This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]On: 15 September 2013, At: 12:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Education & DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Children's Competencies in Process Skillsin Kindergarten and Their Impact onAcademic Achievement in Third GradeMesut Saçkes aa Necatibey School of Education , Balıkesir UniversityPublished online: 28 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Mesut Saçkes (2013) Children's Competencies in Process Skills in Kindergartenand Their Impact on Academic Achievement in Third Grade, Early Education & Development, 24:5,704-720, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2012.715571

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.715571

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Children’s Competencies in Process Skills inKindergarten and Their Impact on Academic

Achievement in Third Grade

Mesut Sackes

Necatibey School of Education, Balıkesir University

Research Findings: The purpose of this study was to investigate the factorial structure of kindergarten

children’s mathematics and science process skills and the impact of children’s competencies in process

skills on their performance on mathematics and science achievement tests in 3rd grade. A subset of the

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten cohort data set (n¼ 8,731) was analyzed using

multilevel structural equation modeling. Results demonstrated that science and mathematics process

skills were highly related at the construct level but not at the indicator level, as was anticipated.

Kindergarten children’s competency in mathematics process skills was a strong predictor of their

performance on science and mathematics achievement tests in the 3rd grade. However, children’s

competency in science process skills was only a significant predictor of their performance on a science

achievement test in the 3rd grade. Moreover, socioeconomic status and gender were statistically

significant predictors of process skills and performance on achievement tests. Practice or Policy:

The findings of the present study suggest that the development of children’s science and mathematics

process skills should be supported utilizing integrated inquiry-based science and mathematics

activities to help children recognize the connection between mathematics and science and to

contribute to their science and mathematics achievement in later grades.

Children’s scientific and mathematical thinking skills have been extensively studied by develop-

mental and cognitive psychologists and science educators since the second half of the 20th

century (e.g., Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Metz, 1995; Zimmerman, 2000, 2007). Researchers

have focused on the early competencies of children in understanding, performing, and explaining

scientific and mathematical concepts and procedures (e.g., Carey, 2004; Carey & Spelke, 1994;

Opfer & Siegler, 2004; Simon, Hespos, & Rochat, 1995; Starkey, Spelke, & Gelman, 1990); the

development of children’s competencies in the domain of science and mathematics (e.g.,

Baroody, 1992; Hadzigeorgiou, 2002; Olmsted, Parks, & Rickel, 1970; Starkey & Cooper,

1995; Wynn, 1990); and strategies to support the development of children’s scientific and math-

ematical thinking skills (e.g., Gelman & Brenneman, 2004; Nayfeld, Brenneman, & Gelman,

2011; Patrick, Mantzicopoulos, & Samarapungavan, 2009; Ramani & Siegler, 2011; Samarapun-

gavan, Mantzicopoulos, & Patrick, 2008; Sarama & Clements, 2004; Young-Loveridge, 2004).

The findings of these studies suggest that fundamental science and mathematics process skills

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Dr. Mesut Sackes, Necatibey School of Education,

Balıkesir University, 10100 Balıkesir, Turkey. E-mail: msackes@gmail.com

Early Education and Development, 24: 704–720

Copyright # 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-9289 print/1556-6935 online

DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2012.715571

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

begin to develop very early in life and gradually progress with age (e.g., Ginsburg, Klein, &

Starkey, 1998; Kuhn, Amsel, & O’Loughlin, 1988; Kuhn & Pearsall, 2000; Meyer, Wardrop, &

Hastings, 1992; Siegler & Robinson, 1982; Zur & Gelman, 2004). Even preschool children are

capable of performing various process skills, such as observing, inferring, classifying, measuring,

problem solving, and finding patterns, which are the basis of scientific and mathematical thinking

and learning (Akman, Ustun, & Guler, 2003; Carey & Spelke, 1994; Opfer & Siegler, 2004;

Ruffman, Perner, Olson, & Doherty, 1993; Spelke, Breinlinger, Macomber, & Jacobson, 1992;

Starkey & Cooper, 1995; Wellman & Estes, 1986; Zimmerman, 2000; Zur & Gelman, 2004).

Process skills have been increasingly emphasized in the science and mathematics education

literature over the past 50 years (e.g., Flick, 2000; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010; Rutherford,

1964; Wu & Hsieh, 2006). National education standards in many countries propose process

skills as an integral part of the science and mathematics curriculum (e.g., Department for

Education, 2011; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000; National Research

Council, 1996; Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı, 2005). For example, science education standards suggest

that process skills promote children’s learning of scientific concepts, their understanding of science

as a way of knowing, and the skills necessary for independent inquiry. Standards also stress the

importance of process skills in supporting the development of scientifically literate citizens. For

example, U.S. science education standards suggest that ‘‘students at all grade levels and in every

domain of science should have the opportunity to use scientific inquiry and develop the ability

to think and act in ways associated with inquiry’’ (National Research Council, 1996, p. 105).

Despite the growing emphasis on supporting the development of children’s process skills and

the increasing number of studies that document the early competencies of children in performing

various science and mathematics process skills, examination of the factorial structure of process

skills has remained neglected. Moreover, the influence of children’s documented competencies

in science and mathematics process skills in early years on their subsequent academic achieve-

ment has not been examined in the literature. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to

investigate the factorial structure of children’s mathematics and science process skills and

the effect of children’s early competencies in process skills on their long-term mathematics

and science achievement.

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESSES SKILLS

Piaget differentiated scientific and mathematical thinking skills from children’s knowledge about

the physical world. Whereas Piaget used the term logico-mathematical thinking to describe the

cognitive skills that allow children to act on objects and form mental relationships of how objects

behave as they do, he reserved the term physical knowledge to describe knowledge about objects

(Piaget, 1964, 1971). Science process skills, in general, constitute cognitive and metacognitive pro-

cesses for performing scientific investigations to construct mental models of natural phenomena.

The science education literature provides a description of the various process skills that are essen-

tial in performing scientific inquires. For example, science process skills are commonly classified

under two headings: (a) basic science process skills, such as making observations and classifica-

tions; and (b) integrated science process skills, such as formulating explanations and designing

and conducting experiments (Germann, Aram, & Burke, 1996; Zoldosova & Matejovicova,

2010). Mathematics process skills, in contrast, involve cognitive and metacognitive processes

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESS SKILLS 705

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

required to construct mental models of numeracy and mathematical operations as well as to

successfully execute mathematical operations. Mathematics process skills involve sorting, problem

solving, representing, using strategies, and so on (e.g., Pape & Tchoshanov, 2001; Rittle-Johnson,

Siegler, & Alibali, 2001).

The research literature discusses the connection between science and mathematics process

skills, and researchers have suggested that process skills seem to share a starting point (Newcombe,

2002). For example, researchers have suggested that some process skills, such as ordering, measur-

ing, and graphing, are common to science and mathematics, and competency in these process skills

is necessary for successful performance in science and mathematics learning tasks (Brotherton &

Preece, 1995; Newcombe, 2002). Science and mathematics educators and professional organiza-

tions advocate integrating mathematics and science on the grounds that both domains involve

similar endeavors to discover patterns and relationships and both share similar cognitive processes

(Berlin & White, 1994; Charlesworth, 2005; Czerniak, Weber, Sandmann, & Ahern, 1999;

Ginsburg & Golbeck, 2004; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000; Pang & Good,

2000). However, there is little empirical evidence regarding the factorial structure of and the con-

nection between science and mathematics process skills that can be used to support mathematics

and science integration practices (Brotherton & Preece, 1995). One of the purposes of the present

study, therefore, was to investigate the factorial structure of children’s mathematics and science

process skills by examining two nested confirmatory factor analysis models. The other purpose

was to examine whether children’s early competencies in process skills predict their science

and mathematics achievement in third grade.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

More specifically, the following research questions were examined in the present study.

1. Are the process skills of ordering, measuring, and graphing shared by the domains of

science and mathematics?

2. To what extent do children’s science process skills scores as assessed in kindergarten

predict their science and mathematics test scores in third grade?

3. To what extent do children’s mathematics process skills scores as assessed in kinder-

garten predict their mathematics and science test scores in third grade?

4. To what extent do gender and socioeconomic status (SES) influence children’s pro-

cess skills scores in kindergarten and their performance on science and mathematics

achievement tests in third grade?

METHODS

Participants

A subset of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten cohort (ECLS-K) data set,

data for children from kindergarten to third grade, was analyzed in the present study. The

ECLS-K data were collected using a multistage probability sampling design that included strati-

fication, clustering, and oversampling of certain subpopulations, such as private schools and

706 SACKES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Asian American children (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002). The base

year sample (1998–1999) included 22,666 children from 953 public and 460 private schools,

and participants were followed from kindergarten until the eighth grade. Information about

children’s gender, race, and SES (a composite variable that includes information about parents’

level of education, occupation, and income) was obtained from the ECLS-K data set.

The sample for the current study included only first-time kindergarten students and students

who remained in the same school until the end of third grade. These restrictions were used to

avoid any potential confounding effects of repeating kindergarten and=or changing schools on

the children’s mathematics and science achievement. The sample resulting from these selection

criteria included 8,731 children from the ECLS-K data set. Table 1 presents the distribution of

the study sample by gender and race.

Data Collection

Data collected through the following instruments were analyzed in this study: Kindergarten

Teacher Questionnaire (spring of kindergarten), science achievement test (third grade), and

mathematics achievement test (third grade).

Kindergarten teacher questionnaire. This questionnaire was used to collect information

about teachers’ backgrounds, classroom practices, and ratings of children’s skills (NCES, 2002).

The present study utilized data obtained through the Spring 1999 administration of the question-

naire. Two sections of the questionnaire, the general knowledge and mathematical thinking sec-

tions, asked teachers to rate children’s use of science and mathematics process skills on a 5-point

Likert scale (1¼ not yet, 2¼ beginning, 3¼ in progress, 4¼ intermediate, 5¼ proficient). The

general knowledge section included five items, but only three of these five items targeted science

process skills. The mathematical thinking section included seven items. Three items from the

general knowledge section were used as indicators of the latent variable of science process skills,

TABLE 1

Distribution of the Study Sample

Variable n Unweighted % Weighted %

Child gender

Male 4,325 49.5 49.9

Female 4,406 50.5 50.1

Child composite race

White, non-Hispanic 5,302 60.7 63.1

Black or African American, non-Hispanic 975 11.2 12.1

Hispanic, race specified 737 8.4 8.8

Hispanic, race not specified 724 8.3 8.8

Asian 487 5.6 2.5

Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander 116 1.3 0.6

American Indian or Alaska native 148 1.7 1.8

More than one race, non-Hispanic 236 2.7 2.2

Not ascertained 6 0.1 0.1

Total 8,731 100 100

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESS SKILLS 707

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

and seven items from the mathematical thinking section were used as indicators of the latent

variable of mathematics process skills. The range of possible values for the science and math-

ematics process skills assessments was 1 to 5 (the total score was divided by the number of

items). Table 2 describes the items analyzed in the study.

Science achievement test. The achievement test included items that targeted children’s

conceptual understanding and scientific research skills. Whereas items in the conceptual under-

standing category targeted children’s factual knowledge of scientific phenomena, items in the

scientific research category assessed children’s process skills, such as formulating and testing

questions. The test items were drawn from the physical, life, and earth and space science content

areas. The science achievement test placed equal emphasis on the four targeted content areas.

Items were generated by following the guidelines proposed by the National Assessment

Governing Board (1996) Science Framework, the American Association for the Advancement

of Science (1995), and the National Research Council (1996) and based on a review of a

elementary science text series. The reliability coefficient of the observed scores was .88 for the

third-grade science assessment (NCES, 2005).

The science test consisted of two forms: a routing form, which included 15 items, and a

second-stage form. Depending on their achievement on the routing form, children were given

second-stage forms with three different levels of difficulty (low, middle, and high difficulty),

each including 20 items. In this study, item response theory–based science achievement scores

ranging from 0 to 111 were used in the analysis (NCES, 2005, 2009).

Mathematics achievement test. The mathematics test was used to assess children’s

understanding of mathematical concepts and operations. Items on the mathematics test focused

on the following concepts: (a) number sense, properties, and operations; (b) measurement; (c)

geometry and spatial sense; (d) data analysis, statistics, and probability; and (e) patterns, algebra,

and functions (NCES, 2002). The reliability coefficient of the observed scores for the third-grade

mathematics assessment was .94 (NCES, 2005).

TABLE 2

Criteria Teachers Used to Rate Children’s Science and Mathematics Process Skills

Process skills Items

Science process skills

Uses his or her senses to explore and observe

Forms explanations based on observations and explorations

Classifies and compares living and nonliving things in different ways

Mathematics process skills

Sorts, classifies, and compares math materials by various rules and attributes

Orders a group of objects

Shows an understanding of the relationship between quantities

Solves problems involving numbers using concrete objects

Demonstrates an understanding of graphing activities

Uses instruments accurately for measuring

Uses a variety of strategies to solve math problems

Note. From the Kindergarten Teacher Questionnaire, available at http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/pdf/kindergarten/spring

teachersABC.pdf

708 SACKES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The mathematics test also consisted of two forms: a routing form (17 items) and a

second-stage form (25 items in the low and 24 items in the middle and high second-stage forms).

Based on their performance on the routing form, children were given either the low, middle, or

high second-stage form. In the analysis of mathematics achievement, item response theory–

based mathematics test scores ranging from 0 to 174 were used (NCES, 2005, 2009).

Data Analysis

Multilevel structural equation modeling was used as an analytical tool to examine the factorial

structure of the process skills and the impact of children’s early competency in process skills on

their mathematics and science achievement in third grade. Because the ECLS-K sampling design

involved stratification, clustering, and oversampling of certain subpopulations, an appropriate

statistical procedure that accounted for the ECLS-K sampling design was used. Mplus software

Version 6.01 was used in the analysis of the data using appropriate weight, stratification, and

cluster variables (Muthen, B. & Muthen, L., 1998–2010). A new cluster variable that contained

unique Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) numbers for each stratum was generated for the software.

Because the process skills variables were assessed on an ordinal scale, the robust weighted least

square (WLSMV) method of estimation was used in parameter estimation.

Two nested confirmatory factor analysis models were examined to test the relationship

between mathematics and science process skills. The models were compared using chi-square

difference tests and consulting the change in fit indexes and the magnitude of the factor loadings

in the models. Chi-square difference tests were conducted using the DIFFTEST option and

a two-step procedure as described in the Mplus manual (Muthen & Muthen, 2005). When the

WLSMV estimator is used, the difference in model fit for nested models, unlike the maximum

likelihood estimator, ‘‘does not correspond directly with the differences in estimated chi-square

and degrees of freedom between the constrained and unconstrained models’’ (White, Fleming,

Kim, Catalano, & McMorris, 2008, p. 1634). In other words, the chi-square value is calibrated

to produce an accurate p value when the WLSMV estimator is used, and it is the p value that

is relevant when the chi-square difference tests are used using the WLSMV as an estimator

(Muthen, B. & Muthen, L., 1998–2010). Finally, a structural model was tested to examine

whether children’s early competencies in science and mathematics process skills in kindergarten

predicted their performance on science and mathematics achievement tests in third grade, the end

of their early childhood schooling experiences. The influence of gender and SES on children’s

process skills scores and their performance on science and mathematics achievement tests was

also examined.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Girls were more likely to be rated by their teachers as being more competent in using science and

mathematics process skills in kindergarten than were boys. In general, children with a higher

SES tended to be rated as more competent in using science and mathematics process skills than

their peers with a lower SES. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for the process

skills scores by gender and SES.

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESS SKILLS 709

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The boys seemed to perform better than the girls on the science and mathematics achievement

tests at third grade. There also were differences between science and mathematics test scores of

children in different SES groups. Children with a higher SES tended to perform better on science

and mathematics tests than their peers with a lower SES. Table 4 presents the means and stan-

dard deviations for the science mathematics test scores by gender and SES.

Assessment of the First Measurement Model: First-Order Factors Model (Model A)

Initially, a first-order factors model (Model A) was tested. For this model, the chi-square test was

significant, indicating a poor fit (v2¼ 1,107.35, df¼ 35, p< .01). Because the chi-square statistic

is easily influenced by large sample sizes, multiple goodness-of-fit indexes are used to evaluate

the fit between the model and the sample data (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

The indexes interpreted in the present study were the comparative fit index (CFI¼ 0.99), the

TABLE 4

Third-Grade Science and Mathematics Achievement Scores by Gender and SES

Variable

Mathematics Science

M SD M SD

Female 97.43 23.33 49.19 14.35

Male 102.5 25.03 52.54 15.14

Low SES 89.02 22.58 43.53 13.50

Middle SES 99.89 24.42 51.02 13.05

High SES 109.40 22.65 57.09 13.92

Note. SES¼ socioeconomic status.

TABLE 3

Mean (SD) Kindergarten Science and Mathematics Process Skills Scores by Gender and Socioeconomic

Status

Skills Item

Gender Socioeconomic status

Male Female Low Middle High

Science process skills Classify 3.8 (1.06)� 3.9 (1.03) 3.5 (1.0) 3.8 (0.99) 4.1 (0.91)

Explain 3.5 (1.14) 3.6 (1.08) 3.4 (1.1) 3.7 (0.97) 4.0 (0.95)

Observe 3.7 (1.07) 3.8 (1.02) 3.2 (1.2) 3.6 (1.0) 3.9 (1.0)

Total 3.7 (1.09) 3.8 (1.04) 3.4 (1.1) 3.7 (0.99) 4.0 (0.95)

Measure 3.1 (1.14) 3.3 (1.10) 2.9 (1.1) 3.2 (1.2) 3.5 (1.04)

Graph 3.9 (1.08) 4.0 (1.04) 3.6 (1.15) 3.9 (1.0) 4.2 (0.92)

Mathematics process skills Solve 3.6 (1.18) 3.7 (1.13) 3.3 (1.2) 3.6 (1.1) 3.9 (1.06)

Relation 3.7 (1.02) 3.9 (1.08) 3.5 (1.18) 3.8 (1.04) 4.1 (1.0)

Order 3.8 (1.05) 4.0 (1.02) 3.6 (1.1) 3.9 (0.97) 4.1 (0.93)

Sorts 3.9 (1.04) 4.0 (0.97) 3.7 (1.08) 4.0 (0.93) 4.2 (0.91)

Strategy 3.4 (1.13) 3.5 (1.10) 3.1 (1.14) 3.4 (1.08) 3.7 (1.05)

Total 3.6 (1.08) 3.8 (1.06) 3.4 (1.14) 3.7 (1.05) 4.0 (0.99)

710 SACKES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Tucker–Lewis index (TLI¼ 0.99), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA¼0.06; 90% confidence interval [CI]¼ 0.057–0.063). A recent study suggested that CFI and TLI

values should be close to 0.95 and the RMSEA value should be close to 0.06 for model accept-

ance (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The fit indexes calculated in the present study suggest that the model

tested in the study provided a very good fit to the sample data. Figure 1 illustrates the results for

the first-order factors model.

Assessment of the Second Measurement Model: First-Order Factors Model withShared Process Skills (Model B)

The second measurement model tested in the study was the first-order factors model with shared

process skills (Model B). This model was tested to examine whether the process skills of order-

ing, measuring, and graphing are shared by the domains of science and mathematics. The

FIGURE 1 First-order factors model (Model A).

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESS SKILLS 711

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

chi-square test for this model was significant, indicating a poor fit (v2¼ 1,233.11, df¼ 32,

p< .001). The results did not support the hypothesis of shared process skills. The chi-square

difference test for Model A and Model B was not statistically significant (Dv2¼ 8.67, df¼ 3,

p> 0.01), indicating that adding paths from science process skills to the process skills of order-

ing, measuring, and graphing did not substantially improve the model fit. Although the CFI and

TLI fit values were the same for the two models, the RMSEA value was slightly worse for the

first-order factors model with shared process skills (CFI¼ 0.99; TLI¼ 0.99; RMSEA¼ 0.066;

90% CI¼ 0.063–0.070). Moreover, shared process skills (ordering, measuring, and graphing)

did not load satisfactorily to the latent factor of science process skills. The overall results suggest

that the first-order factors model with shared process skills is not acceptable. Figure 2 illustrates

the results for the first-order factors model with shared process skills.

Assessment of the Structural Model: Process Skills and Achievement at Third Grade

This model examined the influence of the level of children’s process skills as assessed in

kindergarten on their science and mathematics achievement in third grade. The model provided

a very good fit to the sample data (v2¼ 1,070.05, df¼ 50, p< .001; CFI¼ 0.99; TLI¼ 0.99;

RMSEA¼ 0.048; 90% CI¼ 0.046–0.051). Results demonstrated that children’s mathematics

FIGURE 2 First-order factors model with shared skills (Model B).

712 SACKES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

process skills were statistically significant predictors of their mathematics achievement at third

grade (z¼ 12.16, p< .001). Likewise, children’s science process skills were statistically signifi-

cant predictors of their science achievement at third grade (z¼ 2.70, p< .01). As expected, there

was a strong positive correlation between children’s mathematics process skills and their science

process skills (r¼ .93), indicating children with high mathematics process skills tended to

have high science process skills or vice versa. There also was a strong positive correlation

between children’s science achievement scores and their mathematics achievement scores at

third grade (r¼ .61).

Children’s mathematics process skills also were statistically significant predictors of their

science achievement at third grade (z¼ 5.75, p< .001). However, science process skills were not

statistically significant predictors of their mathematics achievement at third grade (z¼�1.15,

p> .05). The results also indicated that mathematics and science process skills together accounted

for 27% of the variance in children’s mathematics achievement in third grade and 22% of the vari-

ance in children’s science achievement in third grade. Figure 3 illustrates the results for the model

tested in the study.

In a separate analysis, gender and SES variables were included in the model to test whether the

differences observed in the process skills and the academic achievement scores between boys and

girls and children with a different SES were statistically significant. Results demonstrated that

gender was a statistically significant predictor of children’s competency in science (b¼ .06,

p< .05) and mathematics (b¼ .07, p< .05) process skills. Girls were more likely to be rated

as more competent in using science and mathematics process skills in kindergarten than were

FIGURE 3 Process skills and mathematics and science achievement at third grade.

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESS SKILLS 713

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

boys. However, boys were more likely to perform better on science (b¼�.15, p< .05) and

mathematics (b¼�.14, p< .05) achievement tests in third grade than were girls. SES was

a statistically significant predictor of children’s competency in using science (b¼ .27, p< .05)

and mathematics (b¼ .26, p< .05) process skills in kindergarten and their performance on

the mathematics (b¼ .25, p< .001) and science (b¼ .30, p< .001) tests in third grade. Children

with a higher SES were more likely to be rated as more competent in using process skills

and were also more likely to obtain higher scores on the mathematics and science achievement

tests than their peers with low SES.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that science process skills and mathematics process skills are

highly related yet distinct constructs. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated

that process skills (e.g., measurement, ordering, and graphing) that are assumed to be shared

by the domains of mathematics and science did not satisfactorily load on the construct of science

process skills, which contradicts previous assumptions regarding the factorial structure of the

process skills. Results demonstrated that process skills are highly related at the construct level

but not at the indicator level. The findings of this study suggest that, at least during the early

years, science and mathematics process skills are discerned. There are three possible explana-

tions for the observed factorial structure of the process skills in this study: developmental trajec-

tories of process skills, teachers’ assessment of science process skills, and the nature of science

and mathematics instruction in the early years.

Developmental trajectories of process skills might follow a different path than previously antici-

pated, and the development of process skills can be highly context dependent during the early years

(Johnston, 2009; McNay & Melville, 1993). Children’s competency in process skills is assessed by

teachers’ ratings. Early childhood teachers might be more competent at evaluating children’s math-

ematics process skills than their science process skills. Also, teachers might have fewer opportu-

nities to observe children using their science process skills, limiting the accuracy of the assessment

of science process skills (Early et al., 2010; Sackes, Trundle, Bell, & O’Connell, 2011).

Many early childhood teachers have limited understanding of the science and mathematics

concepts they are expected to teach (Garbett, 2003; Odgers, 2007; Pell & Jarvis, 2003), and they

often struggle with delivering effective instructional strategies for teaching mathematics and

science in early childhood classrooms (Appleton, 1995; Bintas, 2008; Czerniak & Chiarelott,

1990; Schoon & Boone, 1998). Moreover, despite the growing emphasis on the integration of

mathematics and science in the early years (Beatty, 2005; Berlin & Lee, 2005; Sackes, Flevares,

Gonya, & Trundle, 2012; Tu, 2006), there is little effort to prepare teachers in the practice of

effective integration of mathematics and science (Furner & Kumar, 2007; Isaacs, Wagreich, &

Gartzman, 1997; Jones, Lake, & Dagli, 2003). Therefore, early childhood teachers devote limited

time to science and mathematics instruction in early childhood classrooms (Greenfield et al.,

2009; Sackes, 2012; Sackes et al., 2011), and they rarely attempt to integrate science and

mathematics (Cady & Rearden, 2007; Douville, Pugalee, & Wallace, 2003). Limited exposure

to integrated science and mathematics activities in the early years might prevent children from

appreciating connections and applications that link mathematics and science concepts (Frykholm,

2005) and noticing that mathematics and science involve similar attempts to discover patterns

714 SACKES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

and relationships and share similar cognitive processes. The previously described nature of

science and mathematics instruction in the early years might account for the finding that the

predicted relationship between science and mathematics process skills at the indicator level

was not supported in the current study.

Results demonstrated that children’s mathematics process skills as assessed in kindergarten

were stronger predictors of their performance on the science achievement test than the science

process skills were. Although children’s mathematics process skills were also significant predic-

tors of their performance on the mathematics achievement test, science process skills were not

a statistically significant predictor of children’s performance on the mathematics achievement

test. These findings indicate that although process skills are not shared by the domains of

mathematics and science at the indicator level in the early years, they might become highly related

by the end of the early childhood period. The strong relationship between children’s science and

mathematics achievement test scores observed in the study also suggests that the two domains

become highly related in later years.

Both SES and gender were statistically significant predictors of children’s competency in

using process skills and performance on mathematics and science achievement tests. Although

girls were more likely than boys to be rated as more competent in using science and mathematics

process skills in kindergarten, they were less likely to obtain higher scores on the science and

mathematics achievement tests in third grade. These findings suggest that children’s science

and mathematics learning experiences in the early elementary grades might be one of the possible

causes of gender difference in science and mathematics achievement in later grades. The findings

of previous studies suggest that teachers and parents tend to encourage more detailed reasoning in

boys and give boys more opportunity to respond in discussions of scientific and mathematical

concepts than girls (Chang, Sandhofer, & Brown, 2011; Crowley, Callanan, Tenenbaum, &

Allen, 2001; Eccles & Blumenfeld, 1985; Shakeshaft, 1995; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2003; Whyte,

1986). The difference between girls and boys in the nature of the science and mathematics experi-

ences they have in the early elementary grades might be the reason girls were more likely to

obtain lower scores on the science and mathematics achievement tests in third grade, even though

they were rated as more competent in using process skills in kindergarten in the current study.

Children with a higher SES were more likely to be rated as more competent in using science

and mathematics process skills and were also more likely to perform better on the mathematics

and science achievement tests than children with low SES. Previous studies have also demon-

strated that children with a low SES exhibit lower levels of science and mathematics achievement

(Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000; Denton & West, 2002; Lee, 2005; National Research

Council, 2001; Starkey & Klein, 1992; West, Denton, & Germino-Hausken, 2000) and that these

disparities in science and mathematics achievement widen as children move into the upper grades

(Bodovski & Farkas, 2007; Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Sackes et al., 2011; Tao, Oliver, & Venville,

2012). Early interventions are likely to reduce disparities in science and mathematics achievement

(Starkey, Klein, & Wakeley, 2004; Tao et al., 2012; Tzuriel, Kaniel, Kanner, & Haywood, 1999).

Future studies should focus on the development of process skills by gathering data from

multiple points in time to examine whether process skills become shared by the domains of

mathematics and science at the indicator level during the late early childhood years. The pattern

of relationships that was observed in the present study might be restricted to only the early

grades, as the domain of mathematics has more specific content and expectations than the

domain of science in the early years. Therefore, similar relationships need to be explored with

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESS SKILLS 715

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

older children in later grades. This study examined the influence of only two demographic

variables (gender and SES) on children’s process skills and science and mathematics test scores.

Future studies should investigate the influence of ethnicity, school type, and language back-

ground of kindergartners on their competency in using process skills and their science and

mathematics achievement in the later grades. In the present study, process skills were assessed

using teachers’ ratings. Future studies should include additional forms of assessments to measure

children’s process skills. This study did not consider the influence of different forms of science

and mathematics instruction in kindergarten on children’s process skills. Likewise, the influence

of early formal and informal learning experiences on the development of children’s process

skills was not examined in the present study. Future studies should examine the effect of con-

textual differences in the formation of process skills and their relationship during the early years.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that the connection between the process skills children use in

mathematics and science activities might not be evident for kindergartners and that educational

opportunities provided in ordinary kindergarten classrooms might not be designed to help chil-

dren see the connection between these process skills. These findings suggest that the development

of children’s science and mathematics process skills should be supported in early childhood class-

rooms to help children understand that science and mathematics share similar cognitive processes.

Research studies suggest that inquiry-based instruction promotes children’s conceptual under-

standing of scientific phenomena, their understanding of mathematical concepts and procedures,

and science and mathematics process skills (Anderson, 2002; Baroody, 2000; Baroody & Benson,

2001; Minner et al., 2010). Inquiry-based activities might create opportunities for children to

understand how scientific and mathematical thinking skills are connected and instrumental in

understanding how the natural world they live in works (Gelman & Brenneman, 2004; Kamii,

Miyakawa, & Kato, 2007; Nayfeld et al., 2011; Samarapungavan et al., 2008). Inquiry-based

activities also might promote girls’ and boys’ motivation for learning science (Patrick et al.,

2009). Therefore, teachers should use inquiry-based activities in which children use developmen-

tally appropriate materials to make observations, make predictions, and answer questions to help

children develop and relate science and mathematics process skills (Sackes et al., 2011).

Intentionally provided inquiry-based learning opportunities may provide contexts for children

to practice various science and mathematics process skills. By relating scientific inquiry and

mathematical problem solving and connecting early childhood mathematics and science through

representation, measurement, and data analysis, inquiry-based activities may help children recog-

nize that mathematics and science involve similar attempts to discover patterns and relationships.

REFERENCES

Akman, B., Ustun, E., & Guler, T. (2003). Using science process skills in 6 years old children. Hacettepe University

Journal of Education, 24, 11–14.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1995). Benchmarks for science literacy. Retrieved from

www.project2061.org

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 13(1), 1–12.

716 SACKES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary to improve

self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 357–369.

Baroody, A. J. (1992). The development of kindergartners’ mental-addition strategies. Learning and Individual

Differences, 4, 215–235.

Baroody, A. J. (2000). Does mathematics instruction for 3- to 5-year olds really make sense? Young Children, 55(4),

61–67.

Baroody, A. J., & Benson, A. P. (2001). Early number instruction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(3), 154–158.

Beatty, A. (2005). Mathematical and scientific development in early childhood: A workshop summary. Washington, DC:

National Academies Press.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.

Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science andMathematics, 105(1), 15–24.

Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). The Berlin-White integrated science and mathematics model. School Science and

Mathematics, 94(1), 2–4.

Bintas, J. (2008). Motivational qualities of mathematical experiences for Turkish preservice kindergarten teachers.

International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3(2), 46–52.

Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2007). Do instructional practices contribute to inequality in achievement? The case of

mathematics instruction in kindergarten. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(3), 301–322.

Brotherton, P. N., & Preece, P. W. (1995). Science process skills: Their nature and interrelationships. Research in Science

and Technological Education, 13(1), 5–11.

Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, P. A. (2009). Factors predictive of mathematics achievement in kindergarten, first and third

grades: An opportunity–propensity analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 167–183.

Cady, J. A., & Rearden, K. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about knowledge, mathematics, and science. School

Science and Mathematics, 107(6), 237–245.

Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student

performance (NCES Publication No. 2000-469). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Carey, S. (2004, Winter). Bootstrapping and the development of concepts. Dedalus, pp. 59–68.

Carey, S., & Spelke, E. S. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld, &

S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, (pp. 169–201). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Chang, A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Brown, C. S. (2011). Gender biases in early number exposure to preschool-aged

children. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 440–450.

Charlesworth, R. (2005). Prekindergarten mathematics: Connecting with national standards. Early Childhood EducationJournal, 32(4), 229–236.

Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls

during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12(3), 258–261.

Czerniak, C. M., & Chiarelott, L. (1990). Teacher education for effective science instruction: A social cognitive perspective.

Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 49–58.

Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Sandmann, A. J., & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics

integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 421–430.

Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and first grade (NCES

Publication No. 2002–125). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Department for Education. (2011). National curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/

teachingandlearning/curriculum

Douville, P., Pugalee, D. K., & Wallace, J. D. (2003). Examining instructional practices of elementary science teachers

for mathematics and literacy integration. School Science and Mathematics, 103(8), 388–396.

Early, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D. C., Crawford, G. M., . . . Pianta, R. C. (2010). How do

pre-kindergarteners spend their time? Gender, ethnicity and income as predictors of experiences in pre-kindergarten

classrooms. Early Childhood Education Quarterly, 25, 177–193.

Eccles, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: Are there differences and do

they matter? In L. Wilkinson & C. Marrett (Eds.), Gender influence in classroom interaction (pp. 79–114). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESS SKILLS 717

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Flick, L. B. (2000). Cognitive scaffolding that fosters scientific inquiry in middle level science. Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, 11(2), 109–129.

Frykholm, J. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers.

School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127–141.

Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education.

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 185–189.

Garbett, D. (2003). Science education in early childhood teacher education: Putting forward a case to enhance student

teachers’ confidence and competence. Research in Science Education, 33, 467–481.

Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 19(1), 150–158.

Germann, P. J., Aram, R., & Burke, G. (1996). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade

students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 79–99.

Ginsburg, H. P., & Golbeck, S. L. (2004). Thoughts on the future of research on mathematics and science learning and

education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 190–200.

Ginsburg, H. P., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The development of children’s mathematical thinking: Connecting

research and practice. In H. P. Ginsburg, A. Klein, & P. Starkey (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Childpsychology in practice, (pp. 401–476). New York, NY: Wiley.

Greenfield, D. B., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenberg, A., Maier, M., & Fuccilo, J. (2009). Science in the preschool

classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education & Development,20, 238–264.

Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2002). A study of the development of the concept of mechanical stability in preschool children.

Research in Science Education, 32(3), 373–391.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria

versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Isaacs, A., Wagreich, P., & Gartzman, M. (1997). The quest for integration: School mathematics and science. AmericanJournal of Education, 106, 179–206.

Johnston, J. S. (2009). What does the skill of observation look like in young children? International Journal of Science

Education, 31, 2511–2525.

Jones, I., Lake, V. E., & Dagli, U. (2003). Integrating mathematics and science in undergraduate early childhood teacher

education programs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24, 3–8.

Kamii, C., Miyakawa, Y., & Kato, Y. (2007). Trying to make a lever work at ages 1 to 4: The development of functions

(logico-mathematical thinking). Early Education & Development, 18, 145–161.

Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development,

1, 113–129.

Lee, O. (2005). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Education forStudents Placed at Risk, 10, 431–440.

McNay, M., & Melville, K. W. (1993). Children’s skill in making predictions and their understanding of what predicting

means: A developmental study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 561–577.

Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of EducationalResearch, 65(2), 93–127.

Meyer, L. A., Wardrop, J. L., & Hastings, J. N. (1992). The development of science knowledge in kindergarten through

second grade. (Technical Report No. 549). Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. (ED354146)

Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı. (2005). Ilkogretim fen ve teknoloji dersi 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. (Curriculum for the elementary science

and technology course for fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.) Sınıflar ogretim programı. Ankara, Turkey:

MEB Yayınevi.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter?

Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474–496.

Muthen, B., & Muthen, L. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (Version 6.01). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.

Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2005). Chi-square difference testing using the S-B scaled chi-square. Retrieved from

www.statmodel.com

718 SACKES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

National Assessment Governing Board. (1996). Science framework for the 1996 National Assessment of EducationalProgress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). User’s manual for the ECLS-K first grade public-use data files and

electronic codebook (NCES Publication No. 2002–135). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Psychometric reports for the third grade (NCES Publication

No. 2005–062). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Combined user’s manual for the ECLS-K eighth-grade and K-8 full

sample data files and electronic codebooks (NCES Publication No. 2009–004). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.

Reston, VA: NCTM.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies

Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academies

Press.

Nayfeld, I., Brenneman, K., & Gelman, R. (2011). Science in the classroom: Finding a balance between autonomous

exploration and teacher-led instruction in preschool settings. Early Education & Development, 22, 970–988.

Newcombe, N. (2002). The nativist-empiricist controversy in the context of recent research on spatial and quantitative

development. Psychological Science, 13, 395–401.

Odgers, B. M. (2007). Elementary pre-service teachers’ motivation towards science learning at an Australian university.

International Journal of Learning, 14(3), 201–216.

Olmsted, P. P., Parks, C. V., & Rickel, A. (1970). The development of classification skills in the preschool child.

International Review of Education, 16(1), 67–80.

Opfer, J. E., & Siegler, R. S. (2004). Revisiting preschoolers’ living things concept: A microgenetic analysis of conceptual

change in basic biology. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 301–332.

Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research.

School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82.

Pape, S. J., & Tchoshanov, M. A. (2001). The role of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding.

Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 118–127.

Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Motivation for learning science in kindergarten: Is there

a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a difference. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 46(2), 166–191.

Pell, A., & Jarvis, T. (2003). Developing attitude to science education scales for use with primary teachers. International

Journal of Science Education, 25, 1273–1296.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In C. Lavatelli (Ed.), Readings in child behavior and development, (pp. 38–46).

New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2011). Reducing the gap in numerical knowledge between low- and middle-income

preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 146–159.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill

in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.

Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D. R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children’s understandings

of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 64, 1617–1636.

Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80–84.

Sackes, M. (in press). How often do early childhood teachers teach science concepts? Determinants of the frequency of

science teaching in kindergarten. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. doi:10.1080=1350293X.

2012.704305

Sackes, M., Flevares, L. M., Gonya, M., & Trundle, K. C. (2012). Preservice early childhood teachers’ sense of efficacy

for integrating mathematics and science: Impact of a methods course. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,

33(4), 349–364.

Sackes, M., Trundle, K. C., Bell, R. L., & O’Connell, A. A. (2011). The influence of early science experience in

kindergarten on children’s immediate and later science achievement: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitu-

dinal Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 217–235.

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROCESS SKILLS 719

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2008). Learning science through inquiry in kindergarten.

Science Education, 92, 868–908.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2004). Building Blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 19(1), 181–189.

Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary

teachers. Science Education, 82, 553–568.

Shakeshaft, C. (1995). Reforming science education to include girls. Theory Into Practice, 34(1), 74–79.

Siegler, R. S., & Robinson, M. (1982). The development of numerical understandings. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsett

(Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Vol. 16, (pp. 242–312). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Simon, T. J., Hespos, S. J., & Rochat, P. (1995). Do infants understand simple arithmetic? A replication of Wynn (1992).

Cognitive Development, 10(2), 253–269.

Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review,

99, 605–632.

Starkey, P., & Cooper, R. G. (1995). The development of subitizing in young children. British Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 13, 399–420.

Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (1992). Economic and cultural influences on early mathematical development. In F. L. Parker,

R. Robinson, S. Sombrano, C. Piotrowski, J. Hagen, S. Randolph, & A. Baker (Eds.), New directions in child and

family research: Shaping Head Start in the 90s, (pp. 440–443). New York, NY: National Council of Jewish Women.

Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical knowledge through

a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 99–120.

Starkey, P., Spelke, E. S., & Gelman, R. (1990). Numerical abstraction by human infants. Cognition, 36(2), 97–127.

Tao, Y., Oliver, M., & Venville, G. (2012). Long-term outcomes of early childhood science education: Insights from

a cross-national comparative case study on conceptual understanding of science. International Journal of Scienceand Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1269–1302. doi:10.1007=s10763-012-9335-2

Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent–child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities?

Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 34–47.

Tu, T. (2006). Preschool science environment: What is available in a preschool classroom? Early Childhood EducationJournal, 33(4), 245–251.

Tzuriel, D., Kaniel, S., Kanner, E., & Haywood, H. C. (1999). Effects of the ‘‘Bright Start’’ program in kindergarten

on transfer and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 111–141.

Wellman, H. M., & Estes, D. (1986). Early understanding of mental entities: A reexamination of childhood realism. Child

Development, 57, 910–923.

West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). Executive summary, America’s kindergartners: Findings from the

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99: Fall 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education.

White, H. R., Fleming, C. B., Kim, M. J., Catalano, R. F., & McMorris, B. J. (2008). Identifying two potential mechan-

isms for changes in alcohol use among college-attending and non-college-attending emerging adults. Developmental

Psychology, 44(6), 1625–1639.

Whyte, J. (1986). Girls into science and technology. Boston, MA: Routledge & Keagen.

Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based

learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1289–1313.

Wynn, K. (1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155–193.

Young-Loveridge, J. M. (2004). Effects of early numeracy of a problem using number books and games. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 82–98.

Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99–149.

Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental

Review, 27(2), 172–223.

Zoldosova, K., & Matejovicova, I. (2010). Finding out how the elementary school children manipulate with empirical

material and how they process the obtained information. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,

2(3). Retrieved from http://www.iejee.com/2_3_2010/327-347.pdf

Zur, O., & Gelman, R. (2004). Young children can add and subtract by predicting and checking. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 19(1), 121–137.

720 SACKES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

12:

58 1

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013