STEM Education in the Early Years: Thinking About Tomorrow (SpringerBriefs in Education) 9811928096, 9789811928093

Citation preview

Kevin Larkin Thomas Lowrie

STEM Education in the Early Years Thinking About Tomorrow

STEM Education in the Early Years

Kevin Larkin · Thomas Lowrie

STEM Education in the Early Years Thinking About Tomorrow

Kevin Larkin School of Education and Professional Studies Griffith University Southport, QLD, Australia

Thomas Lowrie SERC University of Canberra Bruce, ACT, Australia

ISBN 978-981-19-2809-3 ISBN 978-981-19-2810-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2810-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the educators and young children that took part in the Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) program. Findings discussed in Chap. 7 are drawn from a larger data set generated in the ELSA project. The ELSA project is funded by the Australian government. We would also like to acknowledge Angela Hall for her work in editing this book.

v

Contents

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 What is STEM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 The Importance of STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 What is Involved in Delivering STEM Education? . . . . . . . 1.2 Contemporary Issues in STEM Education in the Early Years . . . . . 1.2.1 Gender Stereotypes and STEM Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 STEM Education and Indigenous Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 STEM in Disadvantaged Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 What is Needed in STEM Education in Disadvantaged Communities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Book Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM in the Early Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 [S, T, E, or M] or [STEM]? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Vygotsky and Social-Constructivist Approaches to STEM Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 The “Double Move” in Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Five Approaches to Teaching STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 STEM Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Project-Based Learning (PBL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Problem-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.5 An Integrated Approach to STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.6 Advantages and Challenges of Integrated STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Intentional Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 3 6 7 7 9 11 13 13 16 21 21 22 22 24 24 25 26 26 27 28 31 33 34

vii

viii

Contents

2.6.1 Findings Regarding the Impact of Intentional Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Practical Applications of Intentional Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 37 38 38

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Access to Digital Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Educational Effects of Digital Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Specific Impact of Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Access to Tablets and Apps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Ease of Use of Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Impacts of the Use of Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Information Regarding Quality Apps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Evaluation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Methodologies for Evaluating Apps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Design Principles for the Creation of Quality Apps . . . . . . 3.7 Screen Time and Its Impact on Young Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.1 New Understandings of Screen Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Computational Thinking (CT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.1 Importance of Computational Thinking (CT) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Robotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.1 Robotics and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.2 Robotics as a Form of Manipulatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.3 Robotics and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.4 Sequencing With Robotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.5 Reasoning and Problem Solving With Robotics . . . . . . . . . 3.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 45 45 46 48 48 49 50 51 53 53 53 54 56 57 59 59 60 61 61 62 62 63 63

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Digital Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 The Digital Play Framework (DPF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Playful Explorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 An Ecological Approach to Digital Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Play-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Guided Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Our Approach to Play-Based Learning in the ELSA Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 69 70 71 75 76 77 78 79 81 81 82

Contents

ix

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 STEM and Early Childhood Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Educator Beliefs Regarding STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Impact of Educator Beliefs on the Teaching of STEM . . . . 5.2.3 Educator Knowledge of STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Professional Development (PD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Early Childhood Educators and Their STEM Professional Development (PD) Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Forms of Professional Development (PD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Specific Need for Engineering Professional Development (PD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Teacher Reflections Regarding Professional Development (PD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.5 Principles and Guidelines for Professional Development (PD) in Digital Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 85 86 86 87 89 90

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Impact of Parents and Families on STEM Learning . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Influence of Parents in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Increasing Parental Involvement in Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Influence of Parents in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Increasing Parental Involvement in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5 Influence of Parents in Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.6 Influence of Parents in Digital Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.7 The Role of Parents in Supporting the Use of Digital Technology in the Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.8 The Importance of Parent Language in Supporting STEM Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.9 Our Contribution in Supporting Parents and Families . . . . . 6.3 Alternatives to School-Based STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 STEM in Museums and Other Public Places . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Partnerships in STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 STEM Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Benefits of STEM Partnerships and STEM Events . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Issues with STEM Partnerships and STEM Events . . . . . . . 6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

91 93 95 96 97 99 99

112 113 115 115 117 118 118 119 120 121 121

x

Contents

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Conception of Play Underpinning ELSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 STEM Practices Framework and ERA: Our Proposal for Sustainable STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 STEM Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Why STEM Practices? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Understanding the STEM Practices Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 STEM Practices Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.5 STEM Practices and Spatial Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.6 Teaching STEM Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 What is ELPSA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 ERA as a Design Heuristic for the Creation of Apps . . . . . 7.5 Educator and Child Engagement in the ELSA Program . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127 127 127 129 130 132 133 134 136 137 139 139 141 143 148 148

About the Authors

Kevin Larkin is Associate Professor (Mathematics Education) at Griffith University. He is a member of several research teams investigating STEM education in early years education; mathematics education in primary and middle-school contexts; and pre-service teacher mathematics education. He has published widely in national and international publications in the areas of mathematics education, digital technologies, early years STEM, higher education, and activity theory. He is a past editor of the Mathematics Education Research Journal (MERJ) and former chief editor of the International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning (IJMTL). He is Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and Senior Fellow of the Griffith Learning and Teaching Academy. He was inaugural Chapter Chair for the Arts Education and Law Group Learning and Teaching Academy. He has received numerous awards for his teaching including Griffith University Teacher of the Year in 2016, a National Citation for Inspiring Learning in 2017, and the Australian University Teacher of the Year Award in 2018. Prior to working at Griffith University, he had 15 years’ experience as a primary classroom teacher and 14 years as deputy principal. Thomas Lowrie is Director of the STEM Education Resource Centre (SERC) at the University of Canberra. He was appointed as one of the University’s Centenary Professors in 2014. He has an established international research profile in the discipline area of mathematics and STEM education. His concentrated and sustained (over 20 years) body of work has focused on the extent to which primary-aged students use spatial reasoning and visual imagery to solve mathematics problems and the role and nature of graphics in mathematics assessment. More recently, his research has expanded to include students’ use of digital tools and dynamic imagery to solve problems and developing spatial curriculum for primary and secondary classrooms. In the past 5 years, he has attracted more than $19.4 million in nationally competitive research projects, including five ARC Discovery Grants, the Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) project, and a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Government Partnerships for Development Grant. He works closely with industry

xi

xii

About the Authors

partners including the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), the World Bank, The Pearson Foundation, and a number of education jurisdictions.

Chapter 1

STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

1.1 Introduction This book is intended for researchers and educators1 interested in current best practices for supporting STEM engagement and learning in the early years. For the purposes of this book, the early years are the years from preschool to year three, approximately 4–8 years of age. Each chapter in this book critiques contemporary research on key themes relating to STEM including sociocultural and socialconstructivist approaches to intentional teaching, the role of digital technologies in STEM education, play and digital play, professional development for early years educators, and STEM beyond formal school environments. In Chap. 7, we propose a number of novel pedagogical and conceptual perspectives that we argue can facilitate an authentic experience of STEM for early years learners, and one that is sustainable over the long term. In this first chapter, we look at a number of “overarching” themes that underpin the remaining chapters of the book. We commence by establishing the historical context of STEM education and then explore how various historical developments have shaped how STEM education is currently delivered in formal educational contexts, in particular in the early years of schooling. We then critique the economic imperatives that often drive STEM education and assess how these economic imperatives become entangled in the educational delivery of STEM. We conduct this critique using a number of Australian and international STEM initiatives as examples. Next, we examine a number of recent Australian and international government- or industrysponsored reports regarding STEM education and look at the implications of these reports for the future delivery of STEM education in the early years of schooling. Based on this analysis, we address a number of educational issues that result from attempts to translate economic imperatives into educational policy and curricula 1

In the early years sector, there are both registered teachers and non-registered professional staff working together to support children’s learning. In this book we use the more inclusive team of educators when discussing staff who are involved in the education of our youngest citizens.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 K. Larkin and T. Lowrie, STEM Education in the Early Years, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2810-9_1

1

2

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

statements, largely in the Australian context, but also in relation to the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. We also discuss the implications for STEM education in relation to gender, Indigenous perspectives and low socioeconomic communities, and investigate how children form a “STEM identity”. Our critique of the literature above is conducted through the lens of our experiences in 2016 through 2020 leading a $8.2 million, longitudinal research project—the Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) Program—the largest, nationally funded STEM education program in Australia (if not the world) (see https://elsa.edu.au/).

1.1.1 What is STEM? There are various definitions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and according to Bybee (2010), the term “STEM” had its origins in the 1990s at the National Science Foundation. Since then, the term has been used as a “generic label for any event, policy, program, or practice that involves one or several of the STEM disciplines” (p. 30). According to Merrill and Daugherty (2009), STEM education can be been defined as “a standards-based, meta-discipline residing at the school level where all teachers, especially science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers, use an integrated approach to teaching and learning, where discipline-specific content is not divided, but addressed and treated as one dynamic, fluid study” (p. 1). A third definition comes from Gonzalez and Kuenzi (2012) who indicate that STEM education refers to “teaching and learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics…. [including] educational activities across all grade levels—from pre-school to post-doctorate—in both formal (e.g., classrooms) and informal (e.g., afterschool programs) settings” (p. 1). The availability and use of a wide range of definitions for STEM is problematic with Bybee (2010) claiming that “the education community has embraced a slogan without really taking the time to clarify what the term might mean when applied beyond a general label” (p. 30). In most western societies, STEM was initially framed from a work practices perspective; however, it is largely being delivered in Australia in educational contexts as a focus for all citizens. Thus, STEM education has become a major focus, largely because of concerns that Australia is falling behind in scientific innovation (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013, 2014). Likewise, in the USA, STEM education became a major educational focus, again because of the concern that, in this case the USA, was falling behind in scientific innovation (Committee on STEM Education, 2013; Sharapan, 2012). Pressure was subsequently brought to bear on educators to start STEM early and provide learning experiences in STEM areas for primary school children and young children in preschool (Moomaw & Davis, 2010). Despite much of the hype around STEM education, Sharapan (2012) suggests that there is a lack of familiarity and understanding amongst early childhood educators of what it actually entails. This was certainly the experience of the approximately 675 educators in the

1.1 Introduction

3

ELSA Program who were often surprised to discover at workshops that they were, in fact, “doing” a great deal of STEM education in their centres with their children. Lowrie et al. (2017) suggest that the use of the acronym itself is problematic, as the acronym generates issues and questions around what STEM education looks like, what it involves, what areas should be focussed on, and what needs to change to achieve successful STEM education outcomes. As a consequence of this somewhat narrow focus on the four disciplines, STEM can become detached from the dayto-day experiences of children in everyday life. A common misconception is that STEM only happens in specific careers with people only doing STEM when they are wearing white lab coats working with chemicals, sitting in an office working with complex mathematical formulas, or working as engineers designing complex structures (Lowrie et al., 2017). This perception has impacts on the pathway into STEM careers for many children (Zhang & Barnett, 2015). As an alternative, Lowrie et al. (2017) suggest that STEM is also evident in many careers not usually considered as STEM careers, such as surfboard designers, builders, horticulturalists, or veterinarians, and that this misconception has come about because of the way that STEM content knowledge is often “siloed” in schools, instead of being offered in a way that is consistent with how children normally experience STEM in their personal and community lives. In Chap. 7 we will articulate our understanding of STEM Education and how it can be delivered appropriately in the early years of schooling.

1.1.2 The Importance of STEM Education From one perspective, the STEM agenda has the lofty goals of supporting the development of citizens who are confident and competent using STEM in their everyday lives, as active citizens, and in STEM careers (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013). This citizenship agenda is evident in policy statements and the like from around the world. For example, Maass et al. (2019) note that in the European context, “it is also increasingly recognized that Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is an essential foundation for responsible citizenship and the ethical custodianship of our planet” (p. 870). Thus, there is a call to increase STEM capabilities and dispositions, and the recognition that this process commences in early childhood (Murphy et al., 2020), with this call coming from a range of sectors, primarily education policy and business. Again, in the European context, the European Union “encourages Member States to better prepare people for changing labour markets and active citizenship in more diverse, mobile, digital and global societies and to develop learning at all stages of life” (Maass et al., 2019, p. 870). As is often the case with large-scale policy initiatives, what is lacking is advice to educators as to how to promote STEM learning in practical ways. From a different perspective, STEM education is viewed largely in terms of an economic imperative, with business and industry organisations highlighting the

4

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

urgency for improving STEM skills to meet current and future social and economic challenges (English, 2016; Hachey, 2020). In this agenda, the economics of STEM education are driven by “concerns about students’ declining performances on international tests, students’ lack of engagement and falling enrolments in STEM subjects” (Anderson et al., 2020, p. 29) as this will result in an uncompetitive workforce in future years. The importance of STEM education, at least initially in economic terms, is clear from the broad range of reports generated nationally and internationally that situate STEM education as critical for a nation’s future. For example, in Australia, the Office of the Chief Scientist (2013) has described STEM as being crucial for a “better” Australia, with economic modelling suggesting that “shifting just 1% of the workforce into STEM roles would add $57.4 billion to GDP (net present value over 20 years)” (PwC, 2015, p. 4). Looking forwards, STEM education is considered as critical for the future of Australia’s workforce, with 75% of the fastest-growing occupations requiring knowledge of STEM disciplines (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). This focus on Australia’s STEM capacity shares broad similarity with the direction evident in Europe (Rocard et al., 2007) and much of the world (Marginson et al., 2013) in regards to the creation of a STEM-skilled workforce and the cultivation of a STEM-literate citizenry being a major focus of governments for much of this millennium (Gough, 2015). Although broadly similar to developments internationally, some researchers have highlighted the unique nature of the Australian context, which is often based on its historical reliance on primary production and an industry policy that prioritises knowledge development at the expense of translation and commercialisation (Carter, 2017; Davidson & Potts, 2016). Lowrie et al. (2018) highlight the fact that the ELSA Program emerged as an explicit part of a STEM policy strategy seeking to address issues such as Australia being ranked last among OECD nations for business-academia collaboration as well as its fall in the rankings on the Global Innovation Index (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015). Thus, in the Australian policy context, STEM education is not simply an approach to improving performance in the four disciplines, but instead takes on a reform agenda in the repositioning of the goals and objectives of formal education to support national innovation rather than education per se (Lowrie et al., 2018). This economic rather than educational imperative is evidenced by the fact that STEM has yet to be included in the official curriculum apparatus. Therefore, what makes something a “STEM” concept as opposed to a science concept or a mathematics concept has not yet been made clear to educators by policy designers (English, 2017; Lowrie et al., 2018). The implications of this position for the ELSA Program will be made apparent throughout the chapters in this book. Regardless of how it is defined, preschool- to tertiary-level STEM education is seen as the key strategy for achieving many of these goals (Gough, 2015). Fensham (2008) suggests that governments look to STEM education to address a wide array of local, national, or international issues. In a report to UNESCO, the argument is made that quality STEM education is essential for socially and environmentally sustainable development. This development is to be driven by STEM professionals

1.1 Introduction

5

but guided by informed citizenry. In this view, STEM education is seen as a vehicle for improving a nation’s global competitiveness and ensuring its economic future (Breiner et al., 2012; Murphy et al., 2019). In the Australian educational context, this focus is acknowledged in a range of reports. A non-exhaustive list of reports includes publications from the Office of the Chief Scientist (2013, 2014); the Australian Academy of Science (Goodrum et al., 2012; Wyatt & Stolper, 2013); the Australian Council for Education Research (Rosicka, 2016); the Australian Industry Group (2013, 2015, 2017); and the Australian Council of Learned Academies (Marginson et al., 2013), which all highlight the importance of STEM education and the role it plays in Australia’s future wellbeing. This economic imperative is also evident in Australia’s National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015) that recognises STEM education as a key part of the nation’s innovation system and links STEM skills to changing labour force patterns. This economic theme is evident in two Office of the Chief Scientist’s reports: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach (2013); and Science, technology, engineering and Mathematics: Australia’s Future (2014). Overseas literature suggests that Australia is not alone in positioning this expansive vision of STEM in the educational context as a basis for future economic wellbeing, as a similar emphasis has occurred internationally (Rocard et al., 2007). What seems apparent from the range of initiatives we have outlined is that a reform agenda for Australian STEM education is needed (Lowrie et al., 2018), which reorients STEM education to include social and cultural imperatives, as well as the economic ones. This notion of reform sits comfortably within the approach taken by the ELSA Program, where a process of active and embodied design (Sheridan et al., 2014) was used to support educators. As Lowrie et al. (2018) note, “through reflexive analysis of these failures, we came to see STEM not simply as an object for design, but as a reform initiative” (p. 10). To implement the economic reform deemed important by the Australian Government, a variety of school-specific reports targeting STEM education was generated. For example, the National STEM School Education Strategy (Education Council, 2015) has goals that focus on: improving educator capacity in STEM; increasing student knowledge, participation, and understanding of STEM; encouraging school support for STEM education initiatives; and improving partnerships with industry, business, and higher education providers. Importantly, the strategy explicitly calls for particular action to be taken for improving STEM outcomes for girls, children from low socio-economic backgrounds, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (Education Council, 2015). A second example is the Australian Government’s Students First agenda, which also aims to improve the quality of STEM education in formal schooling contexts. Within the broad remit of this agenda are: targeted funding for STEM resources; increased focus on coding in the curriculum; the development of a range of pathways to support children studying STEM-related disciplines in higher education; and the provision of summer school programs for disadvantaged children to provide

6

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

opportunities for them to be exposed to high-quality STEM education (Australian Government, 2015). More recently, as part of NISA, the Australian Government Department of Education and Training commenced the project Principals as STEM Leaders—Building the Evidence Base for Improved STEM Learning (PASL) (University of Tasmania, 2020). The objectives of the project were to: • Determine best practice and expand evidence-based approaches that enhance children’s STEM engagement and outcomes through the professional development of principals as STEM leaders; • Develop high-quality and accessible resources and a supporting mentoring model to be made available beyond the life of the project; and • Evaluate both the impact of the resources and the project processes, and share lessons learned to inform future policy and practice. These national projects are further supplemented by different state and territory STEM education initiatives that aim to improve student STEM capabilities and aspirations (Murphy et al., 2019).

1.1.3 What is Involved in Delivering STEM Education? In some sense, deciding that STEM education is important is the easy step; however, given the range of opinions regarding the best method of implementation, the actual enactment of it in schools is more problematic (English, 2017; Sanders, 2009). One opinion is that nothing has changed in education in these discipline areas except there is now an acronym used to represent each of the individual discipline areas (Sanders, 2009). Much more common is the opinion that STEM education is a way of teaching that integrates each of the four areas, by removing subject barriers and making links to real-world learning experiences (Siekmann, 2016; Vasquez et al., 2013). Of course the shape that this integration takes will vary, as STEM education does not always have to involve all four disciplines on every occasion (Vasquez, 2014). Whilst in one sense liberating, this lack of clarity poses difficulties for educators tasked with implementation (Siekmann, 2016). Indeed, the overuse of the acronym, as well as the expansion into acronyms such as STEAM (Arts added) or STEMM (Medicine added) or STREAM (Reading and Arts added), sows increased confusion amongst educators. In Chapter Two we examine a number of different integrated approaches to the teaching of STEM. Further compounding the problem is the fact that STEM education does not replace current education curriculums or standards (Vasquez, 2014). In the Australian context at least, there is no specific engineering curriculum, and only recently a new Digital Technologies strand of the pre-existing Technology curriculum was added. This renders the main integration agenda problematic, as the disciplines (where they exist at all) are written independently of each other with little attempt at connecting

1.2 Contemporary Issues in STEM Education in the Early Years

7

the disparate disciplines, at least in a curriculum documents sense (Larkin & Miller, 2020). However, in potentially a positive move towards a more cohesive curriculum approach, a new document, The Shape of the Australian Curriculum, includes computational and algorithmic thinking in both the Mathematics and Digital Technologies curriculums (ACARA, 2020). Despite the issues of integration noted, and irrespective of exactly what a STEM education may involve, the following points identified by Lowrie et al. (2017), and supported by a range of literature, could be considered as core tenets for STEM education going forward: • STEM education needs to allow children to put into practice the skills and knowledge they are learning in an authentic manner (Sanders, 2012; Vasquez, 2014); • Educational approaches should be used that enable children to engage in authentic, active, and meaningful learning and challenges (Rosicka, 2016; Sanders, 2012; Siekmann, 2016); • Schools should work to form partnerships with external organisations, industry, universities, and associations to provide high-quality STEM experiences for children (Kennedy & Odell, 2014); and • The focus must remain on the outcomes of the learning experience rather than the content or assessment involved (Siekmann, 2016; Vasquez, 2014). Once these outcomes have been established, educators can make connections to the entire curriculum and not just the STEM disciplines (Rosicka, 2016).

1.2 Contemporary Issues in STEM Education in the Early Years We now briefly examine some overarching, contemporary themes in STEM education, which impact broadly across all of the chapter themes in the remainder of the book. These overarching themes include gender stereotypes and the formation of a STEM identity, STEM and Indigenous perspectives, and STEM in socially disadvantaged communities.

1.2.1 Gender Stereotypes and STEM Identity A large body of work has examined the impact of gender and gender stereotypes in the individual disciplines that comprise STEM, for example in science (see Kerkhoven et al., 2016) and in mathematics (see Larkin & Jorgensen, 2016), and so here we provide only a brief account of more recent findings in this domain. Further research is important in this area given that, by one account, women’s participation in STEM

8

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

workforces in the United Kingdom and United States are only 22% and 24%, respectively (Delahunty et al., 2020). Whilst workforce employment may appear to be a distant concern for early childhood educators, Delahunty et al. (2020) and Larkin and Jorgensen (2016) both note that STEM stereotypes emerge in early childhood, and stereotypical beliefs—such as that mathematics is for boys, or “I don’t have a maths brain”, or most scientists are male—hold true for children as young as six. Additionally, “in relation to careers in computing and engineering, research has found that boys are more likely than girls to be encouraged into these professions by key influencers such as parents and teachers” (Delahunty et al., 2020, p. 1). Of perhaps more concern is a finding by Callahan and Nicholas (2019) where instances of gender stereotyping was promoted (albeit it probably unconsciously) by 13 preschool educators through implicitly gendered educator-child interactions, such as by encouraging only female children to play “hairdresser”. In the professional development workshops offered as part of the ELSA Program, we were explicit in raising and then confronting the issue of gender stereotyping by early childhood educators, as this is often a subconscious dimension of their work. Another important and related consideration is the offering of a gender-balanced curricula, which should “strive to be contextualized in line with the interests of girls, linking abstract concepts to real-life situations, and use hands-on activities” (Greca Dufranc et al., 2020, p. 2). In much the same way that STEM gender stereotypes develop in childhood, likewise children develop a STEM identity. According to Hachey (2020), a STEM identity “denotes the extent to which individuals identify as members of a STEM field and view themselves/others in terms of prototypes [norms, attitudes, traits, values, behaviors] in those fields” (p. 135). However, many children, particularly those from Indigenous backgrounds or low socio-economic (see next two sections), do not foresee themselves working in STEM roles and thus do not develop strong STEM identities (Talafian et al., 2019). As with any identity development, Hachey (2020) suggests that early STEM identity development “is a social process negotiated in early childhood classrooms during deliberate exploration of STEM, with evaluative and motivational consequences to children’s current and future sense of belonging and interest in STEM” (p. 136). Importantly for our work in the early years, Hachey (2020) also notes that the ecology of early childhood centres are ideal places to offer (or unfortunately limit) relevant STEM experiences that are critical for children to develop self-understanding about STEM and to position themselves to be future STEM practitioners. Part of early childhood STEM experiences then, should provide opportunities for children to acquire, at an appropriate level, STEM language and STEM behaviours. We will return to this topic in Chap. 7 when we discuss our STEM Practices approach (Lowrie et al., 2018) and our Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020).

1.2 Contemporary Issues in STEM Education in the Early Years

9

1.2.2 STEM Education and Indigenous Perspectives In our search of the literature, we found limited reference to STEM education from an Indigenous perspective, in either the Australian or international context. Research into Indigenous perspectives is vital as, across the STEM areas, Indigenous People have different ways of seeing, viewing, and interacting with knowledge systems. As Jorgensen (2020) powerfully notes, whether these ways are mathematical or scientific, finding ways to incorporate (and legitimate) them into school experiences are invaluable for Indigenous learners. This is an important pedagogical point as: (a) this move creates bridges between the two world views; (b) it validates and incorporates the Indigenous knowledges of the local people; and (c) many of the educators who come to teach in remote areas are early in their career, so they lack the experience of teaching STEM, as well as are often in their first position in a remote/Indigenous context (Jorgensen, 2020). Whilst the building of “conceptual bridges” is important in all learning areas, the need to build practices to support the STEM learning of Indigenous children in remote communities is critical as STEM is not commonly practiced in out-of-school contexts (Jorgensen, 2020). The limited Australian research that has been conducted indicates that Indigenous people are alarmingly under-represented in STEM-related careers. Although the causes of this under-representation are complex (Hogue, 2016), lack of academic success in STEM disciplines commences in primary and middle school and worsens in secondary school. As many Indigenous children perform poorly in high school, they fail to complete courses; this then makes them ineligible to pursue STEM-related paths at the post-secondary level (Hogue, 2016). Larkin and Jorgensen (2016) note that children as young as eight years old were forming negative attitudes towards mathematics, with significant, long-term detrimental effects. Compounding this disadvantage is the observation that Indigenous ways of knowing are often perceived to be contrary to STEM learning (Spang & Bang, 2014) when, in fact, they should be considered powerful resources for learning. Indigenous ways of knowing and learning closely parallel contemporary STEM learning and thus a creative, multidisciplinary approach to STEM education might be the way to enable early academic engagement, success, and retention of Indigenous learners in STEM (Hogue, 2016). Instead of a binary Western vs. Indigenous approach, STEM instruction should be made inclusive for Indigenous children by offering them learning and knowing that is land- and place-based, building connections between Indigenous and Western STEM, and intentionally incorporating families and communities, both in and out of school (Spang & Bang, 2014). The importance of connections is reinforced in the work of Donovan (2018) who found that for many Indigenous students “connecting with teachers, engaging with their culture and basing their learning in real world understandings are key to initiating their learning including engaging with STEM” (Donovan, 2018, p. 3). One way to do so is to involve Indigenous cultural experts who can convey stories of living and non-living things, and explain how they are interrelated and critical to life and living (Cajete, 2000). As Hoger (2020) notes, “Aboriginal Australians

10

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

were Australia’s first inventors and scientists, skilled in environmental management, holding complex understandings of the world around them” (p. 15) and “Aboriginal knowledge systems were formed for survival, and developed over many, many thousands of years of close association with the land and waters which we now call Australia” (p. 15). These cultural experts hold knowledge in the traditional stories, in the ceremonies, and in the practices of their communities. In this approach, learning is not a linear process but continuous, with multiple opportunities to cycle around; and with each cycle one learns more at a deeper level (Cajete, 2000; Hogue, 2016). Spang and Bang (2014) encourage all STEM educators to develop a set of strategies that they can use to intentionally incorporate Indigenous ways of knowing into STEM learning environments. Fortunately, recent modifications to the Australian Curriculum have seen the inclusion of 95 new elaborations with accompanying educator background information to help educators incorporate the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures cross curriculum priority. These elaborations acknowledge that Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have worked scientifically for millennia and continue to contribute to contemporary science. They are scientifically rigorous, demonstrating how Indigenous history, culture, knowledge, and understanding can be incorporated into teaching core scientific concepts (Hoger, 2020). Indeed, the early years educational context is a particularly fruitful platform for introducing Indigenous ways of STEM education. Whilst the intent of the Australian Curriculum to incorporate STEM perspectives is praiseworthy, Jorgensen (2020) highlights that the “on the ground” experience in rural and remote schools makes implementation of these ambitions problematic since one of the major issues in remote education is the “tyranny of distance”. This tyranny has major negative impacts on the possibilities for the quality of learning, and also the professional development of educators (Jorgensen, 2020). During extensive experiences in remote communities, Jorgensen continually noted problems related to professional learning including: young or new to remote education educators who often stay for short periods of time; access to relief teaching staff; the distance required to travel to available professional development; the cost associated with bringing expertise into the communities; and the difficulty of finding online solutions for these problems due to poor or no Internet connectivity (Jorgensen, 2020). Jorgensen argues that one way these problems can be minimised is by employing local people who remain connected to the community and are familiar with Indigenous ways of seeing and acting in the world. For Jorgensen (2020), these local people are the backbone of education and “their role in supporting, informing and planning with educators helps to build the bridges between the hegemonic Western curriculum and the knowledge systems of the local communities” (p. 169).

1.2 Contemporary Issues in STEM Education in the Early Years

11

1.2.3 STEM in Disadvantaged Communities Thus far in this chapter we have investigated the variety of ways that STEM might be taught. Regardless of the method of delivery, however, access to and participation in most areas of STEM education has been, and continues to be, highly socially structured (Lowrie et al., 2017). Thus, there is a STEM opportunity gap for children who live in disadvantaged communities, specifically children who live in poverty or who are members of linguistic and ethnic minority groups (Clements et al., 2020). Of particular relevance to our work, these achievement or opportunity gaps have their origins in the earliest years and continue to widen. Clements et al. (2020) also note that low-income children possess less extensive maths and science knowledge than middle-income children, even in preschool, presumably because they have fewer opportunities for development in these areas in their home environments. Research on the impact of socio-economic status (SES) on STEM education indicates that there are SES-related differences in the breadth and frequency of parental practices directed at supporting early learning. This is a non-trivial matter as these parental practices have consequences for young children’s scientific (Fleer, 2009) and mathematical development (Starkey et al., 2004). Based on a range of studies they critiqued, Verdine et al. (2017) note that lower-SES parents were: (a) less likely to provide varied experiences with spatial materials; and (b) less likely to provide high-quality interactions using those materials. We return to the important topic of parental influence on STEM learning in Chap. 5. Lowrie et al. (2017) note that there are many factors that influence student interest, achievement, and careers in disadvantaged regions. They classified these as home factors or school factors, and provided research findings to indicate the impact of these factors on perpetuating STEM disadvantage.

1.2.3.1

Home Factors

• Parental education levels are often lower, which influences their children’s participation and achievement in STEM subjects in high school (Banerjee, 2016; Miller & Pearson, 2012), and these families are often less involved in school activities and communicate less with the school; • Parental awareness of STEM and STEM careers is often low; therefore, their children often have fewer opportunities to see STEM careers and rely on stereotypical beliefs about STEM careers, which limit uptake (Sharkawy, 2015); • Children often have lower ability to cope with potential barriers and to communicate with their parents about careers in STEM (Sharkawy, 2015; Zhang & Barnett, 2015); and • Children from low-SES families often start school with relatively impoverished skills (Verdine et al., 2017).

12

1.2.3.2

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

School Factors

• Educators often expect less of disadvantaged children, which influences their engagement with school and their opportunity to experience STEM (Banerjee, 2016; Williams, 2013); • Access to resources is often a problem in disadvantaged schools, and staff are often less qualified to teach STEM (Williams, 2013). This problem may be minimised with new teaching graduates, Australia wide, required to choose a specialisation in Mathematics or Science (See for example, NSW Education Standards Authority, 2018a). Nevertheless, rural and remote schools still face other challenges such as higher staff turnover rates, and newer, less experienced educators (Williams, 2013); • Disadvantaged children are often less exposed to STEM in the younger years of school, which influences their future engagement (Williams, 2013); • STEM in disadvantaged schools is often taught in ways that reinforce traditional stereotypical views about STEM, which limit children’s understandings of STEM careers (Sharkawy, 2015; Williams, 2013); and • Information about STEM careers is lacking, which means children are misinformed or don’t know about STEM careers (Sharkawy, 2015; Yerdelen et al., 2016; Zhang & Barnett, 2015). Given the above confluence of factors, children in low SES schools are more likely to develop negative attitudes towards STEM, school, and learning generally (Banerjee, 2016), and thus suffer from a lack of STEM knowledge when compared to children attending more affluent schools (Finkel, 2017). In the Australian STEM education context, in particular, when compared with their peers, many children attending schools in disadvantaged regions (often those located in regional and remote areas, but also low-SES areas in major cities) are achieving: lower results in national and international testing in the subjects of science and mathematics (as evidenced by NAPLAN, TIMSS, and PISA); lower levels of overall mathematical and scientific literacy; and lower participation rates in STEM careers (Marginson et al., 2013). These findings have a range of disturbing economic, social, and educational implications for young learners, including a diminished capacity to participate in democratic decision-making and ongoing economic disadvantage due to lack of opportunities for future STEM careers (Lowrie et al., 2017). We suggest, therefore, that a clear priority for state and federal governments is to ensure that children attending schools in disadvantaged areas have access to high-quality STEM education. This need is mirrored in many international contexts (Marginson et al., 2013).

1.3 Book Structure

13

1.2.4 What is Needed in STEM Education in Disadvantaged Communities? In a report prepared for Social Ventures Australia to address the very issues identified in the previous section, Lowrie et al. (2017) note several features that are needed in STEM education in disadvantaged communities so that children, and their educators, can overcome the barriers noted previously. The authors suggest that the specific learning needs of these children are not likely to be met with a narrow approach to content knowledge provided by most curricula (see also Larkin & Miller, 2020). By this, Lowrie et al. (2017) mean that children must be provided with a range of learning experiences that respond to their particular context, and that this is unlikely to be catered for in the delivery of a centralised curriculum with standardised assessment. Whilst the latter have some place, learning is likely to be very difficult without the former. Building upon the work of Lowrie et al. (2017), we suggest that the following are key features of successful programs for disadvantaged children: • Children need to be able to see the relevance in what they are learning, i.e., STEM education needs to assist children to apply their learning outside the classroom, make links to STEM careers and uses in day-to-day life, and be grounded in evidence-based practice; • Children need to have the opportunity to work with industry mentors and see STEM in action. Such partnerships can also involve access to resources, information, and opportunities to experience STEM in action; • School-wide support is needed to increase the value of STEM education and increase the chances of children participating in and valuing STEM education; and • A sustainable approach is needed that does not necessary rely on funding, the provision of external resources, or external knowledge, and can be implemented without the support of an external expert in STEM education. We will argue in the Chap. 7 that a STEM Practices approach (Lowrie et al., 2018) and the ERA Heuristic (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020) are proactive solutions in preventing (or at least minimising) many of the issues raised in relation to STEM and disadvantaged communities. We now outline the structure of the remainder of the book.

1.3 Book Structure Although this book is written as a “whole”—that is, the chapters are interconnected to communicate a coherent message regarding our views of STEM education in the early years—they are also “themed” so that they can be read as stand-alone chapters. For this reason, the references have been provided for each individual chapter. To

14

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

provide a sense of where we are heading with the remainder of this book, a brief synopsis of each chapter is provided below. Chapter 2: Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM in the Early Years In Chap. 2 we offer an analysis of the research literature regarding early years STEM from pedagogical and social perspectives; primarily through a social-constructivist lens (Vygotsky, 1978). Building upon his work, we present research on what has been called the “double move” in STEM teaching (Hedegaard, 2002), whereby educators build STEM understanding alongside the daily experiences of children as they encounter STEM topics in their world. We then evaluate several common approaches to the teaching of STEM, including project-based, problem-based and inquiry-based learning (see Lowrie et al., 2017). The benefits and limitations of these approaches, and suggestions as to how the benefits of each approach can be maximised are discussed. In addition, a number of models for STEM integration— ranging from integration of two or more of the STEM disciplines, to integration of STEM as a composite discipline into English or the Social Sciences—is critiqued (Vasquez, 2014). We finish Chap. 2 with a discussion concerning intentional teaching and argue for its necessary place in the STEM learning of young children. Chapter 3: Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics In this chapter we critique a range of literature related to the topic of digital technologies and their impact in the early years of schooling, including computational thinking supported by the use of play-based technologies, such as robotics. In the first section of the chapter, we focus on tablets, the increasingly prevalent technology used by young children (Larkin, 2015); address the issue of screen time; and discuss how app design can maximise the benefits of tablet use (Larkin et al., 2019). In the second section of the chapter, we briefly examine computational thinking and how it can be supported by technology (largely robotics) (Greca Dufranc et al., 2020). Chapter 4: Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning The nexus between play, digital play, and play-based learning in early years learning environments is the focus of Chap. 4, where we commence with a brief account of play, guided by the theories of constructivism and sociocultural theory, as these theories underpin most teaching approaches in the early years (Lippard et al., 2019). We then discuss the relatively new phenomena of digital play and critique three related, but distinct, conceptual approaches for understanding digital technologies and play (Arnott et al., 2018). We conclude this chapter with a discussion of play-based learning, one of the two conceptual pillars underpinning the Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government Department of Education & Training, 2009).

1.3 Book Structure

15

Chapter 5: Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education This chapter focuses on the role of early childhood educators, who are largely held accountable for integrating all of the elements discussed in Chaps. 2, 3, and 4, to ensure the effective delivery of STEM for young children. We begin with an examination of literature relating to early childhood educators and their attitudes towards, knowledge of, and competence in teaching STEM (McClure et al., 2017). We then outline a range of professional development approaches that can assist educators in developing their STEM content and pedagogical knowledge (Brenneman et al., 2019). Chapter 6: STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence” There is a wealth of literature regarding STEM beyond the “preschool or school fence”, that argues for the benefits of STEM education beyond the school, and this literature is our focus in Chap. 6. Although we do not recommend a division between home and school STEM education, for the purposes of this chapter we only focus on initiatives that, by and large, do not involve the classrooms. We critique the literature that explores the critical role of parents and families in STEM (Dorie et al., 2014), initially at a generic STEM level and then at the level of each of the STEM disciplines, as this is how the majority of the research was conducted. We then look closely at a large body of research outlining the important role of parent’s language use with their children in STEM development (Verdine et al., 2017). In the final section of the chapter, we discuss STEM beyond formal schooling contexts such as museums, science centres, or national parks (Marcus et al., 2017). Chapter 7: A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years In the final chapter, we argue for a new conception of play that moves beyond the dichotomy of digital vs. non-digital play and suggest two new approaches to STEM education—namely, a STEM Practices approach (Lowrie et al., 2018) and an Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020), which provide early childhood educators with pedagogical tools to teach STEM. We examine how these approaches have been used to support over 675 educators and over 11,500 children who have participated in the ELSA Program since 2018. We conclude the chapter with reflections on STEM in the early years and how we can progress STEM education in sustainable, evidence-based ways.

16

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

References Anderson, J., English, L., Fitzallen, N., & Symons, D. (2020). The contribution of mathematics education researchers to the current STEM education agenda. In J. Way, C. Attard, J. Anderson, J. Bobis, H. McMaster, & K. Cartwright (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2016–2019 (pp. 27–57). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4269-5_3. Arnott, L., Palaiologou, I., & Gray, C. (2018). Digital devices, internet-enabled toys and digital games: The changing nature of young children’s learning ecologies, experiences and pedagogies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 803–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12676. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Agency (ACARA). (2020). The shape of the National curriculum (draft 5) https://www.acara.edu.au/docs/default-source/curriculum/the_ shape_of_the_australian_curriculum_version5_for-website.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Australian Government. (2015). Restoring the focus on STEM in schools initiative. https://saf. org.au/restoring-the-focus-on-stem-in-schools-initiative/#:~:text=The%20Restoring%20the% 20focus%20on,focusing%20on%20inquiry%2Dled%20teaching. Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. https://www.dese.gov.au/nationalquality-framework-early-childhood-education-and-care/resources/belonging-being-becomingearly-years-learning-framework-australia. Australian Industry Group. (2013). Lifting our science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) skills. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/255185. Australian Industry Group. (2015). Progressing STEM skills in Australia. http://cdn.aigroup.com. au/Reports/2015/14571_STEM_Skills_Report_Final_-pdf. Australian Industry Group. (2017). Strengthening school-industry STEM skills partnerships: Final project report. http://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2017/AiGroup_OCS_STEM_Report_ 2017.pdf. Banerjee, P. A. (2016). A systemic review of factors linked to poor academic performance of disadvantaged students in science and maths in schools. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1178441. https:// doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1178441. Breiner, J., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x. Brenneman, K., Lange, A., & Nayfeld, I. (2019). Integrating STEM into preschool education; Designing a professional development model in diverse settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0912-z. Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898909. Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light Publishers. Callahan, S., & Nicholas, L. (2019). Dragon wings and butterfly wings: Implicit gender binarism in early childhood. Gender and Education, 31(6), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253. 2018.1552361. Carter, L. (2017). National innovation policy and public science in Australia. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(4), 929–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9843-z. Clements, D. H., Vinh, M., Lim, C.-I., & Sarama, J. (2020). STEM for inclusive excellence and equity. Early Education and Development, 32(1), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289. 2020.1755776. Committee on STEM Education. (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: 5-year strategic plan. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/micros ites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf. Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). National innovation and science agenda. https://www.ind ustry.gov.au/data-and-publications/national-innovation-and-science-agenda-report. Davidson, S., & Potts, J. (2016). A new institutional approach to innovation policy. Australian Economic Review, 49(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12153.

References

17

Delahunty, T., Ríordáin, M. N., & Prendergast, M. (2020). An investigation of STEM interest, mathematics beliefs and gender stereotypes among pre-service early childhood educators. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wt96m. Donovan, M. (2018). Local Collaboration to Grow the Seeds of Stem Investment from School and Beyond. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 26(2), 3–13. Dorie, B. L., Jones, T. R., Pollock, M. C., & Cardella, M. (2014). Parents as critical influence: Insights from five different studies. School of Engineering Education Graduate Student Series, 55. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/enegs/55. Education Council. (2015). National STEM school education strategy: A comprehensive plan for science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Australia. http://www.education council.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/NationalSTEMSchoolEducationStrategy. pdf. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-0179802-x. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues. UNESCO. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156700E.pdf. Finkel, L. (2017). Walking the path together from high school to STEM majors and careers: Utilizing community engagement and a focus on teaching to increase opportunities for URM students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956016-9656-y. Fleer, M. (2009). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 281–306. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9085-x. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/STEM-Edu cation-Primer.pdf. Goodrum, D., Druhan, A., & Abbs, J. (2012). The status and quality of year 11 and 12 science in Australian schools. A report prepared for the office of the chief scientists. https://catalogue.nla. gov.au/Record/6102916. Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: Scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422014-9590-3. Greca Dufranc, I. M., García Terceño, E. M., Fridberg, M., Cronquist, B., & Redfors, A. (2020). Robotics and early-years STEM education: The botSTEM framework and activities. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 01. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/7948. Hachey, A. C. (2020). Success for all: Fostering early childhood STEM identity. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2020-0001. Hedegaard, M. (2002). Learning and child development. Aarhus University Press. Hoger, D. (2020). Incorporating Indigenous knowledge into STEM and early childhood education. Educating Young Children: Learning and Teaching in the Early Childhood Years, 26(1), 15. https://search.informit.org/doi/https://doi.org/10.3316/INFORMIT.302319977290747. Hogue, M. M. (2016). Aboriginal ways of knowing and learning, 21st century learners, and STEM success. In education, 22(1), 161–172. https://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/263. Jorgensen, R. (2020). ‘Quality’ STEM leaders in remote Indigenous contexts: Creating pedagogical capital. In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM education across the learning continuum: Early childhood to senior secondary (pp. 155–173). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-15-2821-7_9. Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044508.pdf.

18

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

Kerkhoven, A. H., Russo, P., Land-Zandstra, A. M., Saxena, A., & Rodenburg, F. J. (2016). Gender stereotypes in science education resources: A visual content analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0165037. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165037. Larkin, K. (2015). “An app! An app! My kingdom for an app”: An 18-month quest to determine whether apps support mathematical knowledge building. In T. Lowrie, & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital Games and Mathematics Learning: Potential, Promises and Pitfalls (Vol. 4, pp. 251–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9517-3_13. Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). ‘I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in year 3 and year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x. Larkin, K., Kortenkamp, U., Ladel, S., & Etzold, H. (2019). Using the ACAT framework to evaluate the design of two geometry apps: An exploratory study. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 5(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-018-0045-4. Larkin, K., & Miller, J. (2020). Digital technologies and numeracy—Synergy or discord? In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum (pp. 137–154). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_8. Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., Tank, K. M., & Choi, J. Y. (2019). Pre-engineering thinking and the engineering habits of mind in preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0898-6. Lowrie, T., Downes, N., & Leonard, S. N. (2017). STEM education for all young Australians: A bright spots STEM learning hub foundation paper, for SVA, in partnership with Samsung. https:// www.socialventures.com.au/assets/STEM-education-for-all-young-Australians-Smaller.pdf. Lowrie, T., & Larkin, K. (2020). Experience, represent, apply (ERA): A heuristic for digital engagement in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 131–147. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12789. Lowrie, T., Leonard, S., & Fitzgerald, R. (2018). STEM Practices: A translational framework for large-scale STEM education design. EDeR—Educational Design Research, 2(1), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.15460/eder.2.1.1243. Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 51(6), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11 858-019-01100-5. Marcus, M., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2017). STEM learning and transfer in a children’s museum and beyond. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 63(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.13110/mer rpalmquar1982.63.2.0155. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Report for the Australian council of learned academies. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30059041. McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED574402. Merrill, C., & Daugherty, J. (2009). The future of TE masters degrees: STEM (Presentation at the 70th Annual International Technology Education Association Conference). Louisville, USA. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_present/91/. Miller, J. D., & Pearson, W., Jr. (2012). Pathways to STEMM professions for students from noncollege homes. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X. 2012.642277. Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. YC Young Children, 65(5), 12–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42730633. Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., & Danaia, L. (2020). Sustaining STEM: A framework for effective STEM education across the learning continuum. In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM education across the learning continuum: Early childhood to senior secondary (pp. 9–28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_2.

References

19

Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, C. (2019). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/147 8210318774190. New South Wales Education Standards Authority. (2018). Support Document for National Program Standard 4.4 Primary Specialisation. https://www.educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/con nect/aafde1d8-76d3-41bf-84cc-4c8d2acc66ad/support-national-program-standard-primary.pdf? MOD=AJPERES&CVID=. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2013). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2013/07/science-techno logy-engineering-and-mathematics-in-the-national-interest-a-strategic-approach. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2014/09/professor-chubb-releases-science-technologyengineering-and-mathematics-australias-future. PwC. (2015). A smart move: Future-proofing Australia’s workforce by growing skills in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/a-smartmove.html. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & V., H. (2007). Science education NOW: A renewed education for the future of Europe. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/ default/files/resources/docs/rapportrocardfinal.pdf. Rosicka, C. (2016). From concept to classroom: Translating STEM education research into practice. http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=professional_dev. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ821633. Sanders, M. (2012). Integrative STEM education as best practice. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of Best Practice in Technology, Design, and Engineering Education (Vol. 2, pp. 103–117). Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Queensland, Australia. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/ bitstream/handle/10919/51563/SandersiSTEMEdBestPractice.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Sharapan, H. (2012). From STEM to STEAM: How early childhood educators can apply Fred Rogers’ approach. YC Young Children, 67(1), 36–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42731124. Sharkawy, A. (2015). Envisioning a career in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Some challenges and possibilities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 657–664. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9636-6. Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u. Siekmann, G. (2016). What is STEM? The need for unpacking its definitions and applications. https://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/publications/all-publications/what-is-stem-theneed-for-unpacking-its-definitions-and-applications. Spang, M., & Bang, M. (2014). Implementing meaningful STEM education with Indigenous students & families. UW Institute for Science + Math Education, Practice Brief 11. http://STE Mteachingtools.org/brief/11. Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.002. Talafian, H., Moy, M. K., Woodard, M. A., & Foster, A. N. (2019). STEM identity exploration through an immersive learning environment. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 105– 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00018-7. University of Tasmania. (2020). Principals as STEM leaders (PASL). Building the evidence base for improved STEM learning. https://www.utas.edu.au/education/research/research-groups/mathseducation/pasl/pasl. Vasquez, J. A. (2014). STEM—Beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10– 15. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec14/vol72/num04/STEM%E2% 80%94Beyond-the-Acronym.aspx.

20

1 STEM in the Early Years: Laying the Foundations

Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Heinemann. Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsch-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Links between spatial and mathematical skills across the preschool years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(1), 1–150. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15405834/2017/ 82/1. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4. Williams, T. (2013). Being diverse in our support for STEM. Young Adult Library Services, 12(1), 24–28. http://leonline.com/yals/12n1_fall2013.pdf. Wyatt, N., & Stolper, D. (2013). Science literacy in Australia. https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/Science-literacy-in-Australia-Wyatt-Stolper/f1d666a4a86dfc4546384d2431505949b196 862a. Yerdelen, S., Kahraman, N., & Tas, Y. (2016). Low socioeconomic status students’ STEM career interest in relation to gender, grade level, and STEM attitude. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13, 59–74. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/623. Zhang, L., & Barnett, M. (2015). How high school students envision their STEM career pathways. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422013-9557-9.

Chapter 2

Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM in the Early Years

2.1 Introduction In this chapter we present and critique a range of research literature regarding early years STEM in relation to pedagogical and social perspectives. We start with a brief positioning of specific discipline research and situate it within the broader STEM domain. As most early childhood educators operate within a sociocultural perspective, we commence with a reflection on social-constructivist approaches to education, based in large part on the work of Vygotsky (1978). Vygotsky emphasised that children’s cognitive skills can be fostered by adults, and the society, more generally, primarily via language. Thus, for Vygotsky, learning is largely dependent on adults (parents, educators) scaffolding and encouraging children’s learning and development. Building upon this work, we present research on what has been described as the “double move” in STEM teaching (Hedegaard, 2002), whereby educators build STEM understanding alongside the daily experiences of children as they encounter STEM topics in their world. Based on our analysis of the research literature, we have discerned several common approaches to the teaching of STEM, including projectbased, problem-based, and inquiry-based learning (see Lowrie et al., 2017a). The benefits and limitations of these approaches, and suggestions as to how the benefits of each approach can be maximised, are discussed. In addition, a number of models for STEM integration—ranging from integration of two or more of the STEM disciplines, to integration of STEM as a composite discipline into English or the Social Sciences for example—are critiqued. As our work is firmly positioned in the early years of schooling, in the final section of this chapter, we investigate intentional teaching and argue for its necessary place in the STEM learning of young children.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 K. Larkin and T. Lowrie, STEM Education in the Early Years, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2810-9_2

21

22

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

2.2 [S, T, E, or M] or [STEM]? Often, an early problem for researchers and educators is determining exactly what STEM means. It is not always apparent whether researchers or educators are discussing STEM in more or less an integrative way, or whether they are using the term “STEM” as a catch-all and are really only interested in the place of Mathematics in STEM or Technology in STEM, etc. Indeed, much of the extant research conducted in the early years refers to one of the STEM disciplines, primarily science or mathematics, but also, on fewer occasions, engineering (Blackley & Howell, 2015). The discipline of Technology seems to be more broadly integrated than the other STEM disciplines, and we discuss why this might be the case in Chap. 3. Where appropriate, we make the call as authors to indicate where we see the applicability of research on one particular discipline being transferable more broadly to other STEM disciplines. For example, Hong and Diamond (2012), in referring to the earlier work of Bredekamp and Rosegrant, state that the goal of early childhood science education should be “to develop each child’s innate curiosity about the world; to broaden each child’s procedural and thinking skills for investigating the world, solving problems, and making decisions; and to increase each child’s knowledge of the natural world” (p. 296). In our view, this goal is equally applicable beyond science to all STEM disciplines. Although our particular interest is with early childhood STEM education, given the lack of dedicated research in this particular domain of education, where necessary in this chapter, we use examples from beyond the early years to clarify a particular perspective. For example, in discussing inquiry learning, we reference the work of Crippen and Archambault (2012) who discussed the topic across the entire school years.

2.3 Vygotsky and Social-Constructivist Approaches to STEM Learning As most early childhood educators approach their educational interactions with children from a social-constructivist perspective, and often use teaching strategies that support children’s learning from a constructivist perspective (Vygotsky, 1978), this section begins with a brief account of Vygotsky’s work. Drawing upon culturalhistorical theory to better understand how very young children develop conceptual understandings in science, Fleer (2009) sought to examine the relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within playful contexts. Fleer found that when educator interactions were oriented towards concept development rather than just the selection of materials, children’s play moved beyond just imaginative play to become more focused on conceptual connections. In terms of mathematics, Starkey et al. (2004) suggest that early mathematical knowledge develops primarily in social settings, with mathematics content, concrete manipulatives, and scaffolding by a more competent agent, typically a parent or educator. In reference back to the work of

2.3 Vygotsky and Social-Constructivist Approaches to STEM Learning

23

Vygotsky, “it was assumed that conceptually grounded learning for each child occurs within the zone of proximal development and that educators need training to scaffold children well in this zone” (Starkey et al., 2004, p. 103). Hong and Diamond (2012) suggest that this scaffolding include “explicitly introducing concepts and vocabulary words to which children may not be familiar, directly asking open-ended and challenging questions, and conducting experiments, along with responsive teaching approaches” (p. 295). Chen and McCray (2014) suggest that constructivist approaches to teaching include child-centred learning, discovery learning, problem-based learning, inquirybased learning, and experiential learning. They see such approaches as examples of “authentic problem solving and acquiring knowledge in information-rich settings” (p. 260). The emphasis in each of these practices is the self-directed activity of learners and the importance of the creation of personal meaning. Kamii (2006), in diverging a little from Vygotsky, claims that while the child needs the presence of adults (or more knowledgeable peers) to interact with to develop conventional mathematics knowledge and skills, an additional source of mathematical understanding is the mental construction process within each individual. Chen and McCray (2014) claim that many early childhood educators support Kamii’s (2006) position for two reasons. First, it resonates with the strong sentiment in the field that play, and selfdirected exploration, are central in young children’s learning. Second, early childhood educators favour social-constructivist approaches over more explicit instruction in their teaching. By way of a specific example of the social-constructivist approach to STEM education, we provide a brief account from a community-based engineering (CBE) project for years 1–5 (see Dalvi & Wendell, 2015). CBE draws inspiration from the social-constructivist idea that “young children construct knowledge through interaction with objects in the environment and from sociocultural learning theories that highlight the role of language, conversation, and meaningful context in young children’s learning” (Dalvi & Wendell, 2015, p. 68). CBE experiences serve three main purposes: to contextualise reasoning about science and mathematics concepts within an engineering design process; to help children connect with peers and community members, and identify themselves as responsible members of their community; and to introduce educators to engineering design and get educator feedback on designing instructions for the CBE approach in classrooms (Dalvi & Wendell, 2015). In summary, social-constructivist preschool educators provide support for and facilitate learning by encouraging children’s self-direction and arranging potential cognitive conflicts without explicitly providing information (Hong & Diamond, 2012). Aspects of working in a social-constructivist way are synonymous with many facets of intentional teaching, a key component underpinning the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (Australian Government Department of Education and Training [DET], 2009). Intentional teaching, as enacted in play-based environments, is discussed in greater depth later in this chapter. In Chap. 4 we return to social-constructivist approaches when we discuss play and STEM.

24

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

2.3.1 The “Double Move” in Teaching A final suggestion relating to Vygotsky and social-constructivist approaches relates to what Hedegaard (2002) and Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) describe as the “double move” in teaching. Although discussed here in terms of science, we propose that this double move is also very relevant in other STEM disciplines, particularly mathematics. Hedegaard (2002) and Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) theorise that educators can effectively bring together everyday knowledge and subject-matter knowledge and suggest that the most powerful learning contexts are those where the educator keeps in mind “everyday concepts” and “scientific concepts” when planning for learning. Fleer (2009) contextualises this for early childhood educators by suggesting that, in their daily activities, they create opportunities for building everyday concepts, and at the same time related scientific concepts. In the double move approach, everyday concepts and scientific concepts are interlaced so that a child’s thinking and practice are transformed. By way of example, learning about insulation by wrapping different materials/fabrics around jars with either cold or warm liquid in them, in order to determine which will stay cooler/warmer the longest, “is only useful if it relates to children’s everyday experiences” (Fleer, 2009, p. 283). Indeed, Vygotsky (1978) has argued that, when children simply learn science concepts at school, often separate from the context in which they will later be used, these scientific ideas are dis-embedded from everyday practice. Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) demonstrated that a program that only focuses on scientific concepts (with no connection to everyday concepts) is not transformative of children’s worlds. Via the double move, everyday concept formation and scientific concept formation are strongly connected to each other such that “everyday concepts grounded in the day-to-day life experiences of children and adults, create the potential for the development of scientific concepts in the context of more formal school experiences” (Fleer, 2009, p. 283). This is evident in the example above when children bring together their working everyday knowledge of “keeping cool or warm” with their scientific knowledge of “insulation”. Hedegaard and Chaiklin (2005) encourage early years educators to have in mind everyday concepts and scientific concepts when building concept formation, and Fleer’s (2009) work provides evidence of how playful learning contexts can generate scientific learning for preschool children.

2.4 Five Approaches to Teaching STEM Extending beyond the more generic research regarding how young children learn STEM in the literature discussed previously, we discuss five broad classes of approaches to STEM education: STEM schools, project-based learning, inquirybased learning, problem-based learning, and integrated STEM education. We now critique each in turn.

2.4 Five Approaches to Teaching STEM

25

2.4.1 STEM Schools According to Peters-Burton et al. (2014), STEM schools aim to change the profile of STEM professionals and encourage children to develop positive attitudes towards STEM education. Means et al. (2016) suggest that children in STEM schools usually have opportunities to undertake courses in supportive environments, with access to practical, real-world, engaging STEM lessons, that can help prepare them for further STEM study at the senior secondary or tertiary levels. As is the case with STEM education more broadly, there is no agreed-upon definition of what a STEM school should comprise (LaForce et al., 2016). However, STEM schools share several common elements, including: the nature of the learning experiences and the pedagogy; incorporating links to real-life skills, the community, and careers; and considerations around staffing and school factors (LaForce et al., 2016). Importantly, discipline knowledge is not a consideration in these key elements, suggesting that it is not the content that is important in STEM education, but rather it is a combination of pedagogical approaches, partnerships, and a focus on real-life connections that is critical (Lowrie et al., 2017a, b). Other key features are approaches that: motivate and encourage children to work together (Morrison et al., 2015); allow children to be in control of their learning (Tofel-Grehl & Callahan, 2014); and provide opportunities to develop reasoning, questioning, and argumentation via an inquiry approach (Morrison et al., 2015; Tofel-Grehl & Callahan, 2014). In our view, the jury is still out in terms of whether STEM schools are the best vehicle for STEM education. Some research indicates better STEM outcomes for children attending STEM schools (see Scott, 2012). However, other researchers argue that outcomes between children attending STEM schools and non-STEM schools are no different (Erdogan & Stuessy, 2015), especially after different student characteristics that may influence performance are factored into the equation (Wiswall et al., 2014). On balance, children who attend a STEM school were found to be more likely to: complete STEM subjects in high school; participate in STEM activities outside of school; express interest in STEM careers (Means et al., 2016); and participate in a STEM-related post-school course or career (Lowrie et al., 2017a, b). STEM schools are not immune to the challenges of STEM education that are present in all schools. The following issues are pertinent for specialised STEM schools: uncertainty about what these schools should include in terms of curriculum, particularly in primary schools (Sikma & Osborne, 2014); challenges associated with planning and assessment, as educators are often uncomfortable with the content they need to teach (Sikma & Osborne, 2014); and differences in standardised assessment expectations and integrated STEM approaches in STEM schools (Tan & Leong, 2014).

26

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

2.4.2 Project-Based Learning (PBL) Lowrie et al. (2017a) indicate that project-based learning (PBL) involves children investigating a particular problem, question, or challenge (usually authentic, engaging, and complex) for a sustained period of time. Key features of this approach include educators ensuring that children are able to engage with authentic problems, where they can make connections to real-world contexts (Estapa & Tank, 2017), and then educators providing children with opportunities to apply the concepts they are learning (Dierdorp et al., 2014). An example of PBL is provided by Kaldi et al. (2011) and involved children completing a unit investigating the life of sea animals and the impact of environmental factors on their habitats. There are many proposed benefits to a PBL approach, outlined in Lowrie et al. (2017a), including: increased student understanding of connections between discipline areas (Estapa & Tank, 2017); improved performance in STEM-related activities (Fan & Yu, 2017; Han et al., 2016); positive changes in perceptions of STEM-related careers and disciplines (Knezek et al., 2013); an appreciation of STEM as comprising skills and practices rather than just content knowledge (Estapa & Tank, 2017); and increased higher-order thinking skills and creativity (Fan & Yu, 2017; Knezek et al., 2013). In terms of the difficulties educators face in utilising PBL, research suggests that many educators have difficulty making connections between the various types of STEM content during lessons (Lowrie et al., 2017a). Given that PBL in STEM has been shown to be successful when supported by professional development (Han et al., 2015; Stearns et al., 2012), appropriate professional development is of fundamental importance in assisting educators to effectively implement PBL (Estapa & Tank, 2017). We discuss professional development in some detail in Chap. 5, and then outline in Chap. 7 how we supported early childhood educators in the Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) Program (see https://elsa.edu.au/).

2.4.3 Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) Descriptions of what inquiry-based learning (IBL) means vary (Bybee, 2010), and these differences are often represented as laying on a continuum from educatordirected to child-centred approaches (Calder et al., 2020). At one end of the continuum, there is minimal inquiry, e.g., where an educator provides explicit instructions on how children are to carry out an experiment or investigation in discovering an outcome. At the other end is an open-ended inquiry where children initiate both their own questions and their own processes to answer those questions. Lowrie et al. (2017a) suggest that an IBL approach to STEM is where children pose problems, ideas, or questions to be investigated (based on their interest), rather than being presented with an activity to complete. In this approach, questioning and creativity

2.4 Five Approaches to Teaching STEM

27

are key to assisting children to solve STEM problems (Hathcock et al., 2015). In addition, physical experiences are an important part of IBL (Perrin, 2004). Educational practices that stem from inquiry-based approaches encourage hands-on activities that allow learners to directly manipulate and engage with the materials and reflect on that experience (Aladé et al., 2016). Physical experiences both aid and constrain interactions with, and reasoning about, phenomena in the world, “that is, our ideas, thoughts, and understandings are shaped by our prior and ongoing physical experiences” (Aladé et al., 2016, p. 435). Fitzgerald (2012) provides a detailed example of IBL in action in a unit of work on Astronomy “Spinning in Space”. In this example Fitzgerald uses a Primary Connections unit, and adjusts it to the needs of her students, by providing a series of prompts for students in groups to investigate—e.g. How does the earth spin? Why does the sun “disappear” at night etc? Grant and Hill (2006) identify a number of stress factors that can be experienced by educators in using an IBL approach. These include negotiating an IBL approach within broader constraints of the learning environment (e.g., curriculum or timetabling requirements) and also the negotiation of new identities in the learning environment where the “recognition and acceptance of new roles and responsibilities on the part of educators and learners” (Grant & Hill, 2006, p. 20) must occur. This leads to a third stress factor, which relates to the comfort level of both educators and children. These factors combined demand, again for both educators and children, “tolerance for ambiguity and flexibility” (Grant & Hill, 2006, p. 22). As noted by Calder et al. (2020) “when educators direct the learning, they are in command of the content being taught and can manipulate the learning directly around curriculum objectives” (p. 273). Lowrie et al. (2017a) report on a range of potential benefits of IBL as reported in the literature: increased student knowledge and skills in STEM subjects (Cotabish et al., 2013; Duran et al., 2014); positive attitudes about STEM and STEM careers (Duran et al., 2014); understanding of how STEM-based activities apply in day-to-day life (Perrin, 2004); and increased problem-solving ability (Hathcock et al., 2015). As was the case with PBL, the potential benefits of IBL can only be attained if educators are appropriately supported in terms of professional development (Cotabish et al., 2013; Crippen & Archambault, 2012).

2.4.4 Problem-Based Learning Problem-based learning approaches to STEM involve children working to solve open-ended problems that relate to their real-life experiences, with the aim of challenging them to think differently to find solutions (English & Mousoulides, 2015). An important component of problem-based STEM projects is ensuring that the problems used have multiple solutions and pathways to success. Approaches such as these enable children to understand how STEM-based knowledge and skills work outside the classroom (English & Mousoulides, 2015). Five examples of PBL are provided

28

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

by Chan (2011), in one example children are required to investigate the relationship between various shaped containers and their volume, and in a second example children investigate the relationship between area and volume. As we have seen with PBL and IBL, a number of limitations exist in relation to problem-based learning, particularly educators’ perceived constraints around its implementation. For example, Asghar et al. (2012) found that the educators in their study felt a problem-based approach wouldn’t work in classrooms due to the discipline-specific classes; organisation of the school; or the changed pedagogical practice this would involve. They also felt constrained by standardised testing, which is often highly discipline-specific in nature. Once again, professional development for educators was considered a critical ingredient in successfully implementing problem-based learning (Asghar et al., 2012).

2.4.5 An Integrated Approach to STEM Education The question of how best to authentically implement STEM in early childhood education remains unclear (Blackley & Sheffield, 2015), and this is an important matter as previous studies have demonstrated that children do not spontaneously integrate knowledge and practices from different disciplines (see Thibaut et al., 2018). Maass et al. (2019) suggest that, while the debate over forms of STEM and STEM integration takes place in a context where it is increasingly understood that STEM in real-life is interdisciplinary in nature, “there is no widely accepted agreement on whether STEM education refers to the promotion of knowledge within individual subjects or to an interdisciplinary approach to instruction” (p. 870). Therefore, given the generally accepted aim of STEM education to support children in connecting key ideas across disciplines (Maass et al., 2019), it is vital that researchers and educators work towards a common understanding of what is meant by STEM education. Such a common understanding often fails at the first hurdle with confusion over the key concepts and terms, making it hard for research and pedagogical implementation to become complementary (Doig & Williams, 2019). At present, much of the research presumes an initial match between the individual “discipline” (i.e., S, T, E, or M) and its school curriculum subject equivalent, with the subsequent assumption that any form of collaboration between subjects is therefore “interdisciplinary”. Doig and Williams (2019) suggest that this might be an example of “curriculum integration” or even “subject integration” but that these understandings “fall short of being interdisciplinarity, i.e. of distinct disciplines working together at some level” (p. 2). For the purposes of our discussion concerning integration, whilst acknowledging the view of Doig and Williams, we take at face value the integration claims of the research that follows. An initial starting point in this discussion is the comprehensive continuum, proposed by Vasquez et al. (2013), which can assist educators in determining the level of integration across STEM disciplines required for their educational purposes. The continuum spans four forms of integration commencing with disciplinary (concepts

2.4 Five Approaches to Teaching STEM

29

and skills are learned within each discipline); then multidisciplinary (concepts and skills are still learned within each discipline but use a common theme); then interdisciplinary (where concepts and skills from two or more disciplines are learned together); to the final transdisciplinary form (where concepts and skills are learned across two or more disciplines but with a focus on real-world problems). According to both Murphy et al. (2020) and Sanders (2009), there is an increase in the level of integration, accompanied by higher interconnection and interdependence among the disciplines as students move along the continuum. Beyond the disciplinary form of integration, educators consider that, in providing STEM experiences, these experiences are more meaningful to children if they no longer stand alone (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Thus, an integrated STEM education can mean that at the multidisciplinary level, educators use a theme, such as water, the environment, or spatial perspectives, to connect the disparate disciplines to the transdisciplinary approach based on a real-world project, such as recycling or energy consumption in an authentic setting (Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Murphy et al., 2020). Hobbs et al. (2018) provide a further example of five different integration approaches, based on the earlier work of Dugger (2010). The five types of integration range, in a similar way to Vasquez et al. (2013) from teachers teaching each discipline separately through to the full integration of all disciplines in a unit of work. Hobbs et al. (2018) also describe a fifth model whereby the unit is integrated, but is taught by a team of discipline experts. Thus, within an overall understanding of STEM, many different conceptions of curriculum integration can exist (Bybee, 2010). What has been less researched, and thus less well-understood, are theoretical frameworks for teaching (and these frameworks are often scant on pedagogical guidelines to support educators’ implementation) (Greca Dufranc et al., 2020). Below, we present a selection of different frameworks for integrating STEM. Such frameworks are helpful in improving the effectiveness of STEM education in meeting the rapid scientific and technological development of modern society (Cheng & So, 2020). Although many of the frameworks are targeted at older STEM learners, and thus will require adaptation for use in the early years, recent research by Tytler et al. (2019) points to the efficiency and effectiveness of utilising frameworks when teaching young children. Greca Dufranc et al., (2020, pp. 2–3) propose a framework based on five considerations. First, integrative STEM education is particularly appropriate for primary/elementary school, given that educators teach most of the subjects to the same class. Second, the framework is based on engineering design methodology, which intertwines the different fields in STEM through real-world problems. Third, integration with other forms of knowledge is central for the scientific processes. Fourth, integration is often underpinned by computational thinking (by means of robotics and/or code learning), an aspect discussed further in Chap. 3, as this is seen as valuable for teaching twenty-first century skills, such as logical thinking, problem solving, and digital competence. The fifth consideration supports gender inclusive teaching (see Chap. 1) and learning activities in the early years. The framework of Moore et al. (2018, p. 14) also includes five salient features: (1) science and mathematics always comprise some of the learning goals with; (2)

30

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

engineering practices or engineering design of technologies serving to integrate the disciplines; (3) the combination of mathematics and science with engineering must include design justification; (4) and underpinning 1–3 is the development of twentyfirst century skills; and (5) this all occurs in an instructional context, requiring solving a real-world problem or task through collaborative groups. Further frameworks are suggested by Zollman (2012) and Asunda (2014). Zollman’s work focuses on STEM literacy for learning and is largely based upon Bloom’s cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning theory domains. Murphy et al. (2020), in reflecting upon Zollman’s work, suggest that a STEM literacy approach views STEM as a meta-discipline “based on the integration of other disciplines into a new whole” with a concurrent reduction in “concern for covering content and an increased emphasis in helping a student learn” (p. 11). Asunda’s (2014) Conceptual Framework for STEM Integration draws together four theoretical constructs: situated learning, constructivism, systems thinking, and goal orientation theory. It primarily advocates for educators to use real-world, problem-based learning experiences, which include design-related components. Regardless of the particular framework, two different sets of researchers, Cheng and So (2020) and Moore et al. (2018), indicate that they often include a combination of a number of basic elements categorised as: • Content integration, referring to integrating different types of content, subject matters, and disciplinary knowledge for multiple STEM learning objectives; • Pedagogical integration, referring to the integration of various pedagogical methods or activities for STEM learning and includes catering for children of diverse abilities and/or special education needs; and • Context integration, referring to situations where the context from one discipline is used for the learning objectives from another. So far the frameworks have focussed on integration within the four STEM disciplines; however, there exists another school of thought that argues for integration of STEM (more or less as a coherent body of knowledge, skills, and dispositions) with other subject areas such as the arts, languages, or social sciences. More recently, this approach to combining STEM with other disciplines has been variously labelled, to name but a few, STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) or STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine) or STEMR (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and reading) education (Lowrie et al., 2017a). We more fully critique this latter approach in the final chapter of this book where we argue for a new understanding of STEM education that moves us beyond the “acronym wars”! Thus, we avoid the necessity of advocating one particular form of integration over another (e.g., integration only within the STEM disciplines or integration of STEM with other subjects). This is because there are concerns that highly integrated STEM education is not ipso facto better than less integration, as children still need to be able to develop the knowledge involved in each individual discipline area (Honey et al., 2014; Lowrie et al., 2017a). In fact, in Chap. 7, we propose a different conception of STEM education for the early years. Here, it is enough to suggest that, regardless

2.4 Five Approaches to Teaching STEM

31

of the exact form of integration, the important consideration is: real-life applications of STEM, as a key component of any integrative approach, should be for children to experience how STEM can be applied in non-school contexts (English, 2017; Honey et al., 2014; Kelley & Knowles, 2016). This is more likely to occur when disciplinary content knowledge is integrated in authentic ways (Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Lowrie et al., 2017a). Of course, the major consideration when planning for integrated STEM education are the learning outcomes the educator wishes to achieve for the children (Honey et al., 2014) since the outcomes intended for children will influence the integration approach. For example, different models of integration are required depending on whether the learning focus will be integrating a process, a method, or content from a specific discipline area into other STEM disciplines or, more broadly, into non-STEM disciplines (Becker & Kyungsuk, 2011). A second major consideration relates to a suitable pedagogical approach to be used in delivering integrated STEM. We take up the issue of supporting educators in the pedagogical delivery of STEM in Chap. 5 when we discuss their professional development needs.

2.4.6 Advantages and Challenges of Integrated STEM Education There are many benefits, identified in the literature, that accompany the use of an integrated approach to STEM education. As summarised in Lowrie et al. (2017a), these benefits include: increased student interest in STEM and STEM-related careers (Becker & Kyungsuk, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; Sanders, 2009); improved student motivation and interest in continuing with STEM education (Honey et al., 2014); stronger links between separate discipline areas (English, 2017); increased learning outcomes and achievement in STEM subjects (Becker & Kyungsuk, 2011; Honey et al., 2014); and increased understanding of how knowledge across each discipline area combines in different careers (English, 2017). It has been argued that children who have a strong foundation in STEM—perhaps due to integrated STEM being seen by them as meaningful, challenging, active, and relevant to real-life situations (Shernoff et al., 2017)—are found to be more effective problem solvers and critical thinkers. Furthermore, the opportunities afforded by STEM education provides the best environment for children to develop a range of what have been described as twenty-first century competencies (Larkin & Miller, 2020; Wing, 2008) such as computational thinking (including coding), critical thinking, and collaboration. While the aims and advantages of an integrated approach to STEM education are noteworthy, there are also some challenges with this approach. These challenges include difficulties learning about the new approach to STEM teaching, applying it across all school levels, planning learning outcomes, issues with separated content knowledge and assessments, and problems with finding a balance between all discipline areas (Lowrie et al., 2017a). Also problematic is the balance of attention to the

32

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

STEM disciplines, with some researchers noting that an integrated approach often results in a loss of focus on each disciplinary area (English, 2017). Typically, the areas of science and technology get more attention (English, 2017; Kelley & Knowles, 2016), with mathematics and engineering often neglected in comparison (English, 2017). An obvious problem is that achieving true integration of each discipline is very difficult, as there are many different ways of approaching STEM integration. A second cluster of concerns for teaching STEM as an integrated body of knowledge relate to what Shulman (1987) described as content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Teaching in an integrated way requires both the development of relevant STEM content knowledge as well as appropriate pedagogical approaches to teaching. Given the relatively new arrival of STEM onto the education scene, these pedagogies are still being developed, and information and resources available to schools regarding integrative approaches to STEM education require further development and communication (Becker & Kyungsuk, 2011; Shernoff et al., 2017). Thus, there are concerns regarding the absence of both a cohesive understanding by educators in respect to what an integrated STEM curriculum involves, as well as inadequate educator knowledge of multidisciplinary STEM content areas (Moore et al., 2018). By way of one example, within the Australian Curriculum, software coding has recently been aligned with the digital technologies area (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2017); however, no guidance is provided to educators as to how this new content can be integrated effectively into existing mathematics or scientific curriculums (Larkin & Miller, 2020). Furthermore, the success of implementation depends on: the beliefs of educators about any new approaches (Becker & Kyungsuk, 2011); local-level support from school administrators (Becker & Kyungsuk, 2011; Clark & Ernst, 2009); as well as more systematic support from educational jurisdictions (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). We return to the critical component of STEM educator knowledge and beliefs in Chap. 5. A third cluster of concerns relates to the various structures in place in different school sectors (early years, primary, secondary, tertiary) that either support or hinder an integrated approach to STEM education. School structures also have a major impact on the delivery of integrative STEM learning at all levels of schooling; however, early childhood and primary school environments are much more suited for integration, as integration can more easily and seamlessly occur across the school day. In fact, we suggest that such integrative teaching is a “signature pedagogy” (Shulman, 1987) for early years and primary school educators. In secondary schools, more detailed planning is required, as the integration needs to occur across different subjects—possibly over several days—and is likely to involve a number of educators. Careful planning is required as each of these approaches involve different resources, considerations, timeframes, challenges, and approaches (Honey et al., 2014; Lowrie et al., 2017a; Shernoff et al., 2017). Research also suggests that an integrated approach to teaching STEM in the younger years appear to be more successful (Becker & Kyungsuk, 2011), as these year levels are less confined by standardised assessments, structural and staffing limitations that are present in secondary schools, and issues of low levels of collaboration among educators (as a consequence of individual educators who strongly

2.5 The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF)

33

self-identify with one particular discipline (Shernoff et al., 2017) rather than with STEM as an integrative pedagogy). However, assessment of an integrated approach to education remains problematic, because children are often assessed at a disciplinespecific level, with limited connection back to the integration they have experienced prior to the assessment (Honey et al., 2014; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Shernoff et al., 2017). The issue of assessment, compounded by the requirements to participate in national assessments that do not focus on STEM, results in many educators struggling with assessment in an integrated approach setting (English, 2017). In summary, while an integrated approach to STEM is generally endorsed in the research literature, issues related to its implementation in schools are still to be fully resolved, and further research is required to fully understand integrated STEM education (English, 2017). Professional development, to assist educators with the challenges they face with integrated STEM education approaches (Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Kennedy & Odell, 2014), is also required. Some possible solutions to these issues are presented in Chap. 5 where, based on research conducted as part of the ELSA Program, we propose a different approach to address the needs of children and educators in STEM education.

2.5 The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) We now turn our attention to the framework (although not specifically a STEM framework) used in Australian early years contexts: the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (DET, 2009). The EYLF is the document most early childhood educators use to plan learning experiences for children, and it is Australia’s first national framework for children’s education from birth to 8 years. It describes the principles, practices, and outcomes that support and enhance young children’s learning, including their transition into formal schooling. Two key features of the EYLF are play-based learning and intentional teaching. Play affords children opportunities to learn as they imagine, create, discover, take risks, and solve problems. As such, play-based learning is where children make sense of their world through interactions with people and objects. Educators can introduce and reinforce concepts through play-based learning in a way that engages children’s interests. Intentional teaching describes the activities of educators when they are deliberate, purposeful, and thoughtful in their decisions and actions. Educators who are intentional “actively promote children’s learning through challenging experiences and interactions that foster high-level thinking skills. They use strategies such as modelling and demonstrating, open questioning, speculating, explaining, engaging in shared thinking and problem solving to extend children’s thinking and learning” (DET, 2009, p. 18). We now address in detail the second of the two twin pillars of the EYLF: intentional teaching. We will save further discussion of play-based learning for Chap. 4, which is dedicated to play and digital play.

34

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

2.6 Intentional Teaching In play-based environments, young children are mentally and physically active, continually building theories about how the world works, and experiencing wonder and curiosity in these experiences (Donegan-Ritter, 2017). Accompanying this, children also benefit from a thoughtful, planned approach to expand their reasoning, and educator support to interpret and communicate their findings. In this section of the chapter, we examine how educators can also be intentional in a more structured way than just guiding children’s play as it unfolds. As indicated in the EYLF, intentional teaching is purposeful, thoughtful, and deliberate teaching (DET, 2009), with an intentional educator being characterised as one who thinks carefully about their actions and the potential effects of those actions (Epstein, 2006). According to Gronlund and Stewart (2011), early childhood educators “are intentional in all they do with and for children. They do not assume that children’s development will happen without support, encouragement, and scaffolding or without presenting appropriate challenges for the children” (p. 28). Peterson and French (2008) argue that “with supportive adult guidance, young children are capable of engaging in complex, collaborative discussions involving prediction, observation, and explanation” (p. 405). Epstein (2006) describes intentional teaching as a blended approach that combines “child-guided” and “adult-guided” learning experiences. Inherent in the term, intentional teaching does not happen by chance; rather, it is “‘planful, thoughtful, and purposeful,’ and the purpose is to achieve specific outcomes or goals for children’s learning and development” (Chen & McCray, 2014, p. 263). Whilst play is rightly considered a paradigm of child-centred activity, the educator has a pivotal role in organising the play environment and leveraging play to help children think about certain ideas, that is, educators play a proactive rather than reactive role in children’s play. Moomaw and Davis (2010) found that guided STEM activities help young children to focus, increase their vocabulary, collaborate with others, and create scientific relationships. Creative Little Scientists (2012) take the strong position that undirected play may not be beneficial for learning; however, they do not encourage educators to direct play, but rather for them to “guide children’s attention to certain ideas through play; for example, by acting as partners with children during play” (p. 26). Cremin et al. (2015) indicate that educators can guide and mediate children’s thinking between everyday concepts, gained through playful interaction and more formal scientific concepts; and also, that such scaffolding can “foster children’s independence as inquirers and problem solvers, their conceptual knowledge, metacognitive strategies, and their creativity” (p. 409). We suggest that such guidance is also helpful with early mathematics, engineering, and technology concepts. Lowrie et al. (2017b) indicate that from an intentional teaching perspective, early childhood educators deliberately plan the types of materials and equipment the children will likely require, and then carefully consider where to place them so children will discover them and use them. However, “the focus of learning remains child-centred, with the educator designing environments around a learning goal to spark children’s curiosity and exploration and providing learning materials to play

2.6 Intentional Teaching

35

with” (Lowrie et al., 2017b, p. 622). MacNaughton and Williams (2008) suggest that intentional educators use a range of teaching techniques including demonstrating, describing, modelling, co-constructing, problem solving, documenting, and scaffolding. Metz (1997) notes that an aversion by some early childhood educators in using “guided play” rather than “free play” is based on an unwarranted assumption that young children are incapable of complex or abstract scientific thinking. Finally, Peterson and French (2008) surmise that this belief about young children’s STEM capabilities might be one reason some preschool educators avoid guided play. From a theoretical perspective, building knowledge through play is evident in the Vygotskian view of learning and development in the early years (Vygotsky, 1978) that we presented at the start of this chapter. From this perspective, guided play is important and requires that the educator plans the activity to a certain degree and guides the course of exploration (Larsson, 2016, 2018). Building upon Vygotsky’s work, Watters and Diezmann (1998) contend that learning occurs with the use of language during play as “truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people, collectively searching for truth in the process of their dialogic interaction” (p. 75); furthermore, “young children are capable of engaging in higher order reasoning beyond that predicted by a Piagetian stage theory” (p. 75). Sumida (2015) has suggested guidelines for intentional teaching in relation to science (and we argue that these are also relevant more broadly for STEM). These guidelines underpinned the delivery of the Kids Academy Science Program Curriculum (a science program for gifted young children implemented in Japan): • Focus on the child’s spontaneity and sense of discovery, and conduct integrated activities using scientific terms correctly; • Include elements that stimulate the child’s creative thinking skills and use materials that are familiar and inexpensive; • Include activities in which children use simple measuring equipment and devices incorporating both group activities and individual activities; • Don’t focus solely on the intellectual aspects of an activity, but also focus on the child’s feelings and emotions; and • Incorporate familiar, seasonal, and local themes and materials, and promote partnerships with families and communities.

2.6.1 Findings Regarding the Impact of Intentional Teaching Research regarding the impact of intentional teaching on the learning of young children is generally positive. Hong and Diamond (2012) have found the combination of implicit and explicit teaching strategies to be more effective in teaching new concepts and vocabulary than implicit teaching strategies alone. Furthermore, evidence suggests that preschool-aged children are capable of learning science concepts and vocabulary and age-appropriate scientific problem-solving skills when appropriate guidance and instruction are provided. In similar research, Aladé et al.

36

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

(2016) report that preschoolers are capable of learning from mediated experiences that are both educational and of high quality, including guided activities using touchscreen devices. We explore the role of touchscreen devices in Chap. 3. Dejonckheere et al. (2016) suggest that guided play should take the form of explorations and that rich learning experiences can best be achieved when “the teacher prepares the environment, direct children’s attention, and encourage children to talk about what was done” (p. 537). Particularly in relation to the development of spatial skills in guided play scenarios, Verdine et al. (2017) and Fisher et al. (2013) conducted research on the implications of guided play in developing spatial reasoning skills. In research with children and parents during free play, guided play, or preassembled play (where parents and children are involved in building structures), they found that parents used more spatial language during the guided play session than the other two conditions. For Verdine et al. (2017), “goal-oriented (i.e. guided) play with spatial assembly toys appears to have two advantages for spatial instruction: (1) It elicits more spatial language than when the play is open-ended; and (2) it focuses both the adult and the child on solving specific problems that require spatial thinking” (p. 14). This is important as “there is evidence that spatial language (i.e., using words like on, in, and under) helps children solve spatial problems and improves spatial skills” (p. 14). Similarly, Fisher et al. (2013) report on research demonstrating that children’s shape knowledge is malleable and influenced by pedagogical experience, and that children in guided play demonstrated improved definitional learning of shapes. They note that “guided play helps direct children’s attention to key defining shape features and prompts deeper conceptual processing” (p. 1877). Furthermore, their research indicated that appropriate scaffolding through dialogic inquiry and engagement facilitates geometric shape learning and that free play alone does not provide sufficient information to help children form specific shape concepts (Fisher et al., 2013). The role of spatial language is critical in children’s development of spatial understanding and is a key STEM Practice (Lowrie et al., 2017a, 2018). Gopnik (2012) addresses the tension between socio-emotional development and cognitive development in the early years sector, where the latter is a clear focus of intentional teaching. Gopnik argues, somewhat provocatively perhaps, that early childhood policymakers and educators often focus on socio-emotional development at the expense of cognitive skills. Policymakers and educators often “acknowledge the importance of the socio-emotional aspect but systematically underestimate the intellectual capabilities of preschoolers” (p. 1627). Importantly, from our perspective, Gopnik is not endorsing explicit teaching interventions and instead notes that “encouraging play, presenting anomalies, and asking for explanations prompt scientific thinking more effectively than direct instruction” (p. 1627). In Chap. 7 we propose two new play-based pedagogical approaches to supporting student learning.

2.6 Intentional Teaching

37

2.6.2 Practical Applications of Intentional Teaching The literature on intentional teaching provides a range of examples, drawn respectively here from the fields of engineering, science, and technology, as to how educators can thoughtfully enable STEM learning in the early years. In terms of engineering and intentional teaching, Ferrara et al. (2011) suggest that educators and parents can be highly effective in facilitating engineering-related interactions if a shared purpose is established through a guided-play scenario. Additionally, both educators and parents regularly need support when it comes to being intentional in interactions with young children about engineering. The research of Bers et al. (2013) and Lippard et al. (2017) also demonstrate that additional learning benefits accrue to young children if educators and parents are provided some training on engineering content prior to meaningful adult–child interactions in engineering contexts. For Lippard et al. (2017), intentionality is the key in promoting children’s engineering thinking in early childhood environments. ScienceStart! (French, 2004) is an example of intentional teaching in science, and starts with the premise that “adult support can help children receive maximum benefit from their activities and that adult guidance can enrich children’s learning while building on their considerable competence and motivation to learn about the everyday world” (p. 140). In ScienceStart!, adult guidance enhances children’s learning in a variety of ways, such as through the sequence of activities, co-planning, scaffolding children’s activities, planful integration, and creating a language-rich classroom environment (French, 2004). Based on research in preschool classrooms, French claims that a focussed and structured approach can “lead to enhanced knowledge about the surrounding world, internalization of a systematic approach to asking and answering questions about ‘how the world works,’ and enhanced development in the critical areas of language and early literacy” (p. 147). Donegan-Ritter (2017) suggests that the clear role of the educator is to “create a rich environment, engage children in inquiry explorations by focusing their observations and focus, and deepen children’s experiences and thinking through questioning” (p. 5). Finally, as young scientists, children need the support of knowledgeable and skillful educators and parents. Hoisington et al. (2014) propose that “children benefit by having educators who intentionally structure and scaffold explorations, integrate hands-on and mindson experiences, and interact with children in ways that support reflection, theory making, and understanding” (p. 72). In the domain of technology, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College (FRC) (2012) henceforth NAEYC and FRC (2012) suggest that technologies are tools that, when used intentionally by early years educators, can promote effective learning and development if it occurs within a framework of developmentally appropriate practice to support learning goals established for individual children. These organisations go on to claim that when used appropriately, technology can “enhance children’s cognitive and social abilities; strengthen

38

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

home–school connections; and enhance early childhood practice when integrated into the environment, curriculum, and daily routines” (NAEYC & FRC, 2012, p. 7). Whilst generally supportive of technology, the NAEYC and FRC (2012) caution against the passive use of digital technology, as “this is an inappropriate replacement for active play, engagement with other children, and interactions with adults” (p. 4). In the ELSA Program, children are seen as an active participants in constructing their knowledge (Lowrie et al., 2019). Thus, the ELSA apps use a play-based approach that affords intentional teaching opportunities. The app activities encourage and support children to discover and learn concepts as well as provide opportunities for educators to plan learning experiences that reinforce and consolidate new knowledge. Particular play-based and intentional-teaching affordances, of our custom-designed apps, are developed further in Chap. 7.

2.7 Conclusion In this chapter we have critiqued a range of research literature in relation to some prominent pedagogical and social perspectives related to early years STEM education. As most early childhood educators operate from a sociocultural perspective, we commenced with a reflection on constructivist approaches to education (Vygotsky, 1978). Building upon this work, we examined what Hedegaard (2002) described as the double move in STEM teaching, whereby educators build STEM understanding alongside the daily experiences of children as they encounter STEM topics in their world. From our analysis of the literature, we then discussed several common approaches to the teaching of STEM, including project-based, problem-based, and inquiry-based learning, as well as models of STEM integration. In the final section of this chapter, we investigated intentional teaching and suggested that it has a vital role to play, alongside play-based learning to be discussed in Chap. 4, in the STEM learning of young children. In the next chapter we focus specifically on the role of digital technologies and their impact in the early years of schooling.

References Aladé, F., Lauricella, A. R., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Wartella, E. (2016). Measuring with Murray: Touchscreen technology and preschoolers’ STEM learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.080 Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 85– 125. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1349 Asunda, P. A. (2014). A conceptual framework for STEM integration into curriculum through career and technical education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 3–15. https://doi. org/10.30707/JSTE49.1Asunda

References

39

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2017). The Australian curriculum: Technologies. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technolog ies/ Australian Government Department of Education and Training (DET). (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. https://www.dese.gov.au/nationalquality-framework-early-childhood-education-and-care/resources/belonging-being-becomingearly-years-learning-framework-australia Becker, K. H., & Kyungsuk, P. (2011). Integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 12(5/6), 23–37. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/ JSTEM/article/view/1509/1394 Bers, M., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. The Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355–377. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ready-for-Robotics%3A-Bringing-Tog ether-the-T-and-E-Bers-Seddighin/38501e91278c089369396e99f723701f7be036b8 Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.8 Blackley, S., & Sheffield, R. (2015). Appraising the E in STEM education: Creative alternatives to “engineering”. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 23(3), 1–10. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229408366.pdf Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898909 Calder, N., Murphy, C., Mansour, N., & Abu-Tineh, A. (2020). Transforming pedagogy in mathematics and science in Qatar: A study of teacher and student perspectives. In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum. Early Childhood to Senior Secondary (pp. 269–292). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98115-2821-7_15 Chan, E. C. M. (2011). Primary 6 students’ attitudes towards mathematical problem-solving in a problem-based learning setting. The Mathematics Educator, 13(1), 15–31. Chen, J.-Q., & McCray, J. (2014). Intentional teaching: Integrating the processes of instruction and construction to promote quality early mathematics education. In U. Kortenkamp, B. Brandt, C. Benz, G. Krummheuer, S. Ladel, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Early Mathematics Learning (pp. 257–274). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4678-1_16 Cheng, Y. C., & So, W. W. M. (2020). Managing STEM learning: A typology and four models of integration. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(6), 1063–1078. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2020-0035 Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. (2009). Gaming research for technology education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 10(1/2), 25–30. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/ article/view/1449/1251 Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Robinson, A., & Hughes, G. (2013). The effects of a STEM intervention on elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. School Science and Mathematics, 113(5), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12023 Creative Little Scientists. (2012). Creative little scientists: Enabling creativity through science and mathematics in preschool and first years of primary education. http://www.creative-littlescientists.eu/sites/default/files/Addendum%201%20Science%20and%20Mathematics%20Ed% 20FINAL.pdf Cremin, T., Glauert, E., Craft, A., Compton, A., & Stylianidou, F. (2015). Creative Little Scientists: Eexploring pedagogical synergies between inquiry-based and creative approaches in early years science. Education 3-13, 43(4), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1020655 Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with technology: A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1/2), 157–173. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.658733

40

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

Dalvi, T., & Wendell, K. (2015). Community-based engineering. Science and Children, 53(1), 67–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43692205 Dejonckheere, P. J., De Wit, N., Van de Keere, K., & Vervaet, S. (2016). Exploring the classroom: Teaching science in early childhood. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(4), 537–558. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1109852.pdf Dierdorp, A., Bakker, A., van Maanen, J. A., & Eijkelhof, H. (2014). Meaningful statistics in professional practices as a bridge between mathematics and science: An evaluation of a design research project. International Journal of STEM Education, 1, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40594-014-0009-1 Doig, B., & Williams, J. (2019). Introduction to interdisciplinary mathematics education. In B. Doig, J. Williams, D. Swanson, R. B. Ferri, & P. Drake. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Mathematics Education: The State of the Art and Beyond (ICME-13 Monographs, pp. 1–6). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42267-1 Donegan-Ritter, M. (2017). STEM for all children: Preschool teachers supporting engagement of children with special needs in physical science learning centers. Young Exceptional Children, 20(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250614566541 Dugger, W. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. In 6th biennial conference on technology education research. Gold Coast, Australia, 8–10 December, 2010. Duran, M., Höft, M., Lawson, D. B., Medjahed, B., & Orady, E. A. (2014). Urban high school students’ IT/STEM learning: Findings from a collaborative inquiry- and design-based afterschool program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10956-013-9457-5 English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-0179802-x English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. G. (2015). Bridging STEM in a real-world problem. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(9), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.20.9. 0532 Epstein, A. S. (2006). The intentional teacher: Choosing the best strategies for young children’s learning. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Erdogan, N., & Stuessy, C. (2015). Examining the role of inclusive STEM schools in the college and career readiness of students in the United States: A multi-group analysis on the outcome of student achievement. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(6), 1517–1529. Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary classroom: A professional development approach centered on an engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0058-3 Fan, S.-C., & Yu, K.-C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lam, W. S. (2011). Block talk: Spatial language during block play. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(3), 143–151. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01122.x Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers’ acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child Development, 84(6), 1872–1878. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12091 Fitzgerald, A. (2012). Science in primary schools: Examining the practices of effective primary Science teachers. Sense Publishers. Fleer, M. (2009). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 281–306. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9085-x French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.004

References

41

Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children: Theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science, 337(6102), 1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122 3416 Grant, M. M., & Hill, J. R. (2006). Weighing the risks with the rewards: Implementing studentcentered pedagogy within high stakes testing. In R. Lambert, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability (pp. 19–42). Information Age Press. https:// www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=18&p=1-59311-474-5 Greca Dufranc, I. M., García Terceño, E. M., Fridberg, M., Cronquist, B., & Redfors, A. (2020). Robotics and early-years STEM education: The botSTEM framework and activities. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), Article 01. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/7948 Gronlund, G., & Stewart, K. (2011). Intentionality in action. A strategy that benefits preschoolers and teachers. YC Young Children, 66(6), 28–33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731097 Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0 Han, S., Rosli, R., Capraro, M., & Capraro, R. (2016). The effect of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) project based learning (PBL) on students’ achievement in four mathematics topics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13, 3–29. https://tused.org/index.php/ tused/article/view/554 Hathcock, S. J., Dickerson, D. L., Eckhoff, A., & Katsioloudis, P. (2015). Scaffolding for creative product possibilities in a design-based STEM activity. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 727–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9437-7 Hedegaard, M., & Chaiklin, S. (2005). Radical-local teaching and learning. Aarhus University Press. Hedegaard, M. (2002). Learning and child development. Aarhus University Press. Hobbs, L., Clark, J., & Plant, B. (2018). Successful students—STEM program: Teacher learning through a multifaceted vision for STEM education. In R. Jorgensen & K. Larkin (Eds.), STEM education in the junior secondary: The state of play (pp. 133–168). Springer Singapore. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5448-8_8 Hoisington, C., Chalufour, I., Winokur, J., & Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2014). Preschool: Promoting children’s science inquiry and learning through water investigations. YC Young Children, 69(4), 72–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren.69.4.72 Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612 Hong, S.-Y., & Diamond, K. E. (2012). Two approaches to teaching young children science concepts, vocabulary, and scientific problem-solving skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.09.006 Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D., & Govaris, C. (2011). Project-based learning in primary schools: effects on pupils’ learning and attitudes. Education 3-13, 39(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/030042 70903179538 Kamii, C. (2006). Measurement of length: How can we teach it better? Teaching Children Mathematics, 13(3), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.13.3.0154 Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-0160046-z Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044508.pdf Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2013). Impact of environmental power monitoring activities on middle school student perceptions of STEM. Science Education International, 24(1), 98–123. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015828.pdf

42

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

LaForce, M., Noble, E., King, H., Century, J., Blackwell, C., Holt, S., . . . & Loo, S. (2016). The eight essential elements of inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(21), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0054-z Larkin, K., & Miller, J. (2020). Digital technologies and numeracy—Synergy or discord? In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM education across the learning continuum (pp. 137–154). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_8 Larsson, J. (2016). Emergent science in preschool: The case of floating and sinking. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(3), 16–32. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1138767. pdf Larsson, J. (2018). Grasping the essence of a science activity by using a model of pedagogical reasoning and action. Education 3-13, 46(7), 770–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2017. 1354903 Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., & Riley, K. L. (2017). Engineering thinking in prekindergarten children: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20174 Lowrie, T., Downes, N., & Leonard, S. N. (2017a). STEM education for all young Australians: A bright spots STEM learning hub foundation paper, for SVA, in partnership with Samsung. https:// www.socialventures.com.au/assets/STEM-education-for-all-young-Australians-Smaller.pdf Lowrie, T., Logan, T., & Larkin, K. (2017b). The “math” in STEM practices: The role of spatial reasoning in the early years. In A. Downton, S. Livy, & J. Hall (Eds.), 40 years on: We are still learning! Proceedings of the 40th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 625–628). MERGA. Lowrie, T., Leonard, S., & Fitzgerald, R. (2018). STEM practices: A translational framework for large-scale STEM education design. EDeR, Educational Design Research, 2(1), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.15460/eder.2.1.1243 Lowrie, T., Larkin, K., & Logan, T. (2019). STEM and digital technologies in play based environments: A new approach. In G. Hine, S. Blackley, & A. Cooke (Eds.), Mathematics education research: Impacting practice. Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 68–80). MERGA. Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(6), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858019-01100-5 MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2008). Techniques for teaching young children: Choices for theory and practice. Pearson Education Australia. Means, B., Wang, H., Young, V., Peters, V. L., & Lynch, S. J. (2016). STEM-focused high schools as a strategy for enhancing readiness for postsecondary STEM programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 709–736. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21313 Metz, K. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive development research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.3102/003 46543067001151 Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. YC Young Children, 65(5), 12–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42730633 Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., & English, L. (2018). Engineering in the early grades: Harnessing children’s natural ways of thinking. In L. English, & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning, early mathematics learning and development (pp. 9–18). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-10-8621-2_2 Morrison, J., McDuffie, A. R., & French, B. (2015). Identifying key components of teaching and learning in a STEM school. School Science and Mathematics, 115(5), 244–255. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ssm.12126 Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., & Danaia, L. (2020). Sustaining STEM: A framework for effective STEM education across the learning continuum. In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM education across the learning continuum: Early childhood to senior secondary (pp. 9–28). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_2

References

43

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College (FRC). (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/top ics/PS_technology_WEB.pdf Perrin, M. (2004). Inquiry-based pre-engineering activities for K-4 students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 5(3/4), 29–34. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/ article/view/1127/982 Peters-Burton, E. E., Lynch, S. J., Behrend, T. S., & Means, B. B. (2014). Inclusive STEM high school design: 10 critical components. Theory Into Practice, 53(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00405841.2014.862125 Peterson, S. M., & French, L. (2008). Supporting young children’s explanations through inquiry science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(3), 395–408. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecresq.2008.01.003 Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ821633 Scott, C. (2012). An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) focused high schools in the U.S. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 30–39. Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40 594-017-0068-1 Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 Sikma, L., & Osborne, M. (2014). Conflicts in developing an elementary STEM magnet school. Theory Into Practice, 53(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862112 Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.002 Stearns, L. M., Morgan, J., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2012). A teacher observation instrument for PBL classroom instruction. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 13(3), 7–16. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1612/1459 Sumida, M. (2015). Kids Science Academy: Talent development in STEM from the early childhood years. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Science Education in East Asia: Pedagogical Innovations and Research-informed Practices (pp. 269–295). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31916390-1_10 Tan, A. L., & Leong, W. F. (2014). Mapping curriculum innovation in STEM schools to assessment requirements: Tensions and dilemmas. Theory Into Practice, 53(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00405841.2014.862113 Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525 Tofel-Grehl, C., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). STEM high school communities: Common and differing features. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1 4539156 Tytler, R., Williams, G., Hobbs, L., & Anderson, J. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for a STEM interdisciplinary agenda. In B. Doig, J. Williams, D. Swanson, R. B. Ferri, & P. Drake (Eds.), Interdisciplinary mathematics education: The state of the art and beyond. ICME-13 Monographs (pp. 51–81). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11066-6_5

44

2 Pedagogical and Social Perspectives to Teaching STEM …

Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Heinemann. Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsch-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Links between spatial and mathematical skills across the preschool years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(1), 1–150. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15405834/2017/ 82/1 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (1998). “This is nothing like school”: Discourse and the social environment as key components in learning science. Early Child Development and Care, 140(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443981400106 Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008. 0118 Wiswall, M., Stiefel, L., Schwartz, A. E., & Boccardo, J. (2014). Does attending a STEM high school improve student performance? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 40, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.01.005 Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x

Chapter 3

Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

3.1 Introduction In this chapter we critique a range of literature related to digital technologies1 and their impact in the early years of schooling. First, we examine the impact of digital technologies on young children in general, including issues of access and the overall impact of digital technologies. We then turn our attention to a specific focus on tablets, the increasingly prevalent technology used by young children, to: analyse its impact on young children; discuss how pedagogically thoughtful app design can maximise the benefits of tablet use and then address the issue of screen time. In the second section of the chapter, we briefly examine computational thinking and how it can be supported by technology (tablets and robotics). It is worth noting the literature discussed in this chapter predates COVID-19, and thus we do not discuss online learning in this chapter. In future publications we will discuss how the Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) Program pivoted online to address the professional development needs of the educators in the program.

3.2 Access to Digital Technologies There is little doubt that today’s children (birth to 8 years old), particularly in more affluent countries around the world “are growing up in a rapidly changing digital age, with a wide variety of technologies in our homes, schools and our society more broadly, that is far different from that of their parents and grandparents” (National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College (FRC), 2012, p. 1 [henceforth (NAEYC & FRC, 2012)]). A study in the United States 1

Unless otherwise indicated, when we use the term “digital technologies”, we mean the tools that children use to play and learn, and when we capitalise the term, it will indicate curriculum content.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 K. Larkin and T. Lowrie, STEM Education in the Early Years, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2810-9_3

45

46

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

conducted by Common Sense Media (2013), on a nationally representative survey of 1463 children of all ages, found that two-thirds of the sample had access to a console video game player at home, and 35% had access to a handheld game player, such as a Game Boy, PlayStation Portable (PSP), or Nintendo DS. Additionally, there has been a five-fold increase in ownership of tablet devices, such as iPads, from 8% of all families in 2011 to 40% in 2013 (Common Sense Media, 2013), with this upward trend likely to have continued since then. In addition to these screenbased technologies, new tangible technologies, such as robotics kits, have also been growing in popularity with young children during the past few years (Pugnali et al., 2017). Kazakoff and Bers (2014) also support the claim of more widespread use of technology and provide a snapshot of digital technology use in the United States, reporting that: 75% of all U.S. households have broadband Internet access; 84% of households have some access to the Internet; 93% of children 6–7 years of age live in a home with a cell phone; 19% of children in grades K–2 have access to cell phones with Internet connectivity; 32% of children in grades K–2 have access to an MP3 player; 53% of children in grades K–2 have access to a desktop computer; and 31% have access to a laptop. Surveys conducted by Geist (2014) reveal that “while many children ages 2 and 3 are not yet able to swim, tie their shoelaces, or make breakfast unaided, they do know how to turn a computer on and off and navigate with a mouse” (p. 58). In addition, 44% of 2- or 3-year-olds can play a basic online computer game, and one-quarter can use a cell phone to make a call. Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson (2011) report that about “67% of nursery school children, 80% of children in kindergarten, and over 90% of first graders use computers and know how to log on to the Internet” (p. 179).

3.3 The Educational Effects of Digital Technology Fortunately, given the wide saturation of digital technology in the early years, for the most part the research suggests positive outcomes regarding its use. In this section we focus on findings from research on non-tablet technologies (the impact of tablet use is considered later in this chapter). Overall, digital technologies have been shown to promote thinking, improve problem solving, facilitate resource utilisation, and support cognitive and metacognitive processes (Parette et al., 2013). In addition, the attitudinal advantage is that the motivating aspect of digital technology leads to higher levels of engagement in, and enthusiasm for, learning activities (Wang et al., 2009). Kermani and Aldemir (2015) summarise several research studies indicating that digital technologies can aid young children’s inquiry-based learning, allowing access to a variety of resources online and leveraging children’s cognitive understanding and collaborative skills. Lyons and Tredwell (2015) report that “when technology is integrated into the curriculum young children experience: (a) better language and literacy outcomes; (b) increased mathematics concepts with adult support (see also Clements & Sarama, 2007); (c) gains

3.3 The Educational Effects of Digital Technology

47

in vocabulary and phonological awareness; and (d) ease of use with the newest technologies” (p. 153). Interestingly, and perhaps contrary to possible (mis)perceptions of digital technology use held by some in the early years domain, Fleer (2017) found that “children’s engagement with digital devices can make a positive contribution to children’s capacity to imagine” (p. 224). The multimodality of digital technologies is also important for student learning; indeed, it is recognised by Yelland and Gilbert (2017) as one of the distinguishing characteristics of twenty-first century learning. From their perspective, young learners benefit from being able to explore concepts in a range of modalities and use different forms of representations to express their ideas. In a similar vein, Aladé et al. (2016) present research indicating that “children are better able to learn science and mathematics concepts when they are presented in multiple modalities” (p. 435), as technology adds haptic modality (i.e., the use of the sense of touch) to their learning experiences. They also state that this is critical for projects that focus on STEM concepts, including our ELSA Pilot Program discussed in detail in Chap. 7, as haptic feedback (e.g., vibrations) “provides more of a ‘real-life’ experience and a more immersive learning environment” (Aladé et al., 2016, p. 435). Plowman and McPake (2013) found that educational gains were made when children used digital technology, including “the acquisition of basic operational skills (such as learning to use a mouse); certain learning dispositions (such as taking turns); and the learning arising from the content (such as basic number games)” (p. 31). A second major strand of research, largely but not exclusively focussed on mathematics, relates to the use of virtual manipulatives. Virtual manipulatives are a type of software that can be defined as an “interactive, Web-based visual representation of a dynamic object” (Moyer-Packenham & Bolyard, 2016, p. 13). These technologies are valuable because “they afford embodied interaction, tangible manipulation, and physical mediation of digital data” (Fleer, 2017, p. 224). Virtual manipulatives (and dynamic interactive software) can support young children to create mathematical representations, and with appropriate educator scaffolding, they can become powerful mathematical tools (Clements & Sarama, 2007; Highfield & Mulligan, 2007). Other contemporary research on the usefulness of manipulatives focusses on STEM education in pre-kindergarten. Sullivan et al. (2013) found that the design features of certain types of technology promote social development. Furthermore, their research demonstrated that computer-based manipulatives can serve as a catalyst for social interaction and that the children in their research had twice as many verbal interactions in front of the computer than when they were doing other activities, such as solving puzzles. A related, interesting finding is that children were also “more likely to go to their peers for help when using the computer, even when an adult is present, thus increasing the amount of peer collaboration in the classroom” (p. 204). Towards the end of this chapter, we further discuss the role of robots as potentially appropriate physical (or physical/virtual manipulatives) for STEM learning.

48

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

3.4 Specific Impact of Tablets Thus far we have discussed research regarding digital technologies excluding tablets. Given the explosion of tablet usage in the last 5–10 years (Larkin, 2015), it is important to consider their impact separately. Therefore, in this section we discuss research from Australia and overseas on tablet topics including access, benefits of use, screen time, and guidelines for the design of appropriate apps. The role of tablets in children’s play is discussed in Chap. 4. For the purposes of this discussion, the term “tablets” refers to any handheld device with touchscreen capability.

3.4.1 Access to Tablets and Apps A wide range of research has reported on the growing level of access to tablets by young children under the age of 8. The vast majority of children in the developed world, regardless of their ethnic or socio-economic background, have access to a tablet (Kyriakides et al., 2016). Compared to other digital technologies (e.g., laptops, personal computers), tablets are by far the most popular among young children—and this trend is growing rapidly (Larkin & Milford, 2018; Ofcom, 2019; Papadakis et al., 2018). Common Sense Media (2013) found a five-fold increase in ownership of tablets in the United States from 8% of all families in 2011, to 40% in 2013. Marsh et al. (2018) found that, in a study of 350 children in the United States aged from 6 months to 4 years, 96.6% of them used tablets, and most started using them before the age of 1. In the United Kingdom, Ofcom (2019) has reported that 50% of 10-year-old children had their own smartphone, and 90% of children aged 5–15 regularly use the Internet, with one in five of this age group having their own tablet. In terms of how they access the Internet, 68% of children primarily use a tablet, 55% primarily a laptop or mobile phone, and 27% primarily a games console, with smaller percentages primarily accessing the Internet with a Smart TV or desktop computers. In Australia, 97% of households with children reported access to the Internet, with many using tablets (86%) (Miller et al., 2017). This finding is supported by Edwards et al. (2018), who report that approximately one-third of children aged 0–5 in Australia have access to their own touchscreen device. Part of the reason for high levels of access to tablets for children under 8, even from low-income families, occurs because of a “pass-back effect” (Common Sense Media, 2013). The pass-back effect happens when parents or adults pass their own device to a child to keep them busy, for example, in a car or restaurant. These new devices are now being used as “digital pacifiers”, as parents often tend to offer such devices as a reward for children’s good behaviour (Papadakis et al., 2018). Tablets have also rapidly found their way into preschools, with 55% of preschool educators in a survey by Schacter and Jo (2016) reporting that they have at least one tablet in their classroom.

3.4 Specific Impact of Tablets

49

Access to apps (here considered as software designed for a single purpose and used on a portable device) is growing concurrently (Nadworny, 2017). Various estimates of the numbers of available apps are staggering. As of December 2020, there were just over 393,000 “educational” apps on the App Store (PocketGamer.biz, 2020). In terms of the Google Play Store, 2018 data indicated that Android device users could choose from 2.2 million apps (all apps), with almost 1000 new applications added everyday (Papadakis et al., 2018). A large percentage of these Android apps are labelled as educational and thus are apparently suitable for use in educational settings with children. Likewise, in terms of the App Store, data from Common Sense Media (2013) shows that over 80% of the top-selling paid apps in the Education category of the App Store target children. In 2009, almost half (47%) of the top-selling apps targeted preschool- or elementary-aged children and that number had increased to almost three-quarters (72%) in 2013. According to their data, the most popular age category (58%) was marketed towards toddlers/preschoolers; this age category also experienced the greatest growth (23%). General early learning was the most popular subject (47%).

3.4.2 Ease of Use of Tablets An obvious factor in the rapid expansion of tablet use by young children is their ease of use, both in terms of apps that they can play and also access to Internet based content such as YouTube, and this is challenging the way that educators might think about technology use by young children (Shuler et al., 2012). The NAEYC and FRC (2012) indicate that “mobile, multitouch screens and newer technologies have changed the way our youngest children interact with images, sounds, and ideas” (p. 6), and further studies suggest that children as young as 2 years old can easily interact with touchscreen technology (Geist, 2014). The intuitive interface of a tablet, the ease of installing new apps, increased portability, and enhanced autonomy in their use are some of the features that minimise technical challenges for young children, and thus have likely contributed to their growing popularity among preschool children (Papadakis et al., 2018). Couse and Chen (2010) report that the young children in their research (aged between 3 and 6) were able to quickly learn to use the tablet as a medium for representing their ideas and learning, concluding that tablets “appear to be a viable tool to offer young children for representing their ideas in the early childhood classroom” (p. 92). As many preschoolers have not sufficiently developed the fine motor skills required to handle conventional computer peripherals (such as mice and keyboards), tablets are an attractive tool to implement educational activities for this age group (Aladé et al., 2016). Based on their research, Yelland and Gilbert (2014, 2017) suggest that children like the modality of the tablet technology because they can receive an immediate cause-and-effect response in some mode (e.g., visual, aural, or linguistic). In addition,

50

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

quality apps provide a context in which the children can interact with other children as well as with adults (Yelland & Gilbert, 2017), especially given the observation that touchscreen technology enables young children to engage with apps in a relatively easy manner (Manches & Plowman, 2017). While generally easy to use, research by Cohen et al. (2011) indicates some negative aspects of tablet use, including: “unclear, unfriendly or unresponsive user interfaces; game play that lacks reward or feedback; obscure learning objectives with too many distractions; and Apps that lack ‘palm rest’, where buttons trigger themselves if accidentally touched within the play area” (p. 11). Despite these limitations, national and international research has shown that preschool-age children can handle the apps for such devices relatively easily (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015), and tablets have been described as particularly suitable for early childhood (Papadakis et al., 2018).

3.4.3 Impacts of the Use of Tablets There is a range of research available outlining the impact of tablets on the learning of young children (Attard & Curry, 2012; Larkin, 2015), and how their use can facilitate inquiry-based learning and collaboration, and enhance problem solving and cognitive understanding (Shifflet et al., 2012). Papadakis et al. (2018) indicate that, “tablets can serve as an important tool to improve learning and teaching, allowing preschool children to explore advanced concepts once thought to be very demanding and incompatible to that age group” (p. 140). These improvements can broadly be categorised as cognitive or socio-emotional. In terms of cognitive benefits, research indicates positive learning outcomes for preschoolers from the use of new digital technologies in specific learning areas, such as for literacy (Hatzigianni et al., 2018) and numeracy (Sinclair et al., 2016). An investigation of tablet use by preschoolers in Australia found that children could transfer what they learned about solving a problem (Tower of Hanoi) on a tablet to physical objects, and that mathematics apps significantly improved young children’s mathematics achievement (Schacter & Jo, 2016). Larkin (2016) and Larkin et al. (2019) suggest that apps seem ideal to present mathematical models and manipulatives to support mathematical play, exploration, and sense-making—both in the classroom and at home. A range of research also suggests positive affective outcomes from using tablets. Shifflet et al. (2012) found that preschool children using tablets were more cooperative and that their use fostered social skills. Lyons and Tredwell (2015) note that children in their study were collaborative; they created shared art works; and, importantly, for our conception of tablet use, “the children still wanted to engage in hands-on play activities once the newness of the tablet wore off; and understood the difference between virtual and real, still wanting to engage in real-life experiences in the classroom” (p. 153). Yelland and Gilbert (2017), in a series of case studies, found that children using the tablets were creative, used critical thinking skills, collaborated, and were then able to communicate their ideas to others. They go on to note

3.5 Information Regarding Quality Apps

51

that these are essential elements of twenty-first century schooling, which support both knowledge creation, as well as the exploration of existing knowledge. Another positive outcome from tablet use that has been found is an increase in language use, as playing with tablets creates opportunities for conversations between children, and also between adults and children. Yelland and Gilbert (2017) note that 2year-olds do not typically share their play materials and play in parallel to their peers when in groups. However, their observations revealed that when a child was playing with an iPad, there were some occasions when another child would come over to see what was going on and they would interact, both verbally and non-verbally. They concluded that this was unique to iPad play (Yelland & Gilbert, 2017). Yelland and Gilbert (2013) investigated the use of tablets in a play-based kindergarten program and found that the tablets just became one of the options that children could select for an activity. Having a tablet as part of a play-based program created a large variety of contexts for learning about things, people, and ideas. The role of tablets in play is further explored in: Chap. 4, where new conceptions of play, that have developed because of the availability of tablets, are discussed; and Chap. 7, where we propose new ways of imagining the role of apps in the early years.

3.5 Information Regarding Quality Apps An important consideration in determining whether tablet use is appropriate for young children is the availability (or lack thereof) of quality apps. Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015) paint a somewhat challenging scenario where they see children as being in the “midst of a vast, unplanned experiment, surrounded by digital technologies that were not available but 5 years ago. At the apex of this boom is the introduction of applications (‘apps’) for tablets” (p. 3). Although the access to apps is growing exponentially, information about the quality of apps is not keeping pace (Larkin et al., 2019). To compound the issue of educators being unable to easily decide on the appropriateness of an app from the multitudes available, various researchers have also found that the information available about apps are of poor quality, which can be largely labelled as “infomercials” at both the App Store and Google Play Store (Larkin, 2015). In terms of quality, Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015) found that most of the apps they reviewed were based on behavioural theories and were simple drill-and-practice, flash card-based, or game-based apps, which—although fun to play (see Kawka & Larkin, 2018)—are unlikely to encourage authentic learning. Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015) further found that many apps are based on transmission models that promote rote learning of knowledge without any focus on promoting a deeper conceptual understanding of emerging concepts and complex processes. Papadakis et al. (2017) found that many apps were little more than digital worksheets or puzzles and “had interactive yet repetitive game formats with ‘closed’ content … that primarily gamified literacy and numeracy-oriented apps with content presented as a series of interactive tasks, the

52

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

completion of which is recognized and rewarded with animated multimedia tokens of achievement” (Section 1.1, para 2). In relation to the availability of information, Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015) and Larkin (2014) report that the daily availability of hundreds of new apps prevents researchers, educators, and parents from systematically assessing new apps entering the digital market. Papadakis et al. (2018) write that “the popularity of apps in the digital app stores bears little relation to their real educational value, as popularity is based on subjective classifications (users’ comments and a five-star rating system), rather than on objective and clearly defined criteria” (p. 143). Kissane (2011), in relation to evaluations of mathematics apps, indicates that the lack of educational background or expertise of the app developers have resulted in apps that are not “pedagogically sound or even mathematically interesting” (p. 932). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on Communications and Media (2016) (henceforth AAP, 2016) were similarly underwhelmed, writing that “most apps parents find under the ‘educational’ category in app stores have no such evidence of efficacy, target only rote academic skills, are not based on established curricula, and use little or no input from developmental specialists or educators” (p. 2). A similar set of issues exists in the subset of apps for preschoolers, with Kucirkova (2017) finding that many apps, advertised as ‘educational’, were anything but. (Larkin, 2016), Larkin and Milford (2018) and Papadakis et al. (2018) have all identified that this is a significant issue, given that parents, and many educators, will use the product descriptions at either the App Store or Google Play Store as the primary, and perhaps only, indicator of app quality. Although predating the advent of apps, in our view the concerns of Haugland (1999) regarding computer software remain applicable. Haugland noted that computer software (and we argue also tablet apps) are marketed to parents as a way for their children to accelerate their learning. Their use results in one of two consequences (or indeed both): “children will become frustrated and not use the software; or children will use the software and only rote learning will occur. Their retention of the concepts is poor as well as their ability to apply the concepts to off computer activities” (Haugland, 1999, p. 245). Based on their evaluation of apps available for Greek preschoolers, Papadakis et al. (2018) indicate that “in accordance with existing studies (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Larkin, 2013) we found that the design of all the apps we reviewed have inadequacies in representing the accuracy and richness of the educational content” (p. 155). In response to the lack of quality apps, and the lack of quality evaluations of apps, researchers have generally had two responses: the creation of various forms of evaluative tools; and the creation of custom-designed, educationally robust apps that are based on strong pedagogical foundations. For the purposes of this chapter, an educational app is one with which children “are cognitively active and engaged, when learning experiences are meaningful and socially interactive, and when learning is guided by a specific goal” (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015, p. 5).

3.6 Evaluation Tools

53

3.6 Evaluation Tools Papadakis et al. (2018) frame the importance of evaluation tools indicating that educational apps “did not necessarily meet the changing needs and the new aspirations of the new digital generation” (p. 141). Likewise, Goodwin and Highfield (2013) highlight the need, in this instance in mathematics, for a “systematic examination of the potential affordances and impact of the available mathematical multimedia on young children’s learning … to identify various multimedia attributes for mathematics learning” (p. 206). We suggest that this “need” applies equally to all STEM apps, and this need has been responded to in two different ways.

3.6.1 Methodologies for Evaluating Apps In one type of response, various researchers have proposed their own methodologies for evaluating the quality of existing apps; what follows is a non-exhaustive selection of the methodologies. Howard (2008, p. 35) categorises the usefulness of tablets, according to six criteria: Knowledge and Comprehension; Interactive Technologies and Problem Solving; Product-Creation; Efficiency and Productivity; Communication and Collaboration; and Technology Tutors. Handal et al. (2016) use the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework in collaboration with Bloom’s Taxonomy to evaluate the perceived usefulness of mathematical apps. A holistic approach for evaluating apps is offered by Atweh and Bland (2005) via the Productive Pedagogies Framework (PPF). There are four dimensions within the PPF: Intellectual Quality, Supportive School Environment, Recognition of Difference, and Relevance. Although the PPF was initially designed to support student learning via effective pedagogical practices by educators, it is also a useful framework to evaluate the potential of educational applications to support student learning (Atweh & Bland, 2005). These dimensions were used in the research of Larkin (2015) in his evaluation of approximately 200 apps for young children. These various evaluative frameworks are useful in assisting early childhood educators in the selection of appropriate apps that promote active play.

3.6.2 Design Principles for the Creation of Quality Apps In a second type of response—to address the crisis of poor quality apps—educational researchers have begun to create their own apps. The design and development of apps is initially problematic from a cost perspective. Yarmosh (2015) indicates that the cost of designing and developing apps, which have a complex and adaptable interface and user-specific content, ranges from around US$250,000 to $1.5 million (with the mean cost being around US$270,000). Even simple apps that use standard components

54

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

and custom graphics may have a design and development cost ranging between US$1000 and $10,000. Additionally, if the app supports cloud-based and social media services, frequent upgrades, and error correction, the design and development cost rises exponentially. Consequently, instead of this costly exercise, many app designers value a volume model where apps are cheaply made, and cheaply sold, with the anticipation of a large quantity of downloads. For example, the mean price of educational apps is US$1.02 (Papadakis et al., 2018), making it unlikely that they will be of high quality. Once the decision has been taken to design and develop an educational app, the next task is to do so using educational principles. Verdine et al. (2017) caution that digital technology must be designed and developed carefully for use with preschoolers, indicating that “besides providing age-appropriate content, the technology must respond to the learner’s input contingently, adjust the level of instruction to scaffold the experience, and have an intuitive interface” (p. 5). Although various app designers have proposed a range of design principles to ensure compatibility with the learning needs of young children—e.g., Pelton and Francis Pelton (2011) and Aronin and Floyd (2013)—arguably the most influential is the “The Four Pillars: Where the Science of Learning Meets App Development and Design” approach taken by Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015). These researchers argue that several well-agreed-upon pillars of learning, at the core of the learning sciences, have remained steady through the decades. According to Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015), “humans learn best when they are: actively involved (‘minds-on’); engaged with the learning materials and undistracted by peripheral elements; have meaningful experiences that relate to their lives; and socially interact with others in high-quality ways around new material, within a context that provides a clear learning goal” (p. 7). Irrespective of the exact form the app design principles take, “researchers, educators, mobile developers, and designers must ensure that the applications aimed at young children have a solid theoretical basis and follow high-quality standards so as to contribute efficiently to the progress of young children’s development” (Papadakis et al., 2018, p. 157). In Chap. 7 we report on how we used a variety of these design principles in the creation of six apps to support children’s STEM learning in the ELSA Program.

3.7 Screen Time and Its Impact on Young Children Any discussion of young children’s use of digital technologies, especially tablets, almost inevitably leads to a discussion on “screen time”. Data from Australia and overseas is used to frame our approach to this issue. An initial problem occurs when trying to define what screen time is, “as children now have access to an ever-expanding selection of screens on computers, tablets, smartphones, handheld gaming devices, portable video players, digital cameras, video recorders, and more” (NAEYC & FRC, 2012, p. 3). In a report for the Royal College for Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), Viner et al. (2019) indicates that current research into screen time can be a

3.7 Screen Time and Its Impact on Young Children

55

little misleading, as young people’s “use of screens is evolving so rapidly (e.g., social media, homework, mobile devices) and the majority of the literature deals only with television screen time” (p. 2). For our purposes here, screen time is the total amount of time spent in front of any digital screen. It is reasonable to claim that there is a level of moral panic regarding screen time, with it being cited in the media as the cause of a range of problems such as obesity, mental health problems and educational failure (Viner et al., 2019). However, the evidence base for a direct “toxic” effect has always been contested; there is little data supporting the notion that time spent with new technologies detracts from engaging in “traditional” play activities (Yelland & Gilbert, 2013). Viner et al. (2019) notes that “it is clear that trends towards poorer mental health amongst young people in the United Kingdom were evident before the advent of social media and digital technologies” (p. 2). The negative effects of screen time are also based on perceptions that this activity is damaging to children, as if it is in some way depriving children of a proper or desired childhood that was enjoyed in pre-digital times. A counter perspective to this panic is an appreciation that young children have grown up surrounded by digital information and entertainment on screens, and that time spent on screens is “a major part of modern life and a necessary part of modern education” (Viner et al., 2019, p. 2). So, what does the literature indicate in relation to patterns of usage in Australia and internationally? Recently, data regarding usage in Australia was made available from a 2017 Australian Child Health Poll (Rhodes, 2017). The report collated data collected from 1977 parents regarding 37,907 children (648 of whom were preschoolers). Major findings, relevant to preschool, are presented below: • The majority of children, across all age groups, were exceeding the 2012 national recommended guidelines for screen time; (for children aged 2–5 years, the guidelines recommend one hour of screen time per day and for parents to engage in active creative play with their children without the use of electronic media) (see also Miller et al., 2017); • Parents who reported high levels of screen use themselves were more likely to report having children with high levels of screen use; • Over a third (36%) of preschoolers had their own mobile screen-based device; • Half (50%) of toddlers and preschoolers were using screen-based devices on their own without supervision, and the majority of parents of young children reported using screens to occupy their kids so they can get things done; • Almost two-thirds (62%) of parents reported family conflict due to the use of screen-based devices; and • Almost half (43%) of all children regularly use screen-based devices at bedtime. What these figures indicate is that screen use is prevalent in the Australian context and that screen guidelines do not seem to be effective in regulating app use. Therefore, approaches that parents (and educators) can use that minimise the passive use of such technologies are critical, and are discussed next.

56

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

3.7.1 New Understandings of Screen Time Initially, in the Australian context, the response from health regulators was to set screen time limits. For example, in Australia, the current recommendation by the Department of Health is that “sedentary” screen time should be no more than one hour per day for children 3–5 years of age (Australian Government Department of Health, 2019, Preschoolers 3–5 Years section, para. 2). It is worthwhile noting that this is a shift in position, as earlier versions of these types of reports did not include the word “sedentary”. Although not an official Government position, more recently, an Early Childhood Australia (ECA) position paper (Edwards et al., 2018) acknowledged the prevalence of digital technologies for young children and called for a more proactive approach to using technologies with young children. Although the report acknowledges that in some cases it is appropriate to use time limits, it adds the important caveat that these limits should only be considered in the context of understanding that digital technologies have a legitimate role in early learning settings. Miller et al. (2017) also suggest that adults co-engage with children during screen time to provide support for the technologies being used, as well as conversation about the media being consumed. The pivot away from setting strict usage guidelines is also occurring internationally. Initial guidelines in the United States were based on limiting access to screens. For example, earlier guidelines by the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommended no more than one hour per day for children 2–5 years old (AAP, 2016). These recommendations related to two factors potentially contributing to early childhood obesity: the food and beverage marketing that children may experience when they are watching television or interacting with other media; and the amount of overall screen time to which they are exposed (NAEYC & FRC, 2012). However, as is the case in the Australian context, more recently the American Academy of Pediatrics has relaxed their guidelines regarding screen time limits for young children. As reported by Aladé et al. (2016), the current guidelines reflect an understanding that recognises that “children are growing up in a world where ‘screen time’ is becoming simply ‘time’, and parents are encouraged to use media jointly with their children, model responsible media use, and set limits based on the child’s individual needs” (p. 434). The situation in the United Kingdom is a little different. In 2018, the RCPCH published a guide entitled “The health impacts of screen time: a guide for clinicians and parents” to assist them (and, in our view, assist educators) in making decisions regarding screen time. To inform this guide, they undertook a comprehensive review (940 abstracts, with 12 systematic reviews) of the evidence on the impact of screen time on children’s physical and mental health (Viner et al., 2019). One of the interesting outcomes of the research is that the author resists setting screen time limits; instead, in answering the question, “Is there a safe level of screen time?” indicates: In short, no—but this doesn’t mean all screen time is harmful. To say that there is a safe level would be to suggest that below that level there are no negative consequences, whereas above this level there are negative consequences…. [T]here is little evidence that this is the

3.8 Computational Thinking (CT)

57

way that screen time works in influencing children’s wellbeing. It is perhaps better to think of screens as displacing desirable minimum levels of positive activities, such as sleep, time with family and exercise, and the effects this may have. (Viner et al., 2019, p. 5)

To summarise, where does this leave us in terms of screen time use for young children? It seems apparent that child health-related organisations in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia are moving away from an approach that seeks to limit screen time use via “regulation”, to an approach that acknowledges the reality of digital technology penetration and seeks to manage the phenomenon. Miller et al. (2017) noted this change, reporting that many early childhood educators are now more willing to embed digital technologies in early childhood spaces. As indicated earlier, the most recent paper from the ECA promotes the thoughtful use of digital technologies (Edwards et al., 2018). Broadly speaking, we share these more flexible views towards screen time; however, in our approach in the ELSA Program, we have designed a pedagogical model that minimises screen time without doing so in a “regulatory” manner. We develop this argument further in Chap. 7.

3.8 Computational Thinking (CT) Accompanying the movement towards digital tools, there has been a push, in the last decade, to formalise the place of digital technologies in the Australian curriculum— and, more broadly, in curriculums around the world (see Larkin & Miller, 2020). In the Australian context, this was evident with the release of the digital technology component of the Technologies curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2017) and has resulted in a renewed focus on computational thinking. A common underpinning of these new curriculum designs is a push towards computational thinking (CT), which is required when answering the question, “How would I get a computer to solve this problem?” (Sung et al., 2016); answering this question fosters the identification of appropriate abstractions that lead to solutions for the computer (Wing, 2008). In other words, CT requires problem-solving processes “by the ‘necessarily explicit nature of programming’, which make people ‘articulate assumptions’ and ‘precisely specify steps to their problem-solving approach’” (Sung et al., 2016, p. 392). Unfortunately, CT is often delivered via a variety of commercial STEM education toys, like Cubetto, Osmo or Kubo, which are marketed as tools to teach computer programming and problemsolving skills (Hamilton et al., 2020). In many instances these educational technologies are developed and commercialised so quickly that they bypass the development of research-informed pedagogical practices associated with them (Manches & Plowman, 2017). In terms of how we might define CT, Voogt et al. (2013) suggest that it is often seen as part of a suite of twenty-first century skills or competencies that also include digital literacy, problem solving, critical thinking, and creativity. Grover and Pea (2013) indicate that CT represents “a universally applicable attitude and skill set

58

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

everyone, not just computer scientists, would be eager to learn and use”; and that “computational thinking is the process of recognising aspects of computation in the world that surrounds us and applying tools and techniques from computer science to understand and reason about both natural and artificial systems and processes” (p. 38). According to both Grover and Pea (2013) and Wing (2008), the main premise of CT relates more to a process whereby children are encouraged to think “like a computer scientist” when being confronted with a problem. Various process-related definitions for CT are also proposed. Sung et al. (2016) use the Carnegie Mellon Center for Computational Thinking description: “computational thinking is thinking algorithmically and with the ability to apply mathematical concepts such as induction to develop more efficient, fair, and secure solutions” (p. 391). Wing (2008) refers to CT as the thought processes involved in formulating problems and decomposing goals, as well as designing solutions as computational steps and algorithms. Sung et al. (2016) observe that these thought processes share traits with mathematical thinking and engineering thinking, and that mathematics and engineering concepts overlap in the forms of algorithmic thinking, sequential thinking, and design thinking. As is the case with many aspects of STEM, early exposure helps children become more capable in using CT to solve problems in the STEM domain (Sung et al., 2016). Grover and Pea (2013) suggest that the following elements form the core of CT skills: abstractions and pattern generalisations (including models and simulations); systematic processing of information; symbol systems and representations; algorithmic notions of flow of control; structured problem decomposition (modularising); iterative, recursive, and parallel thinking; conditional logic; efficiency and performance constraints; and debugging and systematic error detection. Other researchers have taken an approach to CT that looks to categorise its components. Brennan and Resnick (2012), utilising Scratch as their software, provide a framework with three dimensions for studying and assessing the development of CT in young children: (1) computational concepts; (2) computational practices; and (3) computational perspectives. Weintrop et al. (2016), based on a meta-analysis of CT literature, propose that CT consists of four categories: (1) data practices; (2) modelling and simulation practices; (3) computational problem-solving practices; and (4) systems thinking practices. In terms of our review of the CT literature, a final contribution is that of Shute et al. (2017) who categorise CT skills into six main facets: decomposition, abstraction, algorithm design, debugging, iteration, and generalisation. In our design of App Three in the ELSA Program, which focusses on encoding, decoding, conditionals, and debugging, we were guided by the range of skills-oriented frameworks outlined above, with input from the work of Grover and Pea (2013) and Shute et al. (2017) to support our design approach.

3.9 Robotics

59

3.8.1 Importance of Computational Thinking (CT) The development of CT skills is considered appropriate in the early years, as they can be easily “integrated into other aspects of children’s play, explorations, and investigations … providing children with the autonomy to experiment, play, and use their creativity” (Geist, 2016, p. 303). Thus, CT helps make abstract concepts concrete by encouraging young children to make their thinking process conscious and explicit (e.g., by listing the processes they had followed, which can lead to more effective learning). Because of this, if CT can be employed more broadly (outside the narrow realm of computer science), it could provide an effective setting for a focus on how to think rather than what to think (Sung et al., 2016), a quality very important in an integrated STEM approach. In a range of studies (Grover & Pea, 2013; Sung et al., 2016; Wing, 2008), researchers demonstrate the importance of CT in supporting mathematical and spatial problem-solving abilities. Sung et al. (2016) indicate that “adding ‘concrete’ instances of reasoning, inherent in programming activities, benefits learning abstract mathematical concepts and procedural thinking for problem solving” (p. 393). Given the value of CT to mathematical achievement, and for the development of competencies considered valuable for the twenty-first century, Sung et al. (2016) suggest that “educational efforts should be made to deepen students’ understanding in core concepts of computational thinking for successful integrated STEM learning” (p. 388).

3.9 Robotics As indicated earlier, robots and robotics (i.e., activities relating to the design, construction and operation of robots) are increasingly finding their way into classrooms, and are seen as a transformational tool for learning computational thinking, coding, and engineering (Greca Dufranc et al., 2020). The use of robots has been shown to support active play, a common vehicle to deliver computational thinking; they are also often used to deliver STEM in the early years (see Matson et al., 2004). According to Eguchi (2017), educational robotics can support project-based learning of STEM that incorporates or integrates coding, computer thinking, and engineering skills. As well as cognitive outcomes, discussed later in the chapter, robotics are seen as important for socio-emotional aspects of learning, with robotics providing opportunities for children to explore how technology works in real life, work collaboratively together, and think critically and innovatively (Greca Dufranc et al., 2020). This engagement with robots can motivate children to accomplish their learning goals (Fridberg et al., 2018) with research also indicating that robots can assist children to become storytellers by creating and sharing personally meaningful projects that react in response to their environment (Bers et al., 2002). Blackley and Howell (2019) use the Lego WeDo robots with teachers over a four-week block (90 min each week) to support a model of STEM Integration where students are “positioned

60

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

in modelling, exploring, challenging and evaluating engagements with the robots” (p. 57) as “concurrently the level of teacher support decreased from highly-scaffolded to independent problem-solving work” (p. 57).

3.9.1 Robotics and Gender This affective aspect of robotics is often seen in terms of gender. Thus, in addition to providing a play-based way into STEM, robotics has also been seen as particularly important as a way of engaging young girls in STEM. It is often reported (see Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014) that men significantly outnumber women in the computer science field, and also, more broadly, in other STEM disciplines. Although the gender disparity between women and men in many STEM fields has noticeably decreased over the past decade, there are still several gaps that persist—particularly when it comes to technology and engineering (Sullivan & Bers, 2016). This persistent gender disparity may be due to the negative effect of “stereotype threat” on women’s confidence and interest in these traditionally male fields. Stereotype threat refers to “the anxiety that one’s performance on a task or activity will be seen through the lens of a negative stereotype” (Sullivan & Bers, 2016, p. 147). This stereotyping has negative impacts on STEM identification (i.e., the extent to which children view themselves as members of STEM-related communities of practice). By age 5–6, children are already beginning to develop and apply (to themselves and others) a range of stereotypes about gender (Sullivan & Bers, 2016)—furthermore, they are also starting to form stereotypes about STEM (Larkin & Jorgensen, 2016). Therefore, the early years is a pivotal time to encourage positive attitudes towards STEM. One way to do so is to attract the interest of girls during their formative early childhood years, before gender stereotypes are ingrained. Here is where innovative new technologies, such as robotics, can be used as a tool. Metz (1997) found that introducing robotics and computer programming in early childhood can give young girls a chance to positively engage with engineering before gender stereotypes have set in during later childhood. Research (see Sullivan & Bers, 2016) indicates that early engagement in STEM, via a STEM curriculum that includes opportunities for computational thinking and early programming, results in a later decrease in gender-based stereotypes regarding STEM careers and fewer obstacles entering these fields later in life. The work of researchers, such as Sullivan and Bers (2016) and Metz (1997), suggests that a collaborative approach to working with the robots may be more successful at engaging girls than other traditionally competitive robotics competitions, which often form a part of programs. In the following sections, we examine robotics initially in terms of the body of research surrounding manipulatives; we then look at specific research indicating improved learning outcomes, and then finish with a look at the specific skills of sequencing and reasoning.

3.9 Robotics

61

3.9.2 Robotics as a Form of Manipulatives The potential of using objects, to think and learn with, has a long-standing tradition in early childhood education (Bers et al., 2002). As discussed earlier, manipulatives are physical (e.g., MAB blocks or pattern blocks) or virtual (e.g., apps) entities that scaffold student understanding in a given domain and assist young children in developing conceptual understanding in mathematics (Manches & O’Malley, 2012; Sullivan & Heffernan, 2016) and STEM more broadly. More recently, but in the same spirit, robotics can expand the range of concepts that children can explore. Bers et al. (2002) note that, “by embedding computational power in traditional children’s toys such as blocks, beads, and balls, young children can learn about dynamic processes and ‘systems concepts’ such as feedback and emergence, that were previously considered too advanced for them” (p. 127). In addition to interacting with educational toys, children can also design and build interactive artefacts using materials from the world of engineering, as well as integrating art materials and everyday objects (Sullivan & Bers, 2016). In this context, robotics has a place in early childhood education, which has long acknowledged the benefits of using constructivist methodologies to help young children learn by doing, by manipulating materials, by engaging in active enquiry, and by creating playful experiences (Greca Dufranc et al., 2020).

3.9.3 Robotics and Learning Sullivan and Heffernan (2016) suggest that, although delivering many of the same benefits as “traditional” manipulatives, computational manipulatives are different in that they may be used as “either (a) a direct (concrete) conceptual representation of a domain (robotics) or (b) an analogical representation of concepts in a domain (e.g., biological systems)” (p. 106). Here we focus only on the first use, i.e., as a source of direct representation where the computational manipulative promotes embodied cognition. Computational manipulatives promote embodied cognition through the provision of an additional channel during learning, activating real-world knowledge and improving memory through physical action (Sullivan & Heffernan, 2016). Thus, robots and robotics function in one of two ways: first order (manipulatives for direct learning about robotics); and second order (as a way of understanding concepts from another domain from a computational thinking perspective). Sullivan and Heffernan (2016) further propose that the first use is most common in the research, as it relates to the opportunities to develop sequencing, reasoning, problem solving, and systems understanding. Although beyond the scope of this chapter, they suggest that it is “possible to discern a potential learning progression for students in studying robotics” (Sullivan & Heffernan, 2016, p. 111). Overall, the literature suggests educational benefits in using robotics in the areas of sequencing, problem solving, and reasoning. We turn to each of these three areas now.

62

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

3.9.4 Sequencing With Robotics Sequencing refers to the ability to put items in a specific order and is foundational to learning to program a computer (Grover & Pea, 2013). Research indicates that preschool- and kindergarten-age children’s sequencing ability improves when they are engaged in developmentally appropriate robotics activity (Kazakoff & Bers, 2014). Although these studies offer very promising results, they were only small quantitative studies. Sullivan and Heffernan (2016) thus recommend replication studies with larger numbers of participants to verify these initial findings. When using robots, sequencing entails comparative reasoning. In a seriation task, children must be able to compare the objects to be ordered along a specific, relevant dimension. When using robots, comparative reasoning is aided by immediate, concrete feedback, as children can compare the movement of the robotic device with the intended movement of the device (as programmed on either the device or on a computer with connections to the device). Sullivan and Heffernan (2016) suggest that discrepancies in the expected sequence of movements prompt children to reflect on the relationship of the dual representations and develop some hypotheses about why the expected movement was not observed.

3.9.5 Reasoning and Problem Solving With Robotics As indicated previously, existing research arguably supports the development of sequencing, a core computational (and mathematical) thinking skill. Sullivan and Heffernan (2016) indicate that this skill develops reasoning abilities (causal inference and conditional reasoning), and results in improved systems understanding, with children as young as four being capable of learning cause-and-effect relationships, and engineering design skills (Bers et al., 2014; Elkin et al., 2018). This learning occurs most fruitfully in problem-solving activities. In terms of reasoning, it appears that children can engage in inferential reasoning when working with robots. Owens and Highfield (2015) express the view that simple robotics may provide opportunities for young mathematics learners to engage in self-regulation, including metacognitive and problem-solving strategies. The action of planning, programming, and observing the robots’ movement can also serve as a motivational activity, prompting further engagement in, and reflection on, a range of mathematical concepts and processes. In a study by Sullivan and Heffernan (2016), children were asked to explain the movement of an observed robot. In their explanations, it was apparent that many children were able to abstract a rule for the behaviour (e.g., it stops when it gets to the edge). Once the children became confident in programming the robots, they were able to engage in problem solving, albeit largely trial-and-error, to match the movements of the robot with what they intended. Although robotics can provide authentic learning experiences for young children, in Chap. 1 we highlighted a number of limitations with robotics as a STEM solution in terms of sustainability and equity of

References

63

access. Therefore, in the ELSA Program, we have not incorporated robots; instead, we have focussed on developing CT via the STEM Practice of decoding and encoding information.

3.10 Conclusion In this chapter, we have examined a range of literature related to the topic of digital technologies and their impact in the early years of schooling, the role of computational thinking, and the use of robots as a vehicle for STEM engagement and STEM learning. We saw that increasingly the discussion regarding the use of digital technologies in early childhood is via a “sensible use” approach, where it is acknowledged that children will use technology and that they need to be prepared to use it appropriately rather than being banned from its use. We investigated the role of digital technologies in supporting computational thinking, which is an important way of problem solving in both analogue and digital scenarios and critiqued the place of robotics in this endeavour. We will return to a discussion of the role of digital technologies in the ELSA Program in Chap. 7 where we will argue for a new conceptualisation of play-based learning and intentional teaching that incorporates, but is not determined by, digital technologies. In the following chapter, we examine the place of digital technologies in play-based learning.

References Aladé, F., Lauricella, A. R., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Wartella, E. (2016). Measuring with Murray: Touchscreen technology and preschoolers’ STEM learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.080 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on Communications and Media. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2591 Aronin, S., & Floyd, K. K. (2013). Using an iPad in inclusive preschool classrooms to introduce STEM concepts. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(4), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/004 005991304500404 Attard, C., & Curry, C. (2012). Exploring the use of iPads to engage young students with mathematics. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding horizons. Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 75–82). MERGA. Atweh, B., & Bland, D. (2005). Mathematics through/for understanding social life: Productive pedagogies meets critical mathematics. In M. Goos, C. Kanes, & R. Brown (Eds.), Mathematic education and society. Proceedings of the 4th international mathematics education and society conference (pp. 47–57). Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2017). The Australian curriculum: Technologies. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technolog ies/ Australian Government Department of Health. (2019). Australian 24-hour movement guidelines: Guidelines for healthy growth and development for your child: The early years (birth to

64

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

5 years) [Brochure]. https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pub hlth-strateg-phys-act-guidelines#npa05 Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020 Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, C., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002(1), 123–145. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/8850/ Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2019). The next chapter in the STEM education narrative: Using robotics to support programming and coding. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (online), 44(4), 51–64. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Non Satis Scire: To know is not enough. Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association. AERA. http://scratched.gse. harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the building blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034954 Cohen, M., Hadlley, M., & Frank, M. (2011). Young children, apps & iPad. Michael Cohen Group, LLC. https://mcgroup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ipad-studycover-page-report-mcg-info_new-online.pdf Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America, 2013. https://www. commonsensemedia.org/file/zero-to-eight-2013pdf-0/download Couse, L., & Chen, D. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75–98. https://doi. org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782562 Edwards, S., Straker, L., & Oakey, H. (2018). Discussion paper: Towards an early childhood Australia statement on young children and digital technology. http://www.earlychildhoodaust ralia.org.au/our-work/submissions-statements/eca-statement-young-children-digital-technolog ies/ Eguchi, A. (2017). Bringing robotics in classrooms. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Robotics in STEM education: Redesigning the learning experience (pp. 3–31). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-57786-9_1 Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Books, butterflies, and ‘bots’: Integrating engineering and robotics into early childhood curricula. In L. English, & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning, early mathematics learning and development (pp. 225–248). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2_11 Fleer, M. (2017). Digital play: Conceptualising the relation between real, augmented and virtual realities. In N. Kucirkova, & G. Falloon (Eds.), Apps, technology and younger learners: International evidence for teaching (1st ed., pp. 223–234). Routledge. Fridberg, M., Thulin, S., & Redfors, A. (2018). Preschool children’s collaborative science learning scaffolded by tablets. Research in Science Education, 48, 1007–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11165-016-9596-9 Geist, E. (2014). Toddlers through preschool: Using tablet computers with toddlers and young preschoolers. YC Young Children, 69(1), 58–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren. 69.1.58 Geist, E. (2016). Robots, programming and coding, oh my! Childhood Education, 92(4), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.1208008 Goodwin, K., & Highfield, K. (2013). A framework for examining technologies and early mathematics learning. In L. D. English, & J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning, advances in mathematics education (pp. 205–226). Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-94-007-6440-8_11

References

65

Greca Dufranc, I. M., García Terceño, E. M., Fridberg, M., Cronquist, B., & Redfors, A. (2020). Robotics and early-years STEM education: The botSTEM framework and activities. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 01. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/7948 Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23360476 Hamilton, M., Clarke-Midura, J., Shumway, J. F., & Lee, V. R. (2020). An emerging technology report on computational toys in early childhood. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 213– 224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09423-8 Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., & Petocz, P. (2016). Characterising the perceived value of mathematics educational apps in preservice teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0160-0 Hatzigianni, M., Gregoriadis, A., Karagiorgou, I., & Chatzigeorgiadou, S. (2018). Using tablets in free play: The implementation of the digital play framework in Greece. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 928–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12620 Haugland, S. (1999). The newest software that meets the developmental needs of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26(4), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022915706904 Highfield, K., & Mulligan, J. (2007). The role of dynamic interactive technological tools in preschoolers’ mathematical patterning. In J. Watson, & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice. Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 372–381). MERGA. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Michnick Golinkoff, R., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/152910061 5569721 Howard, B. C. (2008). Common features and design principles found in exemplary educational technologies. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 4(4), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2008100104 Kawka, M., & Larkin, K. (2018). The Arithmomania maths app: The glitch that corrupted learning to leave only fun. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 15(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15505170.2018.1437576 Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.f Kermani, H., & Aldemir, J. (2015). Preparing children for success: Integrating science, math, and technology in early childhood classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 185(9), 1504–1527. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1007371 Kissane, B. (2011). Mathematics education and the iPod touch. In J. Clark, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer, & S. Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics: Traditions and [new] practices. Proceedings of the 23rd biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers and the 34th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 932–940). AAMT & MERGA. Kucirkova, N. (2017). iRPD—A framework for guiding design-based research for iPad apps. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12389 Kyriakides, A. O., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Prodromou, T. (2016). Mobile technologies in the service of students’ learning of mathematics: The example of game application A.L.E.X. in the context of a primary school in Cyprus. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0163-x Larkin, K. (2013). Mathematics education. Is there an app for that? In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 426–433). MERGA. Larkin, K. (2014). Ipad apps that promote mathematical knowledge? Yes, they exist! Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 19(2), 28–32. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1093348.pdf

66

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

Larkin, K. (2015). “An app! An app! My kingdom for an app”: An 18-month quest to determine whether apps support mathematical knowledge building. In T. Lowrie, & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital games and mathematics learning: Potential, promises and pitfalls (Vol. 4, pp. 251–276). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9517-3_13 Larkin, K. (2016). Geometry and iPads in primary schools: Does their usefulness extend beyond tracing an oblong? In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives, mathematics education in the digital era (Vol. 7, pp. 247–274). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32718-1_11 Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). ‘I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in year 3 and year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x Larkin, K., Kortenkamp, U., Ladel, S., & Etzold, H. (2019). Using the ACAT framework to evaluate the design of two geometry apps: An exploratory study. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 5(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-018-0045-4 Larkin, K., & Milford, T. (2018). Mathematics apps—Stormy with the weather clearing: Using cluster analysis to enhance app use in mathematics classrooms. In N. Calder, K. Larkin, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Using mobile technologies in the teaching and learning of mathematics, mathematics education in the digital era (Vol. 12, pp. 11–30). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-90179-4_2 Larkin, K., & Miller, J. (2020). Digital technologies and numeracy—Synergy or discord? In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM education across the learning continuum (pp. 137–154). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_8 Lyons, C. D., & Tredwell, C. T. (2015). Steps to implementing technology in inclusive early childhood programs. Computers in the Schools, 32(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569. 2015.1038976 Manches, A., & O’Malley, C. (2012). Tangibles for learning: A representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00 779-011-0406-0 Manches, A., & Plowman, L. (2017). Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet. 12355 Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., Lahmar, J., & Scott, F. (2018). Play and creativity in young children’s use of apps. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 870–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12622 Matson, E., DeLoach, S., & Pauly, R. (2004). Building interest in math and science for rural and underserved elementary school children using robots. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 5(3/4), 35–46. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1128/983 Metz, K. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive development research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.3102/003 46543067001151 Miller, J. L., Paciga, K. A., Danby, S., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Kaldor, T. (2017). Looking beyond swiping and tapping: Review of design and methodologies for researching young children’s use of digital technologies. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(3), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-3-6 Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Bolyard, J. J. (2016). Revisiting the definition of a virtual manipulative. In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives, mathematics education in the digital era (Vol. 7, pp. 3–23). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32718-1_1 Nadworny, E. (2017). They still need you: How adults help young kids learn with technology. KQED MindShift. https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2017/01/04/they-still-need-you-how-adultshelp-young-kids-learn-with-technology/

References

67

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College (FRC). (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/top ics/PS_technology_WEB.pdf Ntuli, E., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2011). Teacher criteria for evaluating and selecting developmentally appropriate computer software. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(2), 179– 193. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/36190/ Ofcom. (2019). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. Retrieved from https://www. ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/children-and-parents-mediause-and-attitudes-report-2019 Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2014/09/professor-chubb-releases-science-technologyengineering-and-mathematics-australias-future Owens, K., & Highfield, K. (2015). Visuospatial reasoning in contexts with digital technology. In K. Owens (Ed.), Visuospatial reasoning: An ecocultural perspective for space, geometry and measurement education, mathematics education library (Vol. 111, pp. 275–289). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02463-9_9 Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2017). Designing and creating an educational app rubric for preschool teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 3147–3165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9579-0 Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2018). Educational apps from the Android Google Play for Greek preschoolers: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 116, 139–160. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.007 Parette, H. P., Hourcade, J. J., Blum, C., Watts, E. H., Stoner, J. B., Wojcik, B. W., & Chrismore, S. B. (2013). Technology user groups and early childhood education: A preliminary study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(3), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0548-3 Pelton, T., & Francis Pelton, L. (2011). Design principles for making meaningful mathematics apps. In M. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), SITE 2011. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the society for information technology & teacher education (pp. 2199–2204). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Plowman, L., & McPake, J. (2013). Seven myths about young children and technology. Childhood Education, 89(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2013.757490 PocketGamer.biz. (2020, December). App store metrics: Most popular categories. http://www.poc ketgamer.biz/metrics/app-store/ Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.28945/3768 Rhodes, A. (2017). Australian child health poll—Screen time and kids: What’s happening in our homes? [Report]. The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne. https://www.rchpoll.org.au/polls/ screen-time-whats-happening-in-our-homes/ Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2016). Improving low-income preschoolers mathematics achievement with Math Shelf, a preschool tablet computer curriculum. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(Part A), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.013 Shifflet, R., Toledo, C., & Mattoon, C. (2012). Touch tablet surprises: A preschool teacher’s story. YC Young Children, 67(3), 36–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731171 Shuler, C., Levine, Z., & Ree, J. (2012). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of Apple’s app store. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. https://joanganzcooneycenter. org/publication/ilearn-ii-an-analysis-of-the-education-category-on-apples-app-store/ Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

68

3 Digital Technologies, Computational Thinking, and Robotics

Sinclair, N., Chorney, S., & Rodney, S. (2016). Rhythm in number: Exploring the affective, social and mathematical dimensions of using TouchCounts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0154-y Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Girls, boys, and bots: Gender differences in young children’s performance on robotics and programming tasks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 145–165. https://doi.org/10.28945/3547 Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 203–219. https://doi.org/10.28945/1887 Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563 Sung, W., Ahn, J., Ming Kai, S., Choi, A., & Black, J. B. (2016). Incorporating touch-based tablets into classroom activities: Fostering children’s computational thinking through iPad integrated instruction. In D. Mentor (Ed.), Handbook of research on mobile learning in contemporary classrooms (pp. 378–406). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0251-7.ch019 Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsch-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Links between spatial and mathematical skills across the preschool years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(1), 1–150. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15405834/2017/ 82/1 Viner, R., Davie, M., & Firth, A. (2019). The health impacts of screen time: A guide for clinicians and parents [Report]. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). https://www. rcpch.ac.uk/resources/health-impacts-screen-time-guide-clinicians-parents Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12029 Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5 Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008. 0118 Yarmosh, K. (2015). How much does an app cost: A massive review of pricing and other budget considerations. Savvy. https://savvyapps.com/blog/how-much-does-app-cost-massive-review-pri cing-budget-considerations Yelland, N., & Gilbert, C. (2013). iPossibilities: Tablets in early childhood contexts. Hong Kong Journal of Early Childhood, 12(1), 5–14. Yelland, N., & Gilbert, C. (2014). SmartStart: Creating new contexts for learning in the 21st century [Project Report]. Victoria University. Yelland, N., & Gilbert, C. (2017). Re-imagining play with new technologies. In L. Arnott (Ed.), Digital technologies and learning in the early years (pp. 32–43). SAGE Publications Ltd. https:// doi.org/10.4135/9781526414502.n4

Chapter 4

Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

4.1 Introduction This chapter examines contemporary research regarding play, digital play, and play-based learning in the early years. We commence with a brief account of play guided by the theories of constructivism and sociocultural theory, as these theories underpin most teaching approaches in the early years. We then discuss the relatively new phenomena of digital play and critique three related, but distinct, conceptual approaches for understanding the place of digital technologies in play. We conclude this chapter with a discussion of play-based learning, which, along with intentional teaching discussed in Chap. 2, is one of the two conceptual pillars underpinning the Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government Department of Education & Training, 2009). In this section, we briefly describe the approach to play we adopted in the Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) Program (see https://elsa.edu.au/), which we then explore in Chap. 7 where we propose a new conceptualisation of play that incorporates digital technologies. Before commencing our discussion of play, it is important to recognise that early childhood education is often characterised by dialectical debates that often pit one approach of education against another. One such dialectic involves the two pillars of the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF): play-based learning vs. intentional teaching. Clements et al. (2020) express this dialectic in terms of a basic false dichotomy in arguments of “play vs. academics”. In agreement with Clements et al. (2020), we acknowledge that of course, children should play; however, “this does not mean they should not learn, and even play with, the worlds of science, mathematics, literacy, and social emotional development” (p. 11). Thus, we support a “playful pedagogy” approach (Moore et al., 2018), where free play and intentional teaching may improve learning. According to Moore et al. (2018), “such an approach integrates a child-centered play mode with curricular goals and allows children to control their learning to a large degree” (p. 13). Likewise, MacDonald (2015) endorses the use of “playful pedagogies” that encourage “the development of skills that underpin © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 K. Larkin and T. Lowrie, STEM Education in the Early Years, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2810-9_4

69

70

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

problem posing and problem-solving, such as curiosity, creativity, flexibility and adaptability” (p. 11). In restating our position, we endorse the thoughtful use of the two pillars of the EYLF, namely play-based learning and intentional teaching. With our position confirmed, we now delve more deeply into play, digital play, and play-based learning.

4.2 Play In our view, children’s learning is best supported when it is connected to their experiences and occurs in setting where they can interact with others. Our work in the ELSA Program is thus guided by two theoretical perspectives: constructivism (Dewey, 1997, 1938; Piaget, 1954) and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). As mentioned, these two theories have at times been pitted against each other (Lippard et al., 2018); however, we suggest that the complexities of the Australia-wide early years’ environments in which we work require a multi-theoretical approach. Here the work of Bruner (1966) is also useful in his suggestion of integrative points between the two theories. As Lippard et al. (2018) notes, a Vygotskian perspective highlights that the interactions with other children and adults impact on how children develop in a constructivist way by making sense of these interactions; thus children “learn through interactions and activities that are meaningful to them personally in the context of the meaning held by their larger social context” (p. 21). In creating the ELSA Program, we designed a range of digital and analogue tools that children could manipulate and act upon to construct knowledge; additionally, the program design incorporates the interactions that are most likely to take place—those with peers, parents, and families, and with educators—because planning for these interactions makes these experiences more meaningful for children (Dewey, 1997, 1938). A fundamental guiding principle for the program was that children would engage playfully with the ELSA Program. For both Vygotsky (1978) and Piaget (1954), play is fundamental and, according to Worthington (2020), “it represents a sophisticated and important form of social activity and provides many opportunities for meaningful social learning” (p. 48). In a well-known example, Vygotsky identifies the relationship between an object and its imagined purpose as critical in children’s play: a child uses a wooden stick as a horse, and thus the child has provided the stick with a new meaning. An important component of our theoretical frame for the ELSA Program (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020) was the connection between children’s experiences, their play on the tablets, and then their continued play in a different mode afterwards (see Experience, Represent, Apply [ERA] cycle in Chap. 7). In this view “play is a cognitive process that arise from children’s play narratives, from the artefacts, behaviours, speech and actions they employ in their pretend play episodes” (Worthington, 2020, p. 48). More recently, Fleer et al. (2020) have advanced the notion of “Conceptual Play Worlds” as a way to understand children’s play. This notion sits well with both

4.3 Digital Play

71

our approach in the ELSA Program and also with the twin pillars of the EYLF (play-based learning and intentional teaching). According to Fleer et al. (2020), a Conceptual Play World is “a scenario created by an educator where young children are invited to go on imaginary journeys, meet and solve challenges, and learn STEM concepts—all while playing” (p. 29). Important in this conception is the Vygotskian notion of play partners where the educators play in partnership with the children. As Fleer et al. (2020) explain, “as placeholders of the story they used props to signal the collective focus for the group. They also considered which STEM concepts would be meaningful for young children and used the story to make them accessible through role-play and exploration” (p. 29).

4.3 Digital Play More recently, digital play has emerged as a prevalent play type (Isikoglu Erdogan et al., 2019), and thus we now turn our attention to the literature related to the positioning of digital technologies within early years play, with a particular focus on screen-based technologies. In Chap. 3, we discussed the prevalence of digital technology use by young children; here, a critique is offered as to how different researchers understand the influence of digital technologies on children’s play. We conclude our discussion on play and digital technologies in Chap. 7 with a detailed account of a new conception of the place of digital technologies in the play of children in the early years (see Lowrie & Larkin, 2020; Lowrie et al., 2018). Irrespective of particular views on the place of digital technologies, it is not possible (given the usage data provided in Chap. 3) to argue that they are not a pervasive element in the play of young children. For example, Yelland and Gilbert (2017) comment on the increased use, and fluidity of use, of technologies by young people: “Young children use and enjoy a wide range of technologies but … they are maintaining their use of traditional materials, such a books, blocks and dolls” (n.p.). According to Edwards and Bird (2017), what is also evident is that “not much is known about how young children learn to use technologies through play and therefore how educators could effectively observe and assess young children’s digital play in the early childhood classroom” (p. 158). Whilst acknowledging that digital inequality in terms of access is still an issue (See Holingsworth et al. 2011), it remains problematic that digital technologies, although discussed in the EYLF, are still not fully integrated with the pedagogical perspectives on play in many curriculum documents or play-based frameworks (Yelland, 2011); both within Australia and internationally, in many cases, descriptions of play as a basis for pedagogy are separated from communicative or creative uses of technology (Edwards, 2013). The research noted above has clear implications on the nature of play in early years educational contexts, in terms of the digital resources available for children’s play and on the ways in which those resources can be deployed by them in different types of play (Marsh et al., 2016). One concern raised by this increased availability

72

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

of technology is screen time, which we have already addressed in Chap. 3. A second concern relates to claims that the rise of the use of digital technologies has in some way diminished children’s play, in that ipso facto it reduces the complexity and quality present in pretend and imaginative play that does not include a digital element (see Marsh et al., 2016). Also, there is some suggestion that digital technology makes it difficult for children to separate the meaning from the object (Bird & Edwards, 2015); these authors indicate that this is a problem in early childhood education, as “the capacity to separate meaning from object is associated with the emergence of symbolism that is necessary for developing literacy skills” (p. 1151). Consequently, a growing body of research now focusses on how young children experience the digital contexts in which they live and the impact this has on all aspects of their lives (Arnott et al., 2018; Yelland & Gilbert, 2017)—and of particular interest here, on their play (given its acknowledged importance in early childhood environments). The requirement for contemporary research in this area is evident in the recent 2018 publication of a special issue of the British Journal of Educational Technology (Arnott et al., 2018). The special issue establishes several broad boundaries for further research and discussion concerning young people and their use of digital technology. Based on a review of existing research, the editors of the special issue conclude that the early years sector should “move beyond debates about inclusion of media in children’s lives towards conceptualising the quality of technological experiences in our early childhood digital landscapes” (Arnott et al., 2018, p. 803). Instead of the polemic debates outlined earlier in the chapter, the editors recommend a “more nuanced stance … whereby the role of technologies is positioned within broader ecological discussions of children’s digital worlds” (p. 803). Despite the increasing availability of digital technologies in the lives of young children, the combination of play and technology often remains misunderstood (Yelland, 2011). As indicated in the introduction to this chapter, play has always been important in early childhood education; however, Marsh et al. (2016) claim that the nature of play has changed in digital contexts, as children can now draw upon both the digital and non-digital properties of things. This means that play can move “fluidly across boundaries of space and time in ways that were not possible in the pre-digital era” (p. 250). A growing body of evidence highlights the potential of enriching play with digital technologies and new forms of technology, including in the areas of imagination, social development, and communication. Imagination. A common criticism of play involving digital technologies is that it limits opportunities for creative play; however, contemporary research is challenging this notion. For example, Fleer (2018) argues that digital imaginative play for preschoolers appears to invite a new kind of play. Edwards (2013) argues that digital technologies can enhance imaginative play (see also Verenikina & Kervin, 2011) and invites educators to reconsider their understanding of the relationship between “traditional” play (e.g., construction play) and “converged” play (e.g., play with digital popular cultural artefacts including tools). According to Marsh et al. (2016), it is unhelpful to view the two types of play as oppositional, and it is not appropriate to reify traditional play as the highest-quality form given that converged play often leads to imaginative play.

4.3 Digital Play

73

Social Development. There are also arguments for the importance of digital technologies in terms of their impact on the social lives of children. Both Arnott (2016) and Verenikina and Kervin (2011) are aligned on the positive influences that working with tablets has on collaboration and cooperation. Hatzigianni et al. (2018) suggest that children’s digital play adds a further dimension in creating opportunities for socialisation. In appropriate digital play, children are active participants, and thus they both influence, and are influenced by, their choice of digital tools and how these tools either enhance or minimise social collaboration (Hatzigianni et al., 2018). This type of digitally enhanced collaboration is evident in our ELSA Program where, for instance, children work together to create “scenes” for a photo story that they later load onto the app. They then narrate what happens in the scene and, subsequently, their friends can listen to the narrative and then recreate the story in storyboard form. Communication. Communication is also enhanced in social play with digital technologies via the interaction between offline and online spaces. This is often seen in relation to the way in which toys and other artefacts are digitally mediated (Manches & Plowman, 2017). An example of this is the recent Frozen toy phenomenon, where children can play with physical artefacts and then interact online with digital Frozen characters. Bird and Edwards (2015) refer to research by O’Mara and Laidlaw who “describe a pretend tea party hosted by two young girls using a ‘tea party app’ on an iPad. Their ‘traditional’ dolls were carefully placed around the iPad and invited to partake in the pretend eating and drinking of virtual cakes and cups of tea” (p. 1151). These types of mediated play can lead to communication that moves across physical and virtual domains, and integrates material and immaterial practices (Marsh et al., 2016). This type of mediated play is supported in the ELSA Program whereby the four “ELSA friends” are represented in both physical and digital form. Edwards (2013) forcefully argues for the quality of these inter-domain interactions experienced by children when playing with digital technologies: A child playing with an avatar is likely to have a fairly sophisticated grasp of how to separate meaning from object because she needs to know that ‘symbolically’ she herself is represented on the screen by the digital image. Perhaps her pretend play has been directed towards online and virtual activity rather than playing at ‘shops’ using stones to represent money. This would make sense if she is a participant in a post-industrialised community in which information and communication is often exchanged in digitised form. Her play is not necessarily of inferior quality in so much as it represents an adjustment to the developmental demands of her context. (pp. 204–205)

Marsh et al. (2016) challenge researchers to move our understanding of play forward by developing conceptual frameworks that assist early childhood educators to understand the way in which the dichotomies of online/offline and physical/virtual shape the child’s activities and also provide educators with a mechanism for classifying types of play (Isikoglu Erdogan et al., 2019). In addition, Arnott et al. (2018) propose that early childhood educators would benefit from support in developing a pedagogy that incorporates “digital and non-digital resources to create playful learning narratives for young children” (p. 803). Finally, given the pervasive nature of digital technologies, Palaiologou (2016) suggests further research is required into how digital

74

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

technologies can contribute to the development of learning contexts that are meaningful and contribute to children’s home digital patterns and habits. Researchers have responded to the call for further research and have suggested three broad frames of reference: the notion of digital play (Bird & Edwards, 2015; Edwards & Bird, 2017)); the concept of playful explorations (Yelland & Gilbert, 2017); and ecological approaches where digital technologies intersect with play in the broader scope of a child’s overall environment (Arnott, 2016). We now examine each of these frames of reference in turn. Notions Regarding Digital Play. Researchers have explained that digital play is a broad term that can be understood from a variety of perspectives, e.g., the range of activities children undertake with technologies; using technologies in a play-based way (see Verenikina & Kervin, 2011); the emergence of a new contemporary form of play that involves children in contemporary digitally mediated contexts (Edwards, 2013); and hybrid play, where children integrate traditional and digital activities to create bidirectional play situations (Edwards, 2013) or the intermeshing of online and offline play (Fleer, 2017). The main scholars who have developed the pedagogical framing of digital play are Bird and Edwards (2015) and Edwards and Bird (2017). These researchers build their new understanding of play upon the work of Hutt (1979), who developed one of the most established classifications of play. Hutt identified three broad categories of play: (i) epistemic play, which is exploratory play in which knowledge of things is acquired; (ii) ludic play, which is play that draws on past experiences and includes symbolic and fantasy play; and (iii) games with rules, including games of skill and chance (Bird & Edwards, 2015). The work of Bird and Edwards (2017) is significant for early childhood education because it provides educators with a way to understand technology use in the early years in terms of play-based learning. Its development is also important from the perspective of assessing child development. Because little is known about how young children learn to use technologies through play, it is not yet established how educators can effectively observe and assess young children’s digital play in early childhood context (Bird & Edwards, 2015). Given that formative assessment of learning through play is the dominant pedagogy in the early years, assessment of digital play is a critical factor. Edwards and Bird (2017) contend that the presence of digital technologies becomes a problem for early years educators as “it is not always clear ‘what’ they are looking for in children’s digital activity in terms of how children are learning to use technologies through play” (p. 169). In Chap. 7 we will expand upon our understanding of how children learn about using digital technologies and also engage with STEM concepts as they interact with the digital technologies as part of the ELSA program. To summarise, it is the view of Bird and Edwards that digital play is a component of early childhood education; however, it also their argument that digital play is not yet fully understood in the sector in terms of how it supports children’s learning or how educators can evaluate such learning (Edwards et al., 2018). Edwards and Bird

4.3 Digital Play

75

(2017) have responded to this challenge by developing a Digital Play Framework that may assist educators in determining the role of digital technologies in play-based learning environments.

4.3.1 The Digital Play Framework (DPF) The Digital Play Framework (DPF) is useful for educators because it provides a series of indicators for how children learn to use technologies as cultural tools: first, by exploring the functionality of technologies through epistemic activity; and second, by generating new content through ludic activity (Bird & Edwards, 2015). This means that educators can use the DPF to observe and assess the development of children’s play (Marsh et al., 2016). The DPF classifies digital technologies as cultural tools (Vygotsky, 1978) and is based on the classifications of play described by Hutt (1979), which we outlined earlier. As Vygotsky described, children, like adults, use tools to achieve an object in an activity, i.e., when playing. Because mastery of a tool can change the object of an activity, as children move through stages of the DPF, and their mastery of digital technologies improves, they transition from epistemic to ludic play (Edwards & Bird, 2017). Children’s initial use of tools in play is epistemic (they are learning how to use the tool—in our case, the ELSA apps) and, when comfortable, shifts into ludic play (e.g., in ELSA, they record their own voices and create their own dance moves to accompany the digital characters). The DPF incorporates a range of behaviours associated with Hutt’s earlier work on epistemic and ludic play, but also incorporates behaviours commonly found in digital environments—using the camera or microphone, finger gestures on the tablets, etc. Rather than limiting imaginative play, Bird and Edwards (2015) argue that the DPF supports children’s imaginative play—as epistemic learning through play leads to mastery, which in turn leads to change towards ludic play. This is important for early years contexts as ludic play encourages symbolic and innovative activity; the type of play “most frequently associated with promoting children’s social interactions, fostering thinking and laying the foundations for literacy learning” (Bird & Edwards, 2015, p. 1158). In our view, the existing naive comparisons of the quality of digital play of young children as somehow being of a lower or inferior quality when compared to nondigital play are not only inaccurate, but also somewhat derogatory. They position contemporary children as experiencing a deprived childhood compared to earlier generations of children (that perhaps the critics of digital play had or perceived themselves to have). In doing so, they misunderstand the different types of imagination required to interact with online characters and scenarios. Therefore, it is not technology per se but, rather, the quality of the technology that is the important consideration in determining the quality of play. We present an argument in Chap. 7

76

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

that situates the digital play children experience, when interacting with ELSA digital characters, as of a very high quality and rich in opportunities for imaginative and social play.

4.4 Playful Explorations Yelland (2011), and Yelland and Gilbert (2014, 2017) take a different approach to the discussion concerning play and digital technologies, embedding it quite deliberately in the frame of reference of “playful explorations”. According to Yelland and Gilbert (2017), “playful explorations encapsulate new learning scenarios in the twenty-first century. Playful explorations enable young children to explore ideas using different modalities and representations so that they are able to understand and explore concepts in new and dynamic ways. The role of new technologies in this learning is significant” (n.p.). Rethinking play as playful explorations involves experimentations and meaning making by children that are scaffolded and extended by an educator to provide a much richer learning environment for young children. Further, “the use of new technologies and the opportunities they create for meaning-making, extending communications and interactions are vital to such explorations” (Yelland, 2011, p. 6). In playful explorations, new technologies are both a part of a repertoire of experiences for young children’s learning and are also a resource for educators to use to scaffold this learning, so that it is articulated and represented by the children in a variety of modes (Yelland, 2011). In addition, playful explorations provide evidence of children’s multimodal learning and encourage the use of a variety of media and resources that are part of this learning, as well as being artefacts of the learning process. Yelland and Gilbert (2017) argue for the need to provide a variety of contexts in which young children are exposed to different modes of representations that, in turn, afford them the opportunity to formulate new understandings about their world and make meanings about ideas and concepts on the basis of these experiences. Such experiences can be considered playful explorations (either child initiated or educator led), and can be supported by adults and extended in new scenarios and investigations, including digital technologies, depending on children’s interest. These new play worlds afford contexts in which “young children can not only gain conceptual understandings but also think more deeply about identities and how to interact with each other. This type of learning complements and extends three-dimensional playful explorations” (Yelland, 2011, p. 11). In suggesting playful explorations, Yelland and Gilbert (2017) are conscious that “interventions in children’s play might not align with the views of those who regard play as being initiated by the child, self-selected and voluntary” (n.p.). Thus, the labelling of playful explorations is a deliberate one, as it “denotes a shift in emphasis with regard to notions about what constitutes play and includes contexts of play that can be scaffolded and described in learning scenarios that may be linked to

4.5 An Ecological Approach to Digital Play

77

indicators of learning that seem to be a ubiquitous part of early childhood education today” (n.p.). Playful explorations, therefore, sit comfortably within the ethos of the EYLF, and alongside our approach in the ELSA Program, as they incorporate the notion of intentional teaching in a play-based context.

4.5 An Ecological Approach to Digital Play Both Arnott (2016) and Fleer (2018) take a broader perspective of play and digital technologies than that of either Bird and Edwards (2015) or Yelland and Gilbert (2017). Arnott (2016) suggests that an early years centre is a dynamic system and, in order to better understand how we can shape and facilitate high-quality social and digital play experiences in preschools, we need to consider the entire ecology of the centre and not just focus on the new digital components of it. By ecology, Arnott refers to the interplay between the physical, social, and cultural elements of an environment. Three important observations are made by Arnott (2016): • Technologies are not omnipotent, deterministic artefacts that direct, scaffold or ‘teach’ children, particularly in relation to social development and social experience; • Children’s digital play is complex, but not entirely unique to other forms of play; particularly when technologies are integrated into children’s experiences as part of well-established playful pedagogies and are utilised as tools within the play, rather than the central play experience; and • Technologies form one element of a multifaceted and interconnected ecological preschool system. (p. 286). Therefore, any play involving digital technologies is heavily influenced by the ways in which children and educators draw on the various technological affordances of the technology (camera, audio, touchscreen, etc.), and the systems, routines, and practices in the environment to make and shape decisions. Consequently, it is the children and educators who actively make decisions about play in relation to these broader ecological factors (rather than the device determining the type of play), which can generate rich social experiences incorporating digital play (Arnott, 2016). In a 2016 study, Arnott analysed children’s interactions with 24 technological resources over a nine-month period. Findings reveal that children played in clusters, exhibiting a multitude of social behaviours and interactions and varied degrees of social participation, and assumed various social status roles and technological positions. Fleer (2017, 2018) conducted similar research to Arnott (2016) and found that any consideration of digital play, from both the child and educator perspective, needs to occur within the full scope of the play-based system in the centre. This is because the “resultant digital profile of activities and practices embedded in the overall play-based program, is suggestive of new conditions for children’s development in play-based

78

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

settings” (Fleer, 2018, p. 957). Fleer provides an example of the fluidity of digital and non-digital interactions in an instance of play. In her example, children used blocks to support role-play after listening to the story of Alice in Wonderland. Some children continued only with block play to support the role-play, while others used storyboarding to plan for the digital animations they later created (with the help of an adult) (Fleer, 2018). In more recent work, Fleer (2020) established that there are six key drivers that support the development of digital play. Importantly for our understanding of play, articulated in Chap. 7, Fleer (2020) argues that these must be embedded within the holistic play practices of the centre. The six drivers are: “peer-initiated play; adult-initiated play-inquiry; adult in the imaginary play situation—in role or as the narrator; digital placeholders to support imaginary digital play; virtual pivots to support imaginary digital play; and meta-imaginary play—peers in role or as the narrators of the digital play” (p. 49). Furthermore, these six drivers combine, like cogs in a system, to support digital play. Fleer (2020) argues that this is a “different conceptualisation of digital play to that which has been previously discussed in the literature where the focus of attention has been primarily on what is digital play and what is not digital play” (p. 49). From our perspective, the work of Arnott and Fleer on the ecology of play is of critical importance, given that the place of digital technologies is still not fully integrated with perspectives on play-based learning in early childhood education. This is particularly the case when negative perspectives accompany an ill-founded approach to digital play, which subsequently and artificially separates the two forms of play. This artificial separation is seen in many international, early years curriculum documents that “continue to separate descriptions of play as a basis for learning from the use of technologies as learning outcomes for young children” (Fleer, 2017, p. 225). We agree with Fleer (2017) that an important outcome of research would be a deepened understanding of children’s play in a digital world and that it can help early childhood educators to “bridge the gap between pedagogical understandings of play and young children’s experiences with digital technologies, digital media and their consumption of popular culture” (p. 225). We will articulate in Chap. 7 the contribution of the ELSA Program to an improved understanding of children’s interactions with digital technologies, as part of their overall play activity in early year centres.

4.6 Play-Based Learning We conclude this chapter with a brief account of the implications of these different notions of play. We commence this discussion on play-based learning with Lind (1998) who notes that children acquire fundamental concepts and construct their

4.6 Play-Based Learning

79

own knowledge while they are actively involved in their environment. Lind characterises specific learning experiences with young children as naturalistic (spontaneous), informal, or structured; and suggests that learning experiences are differentiated by who controls the choice of the activity: the adult or the child. In Lind’s (1998) understanding, “naturalistic experiences are those in which the child controls choice and action; in informal experiences, the child chooses the activity and action, but adults intervene at some point; and in structured experiences, the adult chooses the experience for the child and gives some direction to the child’s action” (p. 7). Fisher et al. (2013) have a similar perspective on play, but only see play as two types—“free” or “guided”—where “free play generally refers to self-directed activities that are fun, engaging, voluntary, and flexible, have no extrinsic goals, and often contain an element of make-believe. Guided play is a discovery learning approach intermediate between didactic instruction and free play” (p. 1872). Verdine et al. (2017) lean towards the second approach in relation to the development of spatial skills in young children, noting that “guided play in which adults scaffold children’s learning, as opposed to open-ended free play, elicits more spatial language, spatial problem solving, and spatial learning” (p. 114). Similarly, in relation to block play, Cohen and Uhry (2011), Gregory et al. (2003), and Ramani et al. (2014) also support adult intervention; they found scaffolding in the children’s zone of proximal development assisted children to create structures of increased complexity and also supported children’s ability to represent blocks in an imaginary construction. Casey et al. (2008) and Ramani et al. (2014) found that a guided block play intervention promoted preschool children’s spatial skills, where children who engaged in the guided play activities built more complex buildings and showed greater improvement on spatial reasoning tasks than children who simply engaged in free play with blocks. In terms of mathematics learning, Sarama and Clements (2009) contend that when children play with mathematics-related objects by themselves, it is unlikely that the play will facilitate the intended concept (see also Fisher et al., 2012). The weight of evidence suggests that child-centred, playful learning programs promote sustained academic performance (Fisher et al., 2013). Thus, although free play is an important aspect of early childhood activities, it is important to reflect on how early childhood educators can support children’s play.

4.6.1 Guided Play Guided play is increasingly being used in early childhood learning environments as a way to engage children in play activities that can connect to the curriculum and promote learning (Ramani et al., 2014). Samuelsson and Carlsson (2008) indicate that in a developmental pedagogy approach, children’s learning and development should start with children’s perspectives, and educators should endeavour to capture children’s interest by exploiting both structured and everyday situations.

80

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

From this perspective, educators are seen as “collaborative partners who create flexible, interest-driven experiences that encourage children’s natural curiosity, active engagement, and ‘sense-making’ processes” (Fisher et al., 2013, p. 1872) and “in such contexts, adults scaffold children’s learning by commenting on discoveries, co-playing with the children, and creating games or activities with well-planned curricular materials” (p. 1872). In a comprehensive study of children and their educators using observations, educator interviews, video recordings, and documentation from home-based activities, Fleer (2009) examined the difference between a free-play approach and an educator-guided, play-based approach to scientific learning. In the free-play approach, the teaching philosophy foregrounds materials and backgrounds the educator’s role in suggesting how the materials may be used or how children may think about what they are observing during play. In this approach, the educator considers mediation of learning unnecessary; rather, the educator believes that resources act as the primary mediator for science learning and that this is fundamental to discovery learning (Fleer, 2009). By contrast, in a guided-play approach, scientific meaning is built through discourse between the child and the adult, and the role of the adult is highly significant in children’s learning. From this perspective, scientific learning requires the thoughtful intervention of an educator or adult (Fleer, 2009). The study by Fleer (2009) indicates that when the resources were not introduced to the children within a particular scientific framework, or n-child interactions were not focussed on scientific concepts within these playful contexts, the children drew upon their prior experiences and created imaginary narratives to frame their use of the materials. While imaginary narratives have their place, Fleer (2009) argues that “young children in playful contexts need adult mediation if children are to pay attention to the science concepts that may be afforded through interacting with the resources provided by the teachers …. Conscious realisation is only possible if adult mediation supports children to make scientific sense of the materials provided in the playful contexts” (p. 1086). Fleer (2009) concludes this important point with the observation that educator content knowledge of science is still clearly important; however, “even with greater teacher knowledge of science, teachers who organise science learning through materials alone are not likely to realise scientific concept formation” (p. 1086). Although Fleer focussed her research specifically in the science discipline, from our understanding of her work, we suggest that many of her claims are equally applicable to guided play across all STEM learning. Offering a similar perspective to Fleer, Yelland (2011) indicates that the role of the educator in guided play is to create opportunities for play by “providing resources and materials (e.g. puzzles, construction blocks (Duplo/Lego)), activities (e.g. outdoor climbing frames, sand pits), centres (e.g. dress up, home corner) and space in the daily schedule so that children can choose between the various ‘play’ options” (p. 5). Importantly, learning through play should involve more than educators providing materials and time for young children to choose what they want to do. Yelland (2011) goes on to say that “teachers should consider a wide range of pedagogical

4.7 Conclusion

81

factors, so that young children are afforded experiences and opportunities for playful explorations that are both spontaneous and planned and linked to learning outcomes in relevant and dynamic ways” (p. 6).

4.6.2 Our Approach to Play-Based Learning in the ELSA Program It is apparent that the notion of play-based learning has been a constant element within early childhood education. Dockett and Perry (2010) indicate that the important features of play “include the exercise of choice, non-literal approaches, multiple possible outcomes and acknowledgement of the competence of players” (p. 716). Play-based learning is considered a fundamental feature of our four-year longitudinal program (Lowrie et al., 2019), and the innovative design of the ELSA Program provided children with opportunities to develop their cognitive skills through an emphasis on reasoning and thinking skills, with core STEM Practices as the foundation (Lowrie et al., 2018). Interaction is central to young children’s learning and is enabled through ideas, challenges, stimulating materials, peers, and learned others. Our ELSA learning apps extend beyond the screen to encourage active play that supports STEM Practices and act as a springboard for children to explore the natural world through investigation and inquiry. In Chap. 7, the ELSA children’s apps, designed to support a new conception of play-based learning (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020), are discussed in greater detail.

4.7 Conclusion In this chapter we examined a variety of contemporary research regarding play, digital play and play-based learning in early years learning environments by building upon a brief account of play guided by the theories of constructivism and sociocultural theory—two theories that underpin most teaching approaches in the early years. We then discussed the relatively new phenomena of digital play and critiqued three related, but distinct, conceptual approaches for understanding digital technologies and play. We concluded this chapter with a discussion of play-based learning, which, along with intentional teaching discussed in Chap. 2, was presented as one of the two conceptual pillars underpinning the EYLF. We finished the chapter with a brief “look forward” to Chap. 7 where we will propose a new conceptualisation of play that incorporates, but is not subsumed by, digital technologies. In the next chapter, we investigate the critical role played by educators in supporting play-based learning as well as intentional teaching.

82

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

References Arnott, A., Palaiologou, I., & Gray, C. (2018). Digital devices, internet-enabled toys and digital games: The changing nature of young children’s learning ecologies, experiences and pedagogies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 803–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12676 Arnott, L. (2016). An ecological exploration of young children’s digital play: Framing children’s social experiences with technologies in early childhood. Early Years, 36(3), 271–288. https://doi. org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1181049 Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. https://www.dese.gov.au/nationalquality-framework-early-childhood-education-and-care/resources/belonging-being-becomingearly-years-learning-framework-australia. Bird, J., & Edwards, S. (2015). Children learning to use technologies through play: A digital play framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10. 1111/bjet.12191 Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Belknap Press of Harvard University. Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A., & Copley, J. (2008). The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177177 Clements, D. H., Vinh, M., Lim, C.-I., & Sarama, J. (2020). STEM for inclusive excellence and equity. Early Education and Development, 32(1), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289. 2020.1755776 Cohen, L., & Uhry, J. (2011). Naming block structures: A multimodal approach. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0425-x Dewey, J. (1997; 1938). Experience and education (1st Touchstone ed.). Simon & Schuster. Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2010). What makes mathematics play? In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education (Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 715–718). MERGA. Edwards, S. (2013). Digital play in the early years: A contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 0293X.2013.789190 Edwards, S., & Bird, J. (2017). Observing and assessing young children’s digital play in the early years: Using the digital play framework. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15579746 Edwards, S., Straker, L., & Oakey, H. (2018). Discussion paper: Towards an Early Childhood Australia statement on young children and digital technology. http://www.earlychildhoodaust ralia.org.au/our-work/submissions-statements/eca-statement-young-children-digital-technolog ies/. Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers’ acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child Development, 84(6), 1872–1878. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12091 Fisher, P. H., Dobbs-Oates, J., Doctoroff, G. L., & Arnold, D. H. (2012). Early math interest and the development of math skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 673–681. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0027756 Fleer, M. (2009). Supporting scientific conceptual consciousness or learning in ‘a roundabout way’ in play-based contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1069–1089. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09500690801953161 Fleer, M. (2017). Digital play: Conceptualising the relation between real, augmented and virtual realities. In N. Kucirkova, & G. Falloon (Eds.), Apps, technology and younger learners: international evidence for teaching (1st ed., pp. 223–234). Routledge.

References

83

Fleer, M. (2018). Digital animation: New conditions for children’s development in play-based setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 943–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet. 12637 Fleer, M. (2020). Digital peer play: Meta-imaginary play embedded in early childhood play-based settings. In A. Ridgway, G. Quiñones, & L. Li (Eds.), Peer play and relationships in early childhood, international perspectives on early childhood education and development (Vol. 30, pp. 45–59). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42331-5_4. Fleer, M., Fragkiadaki, G., & Rai, P. (2020). STEM begins in infancy: Conceptual PlayWorlds to support new practices for professionals and families. International Journal of Birth and Parent Education, 7(4), 29–33. Gregory, K. M., Kim, A. S., & Whiren, A. (2003). The effect of verbal scaffolding on the complexity of preschool children’s block constructions. In D. E. Lytle (Ed.), Play and culture studies: Play and educational theory and practice (Vol. 5, pp. 117–133). Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Hatzigianni, M., Gregoriadis, A., Karagiorgou, I., & Chatzigeorgiadou, S. (2018). Using tablets in free play: The implementation of the digital play framework in Greece. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 928–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12620 Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Allen, K., & Rose, A. (2011). Parents’ perspectives on technology and children’s learning in the home: Social class and the role of the habitus. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00431.x Hutt, C. (1979). Play in the under 5s: Form, development and function. In J. G. Howell (Ed.), Modern perspectives in the psychiatry of infancy (pp. 94–141). Bruner/Maazel. Isikoglu Erdogan, N., Johnson, J. E., Dong, P. I., & Qiu, Z. (2019). Do parents prefer digital play? Examination of parental preferences and beliefs in four nations. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0901-2 Lind, K. K. (1998). Science in early childhood: Developing and acquiring fundamental concepts and skills (Paper presented at the Forum on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education). National Science Foundation. Lippard, C. N., Riley, K. L., & Lamm, M. H. (2018). Encouraging the development of engineering habits of mind in prekindergarten learners. In L. English, & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning, early mathematics learning and development (pp. 19–36). Springer Singapore. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2_3 Lowrie, T., & Larkin, K. (2020). Experience, represent, apply (ERA): A heuristic for digital engagement in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 131–147. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12789 Lowrie, T., Larkin, K., & Logan, T. (2019). STEM and digital technologies in play based environments: A new approach. In G. Hine, S. Blackley, & A. Cooke (Eds.), Mathematics education research: Impacting practice (Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 68–80). MERGA. Lowrie, T., Leonard, S., & Fitzgerald, R. (2018). STEM Practices: A translational framework for large-scale STEM education design. EDeR—Educational Design Research, 2(1), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.15460/eder.2.1.1243. MacDonald, A. (2015). Investigating mathematics, science and technology in early childhood. Oxford University Press ANZ. Manches, A., & Plowman, L. (2017). Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet. 12355 Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital play: A new classification. Early Years, 36(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1167675 Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., & English, L. (2018). Engineering in the early grades: Harnessing children’s natural ways of thinking. In L. English, & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning, early mathematics learning and development (pp. 9–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-10-8621-2_2.

84

4 Play, Digital Play, and Play-Based Learning

Palaiologou, I. (2016). Children under five and digital technologies: Implications for early years pedagogy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1350293X.2014.929876 Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books. Ramani, G. B., Zippert, E., Schweitzer, S., & Pan, S. (2014). Preschool children’s joint block building during a guided play activity. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.05.005 Samuelsson, I. P., & Carlsson, M. A. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00313830802497265 Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children (1st ed.). Routledge. Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsch-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Links between spatial and mathematical skills across the preschool years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(1), 1–150. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15405834/2017/ 82/1. Verenikina, I., & Kervin, L. (2011). iPads, digital play and pre-schoolers. He Kupu, 2(5), 4–19. http://www.hekupu.ac.nz/sites/default/files/2017-11/iPads-Digital-Play-and-Preschoolers.pdf. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 Worthington, M. (2020). Mathematical signs and their cultural transmission in pretend play. In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum: Early Childhood to Senior Secondary (pp. 45–66). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98115-2821-7_4. Yelland, N. (2011). Reconceptualising play and learning in the lives of children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911103600202 Yelland, N., & Gilbert, C. (2014). SmartStart: Creating new contexts for learning in the 21st century [Project Report]. Victoria University. Yelland, N., & Gilbert, C. (2017). Re-imagining play with new technologies. In L. Arnott (Ed.), Digital technologies and learning in the early years (pp. 32–43). SAGE Publications Ltd. https:// doi.org/10.4135/9781526414502.n4.

Chapter 5

Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

5.1 Introduction Thus far, we have focussed on the macro issues of the social, pedagogical, and economic perspectives of STEM discussed in Chap. 2; the impact of digital technologies on children’s learning in Chap. 3; and the role of play and play-based learning in Chap. 4. In this chapter, we turn our attention towards early childhood educators who are largely responsible for ensuring a positive experience of STEM for young children. As has been the case in previous chapters, we begin our discussion with an examination of the role of educators more generally. Once again, we note that the literature relating to early childhood educators and their attitudes towards, knowledge of, and competence in teaching STEM is often limited. Therefore, on occasion, we broaden the discussion beyond the early years to expand our understanding of the phenomenon. In keeping with our overall approach in the book, where appropriate, we extrapolate research findings from a STEM sub-discipline to investigate its implications on STEM more broadly. We also critique the literature through the lens of our learning in the 2016–2020 Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) Program (see https://elsa.edu.au/). What is evident from our research in these last four years is that professional development of early years educators is required and early childhood educators benefit greatly from quality STEM professional development. This is not the end of the matter, however, as there are a variety of recommended forms—with various outcomes accruing from them—of professional development in STEM education. Therefore, throughout this chapter, we provide a number of practical suggestions regarding appropriate professional development.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 K. Larkin and T. Lowrie, STEM Education in the Early Years, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2810-9_5

85

86

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

5.2 STEM and Early Childhood Educators Since educator beliefs and knowledge are critical to teaching, we begin our discussion here and then focus more closely on these topics as they are played out in STEM in the early years. While agreement on a single definition of educator beliefs has not been reached, a sample of definitions suffice in establishing a common ground for discussion in this chapter. Handal and Herrington (2003), for example, liken beliefs to filters through which new knowledge and experiences are interpreted. Philipp (2007) compares beliefs to lenses that shape the world that is seen. Whether acting as filters or lenses, the literature suggests that beliefs influence educators’ perceptions and judgments, thereby shaping their actions in the classroom. Chen et al. (2014) note that among the variables of content knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes, it is educator beliefs that had the strongest correlation with elementary educators’ practices. As beliefs influence instructional practice, they directly impact upon educator interactions with children and thus shape what children learn (Chen et al., 2014). Vartuli and Rohs (2009) stressed the importance of analysing educators’ beliefs, arguing that beliefs are the heart of teaching and educators’ beliefs are not merely hypothetical understandings, but also guide their behaviours and decisions in classrooms. Understanding educator beliefs and (given the link between beliefs and knowledge (see Thompson, 1992) knowledge, is important in helping many of them to overcome the high levels of anxiety often experienced by those working in early childhood in relation to STEM (Blackley & Sheffield, 2015).

5.2.1 Educator Beliefs Regarding STEM The importance of quality teaching in the early years is well established (see Chesloff, 2013), as concepts and skills learned from birth through 8 years of age are significant precursors to children’s subsequent learning and school achievement. As indicated in the introduction to this chapter, research in this area has tended to focus on one discipline within STEM; however, we argue that many findings from one discipline are broadly applicable across other STEM disciplines. Fleer (2009a) reports, perhaps a little disconcertingly, that despite a range of reform attempts (see Chap. 1), little change has been reported in the literature in regards to educator confidence to teaching science in the early and primary years of schooling, with reporting by Fleer (2009a, 2009b) on a significant body of research demonstrating that many early childhood educators lack confidence (and competence) in teaching science. Fleer (2009a), in her study of early childhood educators, noted that an educator’s philosophy regarding how young children learn is a significant contributing factor in the type of learning opportunities they provide. Alongside this, as a second significant factor in the provision of successful learning experiences for children, is educator knowledge of science. The study also indicates that, without a scientific framework

5.2 STEM and Early Childhood Educators

87

for using materials in play-based contexts, children will generate their own imaginary, often non-scientific, narratives for making sense of the materials provided (Fleer, 2009a). As we discussed in Chap. 3, attitudes and beliefs of educators are at play in another discipline of STEM, namely technology, and educator attitudes towards technology use in the early years are affected by factors such as training and education, socio-economic status, age, and personal usage of technology (Vaughan & Beers, 2017). The importance of educator confidence in the delivery of STEM in early years settings has been highlighted by a range of researchers. For example, Prentiss Bennett (2016) writes that educators’ beliefs are of particular importance for success within the STEM domains, adding that many educators “lack the efficacy for teaching integrated STEM content” (p. 58). A study by Park et al. (2017) investigated the beliefs of early childhood educators regarding their perceived confidence and readiness for teaching STEM content. They found that two positive influences on such beliefs were: (a) educators’ teaching experience and their awareness of the importance of STEM; and (b) recognition of the potential challenges in teaching STEM. Campbell et al. (2018) report that, while early years educators’ attitudes towards STEM disciplines are relatively positive, self-efficacy and confidence to teach these areas often remains low. In relation to engineering in particular, Dubosarsky et al. (2018) indicate that “one of the reasons for the lack of STEM and engineering instruction is educators’ low self-efficacy regarding the teaching of STEM, due in part to a lack of preparation and shortage of early childhood STEM and engineering curricula” (p. 252). The findings reported above regarding educator beliefs provide a clear goal for professional development (see later in this chapter), which will enhance educators’ understanding of the importance of early childhood STEM, as well as their knowledge of STEM disciplines and the potential challenges of teaching STEM (Park et al., 2017), and thus positively impact upon their STEM beliefs.

5.2.2 Impact of Educator Beliefs on the Teaching of STEM Decades of research have suggested that beliefs have a particularly strong influence on teacher behaviour, and the beliefs that teachers hold can influence a variety of behaviours that impact students’ learning (Prentiss Bennett, 2016). Therefore, the need to ensure positive educator self-belief and self-confidence regarding STEM is a paramount goal because it directly influences the quality of STEM education that they provide. The National Research Council (2006) echoes this perspective, indicating that successful STEM education entails content knowledge (see next section) but—as importantly—requires educators to deliver quality instruction in ways that inspire all children to engage with STEM. One of the consequences of educator beliefs (be they positive or negative) is their level of readiness to teach STEM. This is an important finding, as educator readiness is a significant predictor of change in

88

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

practice (Breffni, 2011); in the case of mathematics, preschool educators’ beliefs that mathematics education is appropriate for that age (Seker ¸ & Alisinano˘glu, 2015) is the strongest predictor of children’s mathematical learning. Educator readiness to teach STEM is also a proxy measure of their beliefs in the importance of STEM, as a relationship exists between the two (Park et al., 2017). Educator readiness for teaching has specific elements, including knowledge, attitudes, and interests—each of which are critical components directly contributing to the effectiveness of creating and implementing teaching methods (Breffni, 2011). Park et al. (2017) expressed direct concern with the readiness of early years educators to teach STEM indicating, “Although the majority of participating educators support the idea that early childhood STEM education is a significant foundational component, it should be noted that about 30 percent of them do not believe in the appropriateness and importance of early STEM education” (p. 12). Seker ¸ and Alisinano˘glu (2015) report that early childhood educators frequently hold negative dispositions and beliefs about mathematics and science, including dislike, trepidation, fear, and a doubt in their own efficacy. These beliefs lead to undervaluing the teaching of mathematics, avoiding or minimising mathematics instruction, with the consequence being less effective mathematics teaching (Ginsburg et al., 2006). In fact, these authors go as far to say that many early childhood educators take a “careless attitude towards mathematics” and do not appreciate its role in children’s development (Ginsburg et al., 2006). However, despite the research noted above indicating that some early years educators are not ready to implement STEM, other research indicates that it is incorrect to assume this is the case for all early years educators. For example, in the research of Park et al. (2017), one-third of the educators surveyed rated their readiness to teach STEM as quite high. Specifically in relation to mathematics, Chen et al. (2014) note that research has generally portrayed early childhood educators as disliking mathematics, lacking confidence and the requisite knowledge to teach early mathematics, being anxious about teaching it, and trying to avoid teaching it. However, these authors paint a different picture, with results from their survey of 346 U.S. preschool educators describing a strikingly different scenario. The preschool educators they surveyed agreed that early mathematics is developmentally appropriate for young children, and that preschoolers have the ability to learn mathematics and want to learn it. Importantly, many of the educators in the study reported “confidence in their specific abilities to set goals and plan mathematics activities, incorporate mathematics learning into a variety of situations, and observe what pre-schoolers know about maths” (Chen et al., 2014, p. 372). These latter research examples are important because they signal that it is misleading to generalise the claim made in some studies (and unfairly in much of the mainstream media) that early childhood educators tend to neglect teaching STEM (Park et al., 2017). However, it is also not helpful to ignore the observations of concerns regarding educator readiness and educator beliefs.

5.2 STEM and Early Childhood Educators

89

5.2.3 Educator Knowledge of STEM Educator knowledge regarding STEM is closely connected to educator beliefs and has been extensively researched, albeit largely in the context of science and mathematics, and often not in early years contexts. For example, Clements et al. (2020) report on studies showing that “skilled and knowledgeable educators can facilitate children’s emerging understanding of STEM concepts, practices, and habits of mind, while harnessing their natural curiosity and also fostering developmentally appropriate, STEM-infused play” (p. 3). Fleer (2009a) raises an interesting point regarding the ability of preschool educators to apply science teaching models recommended in the literature (but developed for older year levels) into early years contexts. She found that it was not so much that the early years educators did not possess STEM content knowledge or knowledge of how to teach science; rather, it was that they felt the informal knowledge they had gained through interest, hobbies, and their teaching experience was not valuable to the children they work with (Fleer, 2009a). This, in contrast, may in fact be a positive finding given that preschool educators follow a play-based, inquiry-led program, as opposed to the lock-step approach to science, via textbooks or structured science programs, used in many primary and secondary contexts, and thus are ideally placed to influence STEM engagement of young children. Fleer (2009b), Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2008), and Gustavsson et al. (2016) each suggest that an early childhood educator’s ability to support science learning is dependent on preparation in how to design and provide children with efficient science learning environments. Key factors in this knowledge development are: scaffolding to build upon the educator’s knowledge of the subject (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2008); using language to talk about the science content in a scientific and appropriate way for young learners (Fleer, 2009b); developing positive scientific attitudes towards, as well as accurate assumptions about science (and STEM more broadly [our emphasis]) and young children (Fleer, 2009b); and developing relational competence (Gustavsson et al., 2016) to embed science authentically in early years contexts. Moomaw and Davis (2010) argue that educators need to use improved strategies and begin work with children on STEM concepts at a young age in order to increase children’s interest in STEM. McClure et al. (2017) also report that “many early years educators lack sufficiently detailed knowledge of what experts call learning trajectories or progressions, the paths children take when learning STEM topics” (p. 21). In addition, at least within Australian Curriculum documents for young children, the different presentations of content within discrete discipline areas is problematic in relation to overall STEM learning. For example, in their analysis of the Australian Mathematics and Digital Technologies curricula, Larkin and Miller (2020) found numerous content mismatches between the two curricula. This is a concern for educators who are required to teach specific content in Year 3 in the Mathematics curriculum, and the same content in the Digital Technologies curriculum in Year 1.

90

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

Concern about educator knowledge is particularly prevalent in the mathematics research literature. Perry and Dockett (2002) claim that many early childhood educators do not have a strong mathematics background, which is worrisome because: “At this time when children’s mathematical potential is great, it is imperative that early childhood teachers have the competence and confidence to engage meaningfully with both the children and their mathematics” (p. 107). Ginsburg et al. (2006) express the view that a major barrier to the implementation of a strong early years mathematics program lies in the inadequate preparation of early years educators. Early years educators are typically (but not always) most comfortable teaching reading and other language-oriented skills, and often lack confidence and interest in their own mathematics knowledge (Moss et al., 2015). Given the mounting evidence linking educator mathematics content knowledge to children’s learning, this is clearly a serious issue. More specifically, there is great concern in relation to geometry and spatial reasoning, where the lack of educator preparation, content knowledge, and interest is worrying (Clements & Sarama, 2011; Dindyal, 2015). Schielack et al. (2006) (of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) and the National Research Council (2006) both point out that geometry received significantly less research emphasis in the mathematics education literature than numeracy. Reports from the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States (Clements & Sarama, 2011) further corroborate these findings and suggest that the lack of focus on early geometry learning is an international concern (Moss et al., 2015). Because of the concerns noted above, an implication for the professional development offered in the ELSA Program, and also for early years STEM professional development more broadly, was to recognise the informal knowledge of the early years educators, while at the same time fine-tuning or extending that knowledge and providing them with the confidence that they can “do STEM education” with their children. We now turn to the important role of STEM professional development for early years educators.

5.3 Professional Development (PD) While professional development (PD) (in some research “Professional Development” is described using the term “Professional Learning”—here we use the terms synonymously) is a necessary and regular part of an educator’s career, there are a number of special considerations regarding PD in STEM that need to be noted. Given the increased interest by governments in STEM education, educators and school leaders are under pressure to implement strategies to maximise STEM opportunities and to design STEM curriculum to meet the needs of their children, often via teaching STEM in integrated or inquiry-based ways (see Anderson & Tully, 2020) to encourage connections to real-world problems (Greca Dufranc et al., 2020). Unfortunately, this pressure is often not accompanied by support and guidance for educators, and the support that is available is often not evidence based. This is problematic for educators as: many curricula treat STEM as separate STEM disciplines; recommended

5.3 Professional Development (PD)

91

STEM pedagogies are ill-defined; and many educators are teaching STEM “out-offield” (Anderson et al., 2020). Tytler et al. (2019) indicate that many interdisciplinary STEM projects, while engaging for children, lack a sense of a coherent curriculum agenda and “fail to engage children in the thinking characteristic of deeper disciplinary practices and end up instead as an epistemic stew” (p. 53). In a major review of integrated STEM curricula in the United States, Honey et al. (2014) found evidence of improved attitudes in children, but little evidence of improved learning in science or mathematics. Summarising many of the issues that teachers face in implementing STEM, Maass et al. (2019) identify three generic challenges: STEM education is new, and understanding what constitutes effective practice is still in its infancy; there is still no clear understanding of the role of individual subjects within integrated STEM; and preparation in initial educator education programs has tended to focus on one, or at most two, areas of disciplinary expertise, which has the potential to narrow perspectives on the importance of other disciplines. In response to these types of concerns, a range of research has been conducted specifically on the role of PD in supporting early childhood educators in their work with children in STEM.

5.3.1 Early Childhood Educators and Their STEM Professional Development (PD) Needs Based on our extensive experience (over 40 years) as primary school educators, as university academics educating the next generation of primary and early childhood pre-service teachers, and as researchers in a four-year longitudinal project working with educators in preschools, it is our view that early childhood educators often require additional support in the teaching of STEM. Our view is also born out in much of the research literature. McClure et al. (2017) suggest that many educators, because they were unlikely to have experienced positive, engaging, inquiry-based STEM learning in their own school education, “may begin their training with negative dispositions toward STEM and with the persistent science misconceptions common in our culture, even among the highly educated” (p. 21). Furthermore, education (and primary and early childhood education in particular) has been described as the most “STEM-phobic” of any university degree, with many university students choosing these courses, at least in part because there are minimal STEM course requirements and little perceived demand for teaching STEM (McClure et al., 2017). Brenneman et al. (2019) note that early childhood educators rarely receive indepth professional preparation in mathematics and science, resulting in “insufficient content knowledge and lack of confidence in their own abilities to implement high quality STEM learning experiences for young learners” (p. 16). Hachey (2020) reported that many early childhood educators are not familiar with STEM education and thus have low self-efficacy for teaching it; the flow-on effect of this low

92

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

training/confidence leads to less time devoted to teaching STEM, with only “10% of kindergarten through second-grade instructional time devoted to STEM content” (p. 136). Compared to primary and secondary educator teaching colleagues, early childhood educators normally have less training in the four STEM disciplines (Kermani & Aldemir, 2015). It follows that they generally have much less experience in implementing STEM activities (Clements et al., 2020). Although the early years provide an exceptional opportunity to introduce STEM, this potential is often left unrealised because many early childhood educators are not prepared to engage children in rich STEM experiences that lay the groundwork for later success in school and in the workplace (Clements et al., 2020). Thus, their PD is an urgent issue for STEM education in early childhood, with a particular focus needed on: student engagement; the intentional teaching role played by educators in facilitating STEM activities; and the process of developing pedagogical knowledge for teaching STEM, which will all help shape the content and structure of professional training for early childhood educators (Wan et al., 2020). A number of implications flow from the picture we have painted. McClure et al. (2017) and Brenneman et al. (2019) call for PD practices that enhance: educators’ understanding of the importance of early childhood STEM education; their knowledge of STEM disciplines and challenges that they may encounter in teaching STEM; and their attitudes toward teaching STEM in the early years (see also Chesloff, 2013; Park et al., 2017). Research by Park et al. (2017) concerning the various barriers faced by early years educators resulted in the generation of a number of PD (and organisational) requirements that might assist them in overcoming these barriers: • Increased time to teach STEM using appropriate instructional resources; • Greater knowledge about STEM topics and more administrative support in delivering STEM outcomes for children; • Increased opportunities for them to collaborate (this can be face-to-face or online); and • The development of a range of strategies that can help them meet the diverse learning needs of children, which vary between the different disciplines (p. 12). Kermani and Aldemir (2015) take a more holistic approach to the requirements of PD for early childhood educators, suggesting the following STEM-related goals: • Supporting educators in generating interesting and relevant topics that are engaging for preschoolers whilst maintaining a continuum across the concepts introduced to children; • Encouraging the adoption of child-centred learning, integrating science and mathematics across other subject matter areas, using inquiry-based learning methods; • Upskilling educators in identifying and using informal moments to explore a variety of concepts that are not planned previously;

5.3 Professional Development (PD)

93

• Supporting the development of relevant curriculum and supportive learning environments with a variety of open-ended and exploratory materials; and • Encouraging educators to implement more science- and mathematics-related (and we argue STEM) activities in their centres (p. 1522). Despite the necessity for PD, one of the most commonly noted challenges in the early years sector is the lack of opportunities for educators to participate in STEM PD. The result has been that many early years educators are underprepared to teach STEM, with negative consequences in terms of deficiencies in STEM subject-matter expertise and experiences (Prentiss Bennett, 2016). In particular, educators of young children are provided with very limited PD in mathematics (Clements & Sarama, 2011; Ginsburg et al., 2006). In our experience of the four-year ELSA Program, one of the most common pieces of feedback from educators was that they appreciated the opportunities that ELSA provided for their PD, both face-to-face and via an online community of practice. Kelley and Williams (2013) suggest that PD needs to include a time component—a point noted by Park et al. (2017) earlier—so that educators have time to understand new content and then accommodate this new content into existing or new curricular plans. Building on the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), Kelley and Williams (2013) suggest that educators need to be active in their own learning in order to develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to how children learn. These authors make the point that such an approach also needs to have an eye towards sustainability of initiatives and time for educators to reflect on what they have learned. Despite slight differences in the method of PD, what is clear in the literature is the need for all children to have access to high-quality STEM experiences in preschool— and this largely depends on their educators being well prepared, both in their initial training and then subsequently with regular, high-quality PD, in both STEM content knowledge and STEM pedagogical knowledge (Early Childhood STEM Working Group at the University of Chicago, 2017). In considering the forms of PD, McClure et al. (2017) and Clements et al. (2020) issue the challenge that such PD must move beyond one-off workshops and instead over opportunities for educators to explore STEM content and pedagogy, as well as address anxiety regarding the teaching of STEM to young children.

5.3.2 Forms of Professional Development (PD) Given the variation in educator confidence in, knowledge of, and willingness to teach STEM, there is clearly no one-size-fits-all model of PD. We now discuss a range of research-based approaches to the delivery of PD for educators in the early years. Guskey (2002), in his early work (1986), proposed a form of PD that focussed on educator change in terms of a simultaneous change in educator practice and a change in beliefs and attitudes, and then a subsequent change in the learning outcomes of children. Guskey later modified his approach to PD, as he determined, based on subsequent research, that a more effective type of PD was one where the focus was

94

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

initially on a change in practice, which would then promote a change in educator beliefs and attitudes, which in term would result in changed learning outcomes. Only at this juncture should direct changes to pedagogy be considered. This new model is reflected in the later work of Kelley and Williams (2013) who identify the importance of creating time and space to allow educators to make changes in their practice and experiment with new pedagogies. Vaughan and Beers (2017) add that this time and space provides educators with the opportunity to “discuss their hesitation, excitement, and progress towards integrating technology” (p. 323)—and, we suggest, STEM more generally. Kelley and Williams (2013) report on three forms of professional learning they suggest can be effective. Summarised below, they are: • Experiential and Engaged Professional Learning. Educators are provided the opportunity to learn through hands-on experiences e.g., in a garden. Educators reported that such experiences profoundly impacted their confidence and sense of self-efficacy using the gardens as a context for STEM education (p. 6). • Integrated Professional Learning. Educators are provided with opportunities to discover opportunities and prepare meaningful contexts for teaching STEM in an interdisciplinary way. Educators were inspired by the holistic, interconnected nature of learning and came to recognise how important such experiences are for learning (p. 8). • Collaborative Professional Learning. Arguably the most transformative PD for educators comes with an opportunity to collaborate and learn with a group of peers. These peers can include educators from the same centre but this form works more effectively when educators can meet colleagues from other centres (p. 10). Bobis et al. (2020), build upon the earlier work of Kennedy (2014) in suggesting three approaches to Professional Learning: namely. • Transmissive, which are particularly efficient at introducing educational reforms, new curricula or new policies to cohorts of teachers; • Malleable or adaptable, which afford increased teacher agency over the PL by combining elements from the transmissive and transformative approaches; and • Transformative, which utilise collaborative inquiry styles aimed at building whole school change within a relational culture. Although Bobis et al. (2020) indicate a movement across the three approaches towards an increase in teacher capacity for professional autonomy, they also state that “the spectrum highlights that there are many approaches to PL, each of which has the potential to meet individual teachers’ specific needs (p. 122). In keeping with the challenge issued above by McClure et al. (2017) and Clements et al. (2020), Estapa and Tank (2017) agree on the need to move beyond simplistic, one-off sessions and instead call for “sustained, coherent, collaborative, reflective teacher programs in order to lead real changes in practice” (p. 2). Of particular interest in their approach is their use of triads comprising a classroom educator, a pre-service educator, and an engineering fellow in PD experiences centred on STEM

5.3 Professional Development (PD)

95

concepts and the use of engineering design. In her critique of the approach, English (2018) indicated that one of the difficulties experienced in forging STEM connections in practice is that disciplines still tend to remain siloed—particularly, in her view, in engineering (see below). Vaughan and Beers (2017) provide one further contribution to the type of PD appropriate for professional learning, namely: the important role of dialogue in the collaborative experiences noted by Kelley and Williams (2013). The dialogic approach of Vaughan and Beers (2017) is based on observations from their research, indicating that the most dramatic form of change takes place when members involved in the dialogue are attempting to shift their practice or beliefs and can function as a support network for each other. Importantly, within this model, the direction for change comes from the individuals within the process—the educators themselves who are collaborating with their peers. This model has implications for those delivering PD because the emphasis is less on the “expertise” of the presenter and more on the development of educators who will be responsible for any change that might come about as a result of the PD. In this way, the PD must support change at both the individual and group levels (Vaughan & Beers, 2017). Related to this important role of dialogue is the ability for educators to be able to switch between the child’s point of view and their own, what Cunningham et al. (2018) call “student hat” and “educator hat”, and thus “speak and think” as a child might. Such a switch encourages educators to think upon a planned activity as a student, considering the likely pitfalls and trouble spots they will encounter. In dialogic terms, they can also “practice asking questions that get children thinking and doing—questions that require more than a one-word answer and that respect and validate children’s contributions” (Cunningham et al., 2018, p. 165). The approach of Vaughan and Beers (2017) and Cunningham et al. (2018) was instrumental in the approach we took in delivering PD in the ELSA Program. We return to this topic in Chap. 7 where we propose new pedagogical models for delivering STEM outcomes in the early years.

5.3.3 Specific Need for Engineering Professional Development (PD) Our experience in working with over 200 early childhood educators is that it is not always easy for them to know what to look for in planning an engineering challenge or task. As Cunningham et al. (2018) note, engineering is as new for most early childhood educators as it is for children. Both curriculum and PD can support educators to improve their engineering practice. English (2018) indicates concerns with the integration of engineering in STEM as it is often viewed as a skill or practice rather than as academic content. She notes that “assisting teachers in better understanding the nature and role of engineering learning, together with effective planning and the enactment of integrated STEM lessons” (p. 282) needs to be a key

96

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

area for future research and action. Lippard et al. (2018) advance the argument that PD in mathematics and English has encouraged early years educators to recognise early literacy and maths skills and to value these “pre” skills. Likewise, they claim “teachers will, similarly, need training and support to recognize and appreciate preengineering skills” (p. 32). As an example, the authors indicate that commenting on properties of materials (e.g., this foam block squishes if I step on it, but the wooden blocks don’t) or solving problems related to materials are the very early forerunners on which more advanced engineering thinking, such as systems or design thinking, are built. Thus, in their view, PD “should focus on helping educators identify potential opportunities for children to generate and solve problems and selecting and providing materials that encourage children’s problem solving” (Lippard et al., 2018, p. 32).

5.3.4 Teacher Reflections Regarding Professional Development (PD) Given the amount of expenditure on PD for educators, it is comforting that research into the effectiveness of PD generally indicates positive outcomes. For example, research by Prentiss Bennett (2016) indicated that when elementary educators participate in STEM PD opportunities, they develop increased confidence and self-efficacy as STEM educators. Likewise, Park et al. (2017) and Breffni (2011) found that educators’ beliefs toward the subject matter being taught, subject matter knowledge, and educational practices changed as a consequence of supportive PD. A final example comes from the work of Piasta et al. (2015) who established that the provision of high-quality PD has positive impacts upon student learning. Particularly in relation to mathematics PD, Chen et al. (2014) found that a large majority of educators felt confident in their knowledge of mathematics and how to teach it to young children. These educators, however, were less confident in what children know about mathematics at school entry, the best ways to assess children’s mathematics knowledge, and their own ability to translate assessment results into curriculum plans. This can mean that early childhood educators, who already have likely received only minimal preparation to teach STEM (Aronin & Floyd, 2013), may find it difficult to implement broad PD suggestions into their individual pedagogical repertoire (Vaughan & Beers, 2017). The above research demonstrates the variability in both types of educator confidence: in teaching STEM and in their personal STEM abilities. This variability suggests that educators have areas of relative strengths and weaknesses; therefore, delivering PD based on generalisations about early childhood STEM educators is likely to miss the target of what is appropriate in relation to a specific group of educators (Chen et al., 2014). Vaughan and Beers (2017) provide a number of reflections regarding PD that are particularly pertinent to the area of technology:

5.3 Professional Development (PD)

97

• Given that early childhood educators have received little preparation for technology in general (see also Aronin & Floyd, 2013), they find it difficult to apply it appropriately within their pedagogical repertoire. • Early childhood educators differ from their K–12 teaching peers in curriculum development and, unlike the mandated curriculum of the older grades, have maintained more independence in lesson planning and daily routines. Thus, they require a different type of technology PD. • Technology as part of the early years, therefore, is not about integrating specific times during lessons for children to have access to technology but, instead, finding ways to integrate technology in a more authentic and meaningful manner. • Supporting and empowering educators in technology integration became less of a daily curriculum requirement and, increasingly, became a source of assistance and value in their work. • Learning to teach with technology, specifically in early childhood education, requires collaboration and support through a personalised learning process. Technology-based PD is also important, as there is often a disconnect between a child’s community and home technology experiences (see Palaiologou, 2016), and the child’s experience of technology in early years centres. This disconnect likely relates to a number of factors already discussed, including “lack of teacher preparation coursework; limited research on the efficacy of technology infusion in the preschool environment; or teacher apprehension due to the potential interference with personal relationships with young children” (Aronin & Floyd, 2013, p. 35). A long-term goal of PD in the technology domain might be to develop: digitally literate educators who … have the knowledge, skills, and experience to select and use technology tools and interactive media that suit the ages and developmental levels of the children in their care and know when and how to integrate technology into the program effectively. (Donohue & Schomburg, 2017, p. 73)

5.3.5 Principles and Guidelines for Professional Development (PD) in Digital Technologies Regardless of the exact form of PD, and particularly relevant given the rapid rise of the use of digital technologies in the early years (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020), it is useful to provide early years educators with some general guidelines for technology use. Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson (2011) add that it is imperative that “teachers have the philosophical knowledge and skills for effective evaluation, selection, and use of technology that is appropriate for the age range or diverse groups of students in their classrooms” (p. 180). Developmentally appropriate practices should guide decisions about whether and when to integrate technology into early childhood programs. Appropriate technology and media balance and enhance the use of essential materials, activities, and interactions in the early childhood setting, becoming part of the daily routine (National Assocation for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC] and

98

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College [FRC], 2012 [henceforth (NAEYC & FRC, 2012)]). In response to calls for developmentally appropriate use of technology, researchers [See for example, Attard and Holmes (2020) and Anderson et al. (2019)] have proposed a variety of principles and guidelines to assist educators and parents in selecting appropriate digital experiences for their children. The impact of technology can be mediated by educators’ use of these developmentally appropriate principles and practices, similar to those that guide the use of print materials and all other learning tools and content for young children (NAEYC & FRC, 2012). The NAEYC and FRC (2012) have created a range of guidelines they suggest should guide digital technology use in the early years. Although a little dated, they are still very useful for early childhood educators. The NAEYC and FRC (2012) recommend that early childhood educators: • Select, use, integrate, and evaluate technology and interactive media tools in intentional and developmentally appropriate ways, giving careful attention to the appropriateness and the quality of the content, the child’s experience, and the opportunities for co-engagement; • Provide a balance of activities in programs for young children, recognising that technology and interactive media can be valuable tools when used intentionally with children to extend and support active, hands-on, creative, and authentic engagement with those around them and with their world; • Carefully consider the screen time recommendations from public health organisations when determining appropriate limits on technology and media use in early childhood settings; and discourage passive technology use; and • Provide leadership in ensuring equitable access to technology and interactive media experiences for the children in their care and for parents and families (p. 11). Accompanying these guidelines are a number of general observations regarding technology use. Overall, the NAEYC and FRC (2012) take the position that effective use of technology occurs when technologies “are active, hands-on, engaging, and empowering; give the child control; provide adaptive scaffolds to ease the accomplishment of tasks; and are used as one of many options to support children’s learning” (p. 6). Technology use should also “integrate technology and media with other core experiences and opportunities” as “young children need tools that help them explore, create, problem solve, consider, think, listen and view critically, make decisions, observe, document, research, investigate ideas, demonstrate learning, take turns, and learn with and from one another” (p. 7). The NAEYC and FRC (2012) also caution that technology and media should not “replace activities such as creative play, real-life exploration, physical activity, outdoor experiences, conversation, and social interactions that are important for children’s development” (p. 5). McManis and Gunnewig (2012) affirm this position by stating, “for technology to be developmentally appropriate, it should be responsive to the ages and developmental levels of the children, to their individual needs and interests, and to their social and cultural contexts” (p. 16). As has been the case

References

99

throughout this chapter, the role of the educator is critical because “professional judgment is required to determine if and when a specific use of technology or media is age appropriate, individually appropriate, and culturally and linguistically appropriate” (NAEYC & FRC, 2012, p. 6). In Chap. 7, we propose a less structured approach to digital technology use, as more recent evidence has suggested a pivot away from prescriptive descriptions regarding technology use to a more nuanced, contextual approach.

5.4 Conclusion In this chapter, we switched our focus from the critique of the macro issues of the social, pedagogical, and economic perspectives of STEM in Chap. 2, and the impact of digital technologies on learning in Chap. 3 and on play in Chap. 4, to a focus on the early childhood educators who are largely held accountable for the effective delivery of STEM for young children. Again, this critique was conducted based on our reflections from our ELSA Program. In the first section of the chapter, we examined research regarding early years educators’ STEM beliefs and STEM knowledge. What was evident from our research is that PD of early years educators is required, and thus we proposed a number of different forms of PD in STEM education, as a one-size-fits-all model is unlikely to be successful. Regardless of the exact form of PD, a main goal is to develop affirmative, positive attitudes towards STEM amongst early childhood educators (Chen et al., 2021). This would break the vicious cycle of: inadequate early childhood university preparation; poor quality or no PD; and producing early childhood educators who themselves have not achieved proficiency with elementary-level STEM content and who are therefore ill-equipped to foster STEM proficiencies of young children (Clements et al., 2020)— who then go on to develop poor attitudes towards STEM. While not diminishing the crucial role of educators in the early STEM development of young children, it is also the case that parents and external providers of STEM learning opportunities are also critical in such development, and it is this topic that we examine in Chap. 6.

References Anderson, J., English, L., Fitzallen, N., & Symons, D. (2020). The contribution of mathematics education researchers to the current STEM education agenda. In J. Way, C. Attard, J. Anderson, J. Bobis, H. McMaster, & K. Cartwright (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2016–2019 (pp. 27–57). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4269-5_3. Anderson, J., & Tully, D. (2020). Designing and evaluating an integrated STEM professional development program for secondary and primary school teachers in Australia. In J. Anderson, & Y. Li. Integrated approaches to STEM Education (pp. 403–425). Springer.

100

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

Anderson, J., Wilson, K., Tully, D., & Way, J. (2019). “Can we build the wind powered car again?” Students’ and teachers’ responses to a new integrated STEM curriculum. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 5(1), 20–39. Aronin, S., & Floyd, K. K. (2013). Using an iPad in inclusive preschool classrooms to introduce STEM concepts. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(4), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/004 005991304500404. Attard, C. & Holmes, K. (2020). Technology enabled mathematics education: Optimising student engagement. Routledge. Blackley, S., & Sheffield, R. (2015). Appraising the E in STEM education: Creative alternatives to “engineering”. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 23(3), 1–10. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229408366.pdf. Bobis, J., Kaur, B., Cartwright, K., & Darragh, L. (2020). Teachers’ professional learning and development in mathematics education. In J. Way, et al. (Eds.) Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2016–2019 (pp. 117–146). Springer. Breffni, L. (2011). Impact of curriculum training on state-funded prekindergarten teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(2), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2011.572226. Brenneman, K., Lange, A., & Nayfeld, I. (2019). Integrating STEM into preschool education; Designing a professional development model in diverse settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0912-z. Campbell, C., Speldewinde, C., Howitt, C., & MacDonald, A. (2018). STEM practice in the early years. Creative Education, 9(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.91002. Chen, J.-Q., McCray, J., Adams, M., & Leow, C. (2014). A survey study of early childhood teachers’ beliefs and confidence about teaching early math. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(6), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0619-0. Chen, Y.-L., Huang, L.-F., & Wu, P.-C. (2021). Preservice preschool teachers’ self-efficacy in and need for STEM education professional development: STEM pedagogical belief as a mediator. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-010 55-3. Chesloff, J. D. (2013). Why STEM education must start in early childhood. Education Week 32(23), 27–32. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/03/06/23chesloff.h32.html. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: The case of geometry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-0119173-0. Clements, D. H., Vinh, M., Lim, C.-I., & Sarama, J. (2020). STEM for inclusive excellence and equity. Early Education and Development, 32(1), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289. 2020.1755776. Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., & Davis, M. E. (2018). Engineering concepts, practices, and trajectories for early childhood education. In L. English, & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning, early mathematics learning and development (pp. 135–174). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2_8. Dindyal, J. (2015). Geometry in the early years: A commentary. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 47(3), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0700-9. Donohue, C., & Schomburg, R. (2017). Technology and interactive media in early childhood programs. YC Young Children, 72(4), 72–78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90013713. Dubosarsky, M., John, M. S., Anggoro, F., Wunnava, S., & Celik, U. (2018). Seeds of STEM: The development of a problem-based STEM curriculum for early childhood classrooms. In L. English, & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning, early mathematics learning and development (pp. 249–269). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2_12. Early Childhood STEM Working Group at the University of Chicago. (2017). Early STEM Matters: Providing high-quality STEM experiences for all young learners. UChicago STEM Education. http://ecstem.uchicago.edu.

References

101

English, L. (2018). Engineering education in early childhood: Reflections and future directions. In L. English, & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning, early mathematics learning and development (pp. 273–284). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2_13. Estapa, A. T., & Tank, T. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary classroom: A professional development approach centered on an engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0058-3. Fleer, M. (2009a). Supporting scientific conceptual consciousness or learning in ‘a roundabout way’ in play-based contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1069–1089. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09500690801953161. Fleer, M. (2009b). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 281–306. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9085-x. Ginsburg, H. P., Cannon, J., Eisenband, J., & Pappas, S. (2006). Mathematical thinking and learning. In K. McCartney, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 208–229). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757703.ch11. Greca Dufranc, I. M., García Terceño, E. M., Fridberg, M., Cronquist, B., & Redfors, A. (2020). Robotics and early-years STEM education: The botSTEM framework and activities. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 01. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/7948. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512. Gustavsson, L., Jonsson, A., Ljung-Djärf, A., & Thulin, S. (2016). Ways of dealing with science learning: A study based on Swedish early childhood education practice. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1867–1881. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1220650. Hachey, A. (2020). Success for all: Fostering early childhood STEM identity. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2020-0001. Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217369. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, The National Adacemies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612. Kelley, S. S., & Williams, D. R. (2013). Teacher professional learning communities for sustainability: Supporting STEM in learning gardens in low-income schools. Journal of Sustainability Education, 5, 327–345. Kennedy, A. (2014, 2014/10/20). Understanding continuing professional development: The need for theory to impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.955122. Kermani, H., & Aldemir, J. (2015). Preparing children for success: Integrating science, math, and technology in early childhood classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 185(9), 1504–1527. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1007371. Larkin, K., & Miller, J. (2020). Digital technologies and numeracy—Synergy or discord? In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum (pp. 137–154). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_8. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355. Lippard, C. N., Riley, K. L., & Lamm, M. H. (2018). Encouraging the development of engineering habits of mind in prekindergarten learners. In L. English, & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning, early mathematics learning and development (pp. 19–36). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-10-8621-2_3. Lowrie, T., & Larkin, K. (2020). Experience, represent, apply (ERA): A heuristic for digital engagement in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 131–147. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12789.

102

5 Early Childhood Educators and STEM Education

Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 51(6), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11 858-019-01100-5. McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED574402. McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. YC Young Children, 67(3), 14–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731168. Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. YC Young Children, 65(5), 12–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42730633. Moss, J., Hawes, Z., Naqvi, S., & Caswell, B. (2015). Adapting Japanese lesson study to enhance the teaching and learning of geometry and spatial reasoning in early years classrooms: A case study. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 47(3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0679-2. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College (FRC). (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/top ics/PS_technology_WEB.pdf. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11019. Ntuli, E., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2011). Teacher criteria for evaluating and selecting developmentally appropriate computer software. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(2), 179– 193. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/36190/. Palaiologou, I. (2016). Children under five and digital technologies: Implications for early years pedagogy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1350293X.2014.929876. Park, M.-H., Dimitrov, D. M., Patterson, L. G., & Park, D.-Y. (2017). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15614040. Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2002). Young children’s access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education: Direction for the 21st century (5 ed., pp. 75–108). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics (pp. 257–315). Information Age Publishing. Piasta, S. B., Logan, J. A. R., Pelatti, C. Y., Capps, J. L., & Petrill, S. A. (2015). Professional development for early childhood educators: Efforts to improve math and science learning opportunities in early childhood classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 407–422. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0037621. Prentiss Bennett, J. M. (2016). An investigation of elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education [Dissertation, Regent University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Schielack, J., Charles, R., Clements, D., Duckett, P., Fennell, F., Lewandowski, S., Trevino, E., & Zbiek, R. M. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/cur riculumfocalpoints/. Seker, ¸ P. T., & Alisinano˘glu, F. (2015). A survey study of the effects of preschool teachers’ beliefs and self-efficacy towards mathematics education and their demographic features on 48–60-monthold preschool children’s mathematic skills. Creative Education, 6(3), 405–414. https://doi.org/ 10.4236/ce.2015.63040. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., & Melhuish, E. (2008). Towards the transformation of practice in early childhood education: The effective provision of pre-school

References

103

education (EPPE) project. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03057640801889956. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). Macmillan. Tytler, R., Williams, G., Hobbs, L., & Anderson, J. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for a STEM interdisciplinary agenda. In B. Doig, J. Williams, D. Swanson, R. B. Ferri, & P. Drake (Eds.), Interdisciplinary mathematics education: The State of the art and beyond (ICME-13 Monographs, pp. 51–81). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11066-6_5. Vartuli, S., & Rohs, J. (2009). Early childhood prospective teacher pedagogical belief shifts over time. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(4), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10901020903320262. Vaughan, M., & Beers, C. (2017). Using an exploratory professional development initiative to introduce iPads in the early childhood education classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0772-3. Wan, Z. H., Jiang, Y., & Zhan, Y. (2020). STEM education in early childhood: A review of empirical studies. Early Education and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1814986.

Chapter 6

STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

6.1 Introduction In Chaps. 2 and 5, we focussed on the STEM learning that happens in early years centres in the presence of early childhood educators, and how these educators can be supported with well-planned and delivered professional development. We will now investigate the literature regarding STEM beyond the “preschool fence” that argues for the benefits of STEM education beyond formal educational sites. It is apparent from earlier chapters that a great deal of STEM Education occurs in early years centres; in this chapter, we argue that, although greatly varied, much of STEM learning also occurs beyond the centres. We are not recommending a dichotomy between home and school STEM education; however, for the purposes of this chapter, we will only focus on initiatives that, by and large, do not involve formal school contexts (some of the partnership activities discussed later breach this general rule). A large body of research we will synthesise has concluded that STEM learning happens beyond centres, primarily at home within families, but also in the wider community. Initially, we critique the literature that explores the critical role of parents and families in STEM, firstly at a generic STEM level and then at the level of each of the STEM disciplines, as this is how most of the research is reported. We then look closely at research outlining the important role of parents’ language use with their children in STEM development. Finally, we dedicate a section of this chapter on the topic of STEM beyond formal schooling contexts, as this is an often-ignored element of STEM Education.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 K. Larkin and T. Lowrie, STEM Education in the Early Years, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2810-9_6

105

106

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

6.2 The Impact of Parents and Families on STEM Learning Children typically spend more than 80% of their waking hours outside of school settings (Dorie et al., 2014), which means that parents (or the other adults who raise them) are the most frequently and consistently present adults in a child’s microsystem. They are therefore the most direct gateway to STEM learning for very young children and thus play a vital role in their learning experiences (McClure et al., 2017). Early STEM experiences can engage children’s interest and better position them for later formal STEM learning, with research indicating that children develop enduring STEM interests before school, and that the level of their interest has long-term implications for learning trajectories (Alexander et al., 2012; Fisher et al., 2012). Parental involvement in children’s education is one of the hot topics in education research since such involvement “is consistently found to be positively related with children’s higher academic success, better cognitive competence, better problemsolving skills, and school attendance and negatively related with behavioural problems in schools” (Ünlü Çetin et al., 2020, p. 54). Moreover, parent involvement has been found to be the most important contributor for academic socialisation in the primary and secondary school years (Feinstein & Symons, 1999). Family engagement in young children’s learning has a consistently positive effect on their learning, with the relation strongest when that engagement takes place outside of school through activities such as playing with shapes, puzzles, or blocks together at home (Clements et al., 2020). Despite their importance, some literature note that “parents may not always see their role in the learning process. In some cases, they may view schools as the primary source of children’s STEM learning” (Wan et al., 2020, p. 17). Before looking at discipline-specific research regarding parental involvement, we examine the more generic literature. Parental beliefs about children’s learning influences: children’s development; how the parent behaves; and the interactions between parents and their children, including everyday practices and routines (Roopnarine et al., 2003; Sigel et al., 2014). Unfortunately, many parents experience anxiety about STEM topics and believe that STEM is only for older children, only for boys, or only for certain “types of kids” (Dorie et al., 2014). Regrettably, these attitudes and beliefs are then often transferred to their children (Dika et al., 2016; McClure et al., 2017). Parental awareness of STEM and STEM careers is often low, and children often have fewer opportunities to see STEM careers and STEM knowledge being put into practice. Therefore, they rely more heavily on stereotypical images and beliefs about STEM careers (Sharkawy, 2015). In addition, parents’ beliefs regarding their children’s academic interest and ability relate to children’s later school attitudes and performance in mathematics (Fisher et al., 2012). Thus, parents significantly influence the persistence of early STEM interests through the creation of contexts and environments in which these interests develop and thrive (Alexander et al., 2012). To build a family’s capacity, educators need to support families with integrating STEM practices into everyday activities and routines and provide ways that allow families to enhance their child’s interactions (Clements et al., 2020).

6.2 The Impact of Parents and Families on STEM Learning

107

The environments in which children experience daily STEM learning differ among families (Bell et al., 2009) because of their varied access to the natural world (e.g., beaches, forests, parks) and educational venues (e.g., museums, aquariums, science centres, observatories). These venues afford opportunities for informal STEM learning, where parents and children can make observations together and then have ongoing conversations about their observations and experiences. Similarly, families vary in their skills and use of technologies. Children also have different levels of exposure to computers, machinery, tools, and appliances, and their knowledge of the existence and function of, and how technologies work depends on their level of exposure to them. Given the influence of parental intervention on STEM outcomes—e.g., Lloyd et al. (2017) report that parental interaction can enhance children’s learning at least as much, if not more, than educator interventions—their involvement is not to be ignored. Likewise, Feinstein and Symons (1999) found that parental interest in their child’s education in the early years is the single most powerful predictor of achievement at age 16. A model proposed by Epstein (2001) outlines six different parent involvement types: (1) parenting; (2) communicating; (3) volunteering; (4) learning at home; (5) decision-making; and (6) collaborating with the community. Since family and community settings offer a variety of situated, authentic STEM learning opportunities, it is important to encourage parents to recognise their roles in supporting their children through their daily interactions and activities (Wan et al., 2020). Having briefly established the overarching importance of parental involvement, we now investigate how this is enacted in the separate STEM disciplines. As argued in the previous chapters of this book, we do not support this segregation of STEM into disciplines, and we have endeavoured, where possible, to promote a holistic approach to STEM (rather than investigating the individual elements of STEM, or even how two or more of the elements can be combined). However, much of the research on the impact of parents in their child’s STEM learning is at the individual discipline level. Consequently, we follow this convention in the next section to be accurate in synthesising research in these areas and discuss the role of parents in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technologies separately. We then conclude with the examination of the role of parents by returning to a holistic perspective when examining the research investigating the importance of language, particularly spatial language, in STEM development.

6.2.1 Influence of Parents in Science Although somewhat limited, research (see Callanan & Oakes, 1992; Alexander et al., 2012) has provided growing evidence of the link between daily household and family activities, science learning, and science interest for young children. Callanan and Oakes (1992) found that children’s interest in science does not develop in isolation; rather it is supported by a parent with the ability to answer domain-related questions. Most, if not all, parents have experienced the “why” phase where young children

108

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

incessantly question why the world in which they live is the way that it is. In fact, this is the most common route for scientific concepts to be learnt, but research has shown that parents seldom specifically seek to introduce complex scientific principles to young children. Parents can support learning by responding sensitively to children’s curiosity questions, sharing “factoids” as necessary (Callanan & Oakes, 1992) as a way of supporting scientific understanding. Alexander et al. (2012) suggest that the linking of science concepts to the everyday experiences of their children (albeit sometimes inaccurately) and following the lead of their children when discussing these experiences, is the primary mechanism for the development of scientific interest and understanding. Examples of these everyday experiences that foster interest and learning include looking after pets, gardening activities, experiences with food, and discussions about bodily actions (Creative Little Scientists, 2012). Early interest in science appears pivotal to children’s sustained interest in science over time. There is evidence that suggests, from preschool to middle childhood, early interests in science are the best predictors of later interests in science, and that early informal science learning opportunities at home predict later interest in children engaging in science-related activities (Alexander et al., 2012). Alexander et al. (2012) also found that these early experiences promote an affective reaction to science, especially in homes with an emphasis on free play and communication. These authors indicate that by the age of 4, many children are already interested in science-related domains and that parents’ provision of science-related opportunities has positive effects on the development of these early interests. It is hypothesised by Alexander et al. (2012) that such early experiences are “more likely to culminate in the development of basic knowledge, ideas, vocabulary, and ‘epistemic frames’ that can later support learning from science texts and enhance science achievement” (p. 782). These authors also argue, however, that it is not enough just to involve children in science activities and expect them to be interested or value science. They propose that children need extended time to engage in science-related activities in addition to supportive family discussions. Children’s interests that are sustained over time are predicted to develop basic ideas, knowledge, vocabulary, and frameworks that enhance later formal science learning.

6.2.2 Increasing Parental Involvement in Science As indicated earlier, lack of parent confidence—in this case, regarding their own science knowledge and confidence—is often a major problem to overcome. This lack of confidence often relates to a narrow understanding of what science is, which likely developed because of the parents’ own experiences of school science. In their work with parents, Lloyd et al. (2017) invited parents to discuss, prior to participation in the project and then again after, what science meant to them. Parent responses prior to the project included “learning through exploration; how things work …; chemicals; and biology, chemistry, physics” (Lloyd et al., 2017, p. 250). Given these

6.2 The Impact of Parents and Families on STEM Learning

109

responses, it is understandable why parents might wonder how they are to assist their young children in learning science. However, post-project responses from these same parents indicated a different perspective of science that was more accessible to them in their interactions with their children. These responses included, “It means exploring, experimenting. It is about finding out how things work e.g. how the sponge soaks in water or how the stone sink in water; definitely discovery, testing things out, experimenting … science is the act of using the mind to imagine things and doing it or acting it” (Lloyd et al., 2017, p. 250). From this perspective, parents will likely become more confident in their ability to support their children’s emergent scientific thinking. A challenge for all educators— which was also apparent in our Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) Program (see https://elsa.edu.au/)—is developing awareness amongst parents that many activities they already undertake at home with their young children (e.g., cooking, baking, cleaning, etc.) are essentially “scientific”. Thus, a parent’s role in supporting their children to develop science understanding is enhanced if they are made aware of the extent of their own existing knowledge by being, in turn, supported by knowledgeable early childhood educators and practitioners (Lloyd et al., 2017). There are many opportunities for parents, in the understanding of science previously noted, to “do science” with their children. Perhaps, an operational definition for science learning opportunities supported by parents and guardians could follow the suggestion of Alexander et al. (2012): “home activities that might inform children’s growing conceptions about science and scientists and that were designed at a minimum to expose the child to science-related content” (p. 767). This is the approach we took in our ELSA Program in the construction of the Families App, where opportunities for science (and STEM more broadly) are embedded in the types of activities that parents and children already do when they are at home, at the shops, playing in a park, etc. Using this definition, many home activities are easily seen as science learning activities. When children are playing with mud, constructing playgrounds for insects, mixing paints, or making play dough, they are likely conducting playful experiments (Ross, 2000). Parents need to be mindful of these opportunities and listen to, and converse with, their children as they play. Although children’s initial thoughts about the things they observe may be naive, they are the forerunner of more serious thought. Ross (2000) therefore argues that the role of parents is not so much of motivation (as children are normally quite ready to stick their noses into nature); rather their role is to facilitate, but not direct, these playful explorations.

6.2.3 Influence of Parents in Mathematics In our investigation into parental involvement in STEM, we were somewhat surprised to discover that much less research has been conducted regarding the role of parents in early mathematics as compared to science and digital technology (see Cannon &

110

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

Ginsburg, 2008). However, as was the case with science, research has revealed that parental attitudes influence their children’s attitudes (Soni & Kumari, 2017). Many adults lack confidence and harbour feelings of anxiety, helplessness, fear, and dislike towards mathematics (Haylock, 2010). Gunderson et al. (2012) posit that an adult’s anxieties and belief that mathematics ability is a stable trait, influences children’s attitudes towards mathematics. More recently, a study demonstrated that when parents who were more “mathematics anxious” frequently helped their 1st- and 2nd-grade children with mathematics homework, their children learnt significantly less mathematics and had more mathematics anxiety at the end of the year (Maloney et al., 2015). Much of the research about mathematics and the role of parents relates to two areas of mathematics: (a) spatial reasoning supported by the use of blocks; and (b) patterning and the value of music in supporting early patterning skills. The role of parental language, which is explored separately later in this chapter, also figures heavily in discussions about parents and early mathematics. The overall paucity of research perhaps reflects a narrow view of mathematics as primarily involving symbols, rather than a more expansive view of mathematics as also involving experiences, language, and applications (Lowrie & Patahuddin, 2015). As was the case with science, due to the amount of time that many young children spend with their parents, raising parental awareness of the opportunities for them to do mathematics with their children is critical.

6.2.4 Increasing Parental Involvement in Mathematics Research has shown that development of early spatial skills, via interactions with parents in the home environment, is paramount in increasing school readiness (Verdine et al., 2014). However, home-based spatial activities should not be viewed as “distractions” while parents complete chores; instead, they should be seen as opportunities for the thoughtful involvement of parents in mathematical experiences with their children. Verdine et al. (2014) reinforce the importance of shared activities with children in developing their spatial skills, largely via the interplay of language between parent and child during these activities. The research on block play in early childhood is extensive (see Hirsch, 1996; Jirout & Newcombe, 2015); here, only research that includes the role of parents is evaluated. Blocks are acknowledged as an educational tool that provides parents and young children with an accessible and playful introduction to spatial relations. A study by Ferrara et al. (2011) indicated that the presence of construction materials, such as blocks, in play conditions with parents increased the extent of spatial talk between parent and child. This study also determined that guided play opportunities involving parents and children resulted in increased spatial language. A second major area of mathematics that parents can help support at home is early patterning. These early patterning opportunities with parents are critical

6.2 The Impact of Parents and Families on STEM Learning

111

because patterning skills at the end of preschool predicted mathematics achievement in grades 1 and 5 (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019; Warren et al., 2012). Further, improving early patterning skills supports the development of more advanced counting, symbolic mapping (e.g., mapping quantities to verbal number names), and calculation knowledge (Papic et al., 2011). A readily available activity for parents and children to play at home is patterning with music. Music activities and materials are excellent for promoting patterning and emergent mathematics (Geist, 2014). Music is likely to play a part in most children’s first patterning experience and is a highly social, natural, and developmentally appropriate way to engage even the youngest child in mathematics learning (Geist et al., 2012). Music is made up of rhythmic patterns and can be structured to make the patterning simple or complex, depending on the activity. Young children have an innate capability to not only see patterns, but also to hear them in music; reinforcing these capabilities by teaching patterns through music at an early age will likely benefit children’s abilities (Geist et al., 2012). An additional benefit of music is that it likely keeps children engaged in activities that are very mathematical (rhythm, beat, spatial movement) for long periods of time. These types of experiences promote positive attitudes toward mathematics and support the construction of mathematical concepts in a developmentally appropriate way for young children (Geist et al., 2012; McGarvey, 2012).

6.2.5 Influence of Parents in Engineering Extant research on engineering education, as part of the broader STEM education agenda, is limited and perhaps reflects, from a range of perspectives, the rather problematic nature of engineering as one of the STEM disciplines. As a logical consequence, there is only a limited body of research on the role of parents in supporting engineering in the early years. This limited research has indicated that young people (especially girls) and their parents tend to have low levels of interest in engineering, and negative or limited perceptions of the engineering field (Pattison et al., 2016). Despite being limited in quantity, existing research clearly highlights the critical need to understand how engineering interests develop and can be supported before children enter school; and the effectiveness of supporting, through early childhood interventions, long-term engineering-related interest development (Pattison et al., 2016). Research also suggests that, beyond the obvious tendency for “occupational inheritance” (i.e., for children of engineers to become engineers), parents play a variety of roles that promote engineering learning and that influence the attitudes of young children towards engineering (Dorie et al., 2015). According to Dorie et al. (2014), these roles are: Engineering Career Motivator; Engineering Attitudes Builder; Stimulator for Student Achievement; and Engineering Thinking Guide. Haden et al. (2014) suggest that parents can help their children build the foundations of engineering

112

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

education by identifying manifestations of engineering concepts. This in turn helps develop children’s engineering knowledge and skills, as well as positive attitudes towards the collaborative nature of engineering (Ata-Aktürk & Demircan, 2020). In contrast with the other three STEM disciplines, we did not discover any research that indicated how parental involvement in Engineering could be encouraged, at least not in the early stages of children’s learning. This could be an important avenue for future research.

6.2.6 Influence of Parents in Digital Technologies The final area of investigation, in relation to parental influence in STEM, is digital technology. The Australian Curriculum recognises that Technologies can play an important role in transforming, restoring, and sustaining societies and natural, managed, and constructed environments. In the Australian education context, digital technology has recently been elevated to one of the two sub-strands of the Technologies Curriculum (Larkin & Miller, 2020). Despite a great deal of media attention on the negative aspects of digital technology use with young children (see Chap. 3), research generally points to parents having positive views regarding its use (Palaiologou, 2016). For example, a comprehensive study of the use of digital technology by children under five was conducted in four European countries (2010–2012). As part of this project, 530 parents completed a questionnaire exploring their views of digital technology use by young children. In the key findings from the project, Palaiologou (2016, p. 17) reported that a majority of parents wanted their children to be part of an education context where: • • • •

Adventurous learning, making use of digital technologies is embraced (58%); Learning can be flexible and creative (78%); Media-oriented activities complement the learning environment (78%); Children are responsible for their own interactions with digital technologies (82%); • Problem-posing and thinking are encouraged (62%); and • Sensitivity is shown towards children’s experiences at home (64%).

6.2.7 The Role of Parents in Supporting the Use of Digital Technology in the Home One of the key findings from the research of Palaiologou (2016) was that parents in the project felt that their “definition of an illiterate person no longer corresponded to the traditional view of someone who cannot read and write, but rather was considered as a person who cannot learn, unlearn, relearn and use digital technologies as part

6.2 The Impact of Parents and Families on STEM Learning

113

of their everyday lives” (p. 1). This is a sobering conclusion and prompted Palaiologou (2016) to conclude that a “re-conceptualisation of young children’s learning in early years pedagogy and early childhood settings is required” (p. 1), as children under 5 are engaging with digital technologies while playing and learning at home in ways that should no longer be overlooked by early years education. Secondly, it is suggested by Palaiologou (2016) that, given the ready availability of digital technologies, early years educators should re-examine the way children learn and the way in which the early years workforce and parents organise their digital technology interactions with young children. Positive outcomes were reported by parents in a study by Isikoglu Erdogan et al. (2019), including accruing technological skills necessary for the future, learning basic mathematics and reading skills, and absorbing many social and physical facts about the world. Sheehan et al. (2019) report on how parentchildren interactions supported children to learn coding and that this type of interaction may be a rich context for STEM learning. Despite the positive outcomes of technology, Hollingsworth et al. (2011) remind us that the issue of digital inequity is still present and that “material inequalities of access” (p. 347) continue to impact on parental engagement with digital technology. In light of a range of findings indicating that digital media surrounds young children (Ofcom, 2019; Papadakis et al., 2018) and that families are increasingly providing their children with access to digital technologies often via the “pass-back” approach (Common Sense Media, 2013), it would appear that a “head in the sand” approach is unlikely to be helpful or productive. Instead, we think the question should perhaps be, how can parents play a thoughtful role in use of digital technologies that “contribute to the development of learning contexts that are meaningful and contribute to children’s home digital patterns and habits” (Palaiologou, 2016, p. 19)? One approach, advocated by Vaughan and Beers (2017) and Larkin et al. (2010) is to develop young children’s “digital citizenship”. In this approach, parents role model appropriate “use of technology, co-engaging in technology use, and providing children with time in which they can be unplugged from these technology tools” (Palaiologou, 2016; Vaughan & Beers, 2017, p. 322).

6.2.8 The Importance of Parent Language in Supporting STEM Learning Having identified the possibilities for parents to support their children in science, mathematics, engineering, and digital technologies, we complete our discussion on the role of parents in STEM by returning to our preferred holistic approach in discussing how language use, between parents and children, supports or hinders the development of STEM understanding. Much of the research regarding young children’s learning argues that it is socially mediated and that, through conversational interactions with caregivers, children can construct new understandings of experiences (Goswami & Bryant, 2010; Marcus

114

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

et al., 2017; Vygotsky, 1978). In the home, children learn roles in dialogue that will impact their school experiences, and parents are ideally placed to provide extensive support in children’s everyday settings for developing strategies, collecting and interpreting evidence, and theory construction (Marcus et al., 2017; Nilhom & Säljö, 1996). These learning gains, that accrue with parental support, are found across a range of STEM-related domains and depend upon the frequency of language use in homes, including the specific kinds of talk (such as spatial and relational language, number words, and mental state talk). Research has shown children’s STEM learning is enhanced by frequent talk about science processes (e.g., planning, testing ideas), technology (e.g., building materials, techniques), engineering (e.g., building strength, triangular bracing), and mathematics (e.g., quantity, height) (Marcus et al., 2017). The work of French (2004) has been significant in researching the benefits of language use at home, noting that during the preschool years, language input from an adult can: (a) help children acquire the language to represent and express their experientially based mental representations; and (b) support the acquisition and use of language for self-expression. French (2004) states that “adults’ use of language is a critically important component of both children’s intellectual development and their language acquisition” (p. 142). There is also a body of research that suggests the importance of “gesture” accompanying the use of language by parents. Research by Verdine et al. (2017) reports that the children of parents who gestured more had more spatial language than the children of parents who used fewer gestures. This is likely because “gesture is well suited to capturing the continuous information in the spatial world” and that it “has the potential to play a powerful role in teaching children about space” (Cartmill et al., 2010, as cited in Verdine et al., 2017, p. 114). Another important observation in relation to spatial language at home relates to information presented earlier in Chap. 1 regarding SES and STEM. Verdine et al.’s (2017) research suggests that, given that young children from lower SES households hear significantly less language than their higher SES counterparts, it is reasonable to assume that they also are less exposed to spatial language. Compounding this issue is the finding that lower SES children engage in fewer mathematics-related activities at home and thus are less likely to experience rich language activities with their parents (Verdine et al., 2017). As well as differences in frequency, families also vary in the types of language they use and in how they explain events, observations, and experiences. For example, some parents may offer running commentaries on what they are doing, segment tasks into smaller or easier steps, draw attention to features of objects, and give explanations of why things happen (Heath, 1982), while others believe that their children will learn by observation and consequently use less language. Brice Heath and Brown (2007) argue that only those children who have experienced certain types of language socialisation will choose to study or learn science in later life. Increasing discussion at home with children about STEM can increase children’s STEM learning. According to Uttal et al. (2016), object manipulation and conversation are both important in early informal STEM learning. Open-ended what, why, and how questions can provoke children’s responses and lead to conversations that can advance children’s learning. Well-designed, informal learning activities also provide

6.3 Alternatives to School-Based STEM Education

115

children with opportunities to learn through direct, hands-on experiences. Such activities facilitate conversations that are critical for learning (Uttal et al., 2016). Parents can enhance children’s STEM learning by both answering and asking questions, and then explaining how things work or why things happen.

6.2.9 Our Contribution in Supporting Parents and Families Based on the research we have outlined regarding the role of parents in STEM, we designed the ELSA Families App, a core component of the ELSA Program, to enhance parents’ self-efficacy in supporting their children’s STEM learning. As reported in the literature, parents play a vital role in promoting children’s interest and engagement in STEM, largely through everyday conversations regarding everyday contexts. Rather than providing parents with additional “homework-type” activities to engage in with their children, our Families App provides a range of conversation starters and questions that parents can use while doing everyday activities, or visiting familiar places, with their children. In designing the Families App, we acknowledged that families are very busy and often do not have the time or the resources to engage in pre-planned and possibly artificial activities and experiments. In our design, the Families App is divided into two parts: “in the house” and “out and about”. In the house includes STEM questions and conversation starters for parents and children when in the kitchen (see Fig. 6.1), in the laundry, in the bathroom, or when playing with toys. The out and about section has ideas for in the car, at the beach, at the shops, and at the park or garden. The ideas are accessible for all parents regardless of their STEM knowledge and skills. The Families App was intentionally designed to allow both parents and children to experience success and to support the development of positive attitudes towards STEM learning. In keeping with our holistic approach to STEM education, the activities are not designed to, or labelled as, science or mathematics or engineering or technology activities. Instead, the activities are designed to support children being curious about their world, and then asking questions and finding answers about the why and the how of their world.

6.3 Alternatives to School-Based STEM Education In Chap. 2, we examined a range of models for the delivery of STEM within formal school contexts. Here we conclude this chapter with a discussion on a variety of external models for STEM Education. A discussion on alternative forms of STEM education is necessary and the benefits of such approaches are supported by the literature. Cassady et al. (2020) indicate in their research that “traditional educational experiences are often ineffective in maintaining student interest in STEM domains across

116

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

Fig. 6.1 Example of STEM activities in the kitchen from ELSA Families App. Note From ELSA Families App, by Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA), 2021. Used with the permission of the Australian Government, Department of Education, Skills and Employment

the elementary and secondary school years—especially among students from traditionally underrepresented minority groups” (p. 214). This attrition of interest, particularly among female and low-income children, is sometimes termed the “leaky pipeline”, and is characterised by children withdrawing from pathways in the educational system that lead to STEM (Cassady et al., 2020). These authors recognise that the school environment is essential for STEM; however, just as important are informal education environments, which address the complex nature of learning in cognitive, affective, social, and behavioural ways. This blended approach can assist educators and children in discovering “options to go beyond standard curriculum offerings by connecting with experts, relevant artifacts, and situationally specific learning experiences that will foster greater awareness, continued interest, and improve the potential for inspiring career pursuit in the sciences and math” (Cassady et al., 2020, p. 214). According to Brice Heath and Brown (2007), the challenges (beyond those we have discussed already) in enabling young children to pursue learning in mathematics and sciences (and, we argue, STEM more generally) are three-fold: (1) to understand within families and cultural communities the coherence of socialisation practices (especially those tying language, self-agency, and a sense of the future together); (2) to identify socialisation presuppositions of institutions and organisations tied to national and international economic growth; and (3) to acknowledge the critical

6.3 Alternatives to School-Based STEM Education

117

interdependence of practice, models, and opportunities to play multiple roles that enable young learners to learn to think like scientists. In the following sections, we look at several alternative models of STEM delivery, namely: STEM in community venues such as museums; STEM partnerships; and STEM events.

6.3.1 STEM in Museums and Other Public Places We have argued previously that informal learning experiences are critical to promoting STEM career intentions through heightening scientific interest, purposeful participation, and STEM identity development (Brice Heath & Brown, 2007; Cassady et al., 2020). An ideal way to supplement student engagement, foster interest, and broaden STEM understanding is to visit an educationally relevant location such as a museum, aquarium, science centre, national park or nature reserve, or historic location (see Haden et al., 2014; Marcus et al., 2017). Such visits are also a way to help resolve the engagement challenges noted above; it is known from the literature that early informal educational experiences, where children can engage in hands-on activities and conversations with their parents, can engender sustained interest, relevant knowledge, and motivation for future learning of STEM (Marcus et al., 2017). The research of Marcus et al. (2017) has indicated that children who “spend time in science-related museum exhibits tend to show more interest in STEM, do better in STEM-related classes, and express more interest in future STEM careers” (p. 155). The Boston Children’s Museum (2013) advocates using “what” questions to better facilitate conversations and joint exploration in such informal settings. “What” questions, in contrast to “why” questions, focus on what parents and children can see or what is happening right in front of them. “What” questions also help children to develop important communication and observation skills, in addition to building confidence, as children are able to answer the questions. As a brief sidebar, we also suggest that these sorts of questions should be used by educators in formal educational settings. Marcus et al. (2017) suggest that this rich learning can occur if informal settings, such as museums, provide families with exhibit-related information that can foster children’s transfer of knowledge both within and outside the museum. This is particularly important in discipline-specific scenarios, such as engineering, where parents may lack the necessary knowledge to assist in their children’s learning. In addition, structuring the experience at museums with focussed, engaged activities or question prompts is a critical factor in ensuring that time spent in the museum is maximally effective in promoting learning gains (Cassady et al., 2020), and that children leave the experience with the target content more fully realised (see Haden et al., 2014; Marcus et al., 2017). By “front-loading” parents with simple exhibit-related information, museum educators can help parents to access STEM-relevant content in exhibits and maximise STEM learning opportunities for their children (Marcus et al., 2017).

118

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

6.3.2 Partnerships in STEM Education A different mechanism to support informal STEM learning is through partnerships between education providers and community organisations. Marginson et al. (2013) suggest that such partnerships play a key role because they expose children to STEM education, engage them in STEM, increase their understanding of STEM, and increase their interest in future STEM careers. Partnerships are usually between educational providers and business organisations, universities, charities, industry groups, or government, and they usually incorporate professional development for educators, and access to events, competitions, or resources focussed on STEM (Australian Industry Group, 2017; Lowrie et al., 2017). Our understanding of the research literature suggests to us that approaches to these sorts of programs are highly varied, with the type of approach used heavily influenced by governance structures (Eilam et al., 2016). Partnerships usually involve shortterm ventures where educational providers join with industry groups, organisations, universities, and government agencies to provide a STEM learning experience for children that may take the form of an in-class experience, afterschool activities, “STEM camp”, STEM competitions, or mentoring experiences (Australian Industry Group, 2017). While approaches to these programs differ, they generally comprise several common elements. Successful partnerships involve a shared vision; apparent benefits for all involved; trust and enthusiasm in the partnerships; and incorporate student autonomy and responsibility (Watters & Diezmann, 2013). Partnerships are also usually aligned to the main function of the provider and occur in locations around the proximity of the provider (Australian Industry Group, 2017). This is of course potentially problematic for rural and remote communities, as they are often not located near providers of such services (Lowrie et al., 2017). In Australia, as at 2017, there were more than 250 STEM education partnerships supporting the delivery of STEM education (Australian Industry Group, 2017; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). Lowrie et al. (2017) suggest that this number is an indication of the increased emphasis and interest in STEM education, and clear recognition by organisations, industry groups, and associations of the growing importance of STEM to Australia’s economic, educational, and social success, as well as the need to support educational providers in STEM delivery.

6.3.3 STEM Events A different approach to supporting STEM education occurs via the use of STEM awards or STEM-focus weeks. Lowrie et al. (2017) provide examples of these awards in the Australian context, including: the Creativity in Research, Engineer, Science and Technology (CREST) awards; the Australian Innovation Challenge; International Competitions and Assessments for Schools (ICAS); Sleek Geeks Science Eureka

6.3 Alternatives to School-Based STEM Education

119

Prize; and the Young Scientist Awards (Australian Industry Group, 2017; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). In terms of special STEM events, the range includes National Coding Week, National Literacy and Numeracy Week, and National Science Week. During these weeks, there is an increased emphasis on activities that promote a particular STEM focus area, as well as programs that schools can participate in to increase children’s familiarity with these areas. The following are some examples of existing STEM events in an Australian context. • https://www.youngictexplorers.net.au; https://tom.edu.au • https://education.nsw.gov.au/public-schools/game-changer-challenge • https://rea.org.au/f1-in-schools/. Additional STEM experiences are also provided to children through activities outside the normal curriculum and teaching time, including competitions, school clubs, or holiday programs. STEM competitions usually involve a design-based challenge, where children compete to solve a problem. School clubs focussing on STEM activities are usually organised at lunchtime, or after school, and are in addition to the usual school curriculum (Moreno et al., 2016). STEM holiday programs usually involve children attending an intensive program that focusses on STEM-based projects for a couple of days outside school-based programs (Lowrie et al., 2017).

6.3.4 Benefits of STEM Partnerships and STEM Events STEM partnerships, as well as STEM enrichment and outreach programs, provide children with many benefits. Research by Dalvi and Wendell (2015), and Vennix et al. (2017) indicate that children who participated in STEM partnership programs demonstrate increased: interest in STEM careers; performance in STEM subjects; knowledge and understanding of STEM concepts; positive STEM dispositions; and likelihood of studying STEM after secondary school. Such children were also able to better see the relation of STEM in school to STEM in the community and make connections with mentors in the field of STEM education (Quagliata, 2015). They also displayed increased: STEM knowledge; interest in STEM careers; positive attitudes towards STEM; and motivation (Dalvi & Wendell, 2015). These positive outcomes suggest STEM partnerships have an important role in developing children’s interest in STEM education. Lowrie et al. (2017) suggest that for partnerships, and outreach and engagement programs to be successful, they should focus on working effectively with schools and early years centres to assist educators in the delivery of high-quality STEM outcomes. In their analysis of the partnership literature, they propose several key considerations, based upon existing research, in developing and sustaining successful partnerships: • Partners in education programs firstly need to be interested (Shoemaker et al., 2016) and willing to collaborate (Lehman et al., 2014);

120

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

• Programs must fit with curriculum standards and use pedagogical approaches that are evidence-based (Kesidou & Koppal, 2004); and • Programs must consider children thinking (Kesidou & Koppal, 2004), be problembased (Vennix et al., 2017), and focus on teaching children how to find solutions, consider the validity of evidence, and foster curiosity, self-confidence, and enthusiasm for learning (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004).

6.3.5 Issues with STEM Partnerships and STEM Events Although the literature is generally positive regarding large-scale partnerships, there are also some concerns about the lack of understanding regarding the longterm effectiveness of such programs (Lowrie et al., 2017; Marginson et al., 2013). Similar concerns are raised in relation to the use of STEM-themed weeks, STEM competitions, and the like (Australian Industry Group, 2017). The limited amount of research that has been conducted identifies several challenges for schools involved in partnerships or enrichment/outreach programs. For teachers implementing the approaches, Rogers and Portsmore (2004) identify challenges they face in needing to adapt their teaching practice, which involves a shift in thinking, and sufficient time for such shifts in teaching practice to occur (Reid & Feldhaus, 2007). Such educational shifts will likely require additional training and support, as teaching beliefs and approaches (as noted in Chap. 5) are often highly resistant to change. A second concern relates to the difficulties in making authentic connections in the curriculum with project-based industry examples (Australian Industry Group, 2017), which means that partnership programs often become an additional responsibility for the teachers, as they are extraneous to the mandated curriculum they are required to teach. Finally, there are difficulties with sustainability because partnership programs are often highly resource intensive and, given the technical nature of many of these programs, they require complex equipment that may often fail (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004) or become redundant once the financial support, resources, and expertise of the external partner ceases (Australian Industry Group, 2017; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004). Sustainability of STEM special events is also problematic given that the delivery of such events is often voluntary and organised by a teacher with a passion for the topic (Australian Industry Group, 2017). This is, of course, not sustainable over the long term—as teachers regularly shift between schools—and, consequently, the initiative is often discontinued. Therefore, further research is required into the impacts of such extracurricular STEM programs, as well as a more coordinated approach to such activities is needed (Australian Industry Group, 2017). In addition, in terms of equity, it is important to ensure that all schools have access to programs such as these if they are shown to be successful in the long term (Lowrie et al., 2017).

References

121

6.4 Conclusion In this chapter, we have explored a range of literature that has outlined the critical role that parents play in shaping their children’s attitude towards STEM, particularly in relation to the language that they use in their interactions with their children. While there are unique issues in relation to the various STEM disciplines, what they all share is a common benefit from parental involvement—both in terms of enhancing positive attitudes towards the discipline and children’s achievement in the discipline. The second section of this chapter looked at the “alternatives” to “traditional schooling” in STEM learning. Although there is limited literature on the role of informal learning in early years STEM (hence the need to look more broadly across other educational contexts), the results of the findings we have noted clearly suggest that children’s STEM learning can be enhanced in informal settings in important ways that differ from the learning they are exposed to in formal educational settings, such as preschools. It is therefore very important for educators to look for ways to promote such informal learning. In the final chapter of this book, we propose two innovative pedagogical approaches that can address many of the concerns raised in this and earlier chapters.

References Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., & Kelley, K. (2012). Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about science and the development of interests related to science. Science Education, 96(5), 763–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21018 Ata-Aktürk, A., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2020). Supporting preschool children’s STEM learning with parent-involved early engineering education. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10643-020-01100-1 Australian Industry Group. (2017). Strengthening school-industry STEM skills partnerships: Final project report. http://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Reports/2017/AiGroup_OCS_STEM_Report_ 2017.pdf Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.) (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10. 17226/12190 Boston Children’s Museum. (2013). STEM sprouts: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Teaching Guide. https://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/stem-sprouts. Brice Heath, S., & Brown, M. (2007). Diverse learning and earner diversity in “informal” science learning environments (Paper prepared for National Research Council’s Board on Science Education for Learning Science in Informal Environments Study). http://sites.nationalacademies.org/ cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_080081.pdf. Callanan, M. A., & Oakes, L. M. (1992). Preschoolers’ questions and parents’ explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0885-2014(92)90012-G Cannon, J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2008). “doing the math”: Maternal beliefs about early mathematics versus language learning. Early Education and Development, 19(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10409280801963913

122

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

Cartmill, E., Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Center, S. I. L. (2010). The role of parent gesture in children’s spatial language development. In K. Franich, K. M. Iserman, & L. L. Keil (Eds.), BUCLD 34: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 1, pp. 70–77). BUCLD. http://plsd.fiu.edu/publications/cartmill_ et_al_2010.pdf. Cassady, J. C., Heath, J. A., Thomas, C. L., Mangino, A. A., & Kornmann, M. A. (2020). Engaging students in STEM with non-traditional educational programmes: Bridging the gaps between experts and learners. In A. MacDonald., L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum. Early Childhood to Senior Secondary. (pp. 213–232). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_12. Clements, D. H., Vinh, M., Lim, C.-I., & Sarama, J. (2020). STEM for inclusive excellence and equity. Early Education and Development, 32(1), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289. 2020.1755776 Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America, 2013. https://www. commonsensemedia.org/file/zero-to-eight-2013pdf-0/download. Creative Little Scientists. (2012). Creative little scientists: Enabling creativity through science and mathematics in preschool and first years of primary education. http://www.creative-littlescientists.eu/sites/default/files/Addendum%201%20Science%20and%20Mathematics%20Ed% 20FINAL.pdf. Dalvi, T., & Wendell, K. (2015). Community-based engineering. Science and Children, 53(1), 67–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43692205 Dika, S. L., Alvarez, J., Santos, J., & Suárez, O. M. (2016). A social cognitive approach to understanding engineering career interest and expectations among underrepresented students in schoolbased clubs. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(1), 31–36. https://jstem. org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1953/1729. Dorie, B. L., Jones, T. R., Pollock, M. C., & Cardella, M. (2014). Parents as critical influence: Insights from five different studies. School of Engineering Education Graduate Student Series, 55. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/enegs/55. Dorie, B. L., Jones, T. R., Pollock, M. C., & Cardella, M. (2015). Parents as critical influence: Insights from five different studies. School of Engineering Education Graduate Student Series, 5. https://peer.asee.org/22901 Eilam, E., Bigger, S. W., Sadler, K., Barry, F., & Bielik, T. (2016). Universities conducting STEM outreach: A conceptual framework. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(4), 419–448. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/hequ.12105 Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (1st ed.). Westview Press. Erdogan, N., & Stuessy, C. (2015). Examining the role of inclusive STEM schools in the college and career readiness of students in the United States: A multi-group analysis on the outcome of student achievement. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(6), 1517–529. https://doi. org/10.12738/estp.2016.1.0072. Feinstein, L., & Symons, J. (1999). Attainment in secondary school. Oxford Economic Papers, 51(2), 300–321. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3488616. Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lam, W. S. (2011). Block talk: Spatial language during block play. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(3), 143–151. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01122.x Fisher, P. H., Dobbs-Oates, J., Doctoroff, G. L., & Arnold, D. H. (2012). Early math interest and the development of math skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 673–681. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0027756 French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.004 Geist, E. (2014). Toddlers through preschool: Using tablet computers with toddlers and young preschoolers. YC Young Children, 69(1), 58–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren. 69.1.58.

References

123

Geist, K., Geist, E. A., & Kuznik, K. (2012). The patterns of music: Young children learning mathematics through beat, rhythm, and melody. YC Young Children, 67(1), 74–79. https://www. jstor.org/stable/42731136. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (2010). Children’s cognitive development and learning. In R. Alexander, C. Doddington, J. Gray, L. Hargreaves, & R. Kershner (Eds.), The Cambridge Primary Review Research Surveys (pp. 141–169). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203121672. Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 153–166. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2 Haden, C. A., Jant, E. A., Hoffman, P. C., Marcus, M., Geddes, J. R., & Gaskins, S. (2014). Supporting family conversations and children’s STEM learning in a children’s museum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(3), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.004 Haylock, D. (2010). Mathematics explained for primary teachers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009039 Hirsch, E. S. (1996). The block book (3rd ed.). National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Allen, K., & Rose, A. (2011). Parents’ perspectives on technology and children’s learning in the home: Social class and the role of the habitus. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00431.x Isikoglu Erdogan, N., Johnson, J. E., Dong, P. I., & Qiu, Z. (2019). Do parents prefer digital play? Examination of parental preferences and beliefs in four nations. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0901-2 Jirout, J. J., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Building blocks for developing spatial skills: Evidence from a large, representative U.S. sample. Psychological Science, 26(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797614563338. Kesidou, S., & Koppal, M. (2004). Supporting goals-based learning with STEM outreach. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 5(3/4), 5–16. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index. php/JSTEM/article/view/1125/980. LaForce, M., Noble, E., King, H., Century, J., Blackwell, C., Holt, S., Ibrahim, A., & Loo, S. (2016). The eight essential elements of inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0054-z. Larkin, K., Finger, G., & Thompson, R. (2010). Student health and welfare in networked school communities. In M. Lee & G. Finger (Eds.), Developing a networked school community: a guide to realising the vision (pp. 277–288). ACER Press. Larkin, K., & Miller, J. (2020). Digital technologies and numeracy—Synergy or discord? In A. MacDonald, L. Danaia, & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM Education Across the Learning Continuum (pp. 137–154). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_8 Lehman, J. D., Kim, W., & Harris, C. (2014). Collaborations in a community of practice working to integrate engineering design in elementary science education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(3), 21–28. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/ 1901/1622. Lloyd, E., Edmonds, C., Downs, C., Crutchley, R., & Paffard, F. (2017). Talking everyday science to very young children: A study involving parents and practitioners within an early childhood centre. Early Child Development and Care, 187(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430. 2016.1226355 Lowrie, T., Downes, N., & Leonard, S. N. (2017). STEM education for all young Australians: A bright spots learning hub foundation paper, for SVA, in partnership with Samsung. https://www. socialventures.com.au/assets/STEM-education-for-all-young-Australians-Smaller.pdf. Lowrie, T., & Patahuddin, S. M. (2015). ELPSA as a lesson design framework. Journal on Mathematics Education, 6(2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.6.2.2166.77-92.

124

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

Maloney, E. A., Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Intergenerational effects of parents’ math anxiety on children’s math achievement and anxiety. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1480–1488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615592630 Marcus, M., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2017). STEM learning and transfer in a children’s museum and beyond. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 63(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.13110/mer rpalmquar1982.63.2.0155. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Report for the Australian council of learned academies. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30059041. McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED574402. McGarvey, L. M. (2012). What is a pattern? Criteria used by teachers and young children. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(4), 310–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2012. 717380 Means, B., Wang, H., Young, V., Peters, V. L., & Lynch, S. J. (2016). STEM-focused high schools as a strategy for enhancing readiness for postsecondary STEM programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 709–736. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21313 Moreno, N. P., Tharp, B. Z., Vogt, G., Newell, A. D., & Burnett, C. A. (2016). Preparing students for middle school through after-school STEM activities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 889–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9643-3 Morrison, J., McDuffie, A. R., & French, B. (2015). Identifying key components of teaching and learning in a STEM school. School Science and Mathematics, 115(5), 244–255. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ssm.12126 Nilhom, C., & Säljö, R. (1996). Co-action, situation definitions and sociocultural experience. An empirical study of problem-solving in mother-child interaction. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00019-9. Ofcom. (2019). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/ research-and-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitu des-report-2019. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2014/09/professor-chubb-releases-science-technologyengineering-and-mathematics-australias-future. Palaiologou, I. (2016). Children under five and digital technologies: Implications for early years pedagogy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1350293X.2014.929876 Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2018). Educational apps from the Android Google Play for Greek preschoolers: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 116, 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.007 Papic, M. M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2011). Assessing the development of preschoolers’ mathematical patterning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3), 237–269. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.3.0237 Pattison, S., Svarovsky, G., Greenough Corrie, P., Benne, M., Nuñez, V., Dierking, L., & Verbeke, M. (2016). Conceptualizing early childhood STEM interest development as a distributed system: A preliminary framework (Paper presented at the 89th Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference). Baltimore. Peters-Burton, E. E., Lynch, S. J., Behrend, T. S., & Means, B. B. (2014). Inclusive STEM high school design: 10 critical components. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00405841.2014.862125 Quagliata, A. B. (2015). University festival promotes STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 16(3), 20–23. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/ 1861/1669.

References

125

Reid, K., & Feldhaus, C. (2007). Issues for universities working with K-12 institutions implementing prepackaged pre-engineering curricula such as project lead the way. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 8(3/4), 5–14. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/ 1384/1191. Rittle-Johnson, B., Zippert, E., & Boice, K. (2019). The roles of patterning and spatial skills in early mathematics development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46(1st Quarter 2019), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.006 Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 5(3/4), 17–28. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/ article/view/1126/981. Roopnarine, J. L., Shin, M., Jung, K., & Hossain, Z. (2003). Play and early development and education: The instantiation of parental belief systems. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 115–130). Information Age Publishing. Ross, M. E. (2000). Science their way. Young Children, 55(2), 6–13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 42727763. Scott, C. (2012). An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) focused high schools in the U.S. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 30–39. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1629/1493. Sharkawy, A. (2015). Envisioning a career in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Some challenges and possibilities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 657–664. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9636-6 Sheehan, K., Pila, S., Lauricella, A. & Wartella, E. (2019). Parent-child interaction and children’s learning from a coding application. Computers & Education, 140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com pedu.2019.103601. Shoemaker, S. E., Thomas, C., Roberts, T., & Boltz, R. (2016). Building a mentorship-based research program focused on individual interests, curiosity, and professional skills at the North Carolina school of science and mathematics. Gifted Child Today, 39(4), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1076217516661591 Sigel, I. E., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Goodnow, J. J. (Eds.) (2014). Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (2nd ed., eBook). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781315807539. Sikma, L., & Osborne, M. (2014). Conflicts in developing an elementary STEM magnet school. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862112 Soni, A., & Kumari, S. (2017). The role of parental math anxiety and math attitude in their children’s math achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9687-5 Tan, A.-L., & Leong, W. F. (2014). Mapping curriculum innovation in STEM schools to assessment requirements: Tensions and dilemmas. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00405841.2014.862113 Teo, T. W. (2012). Building potemkin schools: Science curriculum reform in a STEM school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(5), 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.689356 Tofel-Grehl, C., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). STEM high school communities: Common and differing features. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1 4539156 Ünlü Çetin, S., ¸ Bilican, K., & Üçgül, M. (Eds.) (2020). Key points for STEM in early childhood education an involving parents: A guidebook for early childhood educators (An intellectual output of the 2018–1-TR01-KA203–059568 PARENSTEM: STEM Education for Preschoolers and Their Families Project). Kirikkale University. Uttal, D. H., Haden, C. A., Marcus, M., & Jant, E. A. (2016). Objects, conversations, and young children’s learning about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In L. Balter, & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child Psychology: A Handbook of Contemporary Issues (3rd ed.). (pp. 167–191). Psychology Press.

126

6 STEM Education Beyond the “School Fence”

Vaughan, M., & Beers, C. (2017). Using an exploratory professional development initiative to introduce iPads in the early childhood education classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0772-3 Vennix, J., den Brok, P., & Taconis, R. (2017). Perceptions of STEM-based outreach learning activities in secondary education. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 21–46. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10984-016-9217-6 Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. (2014). Finding the missing piece: Blocks, puzzles, and shapes fuel school readiness. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2014.02.005 Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsch-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Links between spatial and mathematical skills across the preschool years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(1), 1–150. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15405834/2017/ 82/1. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 Wan, Z. H., Jiang, Y., & Zhan, Y. (2020). STEM education in early childhood: A review of empirical studies. Early Education and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1814986. Warren, E., Miller, J., & Cooper, T. (2012). Repeating patterns: Strategies to assist young students to generalise the mathematical structure. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(3), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911203700315 Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2013). Community partnerships for fostering student interest and engagement in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 47–55. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1681/1525. Wiswall, M., Stiefel, L., Schwartz, A. E., & Boccardo, J. (2014). Does attending a STEM high school improve student performance? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 40, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.01.005

Chapter 7

A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

7.1 Introduction This chapter is structurally different to the previous six chapters, which critiqued the existing literature through the lens of our experiences in designing and leading the Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA) Program (2016–2020) (See https:// elsa.edu.au/). In this chapter, we initially argue for a new conception of play that moves beyond the dichotomy of digital versus non-digital play that was examined in Chap. 4. Our new understanding of play, and our approach to intentional teaching, is underpinned by two new approaches to STEM education—namely, STEM Practices and the Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic, which provide early childhood educators with pedagogical tools to teach STEM. In published research on STEM Practices (Lowrie et al., 2017a, b, 2018) and ERA (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020), we have discussed the theoretical underpinnings of these two approaches. In this chapter, we build upon the theory to examine how these approaches have been implemented to support approximately 675 educators and over 11,500 children in our ELSA Program. We support our claims for the success of these two pedagogical approaches with data that was collected in digital form from the apps that we developed, and in qualitative form from the educators involved in the ELSA Program. We conclude this chapter with reflections on STEM in the early years and how we can progress STEM education in sustainable, evidence-based ways.

7.2 Conception of Play Underpinning ELSA We acknowledge that any understanding of contemporary play of young children should include a digital dimension (see Bird & Edwards, 2015; Edwards & Bird, 2017). Where we differ from the view of Bird and Edwards is that we do not try to define play as dichotomous in terms of digital and non-digital components (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020), and thus we are more closely aligned to the work of Fleer (2018) and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 K. Larkin and T. Lowrie, STEM Education in the Early Years, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2810-9_7

127

128

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

Arnott (2016). Consequently, in the ELSA Program the term “digital play” is not used; rather, we use the term “play”, since in the ERA Heuristic (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020) play is the focus. While this play will likely include digital tools, they are not the focus and, furthermore, the term digital play can limit the opportunities for more holistic play. Instead, our stance is that children play, and sometimes that play happens to involve a tablet, or the apps on a tablet, because the tool supports how the children wish to play. Since the earliest conceptual work in developing the ELSA Program in 2016, and throughout all stages of the development and delivery of the program, our perspective has always been that the apps designed in the project would become a part of the ecology of the participating early childhood centres (Arnott, 2016) and would assist in the development of STEM Practices rather than STEM skills. Ecology is the interplay between the physical (digital and non-digital), social, and cultural elements of the environment; thus, when encouraging children to use digital tools such as apps, researchers and educators must consider how these digital interactions contribute “to their social interactions and experiences during digital play” (Arnott, 2016, p. 277). This notion sits comfortably within the philosophical underpinnings of the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (Australian Government Department of Education and Training (DET), 2009), where intentional teaching within play-based contexts is promoted. Thus, the role of the ELSA apps is two-fold. First, they contribute towards children’s epistemic learning (i.e., what does the app do?); second, and perhaps more importantly, they contribute towards young children’s ludic learning (i.e., what can I do with the app?) (Bird & Edwards, 2015). Our ecological approach recognises the pervasiveness of apps and touchscreen handheld devices with accessible interfaces (Marsh et al., 2016), and acknowledges that this pervasiveness creates new conditions for young children’s learning and development (Fleer, 2018). From this ecological perspective, the ELSA apps are available for children to play with when they choose, much like they can choose to play with blocks, toys, or objects on the nature table. Thus, when children are playing, they might find some insects outside, use the mini microscopes on the tablet to magnify some aspects of the insect, then draw the insects, or pretend that they are the insects. These drawings can then become artefacts imported into the apps for future play. In this understanding, children naturally play; and some of that play includes some digital technology to support it. Of most importance to us is: if children decide to use digital technology, then it must support their learning through play (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020). In our view, it is at this juncture that many apps fail, as there is either no or very limited scope for children to extend their interactions with the app. This often results in children investing time into learning what the app does; often this learning is only a skill, and they discover that they cannot use the app in any meaningful, play-based way in their own context. For example, in many early childhood geometry apps, children can only interact with pre-loaded shapes—doing little more than moving them around the screen or matching a label to a shape (Larkin, 2016). The mechanism in ELSA to ensure that apps are not stand-alone experiences with limited interactive scope for extension beyond the device, is the ERA Heuristic (Lowrie et al., 2018).

7.3 STEM Practices Framework and ERA: Our Proposal …

129

The ERA Heuristic, unlike many studies that focus on the digital aspect of new forms of play, builds on the work of Arnott (2016) and Fleer (2018) in focussing attention on how digital technologies can enhance play experiences of children. Later in this chapter, quantitative and qualitative data are presented that indicates the success of the ELSA Program in supporting STEM engagement. Although, for ethical reasons, no children were interviewed, sustained positive feedback from the educators regarding their children’s response to the apps was collected. This feedback indicated that the ELSA Program is engaging for young children and allows them to incorporate digital technology into their play (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020).

7.3 STEM Practices Framework and ERA: Our Proposal for Sustainable STEM Education We have, in earlier chapters of this book, explored and critiqued the general state of play of STEM education in Australia and internationally, and then narrowed our focus to the literature regarding STEM in the early years in relation to children, educators, parents, and the wider community. In Chap. 1, we investigated several common approaches to the thorny issue of STEM education. One approach followed the trajectory of enrichment and outreach programs by external providers, with the aim of increasing students’ interest through exposure (Rosicka, 2016). A different approach involved schools investing in resources such as robotics (Bers et al., 2013) or MakerSpaces (Sheridan et al., 2014). For example, research by Çetin and Demircan (2020) reported that many articles (n = 23) in their meta-analysis of approaches to STEM education enacted STEM via robots. While we acknowledge that these approaches may have some impact, we align ourselves with the view of Bybee (2010) and argue that they are often unsustainable given the sporadic nature of school-based funding. What is required instead, in our view, is an approach that early years educators can implement on a day-to-day basis with their children—one that is responsive to their needs in STEM education and not dependent on significant additional funding (Lowrie et al., 2017a). As our response to the desirability for long-term, sustainable STEM education, the remainder of this chapter provides an account of the research, conducted by the ELSA team, in the creation of a pedagogically and philosophically robust framework to direct our activity. The two core pillars of this approach are STEM Practices, which are then enacted through the ERA Heuristic. We first turn our attention to STEM Practices.

130

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

7.3.1 STEM Practices According to Lowrie et al. (2017a): STEM Practices is an approach where schools start by considering what their communities and students need from education, and then focuses on how they can develop the underlying practices to help their students grow and develop and contribute to their community. By teaching the practices underlying STEM, the content knowledge then naturally follows, not just in STEM areas, but all curriculum areas such as English, languages, and Humanities and social sciences. (p. 3)

A STEM Practice involves the use of an idea, method, or value to achieve something (Lowrie et al., 2017b). The applicability of various ideas, methods, and values will vary depending on the context of the activity. A STEM idea may be problem finding or exploring and challenging. A STEM method may be generating ideas or thinking critically. A STEM value may be curiosity or persistence (Lowrie et al., 2018). In some contexts, there may be more than one idea, method, or value used; however, we suggest that in any authentic STEM activity there will be at least one of each. Figure 7.1 represents the 18 STEM Practices that underpinned the ELSA Program. These STEM Practices are not necessarily final and have evolved as we have worked with educators on the project. These STEM Practices, and how they relate to the four STEM disciplines, are explored in detail in Lowrie et al. (2018).

Fig. 7.1 STEM Practices underpinning the ELSA Program. Note Permission granted by SPLATmaths to use this image

7.3 STEM Practices Framework and ERA: Our Proposal …

131

In contrast to the range of approaches to teaching STEM discussed in Chaps. 1 and 2, which seek to integrate either the four disciplines or STEM to other disciplines such as English or the Arts, our conceptualisation of STEM is associated with practices. Our deliberate focus on practices ensures that STEM understandings are related to real-world, early childhood educational contexts (Lowrie et al., 2018) and that these practices are enacted through participation and engagement (see Kemmis, 2008). An analysis of the EYLF (DET, 2009) and the Foundation Year of the Australian Curriculum for Mathematics, Science and Technology (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2017) informed our development of the 18 STEM Practices (Lowrie et al., 2017a) to ensure that they were considered appropriate for early years contexts. Our notion of STEM Practices aligns well with theoretical underpinnings of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014). A distinctive feature of our Practices is that none are discipline bound, and anecdotal evidence from the ELSA Program suggests that educators are using these Practices beyond STEM. This is a distinctive turn away from the wider STEM discourse noted in earlier chapters, evident in the various calls to broaden the acronym to include, for example, STEM(Medicine), STE(Arts)M, or STEM(Reading), which all suggest an expanding emphasis on discipline-specific content. Enacting STEM Practices, in contrast, provides a way for educators to think about diverse engagement in STEM without the largely arbitrary constraints of specific disciplines. As such, it supports thinking about STEM beyond “traditional” STEM occupations—such as engineers, scientists, or mathematicians—to include surfboard designers, builders, veterinarians, horticulturalists, park rangers, artists, doctors, or indeed any other field or activity that uses these STEM Practices (Lowrie et al., 2018). Figure 7.2 illustrates the broad sweep of the STEM Practices across the four children’s apps in the ELSA Program. Each “app” (for our use of this term, it refers to all the activities associated with the digital device, including both “on-” and “off-”app activities) contains a number of learning experiences for the children (see Lowrie & Larkin, 2020). For example, children might build a water feature in their centre before designing a virtual water feature as part of the on-app activity in App Four. “Build a water feature” likely involves the STEM Practices idea of proposing, the STEM Practices method of using tools to produce artefacts, and the STEM Practices value of teamwork. Each learning experience (in the project, there were approximately 150 such experiences) is tagged as one or more STEM idea, method, or value, which allows educators to search for experiences by specific Practices (e.g., Questioning, Critical Thinking, Curiosity). As can be seen, most of the 18 ideas, methods, and values are present to some degree in each app; however, certain apps focus more on particular practices. By way of example, App Three (Representation) has a strong focus on exploring and challenging, processing information, and fairness; whereas App One (Patterns and Relationships) focusses more on proposing, imagination, and using appropriate language and vocabulary. Within the program, these 150 experiences are also tagged according to how they relate to the EYLF and also how they map onto future Curriculum experiences in Foundation—Year 2.

132

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

Fig. 7.2 STEM Practices across the four children’s apps in the ELSA Program

7.3.2 Why STEM Practices? Although STEM Practices were conceived to underpin the pedagogical delivery of the ELSA Program, it is our view that STEM Practices has a much wider potential application than just the year before formal schooling. As Lowrie et al. (2018) note, “Schools and education systems will continue to be overwhelmed by the challenge of integrating discipline content into a STEM program if subjects within the acronym continue to drive initiatives” (p. 19). A STEM Practices approach to authentic, context-appropriate learning appears more productive than the rather “hit-and-miss” approach of educators attempting to find “contexts” that are relevant or engaging for children in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. Our approach engages children in STEM learning through the enactment of practices that are authentic because they are bounded not by content but by context (Lowrie et al., 2018, 2019). Research presented in Lowrie et al. (2017a, 2018, 2019), and Lowrie and Larkin (2020) indicates that a STEM Practices approach responds to the needs and challenges of STEM education, across all year levels and jurisdictions, in a number of important ways: • A STEM Practices approach avoids theoretical and pedagogical arguments concerning the possible approaches to STEM education because it focusses on all curriculum areas. • Educators will likely feel comfortable with teaching STEM Practices, as they do not require specialist subject knowledge, and can thus be applied across all subject areas.

7.3 STEM Practices Framework and ERA: Our Proposal …

133

• A STEM Practices approach is an evidence-based approach drawn from a theoretical perspective of practice architectures. • Additional funding and specific resources are not essential in a STEM Practices approach. • Because they are context bound, STEM Practices meet the individual needs of all children. • Educators can easily involve families and the broader community because examples of STEM Practices are found everywhere.

7.3.3 Understanding the STEM Practices Approach In a STEM Practices approach, consideration is given to the practices children need to live in their world. Focussing on practices has the potential to disrupt the prevalent, content-based approach to schooling (Sanders, 2009), but not at the expense of content knowledge, which children still learn via the contextualised practices. This approach also neatly avoids disciplinary arguments about what STEM involves and can help alleviate educator concerns regarding their self-confidence to teach STEM (Lowrie et al., 2017a, 2019). We now situate STEM Practices in relation to the practice architectures theory of Kemmis et al. (2014). The STEM Practices approach is grounded in the work on practice architectures of Kemmis et al. (2014), which focusses on the practice of professionals, such as educators. These authors argue that practices are socially established forms of human activity, which are held together by practice architectures—namely, characteristic arrangements of actions and activities (doings). These “doings” are comprehensible in terms of similar characteristic arrangements of ideas and discourses (sayings), as well as through the arrangement of people and objects (relationships) (Kemmis et al., 2014; Mahon et al., 2017). Practices do not simply happen in “context”, but are both influenced by and created from the architecture of the language, activity, and social structures in and through which they occur (Lowrie et al., 2018). We argue that practice theory is far from unified and might be thought of as a broad approach, used by a diverse range of social theorists, to find an explanatory balance between individual human agency (Larkin, 2019) and the influence of social structures. Building upon the earlier work of members of the ELSA research team, we made the decision that practice theory was suitable for the ELSA Program, based on the conjecture that its explanatory power offers a productive way for us to think about, and design, the real-world connections required for authentic STEM learning. As an example, we now look at spatial reasoning. From one perspective, due to its association with language use (Norenes & Ludvigsen, 2016; Selling, 2016) spatial reasoning might be considered a “saying” in practice architecture terminology. However, a contrary perspective positions spatial reasoning in terms of tool use (Cobb, 2002; Nevile et al., 2014), and thus it could also be seen as belonging within the medium of activity and work and thus a “doing”. For the purposes of the ELSA Program, spatial reasoning was positioned alongside “sayings” (Lowrie et al., 2018).

134

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

A key point emerged from our reflections regarding practice theory. From a practices standpoint, when determining what might work in STEM education, we are neither primarily interested in STEM knowledge (and how this might be represented by children in assessment tasks), nor even secondarily concerned about STEM skills. Rather, as noted by Lowrie et al. (2017a), our concern is with “what is working in allowing students to develop practices that involve sayings, doing and relatings; and how forms of understanding are connected to individual and collective selfexpression, how modes of action are connected to individual and collective selfdevelopment, and how ways of relating to one another are connected to individual and collective empowerment and self-determination” (p. 25). From this standpoint, STEM does not connect to the real world on the basis of disciplinary content, but rather connects through the diverse use of the sayings, doings, and relatings of STEM Practices (Kemmis et al., 2014) in authentic contexts. The point of authentic learning is recognised, at least “in the breech” in policy statements and in educational documents related to STEM. Too often, however, these responses are anything but authentic and “link neither to the real world, nor in any coherent way to the cognitive, psychomotor or affective needs of the learners” (Lowrie et al., 2017a, p. 25). In our view, a STEM Practices approach provides young children with the best opportunity to develop STEM knowledge and STEM skills that they will require in future STEM-related careers.

7.3.4 STEM Practices Framework In this section, we discuss the STEM Practices Framework, a major theoretical contribution underpinning the ELSA Program. It was developed through processes of co-design and developmental evaluation (Leonard et al., 2016) to support the translational stance of the ELSA Program (see Lowrie et al., 2018). Following this discussion, we provide examples of the use of the Framework in relation to spatial reasoning, the core conceptual idea underpinning the first two children’s apps. In developing the STEM Practices Framework, we adapted the initial Kemmis et al. (2014) model, and in doing so highlight the importance of non-verbal representation and reasoning within STEM. The STEM disciplines have long used symbolic and graphical representations as important forms of meaning making. However, as Lowrie (2014) has argued, the specialised language required for success in STEM can be overshadowed, as other forms of representation become increasingly prevalent in the STEM disciplines. Therefore, in our interpretation of practice architectures, we have highlighted the diversity of semiotic practice within STEM to include both language and representations. As set out in Table 7.1, and reported initially in Lowrie et al. (2017a), the STEM Practices Framework supports educational designers to see the connections between the “sayings” of individuals and the social world of ideas or discourse; the “doings” of people and the social arrangement of material-economics; and the “relatings” of individuals and the social-political arrangements of people. This is a framework

7.3 STEM Practices Framework and ERA: Our Proposal …

135

Table 7.1 Practices and practice architectures Individual world

Practices

Medium

Practice architecture

Sayings

Language

Discourse

Doings

Activity

Material-economic, spatial

Relatings

Social

Social-political

The world we share

Note From Lowrie et al. (2017a), p. 24. Permission granted from authors to use this table

Table 7.2 Some STEM practices and practice architectures Individual world

Practices

Medium

Practice architecture

Questioning

Language

Vocabulary of science and design

Processing information

Model making

Representations

Communicating

Social space

Social choices

The world we share

Note From Lowrie et al. (2017a), p. 25. Permission granted from authors to use this table

for the “why” of learning, and one that provides a series of tangible contact points for design. As such, it has the capacity to provide a foundation for both principled practice knowledge and heuristics. The educational design of the Program, built on this framework, sought to provide young children with an educational journey that supports the individual to live well, and also to support the development of a world worth living in (Lowrie et al., 2017a). On the individual side, the Framework brings attention to the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains; while on the world side, it brings attention to language and ideas, to objects and spatial arrangements, and to the relationships between people. Table 7.2 illustrates the arrangement of some STEM ideas, methods, and values evident in the ELSA Program, mapped to the STEM Practices Framework that meets the twin goals of the individual world and the world we share. The ELSA team’s philosophy of moving away from a content focus to a practices focus is particularly appropriate and relevant in the early years context. Within the early years context, learning is associated with play-based engagement and intentional teaching rather than discipline content and curriculum syllabi that one is most likely to find in secondary and tertiary educational contexts (Lowrie et al., 2018). We recognise that our approach to teaching STEM in the early years is easier than doing so in secondary contexts, which are more confined by standardised assessments, structural limitations in schools, and issues of collaboration among educators specialising in a STEM discipline (Shernoff et al., 2017). However, this acknowledgement is not to be read as a limitation of our approach, as the case for the use of STEM Practices (and the ERA Heuristic presented shortly) in all STEM education contexts will follow.

136

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

7.3.5 STEM Practices and Spatial Reasoning Spatial reasoning is considered critical for everyday tasks and helps us to understand, appreciate, and interpret our geometric world (Newcombe, 2010; Uttal et al., 2013). Spatial reasoning is identified as a core component in the Numeracy general capability within the Australian Curriculum, and thus is to be incorporated in all subjects across the curriculum. In particular, spatial reasoning is a major focus of mathematics, science, and engineering knowledge and understanding (Lowrie et al., 2017b). It can be defined as the process of recognising and manipulating spatial properties of objects and the spatial relations among those objects (Mulligan, 2015). The capacity to locate, orientate, and visualise objects; navigate paths; decode information graphics; and use and draw diagrams are identified as critical to success in STEM problem solving (Lowrie et al., 2017b). Spatial skills are a crucial component of human intellect and are required for us to encode information about small- and large-scale objects—such as the location of our watch under a book or which way to turn to reach a destination (Lowrie et al., 2017b). They also provide ways for us to mentally transform this information, such as imagining approaching an intersection from an alternative direction (Ferrara et al., 2011). Spatial reasoning involves many of the aspects incorporated in the design of our ELSA children’s apps, including: visualisation and imagery; location, arrangement, orientation, and structure; visual and graphical arrays; maps and timelines; and the sequencing of pictures (Lowrie et al., 2020). A growing body of literature reveals the importance of early spatial skills to later success in a number of areas, particularly in STEM-related disciplines (Newcombe & Frick, 2010; Wai et al., 2009). Indeed, spatial skills correlate with success in many specific STEM areas, including science (Hegarty, 2011), mathematics (Lowrie et al., 2017c, 2020; Uttal & Cohen, 2012), and engineering (Sorby, 1999). Therefore, improving spatial skills is of both theoretical and practical importance (Uttal et al., 2013). Fortunately, spatial thinking can be improved in primary school-aged children through exposure to explicit spatial reasoning activities and intentional teaching (Lowrie et al., 2020). Providing such spatial activities to young children in play-based environments will similarly develop their spatial reasoning. Given the strong associations in the research between spatial reasoning performance and participation in STEM-based occupations (Uttal et al., 2013), it was considered essential that spatial reasoning would be developed in our ELSA Program via our STEM Practices Framework. The development of learning activities associated with (1) patterns and relationships, and (2) locations and arrangement (the first and second children’s apps in the ELSA Program) provided a variety of opportunities for spatial reasoning to be enhanced through play and intentional teaching (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020). Given the research we have presented, the decision to incorporate spatial reasoning activities has strong conceptual and educational benefits. The embedding of spatial reasoning within play-based learning and intentional teaching is of critical importance in early years contexts. Newcombe and Frick (2010) indicate that spatial reasoning should be a component of the everyday experiences

7.3 STEM Practices Framework and ERA: Our Proposal …

137

Fig. 7.3 A book stimulus (a), app activity (b), and student-generated book (c). Note From Lowrie et al. (2019). Permission granted by MERGA to use this figure

of early years children, both in formal education contexts as well as informally at home, and that these experiences should be both intentional and also emerge as a consequence of engagement with spatial activities when children play. This approach aligns well with the principles of the EYLF (Sumsion et al., 2014) in that children experience spatial reasoning within the EYLF’s motif of “belonging, being, and becoming”. For instance, in App Two of the ELSA Program, the conceptual mapping of landscapes via approaches that provide opportunities for rich and culturally diverse ways of participating in learning helps to develop a child’s sense of belonging because it includes an understanding of who and where they are, and what surrounds them. The notion of belonging is a central motive in the activities, for example, designed to develop an understanding of location and arrangement. One such experience involves immersion with a book stimulus (Fig. 7.3a) written by members of the ELSA team. The book promotes spatial language with a STEM Practice lens and involves children developing ideas (designing and building), methods (decoding and encoding information), and values (creativity and teamwork) through the lens of a STEM practitioner. The activity includes an on-app experience requiring children to solve perspective-taking challenges (Fig. 7.3b). One educator was able to use the STEM Practices Framework and ERA Heuristic to generate an authentic and contextually rich associated activity that captured the children’s engagement with these STEM understandings. The educator’s activity included the design and construction of a story book that featured all the spatial language and representations they had encountered throughout the term in their own environment (Fig. 7.3c).

7.3.6 Teaching STEM Practices Earlier in this chapter we outlined the design research thinking regarding the ELSA Program. The scale of the project, and its setting within an economic and policy discourse that comes from outside of education (Lowrie et al., 2018), presented particular challenges for sustainable and scalable implementation. The use of practice architectures to design ways to support early years educators, who carry the burden

138

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

for the success or otherwise of the program, has also been outlined. These educators were, and continue to be, responsible for implementing the ELSA vision and they needed to do so without the benefit of significant access to (or contact with) the ELSA design research team. Our foresight in working with educators as co-designers became particularly important in 2020, as COVID-19 travel restrictions prevented any face-to-face interaction with educators. The ELSA design approach, therefore, makes explicit that early childhood educators are the cornerstone of the project. This approach is an acknowledgement that, as shown in Chap. 5, the implementation of a STEM education agenda carries with it concerns from educators about its enactment in their classrooms. Research confirms that educators have many misconceptions about what STEM will mean for them in classrooms and early years centres, particularly in terms of curriculum and assessment requirements (see McClure et al., 2017). However, our STEM Practices approach has enabled educators to meet these requirements and to overcome many of the hurdles that we outlined in Chap. 5. Three focus areas (see Fig. 7.4) for our ELSA professional development related to hurdles (left) and how the STEM Practices approach (right) minimises these concerns. To further support educators in embedding STEM Practices in early years contexts, the ERA Heuristic (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020) was developed. We next present research regarding the impact of ERA on educators.

Fig. 7.4 Common educator concerns (left) regarding the teaching of STEM and how they are minimised via the STEM Practices approach (right)

7.4 Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic

139

7.4 Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic In this section we discuss the development of the Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic that was designed to assist educators in engaging children in the use of STEM Practices through the enactment of authentic practices. The ERA Heuristic asks designers and educators to create learning activities that use or enact forms of STEM Practice in the context of real-world practice architectures (Lowrie et al., 2019). As the ERA Heuristic was adopted from a pedagogical model first proposed by Lowrie and Patahuddin (2015), which described a way of designing learning opportunities in a manner aligned to how concepts are developed, a brief overview of this early pedagogical model is necessary and appropriate.

7.4.1 What is ELPSA? The initial pedagogical model, Experience, Language, Pictorial, Symbolic, Applications (ELPSA), from which the ERA Heuristic has been adapted, is underpinned by constructivist and socio-constructivist theories about learning. Within the ELPSA framework, learning is an active process where students construct their own ways of knowing, through both individual thinking (intra-personal) and social interactions with others (inter-personal) (Vygotsky, 1978). The early conceptualisation of this framework was created during the mid-1990s by Lowrie as a way of introducing mathematics pedagogy to undergraduate primary and secondary pre-service teachers. Colleagues at Charles Sturt University in Australia completed various iterations of the framework over a 10-year period (see Lowrie & Patahuddin, 2015). The ELPSA framework follows a learning design approach that is cyclic in nature. The framework presents mathematical ideas through lived experiences, mathematical conversations, visual stimuli, symbolic notations, and application of the newly acquired knowledge in novel contexts. In this framework, educators are encouraged to introduce concepts based initially on what the children already know. Although the process appears linear in nature, learning is viewed as both complex and unpredictable, and thus the elements of the model should be thought of as interrelated and overlapping (Lowrie & Patahuddin, 2015). The ELSPA framework was used in the early ideation of Apps One and Two. By way of example, App Two relates to location and arrangement where children progress in their spatial understanding, commencing with their own spatial experiences, which then progressively become more complex based on activities in the app. Children initially understand themselves in space (Where am I now?) and then understand their movement in space (Where am I going?). Next, they understand that there are others in space with them (Where are you in space?), and finally they begin naive understandings of space that they cannot see (What is around the corner? What can my teddy see?) (Lowrie et al., 2017b).

140

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

While most of the educators in the initial rollout of elements of the ELSA Program understood our notion of STEM Practices, it remained difficult for many educators to jump from them to practical action within their individual and child-driven learning environments. Although ELPSA is a tool that early childhood educators can use to make planned and informed interventions in the largely play-based experiences of children (Lowrie et al., 2017b), we modified the five-step process to a simplified three-step process. The use of a modified heuristic for early childhood educators is supported in the work of Janssen et al. (2015). Thus, the decision to modify ELPSA to ERA was implemented in the second year of the project, as the project team felt that the ERA Heuristic would be more easily accessible for early childhood educators. In addition, from a pedagogical perspective, young children often develop language in close contact with experiences (thus Experience and Language were combined into Experience). Similarly, the emphasis of many young children is representing their learning pictorially, rather than in a strictly symbolic way (as understood mathematically) and so Pictorial and Symbolic were combined to become Representation. Consequently, the ERA Heuristic is the primary mechanism we use in workshops to assist educators in embedding STEM Practices in their centres (see Fig. 7.5). As was the case with the earlier ELPSA model, the three stages of the Heuristic are cyclic in nature. Here we indicate the intent of each phase, expressed in terms of ELSA’s on-app and off-app activities: • Experience. This is what children already know, and their lived experiences are used as the foundation for concept development through social engagement and language. Children participate in a range of play-based, off-app experiences that provide opportunities for them to use language in ways that connect personal experiences with new understandings.

Fig. 7.5 Experience, represent, apply (ERA) loop. Note Permission granted by SPLAT-maths to use this image

7.4 Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic

141

• Represent. Children play a variety of activities on the apps to engage with, and represent, various STEM concepts. These representations include creating images, interpreting pictures, visualising, and using symbols. Children have opportunities to create their own representations to use within the apps via the microphone and camera tools on the tablet. We argue that these User-Generated Content (UGC) experiences, where young children create and import their own content into the on-app activities, are critical for authentic and contextual play-based learning with digital devices. • Apply. Children apply their learning from the on-app activities through a range of off-app activities, guided by their educators and their families. Engagement with the visual and symbolic representatives on the app also promote new child-centred, play-based experiences.

7.4.2 ERA as a Design Heuristic for the Creation of Apps The ERA Heuristic was instrumental in the enactment of the STEM activities planned for the early years centres. However, the ERA Heuristic was also fundamental in the design process for the apps. Thus, the ERA Heuristic also operates as a design principle for early years STEM. The ERA Heuristic was used extensively to guide the design of the ELSA Program. A critical pedagogical point to note here is that, although digital design and coding experts (professional app developers) were employed to code the six apps, they worked under the close and very explicit pedagogical direction of the ELSA pedagogical team. This ensured that the apps that were created “out of house” were explicitly linked to the ERA Heuristic. This design process often involved very robust discussions between educators and app developers to ensure that the apps were philosophically aligned to a play-based approach to learning and pedagogically aligned to the EYLF and intentional teaching (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020). The ELSA design framework involved four interrelated elements, namely: program design, service delivery, the pilot study, and ongoing communication (see Fig. 7.6). The program design was situated within the STEM Practices Framework. The theoretical and practical knowledge of the ELSA team ensured that early years STEM Practices in the program were closely aligned both to the EYLF and to the Foundation Year curriculum expectations (ACARA, 2017). The EYLF provided the overarching connectivity for the project and was designed around the engagement elements of being, becoming, and belonging. Since the apps themselves are only one aspect of the project’s sustainable success, the pilot study design included the creation of supplementary materials and resources that maximised the holistic STEM experiences of children and educators (Fig. 7.7). These included four picture books, written by team members and illustrated by a visual art/early childhood digital expert, and various board games, as well as physical representations of the four digital characters (Budsies).

142

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

Fig. 7.6 A representation of our overarching design Framework. Note From Logan et al. (2017). Permission granted by MERGA to use this figure

Fig. 7.7 Analog materials supporting the digital components of the ELSA Program. Note From Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA), 2021. Used with the permission of the Australian Government, Department of Education, Skills and Employment

7.5 Educator and Child Engagement in the ELSA Program

143

User testing with young children was a further design aspect in the creation of the apps. Due to young children’s attention span, motivation to please adults, and ability to adjust to new people and experiences, user testing required careful planning (Hanna et al., 1997). In the very early stages of the design process, 4- to 5-yearold children in “test” centres were invited to explore “paper prototypes” (use of paper with a combination of other real-life objects), and then “Alpha” versions of the apps. Since children of this age often find verbally expressing their likes and dislikes a challenge, observations of children’s behaviours (e.g., smiling, sighing, looking confused or frustrated) were also used as key indicators of their likely level of engagement with the Alpha versions of the apps (Hanna et al., 1997).

7.5 Educator and Child Engagement in the ELSA Program The structure of the ELSA Program delivered one children’s app approximately every 8 weeks, starting in mid-March 2018 with the first children’s app and the Educator App. A similar distribution pattern was used in 2019. This was a requirement of the project rather than being the most efficacious way of using the four apps in a learning environment. The first app focussed on patterns and relationships, and included learning activities related to ordering, sorting, patterning, and representing patterns in dance. The second app included activities related to position, location, arrangement, and orientation. The third app included decoding, encoding, conditionals, and debugging activities. Lastly, the fourth app focussed on the various sub-components of an investigation about water, and the animals and plants that live in and around water. Along with the children’s apps, educators in the pilot were provided with an educator app that included a range of activities, question prompts, and the STEM Practices (Fig. 7.8). Please note that Fig. 7.8 is illustrative of the 150 activities within the program and is not an exhaustive list. In addition, in each of the examples educators are provided with prompts for them to use to support STEM learning. For example, the Doing Artwork at home activity, whilst not on the surface a STEM activity, involves educators and parents encouraging spatial positional language as children are painting (why did you position the tree next to the house, are the birds flying high in the sky). In addition, the Educator App provided a versatile administration portal for educators to onboard students and to access evidence of students’ learning. The Educator App was designed according to the ERA Heuristic and structured to support the STEM concepts developed within the children’s apps. The sixth app was an app that supports families in identifying appropriate STEM activities for young children at home (see Chap. 6 for a discussion of the Families App). We suggest that the balanced approach between on- and off-app activities, and the connections we forged between the two via the simplified ERA Heuristic resulted in high levels of engagement with our apps (see Figs. 7.9 and 7.10 that provide a snapshot of some of the 2018 student engagement data associated with the apps developed for the project). Engagement data was collected while the children used

144

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

Fig. 7.8 The Educator App that supports educators in delivering the ELSA Program. Note From Educator App, by Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA), 2021. Used with the permission of the Australian Government, Department of Education, Skills and Employment

the device. Children who did not have permission for their data to be collected used the app with the data collection feature disabled. Educator feedback was collected through workshops, surveys, and the community of practice website that was set up for the project.

Fig. 7.9 Total App downloads (as at December 2018)

7.5 Educator and Child Engagement in the ELSA Program

145

Fig. 7.10 Number of children visits per app during 2018

The success of the ELSA Program, in terms of the use of the apps and the accompanying E and A activities, is a clear consequence of our decision to involve early childhood educators as co-designers. After an initial “discovery phase” with the ELSA program team and critical friends (e.g., experts in the domains of early years and digital design), our co-design approach, presented in Fig. 7.11, was to develop an Alpha version of each app. The second iteration of the design process involved early childhood educators from participating centres as co-designers of the activities in the Experience and Apply phases, which aligned to the Represent engagement on the actual apps. In many instances, educators suggested modifications to the apps that were incorporated into the “Beta” and “Gold” versions of the apps. In other instances, their suggestions can be incorporated into subsequent app modifications as the ELSA Program evolves. Fundamental to the successful co-design process were 4 days of professional development workshops—face-to-face in 2018 and 2019, and online in 2020—which took the form of a contextual design “blend”, with the educators invited to design learning activities for their context using the STEM Practices Framework and the ERA Heuristic. Consequently, the app constituted a resource offering a partial opportunity to “represent” STEM Practices with the expectation that these experiences would be complemented with highly contextualised off-app activities. We are confident in the ability of the educators in the project to continue to complement the Represent activities designed as part of the project. The activities developed during the workshops, and further activities created during the first two years of the program, will be curated and made available to educators in future iterations. The Educator App thus serves as a portal for educators to access high-quality STEM activities to use with their children. The involvement of early childhood educators is critical for the ongoing success of the program, and their expertise and experience were highly valued by the ELSA team. A second factor in the success of the ELSA children’s apps was the User-Generated Content (UGC) feature that enables early years children to record their thoughts

146

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

Fig. 7.11 Overview of the App design process. Note From Larkin and Kinny-Lewis (2017). Permission granted by MERGA to use this figure

(audio recordings and images) that then become part of their future use of the apps. For example, in Fig. 7.12, this particular story regards two children and their painting activity. This activity helps children develop the concept of seriation, a core early number skills and also an early digital technology skill that they will later require when completing sequencing and programming activities. The use of UGC in early years apps is highly innovative, if not unique, and distinguishes these apps from almost all educational apps available for young children, which generally only supply in-built, static content (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020). The availability of UGC functionality means that children create their own content in a way appropriate and easily accessible for them in the Experience phase (e.g., photos of events in the preschool), import these into the app to play with in the Represent phase, and then share them with their friends to use in the Apply phase. The innovative use of UGC also ensures that screen time is a highly active experience for the young children using the apps. The ERA Heuristic, underpinning the delivery of the STEM Practices Framework, was a critical factor in the success of the ELSA Program. The ELSA team was cognisant of the possible hesitation of the profession to include digital devices into their STEM play and learning (Palaiologou, 2016) and, therefore, our program design made explicit the link between digital engagement and popular analogue, play-based activities. As such, the ELSA apps were not designed to be stand-alone activities, played by individual children with no support. Rather, they are part of a package

7.5 Educator and Child Engagement in the ELSA Program

147

Fig. 7.12 User-Generated Content (UGC) as part of the App One “Photo-Story” game. Note From App One, by Early Learning STEM Australia (ELSA), 2021. Used with the permission of the Australian Government, Department of Education, Skills and Employment

that incorporates the ERA Heuristic, where the on-app activities build upon previous off-app experiences and lead to further off-app activities. The data presented in this chapter, and also in Lowrie and Larkin (2020), highlights that the ERA Heuristic was well understood and appreciated by the ELSA educators, especially as they reflected on their own teaching practice. Earlier in this chapter we argued that the ELPSA framework had been used successfully in secondary and tertiary contexts (see Lowrie & Patahuddin, 2015). Given our highly successful experiences using the ERA Heuristic with early years educators, and the successful use of its predecessor in middle and senior secondary, the versatility of the ELPSA and ERA pedagogical models to support learning at any stage is apparent. In the context of the ELSA Program, the ERA Heuristic assisted educators to incorporate STEM Practices into the range of authentic activities that they already develop and deliver in their “normal” teaching and, in a metaphorical sense, worked as a bridging device between the non-digital and the digital experiences of young children. In concluding this section on ERA, some indicative feedback from educators about their experience using the ERA Heuristic during 2018 and 2019 is provided. Throughout the year we have continued to provide our students with a host of learning activities and experiences related to ‘Patterns and Relationships’, the first ELSA topic. We used the Experience, Represent, Apply method, as outlined in the Educator App, with great success. Here, students get to physically experience an idea first, such as sorting things according to attributes, then they get to explore and represent that idea on an app (for example, sorting lunch boxes), and then they get to apply that understanding using different materials and resources in an authentic way. (Educator One) We have started using App Two; however our focus has mostly been off-app so far. The educators were able to support [the children] using the concept knowledge from the Educator App. (Educator Five) Regarding our off-app experiences for location and arrangement today. I really didn’t plan explicitly for all of these experiences; it was just that we used the ELSA positional language cards yesterday to arrange our obstacle course and found today that there was positional language in heaps of the things we were doing. (Educator Two)

148

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

7.6 Conclusion In this final chapter we have outlined a possible way forward for STEM education— in this instance in the early years of schooling, but one we feel is appropriate for all of the primary years of schooling. Based on our experiences from the four-year ELSA Program (2016–2020), we initially argued for a new conception of play that avoided what we see as the false dichotomy between digital vs. non-digital play, critiqued in Chap. 4. Our new understanding of play is underpinned by two new approaches to STEM education—namely, STEM Practices and the Experience, Represent, Apply (ERA) Heuristic, both of which provide early childhood educators with pedagogical tools to teach STEM. In early published research on STEM Practices (Lowrie et al., 2017a, b, 2018) and ERA (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020), we presented in some depth, the theoretical underpinnings of these two approaches. In this chapter we built upon the theory to examine how these approaches were implemented to support approximately 675 educators and over 11,500 children in the ELSA Program since 2018. We saw that a STEM Practice involves the use of an idea, method, or value to achieve something (Lowrie et al., 2017a), and that these practices will vary depending on the context in which they are used. We proposed that the ERA Heuristic supports app designers and early childhood educators in creating learning activities that use or enact forms of STEM Practice in the context of real-world practice architectures (Lowrie & Larkin, 2020). In our view, using this approach promotes quality STEM experiences, as these experiences are based on children’s prior Experience, which they Represent in some form, and then Apply to a new context. We look forward to continuing to develop both of these pedagogical approaches as the ELSA Program expands into the first few years of primary schooling during 2021–2025, and to reporting our findings in future research publications. We are very confident that our success in enhancing STEM engagement in preschool during the period 2018–2020 will be replicated in the early years of schooling over the next five years.

References Arnott, L. (2016). An ecological exploration of young children’s digital play: Framing children’s social experiences with technologies in early childhood. Early Years, 36(3), 271–288. https://doi. org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1181049 Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2017). The Australian curriculum: Learning areas. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/learningareas/ Australian Government Department of Education and Training (DET). (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. https://www.dese.gov.au/nationalquality-framework-early-childhood-education-and-care/resources/belonging-being-becomingearly-years-learning-framework-australia

References

149

Bers, M., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. The Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355–377. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ready-for-Robotics%3A-Bringing-Tog ether-the-T-and-E-Bers-Seddighin/38501e91278c089369396e99f723701f7be036b8 Bird, J., & Edwards, S. (2015). Children learning to use technologies through play: A digital play framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10. 1111/bjet.12191 Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898909 Çetin, M., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2020). Empowering technology and engineering for STEM education through programming robots: A systematic literature review. Early Child Development and Care, 190(9), 1323–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1534844 Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2–3), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2002.9672137 Edwards, S., & Bird, J. (2017). Observing and assessing young children’s digital play in the early years: Using the digital play framework. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15579746 Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lam, W. S. (2011). Block talk: Spatial language during block play. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(3), 143–151. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01122.x Fleer, M. (2018). Digital animation: New conditions for children’s development in play-based setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 943–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet. 12637 Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K. (1997). Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions, 4(5), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/264044.264045 Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 446–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: How to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 176–186. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.954751 Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-9814560-47-4 Kemmis, S. (2008). Praxis and practice architectures in mathematics education. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions. Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 17–28). MERGA. Larkin, K., & Kinny-Lewis, C. (2017). ELPSA and spatial reasoning: A design-based approach to develop a “mapping” app. In A. Downton, S. Livy, & J. Hall (Eds.), 40 years on: We are still learning! Proceedings of the 40th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 629–632). MERGA. Larkin, K. (2016). Geometry and iPads in primary schools: Does their usefulness extend beyond tracing an oblong? In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives, mathematics education in the digital era (Vol. 7, pp. 247–274). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32718-1_11 Larkin, K. (2019). Exploring the transition between doctoral student and early career academic: A new perspective on activity systems. In T. Machin, M. Clarà, & P. A. Danaher (Eds.), Traversing the doctorate: Reflections and strategies from students, supervisors and administrators. Palgrave studies in education research methods (pp. 409–428). Palgrave Macmillan Cham. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-23731-8_23 Leonard, S. N., Fitzgerald, R. N., & Riordan, G. (2016). Using developmental evaluation as a design thinking tool for curriculum innovation in professional higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(2), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087386

150

7 A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years

Logan, T., Lowrie, T., & Bateup, C. (2017). Early learning STEM Australia (ELSA): Developing a learning program to inspire curiosity and engagement in STEM concepts in preschool children. In A. Downton, S. Livy, & J. Hall (Eds.), 40 years on: We are still learning! Proceedings of the 40th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 621–624). MERGA. Lowrie, T. (2014). An educational practices framework: The potential for empowerment of the teaching profession. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02607476.2013.864016 Lowrie, T., & Larkin, K. (2020). Experience, represent, apply (ERA): A heuristic for digital engagement in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 131–147. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12789 Lowrie, T., Resnick, I., Harris, D., & Logan, T. (2020). In search of the mechanisms that enable transfer from spatial reasoning to mathematics understanding. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00336-9 Lowrie, T., & Patahuddin, S. M. (2015). ELPSA as a lesson design framework. Journal on Mathematics Education, 6(2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.6.2.2166.77-92 Lowrie, T., Downes, N., & Leonard, S. N. (2017a). STEM education for all young Australians: A bright spots STEM learning hub foundation paper, for SVA, in partnership with Samsung. https:// www.socialventures.com.au/assets/STEM-education-for-all-young-Australians-Smaller.pdf Lowrie, T., Logan, T., & Larkin, K. (2017b). The “math” in STEM practices: The role of spatial reasoning in the early years. In A. Downton, S. Livy, & J. Hall (Eds.), 40 years on: We are still learning! Proceedings of the 40th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 625–628). MERGA. Lowrie, T., Logan, T., & Ramful, A. (2017c). Visuospatial training improves elementary students’ mathematics performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 170–186. https:// doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12142 Lowrie, T., Leonard, S., & Fitzgerald, R. (2018). STEM Practices: A translational framework for large-scale STEM education design. EDeR - Educational Design Research, 2(1), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.15460/eder.2.1.1243 Lowrie, T., Larkin, K., & Logan, T. (2019). STEM and digital technologies in play based environments: A new approach. In G. Hine, S. Blackley, & A. Cooke (Eds.), Mathematics education research: Impacting practice. Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 68–80). MERGA. Mahon, K., Kemmis, S., Francisco, S., & Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice theory and the theory of practice architectures. In K. Mahon, S. Francisco, & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring education and professional practice: Through the lens of practice architectures (pp. 1–30). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2219-7_1 Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital play: A new classification. Early Years, 36(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1167675 McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. The Joan Ganz Cooney Cener at Sesame Workshop. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED574402 Mulligan, J. (2015). Looking within and beyond the geometry curriculum: Connecting spatial reasoning to mathematics learning. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 47(3), 511–517. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11858-015-0696-1 Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (2014). On the interactional ecology of objects. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 3–26). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/z.186.01int Newcombe, N. S., & Frick, A. (2010). Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what, and how. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(3), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01089.x

References

151

Newcombe, N. S. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator, Summer 2010, 29–43. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ889152 Norenes, S. O., & Ludvigsen, S. (2016). Language use and participation in discourse in the mathematics classroom: When students write together at an online website. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.05.003 Palaiologou, I. (2016). Children under five and digital technologies: Implications for early years pedagogy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1350293X.2014.929876 Rosicka, C. (2016). From concept to classroom: Translating STEM education research into practice. http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=professional_dev Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ821633 Selling, S. K. (2016). Learning to represent, representing to learn. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.10.003 Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40 594-017-0068-1 Sorby, S. A. (1999). Developing 3-D spatial visualization skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 63(2), 21–32. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej596026 Sumsion, J., Grieshaber, S., McArdle, F., & Shield, P. (2014). The ‘state of play’ in Australia: Early childhood educators and play-based learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(3), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911403900302 Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: Links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Pyschological Science, 22(5), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484756 Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Chapter Four—Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 147–181). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127