Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Mar 27:1–19. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s10643-023-01476-w

Practitioner and Director Perceptions, Beliefs, and Practices Related to STEM and Inclusion in Early Childhood

Jessica Amsbary 1,✉, Hsiu-Wen Yang 2, Ann Sam 2, Chih-Ing Lim 2, Megan Vinh 2
PMCID: PMC10042110  PMID: 37360602

Abstract

The importance of early science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) learning opportunities for all young children has become increasingly documented by research and recommended practices. In addition, high quality inclusive settings where all children can access and benefit from learning activities continues to demonstrate optimal outcomes for all children. This manuscript reports findings from a survey broadly disseminated related to early childhood practitioners’ and directors’ perceptions related to STEM and inclusion and explores what practices related to STEM and inclusion are currently being used by early childhood practitioners and directors. While the majority of respondents supported the importance of both STEM and inclusion, there were varied responses related to relevance for infants and toddlers and inconsistent reports of specific practices being used. The findings suggest the need to emphasize and provide professional development opportunities focused on STEM and inclusion for our early childhood workforce more explicitly. Additional implications for research and practice are discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10643-023-01476-w.

Keywords: STEM, Inclusion, Early childhood education, Early childhood practitioners’ perspectives

Importance of STEM and Inclusion

In early intervention and early childhood practice, there is increasing focus on integrating early science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) learning opportunities into early childhood settings (Sarama et al., 2018) and on using evidence-based inclusive services (Catlett & Soukakou, 2019; Odom et al., 2011, 2019). Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) have become recognized as critical elements in early childhood learning and later success (e.g., Sarama et al., 2018; Tippett & Milford, 2017). STEM learning has been linked to improved reading, writing, math, and literacy skills (Claessens & Engel, 2013; Clements et al., 2020; Paprzycki, et al., 2017; Sarama et al., 2018). Furthermore, young children as explorers, questioners, and problem solvers, are ideal candidates to engage in STEM learning experiences (Clements et al., 2020; Sarama et al., 2018). Thus, early intervention and early childhood practitioners should purposefully embed early STEM learning opportunities for the children with which they work.

As a relatively new field within early childhood, recommended practices for STEM learning are not yet widely available, but there are some existing models and resources to support early STEM learning. The National Research Council (NRC, 2012) has developed a Framework for K-12 Science Education and informed the Next Generation Science Standards which represent and describe important scientific concepts such as cause and effect and force and motion for older children. These concepts are similarly important for younger children and have been adapted in models such as the Early Science Framework (Greenfield et al., 2009) and Teaching and Learning with Learning Trajectories (Clements & Sarama, 2012, 2021). However, consistent with findings relative to older children, current evidence suggests STEM is not as available and accessible for children with disabilities (Clements et al., 2020). Thus, the need to ensure all children are engaged in accessible high-quality inclusive STEM learning opportunities from their youngest years is pertinent.

Furthermore, the importance and benefits of high-quality early intervention and inclusive early childhood education have been documented by research (e.g., Agran et al., 2020; Barton & Smith, 2015; Odom et al., 2019). High-quality inclusive environments are beneficial to all young children, including children with and without disabilities (Barton & Smith, 2015; Beatty et al., 2021; Noggle & Stites, 2018). There are existing models that have been developed to guide high quality inclusion and focused on ensuring child access to and participation in learning opportunities. The models generally do so by providing tier-based modifications and adaptations to the environment, materials, and instructional practices (e.g., Campbell et al., 2012; Carta & Young, 2019; Greenwood et al., 2014 Hemmeter et al., 2013, 2021; Sandall et al., 2019; Shepley & Grisham-Brown, 2019). In addition, the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC) has developed a set of recommended practices to guide high quality service provision, including inclusion, for practitioners working with young children with disabilities and their families (DEC, 2014). In addition, the National Association for Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Developmentally Appropriate Practices include ensuring high-quality inclusion for all young children (NAEYC, 2022). DEC and NAEYC have come together as a field to define early childhood inclusion as embodying “the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every infant and young child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities, and society (DEC & NAEYC, 2009, p. 2). The position statement also further explicates that “the desired results of inclusive experiences for children with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential” (DEC & NAEYC, p. 2) and that the key defining features of inclusion are access, participation, and support (DEC & NAEYC). Taken together, these findings suggest that early intervention and early childhood practitioners should focus on providing high-quality inclusive services for each and every young child.

Attitudes and Beliefs Related to STEM and Inclusion

In order to support STEM learning for young children with and without disabilities, attitudes and beliefs of early childhood practitioners should be examined. Research suggests that practitioners’ attitudes and beliefs play a crucial role in what content is addressed and how STEM is taught in early childhood settings (Maier et al., 2013). Of note, the majority of research on practitioner perceptions and beliefs related to STEM learning has been conducted relative to math and science and suggests that teachers’ positive attitude and increased knowledge in science were critically important in child learning (Fleer, 2009; Krapp & Penzel, 2011; Nilsson & Van Driel, 2011; Westman & Bergmark, 2014). Yet, research also suggests early educators often are not adequately prepared or confident in their ability to teach or facilitate STEM experiences (Brenneman et al., 2009; Sarama & Clements, 2009). Early childhood teachers report not possessing the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence to teach STEM learning in their work settings leading to anxiety and feelings of inadequacy (Pendergast et al., 2015).

In addition to negative feelings related to STEM, some research suggests practitioners may also hold negative beliefs related to inclusion (Barton & Smith, 2015; Sharma & Hamilton, 2019). Similar to practitioners’ beliefs about early STEM, researchers have found that early childhood educators feel less prepared to teach children with disabilities (Chadwell et al., 2020; Cruz et al., 2020). In all, while previous studies have examined early childhood educators’ attitudes and beliefs about STEM or inclusion separately, none has focused on practitioners’ perceptions of STEM learning for young children with disabilities or for infants and toddlers. Most were also focused on math or science alone. Additionally, most studies on STEM or inclusion were focused on early childhood educators and did not include early intervention, early childhood special education practitioners, or directors. This suggests the need to further explore how early childhood practitioners and directors perceive STEM and inclusion and whether they are currently embedding the content areas and approaches into their practice. From here on, we use the term early childhood practitioners to refer to early childhood educators, early intervention, and early childhood special educators and directors to refer to the leaders of early intervention agencies and early childhood centers.

The purpose of the present study was to examine early childhood practitioners’ and directors’ perceptions and beliefs related to STEM and inclusion in early childhood settings. In this manuscript, we are using the definition of inclusion agreed upon by two international early childhood professional organizations, DEC and NAEYC, which primarily focus on the inclusion of children with disabilities. We addressed the following research questions: (1) What are practitioners’ and directors’ feelings and beliefs related to STEM and inclusion in early intervention and early education? (2) What are practitioners and directors doing related to STEM and inclusion in early intervention and early education? (3) What challenges do providers and directors/leaders face related to STEM and inclusion in early intervention and early education?

Method

We received approval to conduct this study through the Institutional Review Board at a university in the southeastern United States. Survey methodology was employed to address the research questions above. In the following section, we describe the survey development process, dissemination, and data analysis procedures.

Survey Development and Cognitive Interviews

The initial survey was developed through a three-phase process. During the first phase members of the research team drafted multiple-choice questions, comment opportunities, and Likert scale matrices based on feelings, beliefs, and practices related to STEM and inclusion. Due to the different levels of extant research and models for each of the STEM domains discussed above, with more addressing math and science as opposed to engineering and/or technology, we developed the survey to address items related to science, technology, engineering, math and STEM as separate concepts to inform our findings. During the second phase, internal research team members with expertise in STEM and inclusion reviewed the survey. The reviewers noted a few discrepancies. For example, in a question addressing curriculum used in center-based settings, one of the survey choices was an assessment not a curriculum. Based upon feedback from reviewers, the team made necessary edits.

Following internal edits, the final phase of the survey development involved conducting four cognitive interviews with early childhood practitioners to finalize the survey. This process is described below. Of note, the team developed surveys for both practitioners and directors in early childhood settings, but the development phases focused on the practitioner survey. The director surveys were adapted slightly from the practitioner survey in regard to wording. For example, items addressing caseloads and/or classrooms were adapted to be about staff and programs.

The cognitive interview process included participants completing the working draft of the survey in Qualtrics and then engaging in semi-structured interviews relative to the survey and participants’ thought processes while completing the survey (Collins, 2015). These interviews served to ensure that the survey was readable, understandable, and relevant to current early childhood practitioners. Interview protocols began with questions about the survey topics (e.g., “In your own words, what was this survey asking you about?” and “What does the term “early STEM” mean to you?”). The protocol also included questions on the style (e.g., “How useful were the additional open-ended questions and optional comments?”) and question formats (e.g., “How well were you able to provide answers to questions that allowed multiple choices such as [item numbers]?” and “How easily were you able to provide answers to questions that asked you to agree/disagree with specific statements such as [item numbers]?”). The interviews also included questions on definitions and terminology (e.g., “Do you feel the definitions provided on the survey made sense to you?”).

We recruited four early childhood practitioners to participate in the interviews through personal contacts. They each completed a draft of the survey and engaged in a semi-structured cognitive interview. One participant was a home-based early intervention provider; one was a head start teacher; one was an itinerant teacher of young children; and one was an occupational therapist providing early intervention services. Three of the four interviews were conducted in person with one being conducted virtually both due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the location of the provider. The providers found the survey to be understandable and reported the majority of questions were relevant to their work settings. They appreciated concept definitions included in the survey and suggest a few more specific references to home-visits and 1:1 sessions. They also suggested adding a few specific curriculums or approaches that may be used in early childhood settings (e.g., structured TEACCHing, TEACCH, Mesibov et al., 2005).

When all suggested edits and modifications were made following internal expert and practitioner reviews, the final surveys for both practitioners and directors included 5 blocks: (a) demographics (24 questions) addressing roles, settings, race/ethnicity, and general curriculum and approaches used; (b) importance and developmental appropriateness of STEM and inclusion (11 questions) including Likert style matrices for participants to strongly disagree to strongly agree about importance and developmental appropriateness of each domain of STEM and STEM as a whole; (c) inclusive practices used (6 questions) including a matrix that asked participants whether they used specific models and approaches such as the Pyramid Model and Universal Design for Learning; (d) STEM practices used (6 questions) including a matrix that asked participants whether they embed specific STEM content such as counting and sequencing and specific models such as the Early Science Framework and Learning Trajectories; and (e) challenges faced accessing and using inclusive and STEM practices (12 questions) including Likert scales that asked participants to rate the extent to which common challenges (time, funding, etc.) were perceived as challenges in addressing STEM and inclusion in practice. In total, there were 59 questions on the survey. When referencing perceptions about STEM, each domain (science, technology, engineering, and math) was addressed separately and as an inclusive domain. The research team developed definitions for conceptualizing each domain and STEM as a whole pulling from existing literature and recommended practices (e.g., National Research Council; NRC, 2012). Open ended optional comments were embedded throughout the survey. See Fig. 1 for examples of items in each of the above sections and provided definitions for STEM domains. Surveys for practitioners and directors were available in English and Spanish.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Sample survey items

Data Collection and Analysis

Data Collection

The survey was disseminated through a variety of channels beginning in the winter of 2020 through the spring of 2021 with consent written into the introductory script of the survey. We posted links of the survey on the research team’s social media platforms and website which have an international following of participants interested in early STEM and inclusion. In addition, contacts and listservs of existing groups (e.g., DEC, NAEYC, and the Supporting Change and Reform in Preservice Teaching in North Carolina; SCRIPT-NC) that included early childhood practitioners and directors were emailed with an invitation to complete the survey. Eligibility criteria included being 18 years or older and working as a practitioner or director in any capacity focused on early intervention and/or early childhood. Identifiable data were not collected, but upon completion of the survey, participants were able to opt into a $50 gift card drawing. They were also able to opt in to join the research team’s listserv, and/or agree to follow up by sharing their email addresses. The survey allowed respondents to skip questions and submit their survey, so respondents who did skip any questions were not excluded from the analysis. All data were collected via Qualtrics online survey program. The research team was prepared to provide paper copies for anyone who requested it, but there were no requests. Thus, all data were collected electronically.

Participants

In all, 160 practitioners and 120 directors completed and submitted the survey at the survey closure date in the spring of 2021. Response rates of completion were calculated using emails and responses as recorded by Qualtrics. For practitioners, we used Qualtrics data to determine a response rate using reported email responses. Specifically, 2570 emails were sent, and 130 practitioners responded via this method, indicating a response rate of 5%. For directors, Qualtrics recorded all responses as originating as anonymous links, so we were unable to calculate email responses. Of note, a number of survey responses that were started did not move beyond the captcha suggesting they may have been accessed by bots.

Of the 160 practitioners who filled out the survey 99% (n = 159) were female. Of the directors, 100% (n = 120) were female. Most practitioners (76%; n = 120) and directors (70%; n = 84) held a bachelor’s degree or higher. In addition, most practitioners (81%; n = 130) and directors (86%; n = 108) were White. Many practitioners worked as classroom/center-based practitioners and most directors worked in centers. Figures 2 and 3 provide details on practitioner and director roles. Child age ranges varied with practitioners reporting serving children from 0 to 5 years old (41%; n = 65), primarily 0–2 years old (15%; n = 24), and primarily 3–5 years old (31%; n = 49). There was less variance with the directors who reported their centers served children from 0–5 years old (55%; n = 66) and primarily 3–5 years old (22%; n = 26). Only 1 director (1%) reported their center served children primarily 0–2 years old. Additional demographic data may be viewed in Table 1. As seen in Tables 2 and 3, some respondents reported previous training in STEM and inclusion with the highest percentage of participants (73%; n = 101 practitioners and 73%; n = 82 directors) reporting professional development opportunities in early STEM. In addition, although disseminated on a national level, the number of respondents was not consistent across states with notably higher frequency of respondents in the states of Kansas (26%; n = 42 practitioners and 24%; n = 29 directors), North Carolina (12%; n = 21 practitioners and 4%; n = 5 directors), and Vermont (8%; n = 13 practitioners and 18%; n = 22 directors). Individual states of residence may be viewed in Fig. 4.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Practitioner role

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Director role

Table 1.

Survey respondent demographics

Demographic category Number of practitioners Percentage of practitioners (%) Number of directors Percentage of directors (%)
Female 159 99 120 100
Held a bachelor’s or advanced degree

120

(68 bachelor’s,

52 advanced)

 75 84 70
White 130 81 108 86
Black or African American 16 10 7 6
American Indian 2 1 – –
Asian 4 2.5 – –
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1 1 – –
Other race 6 4 8 6.4
Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino/a 26 16.7 16 13.6
Open in a new tab
Table 2.

Practitioner previous training

Question Preservice training and/or coursework prior to beginning career Professional development and/or continuing education after beginning career Total
Early Childhood Special Education: developing individualized goals and teaching young children with developmental delays and developmental disabilities 40.50% (81) 59.50% 119 200
Inclusive Practices: providing appropriate supports and resources for all children with and without disabilities to be included in classroom routines and activities in meaningful ways 36.92% 72 63.08% 123 195
Early Science: supporting children to explore the world with their senses, predict, experiment, and report in their early learning experiences, conduct investigations of living and non-living objects 37.08% 66 62.92% 112 178
Early Technology: helping children learn foundational skills of computational thinking such as sequences and using codes to represent something else 35.48% 44 64.52% 80 124
Early Engineering: engaging children in creating models, testing out the function, and adjusting the models accordingly 31.73% 33 68.27% 71 104
Early Math: teaching children to recognize numbers, count, add, subtract, recognize patterns, sequences, and early mathematical principles 42.63% 81 57.37% 109 190
Early STEM: integrating activities that include elements of science, technology, engineering, and/or math (STEM) at the same time 26.81% 37 73.19% 101 138
Open in a new tab
Table 3.

Director previous training

Question Preservice training and/or coursework prior to beginning career Continuing education and/or professional development after beginning career Total
Early Childhood Special Education: developing individualized goals and teaching young children with developmental delays and developmental disabilities 39.07% 59 60.93% 92 151
Inclusive Practices: providing appropriate supports and resources for all children with and without disabilities to be included in classroom routines and activities in a meaningful way 38.71% 60 61.29% 95 155
Early Science: teaching children to explore, predict, experiment, and report in their early learning experiences 39.04% 57 60.96% 89 146
Early Technology: helping children learn foundational skills of computational thinking such as sequences and using codes to represent something else 32.98% 31 67.02% 63 94
Early Engineering: engaging children in creating models, testing out the function, and adjusting the models accordingly 28.57% 24 71.43% 60 84
Early Math: teaching children to recognize numbers, count, add, subtract, recognize patterns, sequences, and early mathematical principles 40.94% 61 59.06% 88 149
Early STEM: integrating activities that include elements of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) at the same time 27.43% 31 72.57% 82 113
Open in a new tab
Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

States of residence

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to address each research question to obtain an overall sense of early childhood practitioners’ and directors’ perceptions related to STEM and inclusion. Specifically, data were viewed and charted to provide a visual representation of perceptions and trends. Findings are described below.

Responses to open-ended comments on the survey were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with consensus coding (Neuendorf, 2017). Specifically, we pulled the responses onto a single excel spreadsheet and used the responses to create categories and themes around their meaning. Of note, all the open-ended questions were optional and linked to survey items so there were a limited number of responses. The majority of categories were determined a priori being the topic of the question itself. For example, after filling out a matrix on specific STEM content and approaches used in practice, there was an optional comment to “Please share any comments or additional examples of teaching STEM in your work” and these responses generally fell into the category “Additional examples of STEM teaching”. All open-ended comments were coded by two team members with weekly consensus meetings to establish credibility and reliability of the open-ended data (Saldana, 2016).

Results

Results from the survey are reported below in text with supplementary figures and tables as noted. Terms “majority”, “most”, and “many” are used interchangeably to mean at least 60% of respondents. Responses to survey items were generally consistent between practitioners and directors with the exceptions of specific models reported and challenges faced as described below. Thus, findings from both surveys are reported but the majority of the content is combined.

RQ1: Feelings and Beliefs Related to STEM and Inclusion in Early Intervention and Early Education

Overall, the importance and developmental appropriateness of STEM, each STEM domain, and inclusion (as evidenced by consistent responses for children with and without disabilities) were widely supported by respondents. There were a few discrepancies within the individual domains of engineering and technology being perceived as slightly less important and developmentally appropriate relative to infants and toddlers.

When asked about feelings and beliefs related to STEM’s importance for young children with and without disabilities, many practitioners (95%; n = 150) and directors (93%; n = 111) agreed or strongly agreed that STEM is important for infants and toddlers. A notable number of practitioners perceived of the importance of engineering (10%; n = 16 strongly disagree or disagree) and practitioners (19%; n = 30 strongly disagree or disagree) and directors (15%; n = 20 strongly disagree or disagree) perceived the importance of technology as lower for infants and toddlers. This sentiment was echoed for infants and toddlers with disabilities.

For preschool aged children with and without disabilities, most practitioners and directors agreed and strongly agreed that all domains were important. Similar responses were recorded related to the developmental appropriateness of each domain, with lowest agreement rates for infants and toddlers (with and without disabilities) and the appropriateness of technology (83%; n = 129 practitioners; and 81%; n = 96 directors) and engineering (89%; n = 138 practitioners). Thus, most practitioners felt all domains were both important and developmentally appropriate for young children with the largest discrepancies for infants and toddlers related to technology and engineering. Figure 5 provides a display of these data.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Respondent perceptions of STEM importance

A fair number of practitioners (29%; n = 45) and directors (19%; n = 22) reported that they did not know how to find information on teaching early STEM concepts. Additionally, 26% (n = 32) of directors reported their staff did not know how to find information on early STEM learning. Many practitioners (85%; n = 132) reported feeling supported to teach STEM concepts. When asked about their staff’s comfort level teaching these concepts, over 30% of directors expressed their staff were not comfortable teaching early technology (32%; n = 37) or engineering (35%; n = 42). Most practitioners (78%; n = 120) and directors (73%; n = 88) reported they were interested in learning more about teaching STEM concepts to their children.

As it relates to inclusion, many practitioners and directors reported serving children with and without disabilities, while 22.5% (n = 36) of practitioners and 15% (n = 18) of directors reported they did not serve children with disabilities in their setting. Ninety percent (n = 140) of practitioners and 92% (n = 110) of directors agreed or strongly agreed that they know how to access information about inclusive practices, and 94% (n = 128) of practitioners felt supported in their work to use inclusive practices. Many practitioners (86%; n = 129) felt confident in their ability to use inclusive practices whereas 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Directors agreed slightly less (73%; n = 88) when asked if their staff are adequately prepared to use inclusive practices. Seventy percent (n = 110) of practitioners and 66% (n = 76) of directors desired to learn more about using inclusive practices in their work.

RQ2: Practices Related to STEM and Inclusion in Early Intervention and Early Education

In general, survey respondents reported using a variety of specific models related to STEM and inclusion and embedding a number of STEM related content into their practice. The majority of practitioners (69%; n = 109) and directors (69%; n = 83) reported that they currently integrate STEM learning opportunities with their children, but a notable number (16%; n = 25 practitioners and 20%; n = 24 directors) reported they did not. Fourteen percent (n = 23) of practitioners and 10% (n = 13) of directors indicated that they were not sure whether they embed STEM learning into their practice. In the open-ended comments, a few practitioners shared they would like to integrate more STEM learning as one practitioner shared, “I am not integrating STEM learning experiences as much as I would like to” and others reported challenges to focusing on STEM learning such as, “I try, but it is difficult with this many children in such a small room”. Directors said such things as “I think the teachers do try, but it’s more by accident that integrated STEM occurs.” and “STEM is limited due to lack of budget for materials, lack of space in classrooms, and staff not comfortable with it.” Only 25% (n = 39) of practitioners reported very frequently teaching early STEM concepts and 30% (n = 47) reported teaching STEM somewhat frequently. Practitioners also reported teaching STEM not much (31%; n = 49) or not at all (13%; n = 21). Similarly, only 21% (n = 25) of directors reported very frequent early STEM teaching in their setting and 40% (n = 46) reported somewhat frequent teaching. Thirty-four percent (n = 40) of directors reported their staff teach STEM not much and 6% (n = 7) reported their staff do not teach STEM at all.

Specific to STEM models and concepts practitioners and directors had very similar replies with a number of reported STEM practices. Almost all practitioners and directors reported teaching their students about STEM concepts such as creativity (97% in both groups), counting (97% in both groups), collaboration (95% practitioners; 94% directors), and sequencing (92% practitioners; 95% directors). They agreed that they focused on identifying and comparing shapes (92% practitioners; 91% directors), comparing numbers (91% practitioners; 97% directors), and life science (89% practitioners; 89% directors). On the other hand, few respondents reported teaching about computational thinking or computer science (33% practitioners; 24% directors) or using existing models such as the Early Science Framework (50% practitioners; 40% directors; Greenfield et al., 2009) or the Math Early Learning Trajectories (39% practitioners; 32% directors; Clements & Sarama, 2021). These data percentages are visually displayed in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Respondents’ use of STEM models and concepts

When asked about specific inclusive practices used, the highest number of practitioners and directors reported using the Pyramid Model (91% practitioners; 78% directors; Hemmeter et al., 2013). Many practitioners also reported using a Universal Design for Learning approach (86% practitioners; 71% directors; Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST], 2018), Building Blocks (80% practitioners; 58% directors; Sandall et al., 2019), the Response to Intervention model (75% practitioners; 49% directors Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). It is notable that directors perceived their staff as using these models at a slightly lower agreement rate. Some practitioners and directors also reported using the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC) Recommended Practices (67% practitioners; 51% directors; DEC, 2014) and Creating Adaptations for Routines and Activities (60% practitioners; 33% directors; Cara’s Kit, Campbell et al., 2012) Fig. 7 provides an summary of these responses.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Respondents’ use of inclusion models and practices

RQ3: Challenges Related to STEM and Inclusion in Early Intervention and Early Education

Challenges Accessing Information about STEM and Inclusion

There were more discrepancies among practitioners and directors when it came to perceived challenges related to STEM and inclusion. As seen in Table 4, when asked about specific challenges encountered accessing information on STEM, some practitioners and directors reported lacking resources (47% practitioners; 59% directors), lacking funding (46% practitioners; 64% directors), lacking time (46% practitioners; no data for directors), and lacking evidence-based practices (23% practitioners; 26% directors) as obstacles. It is noteworthy that throughout this question, directors reported more perceived challenges than did practitioners. Additional barriers to accessing information listed in the optional comments included challenges working individually with children, not knowing where to find the resources, lack of professional understanding, child and staff safety, low staffing, variety of funding sources, and lack of networking opportunities.

Table 4.

Respondents’ perceived challenges accessing STEM content

Challenges and barriers Percentage of practitioners who agree this is a challenge Percentage of directors who agree this is a challenge
Lack of resources 47 59
Lack of funding 46 64
Lack of time 46 –
Lack of evidence-based practices 23 26
Open in a new tab

There was a similar pattern with a slightly higher agreement rate between practitioners and directors for the responses related to perceptions of barriers faced in accessing information about inclusive practices, as seen in Table 5. Only some practitioners (37%) agreed that lacking resources was an obstacle, while more practitioners did not perceive this as an obstacle (46%). Seventeen percent reported this did not apply to their setting. Half of the directors (50%) perceived lacking resources to be a barrier to accessing information about inclusion. Slightly more directors (60%) than practitioners (44%) agreed that lacking funding was an obstacle faced accessing information about inclusive practices, while almost half of practitioners and nearly a quarter of directors did not perceive lacking funding as an obstacle. Similar numbers were reported regarding lack of time as a challenge. Fewer respondents (18% practitioners; 22% directors) perceived a lacking evidence-based practices as a barrier to information about inclusive services, and more than half of directors and practitioners did not perceive this as a barrier. Respondents listed additional obstacles faced in accessing information about inclusive practices which included lack of training/education/professional development, too many children on a caseload, keeping up with standards, and lack of networking opportunities.

Table 5.

Respondents’ perceived challenges accessing inclusive content

Respondents’ perception of challenges to accessing inclusive practice information
Challenges and barriers Percentage of practitioners who agree this is a challenge Percentage of directors who agree this is a challenge
Lack of resources 37 50
Lack of funding 44 60
Lack of time 43 47
Lack of evidence-based practices 18 22
Open in a new tab

Challenges Using and Applying STEM and Inclusion

As it relates to using and applying STEM content, nearly half of the practitioners (46%; n = 68) and over half of the directors (59%; n = 71) agreed that lacking training/professional development was a barrier. More practitioners (43%; n = 65) than directors (34%; n = 38) noted other demands as obstacles faced in practice. States’ priorities of other disciplines such as literacy was also reported as a barrier for some practitioners (39%; n = 65) as was STEM activities taking more time than other activities (34%; n = 52) and lacking confidence teaching STEM concepts (38%; n = 58). Directors varied a bit with few (10%; n = 11) agreeing that alternative state priorities were a barrier, some (27%; n = 30) agreeing STEM takes more time than other activities), and about half (49%; n = 56) agreeing a lack of confidence teaching STEM is a barrier. Few practitioners (18%; n = 28) and very few directors (5%; n = 6) stated that lack of interest was an obstacle. These data may be viewed in Table 6. Additional barriers reported included challenges determining how to embed such content, short days for preschoolers, and difficulty translating STEM concepts for families in early intervention settings.

Table 6.

Respondents’ perceived challenges using and applying STEM content

Challenges and barriers Percentage of practitioners who agree this is a challenge Percentage of directors who agree this is a challenge
Lack of training/professional development 46 59
Other demands 43 34
States’ priorities of other disciplines (i.e. literacy) 39 10
STEM activities taking too much time 34 27
Lack of confidence teaching STEM concepts 38 49
Lack of interest 18 5
Open in a new tab

When asked about challenges faced using and applying inclusive practices, the highest number of practitioners (37%; n = 57) and directors (54%; n = 61) agreed that lacking training/professional development was an obstacle faced. A lack of confidence was reported by a little over a quarter of respondents (29%; n = 44 practitioners and 27%; n = 31 directors). Similarly, some practitioners (15%; n = 17) felt the field demanded focus on other content and there was not enough time to use inclusive practices. Most practitioners (74%; n = 114) and directors (79%; n = 90) did not agree that a lack of interest was a barrier to using inclusive practices. Additional barriers to using and applying inclusive practices listed in the optional comments included needing additional staff and colleagues’ lack of knowledge of the importance of inclusive practices in early childhood.

Desire to Learn More about STEM and Inclusion

Finally, when asked about which aspects of STEM and inclusion practitioners and directors had a desire to learn more, responses varied. As seen in Fig. 8, many respondents (86%; n = 131 practitioners and 88%; n = 98 directors) reported a desire to learn more about STEM and inclusion as it relates to model inclusive early childhood programs and professional development opportunities. Most respondents were interested in learning how to teach inclusive STEM (78%; n = 119 practitioners and 80%; n = 90 directors) and identifying available funding sources (75%; n = 115 practitioners and 89%; n = 92 directors). Only a little over half of the respondents (57%; n = 86 practitioners and 60%; n = 68 directors) reported they desired to learn about why STEM is important. Directors (73%; n = 81) and practitioners (74%; n = 114) were also interested in learning more about research related to early STEM learning and inclusion in early childhood. Additional topics related to early childhood STEM and inclusion that practitioners desired to learn more about included assessment, storing objects for outdoor classrooms, STEM for toddlers and families, and sharing information with childcare providers.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Open in a new tab

Respondents’ reported interest in learning more about STEM and inclusion

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore early childhood practitioners’ and directors’ attitudes and beliefs about STEM and inclusion, what is occurring in current practice related to STEM and inclusion, and challenges faced accessing and using inclusive and STEM practices. Most respondents perceived STEM and inclusion as important and reported using some practices related to STEM and inclusion, but there were a few notable discrepancies. Similar to previous research on STEM or inclusion, challenges to including such content in practice included lack of time, funding, and training (e.g., Barton & Smith, 2015; Brenneman et al., 2009; Sarama & Clements, 2009). Implications for research and practice are discussed below.

Perceptions

As a relatively new element in early childhood, survey respondents were supportive and knowledgeable as it relates to most early STEM learning opportunities. A notable discrepancy was in the realms of technology and engineering for infants and toddlers with and without disabilities. Specifically, some respondents did not agree that technology and engineering were important for infants and toddlers. For technology, this may be due to perceptions of what technology entails. Foundational, low-tech concepts of computational thinking, such as sequencing, repetition, and causation are all very relevant to our youngest learnings (e.g., Bers et al., 2021). In fact, although many respondents did not feel technology was important or age appropriate for infants and toddlers, the concept of “sequencing” was one of the concepts most respondents agreed was regularly embedded into their teaching or practice. Thus, there may be a need for clarifying that technology in early childhood is more than playing on a screen. There are many critical elements that can be incorporated into early learning to prepare our children for success in computational thinking careers. A similar educational approach may be needed as it relates to engineering. Engineering-informed design approaches and investigations are motivating for children and educators alike and certainly have a place in early intervention and early education.

Relative to inclusion, most survey respondents served children with disabilities and reported they were using and were confident in their ability to use inclusive practices. However, there were also some who did not feel they and/or their staff were prepared to use inclusive practices. This is similar to previous studies that have shown that early childhood educators felt less prepared to teach children with disabilities (Chadwell et al., 2020; Cruz et al., 2020). There was also a fair number of respondents who did not desire to learn about using inclusive practice. It is possible that the respondents did not want to learn more because they felt confident in their skills or were not currently working with children with disabilities. In addition, many early intervention providers see children on their caseload on an individual basis so they may not perceive this as being important to their practice. It is also worth noting that these results are based on perceptions, so some respondents may have reported using inclusive practices because they serve children with and without disabilities in the same classroom. Inclusion involves creating adequate modifications and adaptations so that all children may access and learn in their environment (DEC, 2014; DEC & NAEYC, 2009). Nonetheless, recommended practices are always being updated and modified, so the need to stay informed is critical in meeting optimal outcomes in early childhood service provision (Kasprzak et al., 2020). Importantly, inclusion leads to optimal outcomes for young children (Agran et al., 2020; Barton & Smith, 2015; Odom et al., 2019). These findings may point to the need to further emphasize the importance of inclusion in early childhood and providing continuing education opportunities related to inclusion.

There were minimal differences between respondents’ perceptions regarding the importance of STEM domains for infants and toddlers with and without disabilities, and for preschoolers with and without disabilities. It is encouraging that practitioners and directors were not differentiating the importance of STEM for children with and without disabilities which suggests they are using an inclusive lens. This is particularly notable with recent research suggesting that children with disabilities are not always able to access early STEM learning (Clements et al., 2020). The findings from this survey may indicate progress towards supporting all young children to have equal access and opportunities to learn STEM concepts in early childhood.

Practices

Survey respondents reported using many specific practices related to inclusion and STEM. The Pyramid Model was used by almost all the practitioners which is very encouraging for providing the necessary adaptations and modifications for all young children to meaningfully engage in early learning opportunities and develop social emotional competence. The Pyramid Model has been supported by research related to improved child outcomes (Hemmeter et al., 2015) and lower rates of child expulsion (Fox et al., 2021; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Education, 2015; Vinh et al., 2016) which is promising related to its effectiveness in improving inclusive practices in early childhood settings. On the other hand, fewer survey respondents reported using the DEC Recommended Practices (DEC, 2014) in their setting, suggesting a need to more widely disseminate those or to ensure they are more usable and relevant. In addition, systematic research is needed on how practitioners access and use the Recommended Practices in their work. While still reporting using inclusive models, it is noteworthy that directors’ total reported usage was lower than that of practitioners. This could be related to a lack of awareness of exactly what is happening in classrooms or a lack of education about inclusive practices. Regardless, ensuring all early childhood professionals are using inclusive practices should be a priority of the field. Directors in particular are critical in ensuring supports are in place (e.g., planning time, professional development) to enable practitioners to plan and use inclusive practices effectively.

For STEM concepts and models, survey respondents indicated general concepts seem to be integrated more so than official models, frameworks, and resources. This begs the question whether early childhood professionals are truly considering STEM concepts as early STEM learning, particularly as they relate to technology and engineering. The field of early childhood should focus on increasing knowledge and awareness of what STEM is and its importance and relevance for all children from birth. Early childhood practitioners and directors may benefit from guidance and technical assistance to support purposeful STEM learning and using STEM vocabulary in early childhood settings. Further, limited usage of existing models and resources for early childhood professionals supports the need to share these resources more widely.

While practitioners and directors agreed on many of the survey items, an interesting finding from this study involves relatively different perceptions related to challenges and barriers faced by practitioners and directors embedding STEM and inclusive practices. For both STEM and inclusion, more directors than practitioners perceived a lack of training/professional development as a barrier. Challenges related to other demands and lack of time were perceived more by practitioners than directors. A little over a quarter of both groups perceived lack of confidence in using inclusive practices as a barrier, but more directors reported lack of confidence in using STEM as a barrier than did practitioners. This is concerning and points to the need to ensure training and ongoing professional development opportunities related to STEM and inclusion are ample and accessible across all levels of early childhood service provision. There is a need to focus on empowering all professionals to increase their confidence and competence in teaching STEM content and facilitating STEM experiences.

It is interesting to note that low numbers of both groups (under 20%; slightly more practitioners than directors) agreed that a lack of interest was a challenge to STEM and inclusion. Only around half of the survey respondents reported the desire to learn why STEM is important. It is possible this was a lower percentage because many respondents felt they were aware of the importance of STEM learning. Overall, these findings suggest that most early childhood professionals ARE interested in learning more about STEM and inclusion, particularly those in director roles. Thus, increasing early STEM and inclusion training opportunities would likely be well received by early childhood professionals.

A final consideration to note is the idea of teaching STEM and inclusion together. Although findings on each of the content areas are reported separately in this manuscript, the intent is that the two are inherently used and applied together. The importance of ensuring that all young children are able to access and engage in STEM experiences early can empower our educators and our youngest learners and help to close the STEM opportunity gap (Clements et al., 2020).

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, while the survey was disseminated nationally and widely, the total number of respondents at the survey closure is somewhat low. Perhaps impacting the number of responses, the survey was disseminated during a global pandemic where the early childhood workforce decreased significantly and were undergoing significant stressors and competing priorities. In addition, although disseminated widely, the sample is skewed with a small number of states (Kansas, North Carolina, and Vermont) being more prominently represented in the sample, Thus, although useful information, this is not a nationally representative sample. Third, the individuals who filled out the survey all did so online, suggesting they had access to technology and devices to do so. Many respondents additionally received information about the survey through the research team’s or their partners’ websites and social media accounts so may have been already interested in and aware of STEM and inclusion in early childhood. This may have skewed results of the survey. Finally, the cognitive interview process was only conducted with practitioners and not directors. Although the modifications to the director survey were minimal, it is possible the director survey could have been more relevant had interviews also been conducted with directors.

Future Directions

Although many of the survey responses were encouraging, due to the smaller sample size and some variability in responses, future directions certainly include more research in the field of STEM and inclusion together. The survey provides important information about practitioners’ perceptions, but observations and interviews could help further the field’s understanding about what is happening and needed related to STEM and inclusion. Currently there are no observation tools related to the implementation of early childhood inclusive STEM instruction. Therefore, observations using the Inclusive Classroom Profile (Soukakou, 2016) in conjunction with a tool such as the Early Childhood STEM Classroom Observational Protocol (Milford & Tippett, 2015) could support the field’s understanding of practitioners’ use of inclusive practices and their STEM instruction respectively. These observations could provide further insight into what types of professional development are needed relative to embedding inclusive STEM. Future interviews could allow for practitioners and directors to explain their perceptions and explore whether perceptions have changed resulting from practice or increased awareness. In addition, the majority of respondents were interested in learning more about STEM and inclusion, suggesting a focus on developing high-quality professional development, resources, and technical assistance to support these needs.

Conclusion

In sum, these findings suggest that early childhood practitioners and directors report they know and use many STEM and inclusive practices, with the largest discrepancies being in technology and engineering for infants and toddlers. Participants indicated that they faced barriers to accessing and using STEM and inclusive practices such as a lack of time and professional development opportunities. Findings indicate a need for increased efforts to better understand how to ensure high quality inclusive STEM practices are occurring regularly in practice, particularly for infants and toddlers. Future research should address professional development models and implementation practices to support embedding STEM learning opportunities into daily routines and activities in centers and in homes. STEM and inclusion are both critical elements for success in our youngest learners, so we need to ensure that professionals in the early childhood field (serving children from birth) are aware, proficient, and regularly using STEM and inclusive practices with all young children for optimal outcomes.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 48 kb) (48KB, docx)

Funding

This research was supported by the Office of Special Education Programs # H327G180006 awarded to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Jessica Amsbary, Email: amsbary@med.unc.edu.

Hsiu-Wen Yang, Email: hsiu-wen.yang@unc.edu.

Ann Sam, annwil@email.unc.edu.

Chih-Ing Lim, Email: chih-ing.lim@unc.edu.

Megan Vinh, Email: megan.vinh@unc.edu.

References

  1. Agran M, Jackson L, Kurth JA, Ryndak D, Burnette K, Jameson M, Zagona A, Fitzpatrick H, Wehmeyer M. Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 2020;45(1):4–13. doi: 10.1177/1540796919878134. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barton EE, Smith BJ. Advancing high-quality preschool inclusion: A discussion and recommendations for the field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2015;35(2):69–78. doi: 10.1177/0271121415583048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beatty L, Acar S, Cheatham GA. Translanguaging in inclusive classrooms: Learning with children and families. Young Exceptional Children. 2021;24(3):154–169. doi: 10.1177/10962506211002536. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bers M. Teaching computational thinking and coding to young children. IGI Global Publishing; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brenneman K, Stevenson-Boyd J, Frede EC, National Institute for Early Education Research Math and science in preschool: Policies and practice. Preschool Policy Brief. 2009;19:1–12. [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell P, Kennedy A, Milbourne S. CARA’s kit for toddlers: Creating adaptations for routines and activities. Brookes Publishing Company; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carta JJ, Young RM, editors. Multi-tiered systems of support for young children: Driving change in early education. Brookes Publishing Company; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  8. Catlett C, Soukakou EP. Assessing opportunities to support each child: 12 practices for quality inclusion. Young Children. 2019;74(3):34–43. [Google Scholar]
  9. Center for Applied Special Technology; CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org
  10. Chadwell MR, Roberts AM, Daro AM. Ready to teach all children? Unpacking early childhood educators' feelings of preparedness for working with children with disabilities. Early Education and Development. 2020;31(1):100–112. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2019.1621584. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Claessens A, Engel M. How important is where you start? Early mathematics knowledge and later school success. Teachers College Record. 2013;115(6):1–29. doi: 10.1177/016146811311500603. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Clements D, Sarama J. Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. 2. Routledge Publishing; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  13. Clements D, Sarama J. Learning and Teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. 3. Routledge Publishing; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  14. Clements, D. H., Vinh, M., Lim, C., & Sarama, J. (2020). STEM for inclusive excellence and equity. Early Education and Development, 1–24. 10.1080/10409289.2020.1755776
  15. Cruz RA, Manchanda S, Firestone AR, Rodl JE. An examination of teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy. Teacher Education and Special Education. 2020;43(3):197–214. doi: 10.1177/0888406419875194. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Collins, D. (2015). In D. Collins (Ed.), Cognitive interviewing practice. SAGE. 10.4135/9781473910102
  17. DEC & NAEYC . Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) The University of North Carolina; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  18. Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices
  19. Fleer M. Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education (Australasian Science Education Research Association) 2009;39(2):281–306. doi: 10.1007/s11165-008-9085-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fox L, Strain PS, Dunlap G. Preventing the use of preschool suspension and expulsion: Implementing the pyramid model. Preventing School Failure. 2021;65(4):312. doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2021.1937026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fuchs D, Fuchs LS. Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly. 2006;41(1):93–99. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Greenfield DB, Jirout J, Dominguez X, Greenberg A, Maier M, Fuccillo J. Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education and Development. 2009;20(2):238–264. doi: 10.1080/10409280802595441. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Greenwood CR, Carta JJ, Goldstein H, Kaminski RA, McConnell SR, Atwater J. The center for response to intervention in early childhood: Developing evidence-based tools for a multi-tier approach to preschool language and early literacy instruction. Journal of Early Intervention. 2014;36(4):246–262. doi: 10.1177/1053815115581209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hemmeter ML, Fox L, Snyder P. A tiered model for promoting social-emotional competence and addressing challenging behavior. In: Buysse V, Peisner-Feinberg ES, editors. Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood. Brookes Publishing; 2013. pp. 85–101. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hemmeter ML, Hardy JK, Schnitz AG, Adams JM, Kinder KA. Effects of training and coaching with performance feedback on teachers’ use of pyramid model practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2015;35(3):144–156. doi: 10.1177/0271121415594924. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hemmeter ML, Ostrosky MM, Fox LK. Unpacking the pyramid model: A practical guide for preschool teachers. Brookes Publishing; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kasprzak C, Hebbeler K, Spiker D, McCullough K, Lucas A, Walsh S, Swett J, Smith BJ, Kelley G, Whaley KT, Pletcher L, Cate D, Peters M, Ayankoya BC, Bruder MB. A state system framework for high-quality early intervention and early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2020;40(2):97–109. doi: 10.1177/0271121419831766. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Krapp A, Prenzel M. Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education. 2011;33(1):27–50. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518645. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Maier MF, Greenfield DB, Bulotsky-Shearer RJ. Development and validation of a preschool teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward science teaching questionnaire. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2013;28(2):366–378. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mesibov GB, Shea V, Schopler E. The TEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  31. Milford T, Tippett C. The design and validation of an early childhood STEM classroom observational protocol. International Research in Early Childhood Education. 2015;6:24–37. [Google Scholar]
  32. National Research Council; NRC (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. 10.17226/13165.
  33. National Association for the Education of Young Children; NAEYC . Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. 4. NAEYC; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  34. Neuendorf KA. The content analysis guidebook. 2. SAGE Publications Inc; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nilsson P, van Driel J. How will we understand what we teach? Primary student teachers’ perceptions of their development of knowledge and attitudes towards physics. Research in Science Education (Australasian Science Education Research Association) 2011;41(4):541–560. doi: 10.1007/s11165-010-9179-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Noggle AK, Stites ML. Inclusion and preschoolers who are typically developing: The lived experience. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2018;46(5):511–522. doi: 10.1007/s10643-017-0879-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Odom SL, Butera G, Diamond KE, Hanson MJ, Horn E, Lieber J, Palmer S, Fleming K, Marquis J. Efficacy of a comprehensive early childhood curriculum to enhance Children’s success. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2019;39(1):19–31. doi: 10.1177/0271121419827654. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Odom SL, Buysse V, Soukakou E. Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention. 2011;33(4):344–356. doi: 10.1177/1053815111430094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Paprzycki P, Tuttle N, Czerniak CM, Molitor S, Kadervaek J, Mendenhall R. The impact of a framework-aligned science professional development program on literacy and mathematics achievement of K-3 students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2017;54(9):1174–1196. doi: 10.1002/tea.21400. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pendergast E, Lieberman-Betz RG, Vail CO. Attitudes and beliefs of prekindergarten teachers toward teaching science to young children. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2015;45(1):43–52. doi: 10.1007/s10643-015-0761-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Saldana J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sandall S, Schwartz I, Joseph G, Gauvreau SA. Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needs. 3. Brookes Publishing Company; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sarama J, Clements DH. Teaching math in the primary grades: The learning trajectories approach. YC Young Children. 2009;64(2):63–65. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Nielsen, N., Blanton, M., Romance, N., Hoover, M., & McCulloch, C. (2018). Considerations for STEM education from PreK through grade 3. Retrieved from Education Development Center, Inc. website: http://cadrek12.org/resources/considerations-stem-education-prek-through-grade-3
  45. Sharma S, Hamilton C. Understanding ableism: A teaching and learning tool for early childhood education practitioners. Early Childhood Folio. 2019;23(2):9. doi: 10.18296/ecf.0069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shepley C, Grisham-Brown J. Multi-tiered systems of support for preschool-aged children: A review and meta-analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019;47:296–308. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.01.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Soukakou EP. Inclusive classroom profile. Manual Research. Paul H. Brookes; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tippett CD, Milford TM. Findings from a pre-kindergarten classroom: Making the case for STEM in early childhood education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2017;15(Suppl 1):67–86. doi: 10.1007/s10763-017-9812-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Education (2015). Policy Statement on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/joint-statement-full-text.pdf
  50. Vinh M, Strain P, Davidon S, Smith BJ. One State’s systems change efforts to reduce child care expulsion: Taking the pyramid model to scale. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2016;36(3):159–164. doi: 10.1177/0271121415626130. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Westman S, Bergmark U. A strengthened teaching mission in preschool: Teachers' experiences, beliefs and strategies. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2014;22(1):73–88. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2013.809653. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 48 kb) (48KB, docx)

Articles from Early Childhood Education Journal are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES