Teacher self-correction of conceptual error: Fictionalisation and shifting epistemological stance in early childhood education teaching

Abstract

Teachers making errors in explanation that require subsequent self-correction is presumably common in education. However, it may be difficult to capture in research. In this study, teacher self-correction in the context of early childhood science education within a fictive frame was captured on video when documenting science activities over a prolonged time. How the teachers address the error they discover in their teaching and work in correcting it in subsequent activities are analyzed. The error identified and addressed concerns the distinction between a tornado and a dust devil (dust vortex). The empirical data consist of video recordings of teachers-children interaction in Swedish preschool. The participating children are 4 to 5 years old. The findings clarify how the teachers in addressing and correcting the conceptual error uses different semiotic means, with a particular emphasis on the coordination of gesturing and verbal explication when contrasting and explaining the different phenomena. The analysis also clarifies how the fictive character employed leads to a shift in epistemic status of the teachers to becoming co-learners with the children. How addressing and amending errors in explanation may function in deepening meaning making rather than working detrimental to it is discussed.

Full text

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
Available online 31 May 2023
2210-6561/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Full length article
Teacher self-correction of conceptual error: Fictionalisation and
shifting epistemological stance in early childhood
education teaching
Johanna Frejd
a
,
*
, Niklas Pramling
b
a
Link¨
oping University, 601 74 Norrk¨
oping, Sweden
b
University of Gothenburg, 405 30 G¨
oteborg, Sweden
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Early childhood education
Multimodality
Science education
Fictionalization
Epistemological status
ABSTRACT
Teachers making errors in explanation that require subsequent self-correction is presumably
common in education. However, it may be difcult to capture in research. In this study, teacher
self-correction in the context of early childhood science education within a ctive frame was
captured on video when documenting science activities over a prolonged time. How the teachers
address the error they discover in their teaching and work in correcting it in subsequent activities
are analyzed. The error identied and addressed concerns the distinction between a tornado and a
dust devil (dust vortex). The empirical data consist of video recordings of teachers-children
interaction in Swedish preschool. The participating children are 4 to 5 years old. The ndings
clarify how the teachers in addressing and correcting the conceptual error uses different semiotic
means, with a particular emphasis on the coordination of gesturing and verbal explication when
contrasting and explaining the different phenomena. The analysis also claries how the ctive
character employed leads to a shift in epistemic status of the teachers to becoming co-learners
with the children. How addressing and amending errors in explanation may function in deep-
ening meaning making rather than working detrimental to it is discussed.
1. Introduction
Errors and making mistakes are part of learning and education. Children will make numerous mistakes throughout their school
carrier. Within the eld of educational research, studies about how teachers can correct students’ mistakes are quite common,
especially in relation to (second) language learning (Garcia et al., 2018; Green & Hecht, 1993). Much less is known about remediation
of mistakes and educational errors made by teachers
1
. One reason lack of studies regarding teachers’ self-correction could be that they
are pre-determined to have the role as epistemic authorities. In other words, asymmetrical epistemic statuses are socially sanctioned in
* Corresponding author at: Link¨
opings universitet, IBL/LEN, T¨
appan, 601 74 Norrk¨
oping, Sweden.
E-mail address: johanna.frejd@liu.se (J. Frejd).
1
There is, of course, also a common observation and analysis of self-reparation previously also in classroom research (Clay, 1969), particularly in
ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) studies (going back to Schegloff et al., 1977). However, these studies look at self-repair in the
here-and-now (see e.g., Gan & Danby, 2021), while what we study is how teachers realize after-the-fact that they have made a conceptual error in a
previous teaching episode and address and attempt to mitigate this in subsequent teaching episodes. These are therefore fundamentally different
phenomena and what we study are more extensive and elaborate action and interaction than frequently occurring in speaker self-correction in
ongoing talk.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100719
Received 17 January 2022; Received in revised form 21 February 2023; Accepted 18 May 2023

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
2
institutions such as schools and preschools (Heritage, 2012; Stivers et al., 2011).
In everyday conversations, the epistemic status is not pre-determined. Instead, being the less or more knowing shifts. Moreover,
people sometimes present themselves as being more or less knowledgeable than they really are (Heritage, 2013). In this paper, we
represent and analyse an example of where teachers within an institutional education frame, a Swedish preschool, intentionally put on
an act and resign their epistemic authority as a teaching strategy as they remedy a conceptual error that they have discovered that they
have made. The paper is (as are many papers) a result of chance and being at the right place at the right time. The empirical data that
founds the basis of this paper is part of a larger research project that explores how a preschool project evolves through the actions and
interest of the participating children and teachers as they engage in activities where a ctive character, Findus the cat, also plays a
signicant role. As the participating preschool was visited once a week for several months, the teachers made a conceptual error in
introducing a dust devil as a tornado. Fortunately, a researcher was there to capture both the making and the remediation of the
conceptual mistake.
1.1. Imagination and ctional characters as resources in teaching
The Swedish preschool is characterised by spontaneous teaching and formal education that often is organized in projects and
theme-work. The preschool has its own curriculum, where science is an integral part. Imagination and playfulness are common forms
of framing for teaching in preschool, where learning contents often emerge spontaneously or are planned by teachers in play (Pramling
et al., 2019). Several scholars argue that ction and narrative framing of science content facilitate students learning (Browning &
Hohenstein, 2015; Emmons et al., 2016) and enhance motivation for engaging in learning science (Gilbert et al., 2005; Rowcliffe,
2004).
1.1.1. Findus the Cat – a ctional character and a mediating tool
During summer 2020, “Treasures of Nature” (the “treasures” being the four elements: earth, air, water and re) was introduced as
the participating groups’ project. It was a long-term project (august 2020-june 2021) with a science focus, that immersed in shorter
theme-work such as exploring air as a phenomenon through crafting paper windmills or exploring growing power through pot up
seeds. At the same time, a cuddle toy cat called Findus moved in. Findus is a well-known ctional character who originates from a
series of children’s books about Pettson and Findus, written and illustrated by Sven Nordqvist. In the books, Pettson is portrayed as an
elderly man living in a farmhouse in rural Sweden and Findus is his quirky talkative kitten. Findus has great imagination and sees
things that Pettson does not, for example, Findus sees imaginary animals that inhibits the corners of their house and steals Pettson’s
tools. Findus can be seen as reecting a child’s perspective in the stories. Fig. 1 displays Findus’ corner at the preschool.
Throughout the “Treasures of Nature” project, Findus sent letters with instructions on what to explore next and gives the children
tasks such as carrying out experiments. In return, the children spontaneously made drawings for Findus, which they placed in his
mailbox. Findus thus can be seen as a mediating tool through which the teachers framed their teaching in the project. The strategy of
using ctional characters known to children, as mediating tools to extend communication between children and teachers in various
subjects, including science, is common in preschool (e.g. Malm, 2020). Within the science classroom, teachers’ use of puppets has been
shown to expand the narrative frame, which in turn recontextualises science and promotes engagement and talk about science (Simon
et al., 2008). Along the same lines, Pramling et al. (2019) have shown that preschool teachers engaging in play-responsive teaching,
where teachers and children shift between and relate the natural world (as is) and the imaginary world (as if), extend the content for
learning and engage children to learn about conceptual relationships. As the results will show, Findus became important in the
remediation of the conceptual error.
1.2. Communication as a multimodal practice
A premise of contemporary communications theory and research in many adjacent strands, such as sociocultural theory (Ivarsson
et al., 2009), social semiotics (Jewitt, 2011; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001) and conversation analysis (Mondada, 2007) is that for some
analytical purposes it is incentive to attend to more than speech only. People use many semiotic resources or modes when commu-
nicating and making meaning. Furthermore, these resources or modes are not distinct but rather constitutes communication and the
means of meaning making. In sociocultural parlance, these resources or modes mediate communication and meaning making.
Consequently, a unit of analysis capturing mediated activity (S¨
alj¨
o, 2009; Wertsch, 1994) is needed, that is, what participants in an
activity do with the resources (or modes) they make use of in communicating and making meaning. We will employ such a unit of
analysis in the present study; however, given the nature of the case analyzed, the teachers will be in focus. Still, their actions are
analyzed as responsive and anticipating the contributions of the other participants, in this case the children.
In regard to children, verbal speech might not be the prominent mode of communication, with previous research showing, for
instance, how children sometimes make use of their bodies as the prime resource in meaning making as they explore science phe-
nomena (Samuelsson, 2018). Furthermore, teachers also make use of several modes as they engage in teaching. An empirical example
of this can be found in Stolpe et al. (2015) where a teacher during circle time “translated” (transduced) a child’s bodily actions
(crawling across the oor with his eyes closed) to verbal speech (“Erik became an earthworm […] of course you’re not looking, you
don’t have any eyes”) whereby the communicative action was rendered in transmodal form and also differentiated through explicating
the issue of eyes in making collaborative meaning of, in this case, an earth worm. Acknowledging communication, and thereby also
teaching, as multimodal practices is decisive for the analysis in the present study.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
3
Fig. 1. Findus’ Corner. The left picture shows the cuddle toy cat in a bed made by one of the children in the group. The right picture shows a shelf with several Pettson and Findus books and the purple
mailbox that is used for exchanging letters between Findus and the group.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
4
1.3. Purpose and research questions
In this study, we are interested in how the teachers do to remedy a conceptual error they identify having made. Therefore, in this
study we address the following research questions:
1) How is the error identied by the teachers in their previous communicating addressed and mitigated?
2) What is done through the mediating artefact of the ctional character in the theme-work activities in addressing the identied
error?
2. Method
2.1. Participants and context
The participating group is located in a municipal preschool located in the city centre in a medium-sized town in Sweden. The group
consists of 19 four to ve-year-old children, two preschool teachers and one nursery nurse. The children have diverse socio economic
and ethnic backgrounds. The education is organized in long term and open-ended learning projects (also referred to as themes) that
combines collaborative indoor and outdoor explorations, experiments, and aesthetic activities such as painting and modelling.
Concurrently, the teachers carry out their teaching in formal ways, such as circle time activities.
Swedish preschools share a curriculum that emphasises the importance of learning through playful activities. Teaching at preschool
“means stimulating and challenging the children, taking the goals of the curriculum as a starting point and direction, and is aimed at
encouraging development and learning among the children. Teaching should be based on content that is planned or appears spon-
taneously, as children’s development and learning take place at all times.” (National Agency for Education, 2019, p. 7). As for science
education, the preschool should provide each child with the conditions to develop an understanding of natural sciences. The teachers
should also challenge children’s curiosity and understanding of science.
2.2. Generating data
The prime investigator visited the preschool once a week during autumn 2020. The data analysed in this paper was collected during
a two-week period and consist of video, photographs and eld notes of three activities. The rst activity took place during circle time
and comprised the whole group. In this activity, tornados were introduced as a phenomenon through a letter from Findus, which told
the group to watch a video from YouTube. The activity was followed by a short discussion, leading up to the second activity: a small-
group painting activity where six children and one of the preschool teachers painted and talked about tornados. The second activity
thus took place in immediate succession of the rst. The third activity took place a week later, and again comprised the whole group
during circle-time. During this activity, the group received another letter from Fidus that retracted the explanation of tornados pro-
vided during the rst and second activity.
Video data were generated with two cameras. During activities one and three, one camera was placed on a tripod, angled towards
the group or the wall as photographs and videos were projected. The other camera was handheld, focusing on the person talking or
materials used in the activity. During the second activity, a static view with two cameras placed on tripods was used. The cameras were
placed in a way that captured opposite angles of the table where the activity took place (cf. “mid-shot”, Luff & Heath, 2012).
2.2.1. Ethical considerations
Before data collection began, the prime investigator met with the preschool principal and the teachers to discuss the research
project’s aims and scopes. Caregivers were informed of the aims and methods for data collection by the children’s teacher and by a
letter. Caregivers and teachers’ consent was given in writing. One child did not have permission to participate in the study. This child
was not lmed. Interaction including this child (off video footage) during whole group activities have been excluded from the data
corpus.
To ensure the children’s own informed consent, the researcher early on introduced “the researcher vest” – a yellow reective vest
(cf. Larsson, 2016). The children were told that once the vest was on, the camera was rolling and if the vest was off, the camera was off.
The use of the researcher vest gave the children the opportunity to express that they did not want to be recorded.
2.3. Representing data
All video data (approximately two hrs.) have been transcribed and represented on a turn-by-turn basis. As we acknowledge a
multimodal perspective on communication and meaning making, we consider the work of all modes in the analysis (cf. Taylor, 2014).
Applying a multimodal approach to the analysis, makes other aspects of meaning making, rather than merely the verbal, visible. In this
paper, we represent verbal communication in two ways, in text and in pictures. The pictures are stills from the video data, which show
gestures, posture, and gaze. Using images could be seen as ethically problematic, since it becomes more difcult to guarantee
condentiality. Therefore, all images showing faces have been edited to avoid identication.
Non-verbal actions, such as gestures, changes in tone of voice and proxemics are described (within parenthesis). Clarications are
provided within [square brackets]. Turns where much of the analytical focus lies within gestures, are portrayed in series of stills from
the video data. A letter which is said to be written by Findus the cat, and read aloud by the reader in Swedish, is provided in italics.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
5
Conversely, all other verbal interaction is written with normal font, except when particular Swedish words are used. All participants
have been given ctional names. The teachers’ names are written in capitals, while the children’s names are written in lower case.
The empirical excerpts are analysed sequentially (Wells, 1999), that is, in terms of responsive actions (interaction) in order to
clarify how communication and sense making proceed. Through making analytical claims closely adjacent and with reference to
transcripts and pictures, the reader can scrutinize these. This constitutes a key practice for quality assurance (validity and trustwor-
thiness) of analytical claims (Schoultz et al., 2001; Wallerstedt et al., 2015).
The empirical data represented and analysed in the present study are representative of the larger corpus of data in the sense that the
pattern of working – that is, real issues are communicatively mediated in a manner where participants shift between fantasy/imag-
ination (as if) and established knowing (as is) – is not exclusive to these instances. What is special about the data analysed in the present
study is the incident where the preschool teachers realise that they have used the wrong term to describe the metrological phenomena.
That is, there is a mismatch between the term used and the visual representation provided to the children. Consequently, the phe-
nomenon is misrepresented in the initial teaching activities. How they remedy this fault is of particular interest to analyse; hence, the
third activity of the present study is in this regard an unusual case (cf. Erickson, 2006) vis-`
a-vis the larger data set.
3. Empirical study
In this section we present the analysis of how the teachers identied and mitigated an error in their teaching and how they use
Findus the cat as a mediating artefact in addressing the identied error. The section is organized in the following way: f rst we
describe two activities where the teachers made the mistake while introducing what they at the time thought to be a tornado. Next, we
present the activity in which the teachers act to mitigate the error by using Findus the cat as an mediating artifact in contrasting two
different scientic phenomena; a dust swirl and a tornado.
3.1. Activity 1 and 2 – making the mistake while introducing “the tornado”
As part of exploring air, the preschool section focused on the phenomenon of tornado. The phenomenon was introduced at circle
time, where all children at the section and the three educators (here referred to as EVA, IDA, and MOA, respectively) participated. This
circle time began with IDA reading a letter received from Findus the Cat, who wondered whether the children “learnt anything about
air”. In response, the children said that there is air in the house, outside, up at the roof and in chimneys. IDA said, ”So he [i.e., Findus
the Cat] thinks this is really exciting, this with air and tornados”. She continued reading: ”and today I wonder if you at the section of
Bumblebee together with me would like to examine tornados a bit more”. The letter contained a QR-code, which lead to a lm on YouTube.
This lm was projected on the wall (Figs. 2 and 3). It did not show a tornado but a dust devil (a dust devil is also called dust vortex),
which, however, was not at this time recognized. As the lm played, the children talked with each other and the teachers about what
they saw. For example, they said that ”the tornado looks like its burning”.
One of the children, Mike, also asked why “the things” did not y away.
Fig. 2. Video-clip displayed on the wall during activity 1
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
6
Next, the children split up in smaller groups together with an educator in adjoining rooms. The main activity concerned painting
tornados of different colors and shapes with inspiration from photographs. During the activity, they talked about the tornados’ swirly
movements and IDA illustrated this by showing the children a liquid hourglass and compared the water swirl to a tornado. The children
and the teacher talked about what constituted “the hole” in the swirl, and several children suggested that it was air. As one of the
children shared that she once had seen a tornado as she visited a relative in another country, Joe remembered that one of the other
teachers, MOA, once told them about her being at a site of a tornado that destroyed all houses. IDA smiled a little says that MOA read
about this in the paper after coming home from a vacation. They continued to talk about how tornados “destroy” because the wind is so
powerful. Again, Mike questioned why the tornado on the lm did not make things y away. He stated that “it usually does”, which we
interpret as if Mike’s view of how a tornado should usually “behaves” (i.e. destroy things and making things y away) conicts with
what was shown on the YouTube-clip.
3.2. Using a letter from Findus the cat to make the mistake visible to the children
A week later, the prime investigator makes another visit. The teachers say that the children have initiated activities related to
tornados. For example, some children put all bicycles in a pile out in the preschool yard. The teacher thought that they were playing
scrap yard, but the children explained that ‘a tornado had been there’. As the researcher asked what was planned for the day’s circle
time, IDA and EVA tell that they have discovered that they have used the wrong term when they watched the YouTube-clip the other
week. Thus, they have discovered that what was shown, was in fact a dust devil, not a tornado. To make the difference between the two
metrological phenomena clear to the children, they have decided to read a letter from Findus the cat.
As circle time begins, Anna is told to check the mailbox (Fig. 1, right picture), where she nds a letter “from Findus”. In the
following excerpts, the text in the letter is written in italics:
Excerpt 3a.
Fig. 3. The group’s placement as they watch the video-clip during activity 1. Both the children and two of the teachers are facing the wall where the
clip is projected. One child talks to one of the teachers.
8 EVA: [reads] Hi everyone at the section Bumblebee. I have heard that you (frowns) mixed together
a
tornados and dust devils (lowers the letter, opening her eyes wide
and turning the corner of her mouth down)
9 IDA: What? (frowns)
10 EVA: Mixed together? (raises the letter) Can you start the clip with dust devils so I can explain how it is. (Lowers the letter) Okay. Okay (nods) let’s do that. Mixed
together? (frowns)
a
While ‘conate’ or ‘mix up’ would probably be a more adequate term in an English context, the phrase “mix together” better mimics the original
Swedish wording of “blanda ihop”. We use ‘mix together’ since it keeps some of the original character bit still is intelligible in an English context.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
7
EVA reads the letter addressed to ”everyone at the section Bumblebee”, where it is claimed that they have ”mixed together tornados
and dust devils (turn. 8). IDA responds with surprise: ”What?” (turn 9). EVA also acts surprised (”mixed together?”) and continues
reading the letter, asking them to watch a lm clip, so that “I can explain how it is” (turn 10). There are several decisive actions in the
brief section represented by Excerpt 3a. First, everyone at the preschool section is addressed (“everyone”, generic “you”), that is, not
only the children but also the teachers. Hereby, the teachers are positioned with the children as learners and receivers of the comments
rather than as teachers as such. Second, the teachers acting surprised is another sign of them positioning themselves alongside the
children. The acted surprise, shown in EVA’s eyes being wide opened (line 8) and IDA’s furrowed eyebrows as she says “what?!” (line
9), are bodily signs of them taking on roles as confused tutees in relation to the tutor (Findus the Cat).
Excerpt 3b.
13 EVA: Is this really true? What does mixing together mean? (looks in the letter and scratches her nose)
14 Luke: Mix something so that it becomes mixed
15 EVA: Yes, so now (puts her hands together and then takes them apart)
16 Luke: As good and mixed [Swe. Gott och blandat]
17 EVA: Yes, it has become a bit good and mixed
18 Bea: If you’re gonna sort something it may be a bit mixed
19 EVA: Exactly! And then we can sort… (moves her hands apart) That’s probably what (looks in the letter) Findus means
20 Anna: You know, I know what mixing is. That I, when I have baked with mum, we mix the batter
21 EVA: That’s right and then you have different ingredients that you (wiggling her head) mix together. Perhaps that’s what we’ve done. It’s (looks in the letter
and gets up) something with dust devils and tornados
Continuing to act in character with her implied role as one of the addressees of the imaginary character’s claim, EVA asks whether
this is really true, before asking (the group) what it means to ”mix together” (turn 13). The rst part of the utterance (“Is this really
true?”) is interpreted as if she means that the idea that they have “mixed together” tornados and dust devils is mind-blowing. After
Luke has suggested, “Mix something so that it becomes mixed” (turn 14), EVA acknowledges and shows with a gesture how something
comes together and then apart (turn 15). Luke then suggests “as Good and mixed”, which is the name of a sweet familiar to Swedish
children, Gott & blandat [literally “Good and mixed”] (turn 17). This suggestion is also acknowledged (turn 18) by the teacher before
another child, Bea, suggests, “If one is to sorts something it may be a bit mixed” (turn 18), implicitly referring to mixed as unsorted. The
teachers responds “Exactly!” and that “we can sort… [out]”, while separating her hands, “that’s probably what Findus means” (turn
19). Her response, again using “we” through which she places herself amongst the children as addressees and using the markers of
“probably” and “means” – in combination with looking again at the letter – serves to indicate that she, herself, is not sure about what is
correct and not but rather engages as a learner in the nding out together with the children. Another child intersects, saying that she
“knows what mixing is”: “that I, when I have baked with mum, we mix the batter” (turn 20). Educationally, a challenge with a word
such as “mixed (together)” is that is opens for a great variety of use and contexts, potentially leading away from the topic of inves-
tigation (cf. Wallerstedt, 2014, for an analogous case). The teacher also conrms the latest suggestion and says that “perhaps that’s
what we have done” (turn 21). Ending by looking at the letter and saying “it is something about dust devils and tornados”, she in-
troduces a terminological distinction that will later be elaborated and conceptualized.
Excerpt 3c.
23 EVA: (Gets up and walks up to the projector) I found that clip about dust devils right. Shall we take a look at it then so we can see. (Shaking her head and
frowning her eyebrows) What “mix together”? This got messy
24 The children move around so that they can see the wall where the lm will be projected.
25 MOA: [behind the camera, to Luke] What do you think will be [projected], will it be a tornado?
26 Luke: [behind the camera] Or a dust devil
27 MOA: Or a dust devil. We’ll see what the difference is
Subtly reminding the children of the actualized problem (”what ‘mixed together’? This became messy”), EVA makes use of one of
the terms of the distinction in Findus’ letter, “dust devil” (turn 23) as introduction to the lm clip they are about to see. MOA asks
whether Luke, one of the children, think it will be a “tornado”, whereby the other term of the terminological distinction is mentioned
(turn 25). Luke responds with the other term, “dust devil” (turn 26), making clear that he has noticed this difference on a word level.
The teacher repeats this word, and she continues to position herself with the children: “We’ll see what the difference is” (turn 27), that
is, what the difference is between a tornado and a dust devil. As the lm starts, Luke utters:
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
8
Excerpt 3d.
30 Luke: I’ve already seen this
35 Joe: It’s the same [lm] as last week
36 IDA: Yes (looks confused)
37 MOA: [To Fred] how can it go up?
38 EVA: Like, we’ve already seen this
39 Fred: [to MOA] It’s a tornado [Swe. en tromb]
In response to the lm, Luke (turn 30) and Joe (line 35) notice that they have already seen the clip – it is the same clip as shown in
the rst activity. IDA (line 36) acts confused and EVA implicitly question the fact that they have already have seen the clip (line 38). In
this way, IDA and EVA position themselves alongside the children by acting clueless about what is going on.
In line, 39, Fred claims that the clip shows a ”tromb”, which is the Swedish word for tornado. The term “tromb” has not been used
prior to this in the activities. In the following, the group continues to discuss what the phenomenon showed in the video is called.
Excerpt 3d.
42 EVA: This is a dust devil. Findus wrote “look at the clip with the dust devil” and then I wrote that, “dust devil”
43 Luke: [to Fred] But that’s no lake, that’s no lake. That's a dust devil, Fred
44 Fred: Yees
45 Luke: It’s a dust devil
46 Fred: No, not [inaudible]
47 Luke: I see no water
48 MOA: What did you think it was then, Fred?
49 Fred: That it’s water and then it’s a tornado [Swe. tromb]
50 MOA: It’s water if it’s a tornado [Swe. tromb]?
Following up on Fred’s claim, “it’s a tornado [Swe tromb]” (turn 39), EVA states “this is a dust devil”. She justies this claim with
reference to what was stated in the letter: “Findus wrote, ‘look at the clip with the dust devil’ and then I wrote ‘dust devil’” (turn 42). In
this way, she establishes a connection between the term used by the knowledgeable ctive character who has written the letter and the
term she has used to search for the clip. However, Luke is not convinced, objecting “but that’s not a lake” (turn 43) and that he sees “no
water” (turn 47). Fred claries that he believes that if there is water, “then it’s a tornado” (turn 49). A reason for this connection
between water and tornado may be the earlier model of pet bottles with water presented during the small group activity (see above).
Another possible reason is that this may be contingent on the nature of the word used. In Swedish, dust devil is called “stoftvirvel” –
literally translated, dust swirl.
3.3. Contrasting dust swirls and tornados
As the clip comes to an end, EVA returns to the circle with the letter in her hand. The second turn in the following excerpt comprises
numbers, which are related to the numbers in Fig. 4.
Excerpt 3e.
63 IDA: Now we must listen. Findus knows, right
64 EVA: (looks in the letter 1) Findus has written like this [reads] when the ground (holds out her hand 2) gets really warm then warm air rise upwards (moves her
hand with her palm upwards, upwards 3 +4) ‘cause hot air becomes quite light, and then it sometimes (starts moving her hand in a circular motion upwards 5)
becomes a little like this whirly (6 circles) and then when the warm air it becomes like a stream like this goes upwards (moves her hand quicker, circling upwards,
7) then it can become a dust devil
65 Finn: EVA, can’t we look at a… a… a tornado but if it can whirl so fast, EVA
66 EVA: Yes, ‘cause that dust devil that we (points at the wall where the lm was projected) looked at now, it also spins quickly. And then the dust devil goes from
the ground (moves her hand in a spiralling gesture from the carpet upwards) like this
67 Finn: I mean, I mean (holds his hand at head level and points downwards), it comes…
68 EVA: And whirls upwards
69 Finn: But can we check (holds his hand at head level and points downwards), that is, can we take the water at home, it comes tornado in when the air goes out.
(Swe: Kan vi ta alltså vattnet d¨
arhemma det kommer tornado i n¨
ar luften går ut)
70 EVA: (points at Finn) ‘Cause do you know what I’ve learned, Finn? Last time when we looked at this clip (points at the wall) of tornados, it was (points at the
children) some buddies who said “but how does it become a tornado then? How does it get like that?” and then I’ve read at a place called SMHI… […] where
they know reeeeeally much about weather
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
9
Having looked at the clip, the teacher again picks up the letter, framing IDA’s ensuing talk, ”Now we must listen. Findus knows,
right” (turn 63). Hence, she and the other teachers are positioned with the children as addressees (”we”) of the letter and Findus is
given the position of epistemic authority. Moreover, by framing the activity as the letter being written by a ctive character, real
matters (as is) are thematized as if they were (as if). In this way, imagination becomes a resource for learning about the world (outside
the imagined world of play). Reading the explanation provided in the letter, EVA accompanies the verbal explanation with an
embodied gesture, showing the movement of the phenomenon referred to (Fig. 4). She ends her reading with the words, “then it
becomes a dust devil”, which works as a summative reminder.
Finn asks if they can look at a clip of a tornado “if it can whirl so fast” (turn 65). EVA mentions that speed is not a criterion of
distinction between tornado and dust devil, since “that dust devil that we (points at the wall where the lm is projected) looked at now,
it also spins quickly, to which she adds a distinguishing criterion, “And then the dust devil goes from the ground” (turn 66). This
description is accompanied by an embodied gesture and the words “like this”. In this way, she goes from telling to showing and
coordinating these means of communicating. Finn is not content with EVA’s response, as evident in him metacommunicating, “I mean,
I mean” and showing with his hand a movement downwards (turn 67), that is, the opposite direction to the teacher’s. The teacher
verbalizes the movement in terms of “and swirls upwards” (turn 68). She and the child have not at this point established temporarily
sufcient intersubjectivity (Linell, 2014), as evident in the contrast between the actions of turns 67 and 68, but also evident in Finn’s
next utterance, “but can we check”, while he holds up his hand and points downwards (turn 69). It is not entirely clear what is meant by
the rest of his utterance; instead, the teacher introduces another source of information to settle the query encountered: SMHI or the
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, an expert authority under the Ministry of the Environment with a mission to
forecast changes in weather, water, and climate. In the following, EVA’s talk is accompanied by intense gesturing, see Fig. 5.
Fig. 4. EVA's gesturing in turn 64. The number in each picture is a reference to the numbers in turn 64.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
10
Excerpt 3f.
80 EVA: There I’ve read… ‘cause they had a lot of good things to read about weather…
81 EVA: Then it said this… When a (holds her hands over her head 1) tornado is formed then it’s a big big cloud called cumulonimbus. At the top (holds her right
hand above her head with the palm downwards and the left hand at chest level with the palm upwards 2) and then it’s (speaks intensely) COLD really fast
(moves right hand in a circle) winds like this (circling her hand rapidly 3) cchhhh and furthest (moves left hand up and down 4) down in the cloud, there it’s
(speaks softly) a bit warmer winds (ngers the air 5) and then they go like this in the cloud (holds her hands in the same position as before and rotates them in
the opposite direction) and hit each other (moves her hands closer together) in the middle about and then it can get wobbly and swirly (moves her hands more
rapidly and intensely 6) and get movement like this and then it can get like an air tube (7 +8 holds her hands above her head and moves her right hand in a
spiral downwards towards the carpet) ccchhh and that’s what’s called a tornado. Or tromb it’s called in Swedish. Tornado you can say in English.
82 Child: [inaudiable]
83 EVA: (Makes the same movement: holding her hands above her head and moving the right hand downwards in a spiral towards the carpet) That is how it
becomes a tornado [Swe: a tromb]
84 Child: I actually want to see how a tornado happens
85 Child: [inaudible]
86 EVA: Yes, precisely, they meet there in the cloud, so it becomes an air tube like that (holds her hands together and rotates them in opposite direction), as we
say tornados
With reference to this other source of authority, SMHI, where EVA has “read” – thus continuously positioning herself as addressee of
information rather than the provider of it (the knower, the source of knowledge, as it were) – a detailed explanation of the emergence
of a tornado is rendered (turn 81 and Fig. 5).
This explanation consists of a series of well-coordinated communicative actions, employing various semiotic means: embodied
position (holding right hand over her head with the palm facing downwards and left hand at chest level with the palm facing upwards),
movement (circling her hands), emphasis (how “then it’s” is said), volume (“COLD”), tone (how “there it is” is said), intensity (moving
her hands more rapidly and intensely), onomatopoeia (“cchhhh”), verbal explanation (“then it’s a big big cloud called a cumulonimbus
…”), simile (“then it can become as an air tube”), and labelling (“and that’s what’s called tornado. Or tromb it’s called in Swedish”).
One of the children shares that she has seen a tornado on vacation abroad. EVA shows that she listens to her story, but then retracts
the attention towards the intended focus: the difference between tornados and dust devils (see also Fig. 6):
Fig. 5. EVA's gesturing in turn 81. The number in each picture is a reference to the numbers in turn 81.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
11
Excerpt 3g.
94 EVA: So thus, a dust devil starts (points downwards) on the ground (holds her hands on the carpet 1). And a tornado or a [Swe] tromb (holds her hands above
her head 2) starts in a big clous up in the sky. So, then they start (holds her right hand upwards and left hand on the carpet) in different [places]… so, then we
have (wiggles her head and smiles) mixed it together. Now we’ve (puts her hands together and then moves them up and down 3) sorted out (holds right hand
upwards and left hand towards the carpet). Tornados and tromber [Swe] (marks with her right hand 4) start in the clouds.
95 IDA: Mhm
96 EVA: And (marking with her left hand towards the oor 5) dust devils start from the ground
97 MOA: We’ll see if he [Findus] has written anything else. Listen!
98 EVA: [Reads from the letter from Findus] Tornados are also formed close to or in a [lowers the letter] thunder cloud. Okay (nods). So that’s when it’s like thunder
and lightning. [To Joe] Do you want to say something?
The teacher reiterates; beginning with, ”So thus” she indicates that this summarizes their exploration thus far (two such terms are
alas used: ‘so’ and ‘thus’, “så alltså” in Swedish) (turn 94). In her explanation, she verbally claries that “a dust devil starts on the
ground and a tornado starts in a big cloud up in the sky.
This explanation is coordinated with pointing and holding her hands in different ways, see picture 1 and 2 in Fig. 6. She also points
out the principle and elaborates the terms in these ways gestalted, “so then they start in different [places]…”. However, rather than
nishing the explanation, she, after a brief hesitation, says, “so, then we have mixed it together” (cf. above on why we use this
translation rather than ‘conated’). Staying “in character” as one of the addressees, EVA jiggles her head as if the meaning of Findus’
letter just unfolds. Coordinated with embodiment, she metacomments - “now we’ve sorted out (3)”. She then uses both the Swedish
[tromber] and English [tornados] words for the phenomena and say that the start “in the clouds” (turn 94), “and dust devils start from
the ground (5)” (turn 96). EVA constitutes a distinct contrast in the origins of dust devils and tornados. In this way, she supports the
children in making a distinction critical to the topic of the teaching activity.
Fig. 6. EVA's gesturing in turn 94. The number in each picture is a reference to the numbers in turn 94.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
12
3.4. The children's response to the contrasted gesturing
As some of the children starts to lose interest, MOA, draws back the attention to the letter from the ctive character as a source of
information and clarication: “We’ll see if he has written anything else. Listen!”
2
(turn 97), “he” refers to Findus the Cat. EVA reads,
“Tornados are also formed close to or in a thunder cloud” and elaborates that it is “when it’s like thunder and lightning” (turn 98). In
passing, it may be noted that word “also” in turn 98 suggests that there is the location of formation is an additional difference between
the two phenomena.
Next, one of the children, Joe, who sits in IDAs lap, makes a comment (see also Fig. 7):
Excerpt 3h.
99 Joe (sitting in PJS’s lap): Ehm tornados on the ground (points downwards Fig. 7 (1)) and then it gets like that, all the way up (moves the hand upwards Fig. 7
(2)) there
100 EVA: Yes (holds her hand above her head), tornados start up in the sky right (Fig. 8)
101 IDA: (holds her hand above Joe’s head, Fig. 8)
102 EVA: In this big cloud (moves her hand in a circle)
103 IDA: No (points at the oor in front of Joe) that was dust devils (moves her hand in a spiral movement upwards)
104 EVA: (points at the oor) The dust devil (moves her hand in a spiral movement upwards) started on the ground and whirled upwards (moves her hand in the
same way until it is above her head and holds it still) And tornados and trombs start (moves her hand in a large circle) in a cloud and move downwards
(moves her hand in a spiral movement downwards towards the oor)
Joe paraphrasing (“ehm tornados on the ground and then it becomes like that all the way up there”) while pointing (turn 99, Fig. 7)
indicates that he has recognized an important characteristic of a tornado: its direction of formation. However, in his explanation, the
formation is said to be taking place on the ground, which is inconsistent with Findus’ previous explanation (through EVA). EVA and
IDA jointly gestures (Fig. 8) and contrast the two phenomena against each other once again.
More specically, EVA and IDA repeat the origin and movement of the tornado; “start up in the sky” (turns 100-102). Furthermore,
IDA – having Joe in her lap – points to the oor in front of him and then spirals her hand upwards as she says “it was dust devils…” (turn
103), constituting the distinction between the two phenomena. Thus, in a similar manner as in turn 94, IDA and EVA in a coordinated
fashion gestalt and explicate the critical difference between a tornados and a dust devils (in turns 100-104).
Excerpt 3i.
109 EVA: (addressing all children) Well, that’s swell, thank you very much, Findus. Now we know, dust devil is one thing (pointing with her left thumb to the
left) and tornados and trombs another (pointing with her right thumb to the right) thing. But (makes a circular motion with her hand) they have the same
swirly movements right
Ending the activity, the teacher exclaims, ”Well, that’s swell, thank you very much, Findus”, constituting the children and teachers
as a unit (“we”) who have been taught by the ctive character, so that they now know the difference between a dust devil and a
tornado, while they both “have the same whirly movements” (turn 109). While distinguishing between phenomena is decisive for
scientic knowledge, as we have already mentioned, being able to see similarities or what is shared by various phenomena (cate-
gorizing) is equally important to such knowledge. This allows seeing patterns amidst variation and differences.
4. Discussion and implications for practice
In this study, we were interested in how the teachers, during the theme work (constituted by a series of related activities) do to
remedy a conceptual error that they themselves discover having made in their previous teaching. More specically, we set out to
answer two questions: the rst concerning how the error identied is addressed and mitigated by the teachers in subsequent teaching
and the second concerning what role the mediating artifact the ctional character of Findus the Cat plays in the activities in general
and in the addressing of the identied error in particular. We found that in correcting the conceptual error they have discovered that
they have made, the educators positioned themselves as participants with the children and, consequently, collectivizing the meaning
made. The educators become part of those (collective “we”) who have “mixed together” different phenomena. The teachers positioning
themselves alongside the children, as a co-learners, can be seen in terms of teaching and learning implying changed participation and
co-constitution of meaning making, which are highlighted features of a sociocultural perspective on learning (Daniels et al., 2007).
Within a common activity, circle time with a task from Findus, the teachers point out similarities and distinguishing differences
between the two phenomena – tornados and dust devils. These similarities and differences are communicated through embodied
gestalting, through naming and verbally elaborating (explaining). These semiotic means are coordinated in their corrections. As stated
in the introduction of this paper, communication is in its nature multimodal. Therefore, it is not surprising that the teachers draw on
2
We have translated this utterance as “we’ll see” rather than the more obvious and common ‘Let’s see’ in order to capture the use of “vi”, Swedish
for ‘we’, which is important to our analysis, cf. above.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
13
Fig. 7. Joe’s gesturing in turn 99. The number in each picture is a reference to the numbers in turn 99.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
14
several coordinated modalities (e.g. gestures, speech, and onomatopoeia) in their teaching. However, in the analyzed case, this
multimodal orchestration is made in a voluntary manner.
Regarding our second question, the ctive character of Findus the Cat becomes the epistemic authority (cf. Heritage, 2013), who
points out the error. Through his letter, the educators epistemic position shifts to receivers of information and learners together with
the children exploring the phenomena. Through letting the ctive character get the superior epistemic position and providing factual
information, the activity is framed in a way so that actual, factual knowing is introduced and explored within a domain of ction.
Phrased differently, children become engaged in learning about the world as is through engaging in activity framed as if it were. This
observation is of more general importance, since it testies for preschool education as characterized by being responsive to play
(imagination, as if) also for learning about the actual (as is) (e.g., Bodrova, 2008; Ilgaz et al., 2018; van Oers & Duijkers, 2013; Pramling
et al., 2019; Wallerstedt et al., 2021). The analysis also revealed how the functions played by the ctive character changed during the
course of the series of activities making up the theme. At the beginning of the theme work, the letters from Findus merely served as a
frame and to create curiosity among the children, which is in line with previous descriptions of ctive characters in preschool edu-
cation (Malm, 2020; Simon et al., 2008). However, as the conceptual error was revealed, the teachers deliberately handed over their
authority and positioned themselves alongside the children as addressees and lesser knowing. That is, there was a shift in the epistemic
authority between the rst and the third activity, from the teachers to Findus. For a elaborated discussion on shifting positioning in
teachers’ stances see Kayi-Aydar and Miller (2018).
The use of Findus as a ctional character and mediating artefact thus differs from what has previously been shown in the literature.
Instead of using the cuddle toy (see Fig. 1) as a hand puppet (Simon et al., 2008; see also Forsberg Ahlcrona, 2009), a letter said to be
written by the same cuddle toy created a playful frame, that intertwined as is and as if (Pramling et al., 2019). The letter here was a
powerful pedagogical tool that - through the remedy of an error - extended and elaborated the group’s theme work of air.
By allowing the ctive character (the avatar, as it were), come with factual information (or a reality claim about how things really
are), real-world knowledge (as is) is contextualized in an imaginary realm (as if). The latter is important in that it shows how teaching
in preschool can be responsive to, and in the framing of, imagination (playing with reality), arguably decisive for an education and care
institution where play is to remain central (for general discussions, see Fleer, 2011, 2021; van Oers, 2012; Wallerstedt et al., 2021).
The context of this paper is a Swedish preschool. Swedish preschools are part of the Swedish educational system and has its own
curriculum. Thus, it is an institution where preschool teachers have the epistemic authority. Nevertheless, Swedish preschool is also
characterised by a playful framing where children are acknowledged as co-constructers of their education. In that sense, the preschool
context might serve as an arena where making conceptual errors also can be seen as a catalyst for collaborative meaning making.
Through constituting the addressed phenomenon in contrast to an adjacent one, the teachers not only talk about what it is but also
about what it is not. In the present case, this contrast emerges in response to an identied mistake. However, it could have been
employed as a conscious principle in ordinary teaching. The strand of educational theorizing known as variation theory (Marton, 2015;
Marton & Pang, 2006) argues that only what varies can be discerned and thus learned; and a simple principle of variation is contrast.
By simultaneously or closely adjacent showing (in our case through speech and gesturing) what something is and what it is not, the
phenomenon addressed become discernable to learners. Hence, even in this case, the teaching evolved in response to an identied
error, the means of correcting that error in teaching is not specic to such instances. There is an additional meta-comment that could be
made in this regard; teaching and meaning making, as in the present case, of natural science in preschool, can be ‘deepened’ by a
Fig. 8. IDA's and EVA's simultaneous gesturing. Joe is sitting in IDAs lap to the left in the picture.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
15
mistake and its mitigation, rather than work detrimental to these processes.
5. Implications in relation to early childhood education
As a teacher in preschool (and in any other school form) it is inevitable to make mistakes. This paper provides an example of how an
identied “error” can be used as a pedagogical resource by contrasting the wrong and the right – i.e., the dust swirl and the tornado.
The ndings of this paper also show that you can teach science in a structured way and, at the same time, playfully move in between the
natural world and the child’s imagination. Thus, in early science education, the imaginary world and a play responsive teaching
approach can deepen children’s meaning making.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the educators, caregivers and children making this study possible by agreeing to participate.
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
References
Bodrova, E. (2008). Make-believe play versus academic skills: A Vygotskian approach to today’s dilemma of early childhood education. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 16(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930802291777.
Browning, E., & Hohenstein, J. (2015). The use of narrative to promote primary school children's understanding of evolution. Education 3-13: International Journal of
Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(5), 530-547. http://doi.10.1080/03004279.2013.837943.
Clay, M. M. (1969). Reading errors and self-correction behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 39(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.2044-8279.1969.tb02040.x.
Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.). (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Emmons, N., Smith, H., & Kelemen, D. (2016). Changing minds with the story of adaptation: Strategies for teaching young children about natural selection. Early
Education and Development, 27(8), 1205–1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1169823
Erickson, F. (2006). Denition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.),
Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–191). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fleer, M. (2011). ‘Conceptual play’: Foregrounding imagination and cognition during concept formation in early years education. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 12(3), 224–240. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2011.12.3.224.
Fleer, M. (2021). Conceptual playworlds: The role of imagination in play and learning. Early Years, 41(4), 353–364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/
09575146.2018.1549024.
Forsberg Ahlcrona, M. (2009). Handdockans kommunikativa potential som medierande redskap i f¨
orskolan (Doctoral thesis.). University of Gothenburg
Gan, Y., & Danby, S. (Eds.) (2021) Investigating interactions from children’s perspective [special issue] Research on children and social interaction 5(1).
Garcia, C., Kolat, M., & Morgan, T. A. (2018). Self-correction of second-language pronunciation via online, real-time, visual feedback. In J. Levis (Ed.) (pp. 54–65). Iowa
State University.
Gilbert, J., Hipkins, R., & Cooper, G. (2005). Faction or ction: Using narrative pedagogy in school science education. In Singapore: Nanyang University Institute of
Education. , May.
Green, P. S., & Hecht, K. (1993). Pupil self-correction in oral communication in English as a foreign language. System, 21(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/0346-251X(93)90038-I.
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Blackwell.
Ilgaz, H., Hassinger-Das, B., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2018). Making the case for playful learning. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook
of early childhood education, Volume II (pp. 1245–1263). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0927-7_64.
Ivarsson, J., Linderoth, J., & S¨
alj¨
o, R. (2009). Representations in practices: A sociocultural approach to multimodality in reasoning. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 201–212). Routledge.
Jewitt, C. E. (2011). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kayi-Aydar, H., & Miller, E. R. (2018). Positioning in classroom discourse studies: A state-of-the-art review. Classroom Discourse, 9(2), 79–94.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold.
Larsson, J. (2016). N¨
ar fysik blir l¨
arområde i f¨
orskolan (Doctoral thesis). University of Gothenburg
Linell, P. (2014). Interactivities, intersubjectivities and language: On dialogism and phenomenology. Language and Dialogue, 4(2), 165–193. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.2.01lin.
Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2012). Some “technical challenges” of video analysis: Social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative
Research, 12(3), 255–279. http://10.1177/1468794112436655.
Malm, M. (2020). Barn resonerar kring naturvetenskapliga fenomen: i sagans v¨
arld på f¨
orskolan (Doctoral thesis). Lund University
Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. Routledge.
Marton, F., & Pang, M.-F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.
1207/s15327809jls1502_2.
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346.
National Agency for Education. (2019). Curriculum for the preschool (Retrieved from) https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65d897/
1553968298535/pdf4049.pdf2019.
van Oers, B. (Ed.). (2012). Developmental education for young children: Concept, practice and implementation (International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and
Development, 7). Springer.
van Oers, B., & Duijkers, D. (2013). Teaching in a play-based curriculum: Theory, practice and evidence of developmental education for young children. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 45(4), 511–534. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.637182.
Pramling, N., Wallerstedt, C., Lagerl¨
of, P., Bj¨
orklund, C., Kultti, A., Palm´
er, H., … Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2019). Play-responsive teaching in early childhood education.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15958-0
Rowcliffe, S. (2004). Storytelling in science. School Science Review, 86(314), 121–126.
S¨
alj¨
o, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 202–208. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520903029030.
Samuelsson, R. (2018). Children’s explorations of the concept of spinning in preschool: Science learning in mediated activity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction,
17, 90–102. http://doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.01.002.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 41 (2023) 100719
16
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. http://
doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041.
Schoultz, J., S¨
alj¨
o, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44,
103–118.
Simon, S., Naylor, S., Keogh, B., Maloney, J., & Downing, B. (2008). Puppets promoting engagement and talk in science. International Journal of Science Education,
30(9), 1229–1248. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701474037.
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and afliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of
knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge University Press.
Stolpe, K., Frejd, J., & Wallner, L. (2015). Translating Modalities: Preschool Teachers’ Work with Children’s Meaning Making in Science. In The 11th Conference of the
European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) (pp. 2608–2615). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki, 31 August-4 September.
Taylor, R. (2014). Meaning between, in and around words, gestures and postures: Multimodal meaning-making in children’s classroom discourse. Language and
Education, 28(5), 401–420. https://doi.ord/10.1080/09500782.2014.885038.
Wallerstedt, C. (2014). Experiencing and creating contrasts. International Journal of Lesson and Learning Studies (3)1, 46–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJLLS-06-2013-0036.
Wallerstedt, C., Pramling, N., & S¨
alj¨
o, R. (2015). Micro-genetic development of timing in a child. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22, 251–268. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1009553.
Wallerstedt, C., Pramling, N., & Lagerl¨
of, P. (2021). Triggering in play: Opening up dimensions of imagination in adult-child play. Learning, Culture and Social
Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100497
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202–208.
J. Frejd and N. Pramling