International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p.

27

International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education

Copyright © North American Association for Environmental Education
E-ISSN: 2331-0464 (online)

Scaffolding as a Tool for Environmental Education

in Early Childhood
Alex Zurek
Marquette University, USA

Julia Torquati
Ibrahim Acar
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, USA

Submitted September 19, 2013; accepted April 30, 2014

This paper describes the process of “scaffolding” as a teaching strategy in early childhood
education, and demonstrates how scaffolding can promote children’s learning about the
natural environment. Examples of scaffolding are provided from seventy-four running
record observations made over a two-year period in a nature-based preschool program.
Qualitative analysis examined the extent to which scaffolding was used to support
children’s learning about nature; the types of scaffolding strategies used by teachers;
whether high- and low-support strategies were used in specific types of situations; the
effectiveness of scaffolding; and what children learned when teachers engaged them in
scaffolding. Examples illustrate specific pedagogical strategies used in scaffolding.
Scaffolding was used relatively frequently within the program (21% of events analyzed), and
inferential questioning was the most frequently used strategy. Analysis did not reveal a
pattern of high- or low-support strategies used in specific types of situations, but teachers
flexibly used a variety of scaffolding strategies to support children’s learning about the
natural environment. Preparation of physical and social environments for effective
scaffolding is discussed, as well as the role of scaffolding in socializing children to engage in
a culture of inquiry.

Keywords: early childhood, environmental education, scaffolding, nature

 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 28

Burgeoning interest in environmental education in early childhood has been a catalyst for
sharing theories, concepts, and methods across the disciplines of early childhood education
and environmental education. There is a great deal of complementarity in the philosophies,
theories about teaching and learning, and best practices in these disciplines. For example,
developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education (e.g., Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009), the essential underpinnings of environmental education (NAAEE, 1999),
and the various guidelines for excellence in environmental education (e.g., NAAEE, 2010)
share principles of active, authentic learning experiences that are integrated across
curricular domains and support holistic child development. Effective practice in early
childhood environmental education requires mastery of skills from both disciplines. The
purpose of this paper is to sustain the synergy between these disciplines by defining and
describing the process of “scaffolding,” a central teaching tool in early childhood education,
and demonstrating through examples how scaffolding can effectively support children’s
learning in a nature-focused preschool. This paper is part of a larger investigation of how
experiences in nature can support children’s development, what children learn about
nature and natural environments, how they learn it, and what teachers do to support
children’s learning about nature.

Scaffolding is a metaphor that refers to the ways in which adults or more sophisticated
peers provide support for children as they learn (Bruner, 1957; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976;
Vygotsky, 1978). Analogous to the way that scaffolding is built to just the needed level when
constructing a building and then removed when the building is complete, educators engage
in scaffolding by providing the necessary level and type of support that is well-timed to
children’s needs. Vygotsky (1978) proposed that scaffolding is most effective in the “zone of
proximal development” (ZPD), or support that is calibrated to skills or knowledge that is just
above that which the child already possesses, and which the child can master with support
but not alone. The process of scaffolding will be further described in the following sections.
A variety of pedagogical strategies for scaffolding will be identified and the roles of teachers
in scaffolding will be explicated. Finally, scaffolding will be situated within the context of
natural environments. The abundance and spontaneity of learning opportunities in nature
make scaffolding an ideal tool for environmental education.

Scaffolding and learning in the preschool years

Scaffolding is a manner of teaching whereby the instructor assists learners in their

acquisition of some skill or knowledge (Wood et al., 1976). Whether the task is solving a
math problem or mastering a skill, the learner must gradually become more knowledgeable
about the topic; this can be accomplished in part through the use of scaffolding. Scaffolding
has proven to be particularly effective during preschool years (Jacobs, 2001). The strategy
works through a hierarchical program in which the learner first accomplishes simple, “lower
order” skills or problems which aid the learner in approaching progressively more difficult
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 29

(though related) topics and achieving more complicated, “higher order” tasks (Wood et al.,
1976). While a certain level of intentionality and preparation is required of teachers in order
to use scaffolding strategies, the teaching opportunities themselves arise spontaneously.
The current study focuses on interactions between preschool children and teachers as they
occurred during free play in nature and on nature hikes.

Teachers’ role in scaffolding

To effectively employ pedagogical strategies in scaffolding, a teacher must adequately

understand the strengths and needs of each learner and adjust his or her strategy
accordingly. This is especially pertinent for spontaneous teaching opportunities when the
teacher must determine what level of support the individual learner needs (Wood et al.,
1976). For instance, when a new concept or skill is being introduced, the learner requires
high-support strategies (O’Connor et al., 2005). High-support strategies include eliciting,
giving hints, and co-participating (See Table 1; Pentimonti & Justice, 2010). Low-support
strategies are used when the learner begins to show signs of maturation and progresses to
“higher order” tasks. Low-support strategies include generalizing and predicting; such
strategies provide relatively less assistance (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Pentimonti &
Justice, 2010). Both high- and low-support strategies require the teacher to take a step back
and allow the child to make the appropriate connections between their previously mastered
“lower order” skills and knowledge, and accomplish progressively more complex tasks
(Norris & Hoffman, 1990). Teachers must then adjust their scaffolding strategies accordingly
as the learner constructs knowledge and skills (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998).

Teachers play an important role in scaffolding the cognitive and social development of
young children (Hovland, Gapp, & Theis, 2011; Howes & Ritchie, 2002; Pianta, 1999).
Teachers help to scaffold children’s conceptual knowledge about phenomena and processes
in nature by providing a physical environment where children can engage in play and have
access to materials and experiences that provoke curiosity, exploration, and learning. For
example, incorporating gardens into an outdoor play area can provide opportunities to
explore and investigate insects, soil, and the life cycles of plants and animals. The presence
of these organisms in the environment increases the likelihood that children will make
observations and ask questions regarding them, which can subsequently be scaffolded such
that children may better understand the natural phenomena. Teachers can also initiate
scaffolding through strategies such as eliciting or drawing attention to relevant features of
the environment.

During outdoor activities, teachers provide feedback, hints, or assistance to scaffold

children’s learning about their environment (Echevarria et al., 2004; Pianta, La Paro, &
Hamre, 2008; Zucker, Justice, Pianta, & Kadaravek, 2010). Assistance may take the form of
drawing children’s attention to relevant features of the environment or to relevant features
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 30

of a particular problem. Teachers manage cooperative learning activities by providing

materials, scaffolding competences, guiding children’s learning objectives, and using
inferential questioning (Lee, Kinzie, & Whittaker, 2012; Tarim, 2009; Zucker et al., 2010). For
example, a teacher may prompt a verbal exchange with a child by saying, “Let’s count how
many maple trees we see.” The teacher can thereby direct children’s attention to observing
something specific in their environment. They may use a high-support strategy, such as
counting with them until they can count with less support (“what comes after 11?”), as well
as provide validation (“yes, there are 14 trees”) and feedback (“I think there might be less
than 100”). Children can achieve more with these types of support than they could by
themselves.

Preschool children learn from one another in addition to learning from their teachers. Peer
interactions play an important role for young children in learning new concepts and
developing social behaviors in preschool years (Damon & Phelps, 1989). Peer-supported
learning, conceptualized as peer tutoring, is also based on Vygotsky’s concept of ZPD (1978)
and occurs when a child learns behaviors, concepts, or information from another child
(Gordon, 2005). Therefore, it is important for teachers to provide opportunities and support
for peer collaboration. Teachers create a context that is conducive to learning by providing
social and emotional guidance that teaches important skills for life and promotes
harmonious relationships so that maximal attention can be focused on learning, rather than
behavior management (Inan & Katz, 2007; Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2011).

Nature as a classroom

As children explore their environment, they develop new knowledge and connect it with
their previously gained knowledge. Nature provides diverse opportunities for children to
develop new concepts through interacting with nature during teacher-directed and self-
directed activities. For example, a North American child learns how snow falls instead of
rain at certain temperatures, butterflies fly in the day and moths at night, and to identify
the living features of many animals by observing and interacting with nature (Kellert, 2005).
Spontaneous exploratory play is positively associated with children’s construction of
knowledge concerning causal relationships (Schulz & Bonawitz, 2007). In a study by Schulz
and Gopnik (2007), preschoolers were able to competently distinguish cause-effect
relationships after spontaneous exploratory play with a gear toy. Likewise, children in
nature activities have opportunities to develop scientific inquiry skills such as questioning
about weather events, animal classifications, or plant names.

In summary, scaffolding is a teaching strategy that involves providing support for children’s
learning that is well-timed and well-matched to the situation and child, and that helps the
child to be more successful than they would be without support. Scaffolding empowers
children by providing them sufficient assistance to continue their self-directed and/or
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 31

cooperative learning. Scaffolding also promotes intellectual autonomy, the understanding

that learning arises from one’s own efforts rather than answers to problems coming from
authority figures (Kostelnik, Gregory, Soderman, & Whiren, 2012). Teachers may use high-
support or low-support strategies to empower children in such a way (O’Connor et al.,
2005; Pentimonti & Justice, 2010).

This paper will examine teacher scaffolding of young children’s learning about natural
environments within a nature-based preschool from the perspective of social constructivism
(Berk & Winsler, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978; Watson, 2001). According to social constructivism,
learners actively construct knowledge, and language is central for co-constructing meaning
and to conceptual development. Constructivist learning is situated within authentic
contexts that are shaped by socially mediated cultural scripts, symbols, rules, and meanings
(Winsler, 2003). Scaffolding is often conceptualized as occurring in the dialectic of a dyadic
interaction (e.g., between a child and teacher), however it is important to consider multiple
levels of scaffolding within which a learner constructs knowledge and meaning (Winsler,
2003). In the present study, children bring unique characteristics, experiences, and culture
to the program, and they also experience the culture of the program, which in this case can
be described as a culture of nature and a culture of inquiry. These features of social
constructivism lend themselves to the study of teaching and learning interactions between
children and teachers in a natural environment. The study will examine specific strategies
used by teachers during both planned and spontaneous learning opportunities in a nature
setting with special attention to verbal communication between children and teachers. As
part of a larger study focusing on what children learn about nature and natural
environments, how they learn it, and what teachers do to support children’s learning about
nature, this paper will address the following research questions:

1. Do teachers use scaffolding to support young children’s learning about nature, and if
so:
a. How often is scaffolding used?
b. What scaffolding strategies do teachers use? Do teachers use high- and low-
support strategies in specific types of situations as described by Pentimonti
and Justice (2010)?
c. How effective is scaffolding? What do children learn when teachers engage
them in scaffolding?
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 32

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Rationale for a qualitative design

A case study is a qualitative approach “in which the investigator explores a real-life,
contemporary, bounded system (a case) or multiple systems over time” (Creswell, 2013, p.
97). In a case study, researchers define their bounded system as what is going to be studied
(Merriam, 2009). In the current study, we defined our bounded system as a preschool
program in the Great Lakes region of the U.S. Researchers conducted running-record
observations of children’s activities during their outdoor time on seventy-four different days
over a two-year period. The case study approach is well-suited for examining processes,
providing rich descriptions of phenomena occurring within a bounded system, and studying
phenomena in the context in which they take place (Creswell, 2013). Researchers took the
role of “observer as participant,” meaning that the researcher’s role was known by those
who were observed, but researchers also participated in activities when appropriate
opportunities arose (e.g., singing along with children during a group time or holding a child’s
hand when crossing the parking lot during a hike). Children and teachers became very
familiar with the researchers, whom they addressed in the same manner as the other
teachers (“Miss” or “Mr.” followed by the first name). Field notes were transcribed and
analyzed according to the procedures described below.

In the current study, we used “quantitizing”, using numbers to support qualitative data
(Sandelowski, Voils, & Knafl, 2009). Quantitizing is used “to facilitate pattern recognition or
otherwise to extract meaning from qualitative data, account for all data, document analytic
moves, and verify interpretations” (Sandelowski et al., 2009, p. 210). We used counts and
frequency percentages to make sense of our data and the coding of observations (Green,
2011; Maxwell, 2010).

Program description

The preschool is located within a 185-acre nature center that features prairie, hardwood
forests, wetlands, and lakeshore. Children attend two, three, or four half-days per week.
When the children arrive they meet their class in one of three natural outdoor play areas
that feature open-ended elements such as logs, pine cones, sand, gardens, rocks, and trees.
Teachers provide additional materials such as buckets, shovels, magnifying glasses, and field
guides to support play and exploration. Children gather for circle time after playing for
approximately one half hour and teachers introduce the concepts on which they will be
focusing for that day. Concepts include topics such as camouflage, hibernation, migration,
activation, or following the path that water travels to the lake. Teachers often share a story
or a song about the concept with the children, and then give the children a “provocation”
(Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998) to focus their attention on the concept during their
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 33

hike such as listening for sounds of spring, looking for white trees, or watching for different
animal tracks. The hikes typically take 45 minutes to an hour. Teachers facilitate both
structured and unstructured nature experiences during the outdoor time and hike.

Participants

The preschool enrolls nine classes of children ages three to five years, with a maximum of
16 children per class. Specific demographic information was not collected for individual
children, but all enrolled children come from upper middle-class families and a majority
were Caucasian. Enrollment is open to any interested family and parents pay tuition for
their children.

Procedures

Seven researchers conducted running-record observations of children’s activities during

outside activity time and while hiking over a two-year period. Forty-four observations were
conducted during the first year and thirty observations during the second year. Every class
was observed, but because some classes only met two days per week, the classes that met
three or four days per week were observed more frequently. Observers recorded children’s
and teachers’ behavior and dialogue in field notes which were later transcribed and
analyzed. An observation comprised all recorded field notes for a single day, derived from
1.5 to 2.5 hours of observing. Each observation included multiple “events,” defined as
sequences of related behaviors and/or interactions. The number of events recorded per
observation ranged from 1 to 29 (Mean = 8.0). The total number of events recorded was
521.

Researchers were introduced to the classes early in the year, and children were told that
the researchers wanted to learn about their school. Thereafter, children appeared to accept
the presence of the researchers and to be comfortable in their presence. Some children
even asked researchers where they had been after they had missed a day, or asked one
researcher to pass on a message to another (such as to say hello and when are you coming
back).

Materials

The primary investigator (PI) designed the framework for conducting observations. An
“Observation of Child Development” form was designed to guide observations that
included: (1) observer name, date, time, children present, and location; (2) domains of
development, including physical/motor activity, observational skills of the child,
attention/awareness, exploration, social development, and self-regulation; (3) specific child
behaviors to look for, such as recognizing or responding to differences in the environment,
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 34

discriminating properties of nature using a variety of senses, seeking information through

observation to satisfy curiosity or seek answers to questions, asking questions or seeking
information, testing possibilities, and using multiple strategies to solve problems; (4) space
for detailed description of children’s activity; and (5) space for the observer’s interpretation
and reflections, with the following probes: what is important about the observation? How
did the environment support the child’s development? What roles did teachers and/or
peers play? The components of the guide were not designed to be exhaustive, but rather to
help observers to identify sequences of events and behaviors upon which to focus.

Questions and prompts included in the form were designed to draw the observer’s
attention to children’s behavior, teachers’ behavior, features and function of the
environment, and interactions among the three (children, teachers, and environment). The
PI piloted the Observation of Child Development form and found it to be effective for
guiding observations, but with too little space to record field notes. Therefore, the
Observation of Child Development form was used as a guide but field notes were taken in a
spiral-bound notebook.

Trustworthiness of the data. Several strategies were used to maximize the trustworthiness
of the data. Research team members were trained and supervised to ensure consistency of
the data collection method. Credibility was established through prolonged engagement,
persistent observation, and triangulation of sources and analysis (Creswell, 1994; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985).

Training of research team members. The PI trained the other six investigators in the data
collection procedures. The PI explained the overall purpose of the study and the
Observation of Child Development Form, and provided an orientation to the preschool
program. The PI provided examples of completed and typed observations, which were
discussed with investigators in training. A common notation format was adopted in which
multiple children involved in an interaction were denoted as “C1, C2…Cn” and teachers as
“T1” or “T2.” Classes often had a volunteer, who was denoted as “V1.” Each class had
children with parental consent to participate in the study, and when target children were
observed they were identified by their initials in order to compile those observations for
case studies (not reported in this paper).

Investigators were instructed to focus more on quality of observations than quantity of

observations; priority was given to thoroughness and level of detail recorded about a single
“event,” defined as a related sequence of behaviors and/or interactions, rather than to
recording as many events as possible. The rationale for this operating principle was to
generate richer observations that would permit analysis of associations between children’s
activity, learning, interactions, environments, and teachers. Investigators submitted their
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 35

typed observations to the PI and they were discussed during monthly research team
meetings.

Credibility. In qualitative research, concerns about internal, construct, and content validity
are addressed as “credibility.” According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), “prolonged
engagement,” or spending enough time in the observational context to understand the
phenomena of interest within that setting, is one strategy for establishing credibility or
confidence in qualitative data. Prolonged engagement permits a researcher to establish
rapport with research participants, increasing the likelihood of observing “natural”
behaviors. Prolonged engagement also allows the researcher to compare observations
across time in order to determine what is “typical” or “atypical” in the setting. “Persistent
observation” is another strategy for increasing credibility, and it refers to the depth and
extent of observation that enhances understanding of the phenomena of interest.
Persistent observation allows researchers to observe a phenomenon of interest as well as
the associations with contextual features or sequences of interactions. “Triangulation,” or
the use of multiple methods, sources, or analysts, is a strategy used to increase the
comprehensiveness of understanding data. Two types of triangulation were used in this
study. First, triangulation of sources took the form of comparing data collected by different
researchers at different points in time across the two-year period. Second, analyst
triangulation was used in the processes of coding and interpretation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Transferability. In qualitative research, concerns about external or ecological validity are

addressed as “transferability.” According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), providing a “rich
description” of the phenomena of interest is a strategy for establishing transferability.
Detailed description of the phenomena and the context in which it is observed allows
readers to determine the contexts and conditions under which they can reasonably expect
the results of the research to be relevant.

RESULTS

Data reduction and analysis

Data reduction was used to analyze data from a rigorous perspective due to the large
amount of observational data, common to qualitative studies (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The central research question of this paper is “Do teachers use scaffolding to support young
children’s learning about nature?” In order to address this question and the sub-questions,
the first step in data reduction was for one investigator to read through all of the
observations and extract each incident of scaffolding, using a set of preliminary codes
developed from reviewing previous research (see Table 1). A total of 103 incidents of
scaffolding were extracted. Next, a second investigator read through all of the extracted
incidents and assessed whether each constituted an example or non-example of scaffolding.
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 36

Ninety-eight scaffolding incidents were confirmed and five incidents were questioned. The
third investigator read through all of the extracted incidents, confirmed 102 of the original
103 incidents, and questioned one. All incidents on which at least two investigators agreed
were coded as scaffolding incidents.

Table 1
Scaffolding Code Descriptions, Examples, and Frequency of Occurrence

Code Description and Source Example Frequency

Eliciting:
Teacher provides a prompt, Teacher: “When the leaf falls to the 61 (15.4%)
which could be a statement or ground, it dries all up and turns
question that evokes a into…”
response from the children Children: “Soil!”
(Pentimonti & Justice, 2010).

Inferential Questioning:
Teacher prompts children to “What happened to this tree?” 101 (25.4%)
use evidence to draw a “Did it fall down or did someone cut
conclusion (Walsh & Blewitt, it?”
2006). “What do you see?”

Predicting:
Prompting children to make a Teacher: “It was wet out here last 9 (2.3%)
prediction about what will time it rained. What would happen
happen next (Pentimonti & to the water today?”
Justice, 2010). Children: “It would freeze!”
Teacher: “Do you know what color
they will be in the spring?”

Drawing attention to relevant

features of a problem or of the
environment:
Prompting the child to use “What do you notice about…?” 35 (8.8%)
senses to narrow the field of “Is this the same shade of blue as it
observation toward a current was yesterday?”
focus of inquiry or discourse; “Good guess but I think it’s an
this can take the form of a animal that’s a little bigger than a
statement or question deer.”
(Stanulis & Manning, 2002).
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 37

Give hints:
The teacher provides a clue to “What animal has four toes?” 18 (4.5%)
help children’s ongoing inquiry “What animals do the girls in class
(Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, like to pretend to be?” (children are
2008). trying to figure out what animal
made the tracks that the children
think look like dog tracks, but they
are coyote tracks)
“It starts with a MMMMMM sound.”

Provide materials:
The teacher provides tools to Teacher: “What tool do you need?” 2 (0.5%)
support ongoing activity or Child: “The sand is hard today. I
inquiry (i.e., buckets, shovels, need a shovel.”
magnifying glass) (Plowman &
Stephen, 2007).

Validation feedback:
A statement that “I think it was a woodpecker too!” 52 (13.1%)
communicates “yes, that’s
true” (Hogan & Pressley, 1997; “Great job – I think it’s a spine, too!”
van de Pol, Volman, &
Beishuizen, 2010).

Correction feedback:
When a child makes a “There are no dogs here.” 12 (3.0%)
statement that is factually
inaccurate or uses a term in a “[yes it hibernates]…but not at the
way that is inaccurate, the bottom of the pond. It’s a land
teacher offers information to turtle, and hibernates under some
clarify the factually inaccurate leaves and branches.”
statement (Hogan & Pressley,
1997; van de Pol, Volman, & “Nothing? I see something.”
Beishuizen, 2010).
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 38

Denomination:
Teacher provides a precise Child: “Snow keeps the plants 9 (2.3%)
term for a concept after a child warm.”
uses a vague or incorrect term, Teacher: “Snow is a good insulator!”
or has not used a term (for Child: “The leaves will turn to soil.”
example, pointing) Teacher: “That’s right – they
(Rosemberg & Silva, 2009). decompose.”

Expansion:
“Did you know that before people 53 (13.4%)
The teacher adds information
could go to the store to buy brooms
to a statement the child has
they used branches to sweep?” (In
made (de Rivera, Girolametto,
response to a child using a branch to
Greenberg, & Weitzman,
sweep snow, and stating “Look! It’s
2005).
a broom!”)

Generalization:
The teacher names a Child: “Water vapor! It goes up and 3 (0.8%)
superordinate concept (the it comes back down again.”
general case) that is related to
a specific exemplar identified Teacher: “That’s the water cycle that
by a child (van de Pol, Volman, you’re talking about.”
& Beishuizen, 2010).

Exemplary:
The teacher gives a specific Not observed in the current study. 0 (0%)
example of a general concept
named or referred to by a child
(van de Pol, Volman, &
Beishuizen, 2010).
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 39

Link to previous knowledge

and/or experience:
The teacher refers to what “What kind of mark would a turkey 29 (7.3%)
s/he knows is the child’s make?”
previous experience or
knowledge in order to address
a new question (Echevarria,
Vogt, & Short, 2004).

Co-Participating:
(Pentimonti & Justice, 2010) Teacher counts along with child, 2 (0.5%)
starting a sequence or filling in
numbers

Contextualization: Teacher: “Why would it be 7 (1.8%)

“…draw the new knowledge important for there to be a hole in
nearer by creating new the top of the wigwam if there’s fire
intermediate levels of inside?”
representation in order to link Children: “So the smoke can leave!”
the introduced concepts to
others that children build in
direct experiences”
(Rosemberg & Silva, 2009, p.
575).

De-contextualization:
Distancing a concept from the Teacher: “Right! It [the hole in the 4 (1.0%)
current context (Rosemberg & wigwam] works as a vent just like
Silva, 2009). the vents in your house for the air
conditioning and the heat.”

Total number of coded scaffolding 397 (100%)

strategies:
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 40

Next, the second investigator returned to the raw data to determine whether there were
additional scaffolding incidents that had not been identified by the first investigator. The
second investigator identified an additional 11 scaffolding incidents. The third investigator
confirmed eight of those 11 incidents and questioned three of them. This yielded a total of
110 incidents of scaffolding verified by all three investigators.

Extent of scaffolding used by teachers

To address the first research question, “Do teachers use scaffolding to support young
children’s learning about nature, and if so, how often is scaffolding used?” we compared
the total number of events recorded (521) with the total number of scaffolding incidents
(110) and found that 21% of all events were scaffolding incidents. Similarly, comparing the
average number of events per observation (8) with the average number of scaffolding
incidents per observation (1.7) revealed that 21% of the events within each observation
were incidents of scaffolding. Considering that many events did not include teachers (e.g.,
peer interactions or individual children’s behavior), this suggests that scaffolding was a
relatively common feature of teacher-child interactions in this particular setting.

Scaffolding strategies used by teachers: Quantity and quality

The research question, “What scaffolding strategies do teachers use?” was addressed by
examining descriptive statistics regarding the specific types of scaffolding strategies
teachers used overall, and qualitatively examining the types of strategies used within
selected scaffolding incidents. The total number of scaffolding codes (397) is greater than
the total number of scaffolding incidents (110) because several incidents had multiple
codes. Frequency counts and the proportion of all incidents that each scaffolding strategy
comprised are presented in Table 1.

The most frequently used scaffolding strategy was inferential questioning, which
constituted 25.4% of the reported scaffolding incidents, followed by eliciting, expansion,
validation feedback, and drawing attention to relevant features of a problem or the
environment (see Table 1). Providing materials and co-participating were the least
frequently observed strategies, each constituting 0.5% of the 397 total scaffolding codes.
One scaffolding strategy included in Table 1 was not observed. The exemplary strategy
appears in the table because it is an important strategy that was identified in the literature,
despite the fact that it was not observed in this particular series of observations, and
because non-findings are often as important as findings.
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 41

Effectiveness of scaffolding strategies used by teachers

The research questions, “Do teachers use high- and low-support strategies in specific types
of situations?,” “How effective is scaffolding?,” and “What do children learn when teachers
engage them in scaffolding?” were addressed by qualitatively assessing children’s verbal
responses to scaffolding employed within the selected incidents. Below we present and
analyze a selection of scaffolding incidents to illustrate the patterns of scaffolding strategies
used and their effectiveness. The incidents presented progress from simple to complex,
with the first examples using fewer strategies and later examples involving more strategies,
the introduction of outside information, and a greater number of considerations.

C = individual child
C1, C2…Cn = multiple children’s individual responses
CM = multiple children, group response
T = teacher
V = volunteer

The following exchange was initiated by a teacher and includes four feedback loops in which
the teacher used two different scaffolding strategies which supported children’s
observation and reasoning skills. This example of scaffolding occurred while the class was
on a hike.

T: Look up at that tree up there – what do you notice about it? (Draw attention) Is
there something different? (Inferential)
CM: Holes!
T: How did they get there? (Inferential)
C1: Spiders!
C2: Chipmunks!
C3: Squirrels!
C4: Woodpeckers! Woodpeckers love trees!
T: What do they look for in trees? (Inferential)
C: Bugs!
T: What do they do with the bugs? (Inferential)
CM: Eat them!

As seen above, the teacher began by drawing children’s attention to something interesting
and asking an inferential question. Children then offered different hypotheses about what
might have made the holes, and engaging the group in the discussion permitted children to
compare their hypotheses and ultimately arrive at an accurate answer. It was important for
the exchange to continue until it was established that woodpeckers would eat bugs from
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 42

the trees, because this allowed children with different hypotheses to compare their
answers with the “data” which included “holes” plus “bugs” and the knowledge that
woodpeckers eat bugs. Repeated use of inferential questioning effectively helped to sustain
the interaction, and children successfully solved the puzzle of what could have made the
holes, and why. While it is possible for teachers to achieve their learning goal(s) in a single
feedback loop (as seen in the following scenario), multiple feedback loops can aid in
ensuring the efficacy of teaching depending on the level of scaffolding support necessitated
by the specific situation and learner.

The following example occurred as children were throwing leaves up in the air on their
nature hike. This observation also demonstrates an instance where the teacher asks an
inferential question, and it particularly exemplifies the way in which teachers tend to
employ combinations of scaffolding strategies.

T: Are these new or old leaves?

C: Old.
T: What are these leaves going to turn into? (Teacher pauses.) The leaves are
decomposing and will turn into soil. (Inferential; prediction; denomination)
(The suggestion is that we really should only throw new leaves up in the air
to fall on us – old leaves can get you dirty.) (Expansion to cause-effect)

In this single, apparently simple suggestion, the teacher used four scaffolding strategies.
The first question – “Are these new or old leaves?” – is inferential; the teacher is looking for
the children to draw a conclusion based on the facts at hand. The teacher follows this up by
using prediction, whereby the children are encouraged to think about what happens to
leaves in time. Lastly the teacher answers her own question: “The leaves are decomposing
and will turn into soil.” This final statement is an example of denomination because the
teacher offers specific terminology for the concept she has been scaffolding throughout the
interaction. The progression of strategies used by the teacher, particularly the use of
denomination, is moreover an instance of expansion, as she is introducing new information
related to the original topic (e.g., leaves). This manner of using multiple scaffolding
strategies in a single feedback loop can be an effective way of achieving multiple ends
within an exchange. Children listened carefully and stopped throwing leaves onto
themselves and each other, indicating they understood that the old, decomposing leaves
would get them dirty.

In contrast to the previous three examples, the following interaction differs in that the
teacher uses the child’s question as an opportunity to engage the entire group of children in
the process of inquiry by initiating discourse amongst the class, rather than responding
solely to the individual child who asked the question. The exchange involves five feedback
loops and repeated use of inferential questioning to sustain the interaction. The
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 43

observation was recorded while the children were at a pond. Most of the children were
lying on their stomachs on the wooden dock and looking into the water. A few children had
sticks they were poking down into the water, and one child noticed that the water did not
go up as high on the stick as it had on a previous visit. The child asked the teacher where
the water went, prompting the following exchange.

T: Where’s the water going, guys? C wants to know what’s happening to it.
(Inferential)
C: It’s going down a waterfall.
T: Do you see a waterfall around here? (Inferential; draw attention to details)
CM: Nooooo!
T: Do you ever have a puddle in your yard? What happens to it? (Contextualization)
C2: Water vapor! It goes up and it comes back down again.
T: That’s the water cycle you’re talking about. (Generalization) What happens to the
water in the puddle? Does it all go up? (Inferential)
C2: It goes down in the ground…some evaporates, and some goes down in the
ground.
T: Do you think that’s what’s happening here? (Inferential)
CM: Yes!

The teacher’s strategic use of the child’s inquiry as a teaching opportunity for the rest of the
class empowered the children to actively take charge of their own learning. The fact that
the teacher directed the question to the children, rather than answering it herself,
communicates that she has confidence in their ability to reason, and also conveys that
knowledge and “answers” do not come only from authority figures but from one’s own
intellectual activity (Kostelnik et al., 2011). Engaging the group with the question also
communicates that knowledge and discovery are social processes. This strategy of engaging
a group of children to investigate an individual child’s question is frequently used in the
program.

In this example, the teacher began with a low- to moderate-support strategy in the form of
inferential questioning. The reason this is coded as inferential rather than eliciting (a lower-
level strategy) is because the question required children to use information available in the
environment as well as their own knowledge to make an inference about what was
happening to the water. When the first child suggested a waterfall, the teacher asked a
question that was both inferential and drew the children’s attention to details in the
environment. She waited several seconds before asking the next question, which is an
example of contextualization because asking children whether they ever had a puddle in
their yard served to “draw the new knowledge nearer by creating new intermediate levels
of representation in order to link the introduced concepts to others that children build in
direct experiences” (Rosemberg & Silva, 2009, p. 575). This helped the children to see the
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 44

similarity between what happens to a puddle in their yard and what was likely happening to
the pond, which is essentially a bigger puddle. The strategy helped one child to make the
inference that the water was becoming vapor, and the child demonstrated knowledge that
the water vapor would rise and then come down again. The teacher then used the strategy
of generalization to name the superordinate concept that is related to a specific exemplar
identified by a child, in this case the water cycle. The teacher further extended the inquiry
with another inferential question about whether all of the water evaporated, and a child
inferred that some evaporated and some went down into the ground.

Examining this sequence of interactions as a whole, the teacher engaged children in five
feedback loops and used four different scaffolding strategies calibrated to the level and
type of support the children needed. She worked within the zone of proximal development
to support children’s reasoning, and maximized the potential learning opportunities in the
situation. It is important to note that the teacher did not leave or end the interaction when
the child named “water vapor,” but extended the interaction further to link the child’s
response to a larger concept (the water cycle). The teacher then pushed the children’s
thinking further by asking whether they thought all the water went “up.” This is an example
of providing a deep and meaningful experience in which children can investigate, reflect,
and elaborate on important concepts. This kind of interaction is an example of prioritizing
experiences that promote deep knowledge over experiences that expose children to a large
number of concepts but lack depth, as described in the Next Generation Science Education
Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and related documents (Michaels, Shouse, &
Schweingruber, 2008). This example is also very powerful because the teacher effectively
helps children to connect the new experience and knowledge with previous experience and
existing knowledge. These elaborations and connections help children to construct
knowledge that connects abstract concepts with specific experiences and draw parallels
between similar situations. These interactions also facilitate children’s development of
reasoning skills (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Pianta et al., 2008).

It is also important to note the children’s demeanor during this encounter. They were
relaxed as they lay on the dock observing the water, and when the teacher engaged them
with the question about the water all of the children were quiet as they considered the
question. The children then listened as one child offered their hypothesis. Adults often
doubt the ability of preschoolers to engage and maintain attention in extended, meaningful
discussions of inquiry, but the quality of the social and physical context is a key potentiator
of inquiry (Ash, 2000; Ray, Bowman, & Brownell, 2006). Moreover, children in this program
are accustomed to participating in meaningful discussions about environmental
phenomena, and so this is a familiar process for them. It is important for teachers who
aspire to this level of scaffolding to understand that it takes time and patience to socialize
children into a culture of inquiry (Kirch, 2007), but it is also important to understand that
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 45

young children are fully capable of doing so (Duschel, Schweingruber, & Schouse, 2006;
Michaels et al., 2008).

The teacher in the following example demonstrates such an understanding, showing

patience while repeatedly employing eliciting (a high-support strategy) in an effort to
support the children’s development of knowledge on the topic of trees and nesting. The
teacher pointed to a clump of trees (or a tree with a split trunk), directing the attention of a
small group of children.

T: Is this one or two trees? (Eliciting)

C: Two trees!
T: Look at the bottom of it. (Draw attention)
*Child looks more closely.*
T: What are you noticing, C? (Eliciting)
C: Chlorophyll!
T: C said this tree has chlorophyll in it. It also has something else in it. Look very
carefully way up into the tree. What do you think that big bundle of leaves in the top
of the tree might be? (Expansion, draw attention)
C: It’s a nest!
T: A nest! I think you’re right! (Validation)

In this example, the teacher repeatedly elicited the children’s ideas about the object that
they were trying to identify and understand. The teacher also drew the children’s attention
by saying “look very carefully way up into tree.” The child then focused on the tree and
began hypothesizing, and the teacher validated the child’s answer (“I think you’re right!”).
Through eliciting and drawing the children’s attention to a specific feature of the
environment, the teacher guided and supported children’s learning about the tree. The
teacher then validated the child’s answer to ensure they understood the target concept.

The following example is unique in that it involves ten feedback loops, further evidencing
the level of patience and persistence needed by teachers to appropriately and effectively
employ scaffolding strategies. In this exchange, the teacher used strategies offering
different levels of support to not only identify a feature of the environment (a male duck)
but also to incorporate other concepts about the environment.

T: We saw an animal this morning and I’m going to give you a clue, and you guess
what it was. The clue is that it was partially green. (Hints)
*Children guess frog, toad, and turtle.*
V: It had 2 wings. (Hints)
C: Turkey.
C: Bird.
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 46

T: You’re right; it’s a type of bird. (Validation)

C: Flamingo.
C: Flamingos are pink.
T: And I’ve never seen a flamingo here. (Correction feedback, previous knowledge)
C: Duck!
T: Was it a mommy duck or a daddy duck? (Inferential)
*Children guess.*
T: Daddies have green heads and moms have brown heads. (Expansion)
C: In the Himalayas there are poison spiders.
T: Click on your listening ears. Why do you think the mommy ducks are all brown?
(Inferential)
C: To blend in.
T: Yes, to blend into what?
C: Grass, twigs, leaves. (Inferential, contextualization)
T: What’s that word that means blending in? It starts with a “C” sound (Hint,
denomination, previous knowledge)
C: Camouflage!
T: That’s right, and when the mommy sits on the eggs she needs to blend in.
(Validation, expansion)
T: They saw the daddy duck. The mommy duck might have been there, but she may
have been camouflaged. We’ll have to see.

The teacher did not ask or name the animal in the example above, but instead provided
hints to let the children guess and reason about it. The teacher started giving hints about
general features of the animal and proceeded to hint about specific features. The teacher
then used validation feedback to scaffold a child’s response, validating their statement by
saying, “You’re right, it’s a type of bird” (we differentiated between validation and
correction feedback in data for the current study). The teacher also referred to previous
knowledge and experience, stating that she has not seen any flamingos at the nature
center. The teacher maintained the children’s attention and helped them to narrow their
focus by asking inferential questions. These types of questions also helped children to
correctly identify the animal.

The next exchange occurred on a nature hike. The teacher used a variety of strategies to
explore the insulating properties of snow, support the children’s reasoning, provide an
experiment for the children to test their knowledge, connect to previous knowledge,
provide specific terminology, and both generalize and contextualize the concept.

T: See how warm your face is when it is inside the snow! What kinds of houses
are made of snow? (Draw attention to details; link to previous knowledge;
de-contextualization)
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 47

C1: Igloos!
T: Do you think that igloos would stay warm? (Inferential)
C1: Yes!
T: That’s because snow is a good insulator! (Generalization; denomination)
C2: (He speaks with his head in the snow. His words are hard to hear.)
T: C2, the snow is so great of an insulator that we could barely hear what you
said! (Contextualization)

This observation exemplifies the teacher using a variety of scaffolding strategies to facilitate
the children’s learning. The teacher began the dialogue by drawing attention to a relevant
feature of the environment, specifically the insulating property of snow, prompting children
to use their senses to narrow the field of observation toward the focus their inquiry. It is
common for teachers to use this strategy on nature hikes and in the play area as it allows
for many common occurrences to become effective learning opportunities. The teacher
then asked, “What kinds of houses are made of snow?” thereby de-contextualizing the
information such that the children could grasp the new concept when it was removed from
its original circumstances. The combined use of drawing attention and de-contextualizing
the concept is also an example of the teacher connecting the subject matter to previous
knowledge that is familiar to the children, the insulating property of snow. The accurate
response of “Igloos!” by C1 indicates the efficacy of that connection to previous knowledge.
The teacher then scaffolded the connection through inferential questioning, which also
proved effective. C1 acknowledged that an igloo would indeed stay warm. At that point, the
teacher employed generalization and denomination to show that all snow is a good
insulator (not just in the case of igloos) and give the children a precise term for the property
they had described: “insulator.” C2 responded to that generalization by sticking his head in
the snow, testing whether it was in fact a good insulator. The teacher then contextualized
the information (after initially de-contextualizing the topic), bringing the strategy full circle.
Her decision to employ contextualization demonstrates an attempt to show the children
how their newfound knowledge of the terminology can be applied in their own lives,
outside the context of igloos (Rosemberg & Silva, 2009). The strategy was prompted in part
by the act of C2 talking with his head in the snow. Through employing seven scaffolding
strategies and four feedback loops, the teacher effectively supported the children in their
understanding of snow as a good insulator.

DISCUSSION

This paper described how scaffolding can effectively support children’s learning in a nature-
focused preschool, and provided several examples of strategies that can be used in a variety
of EE contexts. Scaffolding was observed relatively frequently in the current study,
comprising 21% of all observed events. The prevalence and complexity of scaffolding is
particularly remarkable considering that observers were not trained to focus specifically on
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 48

scaffolding pedagogy. Observers were given general guidelines but individually determined
what was salient to record within the contexts as incidents occurred. The extent and nature
of scaffolding at the nature center became apparent upon examination of the many
dialogues among teachers and children. Inferential questioning was the most frequently
used strategy, followed by eliciting, expansion, validation feedback, and drawing attention
to relevant features of a problem or the environment. The exemplary strategy was not
observed. Its absence may be a result of preschoolers primarily asking questions about their
immediate experiences, rather than about overarching concepts. Use of the exemplary
strategy by teachers may increase as children get older and ask more questions about
general concepts or words they may have heard.

Qualitative analysis did not reveal a pattern of differentiating high- and low-support
strategies being used in specific types of situations (e.g., high-support strategies used when
engaging more complex concepts). Instead, teachers in this study flexibly used a range of
strategies to match the apparent needs of the children at the time. This involves patience
and persistence, as illustrated by the number of feedback loops used in some of the
examples. Additionally, teachers often sustained interactions after a child arrived at a
particular “answer” or solution to a problem (e.g., water vapor or an animal “blending in”
with the environment), which provided extended opportunities to construct a more
detailed understanding of concepts and phenomena. In order to provide rich environmental
education experiences that are consistent with the various guidelines for excellence in
environmental education (NAAEE, 2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS
Lead States, 2013), it is important for teachers to understand the importance of engaging in
this extended process and to develop skills to engage children in extended inquiry
discussions.

Although scaffolding is, of necessity, spontaneous, intentionality and preparation are

necessary for effective scaffolding to occur. Early childhood teachers must prepare a
physical and social context that is conducive to learning (Inan & Katz, 2007). Teachers
should provide an enriched physical learning context where children can easily access
learning materials and engage with them. Providing a supportive social context promotes
social competence as well as opportunities to scaffold children’s learning. Teachers need to
observe children and listen closely to be aware of, and capitalize on, opportunities for
scaffolding. It is important to understand the strengths and needs of each child in order to
anticipate scaffolding opportunities and to match effective strategies to specific learning
situations. Teachers in this study often facilitated group discussion by addressing a child’s
question to the entire class. This is a particularly effective strategy, as it gives children an
opportunity to verbalize their understanding to each other and compare their hypotheses
or representations. Teachers facilitated children’s expression of ideas and their listening
skills, for example, by inviting one child to share a question with the whole group and asking
the group to listen to the individual child’s ideas. These discussions also conveyed the social
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 49

nature of science, and helped to socialize children into a “culture of inquiry” in which
questioning, investigation, and discovery are highly valued. A culture of inquiry develops

over time, and it is important to be patient as children gain the social, emotional, and
cognitive skills to participate in that process of inquiry.
This paper focused on teachers’ scaffolding of children’s learning about the natural
environment. Scaffolding, however, can also take place in peer-to-peer interactions and this
can support the learning of the more competent peer as they take the role of teacher or
mentor, as well as the less competent peer (Tudge & Rogoff, 1999; Wertsch, 1999). Inquiry
discussions also can promote children’s self-efficacy in the domains of environmental
education and science, as children come to realize that answers to their questions or
problems come from their own mental activity that is made visible to them through the
discussion. Inquiry discussions can also help children to examine questions from multiple
perspectives.

Teachers in this study effectively connected children’s current experiences with their past
knowledge or experiences (“do you ever have a puddle in your yard?”) in naming a
superordinate concept represented by a specific example (“that’s the water cycle you’re
talking about”; Van de Pol et al., 2010); drew children’s attention to relevant features of the
environment (“do you see a waterfall around here?”); provided corrective feedback (“I’ve
never seen a flamingo here”); gave hints (“it had two wings”); and asked inferential
questions (“why do you think the mommy ducks are all brown?”). These strategies
effectively helped preschool-aged children to develop their understanding of the natural
environment, which is Guideline 4.3 of the Early Childhood Environmental Education:
Guidelines for Excellence (NAAEE, 2010). Engaging in exploratory play also supported
children’s learning about nature (Lee et al., 2009), as they had opportunities to observe and
interact with natural phenomena such as the water in the pond, the decomposing leaves, a
nest, and snow, which are examples of Key Characteristic 3 of the ECEEGE (NAAEE, 2010).
Exploratory play has a central role in environmental education in early childhood, as
children can investigate and reflect upon phenomena of their own interest and in a playful
way (Gelman, Brenneman, MacDonald, & Roman, 2010; Wilson, 2012), allowing them to
elaborate on important concepts in ways that are meaningful to them.

Limitations and future directions

While measures were taken to ensure the credibility of data and analyses (e.g.,
triangulation of sources and analysis), there were limitations to the study. Researchers
gathered the observations and individually decided which interactions were significant to
record. While the “Observation of Child Development” form provided guidance, there
remained the potential for variability between researchers. Future research should address
this potential threat to validity by having at least two researchers simultaneously conduct
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 50

observations or by capturing video that can be coded by multiple researchers. Teacher

interviews could also be used to triangulate the observed teaching strategies.

Another limitation in the current study is that children observed came from affluent
families, and teachers at the preschool program exceeded the minimum level of education
required by the state in which the program was located and therefore may not generalize to
other preschool programs. These characteristics of the case under investigation in this study
limit the generalizability of findings (the extent to which we can conclude that scaffolding
occurs in other programs and the degree to which it is effective), but not necessarily the
transferability of findings (evidence that scaffolding can be a useful pedagogical tool for
early childhood EE) (Creswell, 2013). However, future research should investigate a broader
and more diverse sampling of early childhood education programs that include teachers
with a wider range of educational backgrounds and children of diverse demographic
backgrounds. In addition, the ratio of teachers to children also exceeded the minimum
required by the state (1:10 for children ages 3-4 years; 1:13 for children ages 4-5 years;
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families [WDCF], 2009). The maximum class size was
16 children and there were always two teachers. Scaffolding may be less frequent in larger
groups or when the ratio is smaller.

CONCLUSION

In the current study, teachers fostered a culture of inquiry in their classes, prompting
children to engage with their natural surroundings, ask questions, and make connections
with past knowledge and experiences. The culture of inquiry observed is consistent with the
physical and social context described by Inan and Katz (2007) as necessary to facilitate
learning. Context is especially pertinent to considering the use of scaffolding, a pedagogy
that requires teachers to calibrate the level of support they offer within each individual
learner’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Indeed, the importance of
teachers knowing their children, and the level of support necessitated by different
situations must be emphasized. Additionally, knowledge of a variety of scaffolding
strategies is also necessary to effectively scaffold children’s learning. Evidence from this
case study suggests that the teachers in this study understood the strengths and needs of
the children in their classes and were familiar with children’s previous experiences. They
were able to adjust the level and type of support necessitated by differing contexts and
learners to effectively scaffold the children’s learning.

Teachers in this study were adept at flexibly utilizing a range of scaffolding strategies to
promote young children’s environmental learning. Analyses indicate that scaffolding can be
an effective strategy for supporting young children’s learning about the natural
environment. Scaffolding strategies were regularly employed by teachers at the nature
center to aid children’s learning in a variety of contexts. Some strategies were observed
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 51

more than others (e.g., inferential questioning), an occurrence that may be a result of
preschoolers inquiring about their immediate experiences, as opposed to overarching
concepts that tend to engage older children. Examination of the effectiveness of scaffolding
early childhood environmental education in a variety of settings is an important question
for future research.
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 52

References

Ash, D. (2000). Setting the stage for inquiry. In Foundations, Volume 2: Inquiry: Thoughts,
Views, and Strategies for the K-5 Classroom (pp. 63-69). Washington, DC: National
Science Foundation.

Berk, L.E. & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood
education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.

Brown, S. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and
invigorates the soul. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.) (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs (3rd Edition). Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Strategic uses of peer learning in children’s education. In T.
J. Berndt, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer Relationships in Child Development (pp. 137-
165). New York, NY: Wiley Interscience Publication.

Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H.A., & Shouse, A.W. (Eds.) (2006). Taking Science to School:
Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning,
Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. Board on Science Education, Center for
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners: The SIOP model (2nd edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Edwards, C. Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). The Hundred Languages of Children: The
Reggio Emilia Approach – Advanced Reflections (Second Edition). Greenwich, CT:
Ablex Publishing.
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 53

Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development: Cultural-historical concepts in play. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150-158.

Gopnik, A. & Schulz, L. E. (2007). Causal learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Gordon, E. E. (2005). Peer tutoring: A teacher’s resource guide. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Education.

Green, E. C. (2001). Reliable quantitative findings ?. Field Methods, 13(1), 3–19.

Guavin, M., & Perez, S. M. (2007). The socialization of cognition. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D.
Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research (pp. 588-613). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.

Guralnick, M. J. (1993). Developmentally appropriate practice in the assessment and

intervention of children's peer relations. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
13(3), 344-371.

Hannikainen, M. (2001). Playful actions as a sign of togetherness in day care centres.

International Journal Of Early Years Education, 9(2), 125- 134. doi:
10.1080/09669760120053493

Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional
approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Hovland, M. R., Gapp, S. C., & Theis, B. L. (2011). Look: Examining the concept of learning to
look at print. Reading Improvement, 48(3), 128-138.

Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (2002). A matter of trust: Connecting teachers and learners in the
early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Inan, H.Z. & Katz, L. (2007). Environmental assessments in early childhood education. In R.S.
New, M. Cochran, & J.K. Krablin (Eds.), Early Childhood Education: An International
Encyclopedia (Vol.2, pp.340-344). Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT:
Praeger.
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 54

Jacobs, G. M. (2011). Providing the scaffold: A model for early childhood/primary teacher
preparation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 125-130.

Kellert, S. R. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature
connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kirch, S.A. (2007). Re/Production of science process skills and a scientific ethos in an early
childhood classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 785-845.

Kostelnik, M., Gregory, K., Soderman, A., & Whiren, A. (2012). Guiding children’s social
development and learning (7th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Kostelnik, M., Soderman, A., & Whiren, A. (2011). Developmentally appropriate curriculum:
Best practices in early childhood education (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.

Ladd, G. W. (2005). Children's peer relations and social competence: A century of progress.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lee, Y., Kinzie, M. B., & Whittaker, J. V. (2012). Impact of online support for teachers’ open-
ended questioning in pre-k science activities. Teaching & Teacher Education, 28(4),
568-577. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.002

Lee, J., Md‐Yunus, S., Son, W., & Meadows, M. (2009). An exploratory case study of young
children’s interactive play behaviours with a non‐English speaking child. Early Child
Development and Care, 179(8), 1055–1066. doi:10.1080/0300443070176414

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lofdahl, A. (2005). ‘The funeral’: a study of children’s shared meaning-making and its
developmental significance. Early Years, 25 (1), 5-16.
doi:10.1080/09575140500042775

Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475–
482. doi:10.1177/1077800410364740

Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, Set, Science! Putting
Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Board on Science Education, Center for
Education, Division of behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 55

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

NAAEE (1999). Excellence in EE: Guidelines for learning (k-12). Washington, DC: North
American Association for Environmental Education. Retrieved from:
www.naaee.org/npeee/learner_guidelines.php

NAAEE (2010). Early Childhood Environmental Education Programs: Guidelines for

Excellence. Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental
Education.

National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (1996). National

Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Norris, J. A., & Hoffman, P. R. (1990). Language intervention within naturalistic

environments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21(2), 72–84.

O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2005). Ladders to literacy. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Pellegrini, A. D. (2009). The Role of Play in Human Development. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Pentimonti, J.M., & Justice, L.M. (2010). Teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies in the
preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 241-248.

Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing Relationships between Children and Teachers. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™
(CLASS™) manual: PreK. Brookes Publishing.

Ray, A., Bowman, B., & Brownell, J.O. (2006). Teacher-child relationships, social-emotional
development, and school achievement. In B. Bowman & E.K. Moore (Eds.), School
Readiness and Social-Emotional Development (pp. 7-22). Washington, DC: National
Black Child Development Institute, Inc.
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 56

Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa-Chavez, M., & Solis, J. (2007). Children's
development of cultural repertoires through participation in everyday routines and
practices. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory
and Research (pp. 490-515). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Rosemberg, C. R., & Silva, M. L. (2009). Teacher-child interaction and concept development
in kindergarten . Discourse Process, 46, 572-591. doi:10.1080/01638530902959588.

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 3(3), 208–222. doi:10.1177/1558689809334210

Schulz, L. E., & Bonawitz, E. (2007). Serious fun: preschoolers engage in more exploratory
play when evidence is confounded. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1045-1050.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1045

Stanulis, R. N., & Manning, B. H. (2002). The teacher’s role in creating a positive verbal and
nonverbal environment in the early childhood classroom, Early Childhood Education
Journal, 30(1), 3-8.

Tarim, K. (2009). The effects of cooperative learning on preschoolers’ mathematics

problem-solving ability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 325-340.
doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9197-x

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tudge, J. & Rogoff, B. (1999). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and
Vygotskian perspectives. In P. Lloyd, & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical
Assessments (pp. 32-57). New York City, NY: Routledge.

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student
interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.
doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walsh, B. A., & Blewitt, P. (2006). The effect of questioning style during storybook reading
on novel vocabulary acquisition of preschoolers. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 33(4), 273-278. doi:10.1007/s10643-005-0052-0
 International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2(1), p. 57

Watson, J. (2001). Social constructivism in the classroom. Support for Learning, 16(3), 140-
147.

Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Peers and academic functioning at school. In K. H. Rubin, W. M.

Bukowski, & B. Laursen, Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups
(pp. 531-547). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Wertsch, J. W. (1999). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In P.

Lloyd, & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical Assessments (pp. 67-81). New
York, NY: Routledge.

Wilson, R. (2012). Nature and Young Children: Encouraging Creative Play and Learning in
Natural Environments (Second Edition). New York, NY: Routledge.

Winsler, A. (2003). Introduction to special issue: Vygotskian perspectives in early childhood

education. Early Education & Development, 14(3), 254-270.

Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (2009). Licensing Rules of Group Child Care
Centers. Retrieved From:
http://www.dcf.wisconsin.gov/childcare/licensed/CommManuals/GCC/dcf_p_pfs40
24.pdf

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., & Kadaravek, J. N. (2010). Preschool teachers’ literal
and inferential questions and children's responses during whole-class shared
reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(1), pp. 65-83.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.00

Alex Zurek is a graduate of Marquette University and can be reached at alex.zurek@lpartnersinc.com.

Dr. Julia Torquati is Associate Professor in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies at the
University of Nebraska in Lincoln. She can be reached at jtorquati1@unl.edu.

Ibrahim Acar is a doctoral student in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies at the
University of Nebraska in Lincoln. He can be reached at ihacar@gmail.com.