Elica Sharifnia

Early Learning Guidelines (ELGs) support early childhood educators, administrators, and professionals in developing and implementing early learning experiences to support young children’s knowledge and skill development. Previous reviews of ELGs examined content addressed across states. However, no reviews have focused on science, technology, or engineering, which are becoming increasingly prevalent as target areas for all learners in the United States. The current review examined the extent (or count) to which science, technology, and engineering content are identified and included within ELGs and the content and processes included in the indicators. The results indicated most ELGs included specified science domains, with far fewer specified domains for technology or engineering. However, all ELGs addressed content at the indicator level for science, technology, and engineering. Individual indicators focused on earth and life science, physics, building and creating, and sequencing. Explicitly identifying content as science, engineering, and technology and expanding on the content to include additional topics (such as planning, designing, simple machines, and foundational computational thinking) could empower early educators to address these topics. To ensure indicators clearly articulate inclusive learning for science, technology, and engineering, additional evaluation of the content of indicators is needed.

Foundational thinking for later use of technology, particularly coding, is necessary for an inclusive and sustainable future. Inclusive practices beginning in early childhood recognize children’s innate development of computational thinking—sequencing, repetition and looping, debugging, decomposing and composing, representation, and causality. This qualitative research describes processes of developing and evaluating hypothesized developmental progressions. Inclusive engagement of children with and without disabilities is described in examples for each level of each developmental progression. Implications for teaching and learning with inclusive practices are described for children with and without disabilities.

Early science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) learning experiences often exclude children with disabilities and intersecting identities. To promote learning in STEM for all children, the Curriculum Research Framework (CRF) was applied to build learning trajectories of STEM for children from birth to age 5. The CRF was extended and enhanced to generate explicitly inclusive learning trajectories for children with and without disabilities. The process of generating a priori foundations, building learning trajectories, and testing the results in inclusive settings led to new resources for early childhood education (ECE) and early childhood special education (ECSE) practitioners and generated implications for creating and evaluating learning trajectories in ways that affirm that all children belong in STEM. Challenges faced and lessons learned in this process are presented to guide future research and development using the revised and enhanced CRF.

Despite the growing interest in early science education, there is much left to be explored, particularly in majority Dual Language Learning (DLL) classrooms. The current study examined 1) early science opportunities across classroom contexts in majority Spanish-English DLL Head Start classrooms, 2) the languages (i.e., English and Spanish) that teachers used to engage DLL children in science, 3) and how teachers’ discussion of scientific and engineering practices and disciplinary core ideas related to children’s academic outcomes. In a sample of 411 children (ages 3-5) from 34 Head Start classrooms, the current study found that teachers discussed and encouraged more practices during science lessons than circle time, dramatic play, and story time. There were no differences in teachers’ discussion of core ideas across contexts. Teachers used the same amount of English and Spanish to discuss practices and core ideas. Teaching physical science was associated with children’s science outcomes. Making observations and discussing life science were associated with children’s math outcomes. Teaching math, making observations, and developing and using models were related to children’s executive functioning. Findings from this study demonstrate that science opportunities occur across preschool classroom settings. Additionally, it provides evidence that teachers may be supporting DLL children’s home language while discussing science. Finally, results indicate that teaching science supports children’s academic performance in several outcomes. These findings have implications for DLL education policy as science may be a domain where teachers can support children’s home language and their learning across multiple domains.