Exploring the Emergence of Chemistry in Preschool Education: A Qualitative Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Title: Exploring Children’s Emergence of Chemistry in Preschool Education: A Qualitative Perspective
The article is written on a very interesting topic, that of exploring children’s emergence of chemistry in preschool education. The text clearly retains its originality and grabs the attention of the reader. In particular, the theoretical part is articulated in an explicit and well documented way while the text has a definite structure. The literature review is extensive and quite updated as many references act for papers that have been published the last 10-years. Having said that, I hold the view that the article needs a minor revision before accepting for publication in Education Sciences. Particularly, I would prompt the authors to pay attention to the following points
- Please rephrase the sentence on lines 53-55 as its syntax seems incorrect
- On line 63 please give in a parenthesis the equity between angstroms and meters
- On lines 107-114 the concept of ‘perezhivanie’ that is introduced in the theoretical part does not appear in any kind of form either in the ‘Results’ or in the ‘Discussion’ section. Therefore, according to my view, it should be either connected in a manner with the results and discussion part or omitted at all.
- On ‘Materials and Methods’ section it is important that activities would be described in a more clear and detail way so that the reader could get a deeper understanding of research results. Especially regarding the evaporation experiments, no information at all is given to the reader
- In Table 3 (line 285) in 5th meeting you could briefly describe what the zooming-in videos were about, as you did for the meetings above
- On line 308 it would be useful to briefly provide the exact criteria which determined in which category were classified each child response
- In the ‘Results’ section it would be useful to make explicit, maybe with the use of subtitles, which part deals with the first research question (goal) and which with the second research question (goal)
- For ethical reasons it should be clarified whether the names of children used in the ‘Results’ section are the real names of children or just nicknames used by the researchers
- While the authors denote to the ‘Limitations of the study’ section their decision of not including any statistical analysis of the data and well-argue for their choice, I still believe that it would add value to the study if they enhanced the ‘Results’ section with some statistics. An idea would be to present, in the form of a Table, the percentages of children responses in each distinct category (intuitive, synthetic, scientific)
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1.
The article is written on a very interesting topic, that of exploring children’s emergence of chemistry in
preschool education. The text clearly retains its originality and grabs the attention of the reader. In
particular, the theoretical part is articulated in an explicit and well documented way while the text has
a definite structure. The literature review is extensive and quite updated as many references act for
papers that have been published the last 10-years. Having said that, I hold the view that the article
needs a minor revision before accepting for publication in Education Sciences. Particularly, I would
prompt the authors to pay attention to the following points
- Please rephrase the sentence on lines 53-55 as its syntax seems incorrect
(The sentence have been changed and now reads: This project aims to investigate how children develop
the concept of small. )
- On line 63 please give in a parenthesis the equity between angstroms and meters
(The text has been altered and now reads The radii of neutral atoms can also be measured in .ngstr.ms,
which is a unit for measuring the length of submicroscopic entities. the radii of neutral atoms are
between 0.3 and 3 .ngstr.m (10-10m))
- On lines 107-114 the concept of ‘perezhivanie’ that is introduced in the theoretical part does not
appear in any kind of form either in the ‘Results’ or in the ‘Discussion’ section. Therefore, according to
my view, it should be either connected in a manner with the results and discussion part or omitted at
all.
(The part concerning perezhivanie has been deleted)
- On ‘Materials and Methods’ section it is important that activities would be described in a more
clear and detail way so that the reader could get a deeper understanding of research results. Especially
regarding the evaporation experiments, no information at all is given to the reader
More information have been added and the table now reads:
Meeting Description of activities
1-19 November
The researcher immersed himself in the children's
daily activities in the kindergarten to facilitate
their familiarity with him.
1st meeting:
22-27 November
2021
In this experiment, the children observed leaves
with magnifying glasses. In the first part, they
observed them with their eyes and then
magnifying glasses were introduced.
2nd meeting:
29 Nov- 3
December 2021
The children employed magnifying glasses to
observe sugar and salt.
3d meeting:
6-10 December
2021
In this meeting, the researcher brought a computer
and showed zooming-in videos. Videos that
displayed the transition from the macroscopic
world of items to the submicroscopic world of
particles.
In these zooming-in videos, the children observed
an artificial leaf.
4th meeting:
31 January- 4
March 2022
In this experimental study, children were
provided with several boxes containing ants. The
introduction of magnifying glasses aimed to
examine the impact on children's perceptions of
smallness.
5th meeting:
21 -24 March
2022
In this experiment, children saw three zooming-in
videos, and the children were asked to describe
what they saw.
6th meeting:
4-8 April 2022
Water vaporization during boiling. Water was
placed into a boale and the level of the liquid was
recorded. Following that, the water was poured
into a pot and subjected to boiling for a period of
5 minutes. Meanwhile, the remaining water was
utilized to fill the boale. The children were asked
what they think happened and why there were
less water in the boale.
7th meeting:
26-29 April 2022
Subsequently, the previous activity was
replicated, substituting water with juice. Although
water vaporizes from the juice as well as from
water, the choice of using juice was made since to
control if the children generalized experiences
derived from the water experiment.
- In Table 3 (line 285) in 5th meeting you could briefly describe what the zooming-in videos were
about, as you did for the meetings above
The text has been changed and it now reads:
(In this meeting, the researcher brought a computer and showed zooming-in videos. Videos that show
that displayed the transition from the macroscopic world of items to the submicroscopic world of
particles.)
- On line 308 it would be useful to briefly provide the exact criteria which determined in which
category were classified each child response.
A table have been inserted to provide the criteria.
Table 4. A summary of the analytical basis for categorisations into intuitive and synthetic concepts
Concept Analytical definition
Intuitive concept No presence of scientific fragments or expression of early epistemic skills or an
ontological categorization which suggested the emergence of a more
differentiated definition. Sense-based conceptualization of smallness, this was
considered as intuitive smallness
Synthetis
conceptions
Presence of scientific fragments, mature epistemic skills and specified
vocabulary. Expressions of a differentiated or an intuitive (physical or
psychological) ontology.
- In the ‘Results’ section it would be useful to make explicit, maybe with the use of subtitles, which
part deals with the first research question (goal) and which with the second research question (goal)
The text have been altered and it now reads:
(Research Questions
The objective of this study is to examine fundamental principles of children's emergent chemistry,
focusing specifically on their comprehension of the concept of smallness and evaporation. Smallness
was chosen, because it represents one of the core aspects of chemical knowledge. Vaporization was
also included in the study, because phase transition between liquid and gaseous state reflects
children’s understanding about the transition between visual and non-visual matter. The first goal of
the research was to examine the process by which children generate everyday, synthetic, and
scientific models of these concepts.)
- For ethical reasons it should be clarified whether the names of children used in the ‘Results’
section are the real names of children or just nicknames used by the researchers
(A section on Ethical considerations have been inserted and it now reads:
Ethical approval for the study was obtained form both the regional ethics committee in Linkoping,
Sweden Dnr 2021-02075 as well as from the Greek ministry of education: Φ15/71485/ΕΚ/91089/Δ1.
Additionally, measures were taken to enable informed consent for children, parents and teachers. The
consent obtained included specific provisions for ensuring the anonymity of the children and the
school, as well as the commitment to publish the study's results in research papers. The children were
informed that participation in activities was optional and they had the choice to exit whenever they
desired.)
- While the authors denote to the ‘Limitations of the study’ section their decision of not including
any statistical analysis of the data and well-argue for their choice, I still believe that it would add value
to the study if they enhanced the ‘Results’ section with some statistics. An idea would be to present, in
the form of a Table, the percentages of children responses in each distinct category (intuitive, synthetic,
scientific)
(The frequency Table is included below. Here the concepts use by the children were analysed and they
vary depending on the topic. No conclusions can be drawn except that the children held more intuitive
then counter intuitive concepts . Because of this the Table were not included in the result section. )
Table X. Frequencies of intuitive and counter intuitive concepts in the different activities
Frequencies Intuitive Counterintuitive
1st meeting 41 21
2nd meeting 43 4
3d meeting 14 33
4th meeting 48 4
5th meeting 38 22
6th meeting 80 14
7th meeting 68 16
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I would like to thank the editor and author for the opportunity to read an interesting manuscript. It describes preschool children’s development of scientific understanding of the concepts ‘small’ and evaporation in relation to the Framework theory. Studies about children’s learning of chemical processes are relevant, with science being part of many curriculums for preschool around Europe. I would like to suggest the following revisions and clarifications being made to the manuscript:
The abstract ends abruptly as part of the last sentence is missing.
Table 1, is it the author's own text or from a reference?
There are two Figure 1 in the manuscript. My question concerns the second of these (what will be Figure 2), with the Framework theory. Is it the author’s adaptation from a reference or the author’s own picture altogether? Also, check the text for consistency regarding ‘Framework Theory’ or ‘Framework theory’, with a small or big T.
The same question is applicable for Table 2, with the core concepts of Framework theory. Is it the author’s own explanations or is it adapted from a reference? Please state for all figures and tables.
Also, Table 2 would benefit from a concrete example that can be used for, and related to, all four concepts (concepts, models, ontology, epistemology) described. It would make it easier for the reader to comprehend the meaning of each of the four concepts and how they relate to each other in the theory.
In row 178, Johnson (2013) should be changed to the correct reference number.
Row 180-183: “Considering their exposure to education, children afterwards experience an intermediate stage in which they recognize the presence of particles, but project them with macroscopic attributes. Finally, children recognize that particles make up the substance without displaying macroscopic properties.” What does macroscopic properties in this example mean? Please explain more concretely so the reader can follow.
Rows 190-208 give concrete examples that makes the reasoning easy to follow for the reader, good!
Rows 303-304 about ethics: How did the researcher consider the children’s well-being during the activities? How did the researcher know that the children ‘were onboard’ and wanted to participate? What information and options were given to the children, their parents and any involved teachers?
I would like to know more about the analysis process. How was it carried out, described in a more stepwise way?
About the results: What could be the reason for the children’s shifts in understanding, for example the emerging scientific fragments described? What was the teacher’s or researcher's role in the teaching activities? How active were you in the teaching of e.g. the notion of microbes or molecules? What the children learned or expressed need to be related to the teacher/researcher participation in the situation.
I guess the children’s names have been changed to ensure anonymity? It should be stated in the text.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2.
I would like to thank the editor and author for the opportunity to read an interesting manuscript. It
describes preschool children’s development of scientific understanding of the concepts ‘small’ and
evaporation in relation to the Framework theory. Studies about children’s learning of chemical
processes are relevant, with science being part of many curricula for preschool around Europe. I
would like to suggest the following revisions and clarifications being made to the manuscript:
The abstract ends abruptly as part of the last sentence is missing.
The text have been altered and now reads:
The results indicated the presence of a well-established physical ontological framework utilized for
the systematic interpretation of submicroscopic phenomena.
Table 1, is it the author's own text or from a reference?
(The table have been altered and it now reads: )
Table 1. Examples of early ontological and epistemological stances included in intuitive models
(Adapted from Carey and Spjelke, 1994).
Ontological framework Ontological stances
Objects Physical/Up/down gravity
Animate entities Psychological/Animism
Numbers Numbers/Mathematical/Discrete numbers
Lexical items Lexical Items /Language
There are two Figure 1 in the manuscript. My question concerns the second of these (what will be
Figure 2), with the Framework theory. Is it the author’s adaptation from a reference or the author’s
own picture altogether?
(Figure 2 is the authors own picture)
Also, check the text for consistency regarding ‘Framework Theory’ or ‘Framework theory’, with a
small or big T.
(The text has been checked and changed)
The same question is applicable for Table 2, with the core concepts of Framework theory. Is it the
author’s own explanations or is it adapted from a reference? Please state for all figures and tables.
(It is the author’s own explanations)
Also, Table 2 would benefit from a concrete example that can be used for, and related to, all four
concepts (concepts, models, ontology, epistemology) described. It would make it easier for the reader
to comprehend the meaning of each of the four concepts and how they relate to each other in the
theory.
It is the authors own definitions, based on the references of Vosniadou which are used in the article
(An example is provided in the text above:
An example of the interrelation between an intuitive concept and its ontological and epistemological
aspects can be observed when examining children's perception of the Earth and its connection to the
children’s intuitive concept of up/down gravity. When children are asked to draw the planet, the
result is often various interpretations, as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Some examples of children viewing the Earth as an object with up/down gravity; a) people
live on a ball-shaped Earth, b) people live on flat parts of the Earth, c) people live on top of the ballshaped
Earth, d) people live on a flat Earth [27].)
In row 178, Johnson (2013) should be changed to the correct reference number.
The reference number has been checked and added just add Johnson 2013 it is attached
Row 180-183: “Considering their exposure to education, children afterwards experience an
intermediate stage in which they recognize the presence of particles, but project them with
macroscopic attributes. Finally, children recognize that particles make up the substance without
displaying macroscopic properties.” What does macroscopic properties in this example mean? Please
explain more concretely so the reader can follow.
The text has been changed and now reads:
Considering their exposure to education, children afterwards experience an
intermediate stage in which they recognize the presence of particles, but project them
with macroscopic attributes, for example that the tiniest parts of a substance hold all of
its macroscopic properties such as taste and color (Nakleah).
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 42, NO. 5, PP. 581–612 (2005)
Middle School Students’ Beliefs About Maler
Mary B. Nakhleh, 1 Ala Samarapungavan, 2 Yilmaz Saglam 2
Rows 190-208 give concrete examples that makes the reasoning easy to follow for the reader, good!
Rows 303-304 about ethics: How did the researcher consider the children’s well-being during the
activities? How did the researcher know that the children ‘were onboard’ and wanted to participate?
What information and options were given to the children, their parents and any involved teachers?
An ethics section has now been added and the text reads:
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval for the study was obtained form both the regional ethics committee in Linkoping,
Sweden Dnr 2021-02075 as well as from the Greek ministry of education: Φ15/71485/ΕΚ/91089/Δ1.
Additionally, measures were taken to enable informed consent for children, parents and teachers. The
consent obtained included specific provisions for ensuring the anonymity of the children and the
school, as well as the commitment to publish the study's results in research papers. The children were
informed that participation in activities was optional and they had the choice to exit whenever they
desired.
I would like to know more about the analysis process. How was it carried out, described in a more
stepwise way?
(Analysis was performed in the flowing manner)
1) Collection of data
2) Selection of relevant vignettes regarding smallness in the first experiments, and evaporation
regarding the last two.
3) Distinction of key-objects and topics which reflect children’s ideas about smallness and
evaporation. For example, the leaf, the ants and the magnifying glass were central objects
which reflected these ideas. The question «what is the smallest thing you can imagine» is a
paradigm of topic. The vignettes were organized based on these key objects and topics.
4) Formulization of criteria for distinguishing intuitive and counter-intuitive conceptions
regarding smallness and evaporation.
5) Categorisation of intuitive and counter-intuitive vignettes, as well as synthetic models of
smallness and evaporation.
6) Analysis of general characteristics of intuitive smallness, counter-intuitive ideas about
smallness, synthetics models of smallness. Analysis of general characteristics of intuitive and
counter-intuitive ideas about evaporation, and synthetic models of evaporation.
About the results: What could be the reason for the children’s shifts in understanding, for example the
emerging scientific fragments described?
(Children’s participation in the activities introduced them to a variety of situations which challenged
their already existing perceptions regarding smallness. The magnified objects, the zooming in videos,
the question of the transformation of water to gas form introduced them in situations which challenged
the validy of intuitive smallness and physical ontology. These new objects appeared to behave in a
totally original way, and children needed to find new words to codify the new objects and their traits.)
What was the teacher’s or researcher's role in the teaching activities? How active were you in the
teaching of e.g. the notion of microbes or molecules? What the children learned or expressed need to
be related to the teacher/researcher participation in the situation.
(The teacher/researcher adopted a scaffolding stance towards the children. He was supportive
towards children’s questions aiming not to provide a definite answer but further supporting their
thinking process. The teacher actively supports students learning process, while gradually providing
less and less support upon children’s improvement. The notions of microbes and molecules were
never introduced by the researcher. When children started to use these terms, the researcher also used
them as they represented a common meaningful ground.)
I guess the children’s names have been changed to ensure anonymity? It should be stated in the text.
(See ethical considerations)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
