week teaching program.
Sample
Twenty-four 4-year-old children participated in a sequence of experiences over a
two week period on the concept of light at the commencement of the pre-school
year (20 boys, four girls). The children were either four years of age or would be
four within the next month. The preschool was a part time centre operating three
mornings from 0900 until 1300 hours in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
The disproportionate number of boys within the group was atypical of centres
within the ACT at the time of data collection.
Methodology

Previous research into kindergarten children's understanding of light has used

conversational interviews as the main methodology (Segal and Cosgrove 1993).
This approach has relevance for the present study since it's sample was close in
age to the children in this study. The methodology employed by Segal and
Cosgrove (1993) used seven cooperative groups, consisting of four children in
each group. In each group children talked about their understandings of shadows.
The conversational interviews took place in these groups for approximately 15
minutes throughout and at the conclusion of the unit on shadows. The children's
responses were audio- and video-taped. This methodology allowed Segal and
Cosgrove (1993) to 'trace development in social and individual construction of
knowledge about light and shadows as it occured in small groups and in the
whole class group' (pp. 278279). The present study also monitored the social
and cognitive development of individuals for the concept of light. Although the
present study is with children one year younger and not experienced in social
clusters such as those described in Segal and Cosgrove's study, the methodology
and purposes are complementary.
In the present study most whole group times, each free choice period (one
hour) and some outdoor periods were audio- and video-taped. A total of six days of
data collection occurred over the two weeks. Children were interviewed at the
commencement of, during and at the end of the unit on light. Many of those
interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis. However, many were done in
small groups where individuals watched or listened and spontaneously responded
to others children's comments. A total of five hours of video data and ten hours of
audio data were collected. A parallel between the present study and the conversational interviews reported by Segal and Cosgrove (1993) are clearly evident. The
formalised groupings were not a feature of the present study, since the four year
olds' developing social skills would preclude this being successful.
Discourse analysis or the ethnography of communication was used to determine

first, how the views children held about light changed over the two-week period
and second to examine the development of teacher-child interaction, notably the
conversational support (scaffolding framework used, discussed below). This model

822

M. FLEER

of enquiry makes use of data sources such as field notes, video tapes, interviews
and student writing.
It is through the analysis of classroom discourse within the context of classroom structure and pedagogy that children's conceptual learning can be mapped
(Florio-Ruane 1987: 191). The study of academic learning within the context of
normal classroom discourse has allowed ethnographers of communication to
record and analyse conversational support from teachers and determine which
structures facilitate the learners' development. For example, in the present
study, teacher-child discourse collected at the beginning of the study was compared with data collected at the end of the study. Conversations that were cognitively focused were examined closely for teacher input; resource-related
discussions and children's use of key words or phrases relating to light such as
'light travels in straight lines'.The teacher's conversational support and classroom
structure were analysed to determine if students' conceptual understanding of the
scientific phenomenon changed. This technique allowed the researcher to develop
an understanding of not only how teachers identified young children's scientific
ideas, but how teachers set about changing their children's understandings to be
more scientific.

Teaching pedagogy

A modified form of the interactive approach to teaching science (Biddulph and

Osborne 1984) was used by the teacher to teach the concept of light. This
approach, which views learning as a socially constructed process, has been
shown to be a suitable way of teaching science to young children (Fleer 1992).
It suggests that all learning experiences commence with finding out what children
know about the topic, and what they would like to know more about. Children are
encouraged to consider how they may investigate their question and formally
report on their findings. Concept maps feature predominantly at the commencement of, and at the end of, the unit of work.
In the planning of the unit on light, the writings of Vygotsky and Bruner and
Haste were also considered by the teacher and the researcher, with particular
emphasis being placed upon scaffolding. Since the concept of light is not just a
scientific concept but a cultural phenomenon, special attention needed to be given
to the role of the teacher in placing the concept of light into a socially meaningful
context for the preschool children. For example the teacher introduced shadow
puppets and a range of light sources (candles, torches and projector) into a darkened room as a way of stimulating children to talk about light. Learning had to
initially be supported, but over time, as children became more competent, responsibility for experiences and learning (handover) was controlled and eventually
owned by the children. This process has been described by Bruner and Haste
(1987) as scaffolding. In using a scaffolding framework for analysis of teacherchild discourse, it is possible to document the process of handover:
The essence of the process is that learners do not remain for ever propped up by the
scaffolding of adult assistance, but come to take control of the process for themselves.
Language learners and craft apprentices become masters of the art. It is here that we
find one of the most problematic aspects of formal education: where is the handover?
Why do many pupils apparently fail to achieve the competence of teachers? Are they

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

823

really meant to? What are they supposed to be learninghow to become teachers
themselves? (Edwards and Mercer 1987: 13-14).

The teacher organised many opportunities in which the children could express
their understandings. For example in this study the home corner was completely
darkened so that all light sources could be controlled. Here children experienced
total darkness. This provided an opportunity for the children to share with each
other and the teacher their understandings and feelings about light and dark over
the duration of the study. This space was also used by the children as a free-play
area and by the teacher to introduce information about light to the children, for
example, how light travels, is reflected and can be split into the spectrum.

Findings and discussion

Two aspects will be focused on in the presentation of the findings. First, the
children's understandings of light and dark and second, the children's acquisition
of the scientific ideas facilitated through teacher-child interactions (for example
the handover principle as outlined by Edwards and Mercer 1987).
Children's understandings of 'light' and 'dark': pre-views

On the first day of the study, all of the children were given an opportunity to
explore a dark room with and without torches. They were then asked to draw
pictures of what they had experienced or understood about dark and light.
Their views were recorded below their illustrations. This approach, which is
designed to elicit children's views about the phenomenon, is consistent with an
interactive approach to teaching science (Biddulph and Osborne 1984). In this
study, this procedure occurred four times during the two weeks of data collection
in an attempt to trace development in children's thinking. An analysis of the
children's concept maps/drawings is shown in table 1. The data shown here represents a summary of the children's drawings and scribed comments, derived
through content analysis. The children's work that was collected on the first day
of the research indicated that most children's drawings featured squiggles and
blobs to indicate light or dark (n = 15). The colours black and yellow featured
predominantly. The explanations made were predominantly single words such as
sunny or dark. However, one child (Tegan) gave the following comment in relation
to her drawing 'When it's night time the moon covers the sun and that's why it gets
dark'. On the second day of data collection (n 11) after the children had participated in the planned experiences with torches the day before, the children's
drawings/concept maps contained significantly more references to torches. Many
children drew a picture of a torch with straight lines from the front of the torch
across the page. One child (Harry) described his drawings as: 'That's the line
coming from the torch. The line of light'. Data collected on the third day
(n = 10) after concentrating on rainbows in the teaching program, some development in children's thinking could be noted. Most of the children who drew pictures on that day focused upon colour, the colours of the rainbow. However, it was
not until the fourth day that fuller explanations were forthcoming ( = 9).
In addition to individual drawings, the teacher recorded a whole group concept map on light and dark, after the children experienced playing in the dark

824

M. FLEER

Table 1. Preschool children's drawings/concept maps of what they

understood about light and dark.
Day 1
Sky

Dark
Light
Torch
Clouds
Colour
relationships
Sun

Moon and sun

relationship
Dark room
Rainbow
Moon
Diamond
Colour wheel
Prism
Light travels
Eyes to see
Green cellophane
lets green light thr
Shadow
Projector
No response

1
2
2
1
2

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

3
3

1
3

3
1

1
1
1

6
1
1

2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2

room (during free choice time). The group concept map on light is shown below,
followed by the teacher-child discourse that took place in recording the concept
map. Not all children could be easily identified on the video (or audio-tape) due to
camera angle. Consequently, where doubt existed, children are numbered rather
than named.
Transcript 1
Context:
Section One
Teacher:
Stephanie:
Teacher:
Stephanie:
Teacher:
Children:
Teacher:
Cl:

Whole group time. Teacher using large sheets of paper on an

easel to record children's views.
Something happened this morning in our preschool room.
Stephanie, can you tell us what happened?
Dark.
It was dark and you went oooooh, di you? Why did you go
oooooh?
Because I wanted to pretend I was a ghost.
Oh. So, do you only see ghosts in the dark? You don't see them
in the day-time?
Nooo.
I'm going to ask you to help me here. I'm going to write the
word light. What can you tell me, what do you know about light?
Torch.

825

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

outside (thr1 window)
curtain

from ceiling
up high

from the shops at night

car lights

sun (with prompting)

bike lights

radio (turns off and on)

light on radio
lightening
(rain and clouds)

Figure 1. Group concept map: prior views

C2:
C3:
Teacher:
Tegan:
C2:
Teacher:
Jeffrey:
Teacher:

Jeffrey:
Teacher:
C5:
Teacher:
C2:
Teacher:
C5:
Teacher:
C4:
Teacher:
C6:

Windows.
Curtain.
Is that what you think of light? You think of a curtain? What
else?
Dark.
Radio.
Why do you think of radio, Jeffrey?
You can turn it off and on.
The radio turns off and on. And is there a light on the radio?
[cassette recorder used for data collection had a built in red light
for sound monitoring]
Yes.
Where else can you get light from?
Shops.
Where else can you get light from? You got it from a torch. You
got it from a window. From . . .
Car. You get it from the car lights.
From the car lights . . . yes.
And get some light from the bike.
Car lights, bike lights. All right. Where else does light come
from?
From the shops when it's dark, at night time.
From the shops at night-time. Okay. Shop lights.
At night-time.

In this part of the transcript, it was evident that many of the children had views on
light and its source. Many put forward a range of ideas about light sources. This is
to be expected given the type of questioning used by the teacher. She actively
asked the children 'Where do you get light from?' This line of questioning and
the subsequent responses given by the children, allowed her to tackle the 'light as a
state of being' view that has been reported to be held by older children. How some
of the children responded is evident in Section Two of the transcript:

826

Section Two:
Teacher:
C2:
Teacher:
C2:
Teacher:
C7:
C2:
Teacher:
C2:
C5:
Teacher:
Children:
Teacher:
C2:
Tegan:
Teacher:
Tegan:
Children:
Teacher:

M. FLEER

Where is the light coming from in our room now?

There. From the lights. Up high, [electric lights].
From the light. Yes. Where else? Even if I turn those lights off,
where is the light coming from? [Lights are turned off. Room is
slightly darker.]
Over there. [Electric lights in second part of the room.]
If I turn those lights off, if we turn those off where is the light
coming from? [turn lights off]. We've turned all the electric
lights off, now where is the light coming from?
Outside.
Through the window.
Where does it come from outside?
There, through the window, there.
Window!
If you are outside are there any lights to shine on you outside?
No.
Then how come.
Sun, sun, sun.
Sun.
Right. Sun. Okay. So there are no electric lights out there. It was
the sun wasn't it, shining on you to make it light. Okay.
Moon.
Moon, moon, moon.
There's a moon when it's dark. I think we need another map for
dark.

Four children actively engaged in discussing the sources of the light evident in the
room. However, 80% of the children turned and looked up to the lights or out of
the window when references were made to the lights or the sun. The two steps
required for thinking about the sun (turning off the lights and looking out of the
window) was an interesting response from the children. The children needed
assistance with focusing upon the sun as the main light source. This understanding
through references to the sun was initially not forthcoming and had to be dealt
with explicitly by the teacher.
In the third part of group time the teacher focused the children's attention
from light to find out out their views on darkness.
Section Three:
Teacher:
Tegan:
Teacher:
C3:
Teacher:
C8:
Teacher:
C8:
Teacher:
C2:
Teacher:

Okay. What can you tell me about dark?

Dark paint.
Dark paint.
Curtains are dark.
Curtains are dark. Curtains make it dark, don't they?
Clouds are dark.
Clouds can be dark. What usually happens if they're dark?
They make raining.
They make rain. Good.
and lightning.
And lightning.

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

Cl:
Children:
C6:
Teacher:

827

Thunder.
Thunder, thunder, thunder.
Lights on motorbikes.
Yes. That's to do with light, isn't it? We'll put that over here.
What about dark though? How did you feel in the dark?
Scared, scary.
Why was it scary, Brent?
Because you can't see anything.
Oh, because you can't see anything. Someone said something
about moon?
Moon makes it dark. The sun goes. The sun goes down. And the
half of the circle comes up.
The sun goes down and the moon comes up.

Brent:
Teacher:
Brent:
Teacher:
Tegan:
Teacher:

The responses made tended to indicate that darkness for some children was something which surrounded them at a particular period of the day. Some interesting
associations were made. For example one child (Tegan) made explicit links
between darkness and the sun and the moon. However, this child believed that
the moon was responsible for darkness. No other comments were forthcoming. It
would seem that those children who participated in the discussion held darkness as
'a state of being' in much the same way they viewed light. References to the
absence of light were not hard.
The drawings and the group concept map would indicate that on the whole,
many of the children in the group had limited understandings of light. The views
expressed by those children who participated in the individual and whole group
discussions, would tend to support the view that they experience their world as a
'sea of light' or as darkness, without any link between the two. Like these children
Tegan made reference to the sun and the moon in relation to night-time in her
drawing. Both views expressed were alternative to those recognised by the scientific community. Previous research into children's understanding of light has not
outlined this confusion. In addition, the children in this study did not discuss
shadows at this point of the data collection. Only later, after children had been
involved in shadow puppets in the dark room and tracing around their shadows on
the concrete pavement outside did they refer to shadows. The use of a dark room
as a stimulus to finding out children's understandings revealed rather different
results to those obtained by Segal and Cosgrove (1993) who focused on shadows.
This pedagogical difference between the two studies is obviously an important
consideration in ascertaining young children's understandings of light.
Children's understandings of light' and 'dark': post views
The group concept map that was recorded by the teacher towards the end of the
formal teaching program and main data collection period is shown below.
The teacher-child interactions that occurred during the recording of the group
concept map is outlined below.
Transcript 2
Context:

Whole group time. Teacher using large sheets of paper on an

easel to record children's views.

828

M. FLEER
torches
puppets

candles

lightening
thunderstorm

bubbles

whitelightis
made up of
coloins

/
'
prism

/
1

'

saw water
rainbows

projector

sun

colour, a rainbow

green
red
yellow
violet
blue
indigo

1
2
3
4
5
6

orange 7

Figure 2. Group concept map: post views

Section One:
Teacher:

Cl:
Teacher:
C2:
Teacher:
C3:
Teacher:
C4:
Teacher:
C4:
Teacher:
Children:
Teacher:
C5:
C2:
Teacher:
C2:
Teacher:
C?:
C4:

We'll write the word light first. Okay. Light. Now, we've
learned a lot about light, can you tell us some of the things
that you've learned about light?
Light and motorbikes.
What have we learned about light here at preschool?
Torches.
Torches. We used torches.
Candle.
We used a candle.
Lightning.
Pardon?
Lightning.
Lightning.
And we used the sun.
We used the sun.
The projector.
I know something we used.
What?
Projector.
The projector.
Ohhh!
Puppets.

In Section One, the children who responded to the teacher's questions identified
more sources of light than at the beginning of the teaching program. At that time,
the sun as a source of light was not thought of without a great deal of prompting

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

829

from the teacher. Interestingly the sun is identified, as are the items used by the
children in the dark room.
Section Two:
Teacher:

We used puppets. Okay. What did we find out about light

though? What else did we use in there with the light, Daniel
you said it before.
C2:
Sun.
C3:
[Inaudible.]
Teacher:
No we used, what did we use to show something about light?
What was it called? Christopher, what was it called?
C3:
I know!
Children:
[Laughter.]
Christopher:
Prism prism.
Teacher:
We used a prism. And what did the prism show us?
C5:
A colour.
C4:
A rainbow.
Teacher:
It showed us colour. The rainbow. Okay. And what were the
colours of the rainbow? Can you remember?
C3:
Red.
Teacher:
Red.
C3:
Yellow.
Teacher:
Yellow.
C3:
Violet.
Teacher:
Violet.
C4:
Green.
Teacher:
Green.
C3:
Blue.
Teacher:
Blue.
C4:
Indigo.
C3:
Violet.
Teacher:
And
C3:
Violet, violet!
Children:
Orange.
Teacher:
Orange. Good. Orange. How many colours were there?
Teacher & Ch: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
Teacher:
So there were seven colours of the rainbow and we used the
prism that show us that white light was made up of
Children:
Colour.
Teacher:
What's white light made up of?
Children:
Colours.
Teacher:
Colour. Right. White light comes from the sun and that's the
natural white light. Okay. Anything else that you found out
about light? What else did we do?
Children:
[Laughter.]
Teacher:
Christopher what we do outside last week where we looked for
some more rainbows? What did we do?
Christopher:
Used a prism.

830

Teacher:
C2:
Children:
Teacher:
C4:
C3:
C8:
Teacher:

M.FLEER

We used a prism outside. We used something else, and you had

to blow.
Bubbles.
Bubbles.
Bubbles. We blew bubbles, and did you see any, what did you
see in the bubbles?
Rainbows.
Water.
Puppet, puppet.
Right. We saw water and rainbows. Good.

In Section Two it can be seen that many of the children in the group participated
in the discussions about rainbows. Using a prism, blowing bubbles and playing
with the felt board rainbow were popular activities throughout the teaching program. The term prism was remembered by Christopher. The association with the
colours of a rainbow was something many of the children expressed. In general
terms there was great interest in this area. The drawings collected from children
support this view, since all featured something that related to colours or the rainbow (day three). The level of understanding children had with regard to how the
spectrum is created is more difficult to determine.
Section Three
Teacher:
Children:
C9:
Teacher:
C9:
Teacher:
Christopher:
Christopher:
Teacher:

Stephanie:
Teacher:
Stephanie:
Teacher:
Stephanie:
Teacher:

Okay. Now what else can you tell me about, I'm going to turn
this over now, let's see if we can talk about dark.
[General chatter. Children are becoming restless.]
Dark is not light.
Okay. Tell me what you know about dark.
Dark is the moon.
Moon. [Pause.] Daniel and I need Christopher. I need all of you
to help me, what happens when it's dark? What do you know
about dark?
Dark is [inaudible] in the playroom [?].
And dark when it's night.
Dark when it's night. Dark when it's night-time. Does anybody
remember yesterday, anything about how night and day comes
about? Stephanie, do you remember yesterday? I took the world
[globe] in there. Do you remember anything about it? Were you
there with me when I had the world, and we turned it slowly in
front of the projector beam. What happened?
Well when the world turned around.
The world turned around. What happened to Australia?
It went into dark.
It went into
Dark.
Darkness, didn't it? And as it moved away it moved away from
the light, didn't it? As it went away, so, what can you say about
dark then? No light, no light.

The link children made with day, night and the sun and moon is clearly still
problematic. At best the children gained some understanding of sunlight and it's

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

831

absence. The concepts the teacher was attempting to introduce as shown in Section
Three of the transcript, were possibly beyond the children's ability to understand.
Further teaching and research would be needed in order to determine the usefulness of this approach to children's learning about light.
Throughout the study not one child expressed the view that light is transmitted from the eyes, a commonly held belief by older children (Osborne and
Freyberg 1985). Some children were however, able to discuss how white light
was made up of colours. The notion of a spectrum of colour was easily expressed
by some of the children. Although the concept of day and night was considered in
the science sequence, only a few children responded in the final group time to this
concept. The terms and concepts of reflection and refraction were not explicitly
addressed during the science sequence, hence children did not explicitly express
these terms when recording their understandings in their final concept map. Many
children however, expressed orally and in their illustrations that light travels in
straight lines and that its path could be broken creating a shadow. The link
between teaching and the children's responses is shown below in a case example
of Nicholas.
Handover of learning for Nicholas
One of the two whole group times that were planned for each day centred around
the reporting of what had taken place in the dark room. The teacher initially
modelled to the children how to report their findings to the whole group. Over
time she also scaffolded children into taking more ownership of this process
(Bruner and Haste 1987, Vygotsky 1978). The following transcripts (3 and 4)
demonstrate how the teacher formally worked together with children in the dark
room and later at group time re-visiting the learning experiences through jointly
reporting upon what they have done.
In the transcript below, it can be seen that in the dark room the teacher
focused the children's observation on the light source (projector) and how the
light travelled. Here the teacher worked together with the children, developing a
more sophisticated view of light through extending their information base to
include the notion that light travels in straight lines indefinitely. She also drew
their attention to how the lines of light could be broken to create a shadow. This
learning experience was repeated with several small groups (36 children)
throughout the morning. Not all of the children in the centre participated.
Transcript 3
Context:
Section One:
Teacher:
Children:
Teacher:
Children:
Teacher:

Teacher working together with children in the dark room developing a common information base.
Okay. Sitting down. Cover up the light. Turn your torch off. I
want it to be really dark. Can anybody see?
No.
Can you see the person next to you?
No.
Okay. Just a minute, it's not shining, but you can sort of see it
coming through here. Can you see, children, what's happening,
can you see here, there's lines of light. They travel in straight

832

Christopher:
Teacher:
Christopher:
Teacher:
Nicholas:
Christopher:
Teacher:
Nicholas:
Teacher:
Nicholas:
Teacher:
Children:
Teacher:
C3:
Teacher:

M.FLEER

lines. Light travels in straight lines. Can you see that? Can you
see the dust going towards you? Let's see what happens. Now,
you turn around and see what's happening on the screen over
there. I can see someone's head. Why can I see Keiran's head
over there? Why do you think, Christopher? I can see your head
too. Why do you think? Stand up, Christopher. Just stand up.
Now turn around and have a look. What can you see over there?
Children's heads.
Sit down and put your hand up. Now what's happening. Do you
know what's happening? Can you see a shadow.
Yes.
You can see a shadow. How is Christopher making that shadow?
With his hand.
Cause the light.
He's putting his hand up. Yes.
Cause the light is on.
Because what?
Cause the light is there.
The light's shining on the back of Christopher, and what's he
put in front of the light? He's put his
Hand.
Hand, and his head. And that's what made the shadow on the
wall. Look! Look what happens if I put my head there. What
happens? It's almost black again, isn't it? What have I done?
You put your head near it.
But what have I done?

At this point one child made the link between the shadow and the lines of light.
Section Two:
Christopher:
Teacher:
Christopher:
Nicholas:
C3:
Teacher:
Children:

You broke it!

I have. I've broken it. I've broken the light, haven't I? I've
stopped it. Now watch. Watch. You see!
Now it's working.
Yes.
[Laughter.]
Yeah. See. I broke those straight lines. Okay, let's have a look.
Now you see if you can put your hand up and make different
shadows and break the lines. Okay. Look. There he is. Look.
Wow, wow, wow.

In Section Three the teacher re-states the view expressed by the child, whilst
taking into account all of the aspects involved in conceptualising this understanding.
Section Three:
Teacher:
C3:
Teacher:
Nicholas:

See how I'm doing that. So I've broken those straight lines that
have been travelling over to the wall.
Now you can see my head.
Okay. What else can we see?
I can see this.

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

Christopher:
Teacher:
C3:
Teacher:

C4:

833

No.
Can you see your ears?
Yes.
I can see you ears now. Okay. Well let's turn that off and one
person, Christopher you turn your torch on when I turn it off.
Okay, now look. Look at how light travels now.
[Interrupted by another child, C4 entering.]
I've got a torch.

The experiences in the dark room combined with the teacher's explicit
exploration of how light travels, provided a basis for interpreting the subsequent
experiences the children had in the dark room. For example, after Nicholas had
participated in free play with the shadow puppets in the dark room, he drew a
picture of his explorations (figure 3). He drew around the shadow puppet and then
added a line indicating light. During the final group time on that day Nicholas
shared his drawing with the group (Transcript 4).
Transcript 4
Context:
Teacher:
N:
Teacher:
N:
Teacher:
N:
Teacher:
N:
Teacher:
N:
Teacher:
N:
Teacher:

Group time; Children sharing their drawings of their findings.

Nicholas, did you draw this? Can you tell us what you drew?
That's the shadow my mouse made.
Right, that's the shadow, can you come out and just point to
what's the shadow? Just come and show us.
That's the shadow.
Right. Okay.
And this is where the . . . this is the straight line.
Right. And so how did you get the shadow?
Um. To stop, stopping some light.
What stopped the light.
A shadow.
Did the shadow stop the light, or something else that you were
holding?
Um. The head. Um, my mouse, my puppet.
Your puppet stopped the light, and that made a

f\ficho(as

Figure 3. Nicholas's drawing of his shadow puppet

834

N:
Teacher:
Teacher:
N:
Teacher:
N:

M. FLEER

Shadow.
Shadow. Very good, Nicholas. Thank you.
Is there anything else you found out about white light?
It goes in straight lines.
It goes in straight lines. Anything else you know about light?
Okay.
[Nods head.]

It is evident that Nicholas was able to represent pictorially and orally some understanding of the concept of light. He had drawn the experience he had with his
puppet in the dark room and was able to conceptualise the information the teacher
had expressed about light travelling in straight lines. There was some realisation
that when his puppet was placed in front of the light that it had broken its path
causing a shadow. Whilst not all children were able to express this understanding
so clearly, many children were able, in the right context, to talk about their body
blocking the sun's rays.

Conclusion
This study has shown some of the views held by some of the preschool children for
light and dark. It has also shown, through the presentation and discussion of
transcripts and group and individual concept maps, that there is a distinct progression in conceptual development for many children. The first concept map (and
accompanying transcript) when compared with the second, reveals the relatively
limited understanding that many of the preschool children initially had about
light. Whilst some could freely express their views regarding artificial light sources
such as car lights, stop lights, etc., a great deal of prompting was required by the
teacher for the children to give some thought to the sun. Likewise, darkness was
not thought of as the absence of the sun's rays, but rather the absence of artificial
light. As the children had more free-play experiences in the dark room and teacher
input, for example that light travels in straight lines, many children tended to
broaden their range of responses and seemed able to express in a more sophisticated manner their understandings. The before and after transcripts and concept
maps in this paper show that some children's understandings of light were clearly
developing. Whilst not all children reached the level of understanding that was
evident by some children, for example Nicholas, an overall development in understanding was noticeable between group concept maps. Certainly the large proportion of boys in the group needs to be kept in mind in interpreting the results and
the findings outlined in this paper.
The pedagogy adopted for the unit on light included elements of an interactive
approach. It was not possible to follow this approach as outlined by Biddulph and
Osborne (1984), since the children were generally unable to ask scientific questions. As a consequence of children not asking scientific questions the teacher had
to introduce many different scientific experiences informally to children in the
dark room. In the process of doing this she also shared with the children information about what they were experiencing (as shown in the transcripts). By drawing
the children's attention to different aspects of light, as they were playing with
resources provided, for example cellophane and shadow puppets, the children
were not only tuned into specific observations, but were given language constructs

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

835

to label their experiences. Whilst this aspect conflicts with that intended by the
interactive approach, the teacher could not have facilitated learning without such
direct but informal involvement. The children chose whether or not to they would
participate in the dark room experiences. Needless to say, the dark room and the
teacher's input were popular choices during the two-week period. In addition, the
transcripts included in this paper indicate how some children, particularly
Nicholas, were not only in tune with the experiences but were able to use the
constructs that the teacher had modelled at appropriate times during the two
weeks.
Teacher input was needed in order to up the ante, that is to increase the level
of knowledge about light through introducing terms or phrases to label the children's experiences, such as 'light travels in straight lines'. In addition, teacher
support was necessary for the depth of investigation and hence understanding
gained by some children to make it worthwhile introducing a unit on light. Free
play in the dark room without some discussion of what was happening would have
been less likely to address the 'sea of light' phenomenon discussed in this paper.
The approach used by the teacher takes on the elements of an interactive approach
that are possible with such a young age group (concept maps; eliciting prior and
post views, both group and individual). What makes the science learning successful for many of the preschool children who were involved in the program is the
teacher's support and the concepts introduced to help children make sense of light
and hence broaden their understanding of their world.
Finally it should be noted that the range of responses given by these children
were not like those outlined in Segal and Cosgrove's (1993) study. Clearly the
teaching approach adopted, and particularly the stimulus used to elicit children's
view on light through discussions of either light and dark or shadows does influence
children's responses. This is an important consideration for conducting research
into very young children's thinking. Unlike older children where the stimulus can
be a simple interview sheet, young children require a meaningful context
(preferably concrete, requiring active physical involvement) in which to begin
discussing their views. In the case of Segal and Cosgrove's study it was creating
shadows; in the present study it was explorations of the dark room. This highlights
the importance of carefully considering the teaching context established for
researching young children's thinking and the need for researchers to clearly outline this context when reporting findings.

Acknowledgements
The teaching sequence was developed jointly by the author and Careen Leslie
(lecturer and preschool teacher). This research project would not have been
possible without the teacher, Careen Leslie, the video technician Alan Nichol
and the financial support received from DEET, Research Infrastructure Funding
(Mechanism B).

References
F. and OSBORNE, R. (eds) (1984) Making Sense of our World: An Interactive
Teaching Approach (Science Education Research Unit, University of Waikato, NZ).

BIDDULPH,

836

EARLY LEARNING ABOUT LIGHT

J. and HASTE, H. (eds) (1987) Making Sense: The Child's Construction of the World
(New York: Methuen).
EDWARDS, D. and MERCER, N. (1987) Common Knowledge (New York: Methuen).
FLEER, M. (1992) The suitability of an interactive approach to teaching science in early
childhood. Australian Journal of Early Childhood. 17(4), 12-23.
FLORIO-RAUNE, S. (1987) Sociolinguistics for educational researchers' American Educational
Research Journal, 24(2), pp. 185-197.
LEEDS NATIONAL CURRICULUM SCIENCE SUPPORT PROJECT. (1992) Resources for Supporting
Pupils' Learning at Key Stage 3: Physical Processes Part 4. University of Leeds.
OSBORNE, J. and FREEMAN, J. (1989) Teaching Physics: a Guide for the Non-specialist
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
OSBORNE, R. and FREYBERG, P. (1985) Learning in Science: The Implications of Children's
Science (Auckland: Heinemann).
SEGEL, G. and COSGROVE, M. (1993) The sun is sleeping now: early learning about light and
shadows Research In Science Education, 23, 276285.
VYGOTSKY, L. A. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
BRUNER