Findings from a Pre-kindergarten Classroom: Makingthe Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education

Christine D. Tippett1 & Todd M. Milford2

Received: 20 October 2016 /Accepted: 26 February 2017 /Published online: 16 March 2017# Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2017

Abstract Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in early child-hood education is an area currently given little attention in the literature, which isunfortunate since young children are natural scientists and engineers. Here, we outlineour mixed-methods design-based research investigation of a pre-kindergarten (Pre-K)classroom where two early childhood educators are incorporating STEM activities. Weused a protocol consisting of a list of potential characteristics of effective and appro-priate STEM curriculum for young children to structure our classroom observations.We also used semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and a questionnaire to collectdata from multiple stakeholders (teachers, students, and parents), to examine howSTEM activities were incorporated in Pre-K, to explore students’ engagement withSTEM concepts, and to investigate parents’ opinions about STEM in general andSTEM as experienced by their children. Our findings provide support for the inclusionof STEM-based learning experiences for young children.

Keywords Design-based research . Early childhood education . Science education .

STEM

Introduction

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in early childhood educa-tion is an area currently given little attention in the literature, which is unfortunate sinceyoung children are natural scientists and engineers (e.g. Brophy, Klein, Portsmore &Rogers, 2008; Petroski, 2003). This article describes the first phase of an ongoingdesign-based research (DBR, Barab & Squire, 2004) project that we are conducting

Int J of Sci and Math Educ (2017) 15 (Suppl 1):S67–S86DOI 10.1007/s10763-017-9812-8

* Todd M. Milfordtmilford@uvic.ca

1 University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada2 University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

with early childhood educators (ECEs) as they work on the development, implemen-tation, and refinement of STEM in pre-kindergarten (Pre-K). STEM is an interdisci-plinary approach to learning where content is coupled with real-world lessons asstudents apply science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in a context thatmakes connections between various aspects of their lives (Lantz, 2009). AlthoughSTEM education has garnered a great deal of attention in the USA, particularly at thesecondary and post-secondary levels, STEM approaches are less clearly articulated inCanada. The possibilities of STEM at the early childhood education level have beenrelatively unexplored even in the USA, and early childhood STEM initiatives inCanada are few and far between. Adding to the ambiguity of approaches across NorthAmerica, there is imprecision in the usage of the acronym itself; STEM may refer toany one of the four individual disciplines, it might denote the integration of all fourdisciplines, and occasionally, it denotes the combination of two or more of theindividual disciplines (National Academy of Engineering and National ResearchCouncil, 2014). In our work, we take the perspective shared by other early childhoodspecialists (e.g. Moomaw, 2013) that if any two of the four disciplines are intentionallyemphasized, then an activity can be considered STEM.

Lack of uniformity in definition notwithstanding, the National Research Council(2011) has identified three broad outcomes for STEM education: an increase in advancedtraining and careers in STEM fields, an expansion of the STEM-capable workforce, andan increase in scientific literacy amongst the general public. Although the economicovertone of the first two goals has given rise to debate amongst educators, our focus isfirmly fixed on the latter goal—increased scientific literacy. In Canada, the CommonFramework of Science Learning Outcomes K to 12 states that all students will haveopportunities to develop scientific literacy, and defines scientific literacy as Ban evolvingcombination of the science-related attitudes, skills, and knowledge students need todevelop inquiry, problem-solving, and decision-making abilities, to become lifelonglearners, and to maintain a sense of wonder about the world around them^ (Council ofMinisters of Education, Canada (CMEC), 1997, BAvision for scientific literacy,^ para. 1).

If an outcome of STEM education is enhanced scientific literacy, and scientific literacyis a formal goal of education as early as kindergarten, then providing opportunities for Pre-K students to participate in STEM activities seems a worthy endeavour. The quality ofchildren’s learning environments prior to age 6 has an influence on later academic success(e.g. Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal & Ramey, 2001; Hadzigeorgiou,2002). Thus, appropriate STEM experiences in early childhood can be starting points forsupporting children’s continued successes in STEM at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels. In addition, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2014)suggests that early childhood education may offer opportunities for teachers to engage inscience and engineering activities with young children that capitalize on students’ interests,experiences, and prior knowledge in natural extensions of purposeful play.

However, recent reports indicate that little time is spent teaching STEM subjects inearly childhood education. OneUS study found that in a typical day at the Pre-K to grade 3level, language arts accounted for 89 min of instruction, math accounted for 54 min, andscience accounted for only 19 min (Horizon Research, 2013), suggesting there was littlelikelihood of anything resembling STEM. Elsewhere, the situation has been presentedeven more starkly: BPre-K teachers seldom teach science, and exploring engineering ideasis rarely part of Pre-K learning^ (Successful STEM Education, 2013, p. 3). Nonetheless,

S68 Tippett and Milford

some ECEs are actively teaching STEM and some are even seeking ways to teach it moreoften and more effectively, through a purposeful, focused study. This article describes thebeginnings of our DBR collaboration with two such educators, who have invited us tosupport them in their efforts to enhance STEM education in their Pre-K classroom. Ourcollaboration to date has involved designing data collection tools and collecting baselinedata from multiple stakeholders to prepare for subsequent phases in which more formalinterventions can be examined and educators could investigate questions of their own.

Conceptual Framework

Our study is founded on the characteristics of appropriate educational experiences foryoung children. Katz (2010) makes a clear distinction between academic and intellec-tual goals in early childhood education, suggesting that an appropriate curriculum isone that encourages and motivates children to master basic academic skills as theypursue intellectual endeavours. Instead of delivering education in the form of informa-tion to be memorized, we are more likely to support children in their learning byproviding opportunities that benefit young children.

Suggestions are that early childhood science instruction should address what chil-dren know and what they can learn, involve an inquiry approach, and provide appro-priate scaffolding to foster conceptual understanding and reasoning (Furtak, Seidel,Iverson & Briggs, 2012; Hardy, Jonen, Möller & Stern, 2006; Leuchter, Saalback &Hardy, 2014; Roth, Goulart & Plakitsi, 2013; Trundle & Saçkes, 2012). Eshach andFried (2005) argue that science is an important—and perhaps imperative—componentof early childhood education because it builds upon students’ innate interests in thenatural world, can help develop positive attitudes towards the discipline, and canprovide a foundation upon which further learning and understanding can be built. Thisperspective is exemplified by an excerpt from the Statement of Early ChildhoodScience Education (NSTA, 2014, p. 2):

Everyday life is rich with science experiences, but these experiences can best con-tribute to science learning when an adult prepares the environment for scienceexploration, focuses children’s observations, and provides time to talk about whatwas done and seen (National Association for the Education of Young Children(NAEYC), 2013, p. 18). It is important that adults support children’s play and alsodirect their attention, structure their experiences, support their learning attempts, andregulate the complexity and difficulty of levels of information (National ResearchCouncil (NRC), 2007, p. 3). It’s equally important for adults to look for signs fromchildren and adjust the learning experiences to support their curiosity, learning, andunderstanding.

We take the same perspective on the importance of intellectual pursuits, play, andstudents’ interests when thinking about appropriate early childhood STEM education.Children’s early STEM experiences should be hands-on and allow them to experimentand explore with safe everyday materials in meaningful ways; these types of experi-ences are related to later academic and social success (Ontario Ministry of Education(OME), 2010; Ramey & Ramey, 1998).

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S69

The idea of including STEM at the early childhood level is relatively recent, and theavailable literature is limited. However, there is a large and comprehensive body ofliterature about what effective science instruction looks like, with a small sectiondevoted to what effective science instruction might include in early childhood educa-tion (Leuchter et al., 2014; Roth et al., 2013; Trundle & Saçkes, 2015). There is asuggestion that in many respects, effective practices for STEM are closely related toeffective practices for education in general (NRC, 2011). For example, aspects ofquality early childhood programs articulated in Canadian provincial guidelines suchas the British Columbia Early Learning Framework (British Columbia Ministry ofEducation (BCME), 2008) and Ontario’s Full-Day Early Learning–Kindergarten Pro-gram (OME, 2010) are similar, including STEM-related aspects such as questioning,exploring and observing, developing skills and processes, communicating, and playing.The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, Achieve, Inc, 2013), the most recentcomprehensive reform document in North America, lists performance expectations andpractices for K-12. Relevant K-2 practices from the NGSS (Achieve, Inc, 2013), alongwith the STEM-related aspects identified above, contributed to our conception ofcharacteristics of appropriate early childhood STEM education.

Methodology

Our stance as researchers is pragmatic, and as such, we are operating within a mixed-methods research paradigm. Mixed-methods approaches are well suited for a complexclassroom research environment as they are likely to allow amore complete understandingof the phenomena under study than either qualitative or quantitative approaches alone(Creswell, 2014). Here, we have taken a convergent mixed-methods approach, in whichwe collected both qualitative and quantitative data, analysed those datasets separately, andthen merged results for comparison (Creswell, 2014). Additionally, a mixed-methodsapproach is a good fit with DBR (Anderson&Shattuck, 2012), the approachwe are takingin this long-term investigation of STEM in a particular early childhood education setting.DBR is both pragmatic and theoretical (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer & Schauble,2003), appropriate for our research stance and our research goals.

Incorporating a DBR approach, our long-term research agenda explores if and howSTEM education might be appropriately incorporated in a Pre-K classroom. Within thislarger program of research, we first needed to understand the nature of the environment(i.e. STEM in the ECE classroom) prior to creating the innovation. The work describedhere is a preliminary study that is intended to eventually result in innovations includingthe development of best practices for early childhood STEM which will be constructedthrough a sequence of iterations. With these intentions in mind, we collaborated withthe participating ECEs to develop the guiding question of How do data collected frommultiple stakeholders inform our understanding of early childhood STEM education?

In DBR, research occurs in authentic classroom settings and examines interventionsthat are developed collaboratively by educators and researchers (Anderson & Shattuck,2012), and our study meets both of these requirements. DBR can be conceptualized asan iterative process of investigation, involving some sort of intervention and resultingin the production of theories and/or practices that have the potential to impact learningand teaching in the classroom (Barab & Squire, 2004). Our research, the first phase of

S70 Tippett and Milford

which is reported here, is iterative by design, will include interventions in its nextphase, and should lead to suggestions for best practice when incorporating STEM inearly childhood, thus meeting these additional requirements. Finally, this initial phaseof our study embodied the seven characteristics of DBR as articulated by Collins et al.(2004) as shown in Table 1. The end goal of our research program aligns with whatAnderson & Shattuck (2012, p. 22) call Brich descriptions of the contexts in which thestudies occurred, the challenges of implementation, the development processes in-volved in creating and administrating the interventions, and the design principles thatemerged^. In this article, we present data from multiple stakeholders and provide acontext for future studies of more formal interventions.

Method

Because our investigation of STEM in Pre-K was bounded by time and space,occurring in a single classroom over the course of one school year, it can be considereda case study (Yin, 2009). The study took place in a single classroom at a private Pre-Kto grade 12 school on the west coast of Canada. The all-girl school, established morethan 100 years ago, is a day school for local students (62% of the student body) and has

Table 1 Seven characteristics of DBR (Collins et al., 2004) as enacted in this study

Characteristic How the characteristic was enacted

Conduct research in messy settings The study was situated in a Pre-K classroom—by definition,a messy setting!

Understand that there aremany dependent variables

We were interested in how STEM was implemented, experienced,and perceived. Dependent variables of interest included ECEs’comments about STEM, students’ discussion of STEM concepts,and parents’ statements about STEM.

Characterize the situation as opposedto controlling variables

Our study was descriptive, and we attempted to identify and portray,rather than control, variables. We describe the behaviours andactions of participants using a range of data collection methods.

Use flexible design revision Our study was exploratory, meaning that we had a basic approach inmind but revised or adapted that approach depending oncircumstances. For example, we designed a classroomobservation protocol to facilitate data collection andcontinued to refine that tool.

Value social interaction Classrooms consist of multiple people between whom multipleinteractions occur, and our data included both individual andinterpersonal behaviours. For example, we conducted smallfocus groups with students.

Generate profiles rather thantest hypotheses

A hypothesis was not appropriate, as we were not examining theefficacy of a particular activity or program. Adopting a convergentmixed-methods approach, we drew on qualitative and quantitativedata sources that allowed us to develop inferences,which together comprise a profile.

Value participants’ input fordesign and analysis

The two ECEs were actively involved in the research. Theycontributed to initial design decisions, provided feedback on tooldevelopment, and participated in member-checking oursubsequent interpretations of the data.

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S71

residences for boarding students in grades 7 to 12 (38% of the student body). Totalenrolment was 374 students when the study took place.

Multiple stakeholders (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996) are an important component ofDBR (Collins, 1999), and in this case study, the invested groups included ECEs,students, and parents.1 The ECEs, Sara2 and Rene, had been teaching together for5 years and had more than 30 years of teaching experience combined. Both ECEs holdcertificates in early childhood education and have individually received multipleawards in recognition of their teaching. The Early Learning Program at the schoolemphasizes learning through play and encourages an exploration of the natural envi-ronment. Sarah infuses literacy and music in her teaching while Rene provides anoutdoor education perspective. Both ECEs wanted to formally analyse their STEMteaching practices but did not have a specific direction or starting point in mind and soinvited the researchers to embark on a collaborative DBR study. Student participantswere 14 of the 18 4- and 5-year-old students enrolled in the Pre-K classroom. Parentparticipants were 11 of the 21 parents who provided email addresses on their children’sconsent forms.

Data Collection

A number of different tools were needed to collect and analyse the range of data that weanticipated might be important. However, we were unable to find tools that fit ourspecific needs; the limited body of literature on STEM in early childhood education didnot contain ready-made observation protocols or questionnaires that suited our pur-poses. Therefore, we designed a set of coordinating tools, including a classroomobservation protocol (COP) and an online parent questionnaire, to enable us to collectand analyse a range of qualitative and quantitative data.

The first tool that we developed was a COP that would enable us to document thebehaviours of ECEs and students in the Pre-K classroom during STEM activities.Additionally, it would provide a common frame of reference for analysing other data.We based the COP on current science education standards (Next Generation ScienceStandards, Achieve, Inc, 2013), provincial guidelines (British Columbia Early LearningFramework, British Columbia Ministry of Education BCME, 2008; Ontario’s Full-DayEarly Learning–Kindergarten Program, OME, 2010), and the relevant, althoughlimited, literature (e.g. Furtak et al., 2012; Hardy et al., 2006; Leuchter et al., 2014;Marshall, Horton & White, 2009; Roth et al., 2013; Trundle & Saçkes, 2012). A fulldescription of the development of the early childhood STEM COP can be found inMilford and Tippett (2015); a brief description follows here.

The current version of our COP consists of four aspects—questioning, play, processskills, and NGSS scientific and engineering practices—each of which has two or moredimensions, with three student indicators for each dimension (Milford & Tippett, 2015).For example, the Questioning aspect of the protocol, which was based on Marshall et al.(2009), consists of the two dimensions: Characteristics and Nature and Patterns andInteractions. The indicators for Characteristics and Nature are as follows: (a) range of

1 The Research Ethics Board approval was obtained and participants from all stakeholder groups providedconsent or assent as appropriate.2 All names are pseudonyms.

S72 Tippett and Milford

purposes: remember, understand, apply, analyse, create, and evaluate; (b) level ofquestioning that varies with situation; and (c) questions that encourage a range ofresponses (e.g. explain, reason, or justify). The indicators for Patterns and Interactionsare as follows: (a) open-ended questions result in questions, discussion, investigation, andreflection; (b) students share opportunities for questioning; and (c) initial responsesfollowed by teacher or student asking for justification or evidence.

Next, a parent questionnaire (see Fig. 1) was designed to identify evidence of STEM-related conversations and behaviours that parents or guardians might observe in theirdaughters outside of the school setting. We followed design guidelines (e.g. Fowler, 2009;Iarossi, 2006; Leung, 2001) to ensure precision and to reduce bias. Questions weredeveloped from a brainstormed list of the information that we were seeking, which weorganized into the categories of STEMKnowledge, STEMActivities, and STEM Impact. Thenumber of questions was reduced to a scope that respondents would likely perceive as

What three words come to mind when your child or your child’s teachers talk about STEM?

First Second Third

In what ways does your child show knowledge of STEM?

What activities do you and your child participate in that might encourage STEM education?

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

No answer

STEM KNOWLEDGE

Prior to reading thedefinition here in this

survey, I knew what theacronym STEM stood

for. STEM is a component ofthe classroom instruction

at [school]. STEM ACTIVITIES

My child demonstratesevidence of STEM

knowledge andunderstanding.

My child talks to meabout STEM activities

that happen in theclassroom.

STEM IMPACT I think STEM is an

important aspect of mychild’s education at the

JK and SK level.STEM education is a

path towards futureeconomic prosperity for

my child.

Fig. 1 Examples of parent questionnaire open-ended and Likert-scale items

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S73

manageable. We chose a mix of open-ended items (i.e. short-answer questions) and closed-choice items (i.e. Likert-scale questions) so that we could make richer inferences duringanalysis. Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal consistency, was calculated for each seriesof closed-choice STEM questions: knowledge (five items, α = 0.60), activities (ten items,α = 0.70), and impact (three items, α = 0.60). These values can be considered adequate forlow-risk applications (Streiner, 2003).

We utilized the COP and the parent questionnaire as we collected data from a varietyof sources across the three stakeholder groups.

Classroom Observations For 30-min sessions, 14 times over the spring and fall of2014, one or more of the researchers visited the classroom and observed STEMactivities, as planned and implemented by the ECEs, using the COP and making fieldnotes that summarized the actions of educators and students.

ECE Interviews Although informal discussions with the ECEs occurred duringevery classroom visit, we conducted a formal interview with the ECEs twice, atthe middle and end of the study. The two interviews, which followed a semi-structured protocol, lasted 30–60 min and were audio recorded. Questionsincluded the following: What is your definition of STEM? What led to yourinterest in pursuing a STEM component in your teaching? What aspects of yourcurrent instruction could be considered STEM? What questions, thoughts, orconcerns do you have about STEM instruction?

Student Work Samples During the classroom visits, student artefacts (drawings,writings, models, and other representations) created during STEM activities werephotographed.

Student Focus Groups We conducted five student focus groups. Groups consisted oftwo or three students and took place immediately after STEM activities. They lasted10–15 min and were audio recorded. Students were asked to draw or otherwiserepresent what they had been doing in the STEM activities. Prompts for the focusgroup sessions included the following: What happens when…? What do you see? Tellme what you just did. What are you making? Where did you see that? How is this [.]different from those [.]?

Parent Questionnaires Midway through the study, we asked parents to complete theonline questionnaire.

Analysis and Results

Each of the five datasets described above was treated separately during analysis. Forexample, we used the COP to categorize classroom observations and identify thebehaviours and actions (i.e. aspects, dimensions, and indicators) that the literaturesuggests might be important for STEM education. Field notes taken during classroomobservations were also used to develop synopses of the activities that we observed.

S74 Tippett and Milford

The audio recordings from the two ECE interviews were transcribed andanalysed separately. The transcription of the first interview was limited to20 min of the 30-min session, due to technological difficulties; the secondinterview was transcribed in its entirety. We independently coded the transcriptsfor themes, using an open-coding process (Benaquisto, 2008), and then wecompared our preliminary labels. After discussion, we agreed that there wereseven themes in the first interview, and we used those themes to re-code thetranscript. We followed the same process for analysis of the second interview.

Over the course of the 14 classroom visits, we took 103 photos of studentwork. Often, multiple photos were taken of a single product. These photosprovided evidence of the STEM activities that were occurring during ourobservations and were used to augment our descriptions, rather than as partof our analysis.

The audio recordings from the five student focus groups were transcribed.Transcripts were examined for evidence of student’s understanding of theconcepts that were presented in the lesson prior to the focus group session.

Parent questionnaires were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, depend-ing on the type of question being asked. Responses to open-ended questionswere thematically coded similarly to the ECE interviews, and descriptivestatistics were calculated for responses to the closed (Likert-scale) questions.

Classroom Observations

The classroom observations yielded two types of results, synopses of studentactivities, and quantification of student behaviours. Figures 2 and 3 eachcontain a synopsis and accompanying photographs and provide evidence ofthe students’ participation in STEM activities. Along with the synopses, wehighlighted general student behaviours not addressed in the COP, such asattitudes towards the activities. For example, during a ‘shapes walk’, we noted

Building a Birdhouse: A sequence of STEM lessons included science (birds and bird

homes), engineering (building), and mathematics (shapes). Over several weeks, students

were involved in activities such as bird identification, talking about what birds live where, and

drawing pictures of local birds. Students designed homes for birds from classroom materials

such as blocks, paper, and clay (see above left). The culminating activity was building a

birdhouse using precut wood pieces, hammers, and nails (see above right).

Fig. 2 Example STEM activity. Pre-K students design and build birdhouses

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S75

the students standing in line begin to make observations around the shapes theysee in the classroom (there were many too many to record)—which we iden-tified as evidence of enthusiasm and sharing. Another example of enthusiasmoccurred during a building activity where we documented students saying thiswill be fun.

Using the COP, we were able to identify 41 out of 48 indicators of effectiveSTEM education, across multiple observation sessions. Reporting the frequencyof these indicators would be inappropriate, however, since it was the presenceor absence of a behaviour or action, not the relative proportion of occurrences,which we were noting. Therefore, we report exemplars taken from selected fieldnotes, rather than descriptive statistics. For example, in the building a birdhouseactivity shown in Fig. 2, under the aspect of Questioning and the dimension ofCharacteristics and Nature, the indicator Range of Purposes was observed [fieldnotes, 21 May 2014]. The ECEs asked: Who can recall what we built forbirds? (remember), What else can we build for birds? (apply), and What canwe build with wood? (create). In the session on floating and sinking shown inFig. 3, the dimension of Argument was noted in student comments such as Ifsomething has air in it can float, but if something’s heavy like a rock it sinks[field notes, 15 April 2014].

ECE Interviews

Our iterative coding of the ECEs’ responses during the semi-structured inter-views identified seven themes from the first interview: STEM as a framework(a lens for viewing teaching or a framework for planning), the COP as asupporting tool, integration with STEM, intentionality in teaching, locus ofcontrol for implementing STEM, questions about STEM, and availability ofresources. These themes are listed in Table 2, along with the frequency ofoccurrence and examples of direct quotes for each theme. The frequency ofresponses that were coded STEM as a framework far outweighed the frequencyof all other response themes.

Sinking and Floating: Students were involved

in a series of STEM lessons that included

science (concepts, process skills) and

mathematics (counting). The class watched a

video on floating and sinking in which a cartoon

character made predictions about a variety of

objects. Then, the ECEs led small groups of

students through a series of predictions and

observations regarding common materials such

as metal, plastic, rock, wood, and cork.

Students were each given a material, asked

what the material was, and then asked to

predict if it would sink or float when placed in

water. Students placed their objects in a water

table and recorded their observations (see

right). Finally, ECEs dropped washers into a

small plastic cup while students counted until

the cup sank.

Fig. 3 Example STEM topic. Pre-K students explore floating and sinking

S76 Tippett and Milford

There were eight themes that emerged from the coding of the secondinterview: approaches to teaching STEM, student centred teaching, communi-cating about STEM, curriculum, reflection on practice, STEM as a framework,tools, and learning indoors and out. Examples of quotes coded for these themesare shown in Table 3, along with their frequency of occurrence. Despite thesimilar interview topic—thoughts about STEM in early childhood education—there was little overlap between the first and second interview themes, asidefrom the consideration of STEM as a framework for planning and teaching. Inthis second interview, although the range of frequencies is greater than it was inthe first interview, each theme occurred more frequently than the themes in thefirst interview, indicating that the ECEs may have been thinking about STEMmore broadly and more deeply.

Student Focus Groups

Data associated with the 14 Pre-K students who participated in the studyincluded classroom observations with the COP, student work samples, andpost-activity focus groups. Table 4 includes an example interaction from eachof the five focus groups. Each interaction shows students using developmentallyappropriate vocabulary for STEM concepts. This specific terminology, readilyused by students with limited prompting by the interviewer, suggests an aware-ness of the STEM concepts targeted by the ECEs.

Table 2 Themes in ECEs’ semi-structured interview responses [interview 1]

Theme Occurrences,n (%)

Examples

STEM as aframework

8 (27.6) It’s a framework for presenting topics or areas of interest.I could see it as another layer.

The COP as asupport

4 (13.8) Using [the COP] also has been incredible.The other educators [in the team] now have a tool that they can be looking

for STEM-like behaviours and skills during free play, during whateverit is that we are doing.

Integration withSTEM

4 (13.8) What we were doing before were more stand-alone activities.With those four cornerstones, there’s so much in the middle that we can

explore.

Intentionality ofteaching

4 (13.8) It’s about the intentionality as well. We were doing it but now we knowwhat we are doing.

… we are considering now when we are looking at an activity, what areasare actually being fulfilled or touched on. It makes it broader.

Locus of control 4 (13.8) We were asked [by the administration] to think about the strategic planand how STEM would relate to it.

With [the Vice Principal’s] support, encouragement, and some guidancewe created a curriculum.

QuestioningSTEM

3 (10.3) Is there some glue or something in between S-T-E-M that holds ittogether?

Will that become the way of looking at things?

Identification ofresources

2 (6.9) What we can do is have a go-to expert.Resources, we have people resources, but also other resources.

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S77

Parent Questionnaires

The parents’ perspectives on STEM and their children’s STEM experienceswere explored using an online questionnaire hosted on LimeSurvey (Schmitz,2012). After emailing a link to the 21 parent/guardian email addresses we hadfor the 14 participating students, we received 11 completed surveys. Ideally, wewould have liked one parent survey per student, but it is possible that we hadtwo surveys for some children and no surveys for others. The response ratetherefore falls between 53% (11 out of 21) and 79% (11 out of 14), well withinacceptable ranges as Baruch (1999) suggests that a reasonable survey responserate is 55.6% (±19.7). Questionnaire responses were analysed quantitatively orqualitatively depending on question type. The quantitative results are shown inTable 5, with the median and range included to emphasize the parents’ seem-ingly positive views of STEM. Response options were a consistent 5-pointLikert scale: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree nor Disagree(3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5) with the additional option of noresponse. With respect to STEM Knowledge, parents indicated that they were

Table 3 Themes in ECEs’ semi-structured interview responses [interview 2]

Theme Occurrences,n (%)

Examples

Approaches toteaching STEM

18 (19.8) We are taking the topical approach as opposed to project-based.STEM allows us to go in all of those kind of directions with the

engineering, the tools, the math to build something.

Student-centredteaching

17 (18.7) It’s meaningful for children. That’s the thing about STEM.Hands-on, readily understandable, something that they can relate to.[W]e can explore their own interests and things they are curious about.

Communicatingabout STEM

15 (16.5) I think it helps if it’s in writing for [the parents] to read and they canexplain it.

[W]e need to find a way to communicate the STEM approach toteachers.

Curriculum 11 (12.1) In terms of force and motion, if we do construction, if we talk aboutboats, that’ll fit back to float and sink, it can go back todisplacement.

It would’ve been another way to present curriculum to students.

Reflection onpractice

10 (11) We would love to be able to sit down, write it out, come back to it rightafter.

[E]ach session brought with it opportunities to challenge as wellsupport our thinking.

STEM as aframework

9 (9.9) We try to frame our work with STEM.It’s an approach, it’s a framework for presenting topics or areas of

interest.

Tools 6 (6.6) Having that template, I think is important. Having the matrix andhaving the aspects, dimensions and what are we looking for.

You take the matrix, you take those aspects and whether it’s questioningor play or whatever.

Learning indoorsand out

5 (5.5) … it’s taking STEM more into the outdoors.[T]he outdoor learning. It was such a nice complement.

S78 Tippett and Milford

aware of STEM activities in their child’s classroom. However, they also wantedmore information about these classroom activities as well as more generallyabout STEM. In the STEM Activities section, parents reported a low tendencyto participate in STEM activities in the classroom and confirmed that theywould like to know more about these activities. Parents also reported wantingmore information on how they might bring STEM into interactions with theirchildren outside of the classroom. They also provided evidence of their child’sSTEM knowledge and understanding. Lastly, with regard to STEM Impact,parents identified STEM as an important aspect in their child’s education butwere less concerned about its role in economic prosperity.

Responses to the open-ended questions, such as the three shown in Fig. 1, indicatedthat parents could articulate various aspects of STEM. In 11 descriptions of STEM,there were six instances of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics althoughonly the acronym had been used in the questionnaire materials to that point; fiveinstances of encouraging access (e.g. stimulate children’s interest; a unique and flexibleportal); and four instances of framework or model (e.g. a learning and teachingframework; system). Parents were asked what three words came to mind when STEM

Table 4 Example interactions from the five student focus groups following STEM activities

Focus group 1 (floating and sinking 1)

Researcher: What’s this group here?Child: Heavy.Researcher: What’s going to happen?Child: Maybe they’re going to sink.

Focus group 2 (floating and sinking 2)

Researcher: Why do you think it will float?Child: I think it’s light.

Focus group 3 (evaporation)

Child:How did it get big? At first it was a big perfect circle and then it was a shrinked yellow piece of waterthat wasn’t a circle?

Researcher: Your question is, BHow?^Child: How did it be big at first and then is a little and it wasn’t a circle and shrinked and not a circleanymore?

Focus group 4 (air: kites)

Researcher: Why is it [the kite] staying up in the sky?Child 1: I don’t know.Child 2: I know.Researcher: Why?Child 2: Because of the wind.

Focus group 5 (shapes walk)

Researcher: What kind of shapes did you see?Child: A diamond.Researcher: Diamond.Child: Stars.Researcher: OK, star.Child: There is a triangle.Researcher: Triangle.Child: Oval and skinny rectangle.

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S79

was mentioned, and we noted three categories with three instances each: innovation(e.g. innovation, creativity), education (e.g. academic, learning), and emotional aspects(e.g. exciting, enthusiasm). The dataset was too small to yield additional categories,with the remaining words being single instances. Parents reported that their childrenshowed knowledge of STEM through recounting and retelling ideas (six instances, e.g.She is happy to tell me about what she learned in her class [about STEM]; By relaying/repeating what she has learned) and questioning and exploring (five instances, e.g.demonstrates an enthusiasm for testing her world, and for exploring the relationshipsbetween things; looks at how things work and questions how and why). Finally, parentsprovided anecdotal evidence of their children’s STEM behaviours outside of schoolenvironments (e.g. She understands that the parts of a system contribute to the functionof the whole. She asks about how and why specific parts work rather than just theentire thing.).

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for parents’ responses to Likert questions about Pre-K STEM

Mean Median Range

STEM Knowledge

Prior to reading the definition here in this survey, I knew what the acronym STEMstood for.

4.6 5 4

STEM is a component of the classroom instruction at [name of school]. 4.5 4 2

STEM activities happen at least weekly in my child’s classroom. 4.4 4 2

I would like to know more about the ongoing STEM activities in my child’sclassroom.

4.3 4 3

I would like more information on STEM. 3.8 4 4

STEM Activities

I speak to my child’s teachers about the ongoing STEM activities in theclassroom.

3.8 4 4

I personally participate in STEM activities in my child’s classroom. 2.5 2 4

I would like to participate more in the ongoing STEM activities in my child’sclassroom.

3.9 4 4

I know enough about the STEM activities in my child’s classroom. 2.5 2 3

I participate in STEM activities with my child outside of school time. 3.5 4 4

I encourage my child to look at the world through a STEM lens. 3.8 4 4

I would like more information on how to include STEM in interactions with mychild.

4.5 4 2

My child demonstrates evidence of STEM knowledge and understanding. 4.5 5 2

My child talks to me about STEM activities that happen in the classroom. 4.1 4 3

I have heard my child speak to others about the STEM activities that arehappening in the classroom.

3.4 4 4

STEM Impact

I think that STEM is an important aspect of my child’s education at the JK and SKlevel.

4.5 4 4

The STEM activities in my child’s classroom prepare my child for future successin science and related areas.

4.2 4 2

STEM education is a path towards future economic prosperity for my child. 3.9 4 3

S80 Tippett and Milford

Discussion

Potential limitations for this study include author bias, research site, and number ofparticipants. Both authors approached this study with the stance that STEM educationat the Pre-K level was appropriate. To address this bias, we acknowledged ourpreconceptions and actively sought counter examples as we collected data. Neverthe-less, our analysis did not reveal evidence to contradict our initial position. We con-ducted this research at a small private girl’s school as opposed to a larger, more typicalpublic school, and the number of participants in each stakeholder group was small;thus, our results are highly contextualized. Both of these factors limit the generaliz-ability of our findings; however, the goal of a case study is not always generalizability(Punch, 2014) and, in this instance, our goal was to establish the context for futureresearch.

The two ECEs had initially reached out to us because although they were enthusi-astic about incorporating STEM in their Pre-K classroom and had previously taughtsome activities, they were concerned about planning, implementing, and assessing.Together, we established a research program that began with classroom observationsand preliminary data collection that would establish a foundation for future research.The research question for this phase of the study was How do data collected frommultiple stakeholders inform our understanding of early childhood STEM education?And, we developed inferences drawn from the merging of relevant results to answerthis question.

Inferences

The data collected from and about educators, students, and parents provide a glimpseinto STEM education in a particular Pre-K setting. We developed four inferences thatwe present in the following section: (a) educators believe that STEM is a valuablecomponent of the Pre-K classroom, (b) students actively engage in STEM activities, (c)parents respond positively to STEM in their child’s Pre-K classroom, and (d) STEMeducation can be an appropriate component of early childhood education.

Educators Believe that STEM Is a Valuable Component of the Pre-K Classroom Thethemes that emerged from our semi-structured interviews (as shown in Tables 2 and 3)suggested a positive disposition towards STEM, which might be expected given thatthe ECEs were already teaching STEM in their classroom. However, despite the factthat ECEs were specifically and repeatedly asked about challenges and negativeinstances, their responses still positioned STEM in a positive light. For example, whentalking about the availability of resources, typically an issue in any new implementationor intervention, the ECEs noted that they were now aware of more resources availableto them, rather than describing resources as a limiting factor. The theme STEM as aFramework emerged from the analysis of both interviews, with specific responsessuggesting that using this framework allowed the ECEs to consider their teaching fromnew and different perspectives. Thinking about the individual disciplines of STEM hashelped the ECEs to envision how these areas might be integrated, with each other andwith other subjects. The COP provided the educators with a way to analyse activities,be more purposeful in their planning, and assess STEM behaviours. The ECEs consider

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S81

STEM to be an effective avenue for encouraging their students to think more deeplyabout and interact with the world around them.

The differences in the two interviews suggest that ECEs, who already held a fairlypositive view of STEM at the beginning of the project, were more able to have a richerdiscussion with broader implications.

Students Actively Engage in STEM Activities Collected data indicate that studentsused appropriate vocabulary, participated with apparent enthusiasm, and appearedeager to share their ideas about STEM. During classroom observations and focusgroups, students readily used vocabulary that was developmentally appropriate andrelevant to the STEM concepts under discussion. Field notes contained instances whenstudents responded so rapidly and extensively to ECE questioning that individualresponses could not be recorded, suggesting enthusiastic engagement with the topic.Throughout the 14 classroom observations and the five focus groups, students consis-tently engaged with their classmates, the ECEs, and the researchers about the STEMactivities.

Parents Respond Positively to STEM in Their Child’s Pre-K Classroom Allresponses to the online questionnaire suggested that parents had a positive view ofSTEM, even at the early childhood level. The results indicated that this group of parentsparticipated in STEM activities with their children outside of school and activelyencouraged their children to look at the world with a STEM perspective. Parents werealso interested in obtaining more information about how to include STEM in theirinteractions with their children. Finally, parents believed that STEM was an importantaspect of their children’s education and thought that STEM activities in the Pre-Kclassroom were preparing their children for future success in science and related areas.

STEM Education Can Be an Appropriate Component of Early ChildhoodEducation Our merged analysis of the data from multiple sources (ECE interviews,classroom observations, student work samples, student focus groups, and parentquestionnaires) highlighted evidence for the appropriateness of STEM at the Pre-Klevel. ECEs viewed STEM as a useful approach to teaching that allowed them tocapitalize on students’ interests and to think about their teaching in a more purposefulway. We identified dimensions of effective early childhood STEM education (Milford& Tippett, 2015) during every observation session. Field notes and focus grouptranscripts provided evidence of students’ awareness of ideas that were highlightedduring classroom STEM activities. Photographs of student work samples suggest thatstudents were able to participate in STEM activities and to create artefacts that reflectedthe ECEs’ intentions. Parents reported seeing evidence of their children’s understandingof STEM concepts and indications of STEM behaviours outside the classroom, sug-gesting that learning was extending beyond the classroom walls.

As these inferences illustrate, evidence from all stakeholder groups and from acrossthe datasets supports the inclusion of STEM in early childhood education. The youngchildren in this study were experiencing a range of skills and actions that are likely topromote STEM learning: questioning, play, process skills, and scientific and engineer-ing practices. Children appeared to enjoy participating in STEM activities, and duringfollow-up of focus groups, they could retell some of the ideas from these activities,

S82 Tippett and Milford

suggesting that the concepts were developmentally appropriate. The ECEs are usingSTEM to frame their planning and instruction because they believe the multidisciplin-ary approach allows them to provide more meaningful learning experiences for thestudents. Designing and creating things is typical within early childhood programs,although those activities are not always explicitly framed as engineering (Tippett &Milford, 2016). A STEM framework allows the ECEs to reflect more intentionally ontheir teaching and to assess their activities from a different perspective. Parents reportedthat their children talk with them and to others about the STEM activities that arehappening in the Pre-K classroom, suggesting that their children are interested inaspects of STEM and continue to think about STEM-related ideas outside of the schoolenvironment.

Future Research

Our results suggest that STEM in early childhood is a fruitful area for continuedexploration, and our plans for future research include several refinements and additions.We will add another stakeholder group, modify the student focus groups, and facilitatethe investigation of ECEs’ individual research questions as we move into the iterativephase of DBR. School administrators will be added as a participant group. Studentfocus groups to date have emphasized recall of the content and concepts of STEMactivities. In the next phase of our research, focus groups will take on a dual function;some group interviews will continue to focus on activity content, while other interviewswill emphasize student impressions of, and ideas about, those activities. Finally, the twoparticipating ECEs will begin implementing their own specific interventions, and wewill support them in collecting and analysing data, mindful of the need to empower theeducators as we pursue our own parallel agenda as researchers.

Concluding Remarks

Although there is an obvious economic argument for implementing STEM educa-tion as nations seek to be globally competitive, the significance of appropriate earlychildhood STEM instruction should go beyond this argument. STEM education isnot just for those students who will pursue post-secondary education or careers inSTEM-related fields. A population with a foundation in STEM will be betterprepared to face the challenges of a science and technology-driven society (NRC,2011). STEM in early childhood aligns with the current philosophy of play-basedprograms where children are encouraged to explore and observe the world accord-ing to their own interests (BCME, 2008; OME, 2010). When adults purposefullynurture curiosity and support learning, children can be meaningfully engaged inactivities that involve inquiry and design, laying the foundations for science skillsand processes (NSTA, 2014).

While reports suggest a general lack of STEM teaching at the Pre-K level, some Pre-K educators, like the two ECEs who are participating in this study, are activelyimplementing STEM activities and are even seeking ways to improve their practice.

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S83

Although our own bias is that STEM in early childhood is a natural fit, given youngchildren’s inclination to explore the world around them, asking questions and designingsolutions to problems, in our research, we actively sought evidence that might contra-dict this perspective. However, the data we collected from and about the multiplestakeholder groups provided evidence to support the inclusion of STEM in earlychildhood education. Educators saw STEM as a useful approach to planning activitiesthat fostered student curiosity about the world around them. Taking a STEM perspec-tive allowed the ECEs to be more intentional in their teaching and facilitated theintegration of subject areas. Students appeared enthusiastic as they participated inSTEM activities, demonstrating an appropriate understanding of concepts and articu-lating questions related to these activities. Parents viewed STEM as an important aspectof their child’s Pre-K education. More research is needed in additional settings, but theresults of this study suggest that further investigation of STEM at the early childhoodlevel is warranted.

References

Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Anderson, T. & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?

Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813.Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rates in academic studies - A compartive analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421–

438.Benaquisto, L. (2008). Open coding. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research

methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412963909.British Columbia Ministry of Education (2008). British Columbia early learning framework.

Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=9CAEBBF8B90848D1A66E2A7303E18915.

Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M. & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x.

Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M. & Ramey, C. T. (2001). Thedevelopment of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhoodeducational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 231–242. doi:10.1037//012-1649.37.2.231.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educationalresearch. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulmun(Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 289–298). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Collins, A., Joseph, D. & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design-based research: Clarifying the terms. The Journal ofthe Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12.Retrieved from http://204.225.6.243/science/framework/pages/english/2.html.

Cresswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Eshach, H. & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Educationand Technology, 15(3), 315–337. doi:10.1007/s10956-005-07-7198-9.

Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H. & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of

inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.doi:10.3102/0034654312457206.

S84 Tippett and Milford

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains,NY: Longman.

Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2002). A study of the development of the concept of mechanical stability in preschoolchildren. Research in Science Education, 32(3), 373–391.

Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, J. & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivistlearning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of ‘floating and sinking’. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 98(2), 307–326.

Horizon Research. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. ChapelHill, NC: NSSME.

Iarossi, G. (2006). The power of survey design: A user’s guide for managing surveys, interpreting results andinfluencing respondents. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Katz, L. G. (2010). STEM in the early years. Early Childhood Research & Practice. Urbana-Champaign, IL:ECRP.

Lantz, H. B. (2009). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: What form? Whatfunction? What is STEM education? Retrieved from http://www.currtechintegrations.com/pdf/STEMEducationArticle.pdf.

Leuchter, M., Saalbach, H. & Hardy, I. (2014). Designing science learning in the first years ofschooling. An intervention study with sequenced learning materials on the topic of ‘floatingand sinking’. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1751–1771. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.878482.

Leung, W. (2001). How to design a questionnaire. Student BMJ, 9, 187–189.Marshall, J., Horton, R. & White, C. (2009). EQUIPping teachers: A protocol to guide and improve inquiry-

based instruction. The Science Teacher, 76(4), 46–53.Milford, T. M. & Tippett, C. D. (2015). The design and validation of an early childhood STEM

classroom observational protocol. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 6(1),24–37.

Moomaw, S. (2013). Teaching STEM in the early years: Activities for integrating science, technology,engineering, and mathematics. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K–12education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National AcademiesPress.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (2013). NAEYC early childhood program stan-dards and accreditation criteria & guidance for assessment. Retrieved from www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/AllCriteriaDocument.pdf.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective ap-proaches in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: The NationalAcademies Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association (2014). Statement of early childhood science education. Retrievedfrom http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/earlychildhood.aspx.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). The full-day early learning–kindergarten program 2010-11 (draftversion). Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kindergarten_english_june3.pdf.

Petroski, H. (2003). Engineering: Early education. American Scientist, 91, 206–209.Punch, K. F. (2014). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Ramey, C. T. & Ramey, S. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53(2),

109–120. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.109.Roth, W.-M., Goulart, M. I. M. & Plakitsi, K. (2013). Science education during early childhood: A cultural

historical perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Schmitz, C. (2012). LimeSurvey—The free and open source survey software tool. Retrieved from https://www.

limesurvey.org/en/.Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103.Successful STEM Education (2013). Nurturing STEM skills in young learners, PreK–3. Retrieved from

http://www.successfulstemeducation.org/resources/briefs.Tippett, C. D. & Milford, T. M. (2016). Opportunities for STEM learning within an early childhood cooking

program. Porto, Portugal: Poster presented at the biennial conference of the European Association for

Making the Case for STEM in Early Childhood Education S85

Research on Learning and Instruction Special Interest Group (Learning and Development in EarlyChildhood).

Trundle, K. & Saçkes, M. (2012). Science and early education. In R. Pianta (Ed.), Handbook of earlychildhood education (pp. 240–258). New York, NY: Guilford.

Trundle, K. & Saçkes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Research in early childhood science education. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Springer.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

S86 Tippett and Milford