8

THE IMPORTANCE OF EARLY

STEM EDUCATION
Susanna Hapgood, Charlene M. Czerniak, Kimberly Brenneman,
Douglas H. Clements, Richard A. Duschl, Marilyn Fleer,
Daryl Greenfield, Helen Hadani, Nancy Romance, Julie Sarama,
Christina Schwarz and Beth VanMeeteren

Introduction
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) are often discussed using the familiar
STEM acronym (e.g., McClure et al., 2017; Spaepen et al., 2017), as subject-specific learning and
as integrated use of the subjects to solve real-world problems. Despite often being interpreted as an
interdisciplinary endeavor, there is disagreement regarding how STEM integration is defined, con-
ceptualized, or operationalized; and few research-based early childhood exemplars exist that blend
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Integrated, interdisciplinary, and thematic have been
used synonymously, and there are concerns that some forms of integration, often seen in early
childhood classrooms around “themes,” lack meaningful STEM content (Czerniak, Weber, Sand-
mann, & Ahern, 1999). Robust programs that integrate STEM subjects are limited in schools and in
teacher preparation programs (Czerniak & Johnson, 2014). Where integration has been successfully
implemented, it tends to focus on a real-life question or problem using a project- or problem-based
instructional approach (Krajcik & Czerniak, 2014; Mitchell, Foulger, Wetzel, & Rathkey, 2009; Ven-
ville, Wallace, Rennie, & Malone, 1998) or an engineering design approach (e.g., English & Moore,
2018; Tank et al., 2018) with connections to reading and social studies (Portsmore & Milto, 2018).
For this chapter, we include integrated examples when found, but because of the limited examples
of STEM integration in EC, we do not limit our review of STEM in EC to those that demonstrate
integration.
Calls for STEM in early years have come from educators and policymakers alike (e.g., Katz, 2010).
Reflecting this, this chapter explores STEM in early childhood across five areas: (1) the state of
research; (2) teacher preparation and teacher professional development; (3) available tools for evalu-
ating learning and issues in measuring learning; (4) policy issues; and (5) a summary of continuing
struggles and promising future directions for EC-STEM education.

State of the Research in EC-STEM

Research in EC-STEM typically examines the cognitive capacities young children bring to those
opportunities and the role of play in shaping early STEM learning. Research has also examined the
impact of STEM on lifelong learning.
Play-Based Learning. Play is a critical context and tool for EC-STEM learning (Bulunuz,
2013). Playful learning often emerges in children’s curiosity about what is in the world and how

87
 Susanna Hapgood et al.

it works (Fleer, 2013; Shulz & Bonawitz, 2007). Play provides space for children to collaborate to
build scientific and mathematical knowledge (Vogt, Hauser, Stebler, Rechsteiner, & Urech, 2018), to
engage in engineering design and problem solving, and to deploy and strengthen science and engi-
neering practices such as asking questions and communicating understandings (Kane, 2015). In play,
children’s emotional responses to and attitudes about STEM are further developed through experi-
ences in settings where STEM thinking and habits of mind are promoted (Blake & Howitt, 2012).
Preschool and home settings afford many opportunities for STEM learning (Gomes & Fleer,
2017; Sarama & Clements, 2009), but adults are needed to maximize this potential (Sikder & Fleer,
2015). For example, when educators use a “Conceptual PlayWorld” model, they craft a story-based
imaginary-play STEM adventure in which children use STEM concepts to solve problems (Fleer,
2017). Similarly, in home settings, parents and other caregivers can support children’s talk about
STEM while engaging with them in imaginative and dramatic play and everyday practices, such as
riding a bike on different surfaces (Hao & Fleer, 2016) or while building with blocks (Ferrara, Hirsh-
Pasek, Newcombe, Golinkoff, & Lam, 2011). “Guided” play lays the conceptual foundations for
lifelong learning and creates conditions for continued development of cognitive capacities needed
for STEM inquiry (Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013).
Young Children’s STEM Cognitive Strengths. Beginning in infancy, children have intuitive
theories about the world and reasoning skills that likely form the foundations of STEM learning
(Gopnik, 2012; Goswami, 2015). Capacities to recognize changes in the quantity of objects and rela-
tionships between a sample and a population begin in infancy (Xu & Garcia, 2008). These abilities
may contribute to probabilistic reasoning and learning statistics and to the development of scien-
tific inquiry skills, such as prediction of probabilistic outcomes (Cook, Goodman, & Schulz, 2011).
Children as young as two can infer physical causal relationships based on patterns of evidence about
covariation (Gopnik, Sobel, Schulz, & Glymour, 2001), and by six or seven years old are capable of
revising their interpretations on the basis of counter-evidence (Bonawitz, van Schijndel, Friel, &
Schulz, 2012). Causal learning can be promoted by asking children to explain what they observe
(Walker, Lombrozo, Legare, & Gopnik, 2014).
Children’s language and communication skills that permeate STEM learning capacities undergo
tremendous development during the early childhood years. For example, children’s use and com-
prehension of mathematically important words such as many, most, few, and fewest reveal deep con-
nections between language and mathematics concept learning (Purpura, Napoli, & King, 2019) as
well as how various languages differ in terms of everyday use of such language (Kung et al., 2019).
Developing science knowledge and the capacity to produce external representations of it seem to be
mutually reinforcing, as when K and first graders’ representations of their understandings about how
honeybees collect nectar became more relevant and accurate (Danish & Phelps, 2011).
Building on decades of research (e.g., Gelman & Markman, 1986), we continue to learn about
how capacities for sorting, categorizing, and sequencing, which are foundational to learning across
STEM domains, begin to develop early in children’s lives (Sarama, Brenneman, Clements, Duke, &
Hemmeter, 2017). For example, Collins and Laski (2019) found a strong relationship between pre-
schoolers’ symbolic mapping and relational reasoning and their early literacy and mathematics com-
petencies. Recent research also suggests strong links between STEM-related skills and children’s
cognitive and emotional self-regulatory skills including executive function and executive control
(Clements, Sarama, & Germeroth, 2016; Morgan et al., 2019) and between science skills and positive
approaches to learning (Bustamante, White, & Greenfield, 2018).
The Impact of STEM on Lifelong Learning. Mathematical knowledge and skills in kinder-
garten and growth in these skills across the K-1 years have been identified as the strongest correlates
of elementary achievement in math and reading (e.g., Duncan et al., 2007; Sarama, Lange, Clem-
ents, & Wolfe, 2012). Correlations between early math skills and later achievement have been found
through high school (Casey, Nuttall, & Pezaris, 1997; Watts, Duncan, Siegler, & Davis-Kean, 2014).

88
 The Importance of Early STEM Education

The spatial reasoning children’s block building demands, predicts math and science achievement in
middle and high school (Casey et al., 2008; Wolfgang, Stannard, & Jones, 2001) as well as later apti-
tude for STEM success in mathematics (Casey et al., 1997), engineering (McGarvey, Luo, Hawes, &
Spatial Reasoning Study Group, 2018), and physics (Kozhevnikov, Motes, & Hegarty, 2007). Whether
these correlations are indicative of causal relationships has been questioned.
Correlations have also been found between early science and social studies knowledge and later
science skills, reading, and mathematics achievement (Grissmer, Grimm, Aiyer, Murrah, & Steel,
2010; Morgan et al., 2016; Paprzycki et al., 2017), likely because real-world knowledge and vocabu-
lary are associated with comprehension (Duke & Carlisle, 2011; Neuman & Roskos, 2005). Similarly,
longitudinal outcomes related to measures of executive function in the early grades (Morgan et al.,
2019), suggest that less robust executive function when children are six or seven years old is related
to later academic difficulties.
Effective Curricula for EC-STEM. Worldwide, there is growing recognition of the impor-
tance of STEM in EC curricula. Many Asian countries are incorporating robotics and coding edu-
cation beginning in preschool. In Singapore, for example, these curricular initiatives include the
use of tangible and programmable materials (e.g. KIBO robot kits) that do not involve screen time
(Sullivan & Bers, 2017). Similar initiatives are being implemented in Malaysia (Ismail, Hashim, Anis,
Ismail, & Ismail, 2017) and Hong Kong, Korea, and China (Lee & Seo, 2011; Lau, Ho, & Lam, 2015).
In Japan there are small-scale programs to systematically introduce preschool children to STEM
inquiry activity (Sumida, 2015). In the United States, Boston Public Schools combined evidence-
based literacy and math curricula with supports for social skills and found strong learning effects
(Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013). An interdisciplinary curriculum that combines math, science, literacy,
and social-emotional learning shows promising pilot results for science understanding, vocabulary,
phonological awareness, and some math concepts (e.g., Sarama et al., 2017). Research from Northern
Ireland demonstrates the value of curricular materials that encourage teachers to engage in “early
number talk” and to invite children to create their own representations of abstract ideas (Mof-
fet & Eaton, 2018). Additionally, roleplay and story-based practices and approaches offer promise for
increasing the amount of science taught (Varelas & Pappas, 2013; Bulunuz, 2013; Fleer, 2017).
Technology curriculum for young children should not be assumed to necessarily include the
use of digital or electronic technology (Clements, Guernsey, & McClure, 2016). Technology is “the
process by which humans modify nature to meet their needs and wants” (National Academy of
Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC], 2002, p. 2); thus electronic technology is
but one form. A broader perspective within EC curricula regarding how young children can “modify
nature to meet their needs and wants,” reveals ways children engaging in inquiry and engineering
may design their own tools and technology while examining how materials interact (science) and
arranging the materials in different configurations (spatial thinking and mathematics). Though a
robust curriculum is important, effective enactment to foster learning requires that EC professionals
have sufficient knowledge and skills, which we address next.

Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

This section summarizes challenges in EC teacher education and in-service teacher education. The
discussion includes linking STEM teacher education in an integrated fashion and evidence-based
models.
Preservice Teacher Preparation. There are many challenges in the preparation of effec-
tive EC-STEM teachers with candidates often acknowledging their own inadequate background
knowledge and lack of confidence and interest in STEM domains (Nadelson et al., 2013; Gresham &
Burleigh, 2019). Though particularly acute in the United States (Epstein & Miller, 2011), this issue
is worldwide (e.g., Thiel, 2010; Ng, 2011).

89
 Susanna Hapgood et al.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that teacher candidates’ self-efficacy for teaching science can
be increased through science teaching methods coursework (Avery & Meyer, 2012; Del Greco, Ber-
nadowski, & Parker, 2017; Hechter, 2011; Menon & Sadler, 2016), but much of the extant research
on teacher preparation is piecemeal, examining discrete approaches to improving teacher candidates’
STEM knowledge and pedagogical skill. Though many EC teachers report being better prepared to
teach life science (Banilower et al., 2013), EC teacher candidates often lack understanding of engi-
neering, physical science, and technology. These gaps in teachers’ background content knowledge
are unfortunately rarely ameliorated, as many early childhood licensure programs do not provide
teachers with adequate subject matter expertise to know how to integrate across STEM subjects
(Czerniak & Johnson, 2014).
Despite their rarity, there are promising approaches for elementary STEM teacher preparation
that include practice-based approaches that adhere to recommendations from professional organi-
zations and many countries’ educational stakeholders (e.g. Australian Government, 2017; National
Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2019; NRC, 2012). Integration of
STEM disciplines is one aspect of some preservice teaching initiatives (Tsybulsky & Oz, 2019) as is
attention to academic language and STEM ( Jung & Brown, 2016) and culturally responsive peda-
gogy (Arreguín-Anderson & Alanis, 2017). Such work will contribute to more comprehensive mod-
els of teacher preparation that yield positive results (Lippard, Tank, Walter, Krogh, & Colbert, 2018).
Evidence-Based Professional Development Models. Researchers worldwide recognize
professional development as a priority for improving EC-STEM learning (e.g. Murphy, Mac-
Donald, Danaia, & Wang, 2018; Stylianidou et al., 2018; Symaco & Daniel, 2018), particularly for
those who serve children from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Hamlin & Wisneski, 2012). Some
evidence-based models for preK-3 teacher professional development exist (Borko, Jacobs, & Koell-
ner, 2010; Clements, Greenfield, Landry, & Sarama, 2015; Sarama, Clements, Wolfe, & Spitler, 2016;
Romance & Vitale, 2017; Paprzycki et al., 2017). Features these efforts share include teacher learning
of content, active engagement, conceptual coherence and cumulative learning, adequate program
duration and collective participation, participants’ physical and psychological comfort, and curricular
materials supporting teacher and student learning (Klieckmann, Trobst, Jonen, Vehmeyer, & Moller,
2015). Yet, even with best efforts, teacher practices have not substantially changed, nor have they
been sustained, likely because, despite the need for it, professional development of this kind remains
relatively infrequently available to early childhood educators (DeJarnette, 2012). Still, examples of
effective PD models can provide direction for future endeavors.
Several interdisciplinary instructional models for teacher professional development have dem-
onstrated positive achievement outcomes in science, mathematics, and literacy, including transfer
effects to later grade levels. With a strong track record of effectiveness, the Science IDEAS model
for early elementary is characterized by sustained standards-based PD linking reading and writing in
support of students’ science learning (cf. Romance & Vitale, 2012, 2017). The NURTURES model
also consisted of a sustained Framework-aligned PD with emphasis on building teacher content
and pedagogical knowledge and helping teachers engage parents and caregivers in STEM learning
leading to increased opportunities for classroom discourse, early literacy, computational and mathe-
matical thinking experiences, and scientific reasoning. The combined elements of the NURTURES
science-based PD model have demonstrated effectiveness in terms of proximal and distal student
achievement outcomes with significant gains in early literacy, reading, mathematics, and science (see
Kaderavek et al., submitted; Paprzycki et al., 2017; Tuttle et al., 2016).
Transforming knowledge of children’s mathematical thinking into professional development
through learning trajectories has also been recognized as effective (Sztajn, Confrey, Wilson, & Edg-
ington, 2012). Learning trajectories (LTs) have three interconnected parts (Clements & Sarama,
2018): a goal (subject-matter students should learn); a developmental progression regarding how
students’ thinking sophistication increases; and instructional tasks and strategies to foster learning and

90
 The Importance of Early STEM Education

elucidate what effective teachers must know and be able to do. Use of LTs support teachers to (a)
understand mathematical content more deeply than often presented in texts or standards (e.g., Ma,
1999), (b) appreciate the way that their students think and learn mathematics (Ball & Forzani, 2011;
Clements & Sarama, 2014), and (c) better assess children’s learning. This approach has been effective
in improving teaching and learning—and it sustains through many years (Sarama & Clements, 2018;
Sarama et al., 2016).

Issues in Measuring Early STEM Learning

While STEM learning opportunities have been demonstrated to aid young children’s development
of numerous skills in early childhood, research on EC-STEM learning is impacted by the measures
used to examine it. Measurement tools for this age group are limited, and they are most often subject
specific rather than focused on integrated STEM.
Assessing Classroom Environments and Teaching. The primary influences on EC-STEM
learning are teachers and classroom environments (Pianta, Belsky, Vadergrift, Houts, & Morrison,
2008). Although several general instruments are available to assess classrooms (e.g., ECERS, ECERS-
R, CLASS), their association with STEM child outcomes is weak to moderate, and they do not
identify specifically what is supporting STEM learning (e.g., Anders et al., 2012; Brunsek et al., 2017;
Pianta et al., 2005). A review by Kilday and Kinzie (2009) identified nine instruments designed to
measure mathematics (some also science) teaching quality. Through analyses of their theoretical
bases, foci, psychometrics, and EC appropriateness, three were deemed of high quality: the Class-
room Observation of Early Mathematics–Environment and Teaching (COEMET) (Clements &
Sarama, 2000/2019), the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Sawada et al., 2002)
and the Inside the Classroom Observation Protocol (Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003).
The latter two were designed for grades K-12, with only the COEMET appropriate for PreK and
designed specifically for EC settings. Specifically for science, the Preschool Science Observation
Measure (PSOM) (Vitiello, Whittaker, Mulcahy, Kinzie, & Helferstay, 2018) assesses science content
and teaching quality in preschools. Psychometrics for the PSOM are adequate although associations
with child outcomes were limited, they indicate some evidence for predictive validity. Designed for
use in PreK-third grade classrooms, the Systematic Characterization of Inquiry Instruction in Early
LearNing Classroom Environments (SCIIENCE) (Kaderavek et al., 2015) was designed to capture
teacher behaviors aligned with the K-12 conceptual framework for science education (NRC, 2012).
To date, data on SCIIENCE is limited to concurrent validity with eight preschool through third-
grade teachers.
Measuring Child Outcomes. Few assessments of EC-STEM student outcomes for specific
domains, and even fewer examining integrated STEM learning currently exist. A recent review
identified and evaluated 16 mathematics-specific instruments for PreK-second grade preschool on a
wide variety of features including psychometrics (Clements, Sarama, Germeroth, & Day-Hess, 2019).
For use with children ages four to seven, the REMA (Clements, Sarama, & Liu, 2008), includes items
representing 17 of 21 (81%) topics of early childhood math. Though limited to use with preschool-
aged children, Every Child Ready–Math (ECR-M) (AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation,
2010) includes 48% of EC math topics. Addressing 43% math topics and designed to guide teachers’
instruction, the Early Math Diagnostic Assessment (EMDA) (Pearson, 2003) evaluates the mathemat-
ics skills of PreK-third grade learners. The remaining assessments addressed only number-related
topics. Providing item-level analysis of nearly 2000 items on 14 of the 16 instruments, the full review
aligns the level of thinking assessed along research-based learning trajectories.
For science, an adaptive assessment based on the K-12 framework (NRC, 2012) and delivered on
touch-screen devices for preschool-aged children is being used across multiple sites and projects (Green-
field, 2015). Measures of early technology learning are scarce, but an engineering observation protocol

91
 Susanna Hapgood et al.

for examining early engineering and project-based design is available (Bagiati & Evangelou, 2018), and
Purzer and Douglas (2018) call for a multifaceted approach for assessing early engineering skills.

Policy in EC-STEM
The success of EC-STEM initiatives around the world is contingent upon implementation of good
policies. The impetus for policy reforms regarding STEM education comes from multiple direc-
tions. Cross-national tests of children’s academic achievement (e.g., PISA & TIMSS) have been an
impetus for numerous policy reforms worldwide (e.g., Korean Science & Engineering Foundation,
2019; Rothman, 2017). Research identifying the societal and economic value of starting STEM in
EC contexts is also influencing policies to include STEM in EC care and education (Azzi-Lessing,
2009; Lynch, 2007; Mahony & Hayes, 2006; Tietze & Cryer, 2004). There are also calls to increase
the coordination between preschool and primary grade approaches to STEM education to create a
smoother transition for children (Black et al., 2017; Early Childhood STEM Working Group, 2017).
Adequate training for EC teachers in STEM is of central importance. Policies addressing high-
quality early STEM experiences and curriculum in EC care and education will need an educated
EC workforce to ensure proper implementation. Such policies currently exist. The Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development proposed five policy levers for improving child devel-
opment and learning (OECD, 2019). One lever focuses on caregiver and educator qualifications
training, and working conditions. Six participating European countries have frameworks and policies
supporting professional learning and development of EC caregivers and educators. In the United
States, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC) provided a blueprint
for establishing a unifying foundation for consistent and cumulative support for early learning. The
blueprint recommends actions geared toward (1) improving higher education and ongoing profes-
sional learning; (2) strengthening qualification requirements based on knowledge and competen-
cies; and (3) promoting evaluation that leads to continuous improvements in professional practices
(Achieve, 2013; NRC, 2015.)

Continuing Struggles and Promising Future Directions

This chapter summarizes important findings regarding EC-STEM education and the many benefits
of STEM education for children. We conclude with a list of recommended steps or conditions
needed to develop high-quality EC-STEM curriculum and programs in the future:

Research
• Research should examine the STEM content and skills that, when strengthened early on, serve
as powerful foundations for future learning, and additional work should explore endogenous
and exogenous factors contributing to the stability of STEM achievement over time (e.g., Watts,
Duncan, Clements, & Sarama, 2018).
• Integrated STEM curriculum (made available on the commercial market) needs to be devel-
oped and researched to ascertain its effectiveness. This could also include examination of STEM
curriculum integration with reading, social studies, and the arts.
• Although programs exist that focus on technology and engineering education in early grades
(e.g., McClure et al., 2017), including work on coding and robotics with young children, addi-
tional research is needed in these areas.
• There should be increased research regarding the coordination between preschool and primary
grade approaches to STEM education to create a smoother transition for children (Black et al.,
2017; EC-STEM Working Group, 2017).

92
 The Importance of Early STEM Education

• Additional research should examine the impact of informal, out-of-school science opportuni-
ties for their ability to enhance EC-STEM learning that carries over to K-12 learning (Marcus,
Haden & Uttal, 2018).
• It is important to understand cultural differences related to STEM education (Vogt et al., 2018),
so future research should study this in early grades. A potential starting point is a culturally-
relevant preschool STE curriculum co-constructed by Head Start teachers, researchers, and
(largely) immigrant families (http://rise.as.tufts.edu).
• Although K-12 STEM schools have taken hold in some countries, we found no solid research
studies to determine the impact on student achievement with young students. Future research
should examine the impact of these specialized STEM schools at the early grades.

Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

• Decades of research demonstrate the lack of EC teacher preparation in and comfort with STEM
disciplines. The pattern of findings suggest that a major challenge will be to design newer mod-
els of preservice PreK-3 teacher preparation and teacher professional development programs in
support of early STEM. Promising work in mathematics professional development incorporates
knowledge of children’s mathematical thinking into professional development through learning
trajectories (Sarama et al., 2016; Sztajn et al., 2012). A learning trajectories approach may prove
beneficial in science, technology, and engineering as well.
• Technology offers a promising direction for increasing educators’ access to PD. For example, a
study in Finland of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) about coding and computational
thinking with over 500 participating primary school teachers, found that teachers were recep-
tive to both the content of the course and the MOOC platform (Toikkanen & Leinonen, 2017).

Measurement of STEM Learning

• To move the field forward, we need assessments or combinations of assessments of classrooms and
teaching and of child outcomes in all four STEM domains that acknowledge the unique compo-
nents of each STEM domain as well as their overlap in young children’s learning. The strong
push for a greater focus on STEM learning opportunities for young children requires building
an evidence base of effective programs and best practices. Such evidence requires a strong com-
panion set of valid and reliable assessment tools for both assessment of component skills in each
STEM area as well as their integrated application in the lives of young children.
• Although progress has been made in measuring science and mathematics teaching and learning,
there is a serious gap in strong evidence-based measures for technology and engineering.

Policy for EC-STEM

• Children have few opportunities to engage with STEM of any form in most EC education
classrooms (e.g., Banilower et al., 2013; Greenfield et al., 2009). Policymakers can find recom-
mendations in recent National Research Council synthesis research reports (e.g., 2014a, 2014b);
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2019); scholarly
works (e.g., Clements, Guernsey, & McClure, 2016; Early Childhood STEM Working Group,
2017; Greenfield, Alexander, & Frechette, 2017; McClure et al., 2017); and the National Science
Teachers Association (NSTA) Early Childhood Science Education Position Statement (2014).
• Policies that empower and enable caregivers and teachers to merge STEM learning with famil-
iar experiences, objects, and the perspectives of the child’s world will be more meaningful and
facilitate the formation of STEM identities.

93
 Susanna Hapgood et al.

• Around the world, there is too often a false dichotomy created between policies in EC care and
policies in education, with care as a response to physical needs and education as a response to
instructional needs. Yet, a healthy, developing child is dependent upon an environment that is
both physically and intellectually nurturing (Haddad, 2006).
• Policies that focus on EC-STEM learning should complement each other. In the United States,
for example, the focus of federal policy is on EC literacy with success measured by standardized
test scores despite the NAEYC’s cautions of using standardized tests with young children (2003);
such tests narrow the curricular experiences of young learners and nearly eliminate STEM
(Center on Education Policy, 2017).
• STEM opportunities are not available for all children. For example, children in Sub-Saharan
Africa are the least likely in the world to have access to early education. Recognizing that
massive growth in brain development occurs by age five, national and regional organizations,
academia, entrepreneurs, and the private sector should collaborating to improve outcomes
(e.g., Africa Early Childhood Network [AfECN], 2018). In the United States, Head Start is
a an example program that could provide strong early STEM background (e.g., Aldemir &
Kermani, 2017).
• It is imperative that the EC workforce receive stronger coursework in STEM disciplines. The
starting point for this STEM development rests with teacher licensure agencies that develop and
oversee policies guiding teacher education and EC workforce requirements.

References
Achieve. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org
AfECN. (2018). Africa early childhood network. Retrieved from https://africaecnetwork.org
Aldemir, J., & Kermani, H. (2017). Integrated STEM curriculum: Improving educational outcomes for head
start children. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1694–1706.
Anders, Y., Rossbach, H-G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., & von Maurice, J. (2012). Home and
preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of early numeracy skills. Early Child-
hood Research Quarterly, 27, 231–244. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.08.003
AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation. (2010). Every child ready: Math assessment. Washington, DC:
AppleTree Institute.
Arreguín-Anderson, M. G., & Alanis, I. (2017). Oral academic language by design: Bilingual pre-service teach-
ers’ purposeful infusion of paired strategies during science instruction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 52(2),
31–44.
Australian Government. (2017). Department of education and training restoring focus on STEM in schools initiative.
Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/support-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics
Avery, L. M., & Meyer, D. Z. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities and limits for
enhancing preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for science and science teaching. School Science and
Mathematics, 112(7), 395–409.
Azzi-Lessing, L. (2009). Quality support infrastructure in early childhood: Still (mostly) missing. Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 11(1).
Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2018). Identifying engineering in a PreK classroom: An observation protocol to
support guided project-based instruction. In L. English & T. Moore, Early engineering learning (pp. 83–111).
Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach, and connecting professional
learning to practice. American Educator, 35(2), 17–21, 38–39.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the
2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Horizon Research, Inc., NJ.
Black, M., Walker, S. P., Fernald, L. C. H., Andersen, C. T., DiGirolamo, A, M., Lu, C., . . . Grantham-McGregor,
S. (2017). Early childhood development coming of age: Science through the life course. The Lancet, 389,
77–90.
Blake, E., & Howitt, C. (2012). Science in early learning centres: Satisfying curiosity, guided play or lost oppor-
tunities? In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research (pp. 281–300).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

94
 The Importance of Early STEM Education

Bonawitz, E. B., van Schijndel, T. J., Friel, D., & Schulz, L. (2012). Children balance theories and evidence in
exploration, explanation, and learning. Cognitive Psychology, 64, 215–234.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development.
International Encyclopedia of Education, 7, 548–556.
Brunsek, A., Perlman, M., Falenchuk, O., McMullen, E., Fletcher, B., & Shah, P. S. (2017). The relationship
between the early childhood environment rating scale and its revised form and child outcomes: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 12(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178512
Bulunuz, M. (2013). Teaching science through play in kindergarten: Does integrated play and science instruc-
tion build understanding? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21, 226–249. doi:10.1080/13
50293x.2013.789195
Bustamante, A. S., White, L. J., & Greenfield, D. B. (2018). Approaches to learning and science education
in Head Start: Examining bidirectionality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 34–42. doi:10.1016/
j.ecresq.2018.02.013
Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A., & Copley, J. (2008). The development of spa-
tial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 269–309.
Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1997). Mediators of gender differences in mathematics college
entrance test scores: A comparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and anxieties. Developmental Psy-
chology, 33, 669–680. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.669
Center on Education Policy, (2017). The legacy of more & better learning time: Grantee and stakeholder reflections.
Policy Report. Retrieved from https://www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=FrizzellRentner
KoberBraunFerguson%5FReport%5FLegacyMBLT%5F1%2E24%2E17%2Epdf
Clements, D. H., Greenfield, D. B., Landry, S. H., & Sarama, J. (2015). Assessment using technology: Formative
assessment with young children. In O. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on research in assessment and
evaluation in early childhood education (pp. 339–371). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Clements, D. H., Guernsey, L., & McClure, E. (2016). Fostering STEM trajectories: Background, challenges, & opportu-
nities for change. Paper presented at Fostering STEM Trajectories: Bridging ECE Research, Practice, & Policy
Conference, New America/Sesame Workshop, Washington, DC.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2000/2019). COEMET: The classroom observation of early mathematics environment
and teaching instrument. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (Producer). (2018). Learning and teaching with learning trajectories (LT2). Retrieved
from http://LearningTrajectories.org
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Germeroth, C. (2016). Learning executive function and early mathematics: Direc-
tions of causal relations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 79–90. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.009
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Germeroth, C., & Day-Hess, C. (2019). Review of assessments of early childhood
mathematics competencies. Submitted for publication.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Liu, X. (2008). Development of a measure of early mathematics achievement
using the Rasch model: The research-based early math assessment. Educational Psychology, 28(4), 457–482.
doi:10.1080/01443410701777272
Collins, M. A., & Laski, E. V. (2019). Digging deeper: Shared deep structures of early literacy and mathematics
involve symbolic mapping and relational reasoning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 201–212.
Cook, C., Goodman, N. D., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in pre-
schoolers’ exploratory play. Cognition, 120, 341–349. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.03.003
Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science and STEM teaching. In N. G. Lederman &
S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, Inc.
Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics
integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421–430.
Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). Representational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first-grade
students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education,
33(15), 2069–2094.
DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM Initiatives. Education, 133(1),
77–84.
Del Greco, R., Bernadowski, C., & Parker, S. (2017). Using illustrations to depict preservice science teachers’
self-efficacy: A case study. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 75–88.
Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B.
Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 199–228). London: Routledge.

95
 Susanna Hapgood et al.

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnussen, K., Huston, A. C., Klebenov, P., & Japel, C. (2007).
School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1466.
Early Childhood STEM Working Group. (2017). Early STEM matters: Providing high-quality STEM experi-
ences for all young learners. Policy Report.
English, L., & Moore, T. (2018). Early engineering learning. Gateway East, Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/
978-981-10-8621-2
Epstein, D., & Miller, R. T. (2011). Slow off the mark: Elementary school teachers and the crisis in science, technology,
engineering, and math education. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
Ferrara, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lam, W. S. (2011). Block talk: Spatial lan-
guage during block play. Mind, Brain and Education, 5(3), 143–151.
Fleer, M. (2013). Affective imagination in science education: Determining the emotional nature of scientific
and technological learning of young children. Research in Science Education, 43, 2085–2106. doi:10.1007/
s11165-012-9344-8
Fleer, M. (2017). Scientific playworlds: A model of teaching science in play-based settings. Research in Science
Education, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11165-017-9653-z
Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.
doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90034-X
Gomes, J., & Fleer, M. (2017). The development of a scientific motive: How preschool science and home play recip-
rocally contribute to science learning. Research in Science Education, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11165-017-9631-5
Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children: Theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy
implications. Science, 337, 1623–1627. doi:10.1126/science.1223416
Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young
children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 620–629. doi:10.1037/0012–1649.37.5.620
Goswami, U. (2015). Children’s cognitive development and learning (CPRT Survey 3). Retrieved from Cambridge
Primary Review Trust website: http://www.cprt.org.uk
Greenfield, D. B. (2015). Assessment in early childhood science education. In K. C. Trundle & M. Saçkes (Eds.),
Research in early childhood science education (pp. 353–380). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Greenfield, D. B., Alexander, A., & Frechette, L. (2017). Unleashing the power of science in early childhood:
A foundation for high-quality interactions and learning. Zero to Three, 37(5), 13–21.
Greenfield, D. G., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenberg, A., Maier, M., & Fuccillo, J. (2009). Science in the pre-
school classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education & Develop-
ment, 20, 238–264. doi:10.1080/10409280802595441
Gresham, G., & Burleigh, C. (2019). Exploring early childhood preservice teachers’ mathematics anxiety and
mathematics efficacy beliefs. Teaching Education, 30(2), 217–241. doi:10.1080/10476210.2018.1466875
Grissmer, D., Grimm, K. J., Aiyer, S. M., Murrah, W. M., & Steel, J. S. (2010). Fine motor skills and early com-
prehension of the world: Two new school readiness indicators. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1008–1017.
doi:10.1037/a0020104
Haddad, L. (2006). Integrated policies for early childhood education and care: Challenges, pitfalls and possibili-
ties. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 36(129), 519–546. doi:10.1590/S0100-15742006000300002
Hamlin, M., & Wisneski, D. B. (2012). Supporting the scientific thinking and inquiry of toddlers and preschool-
ers through play. Young Children, 67(3), 82.
Hao, Y., & Fleer, M. (2016). Creating collective scientific consciousness: A cultural-historical study of early
learning about earth and space in the context of family imaginary play. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early
Childhood Education, 10, 93–124.
Hechter, R. P. (2011). Changes in preservice elementary teachers’ personal science teaching efficacy and sci-
ence teaching outcome expectancies: The influence of context. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(2),
187–202.
Ismail, I. M., Hashim, S., Anis, K., Ismail, A., & Ismail, M. E. (2017). Implementation of a development in
cognitive, psychomotor and socio emotional elements through games to achieve national preschool cur-
riculum standards. 2017 IEEE 9th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED), Kanazawa, Japan
(pp. 143–148). doi:10.1109/ICEED.2017.8251182
Jung, K. G., & Brown, J. C. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of an academic language planning organizer as
a tool for planning science academic language instruction and supports. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
27(8), 847–872. doi:10.1007/s10972-016-9491-2
Kaderavek, J., North, T., Rotshtein, R., Dao, H., Liber, N., Milewski, G., Molitor, S., & Czerniak, C. (2015).
SCIIENCE: The creation and pilot implementation of an NGSS-based instrument to evaluate early child-
hood science teaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45, 27–36.

96
 The Importance of Early STEM Education

Kadervaek, J., Paprzycki, P., Czerniak, C. M., Hapgood, S., Mentzer, G., Molitor, S., & Mendenhall, R. M.
(Submitted). Longitudinal impact of early childhood science instruction on 5th grade science achievement.
International Journal of Science Education.
Kane, J. M. (2015). The structure-agency dialectic in contested science spaces: “Do earthworms eat apples?”
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 461–473.
Katz, L. G. (2010). STEM in the early years. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2), 11–19.
Kilday, C. R., & Kinzie, M. B. (2009). An analysis of instruments that measure the quality of mathematics teach-
ing in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 365–372.
Klieckmann, T., Trobst, S., Jonen, A., Vehmeyer, & Moller, K. (2015). The effects of expert scaffolding in
elementary science professional development on teachers’ beliefs and motivations, instructional practices and
student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 21–42.
Korean Science and Engineering Foundation. (2019). STEAM. Retrieved March 30, 2019 from https://steam.
kofac.re.kr/?page_id=11269.
Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive
Science, 31, 549–579. doi:10.1080/15326900701399897
Krajcik, J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2014). Teaching science to children: A project-based science approach. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Kung, M., Schmitt, S. A., Zhang, C., Witeman, S. D., Yang, F., & Purpura, D. J. (2019). The role of mathematical
language in mathematics development in China and the US. International Journal of Educational Research, 95,
131–142. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.008.
Lau, K., Ho, E. S., & Lam, T. Y. (2015). Effective classroom pedagogy and beyond for promoting scientific
literacy: Is there an East Asian model? In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Science education in East Asia (pp. 16–40). Swit-
zerland: Springer International.
Lee, Y. S., & Seo, H. (2011). A basic study for the development of R-learning curriculums in the Early Child-
hood school system. 8th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI), Incheon
(pp. 699–700).
Lippard, C. N., Tank, K., Walter, M. C., Krogh, J., & Colbert, K. (2018). Preparing early childhood preser-
vice teachers for science teaching: Aligning across a teacher preparation program, Journal of Early Childhood
Teacher Education, 39(3), 193–212. doi:10.1080/10901027.2018.1457578
Lynch, R. G. (2007). Enriching children, enriching the nation: Public investments in high-quality prekindergarten. Wash-
ington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in
China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mahony, K., & Hayes, N. (2006). In search for quality. Multiple perspectives. Final report. Dublin, Ireland: Centre for
Early Childhood Development and Education.
Marcus, M., Haden, C., & Uttal, D. H. (2018). Promoting children’s learning and transfer across informal science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics learning experiences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 157,
80–95.
McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. H.
(2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. Joan
Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574402
McGarvey, L., Luo, L., & Hawes, Z., & Spatial Reasoning Study Group. (2018). Spatial skills framework for
young engineers. In L. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 53–81). Singapore: Springer.
Menon, D., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy beliefs and science con-
tent knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 649–673.
Mitchell, S., Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K., & Rathkey, C. (2009). The negotiated project approach: Project-based
learning without leaving the standards behind. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(4), 339.
Moffett, P., & Eaton, P. (2018). The impact of the promoting early number talk project on the development of
abstract representation in mathematics. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(4), 547–561.
doi:10.1080/1350293X.2018.1487166
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early,
persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45, 18–35. doi:10.3102/0013
189X16633182
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Wang, Y., Hillemeier, M. M., Oh, Y., & Maczuga, S. (2019). Executive function defi-
cits in kindergarten predict repeated academic difficulties across elementary school. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 46, 20–32.
Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, C. (2018). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies.
Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 122–139.

97
 Susanna Hapgood et al.

Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J. C., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and
preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. Journal of Educational
Research, 106(2), 157–168.
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Ameri-
cans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and
program evaluation: Building an effective accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8 (Position State-
ment). Retrieved from www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/cape
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2019). NAEYC. Retrieved from https://www.
naeyc.org
National Research Council. (2012). Framework for K-12 science education. Washington, DC: The National Acad-
emies Press.
National Research Council. (2014a). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the next generation science stand-
ards and common core for ELA Standards: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014b). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2014). Early childhood science education (NSTA position statement).
Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/earlychildhood
Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. A. (2005). The state of state prekindergarten standards. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 20, 125–145. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.04.010
Ng, D. (2011). Indonesian primary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching geometry: Implications for
educational policy and teacher preparation programs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 151–164.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emies Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019, February). Starting strong III: A quality tool-
box for quality early childhood education and care. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/
startingstrongiiipolicytoolboxtoencouragequalityinececcountrymaterials.htm
Paprzycki, P., Tuttle, N., Czerniak, C. M., Molitor, S., Kadervaek, J., & Mendenhall, R. M. (2017). The impact
of a framework-aligned science professional development program on literacy and mathematics achievement
of K-3 students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1174–1196.
Pearson. (2003). Early math diagnostic assessment. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vadergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom effects on children’s
achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 365–397.
Pianta, R. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M. R., Bryant, D., Clifford, R. M., Early, D. M., & Barbarin, O. A. (2005).
Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality
and child–teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9, 144–159.
Portsmore, M, & Milto, E. (2018). Novel engineering in early elementary classrooms. In L. English & T. Moore
(Eds.), Early Engineering Learning. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2
Purpura, D. J., Napoli, A. R., & King, Y. A. (2019). Development of mathematical language in preschool and its
role in learning numeracy skills. Mathematical Cognition and Learning, 5, 175–193.
Purzer, S., & Douglas, K. A. (2018). Assessing early engineering thinking and design capacities in the class-
room. In L. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 113–132). Singapore: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2012). Expanding the role of K-5 science instruction in educational reform:
Implications of an interdisciplinary model for integrating science and reading. School Science and Mathematics,
112(8), 506–515.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2017). Direct and transfer effects of a model integrating reading and science in grades
1–2: Results and policy implications. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Literacy Research Association,
Tampa, FL.
Rothman, B. (2017). After the shock: The German education system in 2017. National Center on Educa-
tion and the Economy, Top of the Class Newsletter. Retrieved March 30, 2019 at http://ncee.org/2017/09/
after-the-shock-the-german-education-system-in-2017/.
Sarama, J., Brenneman, K., Clements, D. H., Duke, N. K., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2017). Interdisciplinary teach-
ing across multiple domains: The C4L (Connect4Learning) curriculum. In L. B. Bailey (Ed.), Implementing
the Common Core State Standards across the early childhood curriculum (pp. 13–65). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Building blocks and cognitive building blocks: Playing to know the world
mathematically. American Journal of Play, 1, 313–337.

98
 The Importance of Early STEM Education

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2018). Designing, scaling up, and evaluating comprehensive professional develop-
ment based on learning trajectories. In P. Sztajn, P. H. Wilson, & C. Edgington (Eds.), Learning trajectories-
based professional development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Wolfe, C. B., & Spitler, E. (2016). Professional development in early mathematics:
Effects of an intervention based on learning trajectories on teachers’ practices. Nordic Studies in Mathematics
Education, 21, 29–55.
Sarama, J., Lange, A., Clements, D. H., & Wolfe, C. B. (2012). The impacts of an early mathematics cur-
riculum on emerging literacy and language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 489–502. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2011.12.002
Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform
practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science
and Mathematics, 102, 245–253.
Schulz, L. E., & Bonawitz, E. B. (2007). Serious fun: Preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when evi-
dence is confounded. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1045–1050. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1045
Sikder, S., & Fleer, M. (2015). Small science: Infants and toddlers experiencing science in everyday family life.
Research in Science Education, 45, 445–464. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9431-0
Spaepen, E., Bowman, B., Day, C., Chen, J., Cunningham, C., Donohue, C., . . . Worth, K. (2017). Early STEM
matters: Providing high-quality STEM experiences for all young learners. Chicago: Erikson Institute.
Stylianidou, F., Glauert, E., Rossis, D., Compton, A., Cremin, T., Craft, A, & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2018). Foster-
ing inquiry and creativity in early years STEM education: Policy recommendations from the creative little
scientists project. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 15.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early child-
hood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325–346.
Sumida, M. (2015). Kids science academy: Talent development in STEM from the early childhood years. In M. S.
Khine (Ed.), Science education in East Asia (pp. 269–298). Switzerland: Springer International.
Symaco, L. P., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2018). Curriculum, pedagogy, teacher training and recent reforms in primary
science education. In Y. J. Lee & J. Tan (Eds.), Primary science education in East Asia (pp. 215–228). Switzerland:
Springer.
Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a
theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41, 147–156.
Tank, K. M., Moore, T. J., Dorie, B. L., Gajdzik, E., Sanger, M. T., Rynearson, A. M., & Mann, E. F. (2018).
Engineering in early elementary classrooms through the integration of high-quality literature, design, and
STEM+ C content. In L. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 175–201). Singapore:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8621-2
Thiel, O. (2010). Teachers’ attitudes towards mathematics in early childhood education. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 18(1), 105–115. doi:10.1080/13502930903520090
Tietze, W., & Cryer, D. (2004). Comparisons of observed process quality in German and American infant/tod
dler programs. International Journal of Early Years Education, 12(1), 43–62.
Toikkanen, T., & Leinonen, T. (2017). The code ABC MOOC: Experiences from a coding and computational
thinking MOOC for Finnish primary school teachers. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research,
practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 239–248). Cham: Springer International.
Tsybulsky, D., & Oz, A. (2019). From frustration to insights: Experiences, attitudes, and pedagogical practices
of preservice science teachers implementing PBL in elementary school. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
30(3), 259–279.
Tuttle, N., Kaderavek, J. N., Molitor, S., Czerniak, C. M., Johnson-Witt, E., Bloomquist, D., Namatovu, W., &
Wilson, G. (2016). Investigating the impact of NGSS-Aligned professional development on PreK-3 teachers
science content knowledge and pedagogy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 717–745.
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2013). Children’s ways with science and literacy: Integrated multimodal enactments in urban
elementary classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technol-
ogy in a discipline-based culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 294–302.
Vitiello, V. E., Whittaker, J. V., Mulcahy, C., Kinzie, M. B., & Helferstay, L. (2018). Reliability and validity of
the Preschool Science Observation Measure. Early Education and Development, 1–20. doi:10.1080/10409289
.2018.1544814
Vogt, F., Hauser, B., Stebler, R., Rechsteiner, K., & Urech, C. (2018). Learning through play: Pedagogy and
learning outcomes in early childhood mathematics. European Early Childhood Education Research Jour-
nal, 26(4), 589–603. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2018.1487160
Walker, C. M., Lombrozo, T., Legare, C. H., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Explaining prompts children to privilege
inductively rich properties. Cognition, 133, 343–357. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.07.008

99
 Susanna Hapgood et al.

Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2018). What is the long-run impact of learning
mathematics during preschool. Child Development, 89, 539–555. doi:10.1111/cdev.12713
Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014). What’s past is prologue: Relations
between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational Researcher, 43, 352–360.
doi:10.3102/0013189X14553660
Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a pre-kindergarten program on children’s mathematics, lan-
guage, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–2130. doi:10.1111/
cdev.12099
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a playful
pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 104–112.
Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study
of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Wolfgang, C. H., Stannard, L. L., & Jones, I. (2001). Block play performance among preschoolers as a predictor
of later school achievement in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 173–180.
Xu, F., & Garcia, V. (2008). Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, 105, 5012–5015. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704450105

100