This chapter provides a rationale for high quality STEM experiences in inclusive early childhood (EC) classrooms, describes what high quality STEM experiences are and why they can be an ideal context for supporting the development of young children with special needs and dual language learners. The authors offer recommendations concerning how to plan and implement STEM learning centers to support the meaningful participation of all children using a tiered perspective that includes the framework of Universal Design for Learning. Ideas and resources for how teachers can plan STEM learning centers, integrate literacy and arts, and interact in ways to support the engagement of all children, especially those with special needs and dual language learners are shared. These strategies are recognized as best practices, and adhere to position statements endorsed by NAEYC and the recommended practices developed by the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC, 2014).
All young children with disabilities should have access to inclusive high-quality early childhood programs, where they are provided with individualized and appropriate support in meeting high expectations. (U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, 2015)
A person cannot open a newspaper, browse an online news outlet, or turn on a cable news program without encountering at least one reference to STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). We are being told that our country faces a crisis in STEM, that we need more students to enter the STEM pipeline, and that the way we teach STEM is sorely lacking (National Research Council, 2007). All of this may indeed be true. But we have seen these calls before. Some may remember the crisis when the Soviet Union “beat” the US into space in 1957 with Sputnik, the first artificial satellite. The recent call to action from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (National Academy of Sciences, 2007) drew attention to the national shortage of STEM teachers and professionals, and called on educators to rethink how STEM content is taught in our nation’s schools. Several volumes followed, and in 2013, the National Research Council released the final draft of new national standards for science education: the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS 2013; National Research Council, 2012).
Missing from these new standards is any reference to children younger than 5 years of age (the NGSS are explicitly written for K-12 education). In addition, scant attention is paid to providing authentic, accessible STEM experiences for children with disabilities. However, the increased attention on STEM for all students provides timely impetus for shining a light on how STEM curriculum is being implemented in inclusive early childhood programs. The field of early education varies greatly both in the extent to which young children are given access to these experiences and in the quality of those experiences. This chapter will address both of these issues.
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section provides a rationale for high quality STEM experiences in inclusive early childhood (EC) classrooms, including a description of what high quality STEM experiences are and why they can be an ideal context for supporting the development of young children with special needs and dual language learners. The second section offers recommendations for teachers and administrators concerning how to plan and implement STEM learning centers to support the meaningful participation of all children using a tiered perspective that includes the framework of Universal Design for Learning. The objectives of this chapter are to provide early childhood educators with ideas and resources for how teachers can plan STEM learning centers, integrate literacy and arts, and interact in ways to support the engagement of all children, especially those with special needs and dual language learners. To illustrate these ideas, classroom vignettes and teacher perspectives are shared.
We know that young children are actively involved in reasoning about STEM content, beginning at birth. They are intensely curious about how the world works, and they bring this wonder and curiosity to new experiences, continually building theories to help them make sense of the world and how it works. However, when it comes to educational contexts, young children’s ability to reason scientifically is vastly underestimated (National Research Council, 2007).
Although the term STEM is an acronym that represents four distinct domains (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), it is also more than the sum of its parts. STEM in its ideal sense is a multidisciplinary approach to learning about the natural and human-made world that embraces knowledge, practices, concepts, and attitudes. In this section, we attempt to both break STEM apart and show how it fits together as we define and describe what STEM comprises, what it looks like in high-quality EC classrooms, and what it offers for inclusive EC education.
We also know that students’ attitudes and aptitudes regarding STEM begin with their earliest school experiences. In this section, we review literature concerning children’s attitudes and habits of mind as these relate to STEM learning.
Science
Learning about science—especially when that science relates to their everyday world—fosters young children’s curiosity and lays a foundation for later learning in K-12 settings and beyond (National Science Teachers Association, 2014). However, optimal science learning does not occur spontaneously. Young children need a thoughtful, planned approach to expand their reasoning and teacher support to interpret and communicate their findings (Edson, 2013). When exploring science with young children, the role of the early childhood teacher is to create a rich environment, engage children in inquiry science explorations, and focus and deepen children’s experiences and thinking (Chalufour & Worth, 2004).
Science activities can be found in high quality early childhood classrooms, although typically little time is devoted to science in EC classrooms. In fact, research suggests that STEM content is sorely neglected in the early years (Clements, Sarama, & DiBiase, 2003; Greenfield, et al., 2009). This may be in part because elementary and EC teachers tend to lack science content knowledge and report feeling unprepared to teach science (indeed, all STEM) content (Akerson, 2004; Greenfield, et al., 2009; Kallery & Psillos, 2001; National Research Council, 2007; Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2011; Wenner, 1993; Yasar, Baker, Robinson-Kurpius, Krause, & Roberts, 2006). Traditional early childhood practices often include a great deal of informal life science in children’s exploration of living things, such as observing worms on a rainy day, tending to classroom pets, and germinating seeds. Informal physical science can be seen when children attempt to determine how much force to use to knock down a stack of blocks (i.e., physical science), and when they investigate how shadows change at different times of the day (earth science). Young children are curious about the world and possess an intrinsic desire to figure out how the world works (Piaget & Garcia, 1971). They also have a strong need to be physically active.
In our state (Iowa) which provides voluntary universal preschool, the Teaching Strategies GOLD Objectives for Development and Learning (Heroman, Burts, Berke & Bickart, 2010) is mandated for use by teachers in all publicly-funded preschool programs. This assessment system includes items specifically addressing inquiry science skills, life science, physical science, earth science, and technology and tool use. We have noticed that teachers are beginning to devote more attention to these topics, perhaps because they are required to assess them.
When EC teachers intentionally plan science content, they tend to focus primarily on life sciences. They might chart the growth of a plant, observe worms in a wormery, or collect and sort autumn leaves. Little attention is paid to physical science activities. This is unfortunate, because physical science provides rich opportunities to actively explore the world, investigate physical phenomena, formulate hypotheses, and begin to construct cause-and-effect relationships (skills that appear in TS-GOLD objective # 24: Uses inquiry skills). For example, children pour water into a system of tubes that they have arranged and begin to construct practical understanding of fluid dynamics. They make pinwheels, parachutes, paper airplanes, and whirlygigs as part of investigations to comprehend aerodynamic principles and use these ideas to transform energy toward practical uses. They build ramp structures and roll marbles down them to investigate how to control force and motion to achieve a goal (for example, maximize speed, make a turn, create interesting effects). All of these are addressed by TS-GOLD objective # 26: Demonstrates knowledge of the physical properties of objects and materials. In the process, they begin to construct simple causal relationships, such as that when the angle of incline on a ramp is reduced, the marble travels more slowly, or that when they make a paper whirlygig out of copy paper, it twirls down to the floor faster than when they make it out of lightweight typing paper. Such classroom activities build content knowledge, but they also engage children in actively exploring materials in their environments, making sense of them, and using what they learn to design things—the beginnings of inquiry and engineering.
Technology
As storm clouds gathered on a spring morning, five year old Takeshia approached her teacher and pointed to the sky. She asked “A storm? Can you check radar?” Ms. Lisa replied “Let’s see” and used the classroom smartboard to show the radar report from the local news station website.
Technology and interactive media evolve constantly and offer the potential to enhance teaching and learning in the early years (Donohue, 2015). For example, children and teachers can use digital tools in the form of cameras to take photos of the chrysalis that forms around a caterpillar over the course of several days and track the changes. Similarly, they can take monthly (or even weekly) photographs of familiar objects in their neighborhoods, both living and nonliving, and chart the change or lack of change in those objects over time (Zan, Croteau, Chait, & Wang, 2015). Such experiences can lead children to think more deeply about concepts such as change over time and the differences between living and nonliving things. The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center (2012) consider technology to be useful tools for promoting learning and development when used intentionally by teachers in the framework of developmentally appropriate practice.
When technology is discussed in relation to curriculum, most people’s thoughts turn to high-tech tools such as computers, the internet, digital cameras, and the like. It is true that these tools are examples of technology. However, in its broadest sense, technology refers to the human-made world. So all tools are forms of technology. Pencils, markers, and other writing tools help humans represent thoughts and ideas on paper and extend memory. Magnifying glasses, microscopes, and binoculars are tools that extend the senses to allow humans to see things that are not visible with the eye alone. Even such mundane objects as furniture, clothing, and buildings are examples of technology. So part of the study of technology is introducing children to the concept of the human-made world and how people invent things that improve lives.
Engineering
The National Science Teachers Association’s (NSTA) 2014 Position Statement on Early Childhood Science Education (also endorsed by the National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC]) affirms the importance of learning about both science and engineering in the early years. This statement draws on the NGSS’s focus on depth of understanding of core ideas, scientific and engineering practices, and science and engineering concepts. A report by the National Academy of Engineering and the Board on Science Education at the Center for Education, Engineering in K-12 Education, defines engineering as “a systematic and often iterative approach to designing objects, processes, and systems to meet human needs and wants” (Council, 2009, p 49).
Engineering in the EC classroom takes the form of problem solving opportunities children encounter as they engage in a variety of developmentally appropriate activities such as building block structures, creating bubble wands, or cooking (Van Meeteren & Zan, 2015). Teachers support children as they identify problems, think of solutions, test their solutions, revise their solutions based on the results of their tests, and test them again until they achieve the results they want. Design problems are generally highly engaging and motivating to children and appeal to children’s intrinsic desire to make something interesting happen. Relevant science is learned when design challenges are integrated with science instruction (Schunn, 2009). This may be particularly true for non-traditional learners as well as children whose learning needs put them at odds with the dominant curriculum and methods that require children to be passive most of the time. Evident in the work of young children as they build sand castles, lace up shoes, design toys (Petroski, 2003) and build block structures (Brophy & Evangelou, 2007), such activities are abundant in possibilities for full integration of STEM, and observation of children in these activities reveals precursors to engineering thinking (Brophy & Evangelou, 2007). In these activities, children interact with the constraints of physics, negotiate spatial reasoning, measure and compare objects, and construct practical understanding of how the world works.
Mathematics
Math is all around children as they engage in the physical and social world. Children sort pinecones by common characteristics, recognize patterns in music, and compare quantities of cookies. Although math is being given more instructional time and attention in the early childhood classroom, early childhood teachers often focus mathematics instruction narrowly on numbers and operations. STEM activities provide an authentic context for mathematics (Burghardt, 2000; Sarama & Clements, 2009; Ortiz, 2008; Schunn, 2009). In the early years, mathematics can be embedded into the whole of children’s daily experiences. Early measurement involves comparisons between objects using relative terminology such as bigger, deeper, taller, farther, etc. When children realize the need for comparing more than two objects, the use of non-standard units comes into play. Simple graphing activities (e.g., creating a bar graph of objects that sink or float) introduce children to the idea that data from an investigation can be recorded, displayed visually (modeled), and used to answer questions, make decisions, and make predictions. Such experiences with measurement and data analysis provide the foundation for complex thinking and problem-solving (Gelman, Brenneman, MacDonald, & Roman, 2010; NCTM, 2013).
In their 2013 joint position statement, NAEYC and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2013) recommend that math be integrated with other activities and that teachers provide for children’s deep and sustained interaction with math ideas. In their more recent position statement on early childhood mathematics, they call for incorporating mathematics content such as number and operations, geometry, algebraic reasoning, and measurement into everyday experiences. Furthermore, teaching practices should rest on a solid understanding of both mathematics and the development of young children. Progress monitoring should be done through observation and other informal evaluations and used to guide instructional decisions.
Children’s early experiences in mathematics set the stage for later school success. Research has found that mathematics learning in the early years predicts not only later math achievement, but also later reading achievement (Duncan et al., 2007; Sarama & Clements, 2009). In addition, early experiences in developing spatial thinking have been found to contribute to students’ later expertise in STEM (Gersmehl & Gersmehl, 2007; Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009; Webb, Lubinski & Benbow, 2007).
Attitudes and Habits of Mind
During the early years, children are beginning to develop self-control, memory, attention, and the ability to make intentional plans with others. These executive functions, considered foundational for problem solving, have been found to improve development of later academic skills (Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009; Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007). Engineering habits of mind (Katehi, Pearson & Feder, 2009), which include creativity, problem solving, and analytical skills, are closely related to the executive functions. Approaches to Learning, a domain of early childhood education (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2005)that is considered a school readiness area (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003), is defined as the attitudes and dispositions that influence all learning, and includes curiosity, persistence, inventiveness, sustained attention, flexibility, and desire for a challenge. These dispositions are promoted as children are engaged in planned STEM learning experiences (Van Meeteren & Zan, 2010). Positive approaches to learning are particularly important for children from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds and for those with increased risk factors who are more likely to display poorer learning behaviors than their non-impoverished peers (McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000; Stipek & Rosaleen, 1997).
The early childhood period offers rich opportunities to develop positive attitudes toward STEM that will encourage children to be informed citizens and possibly consider careers in STEM. These attitudes may be particularly important for students with disabilities. It is a national goal to increase the number of persons with disabilities in the science and engineering workforce (Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2009). Despite their increased participation in general education settings, students with disabilities are underrepresented in STEM majors in higher education; although they make up approximately 13.7% of the school-aged student population, they represent only approximately 9-10% of those enrolled in STEM fields at the undergraduate level and 5% at the graduate level (Moon, Todd, Morton, & Ivey, 2012). Research suggests that one reason students with disabilities do not pursue STEM fields has to do with self-efficacy (Jenson, Petri, Day, Truman, & Duffy, 2011). Students with disabilities rarely enter the STEM workforce even though there are numerous work-related opportunities for students with disabilities and many are capable of making valuable contributions (Basham & Marino, 2010). Increasing expectations that students with disabilities have access to STEM content and accessible instruction through universal design for learning (UDL) are first steps in realizing the goal of STEM for all (Basham, Israel & Maynard, 2010).
When students with special needs are included in the general education science classroom, ideally, teachers make curricular and instructional adaptations to keep students engaged in content that is rich and meaningful. A body of literature exists for teaching inquiry science for students with mild to moderate disabilities in inclusive k-12 education settings. This literature addresses such issues as use of time, learning styles and instructional delivery, environments, and adjustments in content (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Butcher, 1997). School age students with disabilities have been found to benefit from science education that is inquiry based with hands-on activities, extra support (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2007; Therrien, Taylor, Hosp, Kaldenberg & Gorsh, 2011), formative feedback, and a focus on overall concepts (Taylor et al, 2011).
Teachers of students with severe or significant intellectual disabilities are caught in a tension between providing functional curriculum that promotes the greatest level of independence and functioning in adult life and the IDEA requirement to ensure access to the same general curriculum as peers. Miller (2012) recommends incorporating science content inquiry approaches with functional experiences and authentic experiences that are linked to grade level standards. For example, an everyday cooking activity in which a child burns the muffins can lead to asking questions, solving problems, and investigating ways to make something different happen the next time—all of which address multiple early science standards.
STEM EXPERIENCES FOR ALL CHILDREN
Although STEM activities are compatible with high quality early childhood curriculum, very little evidence has been collected about whether STEM activities are beneficial to young children with special needs. The literature on the participation of young children with disabilities in science and math classroom activities is concentrated on strategies for arranging the physical environment and adapting materials for various disabilities (Gestwicki, 2014; Gould & Sullivan, 1999; Deiner, 2013). The next section describes the pressures facing early childhood teachers when designing curriculum.
Designing High Quality Early Childhood STEM Curriculum
Early childhood STEM differs from upper elementary STEM in that it often takes place in the context of learning centers that, to an untrained eye, may appear to be frivolous play time. Yet play-based and hands-on experiences are the context in which children become deeply engaged and learn critical intellectual and social skills that prepare them for later academic success (Miller and Almon, 2009). The accountability movement has resulted in the downward extension of elementary curriculum (Elkind, 1987; Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016), replacing play-based curriculum with more time spent on academics in kindergarten and preschool. Helm & Katz (2011) argue that a closer examination of the difference between academic and intellectual goals in early childhood curriculum is needed. This distinction particularly applies to STEM curriculum as described in the following quote:
Academic goals are those concerned with acquiring small discrete bits of disembedded information, usually related to preliteracy skills …. In an academic curriculum, the items learned and practiced require correct answers, rely heavily on memorization, on the application of formulae versus the search for understanding, and consist largely of giving the teacher the correct answers that the children know she awaits…. Intellectual goals and their related activities, on the other hand, address the life of the mind in its fullest sense, …. An appropriate curriculum for young children focuses on supporting their in-born intellectual dispositions, for example, the disposition to make the best sense they can of their own experience and their own environment. An appropriate curriculum in the early years is one that encourages and motivates children to seek mastery of basic academic skills (e.g., beginning writing skills) in the service of their intellectual pursuits (emphasis in original). These intellectual pursuits include the whole range of knowledge, understanding, skills, and dispositions related to STEM goals (Katz, 2010).
The National Research Council (2007) emphasizes that young children can learn science concepts and use reasoning and inquiry as they investigate how the world works. Best practice in EC science education supports young children learning through a variety of planned and emergent activities and experiences that allow them to explore big ideas in depth and to develop observation and problem-solving skills through discussions with classmates and adults and engaging in simple experiments (Edson, 2013; Gelman, Brenneman, MacDonald & Roman, 2010). During these experiences the role of the early childhood teacher is a facilitator of knowledge who organizes the environment, observes children’s interests closely, asks questions and poses problems to engage children and further their theory building (Chaille & Britain, 2003).
In this section, we highlight approaches to designing and implementing high-quality STEM experiences that are identified with early childhood education (ECE) as well as approaches that blend early childhood and early childhood special education (ECSE) practices. These strategies are recognized as best practices in both EC and ECSE, and adhere to position statements endorsed by NAEYC and the recommended practices developed by the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC, 2014). Related service providers who support teachers and co-teach in inclusive settings can also use these strategies to address individual goals in rich integrated learning activities.
The next section describes how STEM learning activities can be designed from the outset to remove barriers and increase the access and meaningful participation of all children.
Balance of Child-Initiated and Teacher-Guided Experiences
STEM activities in a high quality EC classroom are best planned with a balance of child-initiated activities and teacher-guided experiences. EC teachers observe children’s behavior as a means of communication and use child initiation as a starting point for playful focused learning. It is the role of observant teachers to support children’s interests, as seen in the following:
Eric and Jamie were spinning their bodies around on the floor in the large group area. The teacher approach and commented “you like to make things go around?” She then handed them a basket of plastic tops and challenged them “Let’s see which top you can make spin longer.”
EC STEM takes place in the middle ground where child-initiated exploration and teacher-guided learning meets. Teachers combine both child-guided and adult-guided experiences that take advantage of planned as well as spontaneous learning opportunities (Epstein, 2014). Child-guided experience is especially important for fostering the scientific practice of observing. Particularly appropriate for young children is access to a wide variety of sensory materials with distinctive textures (e.g., bark, gourds, leaves), different aromas (e.g., spice jars, herb gardens), varying sounds (e.g., musical instruments, tools), and different tastes (e.g., fruits, vegetables, condiments). Also appropriate for child-guided experiences is classifying objects based on a shared attribute. Children will sort objects spontaneously (initially by a single attribute such as color), followed by same and different, and then move onto more than one attribute (color and shape) followed by highest level when they generate the reason behind the classification (outside toys and inside toys). When teachers plan STEM activities for young children, their role is to create a rich environment, encourage children to focus their observations, and deepen children’s experiences and thinking through calling attention to similarities and differences (Chaufour & Worth, 2004; Epstein, 2014).
Intentional teaching in EC classrooms recognizes the need for adult-guided experiences in which teachers set up experiences where they present information, model skills, and guide the learning toward a specific goal (Epstein, 2014). Experimenting, predicting, and drawing conclusions takes place when teachers provide children with planned experiences, comments, and questions that support them through the inquiry process. The interplay of child-initiated activities and adult-guided experiences can be seen when teachers use long term projects as a curriculum approach. For example, children’s curiosity about trees launches an investigation in which children are offered paint and clay to represent trees and provided cameras to take photographs of the trees. The role of the teacher is to watch and ask questions that focus children’s observations on the branches, root, leaves, bark, and other parts of the trees.
Project Work and STEM
STEM curriculum is a natural fit for the project approach. A project is an in-depth investigation of a topic worthy of investigation in the students' immediate environment (Katz & Chard, 1989). Building on children’s interests, project work allow children to use math and literacy skills to help them find answers to their questions. Project work that investigates plants, animal and habitats allows children to connect to the outdoor world through study and deep thinking. By surveying their neighborhoods, early childhood teachers can find a topic that allows children to connect with the natural world. As Helm and Katz (2011) describe
Children collect artifacts, study them closely and represent what they learn by drawing, painting, constructing, writing and through play. …They form a basic understanding of facts and terms, they learning the importance of differentiating words and develop rudimentary classifications, and they begin to develop a sense of cause and effect (p. 8).
Project work is a curriculum approach that has been found to promote the effective inclusion of children with disabilities into early childhood programs (Beneke & Ostrosky, 2009; Donegan, Hong, Trepanier-Street, & Finkelstein, 2005). In projects, children with and without disabilities are actively engaged in learning experiences that can be readily adapted to their level. The small group work that frequently takes place in project work is particularly conducive for addressing the individual goals of children with disabilities and ensuring that they are being met (Edmiaston,1998). A small group context is the ideal environment for facilitating the development of social interaction of all children, including those with disabilities. Consistency in small groups provides the opportunity for children to form special relationships. Some children may be better partners for children with special needs than are others, and the sensitive teacher can arrange to pair these children to maximize peer interactions. In an interview study, preschool teachers reported a reduced need for guidance strategies and increased motivation and attention span due to the incorporation of high interest topics of investigation in project work (Beneke & Ostrosky, 2009).
Learning Centers as Contexts for STEM
Learning centers are spaces in the classroom that are devoted to particular topics, skills, or types of activities. Typically learning centers in EC classrooms are set aside for such activities as blocks, Legos™, puzzles and games, dramatic play, books, art, sensory table, woodworking, and others. Learning centers focused on STEM provide children opportunities to engage in hands-on activities individually or within a small group setting. STEM materials and activities that engage children in direct investigations and problems solving provide opportunities not only for STEM learning but also for social interactions. Examples of good STEM learning centers include (but are not limited to) explorations of ramps and pathways (Zan & Geiken, 2010; DeVries & Sales, 2011), blocks, water, pendulums, bubbles, tops, and cooking. Learning centers such as these, which can be both child-initiated and adult-guided, are particularly well suited for engaging young children with special needs who frequently need assistance in using social skills (Odom, McConnell, & Chandler, 1993.
I think teachers underestimate how much young children can get out of the (ramps and pathway) learning center. It is more than just playing. You know, the children learned a lot. They were using the process skills to observe. They were engaged in solving problems. They were experimenting, they were categorizing and comparing things. Like, they really got a lot out of it. (Preschool teacher reflecting on a STEM learning center she designed for an inclusive preschool classroom).
Physical Science Centers
Physical science activities are particularly well suited for inclusive EC classrooms. STEM learning centers comprised of physical science activities invite children to make something interesting happen. Kamii and DeVries introduced the idea of “physical knowledge” activities in 1978, as a result of focused research on the implications of the theoretical work of Jean Piaget for early education (Kamii & DeVries, 1978). According to Kamii and DeVries, good physical knowledge activities are: a) producible; that is the child uses his or her own actions to produce “what happens;” b) immediate; that is, as soon as the child acts on the object, something happens; c) observable; that is, the child is able to perceive what happens with his or her own senses; and d) variable; that is, the child has the opportunity to change his or her actions to produce and observe variations in the object’s reactions. Physical science activities inspired by the work of Kamii and DeVries reflect high-quality developmentally appropriate STEM content that can engage children intellectually and socially. Setting up learning centers for physical science activities have been the focus of research and professional development by the Regents’ Center for Early Developmental Education (DeVries, Zan, Hildebrandt, Edmiaston, & Sales, 2002; DeVries & Sales, 2011; Zan & Geiken, 2010, Counsell, et al., 2016) and can be found at the website for the Center for Early Education for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (http://www.uni.edu/ceestem/) at the University of Northern Iowa.
The next section discusses how early childhood STEM experiences, which are both developmentally appropriate and individually appropriate, can be implemented in inclusive classrooms by using an approach referred to as “blending practices.”
Blending Practices in Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education
Blended practices (Grisham-Brown, Hemmeter, & Pretti-Frontczak, 2005; Pretti-Frontczak, Grisham-Brown, & Sullivan, 2014) refers to combining the use of evidence-based, recommended practices for children with special needs (DEC, 2014) within the context of high quality developmentally appropriate learning activities. In EC STEM curriculum, the use of blended practices combines the use of inquiry science, environmental accommodations, and supportive teacher interactions to increase child engagement and learning. According to Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall & Schwartz (2000), learning opportunities are possible in most classroom activities and can help young children develop meaningful skills.
The integrated nature of STEM activities allows teachers to plan for children to meet a variety of early learning standards within a well-designed learning center. Early learning standards apply to children with special needs, although careful planning and adaptations are often needed in order for all children to participate (Dorsey, Danner & Laumann, 2014). STEM activities provide a purposeful context for developing literacy and math and science skills and concepts (NSTA, 2014). In turn, teachers are able to gather evidence of progress toward multiple objectives included in curriculum-based assessments. For young children engaged in interest-driven investigations, teachers can observe and document emerging skills in establishing and sustaining positive relationships, interacting with peers, positive approaches to learning, counting, comparing and measuring, exploring spatial relationships, using scientific inquiry skills, and demonstrating knowledge of the physical properties of objects.
The open-ended nature of STEM activities makes it easier for teachers to embed learning opportunities and promote goals on the child’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). Common IEP goals for young children in inclusive classrooms that can be readily addressed during STEM learning centers include interacting with peers, communicating wants and needs, counting and quantifying, sustaining engagement, and inventiveness in thinking. It is more likely for children to provide a true picture of their emerging skills when observational assessments take place within naturally occurring and deeply engaging classroom activities.
As stated earlier, the role of the early childhood teacher is to set up the classroom environment for science explorations, focus children’s observations, and engage in discussions about what was done and seen. Teachers who use these inquiry-based approaches incorporate science, math, engineering and technology in their curriculum planning. In order to plan for diverse learners, EC teachers take into consideration children’s strengths and preferences, follow children’s interests, and choose familiar and meaningful subject matter from the physical, life, and earth sciences for young children to practice scientific inquiry skills (Epstein, 2014). Inquiry science provides a rich context to integrate literacy and early mathematics in the form of non-fiction read alouds, science notebooks, and measuring and graphing observations (Edson, 2013; Epstein, 2014).
Response to Intervention (RTI) in Early Childhood
Despite the availability of high quality STEM curriculum that has the potential to engage diverse learners, EC teachers need to ensure that all children are participating in activities so that they can develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to be successful in school. Response to Intervention (RTI) was developed for K-12 education in the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 to ensure that children receive academic or behavioral support in a timely manner. Response to Intervention (RTI) is an approach to instructional practice that seeks to match high-quality instruction and interventions to individual children’s needs through systematic progress monitoring and adaptation of instruction and goals based on child response data. As a result of increased interest in the application of RTI to young children, the DEC, NAEYC and the National Head Start Association (2014) describe a hierarchy of tiered supports that are well suited for inclusive early childhood classrooms.
Tiered Supports starts with Tier 1, universal outcomes and teaching strategies designed for all children. An example of Tier 1 is the use of hands on materials or interest-based curriculum in order to promote active engagement of all young learners. Tier 1 supports include the suggestions offered above (STEM learning centers, a focus on physical science experiences, and project work that integrates STEM). Despite high quality early childhood curriculum, the unique needs of some young children with special needs may not be met (Sandall & Schwartz, 2008), necessitating Tier 2 supports. Children in Tier 2 may not be reaching desired outcomes and thereby require curriculum modifications and adaptations. An example may be a child who cannot manipulate marbles on cove molding in the ramps and pathways centers and so toy cars on plastic rain gutters are used to promote the child’s engagement. When Tier 2 supports are not adequate to support a specific child, teachers must design targeted Tier 3 modifications and adaptations. Tier 3 is comprised of highly individualized outcomes and strategies. This is when targeted IEP outcomes are addressed through individualized teaching strategies. As shown in the following vignette, in order to meet Cole’s IEP goal of increasing social communication, Katie, an EC teacher, addresses his language goal during a target ball learning center.
After giving him a choice of balls to use as strikers, Cole responded by using the toy wrench that he was already holding to knock down the yogurt cups. Katie used parallel speech (talking about what he was doing), “You used your wrench to knock them down.”
IEP goals for children with disabilities have traditionally been addressed using a didactic direct-instruction approach. A large body of research shows that EC teachers can address learning outcomes for children with special needs in a variety of learning settings by using embedded instruction (Daugherty, Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 2001; Grisham-Brown, Schuster, Hemmeter & Collins, 2000; Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall & Schwartz, 2000; Wolery, Anthony, Caldwell, Snyder & Morgante, 2002). A more naturalistic approach, embedded instruction involves the use of intentional teaching strategies to address specific IEP goals within ongoing classroom activities and routines (Sandall & Schwartz, 2008). Two literature reviews of 38 studies on embedded instruction in EC classrooms found that in all studies preschool children acquired skills in language, social-emotional and school readiness (Rakap & Parlak-Rakap, 2011; Snyder, 2006). According to Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall, and Schwartz (2000), learning opportunities should be possible in nearly all classroom activities to help young children develop meaningful skills.
Both environmental and instructional practices are used together as part of the RTI approach in EC classrooms (Campbell & Milbourne, 2014). The following section considers the environmental practices that are suitable for STEM learning centers.
Environmental Practices in RTI
According to an RTI framework, teachers assess the child’s participation in the activity and increase or decrease the intensity, frequency, and individualization of supports in the child’s environment based on the child’s needs. The Environmental Practices Decision Making for All Children across Settings model, developed by Campbell and Milbourne (2014) shows how each tier of supports is considered, starting from least to most restrictive.
| Figure 1. Environmental practices decision making for all children across settings |
|---|
|
Tier 1: Increasing Access Using Universal Design for Learning
Environmental interventions at Tier 1 draw heavily on the work done in the field of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The framework of UDL (UDL) (Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST], 2008; Conn-Powers, Cross, Traub & Hutter-Pishgahi, 2006) calls for curriculum to be designed from the beginning to be flexible enough to accommodate the learning styles of a wide range of children (e.g., children with special needs, dual language learners), provide multiple means of representing the content, and allow students multiple ways of expressing understanding or mastery. UDL is a process by which curricuum is made more accessible to all children by intentionally designing learning activities from the beginning to address individual differences (CAST, 2011). As teachers plan STEM learning activities, the UDL framework provides them with multiple options to present content, gather feedback, and recruit interest in STEM activities. STEM methods, activities, materials, and assessments are planned flexibly to enhance learning (Coyne et al, 2006). Table 1 contains ideas for how physical science activities can be offered as STEM learning centers for children with special needs using the framework of UDL (Donegan-Ritter, 2014).
In addition to knowing about developmentally appropriate STEM content, teachers who work with children with special needs and children who are dual language learners need to know how to remove the barriers that may be in the curriculum and make the learning centers accessible to children with learning differences. When teachers plan STEM learning centers using the principles of UDL, they are building on an approach for designing the social environment and delivering instruction so that young children with the widest range of abilities can participate according to their individual strengths (Conn-Powers, Cross, Traub, & Hunter-Pishgahi, 2006). For STEM activities this requires teachers’ pre-planning or pre-thinking about the activity and the abilities and needs of all possible learners in order to provide multiple means of representation, expression and engagement (CAST, 2011). Table 1 describes ideas for how teachers can plan a ramps and pathways learning center using the principles of UDL.
Multiple Means of Representation
Children differ in the ways they perceive and comprehend information (CAST, 2011). Teachers ensure that the STEM-related activities, questions, expectations, and learning opportunities exist in various formats and at different levels of complexity. Using multiple media will help to ensure that all children will understand concepts. Visual supports are helpful for many children with special needs and dual language learners. Simple icons that demonstrate steps in a recipe are an example. Audio recordings can help children who are visually impaired.
Rules or expectations for interacting with peers or materials in STEM learning centers are best when generated through discussion and recorded using short phrases and illustrated with pictures. These should be posted at the STEM learning center to serve as a reminder about behaviors that create a safe environment for learning and prevent misbehavior and minimize peer conflict. Since young children tend to have limited memory, revisiting the center rules frequently, and especially after a school break or when a new child enters the classroom is recommended.
Multiple Means of Expression
Children differ in how they express their ideas and benefit from having a variety of materials and formats for responding and demonstrating their ideas, what they know, and their preferences (Conn-Powers, Cross, Traub & Hunter-Pishgahi, 2006; Coyne et al., 2006). Having a variety of pictures available so children can request materials they need or constructions they plan to make is a way to support children with limited communication skills. Teachers can support children by allowing them to record observations and constructions using photographs, drawing, tallying, and other means of representation. Creating these permanent products from their explorations are ways to allow a child to revisit their ideas and extend their learning. Providing children with open-ended media (e.g., glue, tape, cardboard and clay) to express their ideas in two- and three-dimensional products is a way of assessing children’s developing understandings. Pairing a nonverbal child with a verbal peer at a STEM learning center provides an opportunity for the verbal peer to express ideas and communicate what both children are trying to accomplish together.
Multiple Means of Engagement
Children differ in ways in which they can be engaged or motivated to sustain effort and learn (CAST, 2011; Coyne et al., 2006). Particularly relevant for young children with special needs is how teachers plan STEM learning centers and interact with children in ways that support engagement by stimulating interest, excitement, and motivation for learning. Children with disabilities tend to spend less time actively engaged with adults, peers, and materials than children without disabilities (McWilliam & Bailey, 1995). Hence, teachers need to be intentional about arousing children’s attention, curiosity, and motivation to participate in STEM activities.
Adding tactile, visual, and auditory appeal to materials helps add interest and draws attention to exploration possibilities. Adding puffy paint to the holes in clear plastic cups can interest children in the speed water travels through different size openings. Blowing objects across a white board and tracing the path the objects travel with bold markers helps children see and recall how air makes objects move. Placing long strips of paper at the end of a ramp and supporting children to mark where different spheres stop helps children notice that some spheres roll farther than others. Using balls that make sounds when they move can appeal to some children and foster their interest in making objects move more quickly down an incline in order to create the desired sound.
An important way to promote engagement is to identify children’s strengths, interests, and preferences and to use those child preferences to plan classroom and community activities that encourage communication and interaction (Hancock & Kaiser, 2006; DEC, 2014). Gathering information from families about children’s interests and preferences through the use of interviews and interest surveys are ways teachers can learn useful information to guide planning. Involving families has the added benefit of encouraging carry-over between home and school and community activities. For example, going to the park with shovels so that the child can scoop gravel and then release it down the slide is a fun way to incorporate physical knowledge activities during playground time at school and at the local park over the weekend.
Other ways to engage children include introducing novel materials to the STEM learning centers gradually. Introducing new materials allows children to compare the properties of novel and known materials. For example, adding tall narrow cylinders at the water table encourages comparisons with shorter and wider cups and the quantity of water they hold. Changing the color of the water or adding bubbles may cause renewed interest for some children. Adding fabric and sandpaper to wood blocks adds a tactile dimension and attaching photos to blocks increases visual appeal.
Not all children will select a learning center designed to promote STEM learning. Bringing STEM materials to other learning centers may spark interest in children who might not otherwise choose these activities.
One day Lisa brought a ramp and bucket to the sand table to see if Jamal would scoop sand onto the ramp. Another time she brought ramps to the play dough table so that Jamal could make different size balls to roll down the incline.
Possibilities for engaging children in STEM learning exist throughout the early childhood classroom. The art center is a place in which children mix colors, observing changes in color they make happen. The cooking center can be planned to allow children to come up with their own recipe for making pudding or microwave muffins, asking children to predict and record how many spoonfuls of powder and liquid are needed. Children observe the changes that take place as the powder and milk are combined for individual servings.
Tier 2: Creating Adaptations for STEM Learning Centers
Teachers plan activities taking into account Tier 1 supports with the goal that all children who could potentially be enrolled would be able to meaningfully participate in the learning experience. However, despite the teacher’s planning to remove barriers, there are children who are not engaging in the learning experience. Tier 2 supports are those adaptations that are put in place after a teacher determines a particular child needs extra assistance.
According to the DEC Recommended Practices (2014), adults design environments to promote safety, active engagement, learning, and active participation. It is up to teachers to gather observational data on how children are participating and then, using this information, adapt practices so that each child is meaningfully participating. Milbourne and Campbell (2007) developed CARA’s Kit to provide guidance to making adaptations for activities and routines so that children can access the curriculum. Unlike UDL, adaptations are made following observations of the extent to which children are engaged in an activity. Considering the adaptations on a continuum from least intrusive to most intrusive teachers can make changes to the:
To illustrate, in a busy ramps and pathways learning center a teacher has observed that a particular child is only staying for a brief amount of time, and having trouble getting started exploring materials. The teacher could start by labelling the learning center with pictures so children know where to find different materials that roll or slide (environment), set up two or more areas with the same ramps and rolling materials to shorten wait time (activity), make sure the center has wider gutters available so that child can lift the ramps more easily and, because the child likes balls, compare if rubber balls roll faster than golf balls (materials), refer to visual reminders regarding the number of children that can fit at the learning center (requirements), and pair the child with a buddy who can serve as language and social model (assistance).
Monitoring child progress in an easy and efficient way is necessary for determining effectiveness. A team effort is useful in setting up an observational recording system. Frequency counts, duration measures, interval sampling and permanent products are all feasible for classroom teachers to use to determine the effectiveness of the adaptations.
Tier 3: Individualized Outcomes, Teaching, and Custom Technologies
For children with moderate to severe disabilities, systematic procedures are needed within and across environments, activities and routines to promote children’s learning and participation. The child’s individual IEP goal drives the planning. The team collects data to determine baseline performance. They meet to identify learning opportunities matched to the child’s IEP goals and plan consistent instruction to teach the specific skills or behaviors or concepts (Sandall & Schwartz, 2008). This top level of RTI occurs when the child’s individual goals are not being reached through accommodations and more intensive instructional approaches are needed.
Assistive technology can be used by a child with special needs to increase assess and participation by enabling the child to do something that could otherwise not be done. Examples include communicating ideas by pointing to a picture, using a voice output device, or touching a tablet with a communication app.
Cole has a specially planned instructional program to teach him to sustain interactions with other children during free choice. At the target ball center his teacher uses a systematic prompting strategy to increase the number of conversational turns he takes with peers. Over time Cole no longer needs adult support to use his iPad to make comments and requests to other children.
The following section addresses how EC teachers in inclusive settings can interact with children in STEM learning centers to promote problem solving, social language, and literacy.
Interacting With Young Children to Support Their Scientific Problem Solving
When using inquiry approaches to promote integrated STEM learning in early childhood classrooms, teachers don’t have to know all the answers, but teachers do need to know how to ask questions. It is the role of the teacher to model asking “wh” questions in ways that encourage children to observe closely, make predictions, and find ways to solve problems (Epstein, 2014). Given that most young children are not yet causal reasoners, asking more “wh”questions focuses attention on relevant aspects of what is happening. Martens (1999) wrote about productive questions in primary grades and how they can support children’s science learning when used appropriately. Adapting these questions to pre-primary children, Fitzgerald and Dengler (2010) recommend starting with attention focusing questions to help focus children on variables they are overlooking. Some sample attention focusing questions are:
STEM learning in mathematics can be encouraged by asking measuring and counting questions such as How many…? How often…? How long…? Nonverbal children can demonstrate understanding of quantities by pointing to which set has more or they can demonstrate emerging measurement by pointing to which went further. Children can be encouraged to make scientific predictions when teachers ask them action questions such as “what happens if….. ?” Generating solutions can take place when teachers ask problem-posing questions like “Can you find a way to make the marble stop at the end of the ramp?”
Supporting Social-Communication Development
Creating conversations in the classroom, using responsive interaction strategies, and embedding naturalistic language prompts in conversations to teach specific skills are essential components for facilitating social interactions between teachers and children (Kaiser & Delaney, 2001). Naturalistic strategies are designed to be used to prompt communication only when the child is interested and motivated to respond to the prompt. Systematic prompting strategies include models, mand-models and time delay. Early childhood teachers working with a child in the ramps center use modelling when a child wants a ramp (say “I want ramp”). Mand models are used when the teacher observes where the child is focusing his attention, gives a mand (i.e. asks a question or gives the child a direction to respond as in “What do you want, the ball or car?”) and waits for the child to respond. If the child does not produce the target behavior by himself, the teacher models the target behavior for him. When using time delay the child communicates nonverbally that they want something and the teacher pauses and only if needed provide a model.
Teacher can use the UDL framework to plan ongoing classroom assessments of child progress which incorporate multiple means of representation, expression and engagement. Structured observations of children while they are interacting with preferred peers and trying to make interesting things happen with hands-on materials provide an authentic assessment of emerging development and learning for a wide variety of children. Rose and Dolan (2006) recommend that the choice of content for assessment be flexible in order to assess under optimal motivational conditions. For young children that means we observe children while they are participating in activities in which they are deeply interested. For example, instead of observing the social skills of a reluctant eater during mealtime, a more accurate picture might emerge if he is observed interacting with a familiar peer which playing with his favorite toy trains.
Integrating Literacy With STEM Experiences
STEM activities are rich with opportunities for using oral and written language and integrating literacy. For example, simple recipes, rules for learning centers, and design challenges can be written with symbols and words so that children can use visual supports to aid their understanding. The science-literacy link with older children has been investigated in the Foundations of Science Literacy project (Worth, Winokur, Crissman, & Heller-Winokur, 2009), the Science Writing Heuristic (Hand, 2008), and the work of Campbell and Fulton (2003) and Fulwiler (2007) who explored using science notebooks with younger children during inquiry learning experiences by having children explain what they learned by representing it visually (through writing, dictating, drawing, labeling, etc.).
Visual supports are frequently found in inclusive early childhood classrooms and are an excellent example of universal design for learning. A wide variety of young learners, children learning more than one language, children with speech and language delays, children experiencing intermittent hearing loss, and others can benefit from the use of visual displays in the classroom. Visual supports are useful in supporting and increasing both receptive and expressive communication (Vaughn, Lentini, Fox, & Blair, 2009). Some of the most commonly used visual displays include activity schedules, classroom rules, choice charts, and labeled objects. Pairing simple pictures or icons with written words supports emergent literacy.
The field of early childhood education has not yet met its potential to be a place in which high-quality STEM experiences are part of each child’s experience. Certainly, many factors contribute to this gap. These factors include: a) access to high quality EC programs, b) the accountability movemen, and c) variability in EC teacher preparation.
ECE is not one program but rather a patchwork of private, federal, and state funded programs which operate according to different standards and expectations. In recent years more public support is available for children to attend preschool programs. With the passage of P.L. 99-457 in 1986, three year old preschool children with identified disabilities are eligible for publicly-funded ECSE services. Children whose families meet federal low income requirements are eligible to attend Head Start programs. More states are providing public funding for voluntary preschool for four year old children, with some states targeting low income children and seven others funding universal preschool. Nevertheless, from 2010 to 2012, more than 4 million 3-and 4-year-olds were not attending preschool, representing more than half (54%) of all children in that age group. This is especially disconcerting for children from low income homes. Children living in poverty who don't participate in high-quality early education programs are 50% more likely to be placed in special education, 25% more likely to drop out of school, 60% more likely to never attend college, 70% more likely to be arrested for a violent crime, and 40% more likely to become a teen parent (Save the Children Action Network). Children who don’t attend preschool are at a disadvantage given the increasing academic expectations of kindergarten today.
Early childhood programs are more diverse today than ever before. Children who are dual language learners are the largest and fastest growing group in the US. There are now more Hispanic/Latino children than African American children or any ethnic group. They represent 14% of the total population and by 2050 the number of Latino children under age 5 will increase by 146% (Espinosa, 2010). Being a dual language learner does not predict low school performance, unless accompanied by chronic poverty.
Along with federal and state support of early education, there is more emphasis on showing outcomes that are related to academic success, as measured on standardized test scores. When teachers attempt to plan integrated curriculum focused on STEM learning for young children, they are going up against pressures for measurable outcomes which contributes to a more narrow curriculum focus. Currently there are increased accountability pressures on EC teachers to provide evidence of child learning, mostly on academic skills such as literacy and math indicators (e.g., letter identification, counting). Early childhood teachers need professional support and training to be able to withstand external pressures for push-down curriculum and to plan integrated curriculum that builds on child interests and promotes the use of academic skills as tools to answer questions and share information.
Well designed and ongoing professional development is needed to provide teachers with skills to design and implement integrated STEM curriculum so that all children can participate and develop the intellectual, language and social skills needed for later success in school and beyond. Research shows that higher levels of education and training can help improve EC teachers’ interactions with children and promote learning (Barnett, 2003; Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford, & Howes, 2002; Burns, Donovan & Bowman, 2000).
This chapter shared research-based information about how STEM curriculum can promote learning and development. The preschool years may be the only opportunity to provide young children with experiences that build a foundation for inquiry STEM learning. Currently children in kindergarten and primary grades experience less time on science due to increased emphasis on preparing children to perform well on literacy and math assessments (Bassok, Lathom & Rorem, 2016). Inclusive early childhood classrooms are well suited to teaching science-related content with functional daily living skills that help all students ask questions and gain knowledge about how the natural and physical world works. When teachers use the RTI framework to guide assessment and planning of STEM curriculum to remove barriers for children’s participation, make accommodations based on children’s engagement, and work collaboratively with families and other professionals to promote IEP goals in learning activities, the goal of STEM for ALL children can be realized.
This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Classroom Diversity and Inclusive Education Practice edited by Christina M. Curran and Amy J. Petersen, pages 222-249, copyright year 2017 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
More information about physical knowledge and other classroom activities developed by the Regents’ Center for Early Developmental Education can be found at http://www.uni.edu/coe/special-programs/regents-center-early-developmental-education.
Akerson, V. L. (2004). Designing a science methods course for early childhood preservice teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education , 16(2), 19–32. doi:10.1007/BF03173643
Barnett, W. S. (2003). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher qualifications. Preschool Policy Matters, 2. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/2.pdf
Basham, J. D., Israel, M., & Maynard, K. (2010). An ecological model of STEM education: Operationalizing STEM for ALL. Journal of Special Education Technology , 25(3), 9–19. doi:10.1177/016264341002500303
Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2010). Introduction to the topical issue: Shaping STEM education for all students. Journal of Special Education Technology , 25(3), 1–2. doi:10.1177/016264341002500301
Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is Kindergarten the New First Grade. AERA Open , 1(4), 1–31. doi:doi:10.1177/2332858415616358
Beneke, S., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2009). Teachers' views of the efficacy of incorporating the project approach into classroom practice with diverse learners. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 11(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.illinois.edu/v11n1/ostrosky.html
Brock, L. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Nathanson, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2009). The contributions of hot and cool executive function to childrens academic achievement, learning-related behaviors, and engagement in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 24(3), 337–349. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.06.001
Brophy, S., & Evangelou, D. (2007). Precursors to engineering thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education, Honolulu, HI.
Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science , 6(1), 2–11. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_01
Burghardt, M. (2000). Developing the field of children’s engineering. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, St. Louis, MO.
Burns, M. S., Donovan, M. S., & Bowman, B. T. (Eds.). (2000). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers . National Academies Press.
Campbell, B., & Fulton, L. (2003). Science notebooks: Writing about inquiry . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Campbell, P. H., & Milbourne, S. A. (2014). Together is better: Environmental teaching practices to support all children’s learning. In Pretti-Frontczak, Grisham-Brown, & Sullivan (Eds.), Blending practices for all children (pp. 21-38). Los Angeles, CA: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children.
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0 . Wakefield, MA: Author.
Chaille, C., & Britain, L. (2003). The young child as scientist: A constructivist approach to early science education (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Chalufour, I., & Worth, K. (2004). Building structures with young children . St. Paul, MN: Red Leaf Press.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A. M. (Eds.). (2003). Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education . Routledge.
Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering. (2009, August). Broadening participation in America’s STEM workforce: 2007-2008 Biennial Report to Congress. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/ceose/reports/2008CEOSE _BiennialReport.pdf
Conn-Powers, M., Cross, A. F., Traub, E. K., & Hutter-Pishgahi, L. (2006). The universal design of early education: Moving forward for all children. Beyond the Journal: Young Children on the Web. Retrieved from http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200609/Conn PowersBTJ.pdf
Council, T. A. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Counsell, S., Escalada, L., Geiken, R., Sander, M., Uhlenberg, J., Van Meeteren, B., & Zan, B. B. (2016). STEM learning with young children: Inquiry teaching with ramps and pathways . New York: Teachers College Press.
Coyne, P., Ganley, P., Hall, T., Meo, G., Murray, E., & Gordon, D. (2006). Applying universal design for learning in the classroom . In Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (Eds.), A practical reader in universal design for learning (pp. 1–13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Daugherty, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2001). The effects of embedded skill instruction on the acquisition of target and nontarget skills in preschoolers with developmental delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education , 21(4), 213–221. doi:10.1177/027112140102100402
Deiner, P. (2013). Inclusive early childhood education (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.
DeVries, R. & Sales, C. (2011). Ramps & pathways: A constructive approach to physics with young children. Washington, DC: National Association for Education of Young Children.
DeVries, R., Zan, B., Hildebrandt, C., Edmiaston, R., & Sales, C. (2002). Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: Practical principles and activities . New York: Teachers College Press.
DeVries, R., Zan, B., Hildebrandt, H., Edmiaston, R., & Sales, C. (2002). Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: Practical principles and activities . New York: Teachers College Press.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science , 318(58555), 1387–1388. doi:10.1126/science.1151148
Division for Early Childhood, National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Head Start Association (DEC, NAEYC/NHSA). (2013). Framework for response to intervention in early childhood: Description and implications. Missoula, MT: Author.
Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices
Donegan, M., Hong, S., Trepanier-Street, M., & Finkelstein, C. (2005). Exploring how project work enhances student teachers understanding of children with special needs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education , 26(1), 37–46. doi:10.1080/10901020590918988
Donegan-Ritter, M. (2015). STEM for ALL Children: Preschool Teachers Supporting Engagement of Children with Special Needs in Physical Science Learning Centers. Young Exceptional Children . doi:doi:10.1177/1096250614566541
Donohue, C. (Ed.). (2015). Technology and digital media in the early years: Tools for teaching and learning . New York: Routledge.
Dorsey, E., Danner, N., & Laumann, B. (2014). Adapting lesson plans for preschoolers: Addressing state learning standards. In Pretti-Frontczak, Grisham-Brown, & Sullivan (Eds.), Blending practices for all children (pp. 39-57). Los Angeles, CA: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Cleaessens, A., Magnuson, K., & Huston, A. C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology , 41(6), 1428–1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
Edmiaston, R. K. (1998). Projects in inclusive early childhood classrooms . In Helm, J. H. (Ed.), The project approach catalog 2 (pp. 19–22). Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
Edson, M. T. (2013). Starting with science: Strategies for introducing young children to inquiry . Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishing.
Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Epstein, A. (2014). The intentional teacher: Choosing the best strategies for young children's learning . Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Espinosa, L. (2010). Getting it right for young children from diverse backgrounds . Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Fitzgerald, L. M., & Dengler, R. (2010). Use of productive questions by preservice teachers in early childhood classrooms. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Fulwiler, B. R. (2007). Writing in science: How to scaffold instruction to support learning . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gelman, R., Brenneman, K., MacDonald, G., & Roman, M. (2010). Preschool pathways to science . Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Gersmehl, P., & Gersmehl, C. (2007). Spatial thinking by young children: What can they do and when can they do it. The Journal of Geography , 106, 181–191. doi:10.1080/00221340701809108
Gestwicki, C. (2014). Developmentally appropriate practice: Curriculum and development in early education . Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.
Gould, P., & Sullivan, J. (1999). The inclusive classroom: Easy ways to adapt learning centers for all children . Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House.
Greenfield, D., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenberg, A., Maier, M., & Fuccillo, J. (2009). Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education and Development , 20(2), 238–264. doi:10.1080/10409280802595441
Grisham-Brown, J., Hemmeter, M. L., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2005). Blended practices for teaching young children in inclusive settings . Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
Grisham-Brown, J., Schuster, J. W., Hemmeter, M. L., & Collins, B. C. (2000). Using an embedding strategy to teach preschoolers with significant disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education , 10(2-3), 139–162. doi:10.1023/A:1016688130297
Hancock, T. B., & Kaiser, A. P. (2006). Enhanced milieu teaching . In McCauley, R., & Fey, M. (Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children . Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Hand, B. (Ed.). (2008). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic . Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Helm, J. H., & Katz, L. G. (2011). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years . New York: Teachers College Press.
Heroman, C., Burts, D. C., Berke, K., & Bickart, T. S. (2010). Teaching Strategies GOLD: Objectives for development and learning . Bethesda, MD: Teaching Strategies.
Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2000). Supporting young childrens IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education , 20(4), 208–223. doi:10.1177/027112140002000402
Jensen, R., Petri, A. N., Day, A. D., Truman, K. Z., & Duffy, K. (2011). Perceptions of self-efficacy among STEM students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 24(4), 269–283.
Kaiser, A. P., & Delaney, E. M. (2001). Responsive conversations: Creating opportunities for naturalistic language teaching. Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series , 3, 13–23.
Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2001). Pre-school teachers content knowledge in science: Their understanding of elementary science concepts and of issues raised by childrens questions. International Journal of Early Years Education , 9(3), 165–179. doi:10.1080/09669760120086929
Kamii, C., & DeVries, R. (1978). Physical knowledge in preschool education: Implications of Piaget’s theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). The status and nature of K-12 engineering education in the United States. The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society , 39(3), 5–10.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Katz, L. (2010). STEM in the early years. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from ecrp.uiuc.edu/beyond/seed/index.html
Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Martens, M. L. (1999). Productive questions: Tools for supporting constructivist learning. Science and Children , 36(8), 24–27, 53–56.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Butcher, K. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education , 31(2), 199–211. doi:10.1177/002246699703100203
McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. H. (2000). Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 15(3), 307–329. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00069-7
McWilliam, R. A., & Bailey, D. B. (1995). Effects of classroom structure and disability on engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Teacher Education , 15(2), 123–147. doi:10.1177/027112149501500201
Milbourne, S. A., & Campbell, P. H. (2007). CARA’s Kit: Creating adaptations for routines and activities . Philadelphia, PA: Child and Family Studies Research Programs, Thomas Jefferson University.
Miller, E. (2012). Ensuring meaningful access to the science curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children , 44(6), 16–25. doi:10.1177/004005991204400602
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in kindergarten: Why children need to play in school . College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. Young Children , 65(5), 12.
Moon, N. W., Todd, R. L., Morton, D. L., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Findings from research and practice for middle grades through university education. Atlanta, GA: Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology. Available http://www.catea.gatech.edu/scitrain/accommodating.pdf
National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future . Washington, DC: National Academies Press; doi:10.17226/11463
National Association for the Education of Young Children & the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children's Media at Saint Vincent College. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/naeyc/docs/ps_technology _issuu_may2012/15?e=0
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2013). Mathematics in early childhood learning: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Mathematics-in-Early-Childhood-Learning
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade, Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross cutting concepts, and core ideas . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2014). NSTA position statement: Early childhood science education. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/earlychildhood.aspx
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & Chandler, L. K. (1993). Acceptability and feasibility of classroom-based social interaction interventions for young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children , 60(3), 226–236. doi:10.1177/001440299406000304
Ortiz, A. M. (2008). Engineering design as a contextual learning and teaching framework: How elementary students learn math and technological literacy. Paper presented at the PATT-19, Salt Lake City, UT.
Petroski, H. (2003). Early education. American Scientist , 91(3), 206–209. doi:10.1511/2003.3.206
Piaget, J., & Garcie, R. (1971). Understanding causality . New York: Norton.
Pretti-Frontczak, K., Grisham-Brown, J., & Sullivan, L. (Eds.). (2014). Blending practices for all children . Los Angeles, CA: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children.
Rakap, S., & Parlak-Rakap, A. (2011). Effectiveness of embedded instruction in early childhood special education: A literature review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal , 19(1), 79–96. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2011.548946
Rose, D. H., & Dolan, R. P. (2006). Implications of universal design for learning for classroom assessment . In Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (Eds.), A practical reader in universal design for learning (pp. 1–13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Sandall, S. R., & Schwartz, I. S. (2008). Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needs . Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (2011). Reversing the downward spiral of science instruction in K-2 classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 22(6), 513–533. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9246-z
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children . New York: Routledge.
Save the Children Action Network. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.savethechildrenactionnetwork. org/site /c.csIRI8NIK9KYF/ b.9167643/k.4CD0/Securing_Early_Education.html
Schunn, C. (2009). How kids learn engineering: The cognitive science perspective. The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society , 39(3), 32–37.
Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (2006). Conceptualization of readiness and the content of early learning standards: The intersection of policy and research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 21(2), 153–173. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.003
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2007). Science learning in special education: The case for constructed versus instructed learning. Exceptionality , 15(2), 57–74. doi:10.1080/09362830701294144
Snyder, P. (2006). Best available research evidence: Impact on research in early childhood . In Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in the early childhood field (pp. 35–70). Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE Press.
Stipek, D. J., & Rosaleen, R. H. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to learn but further to go. Developmental Psychology , 33(4), 711–723. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.711
Taylor, J. C., Therrien, W. J., Kaldenberg, E., Watt, S., Chanlen, N., & Hand, B. (2011). Using an inquiry-based teaching approach to improve science outcomes for students with disabilities: Snapshot and longitudinal data. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities , 15(1), 27–39. doi:10.14448/jsesd.04.0003
Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J. (2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 26(4), 188–203. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00340.x
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Head Start Child Outcome Framework. Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching/eecd/Assessment /Child%20Outcomes/revised-child-outcomes.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of Education. (September 2015). Policy statement on inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood programs. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/earlylearning/joint-statement-full-text.pdf
Van Meeteren, B., & Zan, B. (2010). Revealing the work of young engineers in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from ecrp.uiuc.edu/beyond/seed/index.html
Vaughn, B., Lentini, R., Fox, L., & Blair, K. C. (2009). Creating Teaching Tools for Young Children with Challenging Behavior. Retrieved from http://ecmhc.org/TTYC/documents/A%20User'sManual /Users%20 Manual%20Rev1209.pdf
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. America Psychological Association , 101(4), 817–835.
Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Education & Psychology , 99(2), 397–420. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.397
Wenner, G. (1993). Relationship between science knowledge levels and beliefs toward science instruction held by preservice and elementary teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 2(3), 461–468. doi:10.1007/BF00694428
Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E. D., & Morgante, J. D. (2002). Embedding and distributing constant time delay in circle time and transitions. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education , 22(1), 14–25. doi:10.1177/027112140202200102
Worth, K., Winokur, J., Crissman, S., & Heller-Winokur, M. (2009). The essentials of science and literacy: A guide for teachers . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Yasar, B., & Robinson-Kurpius, K. (2006). Development of a survey to assess K-12 teachers perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching design, engineering, and technology. The Journal of Engineering Education , 95(3), 205–216. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00893.x
Zan, B., & Geiken, R. (2010). Ramps and pathways: Developmentally appropriate, intellectually rigorous, and fun physical science. Young Children , 65(1), 12–17.
Blended Practices: Combining developmentally appropriate practices with evidence based practices to enhance and support children’s participation.
Early Childhood Inclusion: Providing special education and related services in regular early childhood settings to preschoolers with disabilities.
Inquiry: Process of asking questions to solve problems.
Physical Science: Activities that use a child’s actions to make something happen with the opportunity to change actions to produce and observe variations in the object’s reactions.
Project Approach: Curriculum approach in which teachers and children select worthwhile topics to study in depth over time.
Response to Intervention (RTI): Provision of a multi-tiered system of support to promote positive outcomes and prevent later problems.
STEM: Integrated experiences in science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Designing learning opportunities from the outset so that all learners can access and engage in all learning opportunities and demonstrate learning in multiple ways.
Table 1. Planning a ramps and pathways STEM learning center for inclusive classrooms
| Curriculum Ideas | Universal Design for Learning Ideas |
|---|---|
| What children learn: Young children engage in reasoning about physics when they try to figure out how to achieve an interesting result by building structures with pathways for marbles and other objects that roll or slide. Start with: Plastic lunch tray, one foot section of cove molding, and a ping pong ball. Add on: Unit blocks Objects that roll (different size balls, marbles, toy cars…) Objects that slide (cubes, smooth stones…) Objects that roll differently (plastic eggs, oddly shaped balls…) Cardboard tubes from paper towels or carpeting (for closed pathways) Rubber garden edge (for wider pathways) |
Multiple Means of Representation: • Start with simple “what” questions that focus attention on what is happening “What stops the marble?” “What are you trying to do?” • Increase the level of complexity by asking questions that don’t require verbal response such as “Who has more marbles, you or your friend?” • When child is stuck avoid fixing and instead ask “What can you change to make it keep going?” Multiple Means of Expression: • Select peer partners who can describe for a nonverbal child what they are working on together. • Prepare visual supports: a) pictures of materials so that children can use them to make requests; b) simple drawings of steps to construct ramps or clean up. Post nearby to serve as visual reminders or prompts. • Record observations using photos of ramp constructions and annotate with date and comments to show growth in complexity of constructions over time. Encourage children to draw or build a small scale of what they made. Write down their description and comments. Multiple Means of Engagement • Provide scaffolds by playing alongside children. Model how to use materials. Gradually fade support. • Talk about what you are doing with the materials and what they are doing. • Pose challenge questions when interest appears to wane “Can you make the car go faster?” “Can you make it move without touching it?” • Introduce interesting and novel materials with a sensory component, e.g., balls or cars that make sounds or light up when they move. • Build on the child’s interest by adding a STEM component to the activity that the child is doing. Put ramps in the sand table. Encourage the child to make a ball at the playdoh table that will roll on their path they built. |