Int J Technol Des Educ DOI 10.1007/s10798-016-9375-y

Technology in : providing opportunities for children to use artifacts and to create

1 2 Pernilla Sundqvist • Tor Nilsson

Accepted: 1 July 2016 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract In recent years, technology has been emphasized as an important area in early childhood curricula; however, in many countries preschool does not have the tradition of teaching specific subjects, and research shows that many preschool staff members are unsure about what teaching technology should include and how it should be taught. Therefore, with the ambition of outlining recommendations for both preschool practice and the preschool-teacher program, we investigated what elements staff members include in educating preschool children in technology. We investigated the research question What do preschool staff members include as elements of technology education in preschool? through open-ended items on a questionnaire completed by 102 preschool teachers and daycare attendants in Sweden. The answers were analyzed inductively, resulting in a set of seven categories: Artifacts and systems in children’s environments, Create, Problem solving, The concept of technology, Experiments, Techniques/Motor skills, and Natural science. Some key results emerged. First, artifacts have a central place in preschool technology education, and at least three verbs relate to how these artifacts are addressed: use, create, and understand. Second, the content of technology education in government regulatory documents is described to varying extents by the participants, and sometimes not at all. Third, expected elements like play and the important role of the staff are not expressed in the answers. Possible explanations and implications for the results are discussed.

Keywords Technology education Á Preschool Á Early childhood education Á Preschool teacher Á Preschool staff Á Conventional content analysis

& Pernilla Sundqvist [email protected]

1 School of Education, Culture, and Communication, Ma¨lardalen , Gurksaltargatan 9, 722 18 Va¨stera˚s, Sweden 2 School of Education, Culture, and Communication, Ma¨lardalen University, Drottninggatan 12, 632 20 Eskilstuna, Sweden 123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson

Introduction

Today’s society places great demands on individuals to make informed choices that directly affect their lives and, in the long term, society and the environment. In order to evaluate options and to choose that which one finds most important, each person needs sufficient knowledge about technology to recognize the consequences of their various choices. Thus, the individual needs to have the abilities to identify and assess technology in its different forms and to distinguish between the natural world and the manmade world (International Technology Education Association 2007). Besides knowledge about tech- nology, the individual also needs knowledge in technology—that is, skills and knowledge to perform technological work, sometimes referred to as engineering (van de Poel 2010). Technology as a school subject was made compulsory in Sweden in 1980. However, a mutual understanding among schools about the content and objective for the subject do not exist (Hagberg and Hulte´n 2005), and there are also differences among countries regarding what the subject should teach (Jones et al. 2013). Still, emphasis on the importance of the subject is increasing, and learning in and about technology needs to start early, even as early as preschool (Teknikdelegationen 2009). However, in many countries, technology education is still a rather new element in the curriculum for very young children, and early childhood education staff are often unsure about what this education should include (Turja et al. 2009). In Swedish preschool, children’s social development and play has a strong tradition. When the preschool curriculum was revised in 2010 with an enhanced peda- gogical assignment, greater emphasis was put on children’s learning in subjects like mathematics, science, and technology (Skolverket 2010). Research conclude that when the task for the preschool changes to also include learning in defined subjects, which has been the case in many European countries (Engdahl and A¨ rlemalm-Hagse´r 2015), preschool staff need a lot of in-service training. This suggests that this can be a difficult transition for the staff and that researchers need to focus on what kind of subject matter is appropriate for preschool children (Sheridan et al. 2009). Because there has been little effort put into defining a common content for technology as a subject, and because have traditionally not taught defined subjects at all, there is a need to study what elements of technology preschool staff consider to be possible to teach in their practice. Therefore, this study will focus on what preschool staff include as part of technology education for preschoolers, both regarding technological content and how it is addressed, with the aim of contributing to the emerging field of research on the content for teaching technology in early childhood education. By investigating this, we want to make visible the elements that are expressed by preschool staff and draw attention to elements that are not articulated, thus outlining implications for both preschool practice and preschool-. The research question addressed in the study is What do preschool staff members include as elements of technology education in preschool?

Background

Because technology education in children’s early years is still an emerging research field, this section of the paper describes the context of the Swedish preschool and gives a picture of some of the research conducted within the field.

123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities…

Swedish preschool

The Swedish preschool follows the tradition of the social pedagogic approach, similarly to other Nordic and Central European countries, as opposed to the pre-primary approach applied in countries like Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK. Hence the focus for the Swedish preschool has been on the development of children’s social com- petences and independence. However, developments in Sweden over the last few years have led to a move towards the pre-primary approach, and equal emphasis is now put on children’s social and cognitive development (Bennett 2005). In 1998, the Ministry of Education and Research adopted full responsibility for childcare, which had previously been included in the social sector. In the same year, the preschool curriculum was launched to facilitate equality of preschool programs nationally and to strengthen the quality of preschool education by increasing the focus on children’s development and learning (Skolverket 2004). Subject learning has always existed in preschool; however, with the new curriculum subjects were defined and learning goals were articulated. In 2010, the curriculum was revised with more goals in order to further enhance the pedagogical mission and increase subject learning. Still, a balance between learning and care is stressed, and learning should be based on children’s interests and experiences. Also, because the goals articulate what the preschool should strive for, they specify the orien- tation of the work and are not intended to actually be reached (Skolverket 2010). In Swedish preschool, as in many countries, play has a strong tradition and is viewed as an important element for learning (Brostro¨m et al. 2015). When children play together, they develop, among other things, their language and their social competences (Knuts- dotter Olofsson 2015). These are both important features for learning (Sa¨ljo¨ 2005). Thus, play in itself is important for learning, and preschool staff highly value children’s right to free play. Also, play is used by the preschool staff to facilitate learning about specific content in a fun and pleasant way. In this case, there is a plan for what children are expected to learn—a learning objective—and preschool staff teach towards this learning objective in a playful way to engage the children and make learning fun (Johansson and Samuelsson 2006). There is an assumption in the rhetoric of preschool staff that play and learning are integrated, that play is a condition for learning, and that learning is processed and developed in play. However, studies have found that this holistic and integrated nature of play and learning is not always expressed in practice (Johansson and Samuelsson 2006; Sheridan et al. 2009; Skolinspektionen 2012). Instead, play and learning are often sepa- rated. This might be due to some staff members’ view on play as belonging to the children and that they see no role for themselves in it (Cutter-Mackenzie and Edwards 2013; Sheridan et al. 2009). Also, the learning that they often find to be facilitated in play is learning of social competences, which, in their opinion, does not demand their presence (Sheridan et al. 2009). However, integrating play and learning is essential for high-quality preschool practice, and preschool staff should have an awareness of how to use play to support children in content learning and in developing their play competence (Lillvist and Sandberg 2015). Learning is not considered isolated to play or to teacher-directed activ- ities, and all situations during the day are viewed as possible learning situations (Turja et al. 2009), such as mealtimes and getting dressed to go outdoors.

123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson

Research on technology and in early education

Some of the studies presented below investigated engineering education. Engineering education is here treated as part of technology education because engineering entails making and constructing, both of which are part of the content for technology education as articulated by the Swedish preschool curriculum. Such studies are therefore relevant here. Artifacts, as a point of departure for teaching technology, have been widely argued for. Researchers claim that playing with, using, examining, and talking about artifacts will help children think about usability, conditions for use, ergonomics, safety, packaging (Turja et al. 2009), switch from a user perspective to a producer perspective (Se´ne´si 1998) and develop several engineering behaviors like explaining how the artifact works and how to make it work the way one wants (Bairaktarova et al. 2011; Evangelou et al. 2010). Moreover, Bairaktarova et al. (2011) found that certain artifacts/play material promoted certain behaviors more than others, for instance, structured materials like puzzles and snap circuits encouraged children to solve problems in order to create a complete ‘‘product’’ with the expected function, while semi-structured and open materials such as sandboxes and paints allowed children to be creative in a way that the structured materials did not. Engineering activities like designing, building, and constructing have also been studied. van Meeteren and Zan (2010) found that building systems of ramps and pathways for balls and toy cars to roll along promoted essential skills like communication, creativity, opti- mism, collaboration, and systems thinking. It also promotes knowledge in mathematics and physics, showing the advantage of working in an interdisciplinary manner to incorporate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) into everyday learning. Regarding systems thinking, Mawson (2011) found that children included technological systems, like the transportation system, in their play, and they also showed great interest in the systems used for milking and feeding cows on a farm while completing a project on cows. Moreover, Svensson (2009) argues that technological systems are complex and might be difficult for children to understand; hence, education about technological systems should start early in schooling. Also regarding engineering activities, Siraj-Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford (1998) showed that the constructions of 5-year-olds improved when the pedagogue was present and active in educating the children. When children were left to construct on their own, there was no improvement or development in their creations. The need for a pedagogue to be present in order for children to make progress in their ability to construct has also been shown by Stables (1997). With respect to construction and design, sketches and plans are useful tools that help the designer to externalize their thoughts and to clarify their ideas. They are also useful in communicating ideas to others because an image is far richer than language alone (Kimbell 1996; Anning 1997). Young children are not likely to make a design plan on their own; they prefer to go straight to the making (Rogers and Russo 2003; van Meeteren and Zan 2010). Therefore, designing needs to be initiated by the teacher. In a study by Fleer (2000), children as young as three showed the ability to plan the making of an artifact by using lists and designing plans. However, when constructing their designs, many children did not follow their plan because it was not detailed enough to successfully support their con- struction. The implication is that children need guidance in making and using design plans. Teachers should provide children with opportunities to develop their understanding of the plan’s benefits and to create a sufficient plan by letting children get acquainted with materials or by letting them construct first and draw up a design plan later (Anning 1997;

123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities…

Fleer 2000). For this kind of teaching, the teachers need knowledge in what elements the design should include and what is reasonable to expect from children at different ages (Anning 1997). Many of the studies above emphasize the role of the staff in children’s learning. Also the sociocultural perspective, in which Swedish and curricula are grounded, clearly motivates the value of supportive and challenging adults. A study by Brostro¨m et al. (2015) showed that this is also the view of preschool teachers in several countries (i.e. Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, and Sweden). This view on learning entails the need for preschool staff to have knowledge about the specific content children are supposed to learn in order to support them in their learning. For the technology subject, this poses a challenge because many studies have shown that preschool staff and preschool student teachers lack sufficient knowledge both regarding the subject matter and regarding how to teach it in the preschool setting (Lillvist et al. 2014; Hellberg and Elvstrand 2013; Sheridan et al. 2011; Sundqvist et al. 2015). As mentioned in the introduction, when the orientation for the preschool changes to including subject learning, preschool staff need in-service training (Sheridan et al. 2009), suggesting that this can be a difficult transition for the staff. In Sweden support have been provided to preschool staff in terms of, for example, in-service training, support material on the National Agency for Education’s website, and an explanatory document: Preschool in development—a background to the changes in the preschool’s curriculum (Utbild- ningsdepartementet 2010; presented further below). Still, the Swedish research mentioned above shows an insecurity among the staff regarding teaching technology, and interna- tional studies show the same trend. As an example, when the early years curriculum first was launched in England in 1990, it included subject matter in technology, but the edu- cators received limited in-service training in the implementation of the curriculum. Benson and Treleven (2011) describe how the staff, still a decade later, in a study by Benson, expressed insecurity both regarding the nature of the subject and how it should be taught. The activities provided to children offered a shallow technological learning that was focused primarily on the making and with little thought of the design aspect, which was a relevant part of the curriculum. Australia is another example. Here, when the early years curriculum was launched, the government made several interventions in order to help the staff with the implementation, such as providing educators with, among other things, a support package and a guide to the framework, nationwide training, and professional support for the implementation of the curriculum (OECD 2012). The early years learning framework of Australia covers many aspects of technology, and it states that the vehicles for learning content should be a combination of child-directed play, guided play, and adult-led play (Campbell 2010). Campbell, however, found that early years educators in Australia rarely interfered in children’s creative and construction play in order to enhance their learning. The respon- dents also described activities that offered a more shallow technological learning, excluding aspects of the framework relating to ‘‘exploring the purpose and function of a range of tools’’ and ‘‘manipulating resources to investigate, take apart, assemble, invent and construct and experiment with different technologies’’ (Campbell 2010, p. 88). An earlier Australian study (Campbell and Jobling 2008) showed similar results, and the authors from that study concluded that some early childhood educators still believe the best way for children to learn is for them to discover on their own, hence they do not interfere in children’s play, but the view of the teacher as a guide in children’s learning is increasing. Jones et al. (2013) argues that a keystone in implementing curricular changes is pro- fessional development, and the level of resourcing influences how quickly the changes will 123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson be realized. They also conclude, from their review of the development of technology education over the last 20–25 years, that teachers’ ‘‘limited expertise and confidence’’ (ibid. p. 197) continue to be the key areas to address in order to increase teaching of the intended curriculum.

Technology in regulatory and supportive documents

In the , there is a heavy emphasis on technological , which includes the ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technology (International Technology Education Association 2007). Collier-Reed (2006) has developed a model for technolog- ical literacy, arguing that ‘‘to be technologically literate, a person must be in a position to understand the nature of technology, have a hands-on capability and capacity to interact with technological artifacts, and be able to think critically about issues relating to tech- nology’’ (ibid. p. 15). Being technologically literate, according to the International Technology Education Association (2007), benefits the individual as a private consumer, as a citizen of a democracy, and in his or her profession regardless of what that profession is. In Europe (Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, and Scotland), curricula have been analyzed by Turja et al. (2009) with regard to the contents that are specific for technology education. Many of the curricula offered only general and implicit or narrow guidelines in order to allow educational latitude in a manner consistent with the post- modern way of thinking. But these authors argue that early childhood educators need more support in technology education. They also contend that a national curriculum should define technology and offer some examples, something that the analyzed curricula did not do. The specific technology education contents found in the curricula were very similar to the content of the Swedish regulatory documents presented below (Skolverket 2010; Utbildningsdepartementet 2010). The Swedish curriculum also resembles the curricula analyzed by Turja et al. (2009)in the sense that it, too, provides only general guidelines as a way of allowing educational latitude, and no definition of technology is provided. The goals are, as mentioned above, goals to strive for and only give the orientation for the work. They are expressed in few words, leaving staff with the task of interpreting them and figuring out how to apply them in practice, that is, what content to teach and how to teach it. Since the revision, however, the curriculum now articulates two specific technology goals instead of one. A preschool should strive to ensure that each child develops the ability to (1) ‘‘identify technology in everyday life and explore how simple technology works,’’ and (2) ‘‘build, create, and construct using different techniques, materials, and tools’’ (Skolverket 2010, p. 10). The part of the curriculum describing the preschool’s task stresses that building and designing should be thought of as means for expression that are equal to aesthetic processes such as drama, dance, painting, and music, and that multimedia and information technology can be used for both the development and the application of creative processes. In another document from the Swedish Ministry of Education and Research, Preschool in development—a background to the changes in the preschool’s curriculum (Utbild- ningsdepartementet 2010), which explains the curricular changes, the curriculum goals are elaborated on, and the purpose of educating preschool children in technology is explained. More support is thus provided in how to address technology in preschool. The Ministry of Education and Research has stated that the purpose of technology education in preschool is to make children aware of the technology that surrounds them and to help them gain an understanding of everyday technology. The children should also understand how tech- nology can be used to simplify and solve problems in daily life. The preschool staff 123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities… members are said to play an important role by encouraging curiosity and creativity, as well as by fostering positive attitudes toward technology. In addition, sustainable development should be integrated into technological learning, including treatment of ecological, social, and economic issues. Proposed activities that each preschool should offer children include the following examples (Utbildningsdepartementet 2010, p. 16): • Help children ‘‘identify the simple technology that surrounds them and how it can be used in everyday life’’ and consciously reflect on technological development, thereby promoting children’s creativity and their ability to solve problems. • Help children ‘‘see the role of technology by making technology visible and understandable’’. • Examine everyday technological objects ‘‘to see how they work, thereby giving children the opportunity to think about issues relating to use, utility, function, material, construction, and design’’ of the objects. • Use children’s own designs and construction work to help them ‘‘understand how technical solutions work and identify similar solutions in everyday life’’. • Offer building and construction play so children can experience ‘‘balance and stability in different materials and types of construction’’ and ‘‘practice hands-on skills by using different tools and by disassembling objects and joining parts’’. • Make ‘‘sketches, plans, and models so children can experience perspective, proportion, length, breadth and height’’. • ‘‘Test, improve, and talk about different investigations, constructions, and solutions’’ and ‘‘compare new results to old ones’’. • Offer opportunities to ‘‘test materials by mixing, heating, icing/cooling, cutting, wetting, dissolving, smelling, bending and breaking to see if and how the material changes’’. This document complements the curriculum and supports preschools’ planning of activities and daily practice.

Method

Data production and participants

Data were obtained via a qualitative questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to 10 % of the preschools in the investigated municipality, and it was distributed mainly online but also in hard copy to those who requested it. Choosing a sample of 10 % of the preschools allowed one researcher to be present when the questionnaires were filled out; this had several advantages, including the ability to inform participants about the study’s ethical aspects verbally and minimizing nonresponse. Including the entire population and thus eliminating the possibility of visiting each respondent would have risked a low response rate. The chosen approach yielded a response rate of 73 %. The sample included preschool teachers and daycare attendants (in total 139) in one Swedish municipality and was stratified randomly with respect to the number of public and private preschools, geography, and demography with the ambition of achieving a repre- sentative sample (Hartas 2010). The final sample of 102 respondents consisted of 63 preschool teachers and 39 daycare attendants; 7 were men and 95 were women, and their ages varied from under 25 to over 50. Of all the respondents, 16 had received some form of training in technology and its didactics, ranging from a 1-week course to a full year of 123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson university studies. Thirty-seven respondents reported that their preschools implemented a Reggio Emilia–inspired pedagogy, seven reported working at an ICT-oriented (information and communication technology) preschool, and two reported working according to an outdoors pedagogy. The rest of the respondents did not report any specific pedagogy or orientation for their preschools. To answer the research question, three open-ended questions (1 and 2ab below) were asked. The three questions were selected because they were expected to provide infor- mation about both content and activities. Question 1 was formulated in a broad and open manner in order to let the respondents think, and answer, freely. Questions 2a and 2b referred to the curriculum goals in order to provide support in describing the technology education that is considered sufficient for preschool. The following questions were asked: 1. What do you consider technology education in preschool to be? 2. The revised curriculum assigns the following two goals to the teaching of technology as a subject. How will you be able to work with these goals in practice? Give suggestions for each goal. a. The preschool should strive to ensure that each child develops the ability to identify technology in everyday life and to explore how simple technology works. b. The preschool should strive to ensure that each child develops the ability to build, create, and construct using different techniques, materials, and tools.

Data analysis

With the ambition of describing technology education as close to the respondents’ own words as possible, thus staying close and true to the data, we analyzed the answers inductively using conventional content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon (2005). This is a qualitative method of analysis for the subjective interpretation of textual data that systematically codes and identifies categories/themes or patterns. The analysis was con- ducted as follows: 1. The first step in the analysis process consisted of thorough of the material. 2. Recurring keywords were marked. 3. The keywords were then merged into codes. 4. Similar codes were combined in categories so that all keywords and codes were included in some category. 5. The categories were changed and refined several times after repeated readings of the material and discussions between the authors and one other researcher. 6. Finally, a consensus estimate (Stemler 2004) was conducted to estimate interrater reliability, which resulted in 83.3 % agreement. Steps 1–4 were conducted by the first author. In the two final steps, both authors were involved in analyzing the answers and discussing and refining the categories to make them clear and concise, thus increasing credibility. The way the categorization was performed resulted in some answers being placed in several categories, while some were placed in only one category. Four answers were not put in any category because they were too vague to interpret. For a better understanding of the following discussion about the analysis, see Table 1 below for an overview of the categories.

123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities…

Table 1 Overview of categories Category What? How?

1. Artifacts and How to use everyday technology Use systems in children’s Artifacts’ adequacy and areas of application Talk about; children get to try environments The purpose and meaning of technology Talk about; experience How artifacts and systems work Observe; talk about Disassemble; examine 2. Create Creative/painting techniques; material’s Artistic creating, e.g., draw, adequacy; how different materials work paint together; how to build stable and firm Build/make based on an own structures; knowledge of materials; idea or on instruction from a Fantasy, creativity, motor skills; using tools; teacher or a drawing problem solving 3. Problem solving Problem solving By using technology or not defined 4. The concept of What technology is; awareness about Use the word technology; technology technology name/talk about technology and technological activities 5. Experiments Experiment 6. Techniques/motor Gross motor skills Use the body skills 7. Natural science Biology Examine Physics Examine; experience

Some respondents did not describe the content of the activities they mentioned. One such answer was ‘‘Among other things, experiments.’’ Data of this unspecific nature provided a challenge in the analysis, as it occurred for the two activities experimenting and solving problems. Regarding the latter, when describing subject content respondents often gave answers like ‘‘To find a way to get food to the plate,’’ and this could be interpreted as a problem-solving activity. But when respondents used the phrase ‘‘solve problems’’ or ‘‘problem solving’’, they seldom elaborated on it, apparently considering the phrases self- explanatory. Experiments, too, seem to have been considered self-explanatory because they were likewise not described in any detail. Because the respondents did not describe the kind of experiments they had in mind, there is uncertainty as to whether the experi- ments related to technology or to natural science, given that experiments are a common activity in natural science, and the respondents do not seem to have separated technology and natural science. A quotation from one respondent presented in the description of the category Experiments below implies that experiments are both technological and natural- scientific—the respondent wrote about finding solutions (implying technology) and explanations (implying natural science). The fact that the respondents apparently did not separate technology and natural science created another challenge in the analysis regarding the verb ‘‘examine’’. Some respondents did not specify what kind of examining they meant, writing only, ‘‘Examine’’ or ‘‘Examine how stuff works.’’ Because the verb ‘‘examine’’ is also common in the natural science category, uncertainty arose as to precisely what these respondents were referring to. Because the questions specifically addressed technology, however, the assumption was

123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson made that the respondents were referring to technology. Thus, such answers were placed in the constructed category Artifacts and systems in children’s environment. Because problem solving is described as a small part of the category Create, our definition of it as a separate category could be questioned. However, when respondents described content for problem-solving activities, it was more common that problems were solved by using the tools and artifacts than by creating the tools and artifacts. Thus, not all statements about problem solving fit into the category Create, and we made Problem solving a separate category.

Compliance with ethical standards

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical considerations of the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsra˚det 2011), and respondents were informed, via cover letter or orally in person, of the study’s aim, that participation was optional, and that the use of material and personal data was confidential.

Results

The analysis of the open-ended questions resulted in seven descriptive categories of pre- school technology . Each category is presented with a name relating to either the content or the activities in the category, a text describing both content and activities, and quotations from respondents to illustrate each category.

Description of categories

1. Artifacts and systems in children’s environments

The artifacts and systems category of the preschool staff’s descriptions comprises objects of technology in children’s environments as content for technology education. This content was addressed in many different ways and was described by 79 of the respondents; thus, it is both broad and large. However, the most central aim in this category, expressed by half of all respondents, is that children should be able to handle artifacts. This goal is addressed by simply letting children use artifacts—everyday artifacts like zippers, scissors, wheels, and water faucets, as well as information and communication technology (ICT) equipment like desktop computers, digital cameras, and tablet computers. Regarding ICT, some respondents mentioned how important it is for children to learn to use these tools because they have become such a large part of everyday life. Regarding other everyday objects, one respondent wrote, ‘‘They [children] get to learn how to cut with scissors, drink from a glass, put on their clothes,’’ indicating that learning how to use common technology is part of preschool technology education. The ability to handle technology can also be taught using pedagogical materials specifically designed for the purpose of learning how to, for example, turn on a lamp or screw a nut. Learning about artifacts’ adequacy and areas of application is another aim, and this was mentioned by ten respondents. This concern is addressed through conversations and by letting the children use and try out the application of artifacts: ‘‘Here we take out different technical things, and the children can tell us what they think the things are used for … [they] try to use the things the way they think they should be used and then try to use them

123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities… the way they were meant to be used.’’ Another respondent wrote, ‘‘What tool works for taking the soup? Or the spaghetti? That children get to test in their own way in order to discover that certain activities demand certain technologies.’’ Regarding ICT, some respondents expressed a desire to widen children’s understanding of a tablet’s area of application for things other than games—things like documentation, moviemaking, taking photographs, and searching for information. Three respondents indicated that children should get to experience the purpose of technology. Experiencing something entails participating in a situation in various ways, such as discussing, trying, handling, listening, and observing. This can be done, as one respondent wrote, by ‘‘not putting out cutlery when setting the table for lunch. Perhaps this can start a discussion of man’s desire not to eat with his hands.’’ It can also be done by working with the historical aspect of technology. Forty-two respondents also described a desire to help children understand how tech- nology works. This is where five respondents mentioned not only artifacts but also sys- tems: What makes a moving technical object move? How is material or energy or movement transported through a technological system? What makes a solar fan run? One respondent wrote, ‘‘Arouse curiosity with, for example, a solar fan; let children form hypotheses and theories.’’ Why does the water in the tap never run out? How does it get there? Another respondent said, ‘‘Right now we´re working with water, and we have looked at where the drinking water in the city comes from. We have looked at their [the city’s] website and ordered a book about this. The book describes to children nicely how the water gets from the lake to the house through the water-treatment plant and the sewage treatment. We just started, and many [of the kids] are interested.’’ An understanding of technology is also sought by disassembling objects to see what they look like on the inside, what parts they consist of, how the parts are joined together, and how the mechanism works. Many times, however, precisely how or what children were meant to understand was not artic- ulated: ‘‘Children can learn about things in their environment and how they work,’’ and they can ‘‘examine stuff’’. The understanding of how technology works is addressed by observing and examining/exploring physical objects and by or talking about them.

2. Create

The creating part of technology includes building with different supplies, such as recycled materials and blocks, as well as artistic creating like drawing and painting (mentioned by 86 respondents). The importance of offering children many different materials and tools to use in their creations was emphasized by 54 of the respondents: ‘‘Let children try as many different materials as possible’’; ‘‘We have different materials, like different building materials, for example, LEGOs, blocks, Mekano, and Plus Plus. We also have tools that children can use. And we have different pipes and tracks that children can experiment with.’’ A few respondents pointed out that the purpose is to improve children’s ability to use tools and to help them better understand which materials go well together and are most suitable for a specific application: ‘‘[The child] gets to experiment, for example, [to see] whether the paint falls off the metal, and why that is … Then she can try again with another paint or material.’’ Also emphasized by 19 respondents was the staff’s role in encouraging children to create by having artistic and construction/building materials available and by designing the environment so that it inspires children: ‘‘Have material that makes children curious and eager to try’’; ‘‘Have materials and tools available so children get inspired, and let them try 123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson their ideas even if you know it won’t work.’’ This accessibility will promote children’s creativity. Some respondents also mentioned that through construction play, children learn dif- ferent building techniques and ways to build stable and firm structures. According to the respondents, the teacher can help children to acquire this knowledge by being present and by asking questions about the building result and process: ‘‘It can be construction play— LEGOs, blocks. How do I build the tower so it doesn´t fall? How do I join LEGOs together to build a spaceship? When building a hut, how should chairs, pillows, and covers be positioned for the hut to hold together?’’ A few also recognized that children use and develop their mathematical skills through building activities: ‘‘In playing with blocks, you build and construct, and this also includes lots of mathematics.’’ Likewise, through artistic creation, children can learn different painting techniques if the teacher provides varied materials (22). Many respondents indicated that creative activities should be initiated by the children themselves and be based on children’s own ideas. This approach develops and improves abilities like imagination, creativity, and collaboration, according to the respondents. However, some respondents said that creative activities are initiated by the staff with a specific aim (18). In some cases, creative activities can be the solution to a problem, as this example shows: ‘‘Children are amazing that way; they have so many thoughts and ideas. They might need something in their play, and if you ask them how they are going to solve the problem, they often know. They know what kind of material they need and what to do to make it work. If they don’t succeed the first time, they will soon find another way to try.’’ It can also be a way to strengthen children’s understanding of a technical solution— for instance, as a continuation of disassembling an object: ‘‘Again, if you take the phone, you can take it apart with the children and examine different phones that you keep in a ‘technology box,’ and then make your own phone from your own plan.’’

3. Problem solving

According to 17 respondents, solving problems is part of technology education in pre- school. Many described it merely as ‘‘problem solving’’ without further explanation, but others indicated that children should be offered opportunities to solve problems that occur in everyday preschool situations. Teachers should give them time to come up with different solutions and try them out. These problems are solved by using technology: the aim is ‘‘to develop their thinking, strengthen their self-esteem, and develop an understanding that you can solve a problem in many different ways’’; ‘‘If I use the stool to stand on, can I reach the toy on the high shelf?’’ Solving problems encourages the development of abilities like creativity, divergent thinking, and collaboration.

4. The concept of technology

In this category, 26 respondents described the importance of children’s knowing what technology is and understanding the concept of technology. Thus they described knowl- edge of technology on a meta level. According to the respondents, this end could be achieved if the staff members name technologies and are constantly present during the technology activities. Their presence facilitates conversations in which the staff name artifacts, activities, and processes as technology. Instructors identifying different objects as technology broadens children’s understanding of what technology is. An implicit message in the responses was that technology is something many respondents had previously found 123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities… difficult and complicated. They want to show children that technology includes things that everyone uses in everyday life and to demonstrate that technology is not necessarily difficult or complicated. This is evident in the following answer: ‘‘I, as a pedagogue, am aware of what I can offer children every day that is technology. [I need to] show them technology in everyday life—not view technology as something complicated, but include it in the conversations with children. Technology in preschool is not new; however, today we are more conscious about what we refer to as technology.’’ Likewise, ‘‘[Teachers need] to make visible the fact that it is something that surrounds us all the time. [We should] try to teach children the concept of technology so that it won’t be unfamiliar and totally new later in school.’’

5. Experiments

Twenty-three respondents wrote about experiments in relation to technology as an example of technological activities. But most did not describe the specific content of those exper- iments—how they were performed or what the learning objective was. Answers simply mentioned ‘‘experiments’’ or ‘‘experimenting.’’ One respondent, however, wrote, ‘‘[We] perform experiments with the children and give them time to try different ways of finding solutions and explanations.’’

6. Techniques/motor skills

In Swedish, the word for technology is a homonym that refers to both technology and technique. Although techniques are important in using different artifacts and materials (described under the category Create), here four of the respondents spoke of techniques in terms of how people use their bodies to achieve a desired result. These are techniques that teach gross motor skills, and respondents here wrote about activities such as climbing and walking. Asked to describe technology in preschool, one respondent wrote, ‘‘This can be so many things: to fasten buttons or to pull up the zipper on a jacket; to climb, build, and construct.’’ This quotation shows that the respondent made no differentiation between technology and techniques; both are regarded here as relevant to preschool technology education.

7. Natural science

Natural science constitutes a category because ten respondents described technology in preschool by writing about activities related to natural science rather than to technology, for instance: ‘‘A flower that we observe and examine the different parts of. Or a drain, how the water runs and where it goes. Right now we are working with the body and its functions, how we function, different parts, etc.’’ This respondent did not separate natural science from technology; he or she first mentioned natural science (the flower), then technology (the drain), and then again natural science (the human body) in answering a question about technology education, thus giving the impression that all of the mentioned activities involve technology. Observing and examining are common verbs in this category. Experiencing also occurs as children experience, for example, their speed when going down the slide. One respondent wrote, ‘‘[The kids] go down the slide, and some go slow and some go fast. Why?’’

123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson

Variation in the breadth of answers

Table 2 presents the variation in the number of categories touched upon in each respon- dent’s answers. Considering that technology is a homonym in Swedish and that natural science is a subject of its own in preschool, counting statements from all the categories (column 2) reveals only the breadth of respondents’ answers, not whether that span relates to technology. Therefore, in column 3 we excluded categories 6 (Technique/motor skills) and 7 (Natural science). This shows a decrease in the numbers from three, four, and five categories, indicating that categories 6 and 7 were present in the answers placed in three, four, and five categories. Hence, if technology in preschool is considered as comprising the remaining five categories, about 37 % of the staff described technology in terms of a majority of the categories. Below, two quotations are provided to illustrate how the answers cover different numbers of categories. The two answers are responses to the question What do you con- sider technology education in preschool to be? Example 1 Among other things, experiments. This is an answer that does not say much about the respondent’s thoughts on technology education, other than that it should or could involve some sort of experiment. This answer was placed in the category Experiments. Example 2 To illuminate what technology is, capture the object of children’s interest every day and make them feel joy and curiosity about the subject. More concretely, to look at what human beings have invented throughout history and what kind of technological objects surround us, to construct with different materials, to think about how things are built and how they work, to think about the properties of different materials, to think about what they [the children] would like to invent. This answer says quite a bit about what this respondent views as appropriate content for preschool technology education, and the answer covers several categories. First, the answer was placed in three categories: Artifacts and systems in children’s environments, Create, and The concept of technology. Second, within the first category, the answer covers several aspects of the category because it raises both the historical aspect of technology and the ways artifacts are built and work. This also applies to the second category because the answer covers both the use of various materials and their properties and the idea that

Table 2 Number of categories that each respondent’s answer covered (n = 102) Number of categories Number of respondents Number of respondents (all categories) (categories 6 and 7 excluded)

No category 4 4 One category 9 11 Two categories 45 50 Three categories 30 27 Four categories 12 10 Five categories 2 0

123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities… children should think about what they would like to invent, an approach implying creating in order to solve a problem.

Discussion

Some key results are made visible in this study. First, artifacts have a central place in preschool technology education. Second, the content of technology education described by the regulatory documents is addressed to a varying extent in practice, but some elements of those descriptions are not present at all. Third, expected elements like play and the role of the staff are only expressed in a few answers.

To use, create, and understand

Regarding artifacts as a content area, three key verbs can be discerned in the respondents’ answers concerning how to address these artifacts: use, create, and understand. Regarding everyday artifacts, all three verbs were included by the respondents. Children should use the artifacts, they should create their own artifacts, and they should understand the artifacts in terms of both how they work and how they are best used and for what purpose. An understanding of how an artifact works can be acquired by examining it—for example, by disassembling it to see what it looks like on the inside. Previous research (Bairaktarova et al. 2011; Evangelou et al. 2010;Se´ne´si 1998; Turja et al. 2009) has shown that working or playing with artifacts can promote various types of technological thinking and abilities. Thus, consciously providing children with appropriate objects to play with and examine can successfully encourage their technological learning. Creating artifacts is interpreted from the responses as a learning process in which the most central issue is to inspire children to want to create by providing them with many different materials that will make the creative activity fun and will help them understand the materials’ properties. Relating the finding to Bairaktarova et al. (2011), who found that different materials encourage different abilities and behaviors, the respondents’ emphasis on providing children with many creative materials, both open and more structured, will help children develop many different abilities relevant for technological learning. How- ever, in order to develop the ability to construct, it is not enough to only provide materials. According to Siraj-Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford (1998) and Stables (1997), it is crucial to children’s development of the ability to construct that a pedagogue is present and supports the child in such construction work. Because the curriculum states that children should develop the ability to build, create, and construct, sitting down with children during creating and constructing activities and talking about the creative process and product, as described by a few respondents in this study, can provide children with the opportunity to develop these abilities. Learning to handle artifacts by using them seems to relate to the most basic knowledge in technology. This could relate to the preschool’s task to make children independent (Skolverket 2010). One respondent expressed: ‘‘They [children] get to learn how to cut with scissors, drink from a glass, put on their clothes’’. These are everyday activities that children need to be able to do on their own in order to be independent. Because raising independent children has traditionally been one of the main tasks for the preschool (Vallberg Roth 2011), teaching children to drink from a glass and put on their clothes is probably something preschool staff have always done. However, now they are able to label

123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson these activities as ‘‘technology activities’’. As another respondent wrote: ‘‘Technology in preschool is not new; however, today we are more conscious about what we refer to as technology’’. If this is true, it would imply that the new writings in the curriculum have not resulted in great changes regarding the learning about artifacts. Relating this handling of artifacts to technological literacy and the writings of the International Technology Education Association (2007), who recommend a progression from the concrete to the more abstract, one could argue that using and understanding everyday artifacts is a relevant first step in developing a technological literacy on the concrete level and is a good basis for later progression to a more advanced understanding, including thinking critically about technology and relating it to a wider societal and environmental context. On the other hand, one could also argue that children will use artifacts anyway, whether they attend preschool or not. Training a child in how to use scissors or how to hold, and drink from, a glass properly is something, for instance, that parents also do. Se´ne´si (1998) claims that children are very familiar with the customary function of objects because they look at them from a user perspective. By purposive teaching, through playing with, examining, and talking about the artifacts, he argues, children can easily start viewing them from a producer perspective and thus widening their understanding of technology. In this respect, a more purposive and reflective use of the artifacts would be preferable. Technological systems were only mentioned by five respondents as content for tech- nology education in preschool. Still, this is an area worth consideration for inclusion in early education and hence we address it here. The area is described by the respondents only in terms of understanding, such as understanding how the water gets to the tap and where it comes from. Technological systems as content are not part of the preschool curriculum, although research has shown the importance of including systems in technology education (Svensson 2011) and that young children in early childhood education are capable of seeing a system as a system and not only as a group of components (van Meeteren and Zan 2010; Mawson 2011). Svensson (2009) has argued that systems are more difficult to comprehend than simple artifacts owing to their complexity. This only increases the need for the educational system to start encouraging children’s systems thinking early, and the few answers mentioning it here indicate that staff can incorporate such thinking in early childhood education.

Respondents’ answers in relation to elements proposed by the Ministry of Education and Research

Regarding the relation of respondents’ answers to the regulatory documents, the require- ments for preschool technology education described in Preschool in development—a background to the changes in the preschool’s curriculum (Utbildningsdepartementet 2010) are covered to varying extents. Utbildningsdepartementet (2010) states that children should consciously reflect on technological development, an area that relates to the historical aspect of technology, but this was mentioned by only two respondents. Thus it cannot be considered a central element of preschool education for the staff. Many respondents mentioned the aim of identifying simple technologies and how they can be used in everyday life, a learning objective that is described in the categories The concept of technology and Artifacts and systems in children’s environments, and examining everyday technological objects to see how they work was also described in the category Artifacts and systems in children’s environments. However, the Ministry of Education and Research has stated that the purpose of using such items in preschool is to encourage children to reflect on the 123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities… usage, utility, function, material, construction, and design of the objects, and it is not evident whether this was the respondents’ intention. Other items often mentioned by the respondents and described in the category Create are providing many materials that invite children to test and to investigate, offering building and construction play, and practicing hands-on skills by using tools, disassembling objects, and joining parts. Altogether, the respondents described a technology education that lacks some of the elements described by the Ministry of Education and Research (Utbildningsdepartementet 2010), but these lacking elements are not explicitly included in the curriculum. The question is whether preschool staff know about and use the document from the Ministry of Education and Research or whether they only use the curriculum—which, as we conclude from Turjas et al.’s (2009) analysis, does not to provide the staff with sufficient support to consciously include technology in their pedagogical practice. Other areas highlighted by both research and by the Ministry of Education and Research, but not mentioned by the respondents here, are working with plans and sketches (Anning 1997; Fleer 2000) and sustainable development (Utbildningsdepartementet 2010). Plans and sketches do not seem to be something Swedish preschool staff members view as part of preschool technology education (only 2 of 102 respondents mentioned them). Regarding sustainable development, many preschools in Sweden conduct focused and conscious work in the area (Swedish National Agency for Education 2015), but respon- dents in this study did not mention it as part of technology education. A possible expla- nation for this is that the preschool staff members view sustainable development as a separate area, not an integral part of technology education. Working with sustainable development helps children to see the consequences of technological production, con- sumption, and usage and thus enhances and broadens children’s technological literacy (International Technology Education Association 2007). Sustainability is therefore an important component of technology education.

Play and technology education

An interesting observation is that only a few respondents talked about play as an activity for facilitating technological learning. In these few cases, play was exclusively related to construction play. We can think of at least two possible reasons for this low presence of play in the answers. First, play might be such an obvious and natural part of preschool that the respondents did not think to express it, meaning that all of the mentioned activities (using artifacts, creating, constructing, solving problems, etc.) might be integrated in play. Second, the respondents might differentiate between play and learning, as suggested by previous research (Cutter-Mackenzie and Edwards 2013; Sheridan et al. 2009), thinking that play belongs to the children and is not to be interrupted or interfered in by the staff. This would mean that the respondents actually do not think of play when asked about how they facilitate technological learning, but rather they only think of teacher-directed activities such as circle time or everyday activities such as mealtime. Implicitly, the answers suggest both of the two. The former could be seen in answers relating to creative activities and how the staff design the environment to inspire children to be creative and how the children take the initiative in these activities. They also talked about construction play. The latter could be seen in answers like ‘‘They [children] get to learn how to cut with scissors, drink from a glass, put on their clothes’’, which implies the everyday use of technology in everyday situations, and ‘‘Here we take out different technical things, and the children can tell us what they think the things are used for […]’’, which is probably a circle-time activity. Lillvist and Sandberg (2015) argued for a conscious use of play to 123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson support children’s learning; however, it is impossible to say from the results in this study whether the staff consciously use play to develop children’s learning in technology, or even how involved they are, generally, in stimulating this learning.

Remarks on the nature of the respondents’ answers

The reason for the variation in the width and depth of the respondents’ answers might, of course, be due to the method used to obtain the data. Even though our questions provided possibilities for providing answers that would cover both what is included in technology education and how it is addressed, the use of a questionnaire is still limited and short answers are not unusual. There is, however, a possibility, considering previous research, that the variation stems from respondents’ varying knowledge in the subject because this study asked only about respondents’ thoughts on how technology education could be carried out in preschool, not about what they actually do. Jones et al. (2013) argued that resources for support and professional development are crucial in the implementation of curricular changes. The example from Australia (Campbell 2010) showed several interventions to support the implementation of the cur- riculum; however, the actual technology was not performed in accordance with the curriculum. The technological learning made possible by staff was shallow, and there was a lack of support during the children’s play to encourage their technological learning. In Sweden, support material and in-service training have been provided to preschool staff, and the results here imply a similar picture as in the case of Australia. However, taking part in in-service training in technology education has not been compulsory for preschool staff in Sweden. Also, using the support materials provided by the National Agency for Education is voluntary. Unless the preschool director has required that staff develop their competence and/or teaching by, for instance, reading the support material and discussing it in working teams, there are no guarantees they have actually taken the time to do so. The fact that preschool staff in other studies (Hellberg and Elvstrand 2013; Lillvist et al. 2014; Sheridan et al. 2011) have reported feeling a lack of competence in the area, and the fact that the sample here included only 16 respondents with some training in technology education, suggests that they have not (yet) engaged in any far-reaching professional development. Thus, a limited ability to describe sufficient ele- ments of technology education is perhaps not surprising. The same results have, as men- tioned before, been shown in international studies (Benson and Treleven 2011; Campbell 2010). Also, it is not surprising that the respondents do not seem to see a clear role for themselves in how to encourage children’s technological learning. With reference to previous research (Anning 1997; Siraj-Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford 1998; Sta- bles 1997), if there is limited knowledge in and about technology then it is almost expected that little conscious teaching in technology would be described. Turja et al. (2009, p. 357) argues that with over a 100 years of history where handicrafts and creative and explorative activities have grounded the technology education that we have today, ‘‘it is understand- able that without up-to-date knowledge of technology education teachers tend to stick to these familiar activities of science, craft-work and construction play without progress towards more conscious technological aims and learning processes’’.

The quality of the study

Throughout the research process, we took several steps to achieve trustworthiness, thus increasing the study’s quality. We have based our quality discussion on the 123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities… recommendations from Graneheim and Lundman (2004), who have described trustwor- thiness in relation to qualitative content analysis. Regarding the sample, we chose a stratified random-sampling method to achieve transferability by making the sample rep- resentative for the population (the population being all the preschool staff in the investi- gated municipality). Regarding the method for data production, an open-ended questionnaire was considered the best alternative for the intended sample size. Its design resembled an open interview that begins with a relatively broad question (‘‘What do you consider technology education in preschool to be?’’) in order to let the respondent think freely about what technology education is to him or her. The questions then narrow, and our follow-up questions related the initial answer to the two curriculum goals in order to give respondents more support in answering the question. We believe that this format produced a credible result. Further, the questionnaire was piloted in advance. Another requirement for achieving trustworthiness is having a method to validate the categories so as to ensure that they are exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and describe the data fairly (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). This matter was addressed by performing a consensus estimate, which found the categories satisfactory, and through the help of a colleague who also examined the categories. In addition, several quotations have been provided in each category to give the reader a clearer understanding of the category and what it is based on. Overall, the method has been described as clearly as possible in order to achieve transparency and thus facilitating the assessment of its dependability.

Conclusion

To conclude, little conscious technology teaching was described by the respondents. It seems that artifacts are not addressed any differently from how children experience them by using them at home. The creating and construction part of technology is mainly addressed by providing children with materials and setting up the environment to inspire children and give them the possibility to be creative. The role of the staff is primarily that of a provider of materials, and the staff’s role as a guide and support in children’s learning was not expressed to any significant degree by the respondents. Relating the findings to international research, we see a situation resembling that of Australia as described by Campbell and Jobling (2008) and Campbell (2010). However, Campbell and Jobling contend that an increasing amount of preschool staff are beginning to realize the impor- tance of their involvement in children’s learning. This is supported in this study by the few respondents expressing how they guide children’s learning in construction play, talk about the construction process that children are involved in and point out critical features, or give children small construction tasks with the aim of learning about a technical solution. Although the focus here has been the Swedish preschool and its context, we believe the results can make a contribution in the international arena. As presented in the background, many countries have a similar context as Sweden with regards to pedagogical approach, focus on play, inclusion of technology education in the curriculum being relatively new, the content for technology education articulated in the curriculum, and the staff’s inse- curity about what technology education for young children encompasses. The literature review has shown the potential that exists in early childhood settings for children’s learning and what children are capable of learning and doing. With the right guidance and support, children can start developing their technological literacy and

123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson developing their abilities to plan and carry out a construction. The lack of statements about conscious teaching to meet this potential is probably due to the area being new, the curriculum not giving clear directions, and staff having insufficient knowledge in and about technology. Thus our results can apply to any country that is handling the same issues regarding curriculum content and teacher’s technological knowledge. However, a ques- tionnaire study such as the one used here does not encourage deep and developed answers; therefore, interpretations of the results must be made with caution. To be able to draw further conclusions about staff’s involvement in children’s technological learning, addi- tional research is required.

Implications

The analysis in this study provides a broad picture of technology education in preschool. This can be used as a basis for reflection that will help preschool staff to develop their understanding of technology education. Larsson (2011) has argued that presenting a person with alternative ways to view something is a good point of departure for developing learning. Identifying assumptions that, for example, teachers have about their own practice, describing them collectively, and giving these descriptions back to the teachers can provide them with greater awareness about their practice. This study finds that many preschool staff members probably need to widen and deepen their understanding of what technology education in preschool could or should be; this might be one way for them to expand their competence. Advantageously, these reflections can proceed in joint discussions among work teams, which can develop an agreement regarding the kind of technology education they want to deliver. By presenting preschool staff’s descriptions of technology education in preschool, this study also reveals areas not mentioned by preschool staff members that therefore might need some extra consideration in preschool teacher education. For example, educators might need to consider how technology and natural science are presented and distin- guished, how sketches and plans can be included in construction play, and how the his- torical aspect of technology is addressed. Further, the staff need to know how to guide children’s learning and use children’s play in order to develop their technological under- standing and how play and learning can be integrated in order to make learning fun and meaningful for children. These issues should be regarded both in pre- and in-service teacher training. Due to the recent move towards a more learning-focused pedagogy in preschool, preschool teacher educators must also discuss how to prepare their students for a preschool practice that is still influenced by old traditions. The students, having completed a preschool teacher education reflecting the new focus on learning, are meeting a preschool practice that might be holding on to the traditional social pedagogic approach that emphasizes children’s social and personal development more than learning specific con- tent, which could be an explanation for the low level of conscious technology teaching described. This could put the new teachers in a difficult situation if they need to decide whether to try to implement the pedagogic approach they learned from their education or whether to leave that behind and adapt to the traditional approach at the preschool they are working in. The question is if inexperienced and newly graduated preschool teachers are confident and strong enough to try to change the existing tradition, and a discussion of how preschool teacher education prepares the students for this dilemma is needed. Also, practicing preschool teachers need to be given the opportunity to develop their pedagogical

123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities… approach and view on children’s learning. Some possible ways is by action research (see e.g. Noffke and Somekh 2009;Ro¨nnerman 2011) or developmental pedagogy research (Samuelsson and Pramling 2013) where researchers and teachers work together to develop knowledge and practice. Especially developmental pedagogy research where focus is on children’s learning would provide knowledge of how children learn specific content and simultaneously educate the teachers. According to Samuelsson and Pramling (2013) this kind of work, developing and changing the preschool teachers’ approach and attitude towards children’s learning, takes time. In their own research projects they often work with the preschool teachers for up to 2 years in order to change the way the teachers work with children’s learning. However, because of the limitations of the questionnaire and the fact that this study has not investigated what actually happens in preschool practice regarding technology edu- cation, a first step before starting the time-consuming developmental pedagogy research suggested is to enter the preschools in order to see whether the image presented here reflects reality. Are the elements described here what preschool technology education encompasses, or is there more? Are there technology activities going on that the staff did not mention or do not even see as technology? What really happens in the preschools that contributes to children’s technological learning and how do preschool teachers contribute to this learning. There is a fair amount of research regarding children’s technological knowledge and abilities (e.g. Fleer 2000; Mawson 2011), and there have been different projects and interventions focusing on, for instance, how children’s construction skills can develop during a project (e.g. Siraj-Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford 1998; Stables 1997)or the best ways for developing children’s technological thinking (e.g. Bairaktarova et al. 2011, 2012; Evangelou et al. 2010;Se´ne´si 1998). There is substantially less research investigating what happens in the everyday life in preschool that encourages children’s technological learning. With reference to Turja et al. (2009), who argue that all situations during the day are viewed as possible learning situations in early childhood education, this would be interesting to investigate further. This would also reveal the staffs’ involvement in children’s technological learning and the role they take in play and other activities, and this is an issue that needs to be more thoroughly studied.

Acknowledgments We thank Peter Gustafsson at Ma¨lardalen University for stimulating discussions and for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

Anning, A. (1997). Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children. International Journal of Technology and , 7(3), 219–239. Bairaktarova, D., Evangelou, D., Bagiati, A., & Brophy, S. (2011). Early engineering in young children’s exploratory play with tangible materials. Children Youth and Environments, 21(2), 212. Bairaktarova, D., Evangelou, D., Bagiati, A., & Dobbs-Oates, J. (2012). The role of classroom artifacts in developmental engineering. Accessed December 18, 2013, from http://www.asee.org/search?search= the?role?of?classroom?artifacts?in?developmental?engineering. Bennett, J. (2005). Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(2), 5–23. doi:10.1080/13502930585209641.

123 P. Sundqvist, T. Nilsson

Benson, C., & Treleven, T. (2011). Designerly thinking in the foundation stage. In C. Benson & J. Lunt (Eds.), International handbook of primary technology education: Reviewing the past twenty years (Vol. 7, pp. 137–150). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Brostro¨m, S., Sandberg, A., Johansson, I., Margetts, K., Nyland, B., Frøkjaer, T., et al. (2015). Preschool teachers’ views on children’s learning: An international perspective. Early Child Development and Care, 185(5), 824–847. Campbell, C. (2010). The technological knowledge of early childhood pre-service educators. In TERC 2010: Proceedings of the 6th Biennal International Conference on Technology Education Research: Knowledge on Technology Education (pp. 83–91). Surfers Paradise, QLD: The International Tech- nology Education Association. Campbell, C., & Jobling, W. (2008). Technology education in early childhood settings. In H. E. Middleton & M. B. Pavlova (Eds.), Exploring technology education: Solutions to issues in a globalised world (Vol. 1). Nathan: Griffith University, Centre for Learning Research. Collier-Reed, B. I. (2006). Pupils’ experiences of technology—Exploring dimensions of technological lit- eracy. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Edwards, S. (2013). Toward a model for early childhood : Foregrounding, developing, and connecting knowledge through play-based learning. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(3), 195–213. doi:10.1080/00958964.2012.751892. Engdahl, I., & A¨ rlemalm-Hagse´r, E. (Eds.). (2015). Att bli fo¨rskolla¨rare: Ma˚ngfacetterad komplexitet. Stockholm: Liber. Evangelou, D., Dobbs-Oates, J., Bagiati, A., Liang, S., & Choi, J. Y. (2010). Talking about artifacts: Preschool children’s explorations with sketches, stories, and tangible objects. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2). http://ecrp.illinois.edu/v12n2/evangelou.html. Accessed 13 July 2016. Fleer, M. (2000). Working technologically: Investigations into how young children design and make during technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 43–59. doi:10.1023/a:1008923410441. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. Hagberg, J.-E., & Hulte´n, M. (2005). Skolans unervisning och elevers la¨rande i teknik—Svensk forskning i internationell kontext. Stockholm: Vetenskapsra˚det. Hartas, D. (2010). Quantitative research as a method of inquiry in education. In D. Hartas (Ed.), and inquiry—Qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 65–81). London: Contimuun International Publishing Group Ltd. Hellberg, K., & Elvstrand, H. (2013). Pedagogers tankar om teknik i fo¨rskolan. Accessed April 02, 2014, from http://www.liu.se/uv/lararrummet/venue/pedagogers-tankar-om-teknik-i-forskolan?l=sv. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy. Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association. Johansson, E., & Samuelsson, I. P. (2006). Lek och la¨roplan: Mo¨ten mellan barn och la¨rare i fo¨rskola och skola (Go¨teborg studies in educational sciences: 249).Go¨teborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Jones, A., Buntting, C., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212. Kimbell, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology. Buckingham: Open University Press. Knutsdotter Olofsson, B. (2015). Lek fo¨r livet. In I. Engdahl & E. A¨ rlemalm-Hagse´r (Eds.), Att bli fo¨r- skolla¨rare. Stockholm: Liber. Larsson, S. (2011). Kvalitativ analys—Exemplet fenomenografi. Accessed January 07, 2014, from http:// www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:253401/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Lillvist, A., & Sandberg, A. (2015). Play in a Swedish preschool context. In J. L. Roopnarine, M. M. Patte, J. E. Johnson, & D. Kushner (Eds.), International perspectives on children’s play (pp. 175–186). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education. Lillvist, A., Sandberg, A., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2014). Preschool teacher competence viewed from the perspective of students in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(1), 3–19. doi:10.1080/02607476.2013.864014. Mawson, W. B. (2011). Emergent technological literacy: What do children bring to school? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 443–453. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9188-y. Noffke, S., & Somekh, B. (2009). The SAGE handbook of educational action research. London: SAGE. OECD. (2012). Starting strong III: A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD Publishing.

123 Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities…

Rogers, A., & Russo, S. (2003). Blocks: A commonly encountered play activity in the early years, or a key to facilitating skills in science, maths and technology? Investigating: Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 19(1), 17–20. Ro¨nnerman, K. (2011). Aktionsforskning i praktiken—Kunskapsproduktion i praktiken. In S. Eklund (Ed.), Forskning om undervisning och la¨rande, 5. La¨rare som praktiker och forskare. Om praxisna¨ra forskningsmodeller (pp. 50–63). Stockholm: Stiftelsen SAF och La¨rarfo¨rbundet. Sa¨ljo¨, R. (2005). Vygotskij—Forskare, pedagog och visiona¨r. In A. Forsell (Ed.), Boken om pedagogerna (pp. 108–132). Stockholm: Liber. Samuelsson, I. P., & Pramling, N. (2013). Orchestrating and studying children’s and teachers’ learning: Reflections on developmental research approaches. Education Inquiry, 4(3), 519–536. Se´ne´si, P. H. (1998). Technological knowledge, concepts and attitudes in nursery school. In Paper presented at the IDATER 1998 Conference, Loughborough. Sheridan, S., Samuelsson, I. P., & Johansson, E. (Eds.). (2009). Barns tidiga la¨rande: En tva¨rsnittsstudie om fo¨rskolan som miljo¨fo¨r barns la¨rande.Go¨teborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Sheridan, S., Williams, P., Sandberg, A., & Vuorinen, T. (2011). Preschool teaching in Sweden—A Pro- fession in change. Educational Research, 53(4), 415–437. Siraj-Blatchford, J., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (1998). Learning through making in the early years. In J. S. Smith, & E. W. L. Norman (Eds.), International conference on design and technology educational research and curriculum development; IDATER 98 (pp. 32–36). Loughborough: Dept of Design and Technology Loughborough University. Skolinspektionen. (2012). Fo¨rskola, fo¨re skola—La¨rande och ba¨rande. Kvalitetsgranskningsrapport om fo¨rskolans arbete med det fo¨rsta¨rkta pedagogiska uppdraget. Accessed January 02, 2014, from http:// www.skolinspektionen.se/Documents/Kvalitetsgranskning/forskola-2011/kvalgr-forskolan2-slutrapport. pdf. Skolverket. (2004). Fo¨rskola i brytningstid—Nationell utva¨rdering av fo¨rskolan. Stockholm: Skolverket, Fritzes. Skolverket. (2010). La¨roplan fo¨r fo¨rskolan—Lpfo¨98. Reviderad 2010. Stockholm: Fritzes. Stables, K. (1997). Critical issues to consider when introducing technology education into the curriculum of young learners. Journal of Technology Education, 8(2), 50–65. Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(4). http://pareonline.net/getvn. asp?v=9&n=4. Accessed 13 July 2016. Sundqvist, P., Nilsson, T., & Gustafsson, P. (2015). Svensk fo¨rskolepersonals beskrivningar av teknik. LUMAT, 3(2), 237–257. Svensson, M. (2009). Fra˚nfo¨rema˚l till system—Mot en undervisningsstrategi i grundskolan. In A˚ . Inger- man, K. Wagner, & A.-S. Axelsson (Eds.), Pa˚ spaning efter teknisk bildning (pp. 207–221). Stock- holm: Liber. Svensson, M. (2011). Att urskilja tekniska system : didaktiska dimensioner i grundskolan. Theses, Institu- tionen fo¨r samha¨lls- och va¨lfa¨rdsstudier, Linko¨pings universitet, Norrko¨ping. Swedish National Agency for Education. (2015). Fo¨rskolor. Accessed May 06, 2015, from http://www. skolverket.se/skolutveckling/miljo-och-halsa/hallbar-utveckling/utmarkelsen/utmarkta-skolor/forskolor- 1.98136. Teknikdelegationen. (2009). Hur go¨r man i andra la¨nder?—En internationell kartla¨ggning av nationella satsningar fo¨r att o¨ka intresset fo¨r naturvetenskap och teknik. Stockholm: Teknikdelegationen. Turja, L., Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Chatoney, M. (2009). A conceptual framework for developing the cur- riculum and delivery of technology education in early childhood. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(4), 353–365. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9093-9. Utbildningsdepartementet. (2010). Fo¨rskola i utveckling—Bakgrund till a¨ndringar i fo¨rskolans la¨roplan. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet. Vallberg Roth, A.-C. (2011). De yngre barnens la¨roplanshistoria. Lund: Studentlitteratur. van de Poel, I. (2010). Philosophy and engineering: Setting the stage. In I. van de Poel, & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and Engineering (pp. 1–11, Philosophy of engineering and technology 2). Springer. van Meeteren, B., & Zan, B. (2010). Revealing the work of young engineers in early childhood education. In Paper presented at the SEED (STEM in Early Education and Development), Iowa, USA. Vetenskapsra˚det. (2011). God forskningssed. Vetenskapsra˚dets rapportserie 1:2011. Stockholm.

123