Res Sci Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11165-017-9665-8

A Cultural-Historical Study of the Development

of Children’s Scientific Thinking about Clouds
in Everyday Life

Glykeria Fragkiadaki 1 & Marilyn Fleer &

2

Konstantinos Ravanis 1

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Abstract Research into early childhood children’s understandings in science has a long history.
However, few studies have drawn upon cultural-historical theory to frame their research.
Mostly, what is known has come from studies which have examined individual understandings
of science concepts, without reference to culture, context or the collective nature in which
children learn, play and live. The cultural-historical study reported in this paper examines the
process of constructing understandings about clouds by kindergarten children (16 children, aged
4.5 to 6 years, mean age of 5. 3 years) in an urban area of Greece. The research examines how
children form relevant representations of clouds, how they conceptualize meteorological un-
derstandings in everyday life and how understandings transform through communications with
others. The collection of the data was achieved through expanded, open-type conversations
between pairs of children and one of the researchers, totalling 4 h of data. In depth analysis,
using Rogoff’s three foci of analysis (personal, interpersonal and context focusing) allowed for
an examination of children’s representations of clouds, how social and cultural factors framed
thinking and gave insights into the processes of scientific thinking. On this basis, theoretical and
methodological insights of this study of natural science by young children are discussed.

Keywords Cultural-historical . Socio-cultural . Clouds . Early childhood . Science education

* Glykeria Fragkiadaki
gfragkiadaki@upatras.gr

Marilyn Fleer
marilyn.fleer@monash.edu
Konstantinos Ravanis
ravanis@upatras.gr

1
Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, 265
04 Rion Patras, Greece
2
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Peninsula Campus, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia
 Res Sci Educ

Introduction

Over the last 40 years, a transition from traditional pedagogical empiricist research to the study
of children’s scientific thinking has dominated science education research, where psycholog-
ical and epistemological study designs have been increasingly foregrounded. These
approaches to research, in an attempt to acquire validity and plausibility, have been influenced
by a deterministic conception of methods, techniques and tools from the field of science
(Hedegaard and Fleer 2008). In this context, the theoretical schematisations, empirical ap-
proaches and extrapolations for teaching have tended to be concerned with young children’s
familiarisation with the natural world. Understandings of children’s scientific phenomena and
concepts of the natural sciences, have been products of classic research methods and tech-
niques (Cohen et al. 2013; Creswell 2015), based mainly on what an individual knows at a
particular point in time. However, in recent times, research has increasingly recognised how
knowledge is culturally constructed, dynamically and socially produced, pushing against an
individual deterministic perspective (Göncü 1999; Hedegaard and Fleer 2008; Robbins
2005b). In light of this research context, this paper presents the outcomes of a study of
children’s scientific thinking about clouds in the context of their everyday lives, contributing
new understandings about children’s engagement with natural phenomenon and paving the
way forward for new approaches to studying children’s concept formation.

Basic Trends in the Study of Young Child’s Scientific Thinking

The predominant approaches to studying young children’s scientific concept development can
be captured as two basic trends:

1. Genetic epistemology. In this methodological framework, researchers have used the work
coming from the Piagetian school of thought and have studied the development of
‘physical knowledge’ in young children’s thinking. The focus has been on the identifica-
tion of cognitive patterns noted during children’s activity with objects (Crahay and
Delhaxhe 1988; Kamii and De Vries 1978; Kamii 1982; Ravanis 1994).
2. Socio-cognitive approaches. In adopting post-Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives on
learning, researchers have framed their studies more broadly to capture the pedagogy of
Science Education and have investigated the mental representations of children about
concepts and phenomena in the Natural Sciences, by highlighting the conceptual distances
between these representations and school model of scientific knowledge. The focus has been
on examining the transformation of thinking through appropriate teaching interventions
(Ravanis and Bagakis 1998; Ravanis, Koliopoulos and Boilevin 2008; Ravanis et al. 2013).

In spite of the fact that these approaches have produced important results about the nature of
young children’s thinking about the Natural Sciences, more needs to be known about how
children’s thinking gradually develops. Rather than promulgating more research into what
children know, more research is needed into how children’s scientific thinking develops and
under what conditions. Consequently, the dynamic concept of context as well as the dialectic
relation between the child and the environment has been placed at the centre of psychological
and educational research (Anning, Culen and Fleer 2009; Daniels 2001). This line of research
has been informed by the theoretical work of Vygotsky (1978, 1994, 1997), known as cultural-
historical theory. Over the past two decades, researchers drawing upon this theoretical
Res Sci Educ

framework have gradually turned their attention towards capturing in their studies the psycho-
logical whole of human personality. By studying the cultural beginnings and the processes of
the development of higher mental functions, cultural-historical theory provides a system of
dialectical concepts and principles that allow for the systematic study of the development of
personality in its entirety (Veresov 2010). Through focusing on the genesis of development,
this methodological viewpoint focuses the research not on individual cognitive evolution, but
rather to the social and cultural contexts which act as the source of psychological development
(Dafermos 2014, 2015). According to this theoretical standpoint, research must capture the
processes of development. This means taking into consideration the active searching, finding
and using of tools and signs along with processes of interacting with significant others. It is
through studying these dynamic activities and the processes of mediating, as well as the
reorganizing of the whole process of child’s development, that a more holistic understanding
becomes possible (Veresov 2010). Consequently, the research seeks to go beyond the classical
practices and traditional trends discussed above and is methodologically orientated towards
capturing the process, rather than the product of development. In this type of research, the
relation between the individual and the environment is perceived as a unity, as well as being
studied as a unit (Veresov and Fleer 2016; Veresov 2016b; Vygotsky 1994). This holistic
perspective gives rise to a dynamic framework in which the study of the composite nature of a
child’s development can be pursued.

New Insights into Early Childhood Science Education

In line with a cultural-historical approach to learning and cognitive development, researchers in

the natural sciences (O’Loughlin 1992; Lemke 2001) have turned their attention to searching
for solutions to certain structural challenges that earlier theoretical and research perspectives did
not pay attention to. This approach has allowed researchers to Binclude the child’s perspective in
research, alongside the cultural and historical practices in which they live and learn (e.g.
teaching practice; family practice) and the researcher’s motives and goals for the study^
(Hedegaard and Fleer 2008, p. 3). By re-organizing the original research procedures and
recording alternative types of results, new directions and foundations are being laid for a new
research orientation to the study of young children in Science Education (Fleer 2002a, b, 2011;
Fleer and Robbins 2003; Fleer and March 2009; Fleer et al. 2014; Fragkiadaki and Ravanis
2016; Robbins 2005a, b, 2009). According to this research standpoint, a better understanding is
gained about how young children experience science and develop their scientific understanding
as a relation to the social, cultural and historical situations within which they live, learn and play
(Fleer et al. 2014). Within this new methodological framework, that captures the holistic nature
of the learner, the angle of vision manages to overcome the limitations and restrictions of the
Piagetian and socio-cognitive approaches, such as the generalization of children’s developmen-
tal processes, the study of isolated functions or incidents and the conceptualization of researcher
as an external factor (Hedegaard and Fleer 2008).
In moving beyond the theoretical and methodological problems identified in the field of
early childhood educational research, recent interest has been directed to examining the
realities of educational practice and how the principles of a cultural-historical approach can
be applied to schools. In a quest for higher learning and cognitive results, as well as for the
reinforcement of emergent science, in a context of increasing political and social demands
(Fleer 2011), a need for transposing the educative process from an academic, formal and
strictly intellectual viewpoint to a more authentic, flexible and dynamic framework has
 Res Sci Educ

emerged. Lemke (2001, p. 305) has named this change in focus as one of an Bisolated and
autonomous universe,^ to a more substantive and everyday mode. Within this framework,
factors such as the importance of informal sciencing and incidental sciencing (Tu 2006),
the dialogic correlation between everyday and scientific knowledge, learning within
authentic environments and play as a means of learning, have all been highlighted in the
literature. At the same time, emphasis is also given to the importance of, conceptualizing
learning and development as a mediated process (Daniels et al. 2007) which comprise the
functional mastering and employment of cultural tools and symbols, as well as the
supporting participation of the adult/educator. Collaboration between school and family
is also highlighted. These cultural-historical studies of children’s understandings in science
have drawn attention to the need for framing research so that it captures the dynamic and
emergent knowledge of young children in all of its complexity. The results of these
cultural-historical studies are Bapproached and analysed as a process and not as a pre-
determined outcome^ (Larsson 2013, p. 103).

Young Child’s Scientific Thinking about the Natural Phenomenon of Clouds

The research that is the focus of this paper has drawn upon the theoretical and methodological
features of a cultural-historical approach to not simply detecting children’s representations
concerning clouds, but, above all, to seek out the resources from which children derive data in
order to construct their representations and the social interactions which permit their formation
and re-formation of their thinking. For children, clouds are an observable natural phenomenon
in their everyday life, a feature of tales and narratives, but also an object of study in the
curriculum of the kindergarten in many countries. For these reasons, a study of the dynamic
processes by which children’s thinking and representations of clouds form, needs to be
captured through a holistic study design. The question of young children’s representations
concerning clouds, the water cycle in nature and the related thermal phenomena, such as
precipitation and evaporation, has been studied drawing upon Piagetian or socio-cognitive
theoretical frameworks (Bar 1989; Bar and Galili 1994; Hansen 2009; Piaget 1930, 1973;
Russell et al. 1989; Ravanis and Bagakis 1998; Taiwo et al. 1999).
What is known is that 5- to 7-year-old children’s approach to conceptualizing clouds is posed
in the research bibliography within two frameworks (Georgantopoulou et al. 2016). In the first
framework, the cloud phenomenon is conceptualized as part of a broader process of the water
cycle in nature. That means that children’s thinking about the phenomenon is studied in
association to their understanding on changes in the state of water, such as liquidation,
vaporization as well as to their understanding of the concept of the conservation of matter
(Bar 1989; Bar and Galili 1994; Piaget 1930, 1973). In the second framework, the comprehen-
sion of clouds is conceptualized as an autonomous natural phenomenon. That means that
children’s thinking about the phenomenon is studied in association to their understanding on
everyday meteorological phenomena, such as rain and rainbows (Fragkiadaki and Ravanis 2015;
Hansen 2009; Taiwo et al. 1999). However, these studies only discussed what children knew and
not how their thinking was informed. What has been learned, is that children had significant
difficulties in their understandings of this phenomenon. Children conceptualisations were
culturally determined, such as causal relations mainly attributed to everyday routine, human
activity or religion. Moreover, it was recorded that children focused on isolated characteristics of
the phenomena, such as the differentiation of colour along with an inability to shift the focus
from the observed phenomenon to specific conditions of experimentation within educational
Res Sci Educ

settings. In addition, difficulties with correlations and analogies used during educational activ-
ities for the interpretation of the water cycle in nature were mentioned. Overall, these previous
studies relevant to the focus of this paper have all approached their research of clouds by
documenting children’s representations as individual constructions. Further, these studies aimed
to record cognitive entities that young children form in their thinking related to specific aspects
of the phenomenon. However, the studies did not record the processes by which children form
their ideas. As such, more needs to be known about how children in group settings, such as
preschools, develop their scientific understandings about clouds. Consequently, our cultural-
historical study sought to determine:

1. How do pre-school children form their representations of clouds?

2. How do pre-school aged children engage with others and transform their representations
of clouds during social interactions?

Methodological Framework

The Sample

Sixteen children aged between 4.5 and 6 years (mean age 5.3 years) took part in the research
procedure. The children were attending a kindergarten in an urban area of Greece: the whole
class was involved in the study. All children were fully familiarised with the pedagogic
framework of the kindergarten as well as with the researcher who conducted the research
procedure and who was one of the kindergarten’s educators. They also had several science
learning experiences during the current school year (e.g. magnetic phenomena, plant growth
circle). However, the children had not taken part in any teaching situation or intervention
relating to the natural phenomenon of water cycle, thermal phenomena, or the change in the
state of matter. The children’s parents had no special education related to the natural sciences.
All socio-economic levels (low, middle, high) were represented equivalently in the sample.

The Research Procedure: Conditions, Interview Protocol, Recording of the Data

Drawing upon the dialectical-interactive methodology (Hedegaard and Fleer 2008), the research
data were collected by means of expanded conversations/interviews of an open type between
pairs of children and one of the researchers. The conversations were organized as collective
science experiences. Interaction and co-operation between the interlocutors was promoted during
the whole research procedure, as well as during the free manipulation of tools and signs, such as
language, drawing, writing, gesturing, artefacts and, as Vygotsky noticed, during the use of ‘all
sorts of conventional signs’ (Vygotsky 1981, p. 137). Adopting a children and adult partner-
ship model, the educator participated in conversations as facilitator, responding to children’s
perspective and acting as a medium between children and their scientific thinking in order to
support their overall scientific development. The educator was also prompting children to use a
variety of different cultural means in order to construct and express their explanatory scheme
about the natural phenomenon. In the activity setting, the educator being a member of the
research team, had a twofold role. She had to understand and be part of the social situation that
was developed with the children, as well as keeping in mind and advancing the research motives
and goals (Hedegaard and Fleer 2008). Conversations lasted approximately 30 min and were
 Res Sci Educ

held in an ancillary room of the kindergarten. The topic of the conversations was clouds, and,
based on relevant research (Ergazaki et al. 2010; Nagy 1953), the narratives and interactions
were focused on the children’s associations with cloud, cloud formation, cloud location, cloud
creation and the inclusion of cloud in the categories of living-non-living.
The research procedure took place in two stages, with 3 days intervening between them. In
the first stage, all the children of the sample successively took part in the interviews. Children
were placed in pairs. The criterion for child pairing was the children’s capacity for co-operation
and interaction with each other, in order to ensure the greatest possible dynamic for commu-
nication of the pair. The determination for placing the children in pairs was made by the
educator who also was member of the research team.
In the second stage, a resumed interview was held between two children from the sample
who had not worked together in the first stage. The criterion for children pairing at that stage
was focused on repeating the procedure with the same children in different pairs. Here, also, the
subject of the conversation was clouds, and the same questions were asked of the two children.
The methodological choice of organizing the research procedure in two stages as well as in
a brief time schedule was made in order to serve the purposes of the research. Studying
children in stages gave insight to the qualitative changes of their thinking through time.
Studying children in a brief time schedule gave insight into spontaneous and emerged thinking
during every day educational settings in kindergarten. Namely, these qualitative changes were
captured as a relation between the child and different social interactions in early childhood
settings and not as an outcome of a growth and maturation of ideas, a coordinated and guided
thinking or a result of teaching intervention. Although sustainable qualitative changes
(Veresov 2010) of children’s thinking cannot be recorded as an outcome of the research
procedure because of the brief time schedule, dynamic qualitative changes towards an
explanatory model more compatible with the scientific one can be noted. These qualitative
changes constitute the cornerstones of a child’s development.
The central interview questions, which formed the basis of the dialogue, were developed as
follows: What comes into your mind when you see clouds?, How do the clouds look/seem
like?, Where can clouds be found?, How do you believe they are created? and Do you believe
they are living or non-living?. The way the questions are cited above is the English translation
of the actual questions posed to the children during the research procedure. The way the
questions were formulated was evaluated during previous relevant studies (Ergazaki et al.
2010; Fragkiadaki and Ravanis 2014, 2015, 2016). During the course of the conversations, the
children were urged to interact with each other. In addition, by means of open-type questions,
they were prompted to make connections with their everyday experience (e.g. Where did you
see it?) and to refer to the sources of their knowledge (e.g. How do you know?, How did you
think of that?). At the same time, they were encouraged to draw their ideas. For the recording of
these ideas, they were given a large sheet of paper that was used by both children of each pair in
order to express their thoughts by means of sketches, and in addition, to reinforce the climate of
interaction and co-operation between the interlocutors. The interviews were audio recorded and
field notes were taken during and immediately after the paired conversations.

Data Analysis

A qualitative conversational micro-analysis of the sets of data collected during the conversa-
tions at both stages of the research procedure was made. In order to answer to the first research
question, the analysis was carried out with the aid of NVivo qualitative data analysis software.
Res Sci Educ

For this part of the analysis, the data were transcribed, prepared for codification, codified and
organised into categories. The three foci of analysis (Rogoff 1995, 1998) were used as the basic
set of categories to analyse children’s collective science experience in the first stage of the
conversations. Subcategories of each level of analysis were emerged from the data sets. The
criteria to determine the emerged categories drew upon the system of the main dialectical
concepts of cultural-historical theory (Veresov 2010, 2014, 2016a). Two members of the
research’s team were involved in the coding and categorizing procedure. The rate of accordance
between the two independent coders was calculated at 90%. The rate of accordance at coding
and categorizing constituted criterion for enhancement of reliability and validity of the study. In
order to answer the second research question, a comparative analysis of children’s explanatory
schemes between their initial and the resumed interview, as well as a comparative analysis of
their explanatory schemes regarding cloud creation in the resumed conversation, was held.

The Three Foci of Analysis

Among several dynamic qualitative methodologies, analytical schemes and interpretation

models that can be revealed in the framework of socio-cultural and cultural-historical approach
(Fragkiadaki and Ravanis 2016), Rogoff’s methodological model (1995, 1998) constitutes a
reference point because of its articulate and modular structure. Drawing upon Vygotsky’s
conceptualization about the use of units of analysis, as a cultural-historical method to analyse a
complex whole (1987), Rogoff’s model is based on the use of a whole activity, event or
experience as a unit of analysis, in order to Ballow a reformulation of the relation between the
individual and the social and cultural environments in which each is inherently involved in the
other’s definition. None exist separately.^ (Rogoff 1995, p. 139). For our analysis, we drew
upon Rogoff’s multi-level method approach where each segment of codified and categorised
data is schematised through a three foci process of analysis. Within this framework, an object
of study is not only the subject who forms his/her thinking (lens 1), but also the interpersonal
exchanges/interactions which take place (lens 2) and the socio-cultural-historical context
within which these occur (lens 3). In greater detail, there are three focus fields which can be
distinguished: personal focus, where emphasis is on the thinking and action of the subject,
such as, an individual statement by a child about clouds. There is an interpersonal focus,
where the relations and interactions of the subject with others is examined, such as when two
children are influencing each other’s thinking about cloud formation, and finally, the focusing
on the context, where the interest also extends to the broader social, cultural and historical
environment of the subject. This latter focus would include comments or actions by a child
related to events such as, a song about clouds. As the analysis focuses successively on each of
the three fields, the others remain present, but behind the scenes (Rogoff 1995, 1998). The
results presented in the following section are based on the above analytical process.

Results

First Research Question: How Do Pre-school Children Form their Representations

of Clouds?

The transcripts and field notes of the conversation process were examined in order to determine
how children in the study made visible or expressed their personal representations of their
 Res Sci Educ

conceptions of clouds. Table 1 is a summary of the categories and their frequency for personal
representation processes, how representations were collaboratively formed and the contextual
factors that gave meaning to their representations.
It should be noted that the frequency of the categories were not limited to only one focus
field. Thus, there were points in the conversations that belonged within more than one category.
Typical in this connection is the case of representations and imagination, since in many
instances, the children in the sample seemed to use their imagination as a vehicle for the
expression and advancement of their thinking related to clouds. In the following example taken
from the data set, the correlation of the two parameters is apparent. This shows the dynamic
nature of children’s thinking and the challenges of categorising their representations of clouds, a
point that has not been previously discussed in the literature. The child expressing his thinking
in the following example as well as all the children that are expressing ideas in the examples
presented in the study, are coded using alphabet letters (Child A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H.)
Extract 1 Imagination as a vehicle for formulation and advancement of cloud related
representations

Child C (C): There’s this little tube ... which is a bit tight and in there is the air (taps the
paper with the felt-tipped pen to demonstrate) ... and so it has a lot of air and many years
later it gets big, big, big ... until it becomes a cloud and flies. That’s how it came about.
That’s all.Researcher (R.): Hm ... OK, there was this tube, it let out air ... eh ... where did
the tube find the air?C: The air? Our God made the tube and then he made it invisible,
and if we look for the cloud, we can’t see it. That's why he made it invisible. So that it

Table 1 How children represented clouds

Field Categories Absolute

frequency

Personal focus field Well-structured and supported by arguments representations 13

Imagination as a means of forming and formulating representations 24
Signalling and gestures as a means of expression, communication 49
and formation of ideas
Sounds produced by children as a means of supporting and advancing 13
representations
Imitation as a means of expression 3
Frequent references to dreams and citation of dreams as sources of 6
knowledge
Dynamic pauses in speaking 11
Interpersonal focus field Children interact and co-operate to create a shared meaning 35
Extensive conversations and spontaneously expressed ideas as a 22
result of the atmosphere of the interview
Focusing on context Sketches serve as a means of developing, expressing and advancing 22
of children representations, give rise to comment and helps
understanding of other children ideas and often give expression to
gestures/signalling
Children recognise and refer to the sources of their knowledge 21
Features of everyday life and social experiences are involved in the 12
process of ascribing meaning and the formation of explanatory
models
Connections with social values, such as religion, and social practices, 8
such as artificial products construction, influence children’s replies
Songs and poems prompt the expression of representations 3
Res Sci Educ

can't get squeezed so its gas comes out of it.R.: Hm. And how does God make the
tube?C: How did he make it? How did he make us? What material did he make us from?
It was that kind of material he made the tube out of. From iron… as well as other
colours.R.: I see… Why did he choose other colours?C: So that he wouldn’t think it’s a
little man, that's why he made it slightly different from a man. He gave it ... he gave it a
white colour, man is a light brown colour, and he gave it a tube because man doesn’t
have a tube with air inside it. Man has air but not the air in the tube. And so this was
called a cloud.

In the above extract, imagination functions as a vehicle to C’s thinking when he mentions
BThere’s this little tube...^ referring to an imaginary component of clouds which he describes
in more details latter BGod made the tube^, Bhe made it invisible.^ Using this initial imaginary
clue as a starting point, he creatively begins to construct and develop a reflection related to
clouds’ creation B… so it has a lot of air and many years later it gets big, big, big ... until it
becomes a cloud and flies^, Bhe made it slightly different from a man^, Bhe gave it a white
colour^ and BAnd so this was called a cloud.^
In order to highlight indicative examples (in level of analysis) in the following subsections,
we provide extracts from contacted conversations with the children of the sample.

First Level of Analysis: Personal Focus Field In the extract from the data shown below is
a typical example of analysing cloud representation from the perspective of the personal field,
where child E uses signalling and gesturing, in conjunction with his imagination, as a cognitive
approach to the representation of a natural phenomenon. Associated with this extract is a
sketch that was used as a means of extending and clarifying thinking, which was still under
development (see Fig. 1).
Extract 2 Signalling, imagination and sketching as means for advancing thinking.
[While child F is thinking, child E makes lively movements/gesticulations with his hands,
pretending that he is pressing buttons and that he is typing or pressing something in the air.]
R.: What are you doing, E.?E: Nothing!R.: No ... tell us what you’re doing...E: I’m
pretending to do something.R.: What? What are you pretending to do?E: Eeee ... the
tube (earlier he had spoken about a tube from which, he maintained, clouds are

Fig. 1 The sketch as a means of expressing gestures and extending thinking child’s E comments are noted down:
"little invisible tube (for good weather)" and "tube to make the cloud rain (for bad weather)"
 Res Sci Educ

made).R.: The tube? What tube?E: A tube made from other materials.R.: What
materials?E: What materials? Look, how do we make the metal that … that octopus is
made of (points to a metal coat-hanger in the room)?R.: Where did you get the idea of
making the tube?E: How did I get the idea? How did I get the idea? Pretending ...R.:
Hmm ... What sort of tube is this?E: The tube they stick together and make something
with.R.: What do they want this tube for?E: They cut its metal and then make something
out of it.R.: Has it something to do with the conversation we had about clouds?E: Er ...
yes. Like this (he looks at his drawing, gets hold of a felt-tipped pen, but hesitates to take
it).R.: Like what? Yes, go ahead, take it (the felt-tipped pen) and show me. Yes, come on
... (he still hesitates).E: ... Like this ... I mean, I mean this. I mean it was this! (he draws a
red tube next to the blue one he drew earlier).R.: Ah, the tube that you said that clouds
are made of?E: Yes!R.: Are these two the same?E: No, but I’ve done it in a different
way.R.: Do they do the same thing?E: No, but this one does a different job and this ...R.:
What does it do?E: That is, its job is to wet the cloud.R.: Why does it have to wet the
cloud?E: It doesn’t wet it—so the cloud will rain! It helps it to produce a bit of rain so
that there’s bad weather. This is for good weather.R.: And this?E: For bad weather. How
we say if March gets angry, it’ll bury us in snow (a Greek adage)? This helps it to rain.
When E is asked about the described movements, to begin with he denies them: BWhat are
you doing, E?^, BNothing.^ Then, when he is encouraged to talk about them, he explains that
he is imitating the handling of the Btube that clouds are made from.^ Taking these gestures as a
starting point, he formulates an extension of his initial thinking and is triggered into expressing
it on the paper (Fig. 1).

Second Level of Analysis: Interpersonal Focus Field By focusing the analysis on the
interpersonal interactions of two children, as is shown below in Extract 3, the transition of
thinking from the interpersonal to the personal level is recorded, and the joint building up of an
explanatory scheme by the two children is captured.
Extract 3 Recording the joint process of building up an explanatory scheme

R.: What could a cloud be made of?G: Wind. I guessed it, she didn’t guess it!R.: That’s a
very good idea. Wind, G said. Come on, explain it to us.G: I guessed it because it was
cold.[Conversation without relevant interest intervenes]G: Eh ... because when it’s cold they
make clouds.R.: Who?D: The wind.G: The wind.[Conversation without relevant interest
intervenes]D: After, the wind becomes a little ball and then a cloud.R.: Nice idea...G: Ah, a
ball!R.: Nice idea. How can you show me? It is nice that you are drawing it.G: A little
ball!R.: How do you know the ball is little?G: I know because ... we play.R.: What do you
mean ‘we play’? Is that a ball we play with?G: No.R.: What’s that you’ve drawn?G.: A ball
... that we make clouds with.[Conversation without relevant interest intervenes]G.: I can see
it. Only the ball that stays inside and is mixed up with the cold.R.: Ah, and with the cold.D:
It’s mixed up with the cold.R: What are you drawing there?G: Another ball.R.: Ah, very
good, let me just write down that these are balls ... (balls, balls, clouds...) are you going to
make some more balls? What use are the balls to you?G: It’s cold and they get mixed in.R.:
All these will get mixed in?G: Yes, on top of the other.R.: Which other?G: They’ll be mixed
in.R: Hmm, and what will arise if they’re mixed in?G: The cloud.
In the above extract, child G introduces an explanatory scheme based on the correlation between
wind - cold and the clouds creation phenomenon. Child named D then, while not having given
Res Sci Educ

any explanation of her own, seems to adopt the explanation of G—Bthe wind,^ and expands it to
Bthen the wind becomes a little ball and then a cloud.^ Child G then shows keen interest in the
information that D introduces: BAh, a ball!!^ and uses it for the extension of his own thinking: BA
ball ... that we make clouds with^, Bthat stays inside and is mixed in with the cold.^ An important
element for interpreting this particular joint process is to capture the context of the interaction
between the children. The two children had a partnership relationship that was expressed during
every day activities in kindergarten. Although child D always had interesting ideas, she usually had
some difficulty in expressing them to the group, remaining silent on many occasions. In contrast, G
was always facile in expressing himself to the group, even if he was not sure about his ideas. These
characteristics can be traced in the above extract as it seems that the two children contribute to the
co-construction of an explanation according to the status of their relationship.

Third Level of Analysis: Focusing on the Context Focusing on the context, the following
extract (Extract 4) is indicative of the way children use data that they have derived from a
variety of knowledge sources (BI saw in a newspaper about a cloud ...^, Bmy grandad read to
me ...^), the way they process data from everyday life (BBut if it’s only made of flour, how will
the cloud set so that ... like this (means how will it be stabilised, as conveyed by the relevant
gestures)?^, BBecause... because... because if it doesn’t set, then the cloud will fall down^) and
the way they make connections with other situations (BThe official ... the one who mixes the
flour and the water ...^) in order to form their cognitive representations about the natural
phenomenon they are considering.
Extract 4 References to the sources of knowledge, everyday life and creation of connections
with other circumstances

R.: And so what are clouds made of?H: Flour and water.R.: How do you know that,
girls?A: I know it.H: I know it as well.R.: But how do you know it?H.: Eh, we’ve seen
it.R.: Where have you seen it?A: I’ve heard it, I’ve overheard it.H: I’ve overheard it as
well.R.: Where have you heard it?A: I’ve seen it in a newspaper about a cloud ...H: I’m
doing the sky at night-time [draws]A: But don’t draw my things.H: It’s night-time!R.:
You can mix the drawings up. What did you see in the newspaper, A.?A: I saw ... my
grandad had read to me ... since I was little ... I said to him ‘Grandad, what are clouds
made of?’ And he told me flour and water, and I remember it now.R: Really? You had
that in your memory? And what has the newspaper got to do with it, because you told
me something about a newspaper?A: Yes, that I’d seen it in it.R: In the newspaper?A:
Yes.R.: What did it say exactly?A: That it was made of flour and water.R: And who
makes it?A: Eh ... mmm ... the officials [whispers it].R.: So, H, you agree with A that
clouds are made of flour and water, or do you have some other idea?H.: Eh ... I have
another idea.R.: Do you want to talk about it with A.?A: Speak up.H: I ... think ... the
clouds were made only of flour.A: No, because if they were made only of flour, it would
show.R.: What would show?A: That they’re made only of flour. But if they’re made of
just flour, how will the cloud set in order to ... you know?R.: Ah ... the cloud has to set.
Why has it to set?H: Because... because... because if it doesn’t set, the cloud will fall
down.R.: And so?A: And so it’ll melt.H: It’ll melt.R.: Aha. So, H, you agree with what
she is saying to you? Does what she says about clouds needing water as well seem to
make sense to you?H: ... Yes.A: So that it will set.[Conversation without relevant interest
intervenes]R.: So, guys, who makes the clouds?A: The official.H: The official.R: What's
the official?A: The one who mixes the flour and the water ....
 Res Sci Educ

The two children who take part in this specific conversation state that clouds are made of flour
and water. The interesting thing about this explanation is the correlation of the phrase Bout of
flour and water^ with a line of a poem which, at the time when the interview was conducted,
was mentioned every day in class. The poem, on the subject of the making of an object,
included the phrase B... we make it from flour and water.^ Extract 5 which follows supports the
supposition regarding the correlation of the explanation composed by the two children with the
specific poem, since B, on first hearing the phrase Bwith flour and water^ during the resumed
interview clearly makes the association with the poem and refers to it when he recites that
particular line: (BOur grannies make it with flour and ... [to be completed with ‘water’]^).
Extract 5 Correlation with poem
R.: I see ... A., what do you think about the idea about flour and water? That this is what
clouds are made of? Do you agree with this idea?A: Yes.B: ‘Our grannies make it with
flour and ...’
The above analysis involved a dialectical approach where children’s representations were
examined in relation to collaboration processes and contextual factors that gave meaning to
their representations. Findings rose through the analysis of succinct events and activities
between the children. The complexity and the multidimensional nature of children’s scientific
thinking were particularly evident in this data set.

Second Research Question: How Do Children Engage with Others and Transform
their Representations of Clouds during Social Interactions?

In this section, we examine how through the process of interaction, children’s representations
of clouds changes. We begin by presenting two typical examples of a pair of children putting
forward their ideas in parallel, followed by details of how the children’s thinking changed
when the researcher re-introduced earlier ideas put forward by one child.

1. Parallel presentation of the answers of two children who took part in the resumed
conversation. The following two tables show the codified representations of two children
(A and B) participating in both stages of the interview (initial and resumed). Each table
correspond to one of the two children and presents in parallel the child’s answers in the
initial and resumed interview. Table 2 concerns the representations of A and Table 3 those
of B. The representations are divided according to the subject of investigation (associa-
tions/form/position/creation/classification as ‘living/non-living’ and criteria) in each stage
of the interview (initial/resumed interview). It should be noted that for the categorisation
of the children’s pre-causal representations in connection with the creation/origin of
clouds, the codification proposed by Laurandeau and Pinard (1972) was used. In addition,
typical phrases used by the children are cited in each case.

Child’s A answers have characteristics common to the initial and to the resumed interview
and certain similarities on the subject of form and position of clouds. Differentiations of
classification can be identified in the children’s comments regarding the cloud creation and
classification into living/non-living. On the creation of clouds, A’s non-causal thinking, in the
initial interview, seemed to fluctuate between human causation and artificialism, whereas in
the resumed interview, A fluctuates between a supernatural type of causation and artificialism.
Res Sci Educ

Table 2 Presentation of child’s A answers per subject of investigation in the initial and the resumed interview

Subject Initial interview Resumed interview

Associations Connection with an imaginary situation Connection with an imaginary situation

‘I’ll write something in the cloud’ ‘The little girl who’s holding the cloud
in her hands and is writing her name ...
in the cloud’
Form Reference to the colour, size, shape Reference to shape
‘White’, ‘enormous’, ‘the cloud formed a ‘Like curves’
rose’
Position In the sky In the sky
In other countries
‘In the sky’, ‘In Turkey’ ‘In the sky. They can’t fall down’,
‘nowhere else’
Creation Human causation Supernatural causes
Artificialism Artificialism
‘Out of flour and water’, ‘the official ‘Our God makes it’. ‘Or no ... or the
makes it’, ‘the one who mixes the birds go ... Yes ... the birds go and
flour with the water ...’ put that stuff from their beaks, how
do you call it, that thing they stick
from their beaks and make their nests?’
Classification as Non-living (identifies with artificial) Living (initially)
living/non-living Non-living (finally)
‘They’re artificial’ ‘Real’, ‘Humans are alive, clouds aren’t’
Criteria for Criterion not used Movement (living)
classification Human or not (non-living)
– ‘Real because the earth turns them’,
‘Are humans living or not? … Eh,
then clouds aren’t living’.

Table 3 Presentation of child’s B answers per subject of investigation in the initial and the resumed interview

Subject Initial interview Resumed interview

Associations Connection with an imaginary situation Connection with an imaginary situation

‘I’ll drive a missile ... I’ll catch them’
Form Reference to colour and shape
BWhite^, Blike a lion^
Position In the sky
BIn the sky^
Creation Phenomenalism,
animistic type of causes
‘From sky’, ‘the sky opens and the
clouds fall’, ‘they stick and then can’t
come unstuck... the sky on the
cloud’, ‘When another cloud goes
near it ... that sticks too’, ‘on its own.
It holds a meeting on its own and it
draws them. After, the sky ... and
after ... it decides on its own’.
Classification as Non-living
living/non-living ‘ (in answer to the question whether
they are living) No!!!’
Criteria for classification Anthropomorphism
‘Because if we saw some eyes in the sky ‘Because they don’t walk’, ‘Because
we would see it (that they’re alive)’
BI’ll drive a missile ... to go into space^
Reference to shape and colour
BLike curves^, Bthey form a road ...
lines^, Bthey’re grey^
In the sky
BIn the sky^, Bnowhere else^
Supernatural causes, phenomenalism,
artificialism
BOur God makes them^, BNo. They go
up close, close, close, close^, BThe
clouds ... stick it. They go tchuk,
tchuk, tchuk, tchuk ... And then there’s
a big cloud^, BFrom the wind ... B, BEh
... the little birds take something and
make the cloud^, BThey leave it for a
few days like that and then it’s stuck
and there’s a cloud^.
Non-living
‘They’re alive, they’re alive until they’re
not alive’, ‘They’re not living’
Movement
they don’t move on their own. The
earth moves them’
 Res Sci Educ

In addition, in the resumed interview, she vacillates between living and non-living, but in the
end arrives at an answer in line with that of the initial interview. However, initially, child A
does not apply any criteria for her answer while in the resumed intervie,w she uses movement
as a criterion for classification among living things, whereas afterwards, in interaction with B,
she changes her view and classifies clouds as non-living, using the criterion of whether clouds
are human or not. Although the criteria for classification into living/non-living used by
children of that age appears to be tenuous and on several occasions insufficient, the majority
of children perceive clouds as non-living entities (Fragkiadaki and Ravanis 2015). Child A’s
perception of clouds as non-living entities denotes that the child is able to make a sufficient
ontological distinction of clouds using every day experience. However, her explanatory criteria
are only remotely compatible with the scientific one.
In child B’s replies, interesting differentiations appear regarding cloud creation and the
classification criteria of non-living. On the cloud creation, B’s pre-causal thinking in the initial
interview seemed to fluctuate between phenomenalism and animism, whereas in the resumed
interview, it fluctuated between supernatural causation, phenomenalism and artificialism. Regard-
ing the classification criteria, B referred to a single criterion in both interviews, but this criterion is
different in each case. Initially, he uses an anthropomorphic criterion and then movement.

2. Parallel presentation of the two children’s explanatory schemes regarding cloud creation in
the resumed conversation. Focusing interest on the subject of clouds creation, there are
observed important deviations in the children’s answers between the initial and the
resumed conversation. In fact, while A initially ascribed the phenomenon to human
causation in conjunction with features of ‘artificialism’ (‘from flour and water’, ‘the
official makes it’, ‘the one who mixes the flour and the water ...’), in the resumed
interview, she starts her representations by attributing the phenomenon to supernatural
causes (‘Our God made them’). Child B also seemed to accept this causation immediately
afterwards, without, however, extending to any relevant thinking (‘Our God made them’),
in spite of the fact that he originally denied it (‘no, no, no’). It should be noted also that
neither of the two children used this kind of causation in the first stage of the interviews.

Nevertheless, immediately afterwards B seemed to attempt to develop an explanation

directly related to the thinking which he expressed in the initial conversation (BNo. They go
up close, close, close, close (gestures)^ , BThe clouds ... stick it. They go tchuk, tchuk, tchuk,
tchuk ... (gestures). And then there’s a big cloud^). When A hears the expression of this
particular explanation, thinking that B is talking about some kind of sticky substance, she
adopts and extends her interlocutor’s idea by voicing a new thought, which she then develops
(Bthey stick it with glue!^, BOr no ... or the birds go ...Yes ... the birds go and put that stuff from
their beaks, how do you call it, that they stick from their beaks and make their nests?^ , B ...
with their beak (gestures) like they make the nests ... they put ... the clouds together^). B then
seems to wonder about the new thinking that A is developing and attempts to note something
on the paper related to this thinking (BLook, like this ... (draws)^). When asked by the
researcher (BDo you agree with what A. says?^), he gives a monolectic positive reply (BYes^),
without, however, expanding this into a relevant thought.
B then refers to a new feature—the wind—which he correlates to the creation of clouds (BBy
the wind ...^, BWhen the wind blows ... then the clouds move as well^). At this stage of the
conversation, B seems to be in some state of cognitive destabilisation (BThe birds make ... eh ...
God makes the clouds^ (a long pause follows), BI’m thinking ... (a long pause follows).^ A., who
Res Sci Educ

seems to be firm in this new line of thought, at this point makes some reference to the supernatural
causes to which she had referred at the beginning of the conversation (BBy our God ...^).
Child B then, after prompting from child A, goes into the yard outside the classroom to look
at birds’ nests. He then appears to accept and develop the new thinking (BThey (meaning birds)
take something and ... I don’t know what this is, and make the cloud^, BThey leave it like that
for a few days, and after it’s stuck and has become a cloud^, BWe take some glue, they stick it
on and in a few ... in many, many days it becomes a cloud^, BOut there on the spotlight (points
outside)… Look how they’ve built that little nest … That’s how the cloud is made as well^,
BLook at it. Now the birds have stuck on, something they’ve got out of (points to his mouth)^).
Child B then introduces yet another new feature—human causation. Nevertheless, he corre-
lates this feature with the past (Bin the old days they’d put a ladder ... against a house...^ , Band
... some people made clouds^). B concludes by saying BI’ve found two ideas^, speaking of his
representations in relation to the wind and in relation to birds. In Table 4, the course of the
explanatory schemes used by the two children is shown schematically.
Studying the explanatory scheme that child A uses in the second conversation, it can be
noted that this does not correspond and is related to the scheme she appeared to use when she
was working with another interlocutor in the initial conversation. Even though in both cases it
is an inadequate scheme, based chiefly on features of artificialism, a significant differentiation
is observable regarding the specific subject-matter (flour and water/material from birds). More
particularly, A seems to adopt B’s idea from the beginning of the conversation and to extend it
by forming and developing a new line of thinking entirely independent of the original one,
which she abandons. At the same time, at the beginning and end of her reasoning, she
attempts, without further explanation to incorporate a new factor—supernatural causation,
which she did not mention in the initial conversation.
During the resumed conversation explanatory scheme used by B, it is observable that his
scheme relates to his initial pattern (initial conversation). More particularly, at the beginning of
the conversation, he tries to develop afresh the thinking he developed in collaboration with his
interlocutor in the initial conversation. Gradually, nevertheless, it appears that he begins to
question his original idea and attempts to formulate a new, independent line of thinking by
introducing, successively, new factors—causations related to the phenomenon (wind/human
action). In both cases when he is unable to support his thinking, he seems to adopt and
combine that of A and to develop it.

3. When the researcher speaks about the original explanations: individual extracts from the
resumed interview. In the two extracts from the resumed interview which follow, while
both children have discussed the questions contained in the protocol of the interview, the
researcher speaks successively of the ideas which the two children have expressed in their
initial interviews. These ideas, however, are represented either as those of the researcher,
or as other ideas without any connection being made with the person (A or B) who
mentioned them during the two initial, independent interviews.

Extract 6 Reaction of child A on citing of her original ideas by the researcher

R.: (tells them that she has another idea) I think that clouds may be made of flour and
water.A: Ah, ah, ah! Naughty! I told you that!R: Yes, A., but is it true? What do you both
think?B: No, no.A: No. We don’t know.B: They aren’t made of that.A: By God.R: A.,
 Res Sci Educ

Table 4 Explanatory schemes structure presentation on clouds creation for the children pair participating in the
resumed interview

Explanatory scheme formulated by A Explanatory scheme formulated by B

Attributes the phenomenon to supernatural Accepts supernatural causes, while

causes denying them initially

Adopts and expands B's idea, formulating

new thinking Develops his initial thinking

Develops the new thinking Is worried about his new thinking

Attempts to link the new thinking with

Introduces a new factor (wind)
theological type causes

Cognitive destabilisation

Accepts the new thinking

Develops the new thinking

Introduces a new factor (human causation,

referring to the past)

Accepts both lines of thought (wind /

birds)

What do you think of that idea?A: Eh, not so good. Or maybe God pressed a white
button and the clouds were made.R: OK ... So, A, what do you think about the idea of
the clouds being made of flour and water? Do you agree with this idea?[Conversation
without relevant interest intervenes]A: Yes.B: ‘Our grannies make it with flour and ...’
Res Sci Educ

(quotes a line from a poem which the group often recites).R.: You said something
different before ... that the birds make them ...A: I know ... yes. I have two ideas.
As can be seen from Extract 6, child A acknowledges immediately the researcher’s idea as her own,
in spite of the fact that she has not referred to it in the whole course of the conversation. To begin
with, she seems to deny it; she then calls into question this perspective and invokes a combination
of supernatural and artificialist causes in order to explain the creation of clouds (BBy God^, BOr
maybe God pressed a white button and the clouds were made^). She then seems to revise this and
to accept the idea as an alternative possibility and concludes with the sentence BI have two ideas.^

Extract 7 Reaction of child B on citing of his original ideas by the researcher.

R.: And if I told you that the sky has the clouds inside and drops them out a few at a
time? ... What do you think of this idea?
A: That’s a lot better.
R.: You think so?
A: Eh ..., B…?
R.: B? What do you think about this idea? I’d like to hear your opinion.
[Conversation without relevant interest intervenes].
B.: Yes, that’s what happens.
R.: Yes, but you told me that the birds build the clouds. And now I’m confused...
B: Eh, eh, eh, eh, eh...
R.: What do you think about the idea that the sky opens and the clouds drop out?
B: God pushes some button and the clouds drop (gestures).
R.: Hmmm...
B: Like this ... (strikes the table with his hands).
R.: And so what do you say happens?
A: Eh, I don’t know.
B: When some people are sleeping the sky opens and the clouds drop (gestures)...
[Conversation without relevant interest intervenes].
B: That’s what happens ... I have three ideas....
In Extract 7, B doesn’t seem to initially show any reaction when the idea which he himself
had expressed about the creation of clouds in the initial interview is brought up in the
conversation. When his opinion is asked, he appears to deny the version that Bthe sky has the
clouds inside and drops them out a few at a time,^ without making any other comment. He then
appears to show uneasy behaviour and fails to collaborate well to the end of the conversation.
When asked again, he refers to supernatural/artificialist causes (BGod pushes some button and
the clouds drop ... and he then adds more^), and formulates a sentence which refers to his
original idea (BThe sky opens and the clouds drop ...^). He concludes by saying BI have three
ideas....^ When asked what his third idea is, he jokes BI’ve left the other one at home.^

Discussion

In line with previous research (Fragkiadaki and Ravanis 2014, 2015), the analysis of the initial
cloud representations as expressed by the children in the sample, demonstrated that children refer
to clouds in terms of basic morphological characteristics, such as colour, shape and size. They
associate clouds with weather phenomena, mainly with rain, and place clouds at some distance
 Res Sci Educ

from the earth ground. However, what we found to be new was that children’s representations
were shown to be unstable and changeable, and, above all, the further they moved away from the
question of the description to that of the understanding of the cloud creation, all forms of pre-
causal thinking made their appearance (Laurandeau and Pinard 1972). This contradictory
reasoning constitutes part of young children’s development about the phenomenon. Scientific
understanding in many cases coexists along with a grain of supernatural and human causation as
well as understandings based on phenomenism, artificialism, and vice versa. Such an epistemo-
logical contrast is to be expected since it constitutes part of a moving back-and-forth develop-
mental process which cannot always be forward-directed. However, according to the
methodological principles of cultural-historical research, the dynamic aspects of this contradic-
tion are highlighted and studied, and are not limited to just the cognitive results. The findings
presented in the present cultural-historical study revealed that children in the sample also have a
broad and operative field of references for the constitution as well as the reconstitution of their
scientific thinking. In addition, during their everyday science activity in kindergarten, the
children are engaged in dynamic social interactions which act as a source for their scientific
development. An overview of the findings emphasizes a system of dialectic relations between
child’s scientific thinking and his/her social, cultural and material environment.
Overall, the findings for the first research question concerning resources about cloud
representation from a personal, interpersonal as well as contextual and situational aspect, have
shown that a child’s development of their scientific thinking can be viewed not just as an
individual cognitive trajectory but as a Bpath along which the social becomes the individual^
(Vygotsky 1998, p. 198). Data gave some important evidence that when children are trying to
construct a spontaneous and everyday understanding about the natural phenomenon, they draw
upon multiple discussions and collaborations, sources of reference, social experiences and
knowledge as well as social skills, practices, values and attitudes and tools and signs, such as
language, objects, sketches, and gestures. Imagination as a vehicle for the formulation and
advancement of cloud representations was shown to be an important dimension of children’s
thinking. It was found that the use of imaginary thinking led the children towards a better
understanding of the phenomenon. This finding is consistent with what was stated by Vygotsky
that imagination, conceptualized as a social, cultural as well as historical function, constitutes
the basis for every creative activity (1987, 1999, 2004). The findings also showed that when
children searched, found and finally used appropriate signs and tools, such as gestures, sketches
and drawing materials, then they could extend and clarify their thinking about the phenomenon.
This was particularly evident in the example related to signalling, imagination, and sketching—
all of which acted as a means for advancing children’s thinking. This system of cultural signs
and tools supported the process of developing child’s thinking about clouds. In line with
cultural-historical dialectic concept of mediating activity (Vygotsky 1981, 1997; Veresov
2016a), the use of multiple signs and tools created the conditions for qualitative transitions in
children’s thinking. Nevertheless, this mediation would not have been highlighted if it was not
supported by the adult who encouraged the children to give substance and meaning to their
practice, as well as to extend it. Adult’s mediation demonstrated the meaningfully contributing
role of the significant other’s mediation. Thus, the importance of a mediational scientific
framework (Fleer 2009) supported young children’s scientific thinking. As it was shown from
the data categorized at the second level of analysis, the interpersonal communication between
children as well as between children and the educator, gave to children the opportunity to adopt
new ideas, make connections between different aspects of the phenomenon, extend their
thinking and finally develop their explanatory schemes. These findings are strictly related
Res Sci Educ

to the core theoretical concept of cultural-historical theory, and the general genetic law of
cultural development (Vygotsky 1997), underling the interconnection between
interpsychological and intrapsychological concept formation. In the same line, connections
were made by children with several aspects of their daily life in different settings, such as
cooking and poetry. This wide range of resources was drawn upon in support of the children’s
development, but always from within a widely spread context of their social reality.
The relation to the second research question about cloud representation in the context of
dynamic social interactions, the overall findings showed some qualitative changes in children’ s
thinking in relation to the social opportunities and possibilities that they face during a collective
science experience. According to the findings, the two children’s representations that were
investigated during the first and second interview showed only a partial correlation. The
children interacted with one another, but also with the researcher, where views were cross-
checked, abandoned or changed from their original ideas and in some cases, adopting other
views. The study findings suggest that as children engaged socially with each other, where
views of others were thought to be stronger and more functional than their own, new repre-
sentations were adopted. In any event, this framework of communication allowed children to
become aware that they were using different lines of thinking in explaining the same phenom-
enon. Regarding this evidence, attention can be drawn to the mutability of representations in a
given context of interactions, taking into account the fact that the intervened time between the
two interviews was short, and that there was no teaching intervention of any kind. Thus, as
became apparent from the research data that came out at this phase of the analysis, children did
not just follow a pre-determined transformative pattern, but they influenced their own devel-
opment by making conceptual choices. Drawing upon Hedegaard’s conceptualization about
developmental pathways (Hedegaard and Fleer 2008), data revealed how children create their
own developmental histories as they move through different social circumstances.
Summarizing the above, processes and resources young children make use of to develop their
representations in each different social situations can be observed functioning in an active social
context and not within an individualised social vacuum. At the same time, detection is achieved
through the method of child pairs, where it is possible to observe how two children jointly build
their representations of cloud formation. The interactions and the exchanges between the
children are approached by means of the extension, redefinitions, and reformulation of repre-
sentations and the development of their explanatory schemes. Thus, the subject of the research in
this instance consists, according to the definition of Carr (1998), in the individual-in-action and
not in the individual. Through multiple focusing, it was possible to access not only children’s
thinking (knowledge) but also the process of knowledge creation about clouds (Rogoff 1998).
These findings gave insight into better understanding and mapping children’s development of
their scientific thinking in relation to everyday contexts, as well as in relation to a child’s social
reality. Overall, through a cultural-historical reading, the development of scientific thinking in
early childhood settings was studied as a phenomenon that appears as a social relation
(Vygotsky, 1997) framed by the social situation of a child’s development (Vygotsky 1998).

Conclusions

The study presented in this paper aimed to provide a cultural-historical understanding on how
children form relevant representations of clouds as well as how children’s understandings are
transformed and developed through communications with others. Taking an assertive step
 Res Sci Educ

forward from constructivist and socio-cognitive inspired studies, the present study used
cultural-historical theory to conceptualize children’s scientific thinking as a dynamic, devel-
opmental process (Dafermos 2016). Thus, a challenging and effective research context
emerged, advancing early childhood science education research. The methodological decision
of studying children’s representations by means of the dialogic analysis between pairs of
children and a researcher differs from and extends the analysis of these representations using
traditional detection where only individual, static and one-dimensional lines of thinking are
recorded. Drawing upon Vygotsky’s conceptualization about the dialectic character of devel-
opment (1994), the study made children’s thinking visible, but as a unity of social and
cognitive processes. The method gave insights into the interrelations between personal char-
acteristics and social, cultural and material environment (Veresov and Fleer 2016; Veresov
2016b). In that framework, children’s representations of clouds are approached not as a simple
connection but in a dialectic relation with the social, cultural and historical resources and
processes that constitute children’s everyday reality. In parallel, observing the same interloc-
utors at various points in time and in various social situations, the historical aspect of
development is captured, giving the possibility to study the genesis of scientific thinking, as
well as how it is formed, shaped and qualitatively changes over time.
The study suggests that casting the methodological research net in this way allows for the
whole process of development of children’s representations of clouds to be better understood. In
adopting a broader conceptual and methodological framework, the study design shifts its focus
from recording what an individual child knows at a particular point in time, to a holistic view of
the process of a child’s development of scientific thinking during the everyday educational
reality in a kindergarten. Framed into the cultural-historical paradigm, the study takes into
account the different aspects that constitutes child’s social situation of development. The social,
cultural and historical reality of the child is captured along with an insight in the creative and
active way that the child constructs his/hers own developmental conditions and develops his/
hers own personality. In that framework, the researcher becomes part of child’s social situation
of development following and participating in child’s activity. Thus, a child’s perspective, a
child’s developmental reality, as well as the researcher’s perspective, are studied as a whole
(Hedegaard and Fleer 2008). This approach extends existing research practices in the field of
early childhood science education research where the cognitive and social dimensions are
usually considered separately. Thus, the general orientation and the data of the present research
emphasises the importance of adopting an expanded approach in the detection of kindergarten
children’s representations of the natural world. This perspective highlights the necessity for a
redefinition of the concept of representation in a socio-cultural, historical context.
Consequently, on an empirical level, transcending a methodology focused chiefly on the
assessment of cognitive progress may bring out important factors related to the involvement of
the personal and/or interpersonal parameter, and of the broader context in the learning process
and cognitive development. The methodological framework and organization of an empirical
study in this way, initiates a debate in relation to research options at a level of collection,
description and analysis of the data. On a theoretical level, an important factor of this emergent
research reality is its functional connection with widespread classic research practice. It is
important to stress that the new research environment that is getting shaped does not aim simply
to replace or explicitly reject the previous traditional model of approach, but to extend it, by
enhancing it with new parameters and variables, and to orientate it towards a more composite
research reality. Thus, in laying the foundations for this re-framing, the notional bridges between
the two approaches should first be sought. Finally, the pedagogic perspectives and
Res Sci Educ

extrapolations of the results of the present research highlight features of the educational process
that have remained behind the scenes under the traditional research practices, thus leading to a
more effective, systematic approach to the learning about the natural sciences in kindergartens.
Although research into early childhood children’s understandings in science has a long
history, designating the complexity and uniqueness of a child’s path towards these understand-
ings remains an intractable issue. The cultural-historical study reported in this paper attempted
a holistic and in depth analysis of child’s development of scientific thinking providing dynamic
methodological options along with several significant results towards this orientation. How-
ever, much has to be done to reinforce the holistic and in depth conceptualization of young
children understandings and learning in science. By including in the frame fine- grained
aspects of child’s experience, such as peer’s perspective, a 360° view of child’s development
can be achieved. Furthermore, more sustainable qualitative changes as results of the research
procedure can be gained through an extended in time and different settings observations of
children activity. These remarks constitute fertile ground for future research works.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Anning, A., Cullen, J., & Fleer, M. (2009). Early Childhood Education: Society and Culture. (2 ed.) London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bar, V. (1989). Children’s views about the water cycle. Science Education, 73(4), 481–500.
Bar, V., & Galili, I. (1994). Stages of children’s views about evaporation. International Journal of Science
Education, 16(2), 157–174.
Carr, M. (1998). Assessing children’s experiences in early childhood: Final report to the Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. Part one. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Crahay, M. & Delhaxhe, A. (1988). Agir avec les rouleaux. Agir avec l'eau. Bruxelles: Labor.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc..
Dafermos, M. (2014). Vygotsky’s analysis of the crisis in psychology: diagnosis, treatment, and relevance.
Theory & Psychology, 24(2), 147–165.
Dafermos, M. (2015). Critical reflection on the reception of Vygotsky’s theory in the international academic
communities. In B. Selau & R. Fonseca de Castro (Eds.), Cultural-historical theory: educational research in
different contexts (pp. 19–38). Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS.
Dafermos, M. (2016). Critical reflection on the reception of Vygotsky’s theory in the international academic
communities. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 12(3), 27–46.
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. Oxford: Routledge.
Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (2007). Editors’ introduction. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.),
The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ergazaki, M., Saltapida, K., & Zogza, V. (2010). From young children’s ideas about germs to ideas shaping a
learning environment. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 699–715.
Fleer, M. (2002a). Sociocultural assessment in early childhood education- Myth or reality? International Journal
of Early years Education, 10(2), 105–120.
Fleer, M. (2002b). Sociocultural theory: rebuilding the theoretical foundations of early childhood education.
Policy and Practice in Education, 54(1), 105–120.
Fleer, Μ. & Robbins, J. (2003). BHit and Run Research^ with BHit and Miss Results in Early Childhood Science
Education. Research in Science Education, 33(4), 405–431.
Fleer, M. (2009). Supporting Scientific Conceptual Consciousness or Learning in 'a Roundabout Way' in Play-
based Contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1069–1089.
 Res Sci Educ

Fleer, M., & March, S. (2009). Engagement in science, engineering and technology in the early years: A cultural-
historical reading. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 3(1), 23–47.
Fleer, M. (2011). Kindergarten in Cognitive Times: Imagination as a Dialectical Relation between Play and
Learning. International Journal of Childhood, 43(3), 245–259.
Fleer, M., Gomes, J., & March, S. (2014). Science learning affordances in preschool environments. Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood, 39(1), 38–48.
Fragkiadaki, G. & Ravanis, K. (2014). Mapping the interactions between young children while approaching the
natural phenomenon of clouds creation. Educational Journal of the University of Patras UNESCO Chair,
1(2), 112–122.
Fragkiadaki, G. & Ravanis, K. (2015). Preschool children’s mental representations of clouds. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 14(2), 267–274.
Fragkiadaki, G. & Ravanis K. (2016). Genetic Research Methodology Meets Early Childhood Science Education
Research: A Cultural-Historical Study of Child’s Scientific Thinking Development. Cultural-Historical
Psychology, 12(3), 310–330.
Georgantopoulou, A., Fragkiadaki, G. & Ravanis, K. (2016). Clouds as natural entities in preschool children’s
thought. Educational Journal of the University of Patras UNESCO Chair, 3(2), 114–128.
Göncü, A. (1999). Children’s and researcher’s engagement in the world. In A. Göncü (Ed.), Children’s
engagement in the world: Sociocultural perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, P. J. K. (2009). The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner
already knows—what do the learner know about clouds, precipitation, wind and greenhouse
effect; a short review of research from 1883 to 2009. In: 9th EMS Annual Meeting, 9th
European Conference on Applications of Meteorology (ECAM) Abstracts, held Sept. 28-Oct. 2,
2009 in Toulouse, France. http://meetings.Copernicus.org/ems2009/,id.EMS2009–237. (Vol. 1, p.
237).
Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2008). Studying children: A cultural-historical approach. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Kamii, C. (1982). La connaissance physique et le nombre à l’école enfantine. Approche piagétienne. [Physical
knowledge and the number in preschool education. Piagetian approach]. Genève: Université de Genève.
Kamii, C., & De Vries, R. (1978). Physical knowledge in preschool education: implications of Piaget'’ theory.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Larsson, J. (2013). Contextual and conceptual INtersubjectivity and opportunities for emergent science knowl-
edge. International Journal of Early Childhood, 45, 101–122.
Laurandeau, M., & Pinard, A. (1972). La pensée causale. Paris: Presses Universitaire de France.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulation communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.
Nagy, M. (1953). The representation of germs by children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 83(2), 227–240.
O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural
model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 291–320.
Piaget, J. (1930). Τhe Child’s conception of physical causality. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1973). Τhe child’s conception of the world. St. Albans Herts: Paladin.
Ravanis, K. (1994). The discovery of elementary magnetic properties in pre-school age. A qualitative and
quantitative research within a piagetian framework. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 2(2/3), 79–91.
Ravanis, K. & Bagakis, G. (1998). Science Education in kindergarten: sociocognitive perspective. International
Journal of Early Years Education, 6(3), 315–327.
Ravanis, K., Koliopoulos, D. & Boilevin, J. M. (2008). Construction of a precursor model for the concept of
rolling friction in the thought of preschool age children: A socio-cognitive teaching intervention. Research in
Science Education, 38(4), 421–434.
Ravanis, K., Papandreou, M., Kampeza, M. & Vellopoulou, A. (2013). Teaching activities for the construction of
a precursor model in 5-to 6-year-old children's thinking: the case of thermal expansion and contraction of
metals. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(4), 514–526.
Robbins, J. (2005a). Contexts, collaboration, and cultural tools: a sociocultural perspective on researching
children’s thinking. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(2), 140–149.
Robbins, J. (2005b). BBrown packages^? A sociocultural perspective on young children’s ideas in science.
Research in Science Education, 35, 151–172.
Robbins, J. (2009). Analyzing young children’s thinking about natural phenomena: a sociocultural/cultural
historical perspective. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 3(1), 75–97.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided partic-
ipation, and apprenticeships. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind
(pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Res Sci Educ

Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In: Damon W. (Chief Ed.), Kuhn D., & Siegler R. S.
(Volume Eds.), Cognition, perceptions and language. Handbook of child philosophy (pp. 679–744). New
York: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Russell, T., Harlen, W., & Watt, D. (1989). Children’s ideas about evaporation. International Journal of Science
Education, 11, 566–576.
Taiwo, A. A., Ray, H., Motswiri, M. J., & Masene, R. (1999). Perceptions of the water cycle among primary
school children in Botswana. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 413–429.
Tu, T. (2006). Preschool science environment: what is available in a preschool classroom? Early Childhood
Education Journal, 33(4), 245–251.
Veresov, N. (2010). Introducing cultural historical theory: main concepts and principles of genetic research
methodology. Cultural-historical psychology, 4, 83–90.
Veresov, N. (2014). Refocusing the lens on development: towards genetic research methodology. In M. Fleer &
A. Ridgway (Eds.). Visual Methodologies and Digital Tools for Researching with Young Children (pp. 129–
149). Springer International Publishing.
Veresov, N., & Fleer, M. (2016). Perezhivanie as a theoretical concept for researching young children’s
development. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(4), 325-335.
Veresov, N. (2016a). Duality of categories or dialectical concepts? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral
Science, 50(2), 244–256.
Veresov, N. (2016b). Perezhivanie as a phenomenon and a concept: questions on clarification and methodological
meditations. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 12(3), 129–148.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in
soviet psychology. N. Y: Armonk.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of LS Vygotsky, Vol. 1.
Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of environment. In R. V. D. Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader
(pp. 338–354). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4: The
history of the development of higher mental functions: Cognition and language. New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of LS Vygotsky, Vol. 5. Child’s psychology.
New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 6. Scientific legacy. New
York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and east European
psychology, 42(1), 7–97.