BOUNDED LEARNING PROGRESSIONS

1 STEM Education Research Centre (SERC)

BOUNDED LEARNING PROGRESSIONS

December 2019 Authors: Chelsea Cutting, Centenary Professor Tom Lowrie and the SERC team.


Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Overview of ELSA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 Apps 1 and 2: Spatial Reasoning ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.0 Apps 3 and 4: Logical Reasoning............................................................................................................................................................... 9

5.0 Learning Progressions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 12

5.1 A hybrid approach to Learning Progressions ...................................................................................................................................... 14

6.0 Bounded Learning Progressions ............................................................................................................................................................. 18

6.1 Unpacking the structure of a Bounded Learning Progression ........................................................................................................... 19

6.2 Bounded Learning Progressions: Connected Networks of Learning .................................................................................................. 23

8.0 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

9.0 References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37


1.0 Executive Summary

This report provides an overview of the Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) project, and explains the theoretical foundation for the

development of Bounded Learning Progressions for ELSA. Bounded Learning Progressions (BLPs) are a new and innovative method for

investigating children’s learning, afforded by the dynamic structure of the ELSA program. The intention of, and foundational to, BLPs are

that they are a focussed, conjectured path of knowledge construction children may follow as they engage with a range of STEM concepts.

In ELSA, BLPs are situated within Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning and are enacted via the children’s engagement in STEM Practices

(Lowrie, Leonard, & Fitzgerald, 2018) and the Engage – Represent – Apply (ERA) framework (Lowrie & Larkin, 2019). Importantly,

underpinning the development of BLPs is a hybrid approach of learning progression methodologies, which are a fusion between a cognitive

levels approach; an observable-strategies-and-learning performance approach; and a Hypothetical Learning Trajectory (HLT) approach.

The vision for developing ELSA within the cognitive areas of Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning, is based on a deliberate, research

informed decision to design and deliver a program that enables sustained conceptual learning within the early years of education. Spatial

Reasoning is not a single ability or skill; it is a form of reasoning that constitutes many spatial skills that are both related and independent

of one another (Uttal & Cohen, 2012). Importantly, there is a strong relationship between spatial ability and success in STEM related tasks,

experiences and professions at all levels of expertise (Stieff, 2007; Uttal & Cohen, 2012); specifically, young children’s spatial reasoning

ability has been found to be the best predictor of success in mathematics and science in grade six and beyond (Mix et al., 2016; Webb,

Lubinski, & Benbow, 2007). Similarly, Logical Reasoning is a complex set of skills and abilities that allow us to process, analyse and critically

interpret information using a range of senses, to make assumptions about, and solve problems, in our world. Logical Reasoning requires

the development of systematic and rational procedures, which are foundational to successful engagement in STEM contexts. As with Spatial

Reasoning, an emphasis on developing Logical Reasoning in ELSA allows children to seek truths, create hypothesis and conjectures, and

critically examine the conceptual connections in familiar and unrelated learning contexts. For true conceptual understanding to occur,

knowledge and skills must be accessible and transferable beyond the discrete disciplines. The use of STEM Practices, enacted through the

twin lenses of Spatial and Logical Reasoning, allow for this authentic and sustained learning to occur.

Unlike curriculum perspectives that focus on progressions of prescribed content within year levels, the ELSA program and the BLPs reflect

the intuitive development of STEM concepts but with an emphasis on the authentic learning connections made possible by the explicit

development of STEM Practices. In real-world contexts, we do not separate the disciplinary knowledge and skills we need to engage with

when solving everyday problems that we encounter. Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning, through the development of STEM Practices,

shift the focus from learning sequences of content in isolation, to developing conceptual understanding and skills. The latter approach


enables learners to reason and problem solve in systematic and efficient ways, that connect knowledge across disciplines to develop more

robust and sophisticated ideas about the world. ELSA is a program that allows for this learning to occur, as the BLPs not only demonstrate

more connected, research informed, and authentic pathways of learning appropriate to early childhood education than typical curriculum

sequences provide, and also provide explicit instruction and intentional teaching advice to assist the child’s development of learning, (see

figure 1).

Figure 1: Curriculum based Learning Progression versus ELSA conceptual Bounded Learning Progression structure


The term BLPs not only incorporates the hybrid approach to the construction of a learning progression such as the one noted above, but

also suggests how learning occurs within the boundary of the ELSA program. That is, the “boundedness” of the BLPs, is the way the

conceptual, theoretical and pedagogical elements of the ELSA program scaffold the development of Spatial Reasoning and Logical

Reasoning by early years children. Thus, the foundation of STEM Practices within an ERA framework provides both the context and

boundary in which learning can occur. Whilst this may appear at first glance to be limiting in terms of what can be achieved, both in terms

of the topics explored in the ELSA program, and also what can be developed in terms of BLPs; the opposite is in fact the case. Many current

forms of learning progressions describe a linear path within a learning area or topic, from least sophisticated to most sophisticated levels

of skills and understanding, without the consideration of how related progressions, directly or indirectly, may enhance or influence learning

in different ways. BLPs provide an innovative and dynamic perspective that challenges these current methodologies. Therefore, we propose

that BLPs are learning maps that describe the possible pathways of learning, which will contribute to achieving elements of Spatial

Reasoning and Logical Reasoning, through the identified STEM concepts within ELSA.

Utilising BLPs to capture and explore the learning that is possible in the ELSA program reinforces a fundamental tenet of BLPs; namely, that

they are not designed to be a set of “psychological descriptions of learning but are, rather, situated in a larger conceptualisation of the

roles of students and teachers in overall learning ecologies” (Confrey, 2019, p. 8). The tasks and learning experiences designed for each

element of ELSA – that is the digital activities within the Apps and the suggested learning activities in the Experience and Apply phases

provided in the Educator and Families Apps, are not simply stimuli for responses, but instead involve the establishment of specific

conditions for learner engagement and teacher participation, to promote learner’s activity and also to respond with pedagogical agility to

this activity (Confrey, 2019). The range of the experiences offered via the ERA Framework therefore serve two purposes: to allow learners

to explore STEM concepts underpinned by Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning through deep and purposeful engagement with STEM

Practices; and to provide contexts that support children to relate the STEM concepts to their experience and background (Bang & Medin,

2010; Confrey, 2019; Shepard, Penuel, & Pellegrino, 2018), and apply this in meaningful ways beyond their formal educational contexts.

This report details the development of each BLP – using an adaption of Lithner’s (2008) framework for mathematical reasoning, and

importantly highlights the prospective links between concepts and learning domains. This is a novel aspect of the design of BLPs because,

as noted earlier, most current learning progression methodologies focus on linear or hierarchical descriptions of learning. They do so

without the consideration of the synergies between learning domains within Spatial Reasoning and within Logical Reasoning as separate

domains, and without considering the synergies between these two reasoning domains collectively. Finally, this report showcases the

authentic and deep STEM learning that occurs within the play-based ELSA environment. It also demonstrates the scope for connecting this

learning to a range of Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) outcomes and also to Australian Curriculum Content Descriptors from

Foundation to Year 2, illustrating the powerful learning opportunities across the Early Years of formal learning, made possible by ELSA.


2.0 Overview of ELSA

Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) is a play-based digital learning program for children in preschool to explore science, technology,

engineering and mathematics (STEM). ELSA allows children to play, experiment and make sense of the world around them – which is also

part of being a child. ELSA's STEM Practices encourage children to ask questions, make predictions, experiment, and reflect on what

happened and why.

Children engage in STEM through play every day, for example, when they:

• create patterns

• draw designs

• build structures

• fill containers

ELSA comprises a collection of integrated resources for educators, families and preschool children. These integrated resources promote

hands-on activities for children through digital, play-based learning experiences rich in STEM Practices, delivered through a series of

applications (apps) for tablets and mobile devices.

The ELSA apps for children support learning through play and are intended to act as a springboard for children to explore the world. The

apps go beyond the screen to encourage active play that supports the development of STEM Practices.

Exploring STEM practices helps children develop sound problem finding and solving skills, as well as ideas, methods and values. Each of the

four ELSA apps for children develops practices that underpin STEM:

• Patterns and relationships

• Location and arrangement

• Representations

• Investigations


Each App has a particular focus and, at the same time, reinforces concepts developed within the other apps. The ELSA apps for children

are aligned to the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) and support child-directed, play-based learning in a variety of preschool settings.

Integrated educator resources, and suggestions for families, support and assist children to make connections between their preschool and

their learning experiences at home. The program is based upon The Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) pedagogical framework, which

provides early years educators with the opportunity, and the know-how, to integrate digital technologies into STEM activities through

intentional teaching and play-based engagement. The four children’s apps in ELSA are structured around the following conceptual areas

within STEM education (see Figure 2):

Spatial Reasoning

Logical Reasoning

Figure 2: ELSA Program Conceptualisation

Patterns and Relationships

(App1)

Sorting, Ordering, Patterning, Representing

Location and Arrangement

(App 2)

Position, Location, Arrangement, Orientation

Representations (App 3)

Decoding, Encoding,

Conditionals, Debugging

Investigations (App 4)

Observing, Proposing, Verifying, Explaining


3.0 Apps 1 and 2: Spatial Reasoning

The term Spatial Reasoning describe a range of mental processes, including mental rotation, spatial orientation and spatial visualisation

that help us represent, analyse, and draw inferences from spatial relations. These spatial relations could be relations between objects (e.g.,

landmarks in a city) or relations within objects (e.g., the structure of the block tower). Spatial reasoning involves the understanding of three

related properties: (1) an awareness of space itself, such as distance and dimensions; (2) the representation of spatial information

(internally in the mind and externally in graphics such as diagrams and maps); and (3) the reasoning involved in interpreting spatial

information and decision making (Carroll, 1993).

Spatial reasoning has been established as a critical skill for everyday tasks such as learning, training, and working (Uttal, Miller & Newcombe,

2013). Spatial reasoning helps us to understand, appreciate, and interpret our three-dimensional world (NCTM, 2000), including navigating

our surroundings or following a diagram while building furniture. A large, and growing, body of research (e.g. Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow,

2009) has demonstrated the link between spatial reasoning and later performance in STEM subjects at school. Spatial reasoning is also a

strong predictor of a STEM career, post-formal education. In particular, developing spatial reasoning has clear and positive impacts on

mathematics achievement (Lowrie, Logan, Harris & Hegarty, 2018).

Children use spatial reasoning on a daily basis as they learn to understand the relationships between objects, give and receive directions,

and imagine changes in the position and size of shapes and objects. Given the importance of spatial reasoning for children, in their

interactions with their world and for its impact on later STEM achievement, it is one of the two overarching conceptual pillars for the ELSA

program.


4.0 Apps 3 and 4: Logical Reasoning

The term Logical Reasoning describes the use of valid reasoning in some form of activity; and it names the normative study of reasoning or

a branch thereof. In the latter sense, it features most prominently in the subjects of philosophy, mathematics, and sciences, and thus is a

pivotal part of the ELSA program. Logical reasoning is not a single construct, rather a range of processes used in thinking and problem

solving; dealing with the principles and criteria of validity of inference through a systematic approach (Johnson-Laird, 1999). The mental

recognition of cause-and-effect relationship is called ‘reasoning’. It may involve a prediction of an event from an observed cause or the

inference of a cause from an observed event. Logical reasoning is the process of deriving a logical inference, from a hypothesis through

reasoning, and is commonly classified into two forms – deductive and inductive reasoning (Evans, 2002).

By definition, deductive reasoning yields a valid conclusion, which must be true if their premises are true (Johnson-Laird, 1999). For

example: an argument using the rule of modus ponens would be: if p then q, p; therefore q; or, described by the modus tollens: if p then q,

not q; therefore, not p (Goel, 2007; Markovits, Doyon, & Simoneau, 2002). The anatomy of deductive reasoning can be illustrated through

a simple example of deductive reasoning: All parrots can fly. Fred is a parrot. Fred can fly.

Inductive reasoning is concerned with the detection and acknowledgement of regularities and irregularities in order to form rules and make

generalisations (Barkl, Porter, & Ginns, 2012; Klauer & Phye, 2008). It can be considered the opposite of deductive reasoning as it seeks to

make broad generalisations from specific observations. Phye and Klauer (1993) identified a set of cognitive operations and process that

are foundational to inductive reasoning. They are illustrated in the following table (see table 1):


Table 1: Inductive reasoning cognitive processes

Thinking Process Definition Generalisation The process of recognising similarities of attributes between objects or events

Discrimination The process of recognising dissimilarity of attributes between objects or events

Recognition of Relations The process of recognising connections between relations of objects or events

Differentiating Relationships The process of recognising discrepancies between relations of objects or events

Cross-Classification The process of considering two attributes simultaneously

System Construction The process of establishing either equivalence of dissimilarity of relationships

Inductive reasoning facilitates problem solving and the development of expertise in learning and performance of STEM related domains;

therefore, it is an important process and skill for young children to develop as they construct knowledge about the world they live in

(Harverty et al. 2000). A concrete example of inductive reasoning is as follows. Galahs have grey and pink feathers. There are grey and pink

feathers on the ground. Perhaps a galah was here recently.

Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning, provide the twin, overarching, conceptual domains underpinning the entire ELSA program. Within

this overarching scope, STEM Practices are explored and developed through the ERA Framework, within ELSA. To capture children’s

learning, and to help children develop increasingly sophisticated ways of thinking and working in STEM contexts within ELSA, the

conceptualisation and design of appropriate Learning Progressions, and the creation of a hybrid methodology to support children’s

learning, were developed.

As highlighted earlier, Spatial and Logical Reasoning provide a vehicle for exploring STEM concepts in a more intuitive, authentic and robust

way, because the learning progressions created are not based on context, rather they are developed on research informed and validated

conjectures about how children’s skills and conceptual understanding develop holistically. For instance, to develop an understanding of

the topic of Time, a child needs to develop the concepts of fractions with relation to: the part-whole relationships of time; measuring and

representing units of time; and representing duration and the passing of time (Frienderwitzer et al., 1999). Time is a construct that is both


highly spatial and logical in the types of reasoning abilities required and one that is highly interdisciplinary. However, from the perspective

of the Numeracy Learning Progression (NLP) based on the Australian Curriculum, the sequence suggested for developing time is quite

disjointed in terms of the conceptual foundations of the content descriptions provided. For example, in Year one, children are required to

tell the time to the half hour. Telling time to a half hour requires deep knowledge of partitioning fractions, specifically mixed fractions. At

this point in the curriculum, children are only formally introduced to the part whole interpretation of fractions, in the form of half as a unit

fraction - as described by the content descriptor: Recognise and describe one-half as one of two equal parts of a whole (ACMNA016). In

Year two, children are then required to Tell time to the quarter-hour, using the language of 'past' and 'to' (ACARA, ACMMG039 n.d.). To

demonstrate these fractional understanding children must be able to explore the multiplicative and proportional nature of the fraction as

measure rational number interpretation, through spatial reasoning abilities such as spatial proportional reasoning which children as young

as four are capable of (see Mix, Levine & Huttenlocher, 1999; Confrey 2009). These multiplicative and proportional understandings of

fractions are not developed until much later in the Australian Curriculum, long after they are encountered in Year one and two.

Whilst the Australian Curriculum NLP is intended to show connections across the content descriptions of each discipline, and also between

the indicators within the numeracy progression and their elements, the actual learning progressions themselves are descriptions of

content. Thus they can become an exercise in mapping content from the NLP across the disciplines, as opposed to the form in which ELSA

Learning Progressions have been developed. That is, regardless of curriculum or discipline, the learning progressions developed within the

boundary of ELSA describe authentic, intuitive and empirically validated progressions of learning that a child will typically undertake when

constructing their STEM understanding, knowledge and skills. Therefore, when a child is engaging with a particular topic such as patterning,

the child is led through a range of learning experiences (developed from a deep understanding of the appropriate range of related concepts

and underpinned by the relevant elements of Spatial or Logical reasoning), that are required to develop an understanding of early

patterning. Unlike the Australian Curriculum NLP, ELSA not only provides evidence based conjectured paths of learning children will typically

develop, but also provides authentic intentional teaching and play based learning advice to enable children to develop the next stage of

learning. This will be detailed in the following section.


5.0 Learning Progressions

The idea of what constitutes a Learning Progression (LP) (sometimes referred to as Learning Trajectories [LT]) has its root within

developmental psychology fields, with the underlying premise that children are not ‘miniature or incomplete’ adults; rather, they are

capable and confident beings in their own right that continuously build their understanding of the world through their interactions and

experiences in a range of everyday contexts (Confrey, 2019). The contexts and interactions that children experience are as unique as the

children themselves. Thus, there is a tension that exists between both the formal curriculums and learning frameworks provided by

educational bodies; and what and how children actually develop their conceptual understanding, skills and practices in their everyday

worlds. In pre-school and early years settings within Australia, a significant level of flexibility and agency is provided to, and indeed required

from, educators so that they can develop nuanced educational experiences for the children in their care, enacted through the EYLF.

However, in the more formal school context, educators are bound by a prescribed curriculum; which often lack a fine-grained

understanding of how children’s learning and ideas evolve over time in each topic within a discipline area (Loboto & Walters, 2017). This

has been a catalyst for research into LPs, to help align and uncover how discipline based conceptual ideas evolve to enable and inform

developmentally appropriate curriculum for each age and/or stage of learning. Moreover, there are many advocates who have

demonstrated the great potential of a LP approach to curriculum design (see Battista, 2011; Clements & Sarama 2004, 2017/2019; Confrey,

Maloney, & Nguyen, 2014) to offer a more authentic, conceptual and research driven approach to educating children, informing education

policy and the professional development of educators.

Although the terms LP and LT are often used interchangeably; there are, however, variations in meaning and use and consequent variations

in their theoretical foundations and intention. Table 2 briefly illustrates the subtle differences between LPs and LTs.


Table 2: Learning Progressions versus Learning Trajectories

Learning Progression (LP)

Learning Trajectory (LT)

• A sequence of successively more complex ways of thinking about an idea that might reasonably follow one another in a student’s learning (Smith et al., 2006).

• Not developmentally inevitable as they do depend on instruction; however, they do not typically include descriptions of instruction.

• Based on research synthesis and conceptual analysis, making use of current research on children’s learning (NRC, 2007).

• “Are anchored one end by what is known about the concepts and reasoning of students…at the other end, LP’s are anchored by societal expectations; thus, LP’s provide “intermediate” understandings between these anchor points that… contribute to building a more mature understanding” (NRC, 2007).

• Different in time spans they describe – can be the development of children’s thinking over a span of years, or the progression of thinking through a particular topic or instructional unit (Battista, 2011).

• Differ in grain size of descriptions. Some may be minute to minute changes in student development of thought, while others are more global progressions through school curricula.

• Differ in audience – some are written for researchers, standards writers, assessment developers (formative and summative) and some for teachers (Battista, 2011).

• Foundational differences on which they are designed. Some are built on the synthesis of extant research; others synthesise extant research and then perform additional research to elaborate (such as longitudinal or cross-sectional research).

• Differ in how they describe student learning. Some have numerical measures of student progress; others focus on describing the categories of student’s cognitive structures and reasoning (Battista, 2011).

• If one is focussing on a formative assessment system that applies to many curricula, one is more likely to develop a learning progression based on many assessment tasks, not those in a fixed sequence (Battista, 2011).

• A detailed description of the sequence of thoughts, ways of reasoning, and strategies that a student employs while involved in learning a topic, including specification of how the student deals with all instructional tasks and social interactions during this sequence (Battista, 2011; Simon 1995).

• Include detailed descriptions of instruction.

• Two types of LT – Hypothetical and actual. Hypothetical LT have three components: A goal (research based “big ideas”), the learning activities and the hypothetical learning process – that is, a prediction of how the students thinking and understanding will evolve in the context of the learning activities (Simon, 1995). Actual learning trajectories can be specified only during and after a student has progressed though such a learning path. Thus, the actual learning trajectory is not knowable in advance (Simon, 1995).

• Are descriptions of children’s thinking and learning in a specific domain and a related, conjectured route through a set of instructional tasks designed to engender those mental processes or actions hypothesised to move children though a developmental progression of levels of thinking, created with the intent of supporting children’s achievement of specific goals in that domain (Clements & Sarama, 2004).

• If one is designing and testing a curriculum (program of instruction/ unit of work etc.) then you are more likely to develop a learning trajectory based on the sequence of learning tasks in that curriculum (Battista, 2011).


As described in Table 2, there are some strong similarities, but also subtle differences, between the construction and the intention of a LP

or LT. Despite the nuanced differences between the two, the commonalities between the intention, structure and affordances of learning

progressions/ trajectories are evident in two ways. Firstly, the notion that both acknowledge that learning takes place over a sustained

period, and that teaching involves identifying where learners are in their learning journey and recognising the importance of providing

carefully considered, challenging but achievable learning experiences which will support learners to progress to the next step in their

particular journey (Siemon et al., 2017). Secondly, the intention of either a LP or LT is, to varying extents and in different ways, is to suggest

hypothesised pathways of learning children may take when constructing knowledge and skills, which is derived from a variety of sources;

namely, a synthesis of current and relevant literature; the design and trial of learning activities aimed at progressing learning within the

hypothesised framework; and the employment of empirical evaluation methods to assess where learners are in their journey and the

efficacy of both the framework and the teaching materials and approaches used (Siemon et al., 2017). Using either a LP or a LT thus provides

educators with a fine-grain analysis and understanding regarding how children learn, at each age and/or stage of development, the targeted

STEM concepts and skills. LPs and LTs also contribute to the wider educational and research community by providing empirical evidence in

relation to how children learn, which can be used to shape policy and curriculum development on strong educational foundations.

5.1 A hybrid approach to Learning Progressions

As indicated above, there are very clear and common intentions for the development of a LP or LT. However, LP and LT can also be based

upon the different methodological considerations guiding their construction. Based on the affordances of the learning possible within the

play-based learning environment that is the ELSA program, and the targeted age range of children (4-7-year old) ELSA can cater for – a

hybrid approach to the development of ELSA LPs was created and used to understand children’s learning.

The theoretical roots of a LP within ELSA are characterised by a fusion between a cognitive levels approach; observable strategies / learning

performance approach; and, the Hypothetical Learning Trajectory (HLT) approach.

A cognitive levels approach to constructing a LP is predominantly used for diagnostic assessment purposes, which can include identifying

and classifying partially productive understanding of learning, generally within broad education topics such as “geometry” or “life cycles”

etc. (Lobato & Walters, 2017). Cognitive levels LPs generally describe students' ways of reasoning about a topic, irrespective of curriculum,

and focus on understanding and reacting to students' current cognitive structures (Battista, 2011). They include a beginning ‘level’ or

anchoring starting point and end in a deeper, more sophisticated benchmark of a learning goal. In relation to ELSA, this is incorporated in


the adaption of Lithner’s (2008) model, whereby our LPs move through three main phases: beginning with - reasoning as object, then -

reasoning as process, and finally the most sophisticated demonstration of reasoning - reasoning as concept phase. These phases will be

elaborated upon in the following section. Additionally, the diagnostic and assessment for learning affordances this type of progression

permits, across a range of topics and/or areas of learning, are important characteristics of the LP developed for ELSA.

The most common method for developing a cognitive levels LP involves cross-sectional, clinical interviews over multiple ages, which

become “compilations of empirical observations of the thinking of many students” (Battista, 2004). A downfall of this type of LP

methodology; however, is that it does not examine the influence of innovative educational and intentional teaching opportunities – such

as that offered in ERA framework within ELSA - and also does not consider learning construction in the ‘messiness’ of everyday, play based

learning experiences vital in early years education. Therefore, whilst utilising aspects of this approach to help map the cognitive patterns

in student thinking to understand the conceptual structures for achieving a range of learning goals, if we relied solely upon such an

approach, we would not be able to determine a progression of understanding and how this is influenced by the intentional teaching

opportunities across the overarching domains of Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning possible within ELSA.

The second theoretical perspective that underpins our LPs is the observable strategies and learning performance approach to developing

a LP. This type of LP typically identifies proficiency levels in terms of strategies or other observable behaviours (Lobato & Walters, 2017).

The intention of this type of LP is to draw connections between the sophistication in student strategies, whilst considering the impact

variables such as task complexity, cultural context and the learning environment have on learning. This method therefore highlights the

fundamental role the STEM Practices (Lowrie, Leonard, & Fitzgerald, 2018) play, in underpinning all learning within the ELSA program. This

type of learning progression can be constructed upon existing research (such as disciplinary logic/ curricular coherence approaches) or, it

can be a product of research (Lobato & Walters, 2017) such as through the collection of empirical data enabled through the digital activities

in ELSA. Thus, there is no prototypical method for the construction of this type of LP, which aligns seamlessly to the innovative and dynamic

nature of ELSA. This methodology allows for the revision of the LPs as more empirical learning evidence is collected; for example, the ways

in which children are demonstrating their knowledge through their engagement in STEM Practices and the application of these practices

in the performance tasks provided. This approach allows for cognitive levels to inform the development of this hybrid approach to

developing a LP, and it can be more specific to the conceptual aims and learning goals explored within ELSA. This methodology of learning

progression construction lends itself to the formal design of measures to empirically validate the LP (Confrey, Maloney, Nguyen, & Rupp,

2014), because knowledge states are encapsulated within the learning performances (Lobato & Walters, 2017).

The third perspective underpinning the construction of the LP in ELSA is the Hypothetical Learning Trajectory (HLT). This methodology is

characterised by a change in focus from the learner and the knowledge and skills displayed within a particular learning domain, to an


emphasis on the teaching supports for learning as part of a model of teacher’s decision-making process in curriculum and education

development (Loboto & Walters, 2017). First conceived by Simon (1995), a HLT consists of three main elements: a learning goal; the

selection of tasks that will promote student learning towards the identified goal; and a hypothesis about the process or path of student

learning (Simon & Tzur, 2004). Clements and Sarama (2004) elaborate, stating that HLTs are:

descriptions of children’s thinking and learning in a specific mathematical domain and a related, conjectured route through a set of instructional tasks designed to engender those mental processes or actions hypothesized to move children through a developmental progression of levels of thinking, created with the intent of supporting children’s achievement of specific goals in

that mathematical domain. (p. 83)

HLTs are commonly situated in a constructivist, socio-constructivist and/or social cultural paradigm of learning. That is, these foregrounding

theories exert a profound influence on the meaning of these progressions, because they define the likely catalysts for learning

development, and provide a theoretical base for explaining the movement between the steps identified within the progressions (Confrey,

2019; Simon et al., 2010; Simon & Tzur, 2004). This is a critical feature of such an approach, in that its design and development is ongoing,

iterative, context specific, and is informed by the interpretivist nature of seeking information from students regarding their engagement

and integration within a learning experience (Lehrer & Schauble, 2015). Thus, the power of an HLT comes from the nexus between the

developmental path a child is conjectured to explore within a defined concept, and the carefully selected teaching and learning experiences

that are developed and selected to promote this learning (Daro, Mosher, & Cocoran, 2011). This is an essential feature of the ELSA program,

and is evident in the way each of the activities within the Represent (digital) phase have been constructed within a specific learning area

or topic, in addition to the educational activities and opportunities promoted in the E and A phases through the Educator and Families App

across other learning areas and activities.

Utilising this hybrid approach to developing learning progressions gives rise to our new and innovative learning progression methodology-

Bounded Learning Progressions (BLPs). In line with the definitions described above, the intention and foundation of our BLPs is that they

are a focussed, conjectured path of knowledge construction for a range of STEM concepts, that manifest within Spatial Reasoning and

Logical Reasoning, through the engagement in STEM Practices (Lowrie, Leonard, & Fitzgerald, 2018) and the ERA framework (Lowrie &

Larkin, 2019). Importantly, underpinning this hybrid approach is a strong premise that BLPs are not designed to be a set of “psychological

descriptions of learning but are, rather, situated in a larger conceptualisation of the roles of students and teachers in overall learning

ecologies” (Confrey, 2019 p. 8). The tasks and learning experiences designed for each element of ELSA, are not simply stimuli for responses,

but involve setting up specific conditions for learner engagement and teacher participation, to promote and respond with pedagogical

agility to learners’ activity (Confrey, 2019). Thus, the digital activities, teaching suggestions and off app learning experiences provided are


designed for two purposes: to introduce and allow learners to explore conceptual learning within Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning

domains, through deep and purposeful engagement with STEM Practices; and to provide contexts that support children to relate STEM

concepts to their experience and background, and apply this new knowledge in meaningful ways (Bang & Medin, 2010; Confrey, 2019;

Shepard, Penuel, & Pellegrino, 2018).


6.0 Bounded Learning Progressions

The term BLPs not only incorporates the hybrid approach to the construction of such a learning progression noted above, but also suggests

how learning occurs within the boundary of the ELSA program. That is, the “boundedness” of the BLPs, is the way the conceptual,

theoretical and pedagogical elements of the ELSA program, scaffolds the development of Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning by early

years' children. That is, the foundation of STEM practices within an ERA framework provides the context and boundary for learning to

occur.

Whilst this may appear at first glance to be limiting in terms of what can be achieved, both in terms of the topics explored in the ELSA

program, and also what can be developed in terms of BLPs; the opposite is in fact the case. Many current forms of learning progressions

describe a linear path within a learning area or topic, from least sophisticated to most sophisticated levels of skills and understanding,

without the consideration of how related progressions, directly or indirectly, may enhance or influence learning in different ways. BLPs

provide an innovative and dynamic perspective that challenges these current methodologies. Thus, we define BLPs as learning maps that

describe the possible pathways of learning, which will contribute to achieving different layers of reasoning, through the identified STEM

concepts within ELSA (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Bounded Learning Progression Conceptualisation


Specifically, BLPs are identified, established, revised and re-developed within the domains of Spatial and Logical Reasoning, through a series

of learning foci detailed in each of the Apps, which give a lens in which the STEM Practices, concepts and pedagogical innovativeness of

the ERA is supported. That is Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning are developed through the STEM Practices, which are not a series of

discrete, disciplinary content, but rather provide a way to think of diverse engagement with STEM without specific recourse to content. As

such, it supports thinking about STEM engagement by artists, doctors, and any other field or activity that makes use of STEM Practices.

STEM connects to the real world not on the basis of disciplinary content, but through the diverse use of the sayings, doings and relatings

of STEM (Lowrie, Leonard, & Fitzgerald, 2018). Therefore, through the ‘funnel’ of the above diagram, it is the STEM Practices that influence

and develop the sayings, doings and relatings of STEM concepts. However, we acknowledge the difficulty many Early Childhood Educators

face in translating these big ideas and concepts into practical actions within the individualised and child-centred learning environments.

Therefore, the Experience – Represent – Apply (ERA) heuristic is the third ‘ingredient’ shaping the development of the BLPs. The ERA

heuristic asks designers and educators to create learning activities that use or enact forms of STEM practice comprising of three cyclic

stages, with the intent of each phase as follows and expressed in term of ELSA’s app-based activity (Lowrie & Larkin, 2019; Lowrie, Leonard,

& Fitzgerald, 2018):

• Experience. This is what children already know. Children’s lived experiences are used as the foundation for concept development

through social engagement and language.

• Represent. Children will play a variety of games on the apps to engage with, and represent, STEM concepts. These representations

will include creating images, interpreting pictures, visualising and using symbols.

• Applications. Children will build on their learning from the on-app activities through a range of off-app activities, guided by their

educators and their families.

The BLPs are designed to reflect these elements of both pedagogical and conceptual authenticity, within child-centred play-based learning

experiences.

6.1 Unpacking the structure of a Bounded Learning Progression

As described earlier, when outlining the methodological construction of a BLP, one of the features that helps determine the level of

sophistication a child is working at, as well as providing a diagnostic map for how interrelated experiences and activities can assist in the

child in moving to the next level of sophistication, is the adaption of Lithner’s (2008) framework for mathematical reasoning, which we

suggest applies more broadly to both Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning. This framework has been adopted in a variety of studies,


including those situated in preschool settings (see Sumpter, 2016; Sumpter & Hedefalk, 2018). Moreover, this framework is adapted

because it helps us to look at the foundation of the learning through the development of STEM Practices, and how they are used in play-

based, early childhood, learning environments. In our adaption, these phases are: reasoning as object, reasoning as process and reasoning

as concept, illustrated in Figure 4, and evident in both Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning.

Figure 4: The framework of the Bounded Learning Progression


Reasoning as object considers the objects (within an activity or learning experience) as fundamental entities. That is, they are considered

as the “thing” that one is doing something with (Lithner, 2008; Sumpter, 2016). This can be typically evidenced in the form of comparing,

classifying and analysing specific objects to notice similarities and differences in properties, their attributes and orientation or position

(Clements & Sarama, 2009). It can also include disembedding, which is isolating and attending to one aspect of a context or scene

(Newcombe & Shipley, 2015). Seriation by trial and error or intuition is evident, and children explore and discover (generally with

assistance) that there can be sequences, rules and patterns within and between simple objects and/ or sequential contexts (Clements &

Sarama, 2009).

Reasoning as process considers the process(es) applied to an object or context, with a sequence of these changes being a procedure

(Lithner, 2008; Sumpter, 2016). This can be in the form of the child looking at a range of possible solutions, procedures, and strategies to

be considered, and trialling and applying them in various contexts – both on App (in the R phase) or off app in the E and A phases. Reasoning

as process also demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between the information explored, the objects of concern and the

processes applied to these objects. Cause and effect and conditional reasoning are typically emergent in this phase, although not

necessarily with a secure understanding. Newcombe and Shipley’s (2015) identification of penetrative thinking, mental transformation and

sequential thinking are also illustrative of this level of reasoning. In terms of Clements and Sarama’s (2009) work, this phase might be

interpreted as their ‘picture maker’ phase, where the child is demonstrating flexibility in integrating parts of a structure, utilising trial and

error, with some aspects of logical reasoning emerging and some systematic and/ or unsystematic use of spatial relations when constructing

and assembling objects and shapes.

Reasoning as concept is where children are applying, in our case, STEM concepts built from the deep understanding of the interactions

between the objects, their transformations (or processes performed) and their properties (Lithner, 2008; Sumpter, 2016). This phase

includes compositional reasoning, which is evident when the learner can represent functions and combine them without explicit instruction

- hypothesising the outcome of the composition (Piantadosi & Aslin, 2016) with the provision of clear conclusions about the overarching

concept (Sumpter, 2016). For example, Clements and Sarama (2014) explain this phase as the ability to compose shapes with specific

intention, anticipation, and understanding what 2D shape or 3D object will be produced with a composition of two or more other (simple

and familiar) 2D shapes or 3D objects. It may also be the application of a framework the child creates when exploring patterning. For

example, given objects in an ABBABB pattern, a child can recognise and reason the core unit of the pattern as AAB and then represent this

pattern with either different objects or with movement – e.g. clap, clap, jump. This is what Clements and Sarama (2009) identify as a

‘Pattern Unit Recogniser’, which is the ability to “translate patterns into new media; that is abstract and generalise the pattern” (Clements

& Sarama, 2017/2019). Whilst this is not an exhaustive description of all the learning examples that exemplify this level of thinking and


working, its underlying foundations are the demonstration of the desired conceptual ideas and the ability to apply systematic and robust

Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning in a range of different contexts.

An important element to the three phases of sophistication for reasoning is that they should be considered, somewhat paradoxically, as

both hierarchical and cyclical in nature. As presented in each of the phases above, there is a hierarchical shift from simple to complex levels

of reasoning. However, as illustrated in Figure 4, the three phases are highly cyclical, in that the construction of complex and sophisticated

thinking within a reasoning through concept phase, affords new possibilities and provocations for thinking about different objects, to start

a new cycle of reasoning in related and unrelated domains. This resonates strongly with the ERA pedagogical approach where an A

experience in one cycle flows into a subsequent E experience in the next cycle of ERA.

The inclusion of this adapted aspect of Lithner’ (2008) model allows for, in the ELSA BLPs, the diagnosis and formative assessment of the

characteristics of children’s thinking across a learning domain. That is, when a child’s learning development is mapped across their

engagement within an App, and or across multiple Apps (automatically in many of the digital R activities), and across E and A opportunities

in observable, anecdotal form, themes can be determined about the overall level of sophistication a child is demonstrating at a particular

point in time. This flexibility in determining the collective level of sophistication a child is demonstrating provides valuable formative

information for the educator, that is authentic to the child’s experiences and needs. This is a very important affordance of the BLPs in ELSA

and will be elaborated upon further in this document.


6.2 Bounded Learning Progressions: Connected Networks of Learning

The construction of a bounded learning progression will incorporate a series of Progress Indicators (PI), which describe the likely steps and

levels of knowing a child may exhibit when developing their understanding on a specific concept (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Progress Indicators within a BLP

Each PI will have a description of what that step in the BLP looks like in practice. The PI will also list the associated “I Can” statement(s),

which are captured ‘on App’ during the Representation phase of the ERA loop, and also the “I Can” statements that can be observed and

identified by the educator during the suggested E and A activities. As indicated previously, what is innovative about the structure and

affordances of the ELSA BLP is the connectedness these BLPs provide between concepts, and the wider domains of Spatial Reasoning and

Logical Reasoning. Thus, where appropriate, the progress indicators for each BLP will have links to where that specific set of knowledge

and skills can be enhanced, supported and evidenced in other Apps’ E, R and A activities (see Figure 6).


Figure 6: BLP as connected networks of learning

The BLP depicted in figure 6 is an example of the structure and interconnectedness of learning created in ELSA. In this example the concept

of Decoding is the focus for the BLP (App 3 - Activity 1). The first two progress indicators have been provided in the BLP (in this example),

which indicate the start of a child’s reasoning capabilities for this concept, formulated by current and relevant literature, that is - reasoning

as object phase. The example PIs indicated here are accompanied by a description of what learning and reasoning at this level may look

like in practice. Importantly there are connections to other relevant BLPs and ERA learning experiences that likely will, in different ways,

enhance and develop this child’s understanding of the concept of decoding. For example, a child who is demonstrating they are a

“Representation Senser” in the above BLP, likely means they have an awareness of the role pictorial representations play in communicating

meaning (including a procedure or sequence) but may not be able to describe all the attributes of the representations or apply this

knowledge consistently. This may mean that they are able to decode the simple, three step, pictorial instructions in Activity 1 and build the

drum, but building the guitar and marimba is too challenging at this level. This PI is developed and supported in the empirical data we can

collect in the on-App engagement of the child, that is, we know empirically that building the drum through the representations presented


in this activity is easier for most children to achieve than building the guitar or the marimba. This PI and “I Can” statements, also relate to

the child recognising that the symbolic representations in Activity 4 on this App represent different sounds for different instruments,

however, the child at this level may not be able to apply this understanding in a systematic or purposeful way other than by trial and error

to make music. To encourage this child’s success in developing decoding skills and understanding the meaning of pictorial and symbolic

representations, the educator may also refer the child to App 1, Activity 1, where they decode pictorial sequences to recreate a story and

Activity 2 where they can practice decoding pictorial representations of familiar and unfamiliar food items to determine different attributes

in sorting their lunch boxes, thus assisting the child to move to the next progress indicator (level) within the BLP.

Building upon figure 6, which illustrated the connections that occur between a Spatial Reasoning BLP (Patterns and Relationships) and a

Logical Reasoning BLP (Decoding), the following figure (Figure 7) exemplifies the connection between all four Apps and their associated

ERA activities that are possible within ELSA. Here, within the two PIs for the BLP of Sorting, we can see connections to the Representations

app and activities (Activity 1 - Decoding); the Investigations app where children need to recognise spare parts and their properties and

attributes to solve a water problem (Activity 1 – Let’s Tinker with Spare Parts), and a range of off app learning opportunities that are

suggested on the educator app in the E and the A phases.

Figure 7: An example of connectedness across all four Apps.


Moreover, by engaging in the ELSA program, children are developing deep conceptual ideas in connected ways, which are reflected in the discrete discipline requirements in the Australian Curriculum, as described in Table 3 (NB – Only descriptors relevant to the example above are listed in this table): Table 3: Australian Curriculum content alignment with ELSA

Foundation Year 1 Year 2

Content Descriptors: Mathematics

Sort, describe and name familiar two-dimensional shapes and three-dimensional objects in the environment (ACMMG009) Sort and classify familiar objects and explain the basis for these classifications. Copy, continue and create patterns with objects and drawings (ACMNA005)

Investigate and describe number patterns formed by skip-counting and patterns with objects (ACMNA018) Recognise and classify familiar two-dimensional shapes and three-dimensional objects using obvious features (ACMMG022)

Compare and order several shapes and objects based on length, area, volume and capacity using appropriate uniform informal units (ACMMG037

Content Descriptors: Science

Objects are made of materials that have observable properties (ACSSU003 The way objects move depends on a variety of factors, including their size and shape (ACSSU005) Engage in discussions about observations and represent ideas (ACSIS233

Science involves observing, asking questions about, and describing changes in, objects and events (ACSHE021) Use informal measurements to collect and record observations, using digital technologies as appropriate (ACSIS026) Represent and communicate observations and ideas in a variety of ways (ACSIS029

A push or a pull affects how an object moves or changes shape (ACSSU033) Use informal measurements to collect and record observations, using digital technologies as appropriate (ACSIS039) Represent and communicate observations and ideas in a variety of ways (ACSIS042

General Capability Numeracy Continuum Elements

Level 1b Recognising and using patterns and relationships Typically, by the end of Foundation Year, students:

Level 2 Recognising and using patterns and relationships Typically, by the end of Year 2, students:

• Recognise and use patterns and relationships

• Identify, describe and create everyday patterns


• Recognise and use patterns and relationships

• Describe and continue patterns Spatial Reasoning:

• Visualise 2D shapes and 3D objects

• Sort and name simple 2D shapes and 3D objects

• Interpret maps and diagrams

• Follow directions to demonstrate understanding of common position words and movements

Using Measurement

• Estimate and measure with metric units

• Measure by comparing objects and indicate if these measurements are the same or different

• Operate with clocks calendars and timetables

• Sequence familiar actions and events using the everyday language of time

Spatial Reasoning:

• Visualise 2D shapes and 3D objects

• Identify, sort and describe common 2D shapes and 3D objects

• Interpret maps and diagrams

• Give and follow directions on maps and diagrams of familiar locations

Using Measurement

• Estimate and measure with metric units

• Estimate, measure and order using direct and indirect comparisons and informal units to collect and record information about shapes and objects

• Operate with clocks calendars and timetables

• Read digital and analogue clocks to the half and quarter hour, sequence events by months and seasons and identify a date on a calendar

BLPs have been created and integrated into the ELSA program design as a way of understanding learning from a theoretical perspective,

as well as a pragmatic one. Thus, not only does each App, and associated experiences suggested in the ERA, connect to a range of STEM

Practices and concepts across both Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning, there are also significant connections to the EYLF and the

Foundation Year of the Australian Curriculum, as illustrated in Table 4:


Table 4: Connectivity of ELSA Apps: STEM Practices, core concepts, EYLF and Australian Curriculum (Foundation)

App 1: Patterns and Relationships

App 2: Location and Arrangement

App 3: Representations

App 4: Investigations

ELSA Educator ELSA Families

Core concepts

• Sorting

• Ordering

• Patterning

• Representing

• Position

• Location

• Arrangement

• Orientation

• Decoding

• Encoding

• Conditionals

• Debugging

• Observe

• Propose

• Verify

• Explain

All 16 core concepts of the 4 children’s apps

All 16 core concepts of the 4 children’s apps

EYLF outcomes

• EYLF 1 – Children have a strong sense of identity

• EYLF 2 – Children are connected with and contribute to their world

• EYLF 4 – Children are confident and involved learners

• EYLF 5 – Children are effective communicators





• EYLF 3 – Children have a strong sense of wellbeing












All EYLF outcomes in children’s apps 1 and 2

STEM Practices

• Proposing

• Thinking critically • Teamwork

• Designing and building

• Generating ideas

• Using tools to produce artefacts

• Imagination • Processing

information

• Persistence

• Exploring and challenging

• Using appropriate language and vocabulary

• Encoding and decoding information

• Imagination • Processing

information

• Persistence

• Teamwork


• Thinking critically

• Designing and building


• Persistence

• Creativity


• Finding and validating evidence

• Processing information



• Problem finding




• Persistence

• Teamwork

• Finding and validating evidence

• Proposing

• Using appropriate language and vocabulary


• Curiosity

• All STEM Practices: Ideas, Methods and Values

All STEM Practices included in children’s apps 1 and 2


• Teamwork


Alignment to Australian Curriculum (Foundation) Mathematics

• Establish understanding of the language and processes of counting by naming numbers in sequences, initially to and from 20, moving from any starting point (ACMNA001)

• Sort and classify familiar objects and explain the basis for these classifications. Copy, continue and create patterns with objects and drawings (ACMNA005)

• Compare, order and make correspondences between collections, initially to 20, and explain reasoning (ACMNA289)

• Use direct and indirect comparisons to decide which is longer, heavier or holds more, and explain reasoning in everyday language (ACMMG006)

• Describe position and movement (ACMMG010)

• Connect days of the week to familiar events and actions (ACMMG008)


• Answer yes/no questions to collect information and make simple inferences (ACMSP011)













http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/search?accContentId=ACMMG010


• Describe position and movement (ACMMG010)

• Describe position and movement (ACMMG010

Alignment to Australian Curriculum (Foundation) Science

• Participate in guided investigations and make observations using the senses (ACSIS011)

• Engage in discussions about observations and represent ideas (ACSIS233)

• Share observations and ideas (ACSIS012)

• Science involves observing, asking questions about, and describing changes in, objects and events (ACSHE013)



• The way objects move depends on a variety of factors, including their size and shape (ACSSU005)






• Daily and seasonal changes in our environment affect everyday life (ACSSU004)

• Living things have basic needs including food and water (ACSSU002)

• Objects are made of materials that have observable properties (ACSSU003)

• Pose and respond to questions about familiar objects and

events (ACSIS014) • Science involves

observing, asking questions about, and describing changes in, objects and events (ACSHE013)

















Alignment to Australian Curriculum (Foundation) Technologies (digital)

• Recognise and explore patterns in data and represent data as pictures, symbols and diagrams (ACTDIK002)

• Recognise and explore digital systems (hardware and software components) for a purpose (ACTDIK001)



• Generate, develop and record design





http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/search?accContentId=ACSSU005





• Collect, explore and sort data, and use digital systems to present the data creatively (ACTDIP003)

• Follow, describe and represent a sequence of steps and decisions needed to solve simple problems (ACTDIP004)

• Generate, develop and record design ideas through describing, drawing and modelling (ACTDEP006)


• Follow, describe and represent a sequence of steps and decisions (algorithms) needed to solve simple problems (ACTDIP004)


• Sequence steps for making designed solutions and working collaboratively (ACTDEP009)

ideas through describing, drawing and modelling (ACTDEP006)












In the context of the BLP example depicted in Figure 5, not only does ELSA afford the mapping of STEM Practices, concepts and curriculum

content in an individual app or learning focus (such as decoding), but it allows us to empirically determine the connection between the

development of Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning – which is an innovation in the educational research community in itself; whilst

demonstrating that this program provides robust and extensive curriculum opportunities. For example, Figure 6, exemplifies the ways in

which a child may develop decoding skills, including opportunities to reason both Spatially and Logically. Decoding is normally positioned

in the research literature only in relation to Logical Reasoning, thus we are providing empirically based findings that decoding also requires

strong Spatial Reasoning and thus we are challenging the dominant ways in which STEM is often taught in early years educational contexts.

Moreover, this reasoning connection between App 1 and 3 strongly connects to the following Australian Curriculum content across the


Early Years. In Foundation alone, the activities and learning advice within the BLP in Figure 6, connects to a range of Australian Curriulum

content.

Table 5: Curriculum links to App 1 and 3 activities

Foundation Australian Curriculum Content Descriptor:

Mathematics Science Technologies

Sort and classify familiar objects and explain the basis for these classifications. Copy, continue and create patterns with objects and drawings (ACMNA005) Connect days of the week to familiar events and actions (ACMMG008) Participate in guided investigations and make observations using the senses (ACSIS011) Engage in discussions about observations and represent ideas (ACSIS233) Share observations and ideas (ACSIS012) Science involves observing, asking questions about, and describing changes in, objects and events (ACSHE013) Daily and seasonal changes in our environment affect everyday life (ACSSU004) Recognise and explore patterns in data and represent data as pictures, symbols and diagrams (ACTDIK002) Collect, explore and sort data, and use digital systems to present the data creatively (ACTDIP003) Recognise and explore digital systems (hardware and software components) for a purpose (ACTDIK001) Follow, describe and represent a sequence of steps and decisions (algorithms) needed to solve simple problems (ACTDIP004)

Similarly, there are learning connections which are theoretically and empirically evident from the design of ELSA between the concepts

within Spatial Reasoning – Apps 1 and 2; and Logical Reasoning, Apps 3 and 4, which also extend beyond a single year level, deomstrating

the appropriateness of ELSA for preschool age children right through to Year 2. One example of the connections evident in each pair of

Apps is provided in Table 6.


Table 6: Curriculum connections between Apps (NB TOnly the descriptors relevant to selected PIs are listed to exemplify)

App 1: Activity 1, Photo Story App 2: Activity 2, Hide and Seek

Progress Indicator Representation Senser: Demonstrates an awareness of the role pictorial representations play in communicating meaning (including a procedure or sequence) but may not be able to describe all of the attributes of the representations or apply this knowledge consistently

Spatial Relational Locator: Interprets relational spatial language and locations in complex environment

I can statements I can put a story into order when it's missing one picture I can sequence familiar events (item missing at the start, item missing at the end)

I can interpret instructions that use relational spatial language - with myself as a reference I can interpret descriptive language - with help - on my own - with peers

EYLF • EYLF 1 – Children have a strong sense of identity


• EYLF 4 – Children are confident and involved learners • EYLF 5 – Children are effective communicators

Australian Curriculum Mathematics – Foundation • Sort and classify familiar objects and explain the basis for these classifications. Copy, continue and create

patterns with objects and drawings (ACMNA005) • Describe position and movement (ACMMG010) Mathematics – Year 1 • Give and follow directions to familiar locations (ACMMG023) Mathematics – Year 2 • Interpret simple maps of familiar locations and identify the relative positions of key features (ACMMG044) Science – Foundation • Science involves observing, asking questions about, and describing changes in, objects and events

(ACSHE013)



Technologies – Foundation to Year 2 • Follow, describe and represent a sequence of steps and decisions needed to solve simple problems

(ACTDIP004)

App 3: Activity 1, Lets make musical instruments App 4: Activity 1, Lets tinker with spare parts

Progress Indicator Representation Senser: Demonstrates an awareness of the role pictorial representations play in communicating meaning (including a procedure or sequence) but may not be able to describe all of the attributes of the representations or apply this knowledge consistently

Representation Senser: Demonstrates an awareness of the role pictorial representations play in communicating meaning (including a procedure or sequence) but may not be able to describe all of the attributes of the representations or apply this knowledge consistently

I can statements I can follow simple instructions and build the drum

I can use pre-sourced materials to complete a task

EYLF • EYLF 1 – Children have a strong sense of identity





Australian Curriculum Mathematics – Foundation • Describe position and movement (ACMMG010) • Use direct and indirect comparisons to decide which is longer, heavier or holds more, and explain

reasoning in everyday language (ACMMG006) • Sort and classify familiar objects and explain the basis for these classifications. Copy, continue and

create patterns with objects and drawings (ACMNA005) Mathematics – Year 1

• Recognise and classify familiar two-dimensional shapes and three-dimensional objects using obvious features (ACMMG022)

Mathematics – Year 2 • Investigate the effect of one-step slides and flips with and without digital technologies (ACMMG045) • Identify and describe half and quarter turns (ACMMG046)



Science – Foundation


Science – Year 1

• Everyday materials can be physically changed in a variety of ways (ACSSU018

• People use science in their daily lives, including when caring for their environment and living things (ACSHE022)

• Science Year 2

• Pose and respond to questions, and make predictions about familiar objects and events (ACSIS037)

• Represent and communicate observations and ideas in a variety of ways (ACSIS042) Technologies – Foundation to Year 2 Follow, describe and represent a sequence


8.0 Conclusion

Given the scope of curriculum connections evident across all four children’s ELSA Apps, it will now be possible to make both theoretical

and empirical inferences regarding the ways Spatial Reasoning and Logical Reasoning not only develops within the “boundedness” of ELSA,

but also contributes significantly to learning in a range of domains, resulting in the ELSA BLPs making a significant educational contribution

to early childhood education. In our view, our hybrid approach to the development of BLPs is best aligned to the play based nature of early

childhood and also to the intentional teaching approach espoused in the EYLF. The innovative development and use of progress indicators,

the connectivity between the BLPs across the four apps, the situating of these aspects in the domains of Spatial Reasoning and Logical

Reasoning, and the ability to digitally collect empirical data regarding children’s learning in a play based way, ideally position the ELSA

program to make strong connections between the preschool and the first three years of formal schooling.


9.0 References

• Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple

epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008-1026.

• Barkl, S., Porter, A., & Ginns, P. (2012). Cognitive training for children: Effects on inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and

mathematics achievement in an Australian school setting. Psychology in the Schools, 49(9), 828-842.

• Battista, M. T. (2004). Applying cognition-based assessment to elementary school students' development of understanding of

area and volume measurement. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 185-204.

• Battista, M. T. (2011). Conceptualizations and issues related to learning progressions, learning trajectories, and levels of

sophistication. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(3), 507-570.

• Battista, M. T. (2012). Cognition-Based assessment and teaching of fractions: Building on students’ reasoning. Portsmouth, N.H.

Heinemann

• Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.

• Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2),

81-89.

• Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. Routledge.

• Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2017/2019). Learning and teaching with learning trajectories [LT]2. Retrieved from

www.LearningTrajectories.org

• Confrey, J. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: A Synthesis of Research on Learning Trajectories/Progressions in

Mathematics. Paris, OECD.

• Confrey, J., Maloney, A. P., Nguyen, K. H., & Rupp, A. A. (2014). Equipartitioning: A foundation for rational number

reasoning. Learning over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics education, 61-96.

• Daro, P., Mosher, F., & Cocoran, T. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum,

assessment, and instruction. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

• Evans, J. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 978-996.

• Goel, V. (2007). Anatomy of deductive reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(10), 435-441.

• Haverty, L. A., Koedinger, K. R., Klahr, D., & Alibali, M. W. (2000). Solving inductive reasoning problems in mathematics: not‐so‐

trivial pursuit. Cognitive Science, 24(2), 249-298.

• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 109-135.


• Klauer, K. J., & Phye, G. D. (2008). Inductive reasoning: A training approach. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 85-123.

• Kosslyn, S. M. (1983). Ghosts in the mind's machine: Creating and using images in the brain. New York: Norton.

• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). Learning progressions: The whole world is NOT a stage. Science Education, 99(3), 432-437.

• Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255-276.

• Lobato, J., & Walters, C. D. (2017). A taxonomy of approaches to learning trajectories and progressions. Compendium for

Research in Mathematics Education, 74-101.

• Lowrie, T., Diezmann, C. M., & Logan, T. (2012). A framework for mathematics graphical tasks: The influence of the graphic

element on student sense making. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(2), 169-187.

• Lowrie, T., & Larkin, K. (2019). Experience, represent, apply (ERA): A heuristic for digital engagement in the early years. British

Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12789

• Lowrie, T., Leonard, S., & Fitzgerald, R. (2018). STEM practices: a translational framework for large-scale STEM education

design. EDeR. Educational Design Research, 2(1).

• Lowrie, T., Logan, T., Harris, D., & Hegarty, M. (2018). The impact of an intervention program on students’ spatial reasoning:

student engagement through mathematics-enhanced learning activities. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 3(1), 50.

• Maloney, A. P., Confrey, J., & Nguyen, K. H. (Eds.). (2014). Learning over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics education.

Information Age Publishing Inc.

• Markovits, H., Doyon, C., & Simoneau, M. (2002). Individual differences in working memory and conditional reasoning with

concrete and abstract content. Thinking and Reasoning, 8(2), 97-107.

• Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., Cheng, Y. L., Young, C., Hambrick, D. Z., Ping, R., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2016). Separate but correlated:

The latent structure of space and mathematics across development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(9), 1206.

• National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science

Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, and A. W. Shouse, Editors. Board on Science

Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National

Academies Press.

• NCTM. 2000. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

• Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: New typology, new assessments. In Studying visual and

spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 179-192). Dordrecht: Springer.

• Phye, G. D., & Klauer, K. J. (1993). Cognitive training for children: A developmental program of inductive reasoning and problem

solving. Hogrefe & Huber.


• Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children.

Routledge.

• Shepard, L. A., Penuel, W. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2018). Using learning and motivation theories to coherently link formative

assessment, grading practices, and large‐scale assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 21-34.

• Siemon, D, Horne, M, Clements, D, Confrey, J, Maloney, A, Sarama, J, Tzur, R and Watson, A 2017, 'Researching and using

learning progressions (trajectories) in mathematics education', in Proceedings of the 41st Conference of the International Group

for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Singapore, 17-22 July 2017, pp. 109-136.

• Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in

Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145.

• Simon, M., Saldanha, L., McClintock, E., Akar, G. K., Watanabe, T., & Zembat, I. O. (2010). A developing approach to studying

students’ learning through their mathematical activity. Cognition and Instruction, 28(1), 70-112.

• Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the

hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 91-104.

• Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). FOCUS ARTICLE: implications of research on children's learning for

standards and assessment: a proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement:

Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 4(1-2), 1-98.

• Sumpter, L. (2016). Two frameworks for mathematical reasoning at preschool level. In Mathematics Education in the Early Years,

157-169. Springer, Cham.

• Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: Links to achievement in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 367-373.

• Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychology of learning and

motivation (57), 147-181. Academic Press.

• Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually

precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 397-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.397

• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological

knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817.

BOUNDED LEARNING PROGRESSIONS

Documents

Transcript of BOUNDED LEARNING PROGRESSIONS