Early childhood preservice teachers’ readiness for using drawing as a science teaching strategy

911 ISSN 1648-3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538-7138 /Online/ This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License EARLY CHILDHOOD PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY Ainara Achurra, Teresa Zamalloa, Araitz Uskola Introduction Drawings can be a useful strategy for teaching and learning science, but are teachers ready for using drawings in science teaching? The use of drawings for science learning brings multiple benefits for the students not only in terms of visual skills (García Fernández & Ruiz-Gallardo, 2017), but also in the development of communication, modelling, and reasoning skills (Ainsworth et al., 2011). Few studies have focused on the teacher’s role in the use of drawings in science teaching (Areljung et al., 2021a; Areljung et al., 2021b; Monteira et al., 2022), even though the teacher is the key factor for the success or failure of putting any curricular innovation into practice (Mitchener & Anderson, 1989; Tobin et al., 1994). According to the literature, teachers should know how to draw scientific phenomena (Wilson & Bradbury, 2016); and they should be aware of and value the importance of drawing in science education (Areljung et al., 2021a). Moreover, given that the deployment of strategies in class depends, to a large extent, on the degree of the teacher’s confidence (Garbett, 2003; Holroyd & Harlen, 1996), teachers will need to develop not only the ability to draw pictures about scientific phenomena, but also their confidence in that ability, and, in that way, acquire the view that drawings are useful strategies for learning science. This study examined the readiness of a cohort of early childhood PSTs to use drawing for science teaching, in terms of their knowledge, confidence and beliefs about its use. Use of Drawing to Learn Science: Teacher’s Role Making visualisations is integral to scientific thinking (Ainsworth et al., 2011). Drawing can develop one’s visualisation as it involves the integration of nonverbal representational modes in terms of constructive learning processes (Van Meter & Gardner, 2005). Effective learning strategies help students to integrate new and existing understanding, organise their ideas, construct new inferences and overcome difficulties in presented material (Chi et al., 1989; Kombartzky et al., 2010). Drawing can be an effective strategy in science education because it helps to Ainara Achurra, Teresa Zamalloa, Araitz Uskola University of the Basque Country, Spain Abstract. The use of drawings for science learning helps students to develop communication, modelling, and reasoning skills. Teachers should be trained to use them. This study addresses the readiness (knowledge, confidence and awareness of the importance and usefulness of drawings) of 120 preservice teachers (PSTs) for using teacher-made drawings as a strategy for teaching science, after participating in activities in which they used drawing as a way to represent scientific knowledge. The knowledge of how to draw was analysed by evaluating the presence of interrelated components, mechanisms and phenomena in drawings of the digestive system. Open questions were used to examine three aspects: confidence, awareness of the importance and awareness of the usefulness. Exploratory cluster analyses were also conducted. 69% scored low in knowledge, more than 90% scored high in awareness of the importance and of the usefulness. 28% showed high confidence. No PSTs with high knowledge and low confidence were found. All PSTs with high knowledge showed high awareness of the importance. It is concluded that in order to prepare teachers for using drawings in science teaching, teacher education programs should include the development of drawing skills that could enhance their confidence and awareness of its importance. Keywords: early childhood education, drawing science, teachers’ readiness, science education https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 912 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) understand the natural world (Dempsey & Betz, 2001), contributes to the reorganisation of ideas and the integration of new knowledge (Gómez & Gavidia, 2015) and has a great communicative potential. Besides, the majority of science learning requires visual-spatial demands that cannot be provided by other constructive strategies such as summarising or providing oral explanations (Ainsworth et al., 2011). Consequently, drawing is a common strategy for modelling in the science class, where students represent their mental models as drawings, which are then evaluated and revised (Schwarz et al., 2009). For example, drawing in anatomy (Borreli et al., 2018), histology (Balemans et al., 2015) and biology (Edlund & Balgopal, 2021) has indeed been proven to improve students’ knowledge. With respect to the teacher’s role, Monteira et al. (2022) have specifically analysed both the drawings produced by a group of early childhood education students in Spain during three years and the type and intensity of the scaffolding given by the teacher. Researchers have found that the children included more details in their drawings and used symbolic and iconic modes in an increasingly autonomous way; and that the teacher lowered the intensity in some forms of scaffolding, although not in all of them. Wilson and Bradbury (2016) have compared drawings and written explanations given by elementary students in the United States of America about structure and functions in carnivorous plants and have observed that structural elements were better represented by the students in the drawings, while functions were better represented in the explanations. They have also observed that the children received scaffolding about how to explain the model, but not about how to draw; this has led them to suggest that perhaps the children did not represent the actions because the teachers did not help them to internalise the accepted conventions for representing those actions in drawings. Although the scaffolding offered by teachers has been found to be key, it should be mentioned that, according to Eilam et al. (2014), teachers lack training in visual representation. This may well be a problem for using drawing as a science teaching strategy. Teachers’ Readiness to Use Drawings as a Science Teaching Strategy Being ready for the teaching profession is known in the literature as “teaching readiness” (Manasia et al., 2020). The term is used to indicate teachers’ competence in doing both the whole job or just certain aspect/s of the job (Mohamed et al., 2016), and it is considered a significant predictor of change in practice (Lang, 1992). Today, specific elements of teachers’ readiness are still under-study, with researchers being interested in measuring beliefs about knowledge, confidence, importance, usefulness, attitudes, and interest, among others (Lang, 1992; Mohamed et al., 2016; Nadelson & Nadelson, 2010; Paik et al., 2011; Park et al., 2017). Beliefs about teaching make up an important part of teachers’ thought processes (Fang, 1996), and, consequently, they influence teachers’ practice by guiding their behaviours and decisions in the classroom (Vartuli, 2005). Specifically, it has been shown that beliefs in the value of a certain teaching practice support and predict the implementation of that practice in the class (Charlesworth et al., 1991; Nathan et al., 2010; Pajares, 1992; Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006; Stipek & Byler, 1997), and ultimately affect his/her students’ learning (Fang, 1996). In respect to the drawing strategy, several studies have analysed the use of drawings related to teachers’ beliefs and practice. Areljung et al. (2021a) have examined 45 science class sessions of 11 early childhood and primary school teachers in Sweden, focusing on the 15 sessions in which the children drew pictures. These researchers have found that the teachers’ beliefs about the role of drawing in science learning seems to be a key factor in enabling children to benefit from the pedagogical potential of drawing for learning science. Indeed, the few teachers who, in the interviews, related drawing to science teaching and learning, were the ones who made explicit use of drawing for science learning in the classroom. In another paper from the same project (Areljung et al., 2021b), it has been highlighted the importance of the drawings produced by teachers. The researchers have found that when a teacher draws a schematic drawing on the blackboard about a plant growth experiment to be conducted, all the children draw it in the same way. It has been interpreted that the teacher conveys the conventions of how to draw in teaching science and helps the children to foreground the scientific content. Confidence can be defined as “the strength of one’s beliefs in one’s capabilities” (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012). It has been shown that teachers’ confidence influences their practice. For example, when confidence to teach science concepts is low, teachers offer limited and unbalanced opportunities to students for learning science and technology (Holroyd & Harlen, 1996) and do not fully engage students in science (Symington, 1980). As far as we know, teachers’ confidence in drawing has not been addressed in science teaching specifically. However, several studies in other disciplines such as art have shown that teachers lack both drawing skills and confidence in drawing, which may detract from their effectiveness as teachers and from their students’ achievements. For instance, when the experience and readiness of the primary school teachers to teach the national curriculum 913 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 in art has been assessed in England and Wales, very few have expressed that they felt confident in teaching; most of them referred to the importance of developing greater knowledge, skills, and confidence in teaching art (Clement, 1994). Actually, teachers acknowledge limiting themselves to only encouraging children to draw, rather than evaluating their drawings, because they do not feel able either to do such assessment (Rose et al., 2006) or to teach specific drawing skills (Richards, 2003). This could be due to the limitations of their own drawing ability, which has been described as the most frequently cited obstacle for teachers when it comes to helping children draw (Burkitt et al., 2010). In fact, in Great Britain, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted, 2009) has made a report that points out that the teacher’s own artistic competence is an important success factor, and that teachers who use their own materials teach more effectively. However, many primary school teachers lack confidence in drawing, which influences their effectiveness as teachers as well as their students’ achievements (Ofsted, 2009). Concerning the digestive system (DS), a previous study has shown that teachers’ drawings of the DS (when asked to draw what they thought was inside the human body) were similar to those made by school and university students (Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2010). These researchers have pointed out that it is necessary to check the level of the teachers´ content knowledge; however, it is also possible that the low level of their drawings could be attributed to a lack of drawing tools and strategies. Research Aim and Research Questions Reviewed literature shows a lack of studies that explore teachers’ readiness for using drawing as a science teaching strategy in early childhood education. This study therefore aimed to address this issue with a sample of preservice teachers (PSTs), paying particular attention to various chosen elements: knowledge, self-perceived confidence and awareness about the importance and usefulness of drawing. Moreover, this study examined whether the study population is homogeneous or heterogeneous according to their responses. The research question was the following: To what extent are the PSTs ready to use drawing as a strategy for teaching science in the early childhood classroom according to certain dimensions (knowledge, confidence, and awareness of the importance and of the usefulness of drawing)? This research question was addressed by exploring each of the dimensions individually, for the one hand, and in combination, for the other. Research Methodology General Background This qualitative study explored and described the readiness to use drawings as a science teaching strategy for PSTs at the Faculty of Education of Bilbao (Spain) after participating in activities in which PSTs used drawing as a way to represent scientific knowledge –in this case, the DSin 2019. In qualitative inquiry, the purpose is not to generalize to a population, but to make an in-depth exploration of the phenomenon addressed in the study (Creswell, 2012). Readiness was analysed according to four dimensions: knowledge, confidence, awareness of the importance of drawing and awareness of the usefulness of drawing. These were selected following the literature review in the section Teachers’ Readiness to Use Drawings as a Science Teaching Strategy. Knowledge data were gathered from drawings, and beliefs (confidence and awareness of importance and usefulness) from open-ended responses to a questionnaire. Levels for each dimension were established and qualitative data were quantitatively coded. Descriptive statistics and cluster analysis were undertaken to better understand the results. Participants To explore the phenomenon of teachers’ readiness using drawings as a science teaching strategy in early childhood education, purposeful sampling was undertaken. That is, researchers intentionally selected the participants that could help them to understand the phenomenon (Creswell, 2012). For selecting participants, convenience (participants willing and available to be studied) was also taken into account. Thus, the participants consisted of 120 PSTs (in four classes) studying a Degree in Childhood Education (third year), taught by two of the researchers (each in two classes) at the Faculty of Education of Bilbao (Spain). All participants gave informed consent to participate in the research. It was clearly stated that participation was voluntary and anonymous. PSTs in the data collection process were coded as “PST1, PST2, ... , PST120”. 914 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ Teaching Sequence The sequence was structured in several stages as described before by the researchers (Uskola et al., 2022). First, participants were asked to write and draw on an image of a human body silhouette of about 15 cm tall, the elements and processes involved in the case of milk intolerance. PSTs then searched for information in groups (3–5 people) and, guided by the teacher, reviewed and reconstructed their original model. The groups then represented their consensus model in a three-dimensional and dynamic physical model, which was then presented to the rest of the groups. After that, the groups made drawings of the DS. Next, participants reflected on the importance and usefulness of the drawings for the representation of mental models through the reading of two scientific articles given by the teacher. The most common errors when drawing the DS were also discussed. Finally, each PST was asked to write and draw again the elements and processes involved in the case of milk intolerance. Data Collection and Analysis In order to address participants’ knowledge, the final individual drawings were analysed. To assess the ability to draw the different dimensions related to the functioning of the DS from a systemic perspective, the CMP (Components-Mechanisms-Phenomena) framework and the levels of systems thinking proposed by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2017) was adapted. For this purpose, an analysis of the drawings was first carried out, evaluating each drawing for each of the established dimensions. 0-3 levels for Components (C) were adapted from Reiss and Tunnicliffe (2001), based on the number of organs drawn and whether the drawings represented the system. Thus, level 0 corresponded to drawings that did not illustrate any internal organs, whereas drawings illustrating 1-3, or more than 3 internal organs corresponded to levels 1 and 2 respectively. As with Reiss and Tunnicliffe (2001), the idea of system (level 3) was considered to be present only if there was an uninterrupted connection between the mouth and the anus, and if there were more than three organs represented. Mechanisms (M) were scored according to the number of digestive processes (Snapir et al., 2017) in the context to which they referred (e.g., digestion of food, absorption of nutrients, and fermentation in the large intestine). Drawings were scored on the Phenomena (P) dimension based on the presence of the outcomes of the mechanisms (Snapir et al., 2017), i.e., the regulatory, plastic, energetic functions performed by the absorbed nutrients, as well as the symptoms in the case of intolerance. A second step was to assign to each drawing a level (Table 1) in a category that reflected the representation of the system as a whole, for which the proposal by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2017) was adapted through the constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) with the data. Thus, for evaluating knowledge, these levels were set: level 0 corresponded to blank or erroneous answers. Level 1 indicated that Components were identified in the drawing but not interconnected. Level 2 was set for PSTs with level 3 in Components, but who had not related them to Mechanisms or Phenomena. Level 3 and 4 corresponded to establishing relationships between Components and Mechanisms, level 4 being for those who drew the organ system. Level 5 matched the highest level of HmeloSilver et al. (2017) and included the drawings that represented all the interrelated dimensions of systems thinking. Table 1 Levels Established for the Analysis of the DS in the Drawings Made by the PSTs From a Systemic Perspective Level CMP relation Explanation 5 C:M:P Draws interrelated organs in relation to mechanisms and phenomena 4 (C:C):M Draws interrelated organs in relation to mechanisms 3 C:M Draws organs in relation to mechanisms 2 C:C Draws the organs in an organ-system 1 C Draws organs without connecting to other organs or mechanism 0 No answer or erroneous answer Note: Adapted from Hmelo-Silver et al. (2017). https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) 915 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ The following example (PST71) (Figure 1) shows a drawing in level 4, with a system of interconnected organs and the representation of two processes: the “non-digestion” of lactose in the case of intolerance (represented as a molecule with two parts connected and a label describing it) and the fermentation (represented as a colour change in the molecule that appears surrounded by bacteria). Figure 1 Example of Drawing in Level 4 (PST71) Regarding the teachers´ beliefs, their written responses to a questionnaire (Table 2) were taken into account. The PSTs were asked about their beliefs (confidence, importance, and usefulness) for using drawings as a science teaching strategy. Table 2 Questionnaire Filled by the Students in the Beginning and at the End of the Sequence Element Question Confidence In your opinion, what is your ability to draw scientific content? Explain what you are capable of, what you are not capable of and what your needs are. Importance In your opinion, what is the importance of being able to draw for teaching natural sciences in early childhood education? Justify your answer explaining what an early childhood education teacher should be able to draw in relation to scientific content. Usefulness In your experience, did you find drawings useful for learning? Note: The question about usefulness was only answered once (at the initial questionnaire). Three levels (0-2) were established based on how categorical PSTs were in their answers. Thus, level 2 in confidence, importance and usefulness corresponded to PSTs that were sure of being confident in drawing science content, or PSTs that said that it is important for teachers to be able to draw, or PSTs that stated that drawing is useful for science learning, respectively. Level 0 for the three constructs was for PSTs that answered “no” categorically. Level 1 was given to intermediate answers (in the case of confidence, level 1 was given when PSTs set conditions to achieve it). EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 916 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ Most of the answers were the same at the beginning and at the end of the sequence, but when the answer was not exactly the same, the responses were individually examined by the researchers. For example, after participating in the sequence, some PSTs changed their perception of their own confidence because they had become aware of their difficulties; in regard to the importance, some PSTs gave more importance to the strategy. In those cases, the final answer was taken into account. For example: PST3. Before: ‘I think I am capable of drawing scientific content. For example, I am able to draw various parts of the human body as well as other living beings and elements of nature’ (level 2). After: ‘I have difficulty drawing scientific concepts, especially when I do not properly identify the elements necessary for the explanation’ (level 1). In the cases of PSTs that justified or explained one answer better than the other, the better explained answer was chosen. For example: PST37. Before: ‘In my opinion, I am able to draw animals, plants, trees or the solar system, that is, I think I am able to draw scientific content. However, I think that in early childhood education more importance should be given to drawing, in order to better develop this competence’ (level 2). After: ‘I think I draw animals and plants better than the body’ (level 1). In this case, researchers considered the confidence assessment to be level 2. Descriptive Statistics and Cluster Analysis Measures of central tendency (mean, median and mode), variability (standard deviation, minimum and maximum) and frequency distribution were calculated for the four variables: knowledge, confidence and awareness of the importance and usefulness of drawing. Cluster analysis was conducted to find groups of similar students based on their knowledge, confidence, awareness of importance and awareness of usefulness. Before computing the results, several analyses were performed. First, outliers were detected, which led to the exclusion of one student. Then, association between variables was determined by means of the Spearman correlation analysis; no correlation was found, indicating that selected variables may well reflect different underlying constructs. Then, the clustering variables were reduced from four to three (knowledge, confidence, and awareness of importance), as all students scored 2 in awareness of usefulness. Finally, all scores were transformed into standardised z-scores to ensure that different scales in variables did not influence the K-means cluster results. The K-means clustering method was used because of its simplicity and efficiency in application (Han & Kamber, 2006). The clustering algorithm was performed iteratively from 2 to a maximum number of 8 clusters. The optimal number of clusters was selected in accordance with the number of iterations needed until convergence, final cluster centre values and high and significant F values. That led to the conclusion that 3 clusters were the optimal solution. After the cluster analysis, separate Kruskal Wallis tests were conducted to identify differences across the three clusters (non-parametric analyses were selected due to the small size of the samples in one of the clusters). All analyses were performed in SPSS 27. Research Results PSTs’ Readiness for Using Drawings as a Science Teaching Strategy In order to provide basic information about the variables in the dataset, Table 3 presents measurements of central tendency (mean and median), variability (standard deviation, minimum and maximum) and frequency distribution. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) 917 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ Table 3 Results From Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Median, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum and Frequency Distribution) for Knowledge, Confidence, Importance and Usefulness Knowledge Confidence Importance Usefulness Values 0,1,2,3,4,5 0,1,2 0,1,2 0,1,2 N 120 120 120 120 M1.50 1.08 1.92 1.98 Mdn 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 SD 0.95 0.69 0.33 0.18 min 0 0 0 0 max 5 2 2 2 f 0 3 24 2 1 180 63 6 0 2 21 33 112 119 36 4 10 5 0 Figure 2 Frequency of PSTs’ Drawings in Each Level of Knowledge As can be seen in Table 3 and Figure 2, the majority of PSTs (67%) were at knowledge level 1, i.e., they drew only components, and these were not interrelated as a system. Only 13% reached levels 3 and 4, i.e., they drew, in addition to components, how components participate in the mechanisms of the system. Since the fact of situating the interrelated components as a system defines levels 2 and 4 (compared to levels 1 and 3), it is noteworthy that while there were more PSTs in level 1 than in level 2, there were more in level 4 than in level 3; this indicates a certain relationship between representing the system interrelated and representing its mechanisms. Indeed, among those PSTs that drew unrelated components, only 7% represented mechanisms; and among those PSTs that drew the organ system, 32% did represent mechanisms. In regard to confidence, 27.5% of the PSTs were fully confident in drawing scientific content; more than half of the PSTs (52.5%) were confident in drawing but specifically indicated that this was only true as long as they were simple contents that had been previously studied; 20% of the PSTs indicated that they were not confident EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 918 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ in drawing scientific contents (levels 2, 1 and 0 in confidence, respectively). Figure 3a shows the dispersion plot for knowledge and confidence. It is interesting to note that PSTs that reached levels 3 and 4 in knowledge, always reached at least level 1 in confidence, indicating that, although no correlation was obtained, higher levels of knowledge may be associated with a certain degree of confidence. In the same way, no PST at level 0 of knowledge reached level 2 of confidence. Concerning the importance of drawing in the early childhood education classroom, the majority of the PSTs had no doubts that drawing is important, and very few thought that it was only important in certain cases or that it was not important at all (93.3%, level 2; 5%, level 1; 1.7%, level 0). However, as can be seen in Figure 3b, in the few cases in which importance was level 0 or 1, the level of knowledge was never high. Finally, when PSTs were asked whether they found drawings useful for learning, 99% stated that they did. The sample was therefore heterogeneous in terms of knowledge and confidence, and homogeneous in terms of awareness of importance and usefulness. Figure 3 Dispersion Plot for (a) Knowledge and Confidence of PSTs; and (b) Knowledge and Awareness of Importance of PSTs Description of Clusters According to PSTs’ Readiness for Using Drawings as a Science Teaching Strategy PSTs were classified into three clusters. Table 4 shows the results from the descriptive statistics of the clusters, Figure 4 shows a 3D representation of the clusters and Figure 5 shows the distance for each PST from its cluster centroid derived from the cluster analysis. Below, descriptions of the clusters are given with reference to the input variables: knowledge, confidence and awareness of importance and usefulness. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) 919 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ Table 4 Results from Descriptive Statistics of the Three Clusters Variable Cluster 1 N= 34 Cluster 2 N= 8 Cluster 3 N= 77 M z SD R M z SD R M z SD R Knowledge 2.76 1.32 0.89 2-4 1.13 -0.40 0.35 1-2 0.99 -0.54 0.26 0-2 Confidence 1.29 0.31 0.46 1-2 0.88 -0.31 0.84 0-2 1.01 -0.10 0.73 0-2 Importance 2 0.25 0 2-2 0.75 -3.49 0.46 0-1 2 0.25 0 2-2 Usefulness 2 0 2 0 2 0 Note: Standardised z scores (M = 0; SD = 1) are also given. Figure 4 3D Representation of the Three Clusters (Mean Values) According to the PSTs’ Knowledge, Confidence and Awareness of Importance Note: Awareness of usefulness was not included as all participants scored the maximum value. Volume of the bubbles represents the relative size of the clusters. A video showing the figure from all sides is available in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20338698 EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 926 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ Mitchener, C. P., & Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260407 Mohamed, Z., Valcke, M., & de Wever, B. (2016). Are they ready to teach? Student teachers’ readiness for the job with reference to teacher competence frameworks. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2016.1257509 Monteira, S. F., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Siry, C. (2022). Scaffolding children’s production of representations along the three years of ECE: a longitudinal study. Research in Science Education, 52, 127–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09931-z Nadelson, L. S., & Nadelson, S. (2010). K-8 educators’ perceptions and preparedness for teaching evolution topics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 843–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9171-6 Nathan, M. J., Tran, N. A., Atwood, A. K., Prevost, A. M. Y., & Phelps, L. A. (2010). Beliefs and expectations about engineering preparation exhibited by high school STEM teachers. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01071.x Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills [Ofsted]. (2009). Drawing together, art, craft and design in schools. Ofsted. Accessed 18 July 2022. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/10624 O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Does classroom management coursework influence pre-service teachers’ perceived preparedness or confidence? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1131–1143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008 Ormancı U., & Ören, F. S. (2011). An analysis of Pre-Service Teachers’ drawings about the digestive system in terms of their gender, grade levels, and opinions about the method and subject. International Journal of Biology Education, 1(1), 1-22. Oren, F. S. & Ormanci U. (2014). Exploring pre-service teachers’ ideas about the digestive system by using the drawing method. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(3), 316–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/14.13.316 Paik, S., Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M. A., Eberhardt, J., Shin, T. S. , & Zhang, T. (2011). Supporting science teachers in alignment with state curriculum standards through professional development: Teachers’ preparedness, expectations and their fulfillment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9308-1 Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307 Park, M. H., Dimitrov, D. M., Patterson, L. G., & Park, D. Y. (2017). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research,15 (3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15614040 Parker, A., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2006). Developmentally appropriate practice in kindergarten: Factors shaping teacher beliefs and practice. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540609594579 Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about the human body: do they really draw what they know? Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 86–95. http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1404235145.pdf Patrick, P. G., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2010). Science teachers’ drawings of what is inside the human body. Journal of Biological Education, 44 (2), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.9656198 Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31 (3), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013116228261 Reiss, M. J., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Andersen, A. M., Bartoszeck, A., Carvalho, G. S., Chen, S. Y., Jarman, R. et al. (2002). An international study of young peoples’ drawings of what is inside themselves. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 58–64. Richards, R. D. (2003). My drawing sucks! Children’s belief in themselves as artists. Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE Joint Conference 2003, Auckland, New Zealand, November 29-December 3. Rose, S. E., Jolley, R. P., & Burkitt, E. (2006). A review of children’s, teachers’ and parents’ influences on children’s drawing experience. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 25(3), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2006.00500.x Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311 Snapir, Z., Eberbach, C., Ben-Zvi-Assaraf, O., Hmelo-Silver, C., & Tripto, J. (2017). Characterising the development of the understanding of human body systems in high-school biology students – A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2092–2127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1364445 Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary pre-service teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9179-6 Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90005-3 Symington, D. (1980). Primary school teachers’ knowledge of science and its effect on choice between alternative verbal behaviours. Research in Science Education, 10, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023666618800 Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Ozkan, O. (2004). Turkish pre-service science teachers’ understanding of science and their confidence in teaching it. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 30(1), 57–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260747032000162316 Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 45–93). Macmillan. Uskola, A., Zamalloa, T., & Achurra, A. (2022). Using multiple strategies in deepening the understanding of the digestive system. Journal of Biological Education, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2064896 https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) 927 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2022 ISSN 1648–3898 /Print/ ISSN 2538–7138 /Online/ Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3 Vartuli, S. (2005). Beliefs: The heart of teaching. Young Children, 60(5), 76–86. Wilson, R. E., & Bradbury, L. U. (2016). The pedagogical potential of drawing and writing in a primary science multimodal unit. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2621–2641. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1255369 Received: October 19, 2022 Revised: November 02, 2022 Accepted: December 01, 2022 Cite as: Achurra, A., Zamalloa, T., & Uskola, A. (2022). Early childhood pre-service teachers’ readiness for using drawing as a science teaching strategy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(6), 911-927. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911 Ainara Achurra (Corresponding author) PhD, Professor, Faculty of Education and Sports, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8055-6057 Teresa Zamalloa PhD, Professor, Faculty of Education of Bilbao, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Leioa, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8050-496X Araitz Uskola PhD, Professor, Faculty of Education of Bilbao, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Leioa, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0621-3085 EARLY CHILDHOOD PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ READINESS FOR USING DRAWING AS A SCIENCE TEACHING STRATEGY (pp. 911-927) https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.911