Books And Stories In Children’s Science:

The preliminary findings of the BASICS Project

John F. McCullagh

Glenda Walsh

Julian G. Greenwood

Stranmillis University College

Belfast

BT9 5DY

Northern Ireland
Abstract

We report on a project that examined the benefits of introducing books and stories

into science teaching in the early years of primary school. Student teachers used

fiction and non-fiction books to introduce science lessons. We wished to determine

whether their use promoted pupil engagement for the science topic being taught. Data

were gathered using questionnaires and interviews administered to children, students

and teachers. It was found that the use of books and stories within science enhanced

pupil engagement; in particular observation and communication skills were enhanced,

as were their confidence, decision making and problem solving abilities.

Key words

Science-enquiry

Stories

Books
Introduction

This paper reports on the preliminary findings of the BASICS Project (Books And

Stories In Children’s Science), funded by the AstraZeneca Science Teaching Trust.

The three year project explores how books and stories can support the smooth

transition of children’s experience of science between Foundation Stage and Key

Stage 1. The project involves principals, science coordinators and teachers from a

cluster of primary schools working with staff and undergraduate students from

Stranmillis University College Belfast, and science advisers from the South Eastern

Education and Library Board. During this first ‘modelling’ phase of the project (2006-

2007), the class teachers engaged in structured observation, as the students planned

and taught a series of enquiry-based science lessons making use of books and stories.

This paper reports on the findings from the perspective of both the teachers and the

pupils. In phase 2, the ‘scaffolding’ phase (2007-2008), the class teachers, will adopt

this approach in their teaching, with the student providing assistance and support. The

final ‘autonomous’ phase 3 will see the class teachers continuing to develop this

practice. It is hoped that this model for development will enhance science teaching

across each of the cluster of schools involved and beyond.

Background

Science in the curriculum

This project comes at a time of curriculum change in Northern Ireland and therefore

seeks to support schools as they adapt their approaches to science at lower primary
level. Within the Revised Northern Ireland Curriculum, science, along with History

and Geography is included as one of the six learning areas called ‘The World Around

Us’. The Revised Curriculum promotes subject integration and encourages teachers to

make relevant connections’ in children’s learning (CCEA, 2007). Teachers also are

encouraged to have considerable flexibility to select from within the learning areas

those aspects they consider appropriate to the ability and interests of their pupils

(CCEA, 2007). In the previous curriculum, science was included alongside Numeracy

and Literacy as a core subject. We therefore feel that science may now be perceived

as less important and therefore marginalised. In order to counter any such notions it is

more important than ever that science teaching is linked to other aspects of the

curriculum (in this case Literacy), and that its potential for supporting skills

development is fully realised.

The revised curriculum also introduces a Foundation Stage where a less formal

approach to learning is to be adopted. The principles underpinning the Foundation

Stage are that young children learn best when learning is interactive, practical and

enjoyable for both children and teachers (CCEA, 2007). Recent evaluation of the

‘Early Years Enriched Curriculum’ (a pilot for the Foundation Stage) by Sproule et al.

(2005) supports this approach but identifies clear differences between the experiences

of Year1/2 teachers and Year 3/4 teachers with regard to the availability of training

and resources. The potential exists for disruption to children’s progress if teaching

moves too abruptly to the more formal approach of Key Stage 1 and the principles of

the Foundation Stage are not fully developed. We see here the potential for bridging

this transition from Foundation into Key Stage 1, and highlighting the closeness of the
play-based approaches within Early Years settings and the enquiry-based practical

work at Key Stages 1 and 2 (Harlen et al., 2003).

Supporting development in science

Despite the progress made in primary science (OFSTED 2002), teachers’ confidence

and training continues to be the most significant issue currently facing primary

science (Murphy & Beggs, 2005). Murphy and Beggs’ (2005) scoping study also

reported teachers’ concern at the lack of resources and continual professional

development available and their view that making science more relevant to pupils’

experience is the best way to improve the teaching and learning of science. One

possible way to make science more relevant and accessible to children is to

incorporate books and stories within science lessons. Whilst this is by no means a new

idea (Gould, 1900), there have been many recent examples of different approaches,

for example, using poems (Speedie, 2002; Feasey, 2006), story webs (Oliver, 1999),

and making ‘Big Books’ (McMahon, 1999). It is the use of books and stories as an

introduction to enquiry-based science which is the focus of this project. Cavendish et

al. (2006) report how stories can be effectively used as starting points for science by

liberating and channelling the energy and enthusiasm of young children as they

explore their world. This is particularly relevant when adopting an enquiry-based

approach, when we are exploring children’s ideas through discussion. The importance

of talk in developing reasoning and scientific understanding has been outlined by

Keogh and Naylor (2006) and by Goldsworthy (2004). Nevertheless Murphy and

Beggs (2005) report that only a small fraction of teachers make use of stories in

science.
The aim of this project was therefore to allow teachers from a cluster of primary

schools to observe first hand the merits of using books and stories within enquiry-

based science. This ‘modelling’ phase of the project will hopefully provide the

prerequisites for change in professional practice of effective adequate time, resources

and support (Fullan, 2001). We have previously used this model for teacher

development with great success (Murphy et al., 2004).

Project aims and details

Phase 1 of the project involved a partnership between the project team: 12 student

teachers, principals, science coordinators and teachers from a cluster of five primary

schools, during the period September 2006 to June 2007. The students, supported by

the project team and their host teachers, planned and taught science over a period of

six weeks. The science lessons were enquiry-based and used a book or story as an

introduction and often during the concluding discussion. During the lessons the

classroom teachers engaged in a structured observation activity. A training and

planning seminar was held prior to the teaching phase, whilst a concluding seminar

was held a few weeks after the teaching had finished to share experience between the

participating schools. The overall aim of the project was to promote the smooth

transition of children’s science experience by supporting a common approach to best

practice in the final year of Foundation Stage into the first year of Key Stage 1. The

‘best practice’ approach is one which is stimulating and relevant to children (books

and stories) and child-centred (enquiry-based). The project design supported transition

by providing the opportunity for the teachers of the two year groups to plan together
and to adopt a common approach. During this phase, the teachers observed and

compared lessons involving both their own cohort of pupils and the pupils on the

other side of the Foundation/Key Stage 1 interface. This practice provided the

teachers with the opportunity to identify the different levels within children’s

progression in science enquiry skills.

The science topics were chosen by the host schools in accordance with their science

programme for the term. Each student planned a series of six enquiry-based lessons

which included the use of a book or a story. The lesson plan required the student

teachers to identify learning intentions and identify skills relating to both the science

enquiry aspect and the literacy aspect of the lesson. During each lesson the teacher

engaged in a structured observation activity. The teachers were also required to record

any signs where they felt the book or story was enhancing the children’s learning

experience.

Project Evaluation

Data collection methods

The data were collected using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group

interviews (pupils), and a structured observation activity using a modified version of

Walsh’s Quality Learning Instrument (Walsh & Gardner, 2005). This enquiry-based

science Quality Learning Instrument (QLI-ebs) was used by teachers during their own

science lessons before and after the students’ intervention. The student teachers also

applied it to lessons at the very start and at the end of the teaching phase.
Questionnaires were administered to teachers, science coordinators and student

teachers before the initial planning seminar and then after the students had completed

their period of teaching. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with principals,

science coordinators, teachers and student teachers on completion of this phase of the

project.

A key aspect of the project examined responses of the children to the greater use of

stories in their science activities as an array of research (e.g. Walsh et al., 2006)

emphasizes that what young children have to say is of interest and is informative and

should not be overlooked in any project concerning them. Evidence was therefore

obtained by use of two data collection methods: the observations of children during

their science lessons and focus group interviews with six groups of approximately

eight children chosen by the class teacher.

The observations

The key aim of the observations was to evaluate whether the quality of the scientific

experience had improved as a result of the inclusion of books and stories into the

lessons. Based on this premise it was intended not to focus on outcomes (i.e. had

children’s scientific knowledge improved), but rather to focus into the learning

processes during the lessons in terms of children’s learning dispositions and use of

scientific skills. In this way it could be argued that the aim was to capture what Katz

(1995) terms the ‘bottom up’ perspective of quality i.e. how does it feel to be a child

in this particular activity.

The QLI is a process measure of quality which aims to capture the quality of the

learning experience on offer in a given early years setting. In this way it challenges

the pre-existing notion that quality can only be determined in terms of learning

outcomes, teaching style and context. Instead, as argued by Walsh et al. (2006), the

QLI rates the quality of a setting according to the way it meets the developmental

needs of the children. It is embedded in an experiential model of how young children

learn and develop and it focuses on nine key themes, namely motivation,

concentration, confidence, independence, wellbeing, socials interaction, respect,

multiple skill acquisition and higher order thinking skills. The QLI has proven to a

highly reliable and valid instrument (Walsh & Gardner, 2005), its formulation

mediated by evidence from a series of pilot observations, the views of early years

experts, a calibration study and a Krippendorf’s alpha test showing a high level of

inter-rater reliability (0.73-1.0).

The QLI-ebs maintains its focus on the themes of ‘motivation’, ‘concentration’ and

‘confidence’ (drawn directly from the QLI) but with the addition of ‘observation and

communication’, ‘predicting’, ‘problem-solving’ and ‘decision-making’. Although the

Higher Order Thinking Skills indicator in the QLI touches upon these, it does so in

quite a generalized way and the intention was to make these skills more specific and

pronounced for this science-focused study. Unlike the QLI which considers the entire

triangle of interaction in its evaluation (i.e. the children’s actions, the teaching

strategies and the role of the environment), the QLI-ebs focuses solely on the

children’s actions as a means of capturing the children’s responses to the use of

stories and books in their science lessons. Each of these seven themes are rated on a

high (3) to low (1) basis and a general picture of practice is captured (i.e. the majority
of children), rather than targeting specific children. The observation is carried out

over the course of the entire science lesson and after the lesson has been delivered, a

rating is made against the QLI -ebs based on a best fit model.

For the purposes of this study, the QLI-ebs was used both by classroom and student

teachers. The teachers (n = 6) used the QLI-ebs on a science lesson before the

intervention and then after the intervention; while the students (n = 10) used the QLI-

ebs immediately after their first Science lesson within the intervention and then after

their last science lesson.

Focus Group interviews

Six focus group interviews were conducted with approximately 6 - 8 pupils (aged 6-7

years) in each group. A puppet or toy was used on each occasion to act as a stimulant

for discussion. Approximately six questions were posed in an effort to encourage the

children to talk about their experience of using books and stories in their science

lessons.

Findings

Comments from teachers

All the teachers reported that the use of books and stories greatly enhanced the

learning experience of the children. The book or story was seen to provide a relevant

and child-friendly context for the science which in turn provided the opportunity for
developing children’s language and thinking skills. This synergy was a common

theme which emerged from this study, highlighting the merits of adopting a more

integrated approach to teaching. The three most cited advantages related to children’s

motivation and enjoyment, language development, and the support which a story can

provide for developing science concepts.

The teachers commented on how children love stories so therefore from the very start

of the lesson they were engaged and motivated. Thus the story was seen as the ideal

way to introduce the science, as one teacher explained: I realise what a valuable

introduction this can be (using a story) and how it engages children immediately

through what they are familiar with.

The narrative form of the story was seen as providing a structure and meaning to the

lesson which developed into an activity with real purpose. Children were judged to be

more involved in their learning, often empathising with the characters in the story and

therefore motivated to help come up with a possible solution or advice regarding the

particular problem or scenario. In this way a positive disposition to ‘finding out’ was

developed which sustained children’s focus throughout the lesson. The revisiting of

the story or book during the conclusion or plenary was also valued: When they went

back to the story you could see what they had learned. They also would help thinking

about a different possible ending, using their new knowledge.

The use of a second and slightly different story was also considered an ideal way to

support children in transferring or applying their ideas to a new situation. This use of

stories or books seemed to have developed teachers’ awareness of where ‘science’ can
be accommodated within the curriculum, as suggested by: Being involved in this

project has made me more aware of how much ‘science’ is an integral part of our

everyday lives. The information we can gleam is not just restricted to ‘facts’. Fiction

in stories, poetry and song can provide a jumping off point and reinforce the learning

process. I am enjoying resourcing stories and poems for my future lessons.

There was marked increase in teachers’ awareness of the role of fiction in science

lessons as evidenced by the comment: I think I will be more inclined to use fiction

books or a combination of fiction and factual books in the future. I will also be on the

look out for science opportunities in the books that we already use.

This use of book and stories was also considered to greatly support the development

of children’s general use of language and their ‘science talk’. The secure environment

brought by the use of a story was felt to encourage even the more shy children to offer

opinions and comments. This approach was considered to make science more

accessible. The resultant increase in talking and listening was seen to develop

children’s vocabulary, both scientifically and generally. For example, lessons on

materials using a feely box allowed the idea of ‘opposites’ to be explored and

descriptive language to be developed. The story could often provide a stimulus for

talking as suggested by the observation: I found it useful to compare how some of the

children are motivated and willing to use scientific language.

The opportunity, which the introductory story or book provided for exploring

children’s current thinking, was considered by several teachers to be a key advantage

of this approach. For example children’s ideas on melting and freezing could be
accessed via a discussion of the story of ‘The Snowman’. The more abstract concepts

such as heat, insulation and changes of state could now be accessed by talking about

the sun, the Snowman’s coat and his inevitable melting. The story was considered to

provide a shared experience in which children’s ideas could be explored and

developed. This twinned development of both science and literacy was outlined by the

comment: The project exemplifies how literacy can fit so naturally into science.

Young children love to learn through shared reading. The children responded very

positively to the stories which puts the science into context for them and provides the

opportunity to refer back to the story.

The QLI-ebs

Overall, the findings would suggest that the greater use of books and stories in the

science lessons increased the overall quality of the scientific experience from the

children’s perspective. The mean total scores on the QLI-ebs as rated by the teachers

increased significantly (t5 = 5.4, P = 0.001) as a result of the inclusion of books and

stories to the science lessons (fig. 1). Similarly there was a significant (t9 = 4.6, P =

0.0006) increase in the students’ scores over the teaching period which can be

explained by the fact that the students became more competent in integrating more

books and stories into the content of their science lessons (fig. 2).

A fuller exploration of the QLI-ebs scores was undertaken to determine those

indicators that teacher and students felt gave the greatest number of increases in terms

of the children’s responses. Figure 3 displays how teachers reported an increase on

each separate indicator. Those indicators that scored the highest in terms of the
number of increases were decision making, problem-solving and confidence. The

students also reported a number of increases for each indicator, in particular problem-

solving, observation and communication and confidence (fig. 4).

Children’s comments

During the focus group interview the children were invited to talk about the lesson

and if they had enjoyed the work. It was interesting that several children’s accounts

included aspects of both the story and the science activity. The support for the science

provided by the story is clear from the comments: Bertie Bunnie helped me realise

that some things can be made from more than one material, like a spoon in the

kitchen, metal and plastic and I often spill things at home and now I know never to

use a plastic bag again to wipe it up! – Like Naughty Nora.

While all the children seemed to welcome this approach only the older group of

children were able to articulate how the story had helped: Yes I like books, because

you know what you are going to do and you know what it is about and the story

teaches us more stuff. The relevance which this methodology brings to science is clear

in the comment.

Comments from the children themselves would support these findings included: I

now know why my daddy uses bricks instead of straw.

Discussion

The view of teachers’ practice obtained from the pre-project questionnaire indicated

that their use of books and stories was quite varied and restricted to the use of non-

fiction texts. Enquiry-based science was also an area in which the teachers were less

confident. The following comments therefore indicate that the project has effectively

modelled the merits of this approach and will now influence future teaching

intentions: I now feel more confident in using an enquiry-based approach, simply

because of the opportunity to observe very good practice. I got to see how the

resources and equipment can be easily obtained and I will make even more use of

books and stories in my science. I used to use ‘Big Books’ and usually books on facts.

Now I will start to use fiction and even poetry.

The data obtained from both the QLI-ebs and from teachers’ general observations

indicate that books and stories greatly enhanced children’s learning environment and

supported their development in both science and in language development. We

therefore believe that teachers’ greater use of books within their science lessons would

address issues regarding the relevance (Murphy & Beggs 2005) and accessibility of

science and provide stimulating and motivating opportunities for developing

children’s thinking and communication skills. This view is totally consistent with

Oliver’s (1999) observation of how science can be given meaning and that literacy

skills can be developed in a purposeful context. Questions raised relate to a shared

experience of the text, the structure is already in place and an understanding of

science can be developed through dialogue. Indeed the case for this potential to

development language has been recently highlighted by Keogh and Naylor (2007) and
Goldsworthy (2004). However the use of books and stories in science lessons still

remains quite low (Murphy & Beggs, 2005) and may, as suggested by Asoko (1997),

be incidental to, rather than the focus of, their science activity.

We therefore recommend that teachers, already aware and skilled in the use of books

and stories, extend these approaches to enquiry-based science. We feel that this

relatively minor modification of current practice could yield maximum benefits in

terms of children’s disposition to and engagement with learning. We hope that these

and other findings will be effective in influencing teachers’ thinking whereby, as

Keogh and Naylor (2007) contend presenting possible changes in professional

practice as quick, simple and effective, without requiring major shifts in values,

beliefs or curricula, makes it much more likely that teachers will take a step in that

direction.

In the second phase of the project the teachers will have the opportunity to try out

these approaches, with the student teacher playing a supportive role. This ‘scaffolding

phase’ should embed this methodology in teachers’ classroom practice and that the

opportunities for critical reflection provided by the project should result in better

science experiences for their pupils. We feel that children’s basic love of story and

enquiry presents teachers with the challenge of how best to harness their enthusiasm

and sense of wonder. This task is central to all planning for effective science teaching

and is well described by Lemke (2001): If we want to erase the looks of

disappointment and anxiety that greet the end of the story and our return to more

scientific forms of discourse, we have to work harder to make these strange forms
more familiar. We have to unpack and display the organization and logic of scientific

ways of using language.

References

Alderson, P. (2005) Children’s Rights: A New Approach to Studying Childhood. In

H. Penn Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies. Berkshire: Open

University Press.

Asoko, H. (1997) ‘Reading for science learning’. Primary Science Review, 50,

(Nov/Dec), 4-6.

Cavendish, J., Stopps, B. & Ryan, C.  (2006) ‘Involving young children through

stories as starting points.’ Primary Science Review, 92 (March/April), 18-20.

Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) (2007) The

Revised Northern Ireland Primary Curriculum, Belfast: CCEA.

Dillon, J., Osborne, J., Fairbrother, R. & Kurina, L. (2000) ‘A study into the

professional views and needs of science teachers in primary and secondary schools in

England’. Online: www.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/ files/science-teachers/kostfin1.pdf

[accessed December 2007]

Feasey, R. (2006) ‘Using stories and poems in science’. Primary Science Review, 92

(March/April), 14-18.

Fullan, M. (2001) The new meaning of educational change. 3rd edition. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Goldsworthy, A. (2004) ‘It’s good to talk’. Education in Science, (April), 8-9.

Gould, A.W. (1900) Mother Nature’s Children. London: Ginn.

Harlen, W., Macro, C., Reed, K, & Schilling, M. (2003) Making Progress in Primary

Science. London: Routledge.

Jones, M. & Watson, C. (2004) “Understanding Science: How do you Teach

Scientific Concepts to Children with Poor Language Skills” Special Education,

(July/August), 18-21.

Katz, L. G. (1995). Talks with teachers of young children: A collection. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

Keogh, B. & Naylor, S. (2007) ‘Talking and thinking in science’. School Science

Review, 88 (324) March, 85-90.

Lemke, J. (2001) cited in Language and Literacy in Science Education Wellington, J.

& Osborne, J. Buckingham: Open University.

McMahon, K. (1999) ‘A “big book” project linking science and literacy’. Primary

Science Review, 59 (Sept/Oct), 7-9.

Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Carlisle, K. & Greenwood, J. (2004) ‘Students as ‘catalysts’ in

the classroom: the impact of co-teaching between science student teachers and

primary classroom teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science’.

International Journal of Science Education, 26 (8), 1023-1035.

Murphy, C. and Beggs, J.  (2005) ‘Primary science in the UK: a scoping study.’

Report to the Welcome Trust. Belfast.

Oliver, A. (1999) ‘Science story webs’. Primary Science Review, 59 (Sept/Oct), 14-

18.

Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) (2002) ‘Primary subject reports 2000/01

Science’ .London: Ofsted.

Speedie, J. (2002) ‘Using poems in primary science lessons’. Primary Science

Review, 74 (Sept/Oct), 19-20.

Sproule,L., McGuiness,C., Trew,K., Rafferty,H., Walsh,G., Sheehy,N. & O’Neill,B.

(2005) ‘The Early Years Enriched Curriculum Evaluation Project.’CCEA :Belfast

Taggart, G., Ridley, K., Rudd, P. & Benefield, P. (2005) Thinking Skills in the Early

years: a Literature Review. London: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Walsh, G. & Gardner, J.  (2005) ‘Assessing the Quality of Early Years Leaning

Environments’, Early Childhood Research and Practice, (7),(1)

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html
Walsh, G., Dunn, J., Mitchell, D. & McAlister, M. (2006) ‘Giving Young Children a

Voice: accessing the Views of 3-4 Year Old Children in Playgroups’, Representing

Children, 18, (5) pp. 79-95.

 Figure 1. Teachers’ QLI-ebs mean score before and after intervention

25
Mean score (& 95% c.l.)

20

15

10

0
before after
Figure 2. The students’ QLI-ebs mean score at the start of and at the end of the period

of intervention

25
Mean score (& 95% c.l.)

20

15

10

0
start end
Figure 3. The number of teachers that reported an increase in score for each indicator

in the QLI-ebs (n = 6)

Decision Making

Problem solving

Predicting

Observation and Communication

Confidence

Concentration

Motivation

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of increases
Figure 4. The number of students that reported an increase in score for each indicator

in the QLI-ebs (n = 10)

Decision Making

Problem solving

Predicting

Observation and Communication

Confidence

Concentration

Motivation

0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of increases