We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists

6,200+

Open access books available

168,000+

International authors and editors

185M+ Downloads

156 Countries delivered to Our authors are among the

Top 1% most cited scientists

12.2%

Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

### Interested in publishing with us? Contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected. For more information visit www.intechopen.com

## Meet the editors

Dr. Maria Ampartzaki is an Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Department of Preschool Education, at the University of Crete. Her research interests include science education in the early years, ICT in education, inquiry-based and art-based learning, teachers' professional development, action research, and the pedagogy of multiliteracies, among others. Dr. Ampartzaki holds a bachelor's degree in Early Years

Education, an MA in Music Education, and an EdD. She has published her research in numerous academic publications and is widely referenced by educators worldwide. She has run and participated in several funded and non-funded projects regarding values education, science, and ICT in education.

Dr. Michail Kalogiannakisis is an Assistant professor in the Department of Preschool Education, at the University of Crete. He graduated from the Physics Department, at the University of Crete and continued his post-graduate studies at the University Paris 7-Denis Diderot (D.E.A. in Didactic of Physics) and University Paris 5-René Descartes-Sorbonne (D.E.A. in Science Education). He received his Ph.D. in Science Education at the

University Paris 5-René Descartes-Sorbonne. His research interests include science education in early childhood, science teaching and learning, e-learning, and the use of ICT in science education.

### Contents

## Preface

### **Contemporary Challenges in Early Childhood Education**

The importance of education and care in the early stages of life has long been debated and documented. However, in a world that faces ongoing crises and challenges, early childhood education is in a constant quest for pedagogies that respond to acute problems such as:

These are only some of the challenges and conditions that shape children's lives in today's world. Children's experiences and development are defined by gender, social and economic status, and the geographical position in which they grow up [1–5]. Education in the post-modern perspective strives to address the aforementioned issues and develop policies, curricula, methodologies, and strategies to contribute to an environmentally and socially sustainable future. It embraces multiple perspectives and worldviews and seeks to touch on inequalities and discrimination in favour of equity [6, 7].

Educators, pedagogues, and carers need to work toward the reformation of oppressive situations and use progressive ideas to increase the effectiveness of their efforts. Everyday concepts and understandings are re-examined for embodied prejudices and oppressive perceptions in education. Educators, pedagogues, and carers need now to justify the choices they make and the ethical and political values they promote [6]. The challenge for education is how curricula, policies, and programs (which are highly homogenized and formed under the influence of the so-called developed countries) can address a heterogeneous population (of children and families) with different, alien, and incommensurable issues, experiences, values, and perceptions. This multiplicity should not become an obstacle but rather a starting point for emancipatory actions and processes [4].

Moreover, multi-agency, holistic, and integrated approaches seem to be the key to successful and effective interventions that address each problem in a systemic approach and not as a standalone issue [8–10]. In this direction, children's agency lies at the heart of democratic approaches [7, 11]. Educational processes adopt forms of interactions that actualize learning as "becoming" and place it in a continuum between past, present, and future [12, 13].

This book features innovative approaches that employ transformative elements (targets, methods, materials, ideas, etc.) and embrace the concept of child development as "becoming" in an ever-changing and challenging world.

Thus, in Chapter 1, "Caring about Early Childhood Education", the author argues against the care-education dichotomy in the early childhood sector. In the comparison between the two, care is conceptualized as something less important than education. The author embraces and advocates the materialization of "edu-care," which is a concept that signifies the inseparability of care and education for the young child. This conceptualization is congruent with the conception of integrated approaches and strategies for the benefit of the child.

Chapter 2, "Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom", focuses on the teaching and learning practices emerging in the framework of science and engineering lessons organized into early childhood settings. Analyzing learning interactions at the micro level of the classroom is important because it allows a deeper understanding of the enacted in comparison to the envisioned teaching practices. Increasing quality and meaningful STEM learning experiences that cover the full range of standards and learning practices satisfy one of the basic conditions of equitable learning environments, that is, to meet the demands of all students and help them maximize their potential. The outcomes presented in this chapter are in agreement with the outcomes of comparative survey research regarding perceptions and practices of the STEAM approach the readers can find in the following chapter.

In Chapter 3, "STEAM Implementation in Preschool and Primary School Education: Experiences from Six Countries", the authors present the results of a survey carried out in six countries: Turkey, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, and Lithuania. This survey focused on how preschool and primary teachers, preschool student teachers, parents, STEM professionals, and artists perceive the STEAM approach and the integration of art into the teaching of STEM subjects. Although teachers, parents, and STEAM professionals did not feel they had detailed knowledge about the STEAM approach, they showed positive attitudes toward the idea of integrated teaching and learning. The survey sample showed concern about the increase in learner differences and was keen to welcome art contributions toward more holistic ways of learning. Gender discrimination was also discussed with the survey participants as well as the issues faced by the disadvantaged students. The study concludes that the way forward demands a systemic approach that will support equitable STEAM learning, progress, and equity in STEM careers.

Chapter 4, "Local History in a Digital Environment: Creating an Online Course for Young Children", puts forward a relatively new approach to the post-modern view

of history teaching and learning. The authors present an online course, which aims not only to introduce young children to learning local history through inquiry but also to use the digital environment as a learning space. Thus, the effort is two-fold: at one level, history learning is based on open-ended and flexible tasks that empower children by promoting their agency, and at the other level, the instructional technology is set up and customized to provide constructivist and "transformative" learning experiences to children.

Finally, Chapter 5, "Postmodernist Ideas and Their Translation into a Critical Pedagogy for Young Children", stresses the need for post-modern ideas and values to shape early childhood pedagogy. The post-modern paradigm is directed more toward social interactions and the way they can transform human life to equitable prosperity. According to this, critical pedagogy is a basic component of the curriculum and focuses on the development of awareness of social issues and the needs of others, responsiveness to social issues, the development of social responsibility, and advocacy for social justice. As the author of the chapter concludes, "throughout the world, parents, ECEC professionals and governments need to be persuaded that a transformation of how young children are educated to become global citizens should be a priority."

This book offers some thought-provoking readings that could prompt wider discussions on the critical role that early childhood education is called to play in the post-modern era. We would like to thank all the authors for their contributions and their collaboration throughout the review process.

> **Maria Ampartzaki and Michail Kalogiannakis** University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece

#### **References**

[1] Maalla M'jid N, Children USR of the SG on V against. Annual report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children [Internet]. UN,; 2021 Dec [cited 2022 Jul 25]. Report No.: A/HRC/49/57. Available from: https://digitallibrary.un.org/ record/3955765

[2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFA), United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), World Food Programme (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022: Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable [Internet]. Rome, Italy: FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO,; 2022 [cited 2022 Jul 15]. 260 p. (The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI)). Available from: https://www. fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc0639en

[3] Berry OO, Londoño Tobón A, Njoroge WFM. Social Determinants of Health: the Impact of Racism on Early Childhood Mental Health. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2021 Mar 12;23(5):23.

[4] Buenfil-Burgos RN. Education in a Post-modern Horizon: voices from Latin-America - Buenfil-Burgos. BERJ. 23(1):97–107.

[5] Siraj I. Teaching kids 21st century skills early will help prepare them for their future. The Conversation. 2017;15(November 1-2):5.

[6] Escayg KA. Anti-racism in U.S. early childhood education: Foundational principles. Sociology Compass. 2020;14(4):e12764.

[7] Advancing Equity in Early Childhood Education Position Statement [Internet]. NAEYC. [cited 2022 Aug 22]. Available from: https://www.naeyc.org/resources/ position-statements/equity

[8] World report on violence and health [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.who.int/ publications-detail-redirect/9241545615

[9] Hurley KM, Yousafzai AK, Lopez-Boo F. Early Child Development and Nutrition: A Review of the Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Integrated Interventions. Advances in Nutrition. 2016 Mar 1;7(2):357–63.

[10] Black MM, Walker SP, Fernald LCH, Andersen CT, DiGirolamo AM, Lu C, et al. Early childhood development coming of age: science through the life course. The Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):77–90.

[11] Siraj-Blatchford J, Whitebread D. Supporting ICT in the Early Years. McGraw-Hill Education (UK); 2003.

[12] Sumsion J, Barnes S, Cheeseman S, Harrison L, Kennedy A, Stonehouse A. Insider perspectives on developing Belonging, Being & Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2009 Dec;34(4):4–13.

[13] Papatheodorou T. Being, Belonging and Becoming: Some Worldviews of Early Childhood in Contemporary Curricula. In: Forum on Public Policy Online. ERIC; 2010.

**1**

**Chapter 1**

**Abstract**

schoolification

**1. Introduction**

Education

*Dawn Murphy*

Caring about Early Childhood

Early Childhood Education (ECE) is a broad term encompassing the care and education of children in the years before the commencement of primary school education. The purpose of ECE as the beginning of children's educational journey versus childcare for working parents is widely contested, contributing to a care and education dichotomy within the sector. Education and care are inseparable constructs and particularly so within the early years. Attempts to distinguish between early years care and education support the establishment of a skills hierarchy where care is regarded less favorably than education. This chapter discusses 'edu-care' as an alternative way of understanding ECE whereby education and care are recognized as inseparable and equally valued. As the professionalization of ECE continues to gain momentum, this process must take a holistic conceptualization of ECE within which 'edu-care' is fundamental. Regulation, increased levels of qualification for early childhood educators and quality provision dominate the discourse of ECE professionalization. However, this narrow emphasis on performativity must not overshadow the immeasurable but

**Keywords:** pre-school, Edu-care, gender issues, professionalization, performativity,

Early Childhood Education (ECE) exists in a complex and messy trajectory which serves to make its purpose conflicted. Increased global economic growth, a return of mothers to the workforce and international recognition of the value of ECE in the furthering of human capital [1] have combined to position ECE to the forefront of the policy agenda. However, the policy emphasis for ECE has largely envisaged the sector as facilitating working parents (specifically mothers) and developing human capital. This conceptualization of ECE has been detrimental to the development of policy that prioritizes education for human flourishing [2]. Caution exists around the increased 'schoolification' of ECE [3]. However, despite the inextricable relationship between love, care and education in early childhood, a reluctance exists to embrace love and care arising from concerns that this will undermine the professionalization of the sector [4]. This chapter problematizes what is valued in ECE questioning the rationale for this and arguing for the adoption

essential components of ECE, that of care and love.

#### **Chapter 1**

## Caring about Early Childhood Education

*Dawn Murphy*

#### **Abstract**

Early Childhood Education (ECE) is a broad term encompassing the care and education of children in the years before the commencement of primary school education. The purpose of ECE as the beginning of children's educational journey versus childcare for working parents is widely contested, contributing to a care and education dichotomy within the sector. Education and care are inseparable constructs and particularly so within the early years. Attempts to distinguish between early years care and education support the establishment of a skills hierarchy where care is regarded less favorably than education. This chapter discusses 'edu-care' as an alternative way of understanding ECE whereby education and care are recognized as inseparable and equally valued. As the professionalization of ECE continues to gain momentum, this process must take a holistic conceptualization of ECE within which 'edu-care' is fundamental. Regulation, increased levels of qualification for early childhood educators and quality provision dominate the discourse of ECE professionalization. However, this narrow emphasis on performativity must not overshadow the immeasurable but essential components of ECE, that of care and love.

**Keywords:** pre-school, Edu-care, gender issues, professionalization, performativity, schoolification

#### **1. Introduction**

Early Childhood Education (ECE) exists in a complex and messy trajectory which serves to make its purpose conflicted. Increased global economic growth, a return of mothers to the workforce and international recognition of the value of ECE in the furthering of human capital [1] have combined to position ECE to the forefront of the policy agenda. However, the policy emphasis for ECE has largely envisaged the sector as facilitating working parents (specifically mothers) and developing human capital. This conceptualization of ECE has been detrimental to the development of policy that prioritizes education for human flourishing [2]. Caution exists around the increased 'schoolification' of ECE [3]. However, despite the inextricable relationship between love, care and education in early childhood, a reluctance exists to embrace love and care arising from concerns that this will undermine the professionalization of the sector [4]. This chapter problematizes what is valued in ECE questioning the rationale for this and arguing for the adoption of 'educare' [5] which would provide a holistic understanding of the purpose of ECE, encompassing and equally valuing care and education.

#### **2. Competing discourses in early childhood education**

The existence of a distinction between care and education within ECE is consistently documented [6, 7]. While the limitations of this artificial distinction are identified [8] this division of the two persists. Initially economically driven, the development of ECE focused on providing care for children during their early years. While education, in addition to care, was undoubtedly provided to children within these settings, the primary function was care provision that corresponded to the needs of working parents – the needs of the child were arguably secondary [9]. Within this context, it is unsurprising that those employed in ECE, were largely regarded as substitute mothers. Accordingly, a need for training and education to perform this role was not recognized, rather it was regarded as intuitive for women [7].

#### **2.1 The persistence of a care and education divide**

The prevalence of a distinction between care and education is an international phenomenon. The positioning of much early childhood provision in the care category is unhelpful for early childhood educators and the sector in general. Provision for children from birth to 3 years is typically understood to be childcare while provision for children from three to 6 years is more commonly identified as education. Among 30 OECD countries, the existence of an education and care divide is so entrenched structural distinctions with 'divided government responsibilities' for care and education exist [7]. Among the Nordic countries, where care and education are not artificially separated, the qualification and pay scales of early childhood educators are aligned to that of primary and secondary teachers [7]. However, where distinctions between early years care and education exist, lower levels of qualification and renumeration are deemed acceptable within the provision identified as care [8].

The conflict appears to exist at the policy level as to the long-term goals for the development of ECE. The value of educators with increased levels of qualification is recognized for optimizing, 'healthy child development' [10]. However, there is also a realization that higher qualified educators will expect increased rates of renumeration. Accordingly, caution is urged around the proportion of graduates required to work in the sector [10]. Consequently, the solution has increasingly been adopted appears to be the creation of a 'graduate led workforce'. Such an approach appears to satisfy the requirement for educators with higher levels of qualification, whilst limiting associated renumeration costs. Aside from the divisive nature of this employment strategy, it further reinforces the care and education divide in the sector. Responsibility for leading educational activities within a room is directed toward graduates while care responsibilities are delegated to educators with lower levels of qualification. This devaluing of care relegates it to a 'lower order skill' which is 'taken for granted' despite providing the foundation for the 'higher skills of professionalism' to be laid ([11], p. 87). This creation of a two-tier workforce effectively ensures the continued separation of care and education within ECE, with education positioned as both removed from and superior to care.

*Caring about Early Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104674*

In considering ECE, there is an understanding that 'effective learning environments are nurturing. Caring is educational; education is caring and both are effective when responsive to the child' ([6], p. 7). Similarly, teaching is recognized as a 'caring profession and care work is endemic to education'. However, within a neo-liberal agenda, the importance of caring, 'has been increasingly eroded' with the emphasis shifting to regulation and a narrow and rationalistic notion of a duty of care ([12], p. 84). Societal and political contradictions between ECE are extensive. This persistent distinction between early childhood educators and primary school teachers reinforces the care and education divide and represents an inequitable valuing of care versus education [13].

#### **2.2 The pursuit of quality**

During the last 20 years, the role of ECE has increasingly been recognized as important in supporting the development of human capital [1]. Enhanced child development, increased rates of school completion, reduced incidence of unemployment and incarceration are all identified as positive outcomes resulting from quality experiences of early childhood education [14]. However, the existence of quality provision is consistently identified as essential in the achievement of the maximum outcomes of ECE. Despite the frequency with which quality is referred to both in policy documents and in the public domain, quality is a contextual concept that may benefit from questioning and problematizing [15]. Furthermore, distinctions exist between 'a good service' and a 'quality' service. The notion of a 'quality service' is 'value laden, reflective of an economic agenda rather than the perspective, knowledge and experiences of ECE professionals, or children and their families' ([1], p. 7). This political value attributed to the achievement of 'quality' provision also serves to legitimize the increased surveillance of ECEC services with the justification of monitoring the governments, 'human capital' investment [1]. This rationale for monitoring and striving for quality is difficult to contest [16]. Challenges to such inspection may spark concern that questionable practice exists within a setting which within market models of ECE, is an aspiration all settings will be keen to avoid. Essentially, the prevalent policy discourse of quality provision within ECE translates to a deficit model of the sector [17] where without regulation and the omnipresent fear of inspection [18] settings could not be trusted to achieve such high standards.

At the policy level, there appears to be a merging of the discourse of both professionalization and quality [19] with the achievement of increased levels of qualification among early childhood educators recognized as fundamental to this professionalization process. Each discourse within ECE has its own unique conceptualization of the child, the 'most appropriate form of provision' and the type training required for those working in the sector [20]. There has been a shift in emphasis in the purpose of ECE, moving from providing childcare for working parents to supporting children's development with the intended enhancement of their academic achievement, equating to increased human capital. Accordingly, concern has increased regarding the ability of those working in the sector to support children's optimal development. Within ECE, multiple identities exist for early childhood educators. The substitute mother, requires no specific qualification, the technician, is capable of implementing prescribed regulations and standards and finally the researcher, ever reflective upon their daily work with children and working to improve upon it [7]. Internationally, third-level qualifications have increasingly been sought for room leaders and more senior positions within early childhood settings, with subsequent distinctions in job titles and roles according to qualification level [21].

#### **2.3 The schoolification of early childhood education**

In alignment with this new appreciation for the value of ECE, increased regulation and accreditation have been introduced to the sector. The intention of standardizing children's early years experiences has largely been to maximize their development during this period [22]. This policy commitment to optimizing children's development initially appears quite admirable. However, concern exists around the increased 'schoolification' of ECE [3] where the introduction of pre-determined learning outcomes for pre-school children, inspection and regulation within the sector is consistently intensifying. Acknowledging the introduction and expansion of the OECD Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) concern about increased performativity demands within ECE appears justified. Gathering international data around the provision of ECE, TALIS aims to undertake international performance comparisons [23] essentially the introduction of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to ECE. PISA has, 'become one of the OECD's most successful products' which has served to legitimize the role of the organization in education within a now global context ([24], p. 917). From the initial conception of TALIS, additional countries have continued to join indicating the growing momentum of this performance tool.

The introduction of TALIS also comes within the context of the former launch of the International Early Learning and Child Well-Being Study (IELS) again organized by the OECD and initially involving just three countries: England, Estonia and the USA [25]. The introduction of IELS, and arguably TALIS, fits within a 'global web of measurement' driven by the OECD. This reductionist perception, limits education to, 'a purely technical exercise of producing common outcomes measured by common indicators' with the OECD acting as, 'the global arbiter, assessor and governor of education' ([26], p. 207). An apparent international desire to create a 'functional datafication of early year's pedagogy' ([27], p. 302) provides a limited and narrow conceptualization of ECE. This position fails to recognize the multiple important layers within ECE that may be neither measurable nor easily observed, specifically care. One explanation of the current performative emphasis on early childhood education may be:

*Quantification is seductive, because it organizes and simplifies knowledge. It offers numerical information that allows for easy comparison. But that simplification may lead to distortion, since making things comparable often means they are stripped of their context, history and meaning. ([28], p. 24)*

The current emphasis on 'inspection and surveillance' has been prompted by a narrow conceptualization of early years assessment. A prioritizing of numeracy and literacy has resulted in the 'intensification of school readiness pressure' within ECE. With the policy for ECE taking an increasingly consistent 'raising standards' strategy, the pedagogy of early year's educators is becoming focused on children's achievement of pre-determined and standardized learning outcomes. Concerningly, this 'schoolification' of ECE is recognized as been contrary to child-centred values of early years educators [27]. As the discourses of quality and professionalization increasingly merge [19] there is a simultaneous conceptualization of quality as measurable performance at the policy level. Accordingly, early childhood educators are faced with accepting and implementing the performative demands of policy or resist and risk been labeled unprofessional and poor quality – a choice with no real option available.

### **3. The need for care (and love) within early childhood education**

More than 20 years ago, there was recognition that 'caring has become a buzzword in education'. Within this context, care was understood to encompass 'gentle smiles and warm hugs', whilst entirely ignoring the 'complexity and intellectual challenge of the work'. This limited conceptualization of caring was recognized as detrimental to the development of ECE. As an alternative, the adoption of an 'ethic of care' as an approach for understanding the true scope of care within ECE was advocated. Caring has historically been recognized as fundamental to the education of young children but this understanding of care as a personal attribute fails to recognize caring as an intentional and intellectual action. Limiting conceptualizations of caring to personal characteristics supports the 'hegemony of nice' suggests Swadener, a perception that undermines the knowledge and professionalism of early childhood educators when compared to teachers in primary and secondary school settings. Such limited understandings of care were also identified as resulting in poorer pay, status and visibility of those working within the sector [29].

#### **3.1 Conceptualizations of care**

Rather than personal characteristic care may be conceptualized as a relation, potentially present in every interaction [30]. Almost in direct opposition to the rigor of evidence-based practice, regulation and standardization, caring encounters are, 'variable, situated and unique' ([29], p. 246). Care is a 'human affective response' within which there is an interaction between the 'one caring' and the 'cared for' [30]. Within this ethic of care approach, no regulations dictating the response of the educator to a child, rather the particular interaction guides and determines the educator's 'right' response [11]. As an alternative to performative professionalism, focused on, 'universal competence, standards and codes of practice' professionalism may be founded on an ethic of care ([11], p. 88) within which love may be recognized as an important quality [31].

An online search of dictionary definitions of care reveals consistent references to both love and concern [32]. Despite this generic understanding of care, references to love between educators and children is frowned upon, fueled by fear this could be considered inappropriate and in addition unprofessional. Within ECE competing discourses of care and education, love is 'unspoken, undefined and taken for granted'. However, far from been unsavory, love is both personal and professional and represents the 'feelings and strong emotional connection' between children and early childhood educators [4] echoing Nodding's understanding of an ethic of care. However, despite its importance to ECE, similar to care, a discourse of love is problematic to the sector with its connotations of nurturing and motherhood, both of which strengthen societal perceptions of women as 'natural carers' thereby negating the need for specific training, knowledge and recognition [7, 33]. In addition, the unseen ways of knowing of love and care have little place within the neo-liberal agenda within which, performativity, standardization and narrow conceptualizations of managerial professionalism are so highly prized [4]. Given the current emphasis on the global race for academic success now recognized as starting within ECE [1] it is interesting that such little attention is afforded to the importance of love in supporting children in achieving this success. Early childhood educators express love in their discussions of the children they work with [34] and parents want educators to show their children love [35]. However, love remains unspoken within the policy discourse, a reality that may

be largely attributable to the immeasurability of love and its subsequent disconnect with the neo-liberal discourse [33].

#### **3.2 Space for love and care within the policy discourse**

The pervasive effects of neo-liberalism are evident within society today, with ECE been no exception. The mark of neo-liberalism in policy for ECE may be recognized through a discourse of accountability, standardization, regulation and school readiness [22, 36]. While early childhood educators escaped the 'terrors of performativity' [37] for longer than their colleagues in primary and secondary education, they too are now subject to demands for, 'accountability, attainment targets a compulsory early years curriculum, and standardized approaches to their practice' ([36], p. 188). With increased policy emphasis on performativity, and associated funding implications, early childhood educators have had little choice but to prioritize this regime to their detriment of caring approaches.

Love and care are recognized as fundamental to ECE by the educators within the sector, with consistent references to these concepts during educator's conversations [34]. However, despite this fundamental presence of love within ECE settings, it is largely, 'invisible, transparent, something that has been taken for granted and deemed unworthy of scholarly attention' ([31], p. 258). This silencing of love within the discourse of ECE reflects the current prevalence of scientific rationalism within society [34]. As evidence-based practice and scientific knowledge gained increased currency, the intuitive knowledge valued by Froebel, Pestalozzi and Montessori retained less credibility. Understanding and supporting early childhood has increasingly been explained in scientific terms, with ever increasing importance been placed on child development, psychology and behaviorism. A new scientific discourse of care, behaviorist in its foundations, was been promoted, within which there was no space for emotional care. This current conceptualization of care is 'emotionally detached, favoring the seen over the unseen' ([33], p. 160). However, the detrimental effects of this scientific rational approach to care on children's development are being increasingly recognized by neuroscience and accordingly references to emotional care are remerging with the policy discourse [33]. It is somewhat ironic that care and love were initially silenced by science and the current movement to legitimize the two is now been driven by science!

The language used to describe ECE appears to be in an almost constant state of change. In Norway, largely regarded as the leaders in ECE, a move appears to exist to remove 'care' from the policy discourse with the recent introduction of the, 'National Framework for Early Childhood Teacher Education' [38]. Within an Australian context, the familiar use of term Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) positions care in a secondary position to that of education [32]. Within a neoliberal discourse that, 'encourages competition' and 'values measurement in education' love and care has effectively been silenced ([32], p. 160). The discourse of learning, currently popular within ECE, makes frequent reference to, 'pre-defined standards and individualised learning goals' with which comes a danger that children's instinctive learning, achieved through, 'play, freedom of movement, relations and discussions with other children' will be afforded less time ([39], p. 528).

An analysis of a United Kingdom policy document, detailing the requirements for early childhood educators to achieve professional status, of the 39 standards specified, neither 'care' or 'caring' are mentioned once [11]. Interestingly, the introduction to these standards makes several references to care and the need for its provision but

#### *Caring about Early Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104674*

always within the context of 'more than' care been necessary. The additional requirements are then explained within the standards. This framing of care as important but inadequate, effectively creates a 'hierarchy of skills, attitudes and behaviours' resulting in care been ranked less favorably than education ([11], p. 87). Within such deficit conceptualizations of care, its presence is assumed and regarded as a starting point on which to build more professional and measurable standards. Similarly, within an Australian context, a discourse analysis of the Early Years Learning Framework found 220 references to 'learning', nine references to care, caring and nurturing with no explicit reference to love [32]. Within the policy discourse, the emphasis on measurability further compounds the challenge to make space for love. 'Love is difficult to define, impossible to measure, and outside the boundaries of generalizability, reliability and validity. It is fuzzy, subjective, personal, loaded' ([31], p. 258) this does not however make it any less important.

The concept of 'love within the context of early childhood education and care are poorly understood' ([35], p. 313). When asked about priorities in ECE settings, parents consistently expressed a desire for their children to be loved by the educators working with them. While love was not always explicitly name, the behavior parents referred to as desired in early childhood educators aligned with conceptualizations of love, specifically 'professional love'. 'Professional love' may be understood as the loving relationships that are established between educators and children in the context of an early childhood setting [35]. Similarly, early childhood educators themselves place considerable value on love between children and themselves [40].

#### **4. Connecting professionalization, care and love**

The role of an early childhood educator is complex with the knowledge and skills required to work in the sector often difficult to quantify and at times overlapping with parenting [7]. Furthermore, and arguably consequently, early childhood educators have traditionally devalued their own 'professional identity [41]. A connectedness exists between love, care and maternalism which has resulted in some conflict as the ECE sector strives for professional recognition [33]. During the 1950's, John Bowlby recognized the centrality of secure attachments for young children's well being [42]. Similarly, Dr Maria Montessori recognized love as a characteristic of early childhood educators. More recently, Noddings and Gilligan's work on an 'ethic of care' has again recognized the fundamental importance of love, care and relationships among those working in ECE [33]. However, conceptualizations of love and care within ECE are conflicted. While love and touch are recognized as essential within ECE for children's development and well-being, they are equally recognized as a potential child protection issue, thus placing early childhood educators in an impossible situation where uncertainty exists as to the appropriateness of love and care between children and educators [42].

#### **4.1 Professionalization and early childhood education**

Professionalism is, 'presented as an apolitical and common-sense construct' despite its inseparability from the political, cultural and historical construct it occurs within ([16], p. 5). Conceptualizations of professionalization differ with the increasing popularity of a discourse of 'organizational professionalization'. With this movement from traditional or 'occupational' professionalism to organizational

professionalism, the values of, 'partnership, collegiality, discretion and trust' have been replaced by, 'increasing levels of managerialism, bureaucracy, standardization, assessment and performance review' ([43], p. 407). The presence of organizational professionalism is evident in ECE as educators are increasingly subjected to Foucault's conceptualization of surveillance/inspection and direction [18]. This discourse of organizational professionalism affords little consideration to the immeasurable and intangible concepts of love and care. Minority cases of poor practice within ECE have arguably been disproportionately emphasized to establish and normalize a 'deficit discourse which positions early childhood educators as failing' ([17], p. 741). This discrediting of early childhood educators effectively undermines the values they hold in high regard. Consequently, the dominant policy discourse can become firmly established without contestation. With public confidence in the sector shaken, reassurance around quality and standardization are widely welcomed by parents. With care and love difficult to quantify and standardize, it is not surprising they are afforded little attention in the emerging discourse of early childhood professionalization.

With less than 1% of early childhood educators been male [10] the highly gendered nature of ECE may be recognized as further complicating early childhood professionalization. Historically, medicine and law, both male-dominated sectors, have been recognized as professions. However, caring professions, including teaching, nursing, social work and more recently ECE, all typically female professions demand alternative understandings of professionalism [44]. Typically, a grasp of specific and complex knowledge is a feature of professionalism. However, given the nature of ECE and its association with mothering, within which love and care are fundamental, the identification of a specific body of knowledge presents more of a challenge. Arguably then, an alternative understanding of professionalism is necessary for ECE, within which love and care are recognized and valued.

Within ECE as in other 'contemporary service occupations' professionalism may be understood as 'being imposed from above', resulting in an alternative conceptualization of professionalization being introduced than educators had envisaged [43]. 'Neo-liberal policies erode the professional identify of ECEC teachers by adopting a paradoxical approach in order to involve them in an active process of self-monitoring that leads them to new forms of self-exploitation' ([45], p. 810). With its connotations of increased rewards, recognition and status a professionalism discourse is typically embraced by early childhood educators with a dismissal of love and care largely been accepted by educators as necessary for the achievement of professionalization [16]. However, the reality of organization professionalization is the retention and increasing control by organizational managers and supervisors [43]. Early childhood educators enjoy none of the benefits they envisaged professionalization would bring while additional demands continue to be imposed upon them.

#### **5. Alternative possibilities**

A case exists for the adoption of 'educare' for ECE, within which education and care are recognized as equally important for 'curriculum development and pedagogy' within the early years [6]. In its broadest sense, 'educare' recognizes 'the mind and body are inseparable entities' ([46], p. 5). 'Educare' already established within Scandinavian pedagogy for ECE, has the potential to, elevate the status of care and extend conceptualizations of professional roles within ECE. 'Educare' presents an educational philosophy grounded in care with this binding of education and care

#### *Caring about Early Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104674*

attributing an educational value to care [5]. This acceptance of and furthermore the need for the inseparability of care and education within the early years creates a more holistic conceptualization of ECE which extends beyond the measurability of standardized learning outcomes.

Despite the establishment of a care and education divide within several OECD countries, 'Educare' offers an alternative to this artificial division. The increased schoolification of ECE has resulted in the erosion of holistic conceptulisations of education in favor of technical rational approaches. This lack of regard for 'care' in ECE is also evident in the education of future early childhood educators with emphasis placed on supporting children's academic learning [46]. Within a discourse of science and 'evidence based' practice, an element of disdain for care and caring may be recognized [29]. Educare supports a conceptualization of ECE within which educators need not feel compelled to sacrifice caring responsibilities to achieve professional recognition. With its potential to 'elevate the status of care and take it seriously' Educare provides a way to 'transform professional roles within education' [5]. Essentially, educare recognizes care as fundamental rather than secondary to education. Within this model, learning is understood in terms of the social, emotional and cognitive rather than been limited to academic achievement [5]. Furthermore, this inextricable linking of education and care, recognizes the educational value of care rather than reducing it to a secondary consideration.

Within the neo-liberal agenda, education is increasingly regarded as 'just another service to be delivered on the market' with little value of this provision as a public good. The very nature of caring makes it difficult to measure and even to attempt to do so is contradictory to the concept. As the emphasis of education, including that of ECE, has become increasingly regulatory and controlling so caring responsibilities have become diminished [12]. It would appear the time for the adopting a holistic view of ECE, one of which encompasses broad understandings of care, has never been more necessary.

As the professionalization of ECE intensifies, consideration of alternative understandings of professionalization are important. While the prevalence of inspection and standardization within ECE may align with understandings of organizational professionalism, occupational or democratic professionalism offers an alternative. Democratic professionalism allows for 'collaborative, cooperative action between teachers and other educational stakeholders' [47]. Essentially, it represents a move away from the traditional top-down approach of policy makers and moves toward a 'ground up' [48] strategy allowing for the challenging of, 'the hegemony of expertise and dominant knowledge' as dialog between early childhood educators and policy makers 'bridges the gap between ways of being and ways of knowing'. ([19], p. 147). True dialog between early childhood educators and policy makers within which early childhood educators believe their knowledge and perspective is valued has the potential to reposition care as an integral part of ECE.

#### **6. Conclusion**

Care is a complex concept that extends beyond a physical act. However, care is contextual and, 'caring performances are dictated and often restrained by social and political norms and practices' ([46], p. 6). Critically, professionalization and care are not mutually exclusive. The dominant policy discourse around ECE professionalization has adopted an 'organizational' model of professionalization and it is within this

specification the incompatibility with care exists. As the place of ECE continues to become more firmly established as part of education, so too the professionalization of the sector is recognized as part of this process. Therefore, the model of professionalization adopted for ECE must be 'fit for purpose'. The application of traditional or organizational models of professionalization are not appropriate for ECE. Standards and inspection undeniably have a place within ECE and of course a body of knowledge is necessary for early childhood educators. However, within ECE and arguably life in general, it is not only that which is measurable that is important. The performative demands of organization professionalization must not be allowed to overshadow caring responsibilities within ECE. 'Caring is only visible when not it is not done' ([13], p. 89) and consequently, it is assumed rather than made explicit in the policy discourse. This invisibility of care results in its societal devaluing and contributes to early childhood educators questioning care as a value they intrinsically hold.

Rather than a battle of supremacy between care and education, the adoption of 'edu-care' within a discourse of democratic professionalization for ECE offers a way forward. Recognition of the inseparability of early years care and education acknowledges the fundamental need for care within ECE. Rather than seemingly undermining professionalization, the place is reserved for care within democratic conceptualizations. Similarly, the requirement for standards and inspection of services has space within a democratic model of professionalization. The recognition of educator autonomy and knowledge within democratic professionalism negates the need to reduce every aspect of ECE to that which can be measured. It is somewhat contradictory that as levels of qualification among early childhood educators have increased, there has been a corresponding intensification of regulation and inspection within the sector, a development sadly reflective of organizational professionalization.

Care or 'human flourishing' [2] is a fundamental element of all education but especially where the age of those been educated is so young. Contrary to the academic and performative emphasis of the current ECE discourse, care within education must be valued and encouraged and to do so must not be understood as detrimental to the professionalization process. ECE is emerging as a new profession and as such it is essential that the values of care and love, highly prized by educators, parents and children, are validated rather than sacrificed by the professionalization process. Early childhood is consistently recognized as a critical period in children's lives.

#### **Acknowledgements**

I would like to thank Dr. Geraldine Mooney Simmie, Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Limerick for offering a critique of an earlier draft of this chapter.

*Caring about Early Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104674*

### **Author details**

Dawn Murphy Institute of Technology Carlow, Ireland

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Hunkin E. Whose quality? The (mis)use of quality reform in early childhood and education policy. Journal of Education Policy. 2017;**33**(4):443-456. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2017.1352032

[2] Fielding M. The human cost and intellectual poverty of high performance schooling: Radical philosophy, John Macmurray and the remaking of personcentred education. Journal of Education Policy. 2007;**22**(4):383-409. DOI: 10.1080/02680930701390511

[3] Moss P. We cannot continue as we are: The educator in an education for survival. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2010;**11**(1):8-19. DOI: 10.2304/ciec.20<IP_ADDRESS>

[4] Shin M. To love or not to love, that is the question: Examining the intersection of love, care and education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2021;**22**(3):282-285. DOI: 10.1177/<PHONE_NUMBER>902864

[5] Warin J. The status of care: Linking gender and "Educare". Journal of Gender Studies. 2014;**23**(1):93-106. DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2012.754346

[6] Hayes N. Perspectives on the relationship between education and care in Early Childhood: A Research Paper, NCCA. 2007. Available from: https:// www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/ f9fda0a5-bf83-4e76-9588-44ef32b6015e/ ECSEC05\_Exec1\_Eng.pdf [Accessed: 11 04 2021]

[7] Moss P. Structures, understandings and discourses: Possibilities for re-envisioning the early childhood worker. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2006;**7**(1):30-39. DOI: 10.2304/ciec.2<IP_ADDRESS>

[8] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD; 2001. DOI: 10.1787/ 25216031

[9] Hayes N. Childcare? Early childhood education and care/towards an integrated early years policy for young children in Ireland. Early Years. 2010;**30**(1):67-78. DOI: 10.1080/09575140903503068

[10] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OEC; 2012. DOI: 10.1787/25216031

[11] Taggart G. Don't we care?: The ethics and emotional labour of early years professionalism. Early Years: An International Research Journal. 2011;**31**(1):85-95. DOI: 10.1080/ 09575146.2010.536948

[12] Lynch KG, B and Devine, D. New Managerialism In Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012

[13] Grieshaber S, Graham L. Equity and educators enacting the Australian early years learning framework. Critical Studies in Education. 2017;**58**(1):89- 103. DOI: 10.1080/17508487. 2015.1126328

[14] Bakken L, Brown N, Downing B. Early childhood education: The longterm benefits. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2017;**31**(2):255- 269. DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2016. 1273285

[15] Elwick A, Osgood J, Robertson L, Sakr M, Wilson D. In pursuit of quality: Early childhood qualifications and training policy. Journal of

*Caring about Early Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104674*

Education. 2017;**33**(4):510-525. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2017.1416426

[16] Osgood J. Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood education: Resisting the regulatory gaze. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2006;**7**(1):5-14. DOI: 10.2304/ ciec.2<IP_ADDRESS>

[17] Osgood J. Childcare workforce reform in England and 'the early years professional': A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy. 2009;**24**(6):733-751. DOI: 10.1080/02680<PHONE_NUMBER>57

[18] Foucault M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translator by Sheridan A. New York: Vintage books; 1991

[19] Urban M. Dealing with uncertainty: Challenges and possibilities for the early childhood profession. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2008;**16**(2):135-152. DOI: 10.1080/<PHONE_NUMBER>2141584

[20] Taggart G. Compassionate pedagogy: The ethics of care in early childhood professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2016;**24**(2):173-185. DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.970847

[21] European Commission. Early Childhood Education and Care: How to Recruit, Train and Motivate Well-Qualified Staff. Brussels: European Commission; 2020. DOI: 10.2766/489043

[22] Fenech M, Robertson G, Sumsion J, Goodfellow J. Working by the rules: Early childhood professionals' perception of regulatory requirements. Early Child Development and Care. 2007;**177**(1):93- 106. DOI: 10.1080/03004430500329122

[23] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. TALIS–The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey. n.d. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/ education/talis/talisfaq/ [Accessed: 12 06 2021]

[24] Sellar S, Lingard B. The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal. 2014;**40**(6):917-936. DOI: 10.1002/ berj.3120

[25] Kettlewell K, Sharp C, Lucas M, Gambhir G, Classick R, Hope C, Kollias C, Rutt S, National Foundation for Educational Research. International Early Learning and Child Well-Being Study (ILES): National Report for England, Government Social Research. 2020. Available from: https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_ data/file/1000508/IELS\_national\_ report\_FINAL\_Dec\_2020\_revised.pdf [Accessed: 01 02 2022]

[26] Moss P, Urban M. The organisation for economic Co-operation and Development's international early learning study: What's going on. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2018;**20**(2):207-212. DOI: 10.1177/1463949118803269

[27] Roberts-Holmes G. The 'datafication' of early years pedagogy: 'If the teaching is good, the data should be good and if there's bad teaching, there is bad data'. Journal of Education Policy. 2014;**30**(3):302-315. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2014.924561

[28] Muller JZ. The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2017

[29] Goldstein LS. More than gentle smiles and warm hugs: Applying the ethic of care to early childhood

education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 1998;**12**(2):244- 226. DOI: 10.1080/02568549809594888

[30] Noddings N. Caring. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1984

[31] Goldstein LS. Love: Intimacy, commitment and passion in classroom life. Journal of Educational Thought. 1998;**32**(3):257-272

[32] Rouse E, Hadley F. Where did love and care get lost? Educators and parents' perceptions of early childhood practice. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2018;**26**(2):159-172. DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2018.1461613

[33] Aslanian TK. Getting behind discourse of love, care and maternalism in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2015;**16**(2):153-165. DOI: 10.1177/<PHONE_NUMBER>585672

[34] Recchia SL, Shin M, Snaider C. Where is the love? Developing loving relationships as an essential component of professional infant care. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2018;**26**(2):142-158. DOI: 10.1080/ 09669760.2018.1461614

[35] Page J. Do mothers want professional carers to love their babies? Journal of Early Childhood Research. 2011;**93**(3):310-332. DOI: 10.1177/ 1476718X11407980

[36] Osgood J. Professionalism and performativity: The feminist challenge facing early years practitioners. Early Years. 2006;**26**(2):187-199. DOI: 10.1080/09575140600759997

[37] Ball SJ. The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy. 2003;**18**(2):215-228. DOI: 10.1080/0268093022000043065

[38] Aslanian TK. Remove 'care' and stir: Modernizing early childhood teacher education in Norway. Journal of Education Policy. 2020;**35**(4):485-502. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2018.1555648

[39] Van Laere K, Peeters J, Vandenbroeck M. The education and care divide: The role of the early childhood workforce in 15 European countries. European Journal of Education. 2012;**47**(4):527-541. DOI: 10.2307/ 23357032

[40] White EJ, Gradovski M. Untangling (some) philosophical knots concerning love and care in early childhood education. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2018;**26**(2):201-211. DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2018.1458602

[41] Harwood D, Klopper A, Osanyin A, Vanderlee M. 'It's more than care': Early childhood educators' concepts of professionalism. Early Years. 2013;**33**(1):4-17. DOI: 10.1080/09575146. 2012.667394

[42] Aslanian TK. Embracing uncertainty: A diffractice approach to live in the context of early childhood education and care. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2018;**26**(2):173-185. DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2018.1458604

[43] Evetts J. A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology. 2011;**59**(4):406-422. DOI: 10.1177/0011392111402585

[44] Vincent C, Braun A. Being 'fun' at work: Emotional labour, class, gender and childcare. British Educational Research Journal. 2013;**39**(4):751-768. DOI: 10.1080/01411926.2012.680433

[45] Rogers M, Dovigo F, Doan L. Educator identity in a neoliberal context: Recognising and supporting early

*Caring about Early Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.104674*

childhood and care educators. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2020;**28**(6):806-822. DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1836583

[46] Van Laere K, Vandenbroeck M. The (in)convenience of care in preschool education: Examining staff views on educare. Early Years. 2018;**38**(1):4-18. DOI: 10.1080/09575146.2016.1252727

[47] Day C, Sachs J. International Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2004

[48] Dalli C. Pedagogy, knowledge and collaboration: Towards a ground-up perspective on professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2008;**16**(2):171-118. DOI: 10.1080/13502930802141600

### **Chapter 2**

## Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom

*Hye Ryung Won and Hyesun You*

#### **Abstract**

This chapter examines how Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)-based science engineering practices are embodied in preschool science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teaching. A preschool teacher's three STEM lessons were observed, videotaped, and analyzed. The teacher's teaching practices were coded in a deductive manner using an instrument developed based on the NGSS science and engineering practices (SEPs) framework. The findings demonstrate that (1) the teacher mainly implemented two SEPs—obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, and planning and carrying out investigations, (2) her teaching practices did not entirely cover all the SEPs of the NGSS, and (3) one important teaching practice, "redirection," emerged as a strategy used to shift children's attention or off-task behaviors into active engagement and emotional security. This case study provides insight into what SEPs preschool teachers can integrate into their STEM lessons and the limitations of specifically designed lessons. Implications and directions for promoting STEM teaching and future professional development strategies for preschool teachers are suggested.

**Keywords:** Preschool STEM, science and engineering practices (SEPs), teaching practices

#### **1. Introduction**

Extant research has emphasized the importance of introducing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) at an early age to engage young children in rich STEM experiences (e.g., [1, 2]). Especially, appropriate early childhood STEM experiences nurture children's interest in STEM, enhance their STEM literacy, and reduce their stereotypes concerning STEM-related fields [2]. Children's natural desire and abilities for STEM learning [3] could be encouraged using developmentally appropriate teaching [4]. Yet, reform-oriented teaching practices for early childhood STEM education have received minimal attention [5]. Moreover, recent research suggests that effective science-relevant activities rarely occur in preschool classrooms [6, 7]. One possible reason for the lack of preschool science is that early childhood teachers have expressed negative dispositions and beliefs toward STEM. They also lack confidence in teaching STEM and have limited content and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) [8, 9].

Relatedly, inadequate teacher preparation or professional development would be a critical barrier to successful STEM learning for young children.

While efforts to address the barriers are underway, the urgency of this need is reflected in the new era of the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS), whereby students are expected to learn about how to think like scientists and engineers and have a deep understanding of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) and crosscutting concepts (CCCs) [10]. The NGSS clarified the goal of teaching science: teachers allow students to reveal their knowledge by "doing" a task using that knowledge [11]. These documents highlight what practices teachers can enact and how the practices are central to achieving educational reform. The NGSS has challenged early childhood teachers to align their STEM teaching practices with their standards and expectations [12]. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning the extent to which early childhood teachers incorporate NGSS-based SEPs into their STEM lessons [13]. The current study sought to fill this gap in the literature by examining one teacher's STEM teaching practices in terms of their alignment with NGSS at the preschool level. One of the challenges of examining teachers' NGSS-based STEM teaching practices is how to evaluate instructional quality. Commonly used instruments to observe teacher practices in early childhood classrooms are not designed for science instruction (e.g., [14, 15]). Furthermore, frequently used observational instruments in science education (e.g., [16, 17]) have typically been designed for upper elementary or secondary teachers.

This study captured one preschool teacher's instructional practices aligned with NGSS's science and engineering practices (SEPs) using the Systematic Characterization of Inquiry Instruction in Early Learning Classroom Environments (SCIIENCE) instrument [18]. The purpose of this study is to document a model of inquiry-based STEM lessons in early childhood education guided by the question:*RQ ) How are NGSS-based SEPs embodied in preschool STEM lessons?*

#### **2. Literature review**

#### **2.1 Impact of STEM reform in early childhood education**

Over the past decade, there has been a growing body of conversation regarding early exposure to STEM [19, 20]. In 2010, the "STEM in Early Education and Development Conference" was held by early childhood scholars and researchers in response to increasing attention and the convergence of the two fields: "early childhood education" and "STEM" [21]. In 2014, the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) [22] issued a position statement "Early Childhood Science Education" with the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) to affirm that early engagement in science and engineering practices can foster young children's foundational skills needed for learning in their schooling and throughout their lives. In 2016, the White House held an "Early STEM Learning Symposium" in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Invest U.S. Following that, a forum "Fostering STEM Trajectories: Bridging ECE Research, Practice, & Policy" was held with the cooperation of the National Science Foundation (NSF), Joan Ganz Cooney Center, and New America. In these two meetings, scholars, practitioners, and policy experts shared ideas about providing high-quality STEM education for young children. The discussions soon became an anchor for the release of two NSF-funded policy reports in 2017: "Early

*Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105564*

STEM Matters: Providing high-quality STEM experiences for all young learners" [23] and "STEM Starts Early: Grounding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in Early Childhood" [4]. Each report provided an understanding of STEM disciplines, the importance of beginning STEM education early, and recommendations for policy, research, and practices to establish better early childhood STEM education. All of these events, actions, and issued documents illuminated that STEM education has already been a significant consideration in the early childhood education field and articulated a vision toward STEM education for young children having ages of 3–8 years.

#### **2.2 NGSS-based teaching practices**

One key aspect of the NGSS vision is using science and engineering practices (SEPs). The SEPs are multifaceted, encompassing practices that help students engage with and learn about science and engineering. In keeping with NGSS-based SEPs, teachers should implement instructional behaviors, including a) asking questions and defining problems, b) developing and using models, c) planning and carrying out investigations, d) analyzing and interpreting data, e) using mathematics and computational thinking, f) constructing explanations and designing solutions, g) engaging in argument from evidence, and h) obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.

Beyond "knowing" the science concepts, students are expected to develop their understanding to explore the natural world through scientific inquiry and to solve problems using the practices of engineering design. Windschitl et al. [24] suggested four core instructional practices:

Kloser [25] also identified a set of core science teaching practices: (a) engaging students in investigations, (b) facilitating classroom discourse, (c) eliciting, assessing, and using student thinking about science, (d) providing feedback to students, (e) constructing and interpreting models, (f) connecting science to its applications, (g) linking science concepts to phenomena, (h) focusing on DCIs, CCCs, and SEPs, and (i) building a safe and collaborative classroom community. Most of the key ideas of practices shown in Kloser's study overlap with the NGSS SEPs.

#### **2.3 Review of teaching practices in preschool STEM**

This section illustrates instructional practices employed in STEM activities in preschool settings. Three commonly used instructional practices across preschool STEM education research were found from a rigorous review of the literature: 1) incorporating play, 2) relating learning to real life, and 3) engaging in a group task.

#### *2.3.1 Incorporating play*

Intentional incorporation of play as a part of STEM activities has been one of the most prominent teaching strategies in research regarding preschool STEM education. Previous literature has reported that playing meaningfully promotes children's basic STEM knowledge and skills in context. Torres-Crespo et al. [26] purposefully set up 20 minutes of free block playtime for 2 weeks in their STEM Summer Camp program and found that free play extended the opportunity for children to demonstrate their complicated engineering skills, helping them build more complex and taller structures. Similarly, Bagiati and Evangelou [27] set up free playtime to be followed by a small group engineering activity such as designing and creating structures. This smooth transition encouraged children to incorporate their constructions built during the STEM lesson naturally into their own play, whereby they could expand their scope of engineering skills. The natural transition from learning to free play appeared in Aldemir and Kermani's study [28] as well. The two classroom teachers, guided by the researchers for STEM instructions, intentionally left activity materials used in a STEM lesson in the center of the classroom right after the STEM lesson was completed. This activity provided a chance for free exploration by the children to revisit and regurgitate their learning spontaneously.

According to the developmentally appropriate practices (DAPs) [2], children's play is an important vehicle for promoting the development of content knowledge. The opportunities for decision-making and free-choice activities during play can empower children to construct knowledge in the most meaningful ways. In this perspective, integrating free playtime intentionally for STEM education purpose may be able to stretch the boundaries of children to the fullest in their imagination and enables them to practice newly acquired STEM skills.

#### *2.3.2 Relating learning to real-life contexts*

Authentic learning allows students to meaningfully apply what they learned in the class to real-world problems and continue to construct concepts in a relevant context. Connecting classroom learning to students' real-life situations has been found in preschool STEM studies to make learning authentic [5, 26, 28, 29]. Some of these studies focus on engineering by relating school learning to students' living contexts [5, 29]. For example, in Aldemir and Kermani's study [29], children observed a historic bridge in their community to make sense of the building process. After the observation, the children were encouraged to draw a bridge layout that they would like to build and construct their own three-dimensional bridge using their conceptual understanding of the engineering process. Similarly, in Tippett and Milford's study [5], the preschool children had a chance to design and build local birds' homes after they discussed birds living in their community.

Other studies illustrate how relating school learning to the human world promotes students' conceptual understanding of "technology" [26, 28]. In Sullivan et al.'s study [28], children were exposed to the question of how technology affects daily human life. During the intensive STEM program, the participating children investigated the use of real-life tools that could be found around their homes and community. Then, they engaged in the engineering design process in building "Robot Recyclers" by using the tools. The Robot Recyclers were programmed by inviting people living in their community to an open house to demonstrate how robots help human lives. Similarly, in Torres-Crespo et al.'s study [26], children were actively involved in making various electronic tools used daily during the STEM Summer Camp. Children had an opportunity to design an open and

*Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105564*

closed circuit using electronic tools such as a battery, a buzzer, and LED bulbs with wires. They understood the principle of how circuits work, what makes electronic devices function, and whether malleable conductive dough can replace the role of wires.

The STEM tasks above, including building bridges, birdhouses, recycling robots, and electronic circuits, meaningfully draw upon children's life experiences by relating their newfound knowledge to engineering and technology. Furthermore, these activities have helped children understand that learning is not isolated to the classroom.

#### *2.3.3 Engaging in collaborative tasks*

Early childhood communities naturally foster peer interactions and collaborations, which help children go beyond their current level of knowledge and skills [30]. Some studies examined how children complete STEM tasks in groups [26, 31, 32]. Master et al. [31] reported that preschool children demonstrated more interest, persistence, and belongingness when doing group work. The study also described that the group assignment stimulated them to spontaneously engage in peer interactions and collaborations to achieve their shared goal, resulting in a better performance in tasks than the children working individually. Likewise, Torres-Crespo et al. [26] included group tasks as a part of their STEM program to create a space for children "to establish a plan of action and solve the presented problem as a group" (p. 13). The authors revealed that cooperative learning experiences help children feel more excited about learning and engage in more interaction.

Many studies argued the necessity of group work as "interacting in groups provide a driving force for children to extend their thinking, build on one another's ideas, and cooperate to solve problems" ([33], p. 15). From this perspective, the group task compels children to go beyond their abilities in the process of collaboration with peers and build more rigorous knowledge and skills in STEM to be used in solving problems.

#### **3. Methods**

#### **3.1 Participants**

A preschool teacher, Mrs. Alice (pseudonym), and eight 3–5-year-old students at a STEM-focused preschool, located in the southern region of the United States, voluntarily participated in the study. The teacher worked at the preschool for 3 years and had previously taught in an elementary school for 3 years. Although her undergraduate degree was in English, she had a strong interest and inclination toward science.

#### **3.2 STEM lessons**

For the current study, three STEM lesson units ("Measuring Distances," "Floating Boats," and "Cutting Clay") were chosen among the 20 lesson units collected because these three lessons were well aligned with Gagné's Instructional Design Framework [34]. The first unit, "Measuring Distances," utilized different height levels (0–5 inches) of a ramp to observe and analyze distances that toy cars traveled. The second lesson, "Floating Boats," provided the opportunity to learn about the floating or sinking characteristics of boats. The boats made of different material types (wood, metal, and plastic) were utilized to examine how long a boat could stay afloat when increasingly weighted with plastic gears. The third lesson, "Cutting Clay," utilized four

distinct objects (sharp rock, wood knife, metal spoon, and plastic knife) for children to observe and analyze which tool was best at cutting clay.

#### **3.3 Data collection and analysis**

This study aims to identify and explore one preschool teacher's SEPs used in the STEM-integrated lessons. We employed a single case study approach to gain an understanding of how the SEPs were built up in the lessons. A case study approach [35] allowed us to focus on a single unit anchored in an actual preschool classroom setting with multiple data collection techniques. The case study is "an empirical method that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident" ([35], p. 15). This qualitative study elucidates SEPs' components and provides information to develop reform-oriented teaching practices.

Twenty STEM lessons were observed for a month by positioning a camera toward the rear of the classroom. In addition to video recording the teacher's practices and interactions, field notes were used to document observations concerning how the teacher engaged with the students. All of the recordings were transcribed verbatim, and three STEM lessons among the 20 were chosen to be coded for the current study. Codes were generated using Kaderavek et al.'s [18] Systematic Characterization of Inquiry Instruction in Early Learning Classroom Environments (SCIIENCE). This instrument was designed to capture the ways in which teachers' instructional practices and behaviors were aligned with the NGSS. The coding system consisted of a total of 33 frequency codes for the eight SEPs. For example, two codes (student model and model discourse) captured the Developing and Using Models SEP.

Three researchers individually coded each video in 2-minute intervals. The duration of each lesson ranged from 30 to 45 minutes. After individually coding the observed interactions, the researchers compared their results and discussed any discrepancies. A consensus was reached on all codes, and each category of interaction frequencies was computed. The data were also analyzed from a qualitative perspective.

#### **4. Results**

Alice's teaching practices revealed that she mainly implemented two SEPs in her STEM lessons: *Practice 3—Planning and Carrying Out Investigations* and *Practice 8— Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information* (**Table 1**). In Practice 3, the most frequent code was "observation." For example, she encouraged the children to observe their own and others' experiments. This allowed them to engage in inquiry activities by observing and recording data. The following excerpt from "Measuring Distance" illustrates how Alice facilitated the children's observation and inquiry.

*Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105564*

**Table 1.**

*SCIIENCE code frequencies in three lessons.*

The data suggest that a critical element was the STEM lessons' introduction, during which the teacher engaged students in the repetitive ritual of making predictions. The children were given an opportunity to share their own hypotheses. Then, by sharing with their peers, the children became curious and actively engaged in the activities. This process eventually led to the students being prompted to test their own hypotheses. In sum, they were guided in ways that allowed them to engage in scientific inquiry as illustrated in the following example:

*Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105564*

The data indicated that the teacher also emphasized *Practice 8—Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information.* The most frequent teaching narrative code was "vocabulary" in Practice 8. The teacher frequently reinforced relevant science vocabulary, and the emphasized science terminology helped engage the students in effective scientific communication. Our qualitative analyses revealed that Alice emphasized scientific vocabulary such as "experiment," "test," and "hypothesis" in her lessons. For example, the following was observed during the "Cutting Clay" lesson:

The teacher also clarified the vocabulary she used by questioning, explaining, and defining. In doing so, she guided the children's thought processes and encouraged them to engage in scientific inquiry.

In all lessons, Alice recorded the numeric data obtained from the children's experiments. The recorded documents were not only used as an aid for comparing different test values, but also served as crucial evidence from which to draw conclusions. That is, the teacher used the document data to help children determine whether their hypotheses were supported visually. The following is an example from the "Floating Boats" lesson:

In sum, the observed teaching practices included not all of the NGSS SEPs for early childhood STEM teaching [18]. Only two-thirds of the 33 codes were observed. However, her frequent use of scientific words, generating questions, and documenting results modeled the scientific inquiry process. One important teaching practice emerging from the data was redirection, a strategy used to shift children's attention or off-task behaviors into active engagement, positive attitudes, and emotional security. For instance, whenever a child used her leg to block a test car from running down a ramp, Alice invited the child to be an active member of the experiments rather than simply eliminating her away from the experiment spot.

The approach prompted this child to modify her off-task behaviors into positive engagement in the inquiry-based learning without negatively affecting her emotion. Although this teaching practice is not directly related to SEPs, it could be an essential element of teaching STEM to this age group.

#### **5. Discussion**

A number of existing studies revealed that there are benefits of early exposure to STEM learning for children's intellectual growth. Teachers' instructional practices play a critical role in effective STEM learning. The NGSS's SEPs suggested how STEM teachers can implement instructional practices and, in the same vein, young children can conceptualize the scientific process, ask scientific questions, and observe and investigate their environments and the larger or smaller world around them [10, 36]. However, preschool teachers could be challenged because they are not familiar with instructional practices emphasized in the current reform [13, 37].

Our research provides insight into what practices teachers can integrate into their lessons and the limitations of some types of STEM lessons. Observation of Alice's classroom helped us to gain a comprehensive view of teaching practices and the challenges of adhering to the NGSS. Alice employed diverse SEPs; however, it was found that she still showed a lack of some practices such as building models and argumentation. The modeling practices are used to construct and apply conceptual models of physical phenomena as a central piece of doing science [38]. Jackson et al. [39] stated that "Students in modeling classrooms experience first-hand the richness and excitement of learning about the natural world." (p. 10). Modeling instruction can be performed in two main cycles in the preschool classroom: model development and model deployment. In the model development stage, teaching instruction typically begins with a demonstration and class discussion to have a common understanding of a topic or a concept. The children present and justify their thoughts and ideas in oral form, including the formulation of a model for the phenomena [39]. Students apply their understanding obtained from a discovered model to new situations during the model deployment stage to refine and deepen their understanding.

In addition to the modeling practice, argumentation was another teaching practice that was not found in Alice's lessons. Scholars indicated that argumentation is a blurred concept in early childhood education, which has led to less attention on the

#### *Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105564*

way argumentation begins to take shape in the early years. Argumentation is conceptualized either as a product of individual reasoning or as a process arising from the interpersonal exchange of views [40]. Previous literature suggested that preschool teachers could build an ideal setting for discussing a shared topic with conversational patterns, including closed/open questions, agreements/disagreements, and adversatives [41]. Also, other scholars suggested argumentation's benefits in preschool for improving children's ability to cultivate shared and critical thinking [42, 43].

Exploring teaching practices can help researchers and educators construct a more informed understanding for building learning environments, where all the students can engage in various instructional practices for doing science. The investigation on the NGSS-based teaching practices implemented in a real education setting can provide a more comprehensive rationale for promoting science teaching and future professional development strategies and may have a growing influence on national and subnational education policies. However, based on the findings, this study still raises more questions than it answers. How confident (or challenging) are preschool teachers in enacting the NGSS SEPs? What conditions and expectations might support the move toward effective reform-oriented teaching practices? What alternative teaching practices could be integrated into existing knowledge and practices? Continued investigations are needed to discover and develop more practical strategies to support preschoolers' learning and teachers' initiatives for STEM learning. For example, examining effective teacher communication strategies, such as redirection, helps teachers who are newly attempting to infuse STEM into their teaching stimulate children's exploration around STEM concepts.

Meanwhile, more research is needed to understand the inquiry cycle in preschool STEM by the reform-oriented practices. Indeed, it has been emphasized that STEM education in early childhood education needs to invite young children into the scientific inquiry cycle [44] to incorporate their natural curiosity into the inquiry process. For that reason, many studies have shown how preschool science teaching and learning can be implemented within the inquiry cycle process; yet, there are only a few studies that provide a detailed description of what preschool STEM teaching practices conducted within the inquiry cycle process look like. There is a possibility that STEM education takes a different route from the inquiry cycle to what science education has taken since STEM education places a higher emphasis on innovation and creativity, which are not the primary skills emphasized in conventional science education. For that reason, exploring teaching practices with the inquiry cycle of STEM education compared to traditional education of science would provide useful insights into creating quality STEM implementation frameworks in preschool settings.

The SEPs in the NGSS may raise the bar for teaching science in K-12 classrooms. The NGSS SEPs are inherently linked to inquiry and engineering design and practices and provide real-world concepts. Preschool teachers who tend to be underprepared for inquiry-based teaching could bridge diverse students' previous knowledge and experiences to the SEPs and support their students' thinking and acting scientifically. Science process skills in the SEPs are helpful for the active exploration of science concepts: "Engaging in the practices of engineers likewise helps students understand the work of engineers and the links between engineering and science" [36], p. 42]. Additionally, the quality science instruction promoted by nurturing SEPs in learning big ideas in science is crucial for students' academic development. Thus, the findings from this study shed some light on what teachers know and can do as they become experts in engaging students in the authentic practices of science.

Besides, the NGSS address diversity and equity issues. The NGSS were developed as standards that offered promises of science teaching and learning that present learning opportunities and demands for all the students and particular student groups that have traditionally been underserved in science classrooms [45]. The NGSS Diversity and Equity Team tried to ensure that the standards were accessible to all the students, especially those traditionally underserved in science classrooms [41]. The students were defined as economically disadvantaged students, students from minority racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English competence. For example, appropriate SEP engagement in the SEPs allows all the students to comprehend and communicate their science ideas using "less-than-perfect English" [46, p. 6]. This shows the NGSS's vision of science teaching and learning that presents learning opportunities and demands for all the students.

Currently, underrepresented student groups are the majority across the nation [47], and the contribution of the SEPs to equity has become more critical [10]. Several studies showed the development process of instructional materials based on the NGSS, focusing on equity. For example, Hass et al. [48] presented the conceptual framework focused on equity that guided the development of NGSS-aligned instructional materials for the fifth grade with a focus on English learners. The authors unpacked a target set of performance expectations in terms of the specific elements of the three dimensions of the NGSS. Through unpacking, the authors selected phenomena that are local and relevant to all the students to consider students' everyday experiences as resources and entry points for inclusion in the science classroom. Campbell and Lee [49] also highlighted the need for instructional materials which attend to student diversity and equity and developed research-based instructional materials designed for the NGSS with a focus on student equity and professional teacher learning. However, the authors agreed that there are still tensions in developing new teaching materials to address the equity issues. Hass et al. [48] mentioned that addressing all three dimensions of each performance expectation would be a challenge. Another tension involves capitalizing on students' everyday experiences across various places within and across formal and informal settings [50]. Specifically, Miller and Saenz [51] pointed out that preschools have notable differences in materials and instructional practices children encounter. These differences revealed significant gaps in opportunities to engage in the different SEPs, which raises questions about equity in early science learning environments. There are various ways to address the equity concern; yet, the challenges of preschool teachers remain a critical puzzle to solve for policymakers and educators.

Science instructional practices aligned with the NGSS have the power to transform science learning and teaching, especially when accompanied by teachers' professional development and equitable curricula support. This current study recognizes the enormous task that this paradigm shift will require of teachers, educators, and school systems. Curriculum designers and researchers must think systemically about how early childhood teachers can be actively engaged in the NGSS SEPs and how they can develop equitable instructional materials for all the students.

*Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105564*

#### **Author details**

Hye Ryung Won1 \* and Hyesun You<sup>2</sup>

1 Slippery Rock University, Pennsylvania, USA

2 The University of Iowa, Iowa, USA

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Bers M, Seddighin S, Sullivan A. Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2013;**21**(3):355-377

[2] Pantoya ML, Aguirre-Munoz Z, Hunt EM. Developing an engineering identity in early childhood. American Journal of Engineering Education. 2015;**6**(2):61-68

[3] National Research Council (NRC). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007

[4] McClure ER, Guernsey L, Clements DH, Bales SN, Nichols J, Kendall-Taylor N, Levine MH. STEM Starts Early: Grounding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in Early Childhood. In 2017. Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. New York.

[5] 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**(1):67-86

[6] Piasta SB, Pelatti CY, Miller HL. Mathematics and science learning opportunities in preschool classrooms. Early Education and Development. 2014;**25**(4):445-468

[7] Tu T. Preschool science environment: What is available in a preschool classroom? Early Childhood Education Journal. 2006;**33**(4):245-251

[8] 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

[9] Şeker PT, Alisinanoğlu F. A survey study of the effects of preschool teachers' beliefs and self-efficacy towards mathematics education and their demographic features on 48-60-month-old preschool children's mathematic skills. Creative Education. 2015;**6**(03):405

[10] NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013

[11] Krajcik J, Codere S, Dahsah C, Bayer R, Mun K. Planning instruction to meet the intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2014;**25**(2):157-175

[12] Brenneman K. Science in the Early Years. The Progress of Education Reform. Education Commission of the States. 2014;**15**(2):1-6

[13] Merritt EG, Chiu J, Peters-Burton E, Bell R. Teachers' integration of scientific and engineering practices in primary classrooms. Research in Science Education. 2018;**48**(6):1321-1337

[14] Harms T, Clifford R, Cryer D. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R). Revised ed. New York: Teacher College Press; 2005

[15] Pianta RC, La Paro KM, Hamre BK. Classroom Assessment Scoring SystemTM (CLASSTM) Manual: PreK. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing; 2008

*Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105564*

[16] Sawada D, Piburn M, Falconer K, Turley J, Benford R, Bloom I. Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers; 2000

[17] Marshall JC, Smart J, Horton RM. The design and validation of EQUIP: An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2010;**8**(2):299-321

[18] Kaderavek JN, North T, Rotshtein R, Dao H, Liber N, Milewski G, et al. SCIIENCE: The creation and pilot implementation of an NGSS-based instrument to evaluate early childhood science teaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2015;**45**:27-36

[19] DeJarnette N. America's children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education. 2012;**133**(1):77-84

[20] Moomaw S. STEM begins in the early years. School Science and Mathematics. 2012;**112**(2):57-58

[21] Zan B. Introduction to collected papers from the seed (STEM in early education and development) conference. Beyond this Issue. 2010

[22] National Association for the Education of Young Children. Developmentally Appropriate Practice Position Statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC; 2020

[23] National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Early Childhood Science Education. Arlington, VA: NSTA; 2014

[24] Early Childhood STEM Working Group. Early STEM matters: Providing high-quality STEM experiences for all

young learners: A policy report. 2017. Available from http://ecstem.uchicago. edu

[25] Windschitl M, Thompson J, Braaten M, Stroupe D. Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education. 2012;**96**(5):878-903

[26] Kloser M. Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A Delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2014;**51**(9):1185-1217

[27] Torres-Crespo MN, Kraatz E, Pallansch L. From fearing STEM to playing with It: The natural integration of STEM into the preschool classroom. SRATE Journal. 2014;**23**(2):8-16

[28] Aldemir J, Kermani H. Integrated STEM curriculum: Improving educational outcomes for Head Start children. Early Child Development and Care. 2017;**187**(11):1694-1706

[29] Bagiati A, Evangelou D. Engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom: The teacher's experience. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2015;**23**(1):112-128

[30] Sullivan A, Kazakoff ER, Bers MU. The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in prekindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education. 2013;**12**:203-219

[31] Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1980

[32] Master A, Cheryan S, Meltzoff AN. Social group membership increases STEM engagement among preschoolers. Developmental Psychology. 2017;**53**(2): 201-209

[33] Sullivan A, Bers MU. Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore's early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2018;**28**(2):325-346

[34] Gagné RM, Briggs LJ, Wager WW. Principles of Instructional Design. 4th ed. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1992

[35] Yin RK. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2018

[36] National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012

[37] Kang EJ, Donovan C, McCarthy MJ. Exploring elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and confidence in implementing the NGSS science and engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2018;**29**(1):9-29

[38] Hestenes D. The changing role of the physics department in modern universities. In: Redish E, Rigden J, editors. Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers. 1997. pp. 935-957

[39] Jackson J, Dukerich L, Hestenes D. Modeling instruction: An effective model for science education. Science Educator. 2008;**17**(1):10-17

[40] Dockett S, Perry B. "Air is a kind of wind": Argumentation and the construction of knowledge. In: Early Education and Care, and Reconceptualizing Play. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2001

[41] Dovigo F. Argumentation in preschool: A common ground for collaborative learning in early childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2016;**24**(6):818-840

[42] Koksal-Tuncer O, Sodian B. The development of scientific reasoning: Hypothesis testing and argumentation from evidence in young children. Cognitive Development. 2018:135-145

[43] Mercer N. Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In: Argumentation and Education. Boston, MA: Springer; 2009. pp. 177-194

[44] Worth K. Science in early childhood classrooms: Content and process. Early Childhood Research & Practice (ECRP). 2010;**12**(2):1-7

[45] Lee O, Miller EC, Januszyk R. Next generation science standards: All standards, all students. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2014;*25*(2):223-233

[46] McFarland J, Hussar B, Zhang J, Wang X, Wang K, Hein S, Diliberti M, Cataldi EF, Mann FB, Barmer A. The Condition of Education 2019. NCES 2019-144. National Center for Education Statistics. 2019

[47] NGSS. Appendix D - All Standards, All Students: Making Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students. 2013. https://www. nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/ Appendix%20D%20Diversity%20 and%20Equity%20-%204.9.13.pdf

[48] Haas A, Januszyk R, Grapin SE, Goggins M, Llosa L, Lee O. Developing instructional materials aligned to the next generation science standards for all students, including English learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2021;**32**(7):735-756

*Next-Generation Science and Engineering Teaching Practices in a Preschool Classroom DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105564*

[49] Campbell T, Lee O. Instructional materials designed for a framework for K-12 science education and the next generation science standards: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2021;**32**(7):727-734

[50] Verma G, Douglass H. Commentary: Intellectual virtues, lived experiences, and engaged science learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2021;**32**(7):842-846

[51] Miller AR, Saenz LP. Exploring relationships between playspaces, pedagogy, and preschoolers' play-based science and engineering practices. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society. 2021;**2**(3):314-337

#### **Chapter 3**

## STEAM Implementation in Preschool and Primary School Education: Experiences from Six Countries

*Camelia Delia Voicu, Maria Ampartzaki, Zuhal Yilmaz Dogan and Michail Kalogiannakis*

#### **Abstract**

This chapter presents a survey focusing on pre-primary and primary STEAM education in six countries. The survey sought to identify: (a) the perceptions of teachers, parents, and professionals from STEM and the Arts (hereafter STEAM professionals) about the STEAM approach; (b) teachers' training needs; (c) teachers', parents', STEAM professionals' perceptions of the value of the STEAM's role in increasing the participation of young girls and disadvantaged students in STEM. Data was collected through focus-group interviews and were qualitatively analyzed. Results showed that teachers, STEAM professionals, and most of the parents had positive perceptions of the STEAM approach; they believed that it increases children's motivation and engagement in learning, regardless of the child's gender; it increases creativity, self-confidence and offers good learning opportunities for both boys and girls, taking into consideration their emotional and social abilities. The main difficulties identified were related to curriculum limitations, school infrastructure, and lack of resources, experience, and training in the STEAM approach. Teachers highlighted the need of training on the STEAM philosophy, essential concepts, and specific methods; access to STEAM-specific digital resources/software; practical training/seminars or blended learning training. Student teachers emphasized the need for more STEAM lessons in their initial training.

**Keywords:** early childhood education, STEAM, inclusive education, preschool education, primary school education

#### **1. Introduction**

Science in the postmodern era endorses the principles of democracy and justice, critical sustainability, and transformation for an equitable future [1]. On the same plane, Science education has evolved to (a) meet the needs of an increasingly diverse society [2], and (b) reorient learning by adopting the principles of "transdisciplinarity," "political citizenship" and "philosophical values," overall, implementing science education through "interdisciplinary sessions in science and humanities" ([3], p. 106).

It comes to no surprise that, in this perspective, curriculum developers sought to link Science with Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) [4], to construct "contextualized knowledge" ([5], p. 79, 89), that is, knowledge meaningful to the learners [1]. The so-called STEM approach was developed to promote learning linked to the authentic needs and the interdisciplinary developments of the modern world [6]. The STEAM approach is also believed to support the general social–emotional learning [SEL] and development of the child. Through collaborative and interdisciplinary tasks and projects that involve processes of inquiry and problem solving, children are provided with the opportunities to develop the core social and emotional competencies as named by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) [7–10]. However, more research is needed on this, as studies provide an inconclusive picture of the link between STEM and SEL so far. A review by Garner and Gabitova [11] revealed that research has not yet shown if STEM needs to be infused with SEL elements and/or strategies to become a holistic approach or if SEL will be the typical result of a consistent STEM approach (see also Ref. [12]). In the meantime, a holistic approach that accommodates STEAM in meaningful interactions, real-world inquiries, and play is highly advisable [9]. Research revealed the benefits as well as the gaps and deficiencies of this approach, as learners in STEM still fell behind in creative skills and innovative thinking [13]. This led to the addition of Art to the STEM subjects (hence the abbreviation STEAM) and a new approach that was enhanced by humanities [3].

The STEAM approach continues to develop but is this an approach that can materialize a postmodern approach to education? Art was initially introduced to "promote curricular integration between science, technology, engineering, mathematics and the arts favoring deep and collaborative learning on students" ([14], p. 2), and to "promote creativity together with rationalization" ([15], p. 1). As such, the STEAM approach adheres to the principles of Western modernism, utilitarianism, and liberal education perspectives. However, Art can potentially move STEAM to a critical postmodern level.

What Art integration can contribute to STEM lies in "the epistemic practices in the arts" ([16], p. 24), which can be grouped into the following categories: *Technical and critical practices, creative practices, and ethical practices* ([16], p. 27). Technical and critical practices in Art include the close examination of matters and the deconstruction of parts to reveal the "meaning" behind the compilation of different construction elements [16]. Applying this process can help STEM to critically deconstruct major discourses and question theoretical frameworks and definitions. The creative practices include the integration and manipulation of "multiple sign systems," multiple principles and ideas, as well as the artistic augmentation of meaning ([16], p. 27). The multiplicity imposed by the artistic creative processes can enhance the convergent thinking promoted by STEM with the divergent thinking promoted by Arts, and the communicative actions [17, 18] used for scientific negotiation. The ethical practices include negotiation and rigorous evaluation of the quality of a project [16]. Ethical practices are needed in STEM to ensure that projects "are of value to a larger community" ([16], p. 24) and strive for the betterment and sustainability of society [19].

Moreover, to move to a critical postmodern level, STEAM will have to address equity issues [1]. More specifically, the STEAM approach must address (a) the gender disparities and (b) the barriers disadvantaged students face in STEM education and STEM careers [2].

Recent reports stress that STEM professions are not attracting young 'people's interest and learners lack the appropriate skills to pursue STEM careers [20]. In Europe, STEM professions are among the "top five shortage occupations" ([21], p. 1). Research also identifies that there is a gender underrepresentation in STEM *STEAM Implementation in Preschool and Primary School Education: Experiences from Six… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107886*

professionals. Girls and women are less likely to pursue STEM careers even if they are not lacking skills and knowledge in STEM subjects throughout their school life [22].

Research investigating the reasons behind this underrepresentation identified factors affecting girls' and women's choices at an individual and environmental level. At the individual level, research shows factors such as personal interest, self-confidence, or motivation [23]. At the environmental level, these factors include stereotypes about gender and STEM [23, 24], parental beliefs, dispositions, behavior [23, 24], the presence of suitable female role models, and/or the provision of mentoring [25, 26].

Other research shows how the same two main categories of factors influence the choice of a STEM major among disadvantaged students as well. More specifically, the studies identify the following factors:

Equity issues need to be tackled at an early stage as they appear at all education levels (pre-primary, primary, secondary, and postsecondary) [35].

The following pages present exploratory research on the perceptions and expectations of educational actors regarding STEAM education at the preschool and primary school levels.

#### **2. Research methodology**

#### **2.1 The context of the research**

The present chapter shows the results of a study carried out in six countries in the context of the "Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] through STEAM" project, which was funded by the European Union (Erasmus+, Agreement No 2020-1-TR01-KA201-094463 2020). As a Key Action 201 "strategic partnership for school education," the project involved countries such as Türkiye, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, and Lithuania. The project is coordinated by the Turkish National Agency (Centre for European Union Education and Youth Programs) and the Uskudar District National Education. NGSS is set to promote STEM and Arts (STEAM) in early childhood education through a novel approach that will focus on social and emotional learning (SEL), integrated with interactive approaches [e.g., drama, gamified learning, and physical education], involving social, emotional as well as cognitive skills. The ultimate goal will be to "enhance, encourage, and foster an innovative educational approach that integrates STEM and Arts learning in early childhood education through gender-inclusive methods and resources and promote a positive change of attitudes toward non-stereotyping choices in education" [from the NGSS funding application]. As such, the project addresses educational inequalities and targets the perceptions and expectations of educational actors regarding STEAM education at the preschool and primary school levels.

A needs analysis and curriculum analysis in each partner country had to be carried out to enable partner countries to establish common criteria for the estimation of the good practices within the project context and to offer background information for developing NGSS teaching resources for preschool and primary school teachers.

#### **2.2 Research goals**

The main objective of the needs analysis was to identify the opinions of the teachers, parents, and STEAM professionals on STEAM implementation ("good practices, difficulties, and strengths, effects"), with a particular reference to the "motivation and participation of girls and disadvantaged students in science education and careers." ([36], p. 16, [37]). Also, the researchers intended to identify teachers' "training needs" and "criteria of *good practices* from the teacher's perspective." Another research goal was to identify the "parents' perceptions of gender differences in children's play and/or school" and STEAM activities [idem].

#### **2.3 Research methods and tools**

Each partner organized and conducted a series of focus-group interviews targeting three types of stakeholders: (1) teachers (or student teachers) and management staff from preschools and primary schools, (2) parents, and (3) STEAM professionals. The interviews were structured following the list of topics displayed in **Table 1**.

The addressed topics were as follows: "subjects' knowledge and awareness of the difference between STEM and STEAM"; "teachers' difficulties (already experienced or anticipated) in implementing the STEAM approach"; "ways to overcome difficulties and obstacles"; "the type of support they had/or they believed should have received in implementing STEAM"; "STEAM education effects on children"; "types of motivational strategies teachers used/would like to use to ensure equity (that is strengthening girls' and disadvantaged children's participation) in STEAM lessons"; and "training needs." The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subjected to qualitative content analysis.

The focus-group interview sessions were held online [using platforms such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and BigBlueButton] or face to face, according to the specific SARS-CoV-2 epidemic situation of each country. The duration of the focus-group interviews was between 1 and 2 h. The research subjects expressed verbally or signed [in face-to-face matching sessions] their consent; the consent form was previously agreed on by all project partners. European and national research ethics guidelines were previously discussed and agreed upon in the projects' transnational meeting, which prepared the focus-group implementation, and they were followed through all interviews [38]. In all interview meetings, the moderators presented themselves, briefed participants on the project, and asked the participants to say a few words about their professional status and work experience. The moderators also cultivated a good mood and trust, stressing that all opinions were valuable and would remain anonymous to obtain the sincerest answers [39, 40].

The focus-group interview contained two parts of questions. The first part included some general questions addressed to all groups of participants (pre-primary, primary and student teachers, STEAM professionals, and parents). The second part included questions geared to the three distinct groups of the sample separately, that is,

#### **Part A. General questions (for all participants):**

#### *Topics/issues addressed:*

**Part B. Specific questions for each stakeholder group:**

*B.1 Topics/issues addressed to the teachers' sample (for pre-primary, primary, and student teachers alike):*

#### *B.2 Topics/issues addressed to STEM and Arts professionals:*

*B.3 Topics/issues addressed to parents of mainstream and disadvantaged pupils asked about the following:*

#### **Table 1.**

*Topics/issues addressed during the focus-group interviews [37].*

the teachers (pre-primary, primary, or student teachers), the STEAM professionals, and the parents. **Table 1** presents in more detail the topics/issues addressed by each part of the questions.

#### **2.4 Study population and sample**

The study population was identified according to two main aspects, which were essential for the NGSS project: (a) the participants' occupational status in education and STEAM and (b) the parental status of children aged 4–11. The study population, therefore, involved three major categories of subjects: (i) pre-primary and primary school teachers (or student teachers) and educational management representatives, (ii) STEAM professionals, and (iii) parents of children aged 4–11 [36]. The study adopted purposeful sampling (also known as purposive sampling or intentional sampling), which is the sampling that uses the deliberate or intentional choice of the participants based on their qualities or characteristics that are important for the research [40, 41]. Also, for achieving the research goals, purposeful sampling offers the possibility to select subjects who are able and willing to provide needed information based on their experience and interest [40]. The specific, purposeful sampling technique used in this study was criterion sampling [42] since we need to comply with the project criteria for the target groups and obtain a comprehensive understanding of the issues from different educational stakeholders. Therefore, the sampling criteria were as follows: (i) the occupational status of the participants (in-service or student teachers and management staff from preschool and primary school education, STEAM professionals, and parents), (ii) the subjects' willingness to participate, reflecting their interest in the STEAM subjects, and (iii) the minimum number for each study population category as specified by the NGSS project (12 preschool and primary school teachers, four female STEM professionals, three female professional artists, and six parents, three of which should have children of different gender). Thus, the samples were not statistically representative of the national state of the partner countries, and the results can only be indicative of the general situation. The residential areas of the subjects were both urban and rural, and some lived in geographically and economically disadvantaged environments. The average teaching experience of all teachers group was between 10 years (in Greece) and 25 years (in Lithuania). The recruitment was carried out via open calls and distributed by the partners' communication channels.

The final numbers of the participants involved in the focus-group interviews are presented in **Table 2**.

#### **2.5 Data analysis**

For the data analysis, a deductive thematic approach was used to ensure unitary identification of the information targeted by the research questions, especially in the context of transnational research. Also, a deductive analysis helps maintain focus on the research purpose **[**42, 43]. This approach can be used when a researcher has a fair idea about the likely responses that will be received from the research subjects [42], and/or when the researcher is familiar with the research topic, or involved in the analyzed phenomenon [44]. In our case, the researchers already had the frames of reference/cognitions that helped them identify the meanings of the answers considering the purpose of the research. Given that all partner members involved in the focus-group interviews were familiar with STEAM in preschool and primary education and had the necessary information/cognitive frames for interview analysis, we

*STEAM Implementation in Preschool and Primary School Education: Experiences from Six… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107886*

#### **Table 2.**

*Totals of participants in the focus-group interviews.*

considered this approach best suited for the data analysis of the focus-group interviews. The deductive approach to analyzing qualitative data is based on a structure predetermined by the researcher, which is also reflected in the design of the interview and the main topics covered by the interview questions [39, 43]. In our study, the main topics became the themes used in the data analysis. Before starting the interview content analysis, they were presented and agreed upon within a transnational meeting with all research partners. Also, a template was developed and agreed upon within this meeting to clear up code definitions and eliminate unnecessary codes [45]. This template led to a unitary identification of the codes in all nationally transcribed interviews, assuring intercoder reliability and maintaining alignment with the research questions. [46]. The researchers coded the transcribed interviews by matching the codes from the template with segments of data [verbal and nonverbal responses of the participants] selected as representative of each code **[**47]**.**

#### **2.6 Research results**

The results we present below follow the themes emerging from the data analysis and cover the main topics of the interviews.

#### *2.6.1 Teachers and STEM and arts professional's previous experience and knowledge of the STEM/STEAM approach*

Analysis revealed that most teachers and STEAM professionals from all the partner countries had a general idea about the STEAM approach. They knew the meaning of the STEM/STEAM acronym. Still, only a few had the experience of implementing it [mostly Lithuanian teachers and a few teachers from Türkiye, Greece, and Romania]. In general, they identified themselves as inexperienced or not prepared enough to teach the STEM or STEAM approaches. The Greek student teachers appeared to be more informed about the STEAM approach.

Except for Lithuanian primary teachers, who had some experience in teaching STEM/STEAM and were familiarized with specific methods, most of the teachers and STEAM professionals said they knew only a few of the particular didactic methods or strategies used in the context of the STEAM approach.

All the teachers, almost all STEM professionals, and most of the Arts professionals understood the need or the benefits of integrating Arts with Science and the ways to combine them. Most of the Arts professionals agreed that there can be Science through Arts and vice versa and could think of examples of how these domains can be correlated.

Overall, a slight difference was identified between teachers and STEM professionals regarding the knowledge of STEM philosophy and specificity. STEM professionals declared that they had greater access to up-to-date Science or Art education information.

The general attitude of preschool and primary school teachers and STEAM professionals toward the STEAM approach implementation was positive, highlighted by the openness and desire to know more and to try it in their educational endeavors.

#### *2.6.2 Difficulties faced in implementing the STEAM approach*

For most primary teachers and STEAM professionals that had previously experienced STEAM implementation or similar activities, the primary identified difficulties were as follows:

The lack of resources and curriculum limitations for preschool teachers did not create difficulties but rather challenges. They declared that teaching resources for these ages are more accessible or affordable, and they usually get more involvement from parents; also, they admitted that curriculum frames are more open to a creative and customized approach to the needs of learners and subjects.

*STEAM Implementation in Preschool and Primary School Education: Experiences from Six… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107886*

In addition, teachers that had not previously experienced STEAM implementation highlighted difficulties in adapting to the level and specific needs of all children, especially in very heterogeneous classes, and a lack of adequate information, models for STEAM teaching, and training in STEAM implementation.

#### *2.6.3 The support teachers had and ways of overcoming the identified difficulties*

The interviews revealed that the teachers overcame or could overcome the obstacles through (i) personal interest, (ii) personal study and effort to understand and learn more on how to implement STEAM lessons, (iii) collaboration with a more experienced teacher or mentor, or with other colleagues interested in this approach, and (iv) adapting some examples of STEAM activities available on the Internet. Other ways that teachers used to meet the demands of a STEAM approach included:

#### *2.6.4 Teachers' training needs and readiness to implement STEAM education*

The research revealed that most of the teachers did not feel quite ready to implement STEAM education, although they were willing and open to this type of approach. Only a few teachers from Lithuania and most teachers from Türkiye felt ready to implement STEAM activities.

Regarding the training needs, all teachers stated the need for more specialized training on STEAM, for a deeper understanding of the STEAM philosophy, ideas, methods, and the need for more teaching resources [preferably digital] such as lesson plans and educational materials. Also, the research highlighted the need for mentoring and sharing experiences between teachers, even transnational sharing, from the most experienced colleagues. Other training needs outlined by the interviews were as follows:

The data analysis also outlined the training resources teachers prefer: digital, open-source materials [e.g., ready implement lesson plans, papers describing step-bystep the educational methodology, examples of STEAM projects for different ages, or nonformal/extracurricular education projects based on or including STEAM approach], digital platforms or Apps suitable for STEAM implementation [with free access to use it]. Regarding the format of the training, teachers identified preferences were as follows:

#### *2.6.5 Teachers' opinion about the characteristics/attributes of a "good practice" in the STEAM education*

The analysis of teachers' and STEAM professionals' answers revealed that teachers and STEAM professionals identify four dimensions of a "good practice" in STEAM education, which are as follows:

*STEAM Implementation in Preschool and Primary School Education: Experiences from Six… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107886*

#### *2.6.6 Expected effects of STEAM teaching on children*

The STEAM education value for children's development, reflected in teachers' and STEAM professionals` opinions, is comprised of four categories: cognitive development, socio-emotional development (including emotional skills, communication, and relationship skills with peers), learning motivation, and digital skills.

The value for cognitive development is derived from the increased quality of learning of the STEAM approach; in teachers' and parents' opinions, children find learning through STEAM easier, more pleasurable, and more active. Also, STEAM education helps children acquire scientific literacy and improve their critical thinking, inquiry, problem-solving skills, and creativity. In STEM and Arts professionals' opinions, STEAM education can offer ways for extracurricular learning opportunities for all ages and educational levels.

In teachers' and STEAM professionals' opinions, the value regarding socioemotional and communication abilities is because STEAM activities help children to improve self-image, obtain higher self-esteem, strengthen perceived self-efficacy, increase resilience, tolerance, and empathy, and improve teamwork skills and assertive communication skills.

The value regarding children's intrinsic learning motivation and positive attitudes toward learning is derived from the fact that STEAM activities stimulate children's cognitive motivation (as curiosity, eagerness to know more), learning autonomy, and engagement (students are much more committed, more involved, and more eager to learn).

The value regarding digital skills is because STEAM education implies working with digital devices, use of the Internet, computer programming, coding, etc.

#### *2.6.7 Social and emotional learning (SEL) integrated in a STEAM lesson or science education*