Symbolic Representation of Young Children in Science: Insights into Preschoolers’ Drawings of Change of State of Matter

Abstract

Research in early childhood education acknowledges the multimodal nature of learning, and the need to equip young learners with the abilities to encounter future communication and learning challenges is imperative. Drawing can play a crucial role in children’s learning in general and contribute to science learning in particular. In this paper, we study the drawings that young children (aged 4–6) produce during a teaching intervention about the change of state of matter. The research adopts a sociocultural perspective, considering drawing as a mediating tool to support children’s meaning-making and learning process. The objective is to understand better the type of drawing situations that can be proposed to young children in science and the scaffold these drawing tasks might provide to support meaning-making in science. Results show that children use iconic as well as symbolic modes of representation depending on the situation and that the resources available can have an impact on how children use different symbols.

1. Introduction

Considering learning both a meaning-making and a participatory process at school and in other contexts of children’s everyday life, emphasis is placed on the study of the various modes or «languages» that can support this learning process. Drawing can be considered one such language, which is why it is often a popular practice in early childhood education (ECE) [1]. Drawing is an activity that children are introduced to at a very early age. According to Hope [2] (p. 3) «the word ‘drawing’ is one of those action words which can describe both a product and a process. ‘To draw’ is to purposefully make a mark; a ‘drawing’ is the result of that mark-making». Research studies [3,4] have shown that drawing is more complex than mere mark-making, as representational drawing implies that children have realized the concept that pictures can be symbols that stand for something. «In contrast to the rules of phonetics, drawing is open-ended and offers children a flexible means of representation and communication» [5] (p. 182). Children use drawing to represent knowledge, experience, and emotions to create a meaningful whole that combines diverse elements of their experience. To accomplish this, they have to select, interpret, and reform these elements [5]. Drawing can be used actively and dynamically to support, develop, and expand thinking and learning. The creation of improvised symbols and their adaptation and use in more complex graphic representations in the classroom reflect a dynamic process through which children become aware of their representational abilities [6].

Drawing is also used as a means for eliciting children’s ideas in the field of Early Science Education [7,8]. Research on how children explore concepts and phenomena from the natural world indicates that children document their ideas and experiences by drawing to become involved in scientific thinking. Drawing is usually used during classroom inquiries, where children may draw to record data they have encountered in books, on the internet, and by observing the natural environment [5,9,10].

Drawing can provide an insight into children’s ideas, can develop representational and symbolic abilities, and can extend children’s thinking; by achieving this, it can help children build a foundation of visual literacy [7,11]. Having in mind that educators need to equip young learners with the necessary abilities to encounter learning challenges, we suggest that drawing, having the characteristics of a visual language, can serve as a mediating tool for knowledge construction and, in particular, the development of symbolic representation in science. Science often involves the study of non-observable entities; therefore the use of symbols and the development of representational competence can enhance children’s scientific learning.

Within this context, this paper addresses the following research questions:

• What mode of representations are used by children to communicate meaning in different drawings during a science activity?
• Which symbols do children create through their drawings when different semiotic resources are made available?

The objective is to understand better the type of drawing situations that can be proposed to young children in science and the scaffold these drawing tasks might provide to support meaning-making in science.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Drawing and Meaning-Making

Within a sociocultural framework, knowledge is not considered to be acquired passively by children. Instead, children are considered as active agents, and learning is seen as occurring through children’s participation in various activities in the context of social interactions and cultural tools, which serve as mediating components that transform knowledge and create meanings [12,13]. Drawing is an ordinary activity for preschool children, and they use it extensively at school, in play, and in other daily activities at home [5]. Documenting their experiences and understandings through visual representations, including drawings and photos, is a common practice in ECE, which supports young children’s learning [14]. Furthermore, drawing activity is considered important for the development of children’s symbolic competences and for leading “to the further development of abstract thinking, imagination, and logic reasoning” [15] (p. 151). Wood and Hall [16] (p. 270) assert that

drawing is much more than a pre-writing skill, or a developmental transition from ‘drawing things to drawing speech’. The focus is on understanding the more complex purposes that drawing fulfils for young children, as an intrinsically valuable form of abstraction and communication, as a social practice, and as a symbolic means of bridging home and school contexts.

van Oers [17] used the term semiotic activity to describe the process of meaning-making, which is carried out through symbolic systems highlighting the interrelationship between iconic and symbolic thinking. He pointed out that “schematic representations (like drawings, for instance) are often used as a starting point for the semiotic activity of young children, as they can be used as meaningful objects of conversation” [17] (p. 239). This is shared by Brooks [18], who argues that drawing includes a child’s efforts at abstraction; reflecting on their own representations usually allows a child to elaborate their ideas further.

Much of the research in the field of sociocultural approaches looks at children’s drawing as a symbolic activity that supports learning and therefore needs to be recognized in early education [5,18,19,20]. Supporting the social genesis of drawing activity, as a learning process that is not accidental but occurs in the context of actions that are meaningful to the child, Longobardi et al. [21] (p. 1) argue that “the emergence of mental representations and, thus, the ability to use a signifier to evoke meaning, would not seem to be compatible with an activity that stimulates the pleasure of mere exercise”. Starting from scribbles, they argue that children’s drawings increase in complexity and that there are “important parallel transformations between the development of drawing skills and language development. Thus, we can witness a reorganisation of both the child’s language system, which allows for better communication effectiveness, and graphical system, with the appearance of figurative schemes” [21] (p. 7).

By acknowledging drawing as a language (meaning, a communication and thinking tool), it becomes a fundamental mediating system for knowledge construction. Learning occurs in the context of actions that are meaningful to the child; no activity is meaningful in itself but only when linked to relationships with others or tools [13]. Children’s drawing activity, when perceived as a social practice, can help educators and researchers realize the way children move from accidentally making marks on paper to conscious semiotic actions [22]. Moreover, when there is an appropriate response to children’s drawings, e.g., appreciation, recognition, or reward from teachers, classmates, or parents, children receive a very important message: that they have achieved a representation that is acceptable and understood by those around them [22].

2.2. Drawing and Pictorial Representation of Science

We have been highlighting the interest shared by many researchers to consider the potential of drawings as a tool for constructing and sharing meaning for young children [1,3,5]. Fewer researchers have been interested in drawings related to a specific content knowledge [8,23]. There are arguments supporting the contribution of drawing to science learning; Areljung et al. [24] (p. 2) pointed out that drawing may support children’s conceptual learning in science by making their understanding explicit, can serve as evidence or indicate their conceptual knowledge and progress in science, and can facilitate communication of knowledge in science as well as the development of visual literacy in science. Drawings are used by children as a tool to understand and represent important elements of their knowledge and experiences. In addition, drawing contributes to document-specific science content, «spanning from small organisms to astronomical objects, as well as to visualise ‘the invisible”» [24] (p. 1). Areljung et al. [7] used the term “emergent disciplinary drawing” to describe children’s attempts to draw using science-specific forms of visual language (p. 924). In their research, they used the following categories to describe how children represent science content: theory (general aspects from a scientific point of view), context (content is placed in a setting), event (movement or processes), art, person, and culture (pp. 913–14). Monteira et al. [20] also used coding categories for the analysis of children’s drawings: modality (scientific and non-scientific), point of view (interactive meaning), salience, information value (position in the center or sides), and framing (compositional meaning).

Regardless of the various categorizations that can be introduced by studying the content of children’s drawings in science, a basic distinction concerns the symbolic and iconic nature of pictorial representations in science, depending on how abstract they are or how realistic they are. Schnotz [25] introduces the categories of descriptive or depictive representations of science. Descriptive representations do not intend to have a specific structural similarity with the content matter or the object represented; they consist of symbols describing an object. In contrast, depictive representations show similarities with the object they represent. Another way of considering drawings in science is the categories of Niegemann et al., cited by Opfermann et al. [26], which distinguish realistic pictures, analogy pictures (e.g., a circuit of cars traveling bumper-to-bumper to depict an electrical circuit) and logical pictures (such as diagrams or graphs). Realistic pictures refer to the category of depictive drawings. The advantage of such visual representations is to present concrete knowledge; however, the realism of the drawing can also become an obstacle when too many details of a complex object can distract learners or stress cognitive capacities. Analogy pictures (depicting content with an analogy) and logical pictures (depicting content schematically) use symbolic representations and are more suitable to represent abstract concepts. However, this also requires a certain familiarity of the learner with the conventions of how to understand such representations. In a classic semiotic perspective, Peirce [27] distinguishes symbols and icons. Icons refer to images that represent reality by capturing the distinctive features of a phenomena and, as such, serve as prototypes of that kind of phenomena. DeLoache [28] proposes the working definition of a symbol as “something that someone intends to represent something other than itself” (p. 66). Symbols are arbitrary but hold a conventional relation to what they refer to. As a result, the recognition of a symbol is linked to the use that is made in a given context in order to refer to a specific concept. Science teaching is specific in that sense because it requires navigating between observable experimental situations and abstract entities that are not perceived directly [29]. Representing science therefore requires navigation between iconic and symbolic representations.

When children learn science, they have to learn to explain a world that they can see, touch, or feel with models using abstract concepts [29]. When children draw, they produce and compose a variety of signs to generate the meaning they intend. To do this, they need to respond to design challenges, such as representing three-dimensional objects or projections in a plane surface [30], movements, and modifications; thus, they use different symbols or make substantial abstractions [31]. As such, when children draw in science, they have to learn how to interpret and produce various signs that represent the abstract concepts of science and navigate between descriptive and depictive representations of science. Engaging in drawing activities in science can help children to gain a better understanding of science [4]. However, with our focus on science in early childhood settings within a socio-cultural perspective, we move away from the question of science drawing according to a normative perspective; the objective is to ensure that children acquire the rules of formal scientific representations. This is not intended to “score” as incorrect and correct the representations of young children in science, nor is it intended to indicate which representations are “valid” in terms of detail, accuracy, and correct sequence. Our objective is rather to study how young children define their own rules of representation for meaning-making in science and how these representations hold the potential for the teacher to develop a first disciplinary affordance in science. In this perspective, examining children’s drawing activity as a meaning-making process, i.e., as a symbolic activity, we use the concept of change of state of matter to present the continuum that exists between iconic and symbolic representation in order to facilitate teachers’ use of children’s drawings as a learning tool of science.

3. Context of the Research: Drawing and Young Children’s Understanding of the Change of State of Matter

The present research was developed in the context of teaching young children about the concept of change of state of matter (melting and freezing). It is based on the ideas supported by many researchers in early science education [32,33,34] that young children can observe and describe phenomena and are capable of developing initial knowledge about scientific phenomena. Therefore, early science activities lay the foundation for more complex ways of thinking. The concepts of melting and freezing are interesting phenomena to study because they are often part of children’s everyday experiences and easy to experiment with. At the same time, they are phenomena that require bringing together concepts of time, temperature, transformation, conservation of matter, and reversibility and are therefore complex to comprehend. Few studies address this issue with preschoolers [35,36,37].

Rahayu and Tytler [38] refer to the concept of substance and the idea of its transformation and suggest a focus on changes of state in order to teach about materials in early primary years. Young children may be familiar with the melting process, e.g., acknowledging the melting of ice cubes in liquids, and therefore assume that melting always produces water; however, it is not possible to generalize the process for all materials [39]. Sensory experience plays an important role in the change of state phenomena, without taking into account the conditions under which the change of state takes place [37,40]. Children also usually use the terms hot and warm as synonymous and therefore do not differentiate between temperature levels. As well, they often confuse the concepts temperature and heat [41,42]. In addition, they attribute thermal properties to the materials from which the objects are made; they do not easily comprehend the concept of heat equilibrium [37], and understanding the use of the thermometer appears to be quite challenging [43]. Despite the differences among specific topics and methodological choices of the above studies, they all point to the fact that children can develop an interest in the issues from an early age.

However, we want to bring forward the specificities related to drawing objects that are melting. First of all, this requires that the concept of matter should be considered independently of the object [38]. Thus, for young children, the change of state raises the question of the conservation of matter and consequently how the object changes with time. Moreover, it is difficult for children to recognize the link between the state of a material and its temperature as well as the idea that objects placed in a given environment will all have the same temperature as that environment after a certain time [42]. Generally speaking, representing a change of state, and in our case, the phenomenon of melting, raises several questions. The first concerns the method of representing the transition from a solid state (an object with its own shape) to a liquid state, in which the initial object is no longer recognizable and no longer has its own shape. The second concerns a simultaneous representation of a reduction of matter in the solid state and an increase in matter in the liquid state. The third question is related to the notion of temporality and concerns the moment or moments to be represented in an initial state, multiple intermediate states, and a final state. Finally, the question of representing the change in temperature that comes with the change of state is also difficult to consider for children that are not familiar with formal temperature measurements using thermometers. It is all of these parameters that we are interested in regarding the children’s drawings.

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Design

In order to explore the way children express meaning with symbolic and iconic representations in drawings produced during science activities, we will present drawings from a broader project concerning children’s understanding of the change of state of matter, specifically melting and solidification [36,44]. The context in which the children’s drawings were created was a story narrated to the children by their teachers, and the drawings were produced in the classrooms. The story was developed by the researchers and had no prior illustration. This provided a meaningful context in which young children were encouraged to reflect on the role of temperature in the state of different materials and on a first idea that each of the materials retains its essential identity in the change of state [36]. The full teaching intervention based on the narrated story comprised 5 lessons, each engaging children to produce representations related to the story. The story also engaged children in an experimental challenge to solve a problem. In summary, the story was as follows: In the imaginary environment of a “Land of Warm”, a prince posed a challenge: to bring him an ice lolly, a butter star, and a chocolate heart. A girl believed that she could find these objects in the “Land of Cold”. Though she found the requested materials in the “Land of Cold”, on her journey back to the “Land of Warm” they melted. The story content and the science content were connected so that the children were actively engaged.

In this article, we will focus our attention on 2 drawings. Each drawing was proposed on a document with a scaffolding of the drawing task (Table 1):

Drawing 1: Drawing based on prior knowledge and imagination (Table 1a)—The storytelling engages the character in an imaginary journey from a “Land of Cold” to a “Land of Warm”, with objects made of different materials that children are encouraged to draw at three moments of the journey. This drawing is based on prior knowledge that children have about melting and is proposed in order for children to express their initial ideas.

Drawing 2: Drawing based on observation (Table 1b)—Children conduct an experiment to reproduce (model) what happens to the objects during the journey from the “Land of Cold” to the “Land of Warm” and are encouraged to record their observation of the melting objects at three moments (initial state, intermediate state, final state). This drawing is based on observation of the melting phenomena and therefore should reflect the knowledge constructed after observing the result of the experiment.

Table 1. Documents and instructions given to the children to provide scaffolding for (a) Drawing 1 and (b) Drawing 2.

(a) Drawing 1	(b) Drawing 2
Draw what you believe the 3 objects that the prince asked for will look like in 3 different moments of the trip of the girl: - After she left the Land of Cold - A few days later - When she arrived at the Land of Warm	Draw and explain what you observe happens to the 3 objects - Just out of freezer… min (few minutes after) - When we place out in the warm air… min (at noon) - When we wait… min (the following day)

Table 1. Documents and instructions given to the children to provide scaffolding for (a) Drawing 1 and (b) Drawing 2.

(a) Drawing 1	(b) Drawing 2
Draw what you believe the 3 objects that the prince asked for will look like in 3 different moments of the trip of the girl: - After she left the Land of Cold - A few days later - When she arrived at the Land of Warm	Draw and explain what you observe happens to the 3 objects - Just out of freezer… min (few minutes after) - When we place out in the warm air… min (at noon) - When we wait… min (the following day)

4.2. Research Protocol

The research has qualitative attributes as well as categories derived from empirical data. Drawings were collected from a group of 28 children, aged 4–5 years old, who attended early childhood settings in a public school in Patras (Greece), and from a group of 18 children, 6–7 years old, who attended Grade 1 of a primary French school in Singapore. All children drew following open instructions given by their teachers in the classroom. The teachers had extensive experience and worked with the researchers to encourage the children to approach the learning objectives during the activities.

For each drawing, we recorded the elements drawn (e.g., materials, concrete or abstract signs) as well as the relationships or changes drawn (e.g., connecting lines, shape/size change) between these elements. We studied the sources of data provided by the drawing activity and sought to identify the representational mode used by the children. Each drawing was coded using the criteria of «iconic» when children attempted to represent distinctive features of reality, physically resembling observable entities, and «symbolic» when children used signs or symbols to stand for something. The codes were sorted under categories that served the discussion concerning the use of drawings in early childhood science education. The study followed thical principles regarding voluntary participation, confidentiality, and the use of data.

5. Results

The analysis of the drawings highlighted a variety of choices made by the children to represent the melting process either from their own idea of the melting objects in the story (D1) or from the observation of melting objects (D2). As mentioned in the research design section, children had to draw in both drawings the objects that were requested by the prince in our story: an ice lolly, a butter star, and a chocolate heart. Children used lines, drops, puddles, etc., to indicate that matter was changing from a solid to a liquid state. We identified several types of signs used by children, which allowed us to categorize iconic or symbolic representations in the drawings. Four categories resulted from the data: (a) drawings that display symbolic representations referring to “conventional” representations (focusing on symbols that young children usually use), (b) drawings that display iconic characteristics (focusing on realistic representations), (c) Drawings that include a mix between symbolic and iconic characteristics (symbolic and iconic modes of representation in the same drawing), and (d) children’s production of signs scaffolded by the resources provided (children developed their own symbolic representation scaffolded by our documents). Data from all four categories respond to the first research question. The last category (5.4) includes data that also address the second research question in relation to the symbols that children construct when different semiotic resources are made available by the documents used. In this vein, it was made explicit that the specific research design provided data concerning not only the mode of representations used by the children to communicate meaning about the specific phenomenon but also revealed the acknowledgement of basic factors, such as heat, that are implied in the documents used.

The drawings presented below serve as evocative examples that illustrate some signs used by children. However, it should be noted that the children’s drawings rarely belong specifically to a “symbolic” or “iconic” category but instead include signs that are associated with an intention of matching reality or an intention of representing something “other than itself” [28].

5.1. Drawings That Display Symbolic Representations Referring to “Conventional” Representations

We identified a first category of symbolic representations in the choices made by the children to render the melting material with lines and drops. We first focused our attention on the variations of shapes, sizes, and numbers of lines or drops, as well as the colors chosen by the children to reveal the melting process. We used the term “conventional” because this is the type of symbol that young children usually use in their drawings. We then considered some of the explanations the children provided with their drawings and how some common obstacles to the concept of melting are expressed by the children.

Figure 1 presents examples of drawings that were categorized as symbolic representations. In these drawings, the children had to draw the objects of the story exposed to higher temperatures as they were moved from an imaginary “Land of Cold” to a “Land of Warm” (from left to right on the drawings). We noted a change in the size of the objects (GC17 and FC3), with drops expressing the melting process. In the four drawings presented in Figure 1, the melting is depicted with either drops (GC17, FC3, and FC19) or lines (GC25). Such signs do not belong to what can be observed but instead refer to a certain convention of representing drops or rain, evoking the idea of liquid in a common drawing repertoire. There is an interesting choice of symbolic representation in FC3, where the number of drops increases as the objects are melting. In all of the drawings presented in Figure 1, it is also interesting that the lines and drops used by the children to indicate the melting of materials are the same color as the material. One could argue that conservation in color may be an initial statement of conservation of the material. This is not always the case, and several drawings from our sample also show different colors for the same object at different melting stages (see, for example, Figure 2, GC12 or GC21).

In the last step of the journey, in several drawings, the objects change and are no longer recognizable, with a significant change in shape. In some drawings (such as GC17, Figure 1), the melted ice lolly is depicted as a puddle in which the popsicle stick floats. Children used elements of the context, such as the stick of the ice lolly, left after the ice lolly has melted. In drawing FC19 (Figure 1), the child even used a stick for all three objects, which acts as a signifier of what melts (the chocolate heart, the butter star, and the ice lolly) and what does not melt (the stick).

It seems that children “modify” in their drawings in terms of the color and the shape and size; that is, they use all the important elements of a drawing in order to express the meaning they intend.

Subsequently, we also focused our analyses on the complementarity between the symbolic representation chosen by the children and the comments made by the children (either oral comments written by the teacher or directly recorded by the children). In particular, we highlight the obstacles to understanding the concept of melting that can be identified from the choices of representation and the meaning expressed by some drawings. In Figure 2, drawing GC21 is interesting because it shows the melting process through the change in the size of the object. The child comments “at first it’s regular, then it’s half because it had melted and eventually it became quite small”. However, such a drawing can indicate a focus on the appearance of the object rather than its material composition [38]. A common misunderstanding about melting is also clearly expressed in drawing FC5 (Figure 2). The drops and pools coming from the melting objects are all drawn using the same color, independently from the color of the object melting. The child writes a legend indicating it refers to “small water drops, small water pools”. This drawing illustrates the idea suggested by McKeon [39] that some children “consider that melting always involves water and that melting materials such as wax or butter produce water”. Finally, for GC12 (Figure 2), we note that the initial objects (placed at the right of the drawing) present a meticulous and colorful design, with a rainbow for the ice lolly. The shape and filling of the object become distorted, with a uniformed color choice for all three objects at the end (left of the drawing). The child’s comments allow us to understand that he drew lines to indicate that the objects melted and, in the end, “melted and turned to ashes”. We identify here a good example of a confusion between the physical process of fusion and the chemical process of burning [38]. These drawings highlight previously reported obstacles in relation to the conceptual understanding of the melting process and more generally of matter and physical change. However, this supports the idea that they are useful tools that the teacher can use to provide feedback and help the children in their conceptual understanding.

5.2. Drawings That Display Iconic Characteristics

In this category, we highlight children’s drawings that represent the materials and the melting process with an attempt to reach a realistic representation. For this, we focus our attention on drawings that use some distinctive features that correspond to what has been seen or observed. The drawings are all from the second situation, Drawing 2 (see examples in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5), which is related to the design of the teaching task itself. Drawing 2 followed an experimental situation and, as a result, children could rely on the observation of the actual melting of objects to make their drawing.

In this attempt to represent what is observed, a number of interesting trends emerge. These trends are useful for identifying drawing strategies that may be more productive than others in terms of science meaning-making and that therefore could receive more support by teachers.

The first trend observed in the drawings is related to explicit efforts made by children to relate their drawing to reality. In other words, we see explicit attempts to draw what was observed. For example, Figure 3 shows different strategies of children to use 3D drawing techniques to draw a cube for the ice cube. Other drawings present some structures to render the effect of volume of the heart shape or star shape. Despite a real difficulty in drawing skills to draw a realistic representation, interesting solutions are found by the children to overcome this difficulty, with 3D drawing techniques which are close to normalized representations of a cube (like drawing FC1) or attempts to show different faces of a cube (like drawing FC6).

A second trend identified in the drawings concerns the depiction of observed details that are specific to a unique experiment. Drawings FC1 and FC14 (Figure 4) are good examples of this. In drawing FC1, the butter star is drawn cut in half. Similar drawings are found amongst four children working together on the same experiment (FC1, FC6, FC8, FC9). In the drawing of child FC6 working with FC1, the child writes “The butter cracked and it was soft”. That specific experiment effectively had the butter star split in two parts very quickly. Similarly, the drawing FC14 depicts a flow of liquid chocolate surrounding the still-solid chocolate heart. Once again, similar drawings can be found amongst the group of four children (in which FC11, FC12, FC14, and FC16 participated), whose chocolate heart started melting and flowing along the side of the plate, with a similar pattern to what is depicted in the drawings. These are interesting pieces of evidence that suggest that young children are capable of capturing the realistic features of the experimental situation observed. They were able to represent very clearly a distinctive feature that links the drawing to reality, which Peirce [27] identifies as the main characteristic of an iconic drawing.

The last trend that we want to highlight concerns children’s drawings that demonstrate a clear identification of the observed situation. Similarly to what was highlighted in the previous section, interesting meaning-making can be expressed when both drawings and words are used by children to describe what they observe in terms of shape, color, texture, etc. This description of specific aspects gives more realism to the observed experiments and captures, in a descriptive way, what was observed with some degree of accuracy, even if there is a certain distance in the actual realism of the drawing itself. An example of such a drawing is given in Figure 5. Child GC17 drew and described the ice lolly and “water that has fallen down” and then “just the stick and water”. For the butter star, “it was as it was in the beginning, then it was soft and like oil at the end”, and for the chocolate the child comments “some of the chocolate has melted, then it has lost its shape it is soft and finally melted”. Child GC25 drew the materials in the plates as observed and commented that the ice lolly “has melted and flowed (a small line)”, and later “it melted and overflowed”, with the stick remaining separated. The other materials softened and later melted (oil and melted chocolate).

It is interesting to note that the drawings such as the ones in Figure 5 display less realistic characteristics than drawings such as the ones in Figure 3 and Figure 4. They use more simple drawing techniques, with 2D, the colors not necessarily matching, lines, and more approximate shapes (especially the star in GC17). However, the description of the situation has similar if not more accuracy. An interesting feature used by the children is the analogies to give more meaning to their drawing and relate to known situations (“like oil” for the melted butter). Another interesting aspect to underline in the drawings in Figure 6 is that they have left blank the third part of the melting process for the ice lolly. During the observed experiment, the ice melted earlier than the other materials, and then nothing changed in the remaining time. Engaging children to draw iconic drawings could help them identify what matters in describing and explaining a phenomenon and what details matter less with respect to that phenomenon. For example, the accuracy of the actual shape at the start and whether it is a perfect cube, star, or heart is not so relevant. However, the fact that the objects lose their shape completely as they melt, and with a different temporality, matters more in the description of the phenomenon of melting. To support science meaning-making, it is therefore important for teachers to help children focus their efforts on rendering this “loss of shape” aspect rather than focusing on drawing specific shapes with realistic accuracy. It actually engages children in an intermediate between iconic and symbolic representation. Such drawings can then serve as tools to observe a situation in order to be able to explain the situation.

5.3. Drawings That Include a Mix between Symbolic and Iconic Characteristics

The two categories presented above rely on examples of drawings where either the iconic or the symbolic characteristics were explicitly found on a drawing. However, in some drawings, both symbolic and iconic modes of representation can be identified in the same drawing. The drawings reveal that children are flexible in the way they choose to present something. They take the liberty to stick to reality or interpret reality depending on the context. In particular, we would like to highlight two tendencies that we identified.

The first tendency is the presence of clues that refer to symbolic or iconic modes of representation on the same drawings. An interesting example can be observed in the drawing of GC2 (Figure 6). The child draws the ice lolly melting as if it was running and changing shape. However, in the same drawing, a more symbolic representation is used for the melting of butter and the melting of chocolate. A code with lines is used for the other two materials. In such cases, the ice lolly probably refers to an experience of seeing a melting lolly, but for the butter heart and chocolate star, the children are less likely to have the experience of observing melting butter or melting chocolate. The memory they convene for ice melting does not transfer to other materials. They are trying to represent melting but come up with different representations. When representing something that is known, such as ice melting, they have a repertoire that they can use to produce an iconic representation. The melting of other materials is less commonly observed in children’s everyday life or even in classroom situations, and as a result, it is not formed in their mental representation yet. At this point it is interesting to comment that the child uses two different ways to represent the melting, which are linked to his experience. Thus, the representation of an “ice lolly melting” is specific to the ice lolly and not a representation of “melting” in general.

The second tendency was observed when drawings from the same child depicted a clear difference between drawing 1 and drawing 2 in terms of representation. Considering the nature of the task for drawing 1 (drawing from imagination) and for drawing 2 (drawing from observation), it was interesting to observe a shift from symbolic representations in drawing 1 to more iconic representations in drawing 2.

An example can be found in the drawing of GC16 (Figure 7), where the factor of time appears to be a relevant element for the child. In drawing 1, the child draws the materials frozen, then having lost their shape, and finally as puddles that had melted completely, with a string similarity from one object to another. In drawing 2, while observing the melting process of each object, there is a variation in the time that each one takes to melt, e.g., he drew the ice lolly melting, and later, it melted completely and “became juice”, while the butter at first “did not melt”, then “melted a little”, and then was a “melted liquid”.

Another example can be found in Figure 8. In drawing 1, child GC19 draws the melting process by disfiguring the objects and showing that they are distorting their shape, with a similar process for all three objects (and three materials). After observing the experiment, there is a shift in his drawing, with several interesting characteristics. He introduced a different temporality in the melting process depending on the material, with both drawings and comments indicating that the ice lolly melted “sooner”, while the butter and the chocolate “had melted a bit” and “was soft”. Rather than a distortion of shape used to depict the melting process in drawing 1, he uses lines to indicate that it “melted and flowed”. However, for drawing 2, it is interesting to note that the child draws lines to indicate the final phase of melting, but there are drops introduced as intermediates between the initial state (solid objects) and the final state (lines). Such drawings reveal a flexibility in the way children choose to present something depending on the context. In this case, the representation of the initial state and the final state seemed straight forward, but the introduction of drops to represent the process of melting in itself was a way for the child to go beyond what was directly observed in the experiment. Children find solutions to the type of task asked for in the drawing, and even when observing the phenomena, they mix iconic and symbolic modes of representation to make sense of the phenomena observed.

A last example is presented in Figure 9. In these drawings, we observe a clear shift. In drawing 1, there is a focus on the story, representing the character of the journey, with very distinctive features using symbols to render the concept of temperature changing. In drawing 2, there is an effort to render observed features from the experiment. In particular, there are attempts to draw a cube for the ice lolly similar to the experiment rather than a more prototypical rounded shape. As objects melt, they are depicted in a puddle that grows in size within a different time frame, depending on the object (the chocolate hearts melt first).

Such results are interesting to bring a reflection on the scaffolding that can be provided to young children in their drawing and the support it gives to use symbolic drawings or iconic drawings, depending on the nature of the scientific activity associated.

5.4. Children’s Production of Signs Scaffolded by the Resources Provided

Finally, some drawings revealed interesting propositions of symbolic representations by the older group of children (6–7 years old). These propositions were neither suggested by the didactic situation presented by the teacher nor by observations of physical or natural phenomena. We identified several drawings where children define their own rules of representation, conveying meaning with a choice of original codes combining conventional forms of representation. In particular, children transcribed their representation of the idea of “Land of Cold” and “Land of Warm” (Figure 10). It is important to note here that the story told by the teacher was narrated verbally, with no illustration to support its understanding. However, the journey of the main character from an imaginary “Land of Cold” to an imaginary “Land of Warm” was intended to draw an analogy referring to the change of temperature with time. As shown in Figure 10, FC13 uses the sun to express an idea of proportion of “heat”, with a quarter of the sun for the Land of Cold, and a full sun for the Land of Warm. This symbolic representation brings a numerical dimension to the change of temperature, conveying the idea that a given temperature is associated with a given proportion of sun. Interestingly, the choice made by the child is referring to a scientific conventional representation of pie charts. Other drawings use the size of the sun as a signifier of temperature, with a sun drawn significantly and consistently larger in the “Land of Warm” (FC2, Figure 10). Children added objects conventionally referring to cold and warm temperatures, such as ice cubes and flames (FC2, Figure 10). These drawings suggest that the children consider a rise in temperature as a condition necessary to the melting process.

Some children propose interesting ideas to represent changes in different stages and over a period of time. In Figure 11, child FC4 draws an accumulation of scribbled lines, gradually blurring the objects that express in a meaningful way the gradual process of melting. Another example of a personalized way of expressing the melting process can be found in the drawing of child GC13 (Figure 11). This child first draws the materials indicating that they are all cold and solid; then, she draws the chocolate heart in half, expressing that “it melted slowly slowly”, and only draws the stick from the ice lolly. For the last step, GC13 draws only drops to show “they melted, they became drops of liquid”. Two ideas are interesting here. The passing time is explicitly expressed by the child, and the idea that different materials might not take the same time to melt.

The last interesting feature that we want to highlight relates to the focus of the drawing chosen by the children. In particular, some children choose to draw the character of the story holding the objects as well as the objects melting. In Figure 12, child FC15 draws the character of the story in her journey, holding a drawing that depicts the objects melting. Symbolic representations of drops already described in Section 5.1 are used. But it is interesting to note that the melting process is observed through the eyes of the character of the story. In the case of the child (GC8), the character of the story holds the objects in her hands first “without melting”, then using lines because they “melted a little”, and finally with an undefined shape because they “melted so much”. The comments say “The girl left delighted with what the prince asked for without having melted, then they melted a little and then they melted too much”. FC15 uses the absence and different size of the sun to indicate the temperature change. GC8 and FC1 divided the worksheet into more sections than originally planned. Two timelines are functioning in parallel. The bottom part depicts the journey of the girl, and the top part depicts what happens to the objects themselves during this journey.

6. Discussion

Through their drawings, children intentionally elaborate on previous experience and express new ideas. Their early endeavors «reveal their ability to make, either explicit or implicit, choices in expressing and communicating what is salient and essential for them» [31] (p. 2). In this study, we sought to highlight the importance of using drawing to reveal children’s rich repertoires of signs and symbols in science. Using melting as a science subject, we asked young children to draw, linking their drawings to two different tasks: the narration of a story and the observation of an experiment.

6.1. What Mode of Representations Is Used by the Children to Communicate Meaning in Different Drawings during a Science Activity?

Concerning our first research question, we showed that the context of the drawing triggered different representational modes. In most of the first drawings, which were linked to the story and in which children had to put forward their experience as well as their imagination, they used a symbolic mode. In most of the second drawings, which were linked to the observation of an experiment, children used an iconic mode. We mainly used the distinction between the iconic and the symbolic mode of representation in order to highlight the connection with the scientific content. We did not carry on with further subcategories describing the drawings, such as actions, events, persons, or point of view, which often overlap, as the purpose of the drawing was specific and was related to the nature of the task (storytelling and observation). Therefore, we identified entities or processes represented through iconic and symbolic modes in children’s drawings, which were classified into four categories as presented in the results.

More specifically, the first category refers to drawings drawn by the children using symbolic representations and signs, which can represent a “conventional” drawing repertoire (drops, lines) including variations of shapes, sizes, and colors chosen. At the same time, drawings where children were able to use elements of the context (stick of ice lolly) to convey their ideas were also classified in this category. The freedom provided by the drawing seemed to make it easier for some children to express their way of thinking about the phenomenon and to reveal the difficulties in their conceptual understanding of melting. For example, some children revealed their ideas concerning melting as a change of the materials’ size, as burning, or as a procedure resulting in water production, which are ideas found in the literature [38,39]. The drawings of the second category had more iconic characteristics, which indicated that when children observe the phenomenon they can focus on specific elements and attribute details in their drawing (e.g., the material that softened before melting, the butter that is like oil, the time it takes for each material to melt). It is worth noting that in the second drawing there is the illustration of the final stage of melting in two ways: as a line (which probably responds to a side view) or as a puddle (which probably responds to a top view) (Figure 5). Therefore, depending on the nature of the task of drawing, the first category included more drawings from the first task (imaginary journey) while the second category included more drawings from the second task (observation). This finding is aligned with other studies that report children’s increasing awareness of what constitutes a science representation, when science is represented as content reduced to its most general aspects in terms of detail, color, shape, and setting [7,14,20]. As already mentioned, the categories relating to the content of a drawing are often not exclusive, but a drawing may include elements from different categories and modes. The third category reflects this flexibility in children’s drawing depending on the context. The same child in the same drawing may use both modes or move easily from one mode to the other, using as many elements of a visual language as possible to clearly state what he or she is thinking and observing. This dimension of children’s drawings was also expressed by Deguara and Nutbrom [1] and Areljung et al. [7]. This variation also shows the possibility of both modes being used by teachers. The last category included the drawings where children choose their own codes of representation, as the narration of the story in which the drawings were integrated allowed the children to be more actively involved and communicative. The story creates a context in which each child could use the collective meaning to elaborate and bring to the fore the individual [45]. Storytelling engages children’s interest in the science topic by providing a context, stimulating the children to share some ideas and using language that is within their experiences [46]. Teachers use stories that emphasize particular aspects of a phenomenon or that are open-ended so that the children can develop their own ideas [36,47]. What is particularly interesting is that the children found new ways to represent factors in the story, such as the change in temperature and the time passing. The question of passing time was transferred to the question of travelling a distance, which could be easier to grasp for young children. This journey was sufficiently evocative for children to express meaningful ideas about melting.

6.2. Which Symbols Do Children Create through Their Drawings When Different Semiotic Resources Are Made Available?

Although the decisions about how to represent each element were made by the children, the specific documents provided to children in order to draw played a crucial role in these decisions. An interesting aspect of this research is the acknowledgement of the use of various symbols because of the scaffolding provided to the children by the documents used. For example, the fact that it was decided by the researchers to capture three different moments of both the journey and the observation of the phenomenon may have in a way suggested to the children the idea of a process in time or a change. Monteira et al. [14] refer to “structural scaffolding”, describing those elements included by the teacher as part of a template. As the process of representing involves the choice of semiotic resources, teachers may convey representational conventions through the semiotic resources they provide [7]. In our study, several children in their first drawing, guided by the documents, decided to identify more specifically each phase of the drawing; they used different symbols for cold and heat, such as different proportions of sun, ice cubes, and flames (FC2, FC13), or they drew a dividing headline with the differentiations of the melting process (FC1). They developed their own symbolic representation to express the idea of temperature levels from colder temperature to warmer temperature. These ideas have been found difficult to identify for young children in previous research [41,42].

In this perspective, science drawings of young children are considered as a means to grasp first disciplinary affordance with the use of signs that bear the potential to represent observable experimental situations and abstract concepts of science (arrows, small diagrams, chosen schematic representations, etc.). Airey and Linder [48] (p. 99) define disciplinary affordance as “the agreed meaning making functions that a semiotic resource fulfils for the disciplinary community”. Of course, what is referred to as a disciplinary community in the previous quote does not suggest the same objects for the physics concepts at the university level as studied by Airey and Liney [48] as for preschool children’s early initiation to science. But we argue here that it is meaningful for young children to be guided in a meaning-making process that can help them gain a first understanding of a physical concept. This proposition is following previous work on young children’s learning of physics concepts with support from the teacher and appropriate teaching interventions [49].

Drawing has culturally and socially transmitted conventions, which children come to know by imitating or reproducing the graphic models available in their everyday life [50]. By combining their own symbols with symbols they are familiar with from their everyday environment (numbers, letters, traffic signs, etc.), children develop codes, which they adapt and improve. In other words, they gradually seek to improve communication by following conventions and developing their ability to represent. At the same time, the deliberate effort to represent specific elements of a phenomenon or various relations and changes demands increased mental activity from children. If we accept that children’s engagement with drawing is not fixed but constantly evolving, it is important that children are able to participate in a variety of drawing activities (where semiotic resources may be provided or not) in which they have the opportunity to further explore the relationship between symbols and meaning.

6.3. Limitations

The study has limitations that should be considered in relation to future research. As is the case in most qualitative research, the number of participants from each country is limited; therefore, further investigation is needed for different classroom contexts, cultures, and ages. In addition, using drawing as a research method has challenges when analyzing and interpreting the visual documents. Considering this, in an effort not to shift the focus away from the mode of representation, we did not analyze the dialogues between children or teachers; perhaps this choice limited the possibility of capturing the richness of all children’s ideas. Finally, it should also be considered that though drawing is a useful tool, it can be complementary to other ways of communication or classroom practices; thus, the teacher’s attitude plays an important role in encouraging children who might have difficulty to express their views fully, especially if they do not have advanced design skills or enjoy drawing activities.

7. Conclusions

The analysis of young children’s drawings showed that children find solutions, sometimes unexpected, to produce effective representations. In other words, they use signs that can be symbolic or iconic so that certain characteristics of their drawing are recognized without ambiguity. Thus, we consider that the use of drawing in science with young children allows them to express a greater variety of ideas through conventional and unconventional signs and symbolic resources.

When we discuss the use of drawing in science education, we have to bear in mind that teachers have an additional challenge to overcome. The desire of children to draw as closely as possible to reality a concept or phenomenon poses difficulties and often obscures the real understanding on the part of the child. The teachers need to help children in the context of the representation of scientific concepts to understand that it is the representation of the essential elements that contributes to understanding, thereby helping children to identify the key features of a situation and not become trapped in trying to depict a real picture. The use of relevant sources can therefore contribute in this direction. Often what we observe happening in classrooms is contradictory: on the one hand, the drawing is used extensively in the classroom for various reasons, and on the other hand, it does not seem to receive the proper amount of attention from teachers [22]. As Imafuku and Seto [51] argue, representations and images are related to children’s drawing activities, and drawing is thought to involve complex cognitive abilities. They claim that representation ability and imagination are the cognitive bases of children’s drawings. Considering the fact that language and representational abilities are learned in the context of relationships with others, drawing may also develop in the classroom context. In this perspective, drawing activity is not only a way that children use to express their ideas, it is much more: it is a language that has potential and can evolve. It is a visual language and can be a powerful learning resource if used appropriately in the classroom [18].

8. Implications

It is necessary to adopt strategies in the classrooms that do not hinder children’s expression and communication through drawing and instead enhance them. Inadequate materials, limited time, strict guidance, and pointless judgement of drawing ability are some of the practices of teachers that do not contribute to teachers’ appreciation of drawing as a learning tool [22] and acknowledging the essence and importance of drawing as a language. It is a challenge for a teacher to be able to be a genuine supporter of children and at the same time a guide. Acknowledging that children know more than they usually say, drawing is an effective strategy for eliciting children’s thinking and therefore a valuable tool for planning teaching and learning. In this perspective, teachers should a) better understand how children use drawing (expressing ideas, constructing meaning), b) select which aspects of symbolic activity to reinforce in the classroom, and c) use drawings to monitor the development of symbolic competence. Educators who reflect on young children’s drawings can consider what kinds of visual representations need to be encouraged with further rich curriculum content.