Embedding STEAM

in Early Childhood
Education and Care

Edited by
Caroline Cohrssen · Susanne Garvis
Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood
Education and Care
Caroline Cohrssen • Susanne Garvis
Editors

Embedding STEAM
in Early Childhood
Education and Care
Editors
Caroline Cohrssen Susanne Garvis
Faculty of Education Department of Education
The University of Hong Kong Swinburne University of Technology
Hong Kong SAR, China Hawthorn, Australia

ISBN 978-3-030-65623-2    ISBN 978-3-030-65624-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

The inspiration for this book arose a little over one year ago when we were
discussing the incorporation of Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (the so-called STEM subjects, and STEAM, when the Arts
are included) in early childhood education settings. We realized the
extent to which successes and challenges were shared experiences across
countries and curricula. In addition, children learn from birth and much
of this learning occurs in the home environment. For this reason, this
book is aimed at parents and caregivers of children aged from birth to
eight years, as well as early childhood professionals. What we did not
anticipate was another global experience: COVID-19. What a time it
has been.
We would like to thank all the wonderful authors who contributed
thought-provoking chapters to this important book on STEAM in early
childhood education. We would also like to thank the reviewers for pro-
viding such detailed and constructive feedback, again despite challenging
work circumstances for many people. We set out to achieve an interna-
tional flavour and this book is enriched by contributions from specialists
from many different countries.

v
vi Preface

Rationale
Embedding STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and
Mathematics) in early childhood education is a hot topic. Enacting a
STEAM-based curriculum requires teachers to support children’s Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics learning within an integrated
curriculum that includes the Arts—hence ‘STEAM’. Proponents of
STEAM argue that it creates opportunities for children to learn creatively,
making connections between the five discipline areas. However, many
pre-service and in-service early childhood teachers and families are uncer-
tain where to begin.
This book evolved from initial discussions between the editors con-
cerning the absence of clear information for teachers and families about
supporting STEAM in the context of early childhood education and care
(ECEC). High quality ECEC incorporates both structural components
(such as curriculum, resources and teacher preparation) and process com-
ponents (such as interactions that support learning), and has a strong
focus on prioritizing child outcomes within the context of an integrated
curriculum. Consequently, we recognized the need for an edited text to
demonstrate the ‘how’ of STEAM in ECEC that would support pre-ser-
vice and in-service early childhood teachers as well as parents.
We also set out to take academic conversations about STEAM versus
STEM to the teachers and families who are enacting STEM and STEAM
directly with children. We encourage our readers to reflect on the debate.
Indeed, as you read this book, you will observe that chapter authors take
differing positions within this debate. Some authors focus on integrating
two components of STEAM, some on more than two, some on STEAM
and some on STEM. We hope that the book will inspire you and contrib-
ute to improved learning outcomes for all children.
 Preface vii

Content Organization
As book chapters are inevitably sequential, we have followed the STEAM
sequence. The final chapter presents a strong case for STEM (rather than
STEAM). We hope this chapter will encourage the reader to reflect upon
their STEM versus STEAM philosophy and pedagogy.
In Chap. 1, Cristina Guarrella focuses on science, arguing for a process
skills approach and the applicability of process skills across STEAM dis-
ciplines. Here, process skills include observing, comparing, classifying,
predicting and checking, and communicating and recording. This shifts
to focus on science learning from content knowledge to transferable skills.
In Chap. 2, Maria Hatzigianni, Athanasios Gregoriadis, Nektarios
Moumoutzis, Marios Christoulakis, and Vasiliki Alexiou provide insights
into how a design thinking model that incorporates new technology and
the Arts can make abstract concepts such as peace, border disputes,
nationalism, and heroes accessible to young children.
In Chap. 3, Suzannie Leung, Kimburley Choi, and Mantak Yuen focus
on digital play as they describe how children acquired cinematic language
and shared toy-playing stories whilst producing their own one-min-
ute videos.
In Chap. 4, Rhys George and Parian Madanipour discuss the use of
technology in children’s exploratory and imaginary play with an aug-
mented reality sandbox.
In Chap. 5, Amanda Sullivan and Amanda Strawhacker explore low-
cost and hands-on approaches to teaching young children about coding
and engineering as they focus on screen-free STEAM.
In Chap. 6, Lyn English highlights the way in which early engineering
experiences integrate smoothly into early STEM and STEAM curricula
and discusses engineering habits of mind and design processes.
In Chap. 7, Jan Deans and Susan Wright explore how children experi-
ence STEAM learning holistically. Drawing on exemplars of the lived
experience of three young children, STEAM is presented as an integrated
experience for meaning-making.
In Chap. 8, Susan Chapman, Georgina Barton, and Susanne Garvis
discuss ways in which an Arts Immersion approach is effective in
viii Preface

establishing sustainable teacher confidence and competence in interdisci-

plinary teaching as well as improving the learning of young children.
In Chap. 9, Marianne Knaus describes ways in which informal, every-
day experiences can incorporate opportunities for mathematical thinking
and inquiry-based learning whilst children explore their worlds.
In Chap. 10, Karin Franzén applies a mathematics lens to demonstrate
toddlers’ use of their bodies to explore and understand concepts of shape,
location and direction, as well as to problem-solve real-world challenges.
In Chap. 11, Amelia Church and Caroline Cohrssen zoom in closely
on the mechanics of interaction by providing insights from conversation
analysis, shining a spotlight on real-world mathematics and science dis-
cussions with children to show how concept development is supported.
In Chap. 12, Nicola Yelland describes the ‘how’ of a STEM approach
in the early years as children transition from preschool to formal school.
The chapter focuses on how collaboration between preschool educators
and primary school teachers created learning ecologies to encourage chil-
dren’s agency in their learning.
In Chap. 13, Douglas Clements and Julie Sarama question the inclu-
sion of the Arts in the STEM domain, suggesting that it weakens the
subject matter content, as well as the pedagogical and epistemological
coherence of STEM. They do not suggest that STEM is more important
than other learning domains, but rather that young children need high-
quality experiences in them all.

Implications for Initial Teacher Education

Advocating for an interdisciplinary approach has important implications
for initial teacher education. Initial teacher education needs to equip
teachers with the content knowledge and teaching strategies to facilitate
children’s engagement with the big ideas of individual discipline areas, as
well as to equip teachers to enact the ‘whole’—an interdisciplinary
approach that transcends subject areas. One possible consequence of
embedding discipline learning in an interdisciplinary approach is super-
ficial learning: whilst the experience may follow children’s interests, plans
may not provide optimal opportunities to consolidate and extend
 Preface ix

learning. In addition, assessment for, and assessment of, learning may

consequently be inaccurate. Clearly, an interdisciplinary STEM or
STEAM approach requires teachers to possess disciplinary and pedagogi-
cal knowledge, and confidence. The priority outcome for teacher educa-
tion and the providers of in-service professional learning opportunities is
thus highlighted: confident teachers who are able to draw on a range of
teaching and learning strategies and who are able to balance and support
holistic and individual learning across all discipline areas. Given that
many teacher education programmes focus heavily on literacy and
numeracy at the expense of other learning areas, there is a risk that cur-
rent graduates will not have the skills needed to be effective STE(A)M
teachers, as this requires understanding different ways of thinking and
different kinds of ‘knowledge’. Examples of these are provided in the
chapters of this book.
Another key message across chapters is a focus on the child. Teachers
are required to recognize what children know already and what they are
ready to learn next to inform child-centred curriculum planning. In the
context of STEAM in early childhood education, teachers are required to
recognize evidence of Science-, Technology-, Engineering-, or
Mathematics thinking as it is communicated by the child in what they
say, do, draw, and make—and to respond purposefully to children in
order to support the consolidation and extension of conceptual under-
standing and the language that goes with it whilst incorporating the arts.
Intentionality manifests in different ways that are impacted by teacher
pedagogical content knowledge, learning trajectories, teaching philoso-
phy, curriculum guidelines, regulations, and national priorities.

Conclusion
The idea for this book was born during a conversation about pedagogy in
two countries at opposite ends of the world. Despite their geographical
distance, we noted many similar challenges and successes. We hope that
this book draws early childhood educators (whether as individuals or as
teams) and parents into the conversation. Each chapter of the book adds
a new perspective to the conversation and deepens our understanding of
x Preface

how ‘to do’ STEM or STEAM with young children. We hope it will
inspire early childhood educators and families alike to enact STE(A)M
teaching with confidence and to facilitate learning by children from tod-
dlers to the early years of school. Finally, we also hope that the book will
support conversations about pedagogy and reflective practice.

Hong Kong SAR, China Caroline Cohrssen

Hawthorn, VIC, Australia Susanne Garvis
 Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the expertise contributed by our panel of special-

ist reviewers. The contribution of their considered remarks strengthened the
book.

Professor Camilla Björklund University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Dr Joanne Blannin The University of Melbourne, Australia
Associate Professor Estelle Blanquet University of Bordeaux, France
Dr Wendy Goff Swinburne University of Technology,
Australia
Associate Professor Christine Howitt The University of Western Australia,
Australia
Dr Harry Kanasa Griffith University, Australia
Dr Malin Nilsson University of Gothenburg, Sweden
June O’Sullivan, MBE Chief Executive, London Early Years
Foundation, UK
Emeritus Professor Bridie Raban The University of Melbourne, Australia
Professor Wee Tiong Seah The University of Melbourne, Australia
Associate Professor Oliver Thiel Queen Maud University College, Norway
Dr Liisa Uusimäki University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Associate Professor Beth van University of Northern Iowa, USA
Meeteren
Professor Steve Walsh Newcastle University, UK

xi
 Contents

1 W
 eaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill
Approach  1
Cristina Guarrella

2 I ntegrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies and

the Arts to Explore Peace, War and Social Justice
Concepts with Young Children 21
Maria Hatzigianni, Athanasios Gregoriadis, Nektarios
Moumoutzis, Marios Christoulakis, and Vasiliki Alexiou

3 C
 reative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making
Through Practice-Based Learning 41
Suzannie K. Y. Leung, Kimburley W. Y. Choi, and Mantak Yuen

4 A
 ugmented Reality in Early Childhood Education:
Accessing Complex Concepts Within Imaginative Play
Worlds 65
Rhys George and Parian Madanipour

xiii
xiv Contents

5 S
 creen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches
to Teaching Coding and Engineering to Young Children 87
Amanda Sullivan and Amanda Strawhacker

6 I ntegrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM

Education115
Lyn D. English

7 S
 TEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-­Reaction Learning135
Jan Deans and Susan Wright

8 T
 o STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts
Immersion to Support Children’s Learning155
Susan Narelle Chapman, Georgina Barton, and Susanne Garvis

9 U
 sing Mathematical Investigations in Projects
for STEAM Integration173
Marianne Knaus

10 T
 oddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body Learning201
Karin Franzén

11 Th
 e Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood STEAM217
Amelia Church and Caroline Cohrssen

12 S
 TEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships
Supporting Transitions from Preschool to School
Growing a Generation of New Learners237
Nicola Yelland

13 S
 TEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated or
Interdisciplinary?261
Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama

I ndex277
 Notes on Contributors

Vasiliki Alexiou has been a kindergarten teacher in Greece for 22 years.

Having been awarded a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in Kindergarten/
Preschool Education, Alexiou’s expertise lies in creating curriculum pro-
grams for preschool education. For the last 11 years she has been working
at the 2nd Model Experimental Kindergarten of Thessaloniki. This kin-
dergarten has close ties with the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. For
the last 7 years, Alexiou has been responsible for the school’s English
Language Club.

Georgina Barton is Professor of Literacies and Pedagogy in the School

of Education, University of Southern Queensland. She is also Associate
Head of School—Research. She has experience as Programme Director
and has taught English and literacy education and arts education courses
in both primary and secondary education programmes. Research areas
include literacies, modalities, arts education, and international educa-
tion. She has utilized a number of research methodologies and methods
including ethnography, arts-based research methods, case study, and
narrative.

Susan Chapman is a lecturer in the School of Early Childhood and

Inclusive Education at the Queensland University of Technology. She has
worked as an actor, a musician, and a teacher across education sectors.
xv
xvi Notes on Contributors

Her work on an Arts Immersion includes a research fellowship in STEAM

at Griffith University.

Kimburley W. Y. Choi is an associate professor in the School of Creative

Media, City University of Hong Kong. Her research interests are wide-
ranging and lie at the creative intersection of sociology, anthropology and
media studies. She is the author of articles in Qualitative Research, Journal
of Consumer Culture, Cultural Studies Review, Ethnography, Urban Studies,
Journal of Gender Studies, Childhood, Social Semiotics, amongst others.

Marios Christoulakis graduated from the School of Electronic and

Computer Engineering from the Technical University of Crete in 2008.
He holds an MEng from the same school and is a PhD candidate in the
School of Architecture of the Technical University of Crete. Also, he is a
researcher in the Transformable Intelligent Environments Laboratory.
His research interests involve e-learning applications, modern educa-
tional technologies, serious games applications, including digital games
and digital storytelling employing eShadow, environmental projection
applications, and projection mapping technologies.

Amelia Church is a senior lecturer in the Melbourne Graduate School

of Education at The University of Melbourne where she teaches subjects
in early childhood and applied conversation analysis. Amelia’s PhD was
published as Preference Organization and Peer Disputes: How Young
Children Resolve Conflict (2009). More recently, her work has been pub-
lished in Children’s Knowledge-­ in-­
Interaction: Studies in Conversation
Analysis (2016) and early childhood journals. Her research interests
include communicative competence in early childhood, peer interaction,
and conversation analysis in institutional settings.

Douglas H. Clements is Distinguished University Professor and

Kennedy Endowed Chair in Early Childhood at the University of Denver.
Focusing on early education, especially mathematics education and edu-
cational technology, he has published over 166 refereed research studies,
27 books, 100 chapters, and 300 additional works, and has directed more
than 38 funded projects. His contributions have led to the development
 Notes on Contributors xvii

of new mathematics curricula, software, teaching approaches, teacher

training initiatives, and models of ‘scaling up’ interventions, including
the LearningTrajectories.org web application. He has served on the
U.S. President’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel, the Common Core
State Standards committee, and the National Research Council’s
Committee on Early Mathematics, and co-authors each of their reports.

Caroline Cohrssen is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education

at The University of Hong Kong (HKU). In Australia, she led the devel-
opment of influential framework-based curriculum resources in the
Northern Territory and Victoria. Since joining HKU, exposure to early
childhood teaching and learning priorities in the Asia-Pacific Region, as
well as in low- and middle-­income countries around the world, is broad-
ening her understanding of early childhood learning and development.
Caroline’s work addresses the what, why, and how questions of STEM. It
aims to support parents’ and early childhood professionals’ ability to rec-
ognize children’s demonstrations of STEM thinking in what they make,
say, and do and to identify next steps for learning that respond to chil-
dren’s interests.

Jan Deans is the Associate Director Early Childhood Education at The

University of Melbourne. She is also the Director of the Early Learning
Centre, which is the University’s research and demonstration preschool.
Jan is a long-time advocate for teaching and learning through the arts and
has worked both locally and internationally in early childhood, primary,
tertiary, and special education settings. She has broadly based expertise in
relation to early childhood education and service delivery and her recent
research interests include learning through dance, social-emotional com-
petence, and learning in the natural environment.

Lyn D. English is Professor of STEM and Mathematics Education at

the Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology. She has
researched and published over several decades in mathematics education
and in STEM more broadly, spanning preschool through year nine. Her
areas of research include engineering education and integrated STEM
education, mathematical modelling, problem solving and posing, statis-
xviii Notes on Contributors

tics education, mathematical reasoning and development, and early com-

putational thinking and coding.

Karin Franzén is Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education at

the School of Education, Culture and Communication at Mälardalens
University. Her research interest focuses on toddlers’ education in pre-
school, especially their mathematical learning. Another research interest
is educational leadership in schools and preschools. Her research has been
published in several international scholarly journals and books. She has a
critical research approach and challenges dominant educational dis-
courses. She strives to visualize taken-for-granted normalizations flour-
ishing in educational environments.

Susanne Garvis is Professor of Education (Early Childhood) and the

Chair of the Department of Education at Swinburne University of
Technology. Her research focuses on policy, quality, and learning within
the field of early childhood education and care. She has worked in both
Australian and Swedish academic institutions and been involved in a
number of national and international research projects within early child-
hood education. Her research has led to policy development around
teacher skills in early childhood education and care.

Rhys George investigated children’s use of digital technology in his

master’s degree research project, reflecting his passion for using innova-
tive technologies as tools for play within social constructivist educational
settings. His research uses participatory methods and focuses on early
childhood education, augmented reality technology, and learning through
play. Enacting theory- and research-informed teaching practice, Rhys is
an atelierista at Bold Park Community School in Western Australia. He
has presented his research and learning stories around Australia and
internationally.

Athanasios Gregoriadis is Associate Professor of Early Years in the

Department of Early Childhood Education at the Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki. He was the chair of the 29th EECERA Conference 2019,
organized in Thessaloniki, Greece. In the past he was a visiting professor
 Notes on Contributors xix

at the University of Bielefeld and a visiting research fellow at the University

of Oxford. His main research interests include teacher-child relation-
ships, quality of early childhood education environments, professional
development, ICTs in preschool centres, and the support of home learn-
ing environments. He has published over 50 refereed articles in areas of
early childhood.

Cristina Guarrella combines her experience as a three-year-old kinder-

garten teacher, with pre-service teacher education and research on early
childhood science at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. She
strives to make the link between research and practice ­accessible for edu-
cators and is a co-author of the Northern Territory Preschool STEM
Games. Cristina’s doctoral research is investigating teachers’ enactment of
science games in metropolitan and regional early childhood settings, with
a specific focus on teachers’ assessment practices, attitudes and beliefs,
and classroom quality. Her ongoing research interests include early child-
hood and primary STEM education, the role of social media in teacher
professional learning, and measuring the impact of STEM interventions
on children’s learning outcomes.

Maria Hatzigianni is an honorary lecturer at The University of

Melbourne. Her expertise builds on a rich early childhood career with
more than 12 years of teaching experience in the early childhood sector.
Her research focuses on the implementation of digital technologies in
education and she has published widely. Her recent research projects
include a national project to improve quality for early childhood centres
(led by Professor Linda Harrison); the investigation of parents’ and teach-
ers’ beliefs around the use of touchscreen devices by very young children
(birth to three); maker pedagogies, makerspaces, design thinking in the
early years of school; and virtual reality in early childhood education.

Marianne Knaus is an associate professor and researcher in the School

of Education at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia. Marianne
coordinates and teaches the early childhood mathematics programmes
(birth to eight years) and other units in the undergraduate and post-
graduate courses. Her research interests include mathematics, play peda-
xx Notes on Contributors

gogy, and the influence of family and community in the transition to

school. She has over 30 years’ experience as an educator working in a
range of early childhood settings in Queensland and New South Wales.

Suzannie K. Y. Leung is an assistant professor in the Department of

Curriculum and Instruction, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She
has an interdisciplinary background of visual arts, psychology and early
childhood education. Her academic work has explored the possibilities of
different forms of visual arts in Hong Kong kindergartens. She is the
author of articles in Young Children, Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in
Early Childhood Education, Journal of Education for Teaching, Early
Education and Development, amongst others.

Parian Madanipour is a research fellow at The University of Melbourne

where she is project-managing the Melbourne Graduate School of
Education’s Early Childhood Professional Practice Partnership Project.
Reflective practice has informed her growing interest in the inclusion of
innovative pedagogies and technology in early childhood education and,
specifically, the adaptation and promotion of STEAM in early childhood
education settings. A qualified early childhood teacher, her master’s
degree research focused on facilitating young children’s spatial thinking
through dance.

Nektarios Moumoutzis graduated from the Computer Science

Department of the University of Crete in 1992 and holds an MEng in
Electronic and Computer Engineering from the Technical University of
Crete (1998). In 2002 he joined the Department of Electronic and
Computer Engineering (now School of Electrical and Computer
Engineering), Technical University of Crete, and since then he belongs to
the laboratory teaching staff of the Distributed Multimedia Information
Systems and Applications Laboratory. He has been involved in various
research projects and his expertise includes project management, design
and implementation of modern information systems, object-oriented
databases, and e-learning systems.
 Notes on Contributors xxi

Julie Sarama is Distinguished University Professor and Kennedy

Endowed Chair in Innovative Learning Technologies and at the University
of Denver, Colorado, USA. She has taught high school mathematics,
computer science, middle school gifted mathematics, and early child-
hood mathematics. She has directed over 10 projects funded by the
National Science Foundation and the Institute of Education Sciences and
has authored over 77 refereed articles, 6 books, 55 chapters, and over 80
additional publications. She has also developed and programmed over 50
award-winning educational software products. Her research interests
include children’s development of mathematical concepts and competen-
cies, implementation and scale-up of educational interventions, profes-
sional development models’ influence on student learning, and
implementation and effects of software environments.

Amanda Strawhacker is a PhD candidate in the Department of Child

Study and Human Development at Tufts University’s DevTech Research
Group, where she works to design, implement, and evaluate novel tech-
nologies and curricula to engage young children in topics of the twenty-
first century. She has contributed to the research and development of
several technologies including the ScratchJr programming app, the KIBO
robotics kit, the Early Childhood Makerspace at Tufts, and most recently
the CRISPEE bioengineering kit, which she presented at a TEDx talk in
2018 (TEDxYouth@BeaconStreet). CRISPEE is part of a collaboration
between DevTech and the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at Wellesley
College. Amanda’s research focuses on engaging children in playful learn-
ing about bioengineering and bioethics.

Amanda Sullivan PhD, is a child development specialist who researches

the impact of new technologies on children. Amanda’s research focuses
on using new technologies to engage girls in STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) in order to increase the representation of
girls and women in these fields. Her research on gender and technology
has been published in numerous academic journals and has been featured
in popular outlets such as WIRED and EdWeek. She is the author of the
new book Breaking the STEM Stereotype: Reaching Girls in Early Childhood
(2019) and co-creator of the ScratchJr Coding Cards.
xxii Notes on Contributors

Susan Wright is an honorary professor in the Melbourne Graduate

School of Education at The University of Melbourne, where she was for-
merly the Chair of Arts Education. Previous appointments include the
Head of Early Childhood at the National Institute of Education in
Singapore and Director of the Centre for Applied Studies in Early
Childhood at the Queensland University of Technology. Susan’s qualifi-
cations, teaching, and research span music-movement and the visual arts.
Her research of children’s transmediation across modes—embodied,
graphic, narrative, visual-spatial, bodily kinaesthetic, musical—surfaces
the voices of children through interlocutor-child exchanges. Such discur-
sive interchanges enrich and inform children’s conceptual learning and
fundamental principles of STEAM, much of which arise from arts-based
encounters.

Nicola Yelland is Professor of Early Childhood Studies in the Melbourne

Graduate School of Education at The University of Melbourne. Her
teaching and research interests have been related to transformative peda-
gogies and the use of new technologies in school and ­community con-
texts. She has also worked in East Asia and examined the culture and
curriculum of early childhood settings. Nicola’s work engages with edu-
cational issues with regard to varying social, economic, and political con-
ditions and thus requires multidisciplinary perspectives.

Mantak Yuen is an associate professor and the director of the Programme

for Creativity and Talent Development, Centre for Advancement in
Inclusive and Special Education, Faculty of Education, The University of
Hong Kong. He is a registered counselling and educational psychologist
in Hong Kong. He is the principal investigator of a kindergarten social-
emotional learning project. He is the lead editor of the Springer book
series Advancing Inclusive and Special Education in the Asia-Pacific.
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Examples of science process skills in technology, engineering,

arts and mathematics 15
Fig. 1.2 Percentage of challenging and supportive factors over seven
weeks of reflective practice 17
Fig. 2.1 Paper-based figure of one of the most popular heroes: Pavlos
Melas30
Fig. 2.2 The digital figure of Pavlos Melas 31
Fig. 2.3 Children play with the eShadow puppets on a computer 32
Fig. 3.1 Flip book compilation by professional animators 47
Fig. 3.2 Training video created by the teaching team to introduce the
daily-life experiences of Winnie and Winnie the Pooh 48
Fig. 3.3 Example of a PowerPoint slide created by the teaching team
to illustrate filming techniques 49
Fig. 3.4 Emilie’s storyboard describing Elsa’s singing and dancing 51
Fig. 3.5 Emilie sang the song “Let It Go!” as she manipulated Elsa’s
body so that she could dance 52
Fig. 4.1 Components of an AR Sandbox 71
Fig. 4.2 Dale builds his second bridge over the virtual water using
sticks from the outside area 81
Fig. 5.1 Toddler-created tower built with magnetic tiles 94
Fig. 5.2 Screenshot of activity topics on CS Unplugged website 97
Fig. 5.3 Screenshot of alphabet to 5-bit binary key from CS Unplugged 98
Fig. 5.4 Robot Turtles board game 101

xxiii
xxiv List of Figures

Fig. 5.5 The engineering design process 103

Fig. 5.6 Dream house creations made by children in K to Second Grade 104
Fig. 6.1 The front cover of Engibear’s Bridge (2014), with kind
permission from King and Johnston 124
Fig. 6.2 Problem activity involving tower building 126
Fig. 7.1 Visual and tactile stimuli used to support children’s focused
participation and creative thinking 144
Fig. 7.2 The up and down again butterfly 145
Fig. 7.3 That’s me being a butterfly and I went up again and down 147
Fig. 7.4 Resting and flying butterfly wings 148
Fig. 8.1 Electrical circuit 165
Fig. 8.2 Heidi’s formative assessment response. (Chapman, 2018, p. 85) 165
Fig. 9.1 Ruben investigates a puddle 175
Fig. 9.2 Inquiry-based learning framework. (Pedaste et al. 2015) 184
Fig. 9.3 A model for designing a journey of inquiry. (Murdoch, 2019) 185
Fig. 9.4 A map of the city developed with the children identifying
where Nido Early School is located in the QVI building 192
Fig. 11.1 ‘What’s the opposite of this block?’ 223
Fig. 12.1 The Wirra 246
Fig. 12.2 Wonderings about the Wirra 247
Fig. 12.3 Technical drawings 248
Fig. 12.4 Dylan put the mat under the tree—why? 249
Fig. 12.5 Why did Dylan do this? 250
Fig. 12.6 All natured up 251
Fig. 12.7 Natural materials 251
Fig. 12.8 Shadows 253
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Science process skills in early childhood 3

Table 1.2 The what, why and how of science process skills in early
childhood9
Table 1.3 Examples of prompting questions to support meaningful
observations12
Table 3.1 New indicators relating to digital play based on the digital
play framework 54
Table 3.2 Facilitators’ and instructors’ reflections on their teaching
competencies in different kinds of digital play activities in
the workshop 56
Table 4.1 Applying the digital play framework to understand how
children learn to use the AR Sandbox through epistemic play 74
Table 4.2 Learning through transferring knowledge 77
Table 4.3 Applying the digital play framework to understand how
children learn to use the AR Sandbox through ludic play 79
Table 5.1 Coding board games for young children 100
Table 9.1 Mathematics concepts relative to year levels 177
Table 9.2 Mathematics concepts and their representations in projects 191

xxv
 1
Weaving Science Through STEAM:
A Process Skill Approach
Cristina Guarrella

Introduction
When people hear ‘scientist’, they often think of someone conducting
experiments in a laboratory. Children learn these ideas from adults in
their environment and from representations of science and scientists in
books and on television. A well-known study asked children to draw a
scientist. Most drawings showed a man in a white coat (Miller, Nolla,
Eagly, & Uttal, 2018). A purposeful effort is required to shift this think-
ing and make science education accessible to all children, regardless of
gender or ethnic background. Science is all around us—thus creating the
opportunity for every parent, educator and child to be a scientist.
The promotion of children’s science process skills begins when a parent
or educator notices their emergent skills in play. Recognising what the
child can do is the starting point for future learning (Griffin, 2014).
Identifying that a child may be comparing the features of different rocks

C. Guarrella (*)
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, Parkville, VIC, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_1
2 C. Guarrella

collected in the garden creates a ‘teachable moment’ (Haug, 2014). The

educator has the opportunity to respond to and nurture the development
of this skill. They can do so by asking open-ended questions or providing
prompts to support engagement of other science process skills. These
teachable moments provide a springboard for future learning. By identi-
fying the science process skills children are using in their play, the educa-
tor can begin to plan for the future development of these skills.
Many early childhood educators and parents are eager to talk about
our natural world and other topics that relate to science, but research has
shown that they often feel nervous about doing so and, as a result, may
avoid it (O’Brien & Herbert, 2015; Pendergast, Lieberman-Betz, & Vail,
2017). Early childhood educators express concern that they might not be
able to answer children’s questions because they lack confidence in their
own science knowledge. Consequently, early childhood educators may
provide children with interesting materials to explore independently (Tu,
2006). Without adult interaction, opportunities for scientific thinking
and reasoning, and back-and-forth conversations are limited.
Sometimes, early childhood educators and parents focus more on the
end result of a science learning experience than on the learning process.
For example, when toddlers are blowing soap bubbles, the focus may be
more on the bubbles (the product) than on how the bubbles were made
(the process). The dichotomy of process versus product is widely dis-
cussed in visual arts education (McLennan, 2010). At the simplest level,
the distinction of process and product can be applied to science. Skills
such as observing, classifying, comparing, predicting and checking, and
communicating and recording are the processes of science. Scientific con-
tent knowledge is the product of science. Whilst the focus of this chapter
is on the process skills of science, scientific knowledge is still important.
Both scientific content and process skills are required for science learning
(Zimmerman, 2000). Many early childhood learning frameworks do not
prescribe specific science content areas (e.g. the Early Years Learning
Framework for Australia (Department of Education Employment and
Workplace Relations, 2009)). This is because following children’s interest
in the world around them (known as an ‘emergent curriculum’) leads to
an infinite number of science content areas to be explored.
 1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach 3

Science Process Skills in Early Childhood

In this section, the science process skills typically observed in early child-
hood are presented individually (Table 1.1). However, these behaviours
are woven through children’s play and hence the skills are inter-connected.
Mathematics learning trajectories are well established (Clements &
Sarama, 2014). For example, we know that children need to know num-
ber words before they can tag objects with number words. However, spe-
cific science process skill trajectories have not yet been identified (Jirout
& Zimmerman, 2015). For this reason, the skills that the children are
already using in their play show early childhood educators and parents
what they already know and what children are ready to learn next.

Observing

Observation is at the core of scientific discovery. Jane Goodall made

detailed observations of chimpanzees in Tanzania and discovered chimps
use twigs as tools, have their own personalities and were more like humans
than anyone had previously thought. Gregor Mendel noticed the varia-
tion in the pea flowers growing under the window of his room and con-
ducted a series of experiments breeding peas, leading to the first
understanding of the inheritance of traits. To this day, scientists continue
to make new discoveries by observing and noticing changes. Observing is
a foundational science process skill.

Table 1.1 Science process skills in early childhood

Observing Using senses to notice the details and changes in living and
non-living things in the natural and built environment
Comparing Identifying similarities and differences in living and
non-living things
Classifying Grouping living and non-living things based on their
features and properties
Predicting and Using information gathered from observations to make
checking simple statements about what will happen and
conducting simple experiments to check if it happens
Communicating Using representation to record, organise and communicate
and recording scientific ideas, discoveries and understandings
4 C. Guarrella

Observation relies on a range of senses: touch, sight, taste, smell, hear-

ing and feeling. Observation is a skill that children use spontaneously
with little encouragement. A young child learning to eat solid food will
observe how the food feels between their fingers, respond to how it smells
and tastes, and even look closely at the food in their hand. In early child-
hood science education, observing involves the use of senses to notice the
details and changes in living and non-living things in the natural and
built environment. An observation could take the form of a child hearing
a bird call and turning their head to see where the sound came from.
With encouragement from an adult, the child may move closer to the
bird to have a better look, try to make their own bird call or listen care-
fully for other birds in the area. In these scenarios, the child’s interest in
birds is creating a scientific context in which they practise the skill of
observation in its simplest form.
As observation skills develop, a child may begin to notice how objects
change over time. For example, the child may notice a plant growing or
food scraps decomposing in the compost bin. When educators encourage
children to return to their observations at different times of the day, or at
the same time over a number of days, they ‘scaffold’ this observation skill.
A scaffold is a supportive framework provided by an educator to guide
and assist children’s learning (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Incorporating
scientific tools such as magnifying glasses, binoculars or digital micro-
scopes allows children to observe objects and living things on a new scale
and extend the role of a scientist in their play.
Incorporating other science process skills such as ‘recording’ by using
drawings or taking photographs of observations, will provide the plat-
form for children to ‘compare’ observations—to rehearse another science
process skill. This example demonstrates how the process skills of observ-
ing, recording and comparing can be purposefully supported whilst fol-
lowing the child’s interests.

Comparing

Scientists are on a continuous quest to discover new information. To dis-

tinguish between ‘new’ and ‘known’, scientists make comparisons between
 1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach 5

their discoveries and the discoveries of those who came before them. As a
result, comparison is a cornerstone of scientific exploration. Further,
comparisons are frequently made during scientific inquiry as scientists
compare different volumes of liquids in chemistry, distances in physics
and cell composition in biology.
Children demonstrate scientific comparison in their play when they
identify similarities and differences in shells collected from the beach,
insects found beneath a rock or the textures of different fabrics.
Comparison builds upon observation skills as children discuss similarities
and differences in what they see, hear, feel, smell and taste. This can lead
to the classification of living and non-living things. Here, the integrated
nature of the science process skills is evident as the development of one
skill, in turn, supports the development of another. When children begin
to test their ideas, comparison supports children to explore what happens
when they change one or more of the conditions of their test, as demon-
strated in the example below.

Example 1: Comparing in Play

Audrey is playing with cars on the ramp near the preschool room. She is
pushing each car and chasing it down the ramp, looking closely at where
the car stops. The educator notices this and begins a conversation with
Audrey, who says she wants to make the cars drive further at the bottom of
the ramp. The educator prompts her to make connections to past experi-
ences of playing with cars. In their discussion, Audrey talks about playing
cars at her grandparent’s house. She recalls that the cars go really far with
one push on the kitchen floor but they don’t move at all in the lounge room
on the carpet. This provides the educator with the opportunity to support
Audrey to investigate the movement of cars from her prior knowledge.
Together the educator and Audrey gather materials to test a range of sur-
faces on the ramp. They roll the car down each surface and measure how
far the car travels from the bottom of the ramp. By making comparisons
between these distances, Audrey is able to answer her initial question
about how to make a car travel further: by changing the surface.
6 C. Guarrella

Classifying

Classification systems enable scientists to make sense of large amounts of

information. Classification helps scientists to make predictions about
‘gaps’ in information. These are areas for future research. Some scientific
classification systems, such as the magnitude system that classifies the
brightness of stars, have been traced back to the times of ancient Greece.
New systems continue to be created and evolve based on modern discov-
eries. For example, one system for biological classification, the Linnaean
Taxonomy, was created in the 1700s. This system is continuously devel-
oping as modern scientific discoveries, such as DNA technology, help to
increase our understanding of the origins of animals and plants.
For young children, classification involves the exploration of features
and properties of living and non-living things in order to group them.
Spontaneous classifying that occurs in early childhood settings is gov-
erned by a child’s scientific interest: they may classify leaves, rocks or a
range of materials from the built environment. Many young children are
fascinated by dinosaurs. It is not uncommon to find four- or five-year-old
children debating the features of a velociraptor and a tyrannosaurus rex
and then taking on the key characteristics of these animals in their play.
Pointing out that dinosaurs with large jaws were meat-eaters and dino-
saurs with small jaws ate plants helps children to classify dinosaurs inde-
pendently and enriches their play.
Teachers or parents who are attuned to a child’s scientific classifications
point out additional features of the object in which the child is interested.
For example, if a child is collecting rocks and observing them through a
magnifying glass, an educator who asks open-ended questions about the
rocks’ features scaffolds the child’s classification skills. Hints to encourage
the child to classify objects based on size, colour, uses, parts or shapes
extend the child’s thinking. As a next step, prompting the child to make
groups based on these features will extend the development of this skill.
Here the child is using their knowledge of the features to classify the
objects into set groups. As the children practise this skill, encourage them
to identify and describe their own rules for grouping.
 1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach 7

Predicting and Checking

Predicting and checking describes children making predictions and seek-

ing information that confirms or changes what they know. The process of
looking for information that supports evidence-based decisions is an
important science process skill. It is also an important life skill to learn.
The starting point for predicting and checking is simple trial and error.
Predicting requires children to use information gathered from previous
observations to develop statements about what they think will happen.
As children experiment to check their predictions, they develop new
knowledge. The new knowledge may confirm the prediction or identify
that something else is happening. This provides the child with an oppor-
tunity to modify their prediction based on the new observation and to
continue with their exploration. Providing children with multiple oppor-
tunities to practice predicting and checking allows them to consolidate
the knowledge that they are developing through this process.
Everyday events provide opportunities to practise predicting and
checking with young children. Taking a moment to look out of a window
and ask, ‘What do you predict the weather will be like today?’ sets up a
realistic and meaningful opportunity for children to predict and check.
Cooking experiences allow children to explore the scientific concept of
physical change (e.g. melting or freezing). Combined with intentional
questioning from the educator, stopping at key points to ask children
what they think will happen next and encouraging them to discuss what
they saw happen, allows for additional process skill development.

Communicating and Recording

Scientists contribute to society by disseminating their research at confer-

ences, in books and research articles, on television and through social
media. New knowledge informs industry, business, medicine and a range
of other disciplines. Young children should be encouraged to communi-
cate their knowledge as well. Communication can start as simply as a
verbal or non-verbal response to something a child has observed in the
8 C. Guarrella

immediate environment and develop into explanations and justifications

for new understandings. For example, an infant may smile or giggle in
response to feeling a new texture with their hands, a three-year-old may
describe a texture as soft, and a six-year-old may explain a feather is soft
so a bird can protect its chicks. When children communicate their knowl-
edge, educators and parents gain insight into the child’s capabilities. For
educators, this is the starting point to plan learning experiences that con-
solidate and extend thinking.
‘Recording’ provides a concrete record of the scientific exploration and
supports the development of almost all science process skills. Recording
observations and outcomes of experiments equips children to compare, dis-
cuss and explain scientific ideas and concepts. It enables children to
return to their ideas again and again and to make comparisons. Recording
predictions supports the checking process and equips children to recon-
sider their ideas when predictions and findings do not match.
The process of recording offers children an opportunity to reflect on
their own learning and to use scientific language to discuss their findings.
These processes both depend on and encourage higher-order thinking.
In this section, we have described science process skills in early child-
hood. Using examples, we have identified why these skills are important
and ways to support children’s development of each skill. Table 1.2 sets
out a summary of the what, why and how of science process skills in early
childhood for easy reference.

Implementing a Science Process

Skills Approach
Before implementing a science process skills approach, educators need to
understand the context in which the scientific learning is occurring.
Working with your centre’s educational leader to answer reflective ques-
tions such as those below may be helpful. Understanding the perspectives
of the key players in the child’s immediate learning environment provides
a platform for identifying the child’s current science knowledge. It is also
 1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach 9

Table 1.2 The what, why and how of science process skills in early childhood
How can I support
What is the science Why is this science children’s development
process skill? process skill important? of this skill?
Observing Foundational skill at the Provide the names of
Using senses to notice the core of scientific inquiry living and non-living
details and changes in Facilitates children’s things as children look
living and non-living exploration of the at them
things in the natural world around them, Ask children open-­
and built environment generating curiosity ended questions
about what they
observe, for example,
what can you see?
What does it smell
like? What does it feel
like?
Provide opportunities
for children to observe
changes over time
Comparing Comparisons allow for Support children to
Identifying similarities observation of change describe the features
and differences in living Facilitates future of objects they are
and non-living things classification of living observing
and non-living things Identify objects that
look the same and
different
Use descriptive
language like more,
less, longer, shorter,
faster, slower, heavy,
light, rough and
smooth
(continued)
10 C. Guarrella

Table 1.2 (continued)

How can I support
What is the science Why is this science children’s development
process skill? process skill important? of this skill?
Classifying Develops systems for Order a variety of
Grouping living and ordering objects into groups
non-living things based Supports understanding based on size, shape,
on their features and of relationships colour, uses, materials
properties between groups of or parts
living things Ask the children
open-ended questions
like these: ‘Why have
you grouped these
objects together?’
‘How did you know
which object to put in
each group?’
Provide opportunities
for children to classify
objects based on rules
that cannot be
changed and rules
that they create
themselves
Predicting and checking Creates opportunities for Ask children to make
Using information children to develop predictions in
gathered from new knowledge as they everyday scenarios, for
observations to make either confirm their example, ‘What do
simple statements about predictions or identify you predict the
what will happen and that something else is weather will be like
conducting simple happening today?’
experiments to check if Record children’s
it happens predictions so they can
revisit them once they
have checked them
Ask the children, ‘Why
do you think that
happened?’ and ‘Was
your prediction
correct?’
(continued)
 1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach 11

Table 1.2 (continued)

How can I support
What is the science Why is this science children’s development
process skill? process skill important? of this skill?
Communicating and Reflection on thinking Support the children to
recording and communicating explain their
Using representation to these ideas promotes reasoning
record, organise and higher-order thinking Encourage the children
communicate scientific Recording scaffolds the to record their
ideas, discoveries and development of other findings by drawing or
understandings science process skills taking photographs

necessary to understand factors that may impact how you set about
implementing a science process skills approach.

• What are the children’s science interests?

• What are the parents’ attitudes towards science education?
• How is science education positioned within your early childhood cen-
tre philosophy?
• How do educators feel about supporting science learning?

The answers to these questions will influence the way a process skills
approach to early childhood science education is enacted.

Assessment for Learning

Planning for learning that authentically follows a child’s interests must

start with what a child already knows. Assessment for learning is the pro-
cess of collecting evidence of what a child can do, say, make or draw in
order to make informed decisions on how to support their future learn-
ing (Griffin, 2014).
In the context of a science process skills approach, this involves educa-
tors being sensitive to the scientific process skills that children demon-
strate in their play, and recording these in the form of child observations.
This requires the educator to be alert to a child who observes, compares,
12 C. Guarrella

classifies, predicts and checks, and communicates and records. You may
choose to prioritise one specific scientific process skill.
Purposeful observations require the educator to be purposeful in their
‘looking’—to have a purpose for the child observation that is decided
ahead of time. Often, when documenting the observed process skill, the
context in which it occurs will also provide an indication of the child’s
emerging science interests, so it is important to document this also. For
example, an educator may observe a child comparing features of bugs
(also called minibeasts and scientifically known as invertebrates) living
beneath a log. The science process skill the educator would record is
‘comparing’. The context in which the behaviour occurred was living
things, bugs and minibeasts. If this is not immediately clear, further
observations of the child’s science interests may be required. High-quality
observations of children’s learning require appropriate, adequate, accu-
rate and authentic observation evidence (Griffin, 2014). Table 1.3
includes prompting questions to help you reflect whether you are gather-
ing the type of meaningful information to which Griffin (2014).
Once appropriate, adequate, accurate and authentic assessment evi-
dence has been collected, the aim is to identify the child’s current science
learning and consider their future learning. This requires the teacher to
analyse the observation. There are several steps in this process.

1. Identify the process skill used by the child. Although the observation
started with a clear purpose, it is possible that different or additional
science process skills were observed.
2. Describe how the child demonstrated the scientific process skill. For
example, the child demonstrated the process skill of observation by

Table 1.3 Examples of prompting questions to support meaningful observations

Appropriate Does the evidence help me identify the child’s use of science
process skill(s)?
Adequate Do I have enough evidence?
Will I need to take more observations?
Accurate Is the observation free of judgement?
Is the observation evidence a record of what I see and hear, not
what I think?
Authentic Is this observation evidence for the child I am observing?
 1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach 13

using a magnifying glass to look closely at patterns in the petals

of a flower.
3. Decide whether you intend to consolidate or extend an observed skill,
or to introduce another skill. Here, it is recommended that you refer
to documents outlining the development of process skills (such as this
chapter), research articles and taxonomies of learning to inform your
decision. Further, comparing multiple observations of the child’s sci-
ence process skills will help you to make this assessment.

After analysing the child observation, the next step is to plan learning
experiences that provide opportunities for the child to rehearse or extend
the process skill, or to explore a different process skill. Your plan will be
informed by the analysis of your observation. Often, your observations of
one child or a small group of children will inform planning for the whole
group of children.
Start by defining learning objectives based on the science process skill
to be developed. These take the form of short statements. For example, if
you assessed that a child was ready to conduct simple experiments to
test whether their predictions were true, the learning objectives could
read as follows:

For the child(ren) to:

1. Make predictions based on their previous knowledge or observations

2. Test their predictions
3. Suggest reasons for what they observed

These objectives are specific to the science process skill but can be
applied to a number of learning experiences. Transferrable learning objec-
tives based on the science process skill, rather than the content being
delivered, ensure that science learning is not lost when the direction of
play changes. This highlights the importance of having clear learning
objectives: they allow educators to be flexible and to adapt their teaching
to follow children’s interests without abandoning the learning objectives.
The learning objectives, which have been informed by child observa-
tions, provide the structure of play-based learning. Once the objectives
are defined, planning ways to scaffold and promote these skills in play
can begin. This is where educators demonstrate boundless creativity!
14 C. Guarrella

Through rich dialogues with children, parents and educators can pro-
mote children’s higher-order thinking. Using open-ended questions and
asking the children to explain their thinking allows them to reflect, evalu-
ate and justify their new understandings (Wasik & Hindman, 2014).

I ntegrating Science Process Skills with Technology,

Engineering, Arts and Mathematics

Multiple opportunities for language, literacy, arts and numeracy are also
promoted when taking a process skills approach to science. When teach-
ers are alert to children’s demonstrations of science process skills across
the breadth of an informal, play-based curriculum, opportunities to sup-
port process skills quickly become apparent. Responding to such teach-
able moments supports an integrated approach to STEAM education.
Figure 1.1 highlights some examples of how science process skills emerge
in mathematics, arts, engineering and technology in early childhood.

Reflection

Introducing a science process skills approach into a play-based curricu-

lum may sound like a daunting task. However, the focus on process skills,
rather than content knowledge, changes the focus from the educator
needing to have all the answers to allowing educators and parents to
respond to children’s scientific curiosity.
Reflective practice is central to early childhood education and care
(Marbina, Church, & Tayler, 2010). Here, a case study is presented that
demonstrates how one early childhood teacher reflected on their transi-
tion to a science process skills approach in a kindergarten programme
attended by children aged three to four years.
The case study demonstrates the challenges and successes achieved by
the teacher, highlighting obstacles and explaining how obstacles were
overcome to allow for further integration of science into the emergent
curriculum approach followed in the classroom.
 Communicating
Communicating and Recoding
and Recoding • Visual and aural
• Graphs and mediums
charts • Drawing
• Representation
Classifying Observing
• Ordering • Looking at and
objects based interpreting
on shape,size, artworks
length,colour

MATHEMATICS Science ARTS

ENGINEERING Process Skills TECHNOLOGY

Comparing
• Comparing Observing
designs during • Scientific tools e.g.
the engineering digital microscopes
design process
Predicting and Communicating
Checking and Recoding
• Testing designs • Photography
during the and videography
engineering • Online
design process communication
1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach

Fig. 1.1 Examples of science process skills in technology, engineering, arts and mathematics
15
16 C. Guarrella

 ase Study: Enacting a Science Process Skills Approach

C
Through Reflective Practice

Tom teaches in a three-year-old kindergarten programme located in an

inner-city suburb of Melbourne, Australia. Tom believes that science is an
important learning area to capture in an emergent curriculum. He
noticed that while the children have many scientific interests, he was not
finding the time to purposefully support the children’s science learning.
Tom decided to conduct practitioner research, by investigating his
own teaching practice. His focus was to understand the factors challeng-
ing and supporting him to implement a science process skills approach in
his teaching.
Tom used a reflective journal for seven weeks to collect his data (Tom
was sick in week two, so he has data for six out of seven weeks). He used
the Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2018) to structure his
journal. At the end of each teaching day, Tom took notes of what science
teaching and learning had occurred under the heading ‘Experiencing’.
He would then take the time to consider and write down responses to the
next three phases of the cycle; Reflecting, Thinking and Acting. This
allowed Tom to reflect on what had happened and make a plan for
future action.
Alongside his reflection, Tom documented how he planned to support
the children’s science process skill learning. He also noted down specific
teaching strategies he planned to use, such as asking open-ended ques-
tions or asking the children to explain their thinking. This prompted
both his teaching and reflection. It also helped him to see how his plans
and teaching strategies changed over time.
At the end of the seven weeks, Tom analysed his journal. He looked for
common themes and identified the factors that supported or challenged
him to teach science. He counted up how many times each of the factors
occurred during the seven-week period. Tom identified that planning
and preparing resources (that created the opportunity to practise the skill
of observation) most frequently supported him to implement a science
process skill approach. The biggest challenge for Tom was when his
 1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach 17

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5 WEEK 6 WEEK 7
CHALLENGE SUPPORT

Fig. 1.2 Percentage of challenging and supportive factors over seven weeks of
reflective practice

priorities were directed towards tasks unrelated to science or the chil-

dren’s other learning goals.
Tom also looked at the data he collected to identify how his reflective
practice influenced the presence of the challenging and supportive factors
over the seven weeks. He found that the number of challenging fac-
tors decreased and supportive factors increased, as shown in (Fig. 1.2).
Through reflective practice, Tom was able to adopt effective pedagogies
to incorporate the use of science process skills into everyday interactions
with the children.

Conclusion
In this chapter, we have explored a process skills approach to learning sci-
ence in early childhood. Developing the process skills of observing, com-
paring, classifying, predicting and checking, and communicating and
recording allows children to expand their scientific curiosity in partner-
ship with their parents and educators. Identifying the science process
18 C. Guarrella

skills in children’s play allows for purposeful and responsive interactions

with children to consolidate or extend learning. Further, reflecting on the
use of this approach in practice supports educators to embed teaching
and learning of science process skills in everyday interactions with
children.
Early childhood is a time for play and exploration. Children’s innate
scientific curiosity provides the opportunity to foster key process skills.
Developing these skills at an early age allows children to investigate their
interests and supports later conceptual learning. Equipping children with
science process skills through playful interactions prepares children for
ongoing scientific learning.

References
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The
learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009).
Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia.
Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. https://doi.org/10.1037/
e672772010-­001
Griffin, P. (Ed.). (2014). Assessment for teaching. Port Melbourne, VIC:
Cambridge University Press.
Haug, B. S. (2014). Inquiry-based science: Turning teachable moments into
learnable moments. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(1), 79–96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-­013-­9375-­7
Jirout, J., & Zimmerman, C. (2015). Development of science process skills in
the early childhood years. In Research in early childhood science education
(pp. 143–165). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­017-­9505-­0_7
Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2018). Eight important things to know about the experi-
ential learning cycle. Australian Educational Leader, 40(3), 8–14.
Marbina, L., Church, A., & Tayler, C. (2010). Practice principle 8: Reflective
practice. Melbourne, VIC: Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development.
 1 Weaving Science Through STEAM: A Process Skill Approach 19

McLennan, D. M. P. (2010). Process or product? The argument for aesthetic

exploration in the early years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(2),
81–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-­010-­0411-­3
Miller, D. I., Nolla, K. M., Eagly, A. H., & Uttal, D. H. (2018). The develop-
ment of Children’s gender-science stereotypes: A meta-analysis of 5 decades
of U.S. draw-a-scientist studies. Child Development, 89(6), 1943–1955.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13039
O’Brien, F., & Herbert, S. (2015). Colour, magnets and photosynthesis.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(01), 42–26.
Pendergast, E., Lieberman-Betz, R. G., & Vail, C. O. (2017). Attitudes and
beliefs of prekindergarten teachers toward teaching science to young chil-
dren. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(1), 43–52. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10643-­015-­0761-­y
Tu, T. (2006). Preschool science environment: What is available in a preschool
classroom? Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(4), 245–251. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10643-­005-­0049-­8
Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2014). Realizing the promise of open-ended
questions. The Reading Teacher, 67(4), 302–311.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills.
Developmental Review, 20(1), 99–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/
DREV.1999.0497
 2
Integrating Design Thinking, Digital
Technologies and the Arts to Explore
Peace, War and Social Justice Concepts
with Young Children
Maria Hatzigianni, Athanasios Gregoriadis,
Nektarios Moumoutzis, Marios Christoulakis,
and Vasiliki Alexiou

Introduction
Early childhood education advocates for holistic and integrated
approaches which are interdisciplinary and reflective. Learning is based
on real-world experiences, inquiry and experimentation. Early childhood
education does not support the teaching of separate subjects (e.g., science,

M. Hatzigianni (*)
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Gregoriadis • V. Alexiou
Department of Early Childhood Education, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 21

C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_2
22 M. Hatzigianni et al.

maths etc.), instead engages children with topics or themes or projects to

promote the twenty-first century competencies (Crockett, 2011; Honey,
Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). In alignment with this view of educa-
tion, integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and
Mathematics (STEAM) as a new trend can be easily adopted and
followed (Bevan, 2017; Kermani & Aldemir, 2015; Moomaw &
Davis, 2010).
The STEAM approach to learning helps children integrate knowledge
across disciplines and develop thinking skills in a more systemic and con-
nected way. This approach is often combined with design thinking skills
(Stevenson, Bower, Falloon, Forbes, & Hatzigianni, 2019). These are
thinking skills that pertain to the design process, a concept that has solid
traction in research both past (Buchanan, 1992) and present (Filatro,
Cavalcanti, & Muckenberger, 2017). Often relating to approaches to
design in industry, educators may draw on principles, cases and strategies
for supporting the design process. As an instructional model, ‘Design
Thinking’ (for clarity, title case) is widely used in education. Several mod-
els exist, each with slightly different emphases and design stages (Bower,
Stevenson, Falloon, Forbes, & Hatzigianni, 2018). Common themes that
run through the models include exploration and interpretation in the
early stages, generation of ideas in the mid-stages, and testing, evaluating
and evolving in the latter stages.
In this study we adopted the IDEO model which encompasses five
stages: (a) discovery, (b) interpretation, (c) ideation, (d) experimentation
and (f ) evolution. Among the available models, the IDEO model (Fierst,
Diefenthaler, & Diefenthaler, 2011) is particularly helpful in providing
teachers with a detailed free handbook that includes scaffolds, stimuli,
first-hand accounts and expert advice.
Studies on the design process for children have also established
connections between design thinking skills, and creative and critical

N. Moumoutzis • M. Christoulakis
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Crete,
Crete, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 23

thinking skills (Shively & Stith, 2018) arguing for the importance of
those skills for future generations. However, limited research exists in the
use of design thinking with preschool children aged from four to six years
(see, e.g., Hatzigianni, Stevenson, Falloon, Bower, & Forbes, 2020). This
study addresses this gap, not only using design thinking and working
with young children, but also using the design approach in conjunction
with the arts to solve conceptual—rather than simply practical—prob-
lems. Previous studies exploring the potential of the arts in clarifying
abstract and complex concepts have been attempted (see, e.g., Hatzigianni,
Miller, & Quiñones, 2016), but design thinking approaches have not
been used as widely to address theoretical or conceptual challenges.

 he Educational and Social Context

T
of the Study
Early Childhood Education and Curriculum in Greece

In Greece, preschool education is provided in kindergartens (‘nipiagogia’

translated is a place in which to care for and educate young children,
‘nipia’). Kindergartens operate independently or with state primary
schools for children aged four to six years old. Since September 2007,
under the provisions of Law 3518/2006, the second year of kindergarten
is compulsory. Preschool teachers who work in the public kindergartens
are highly trained, having completed a four-year bachelor degree in early
childhood education at an Hellenic University department of education
(Sofou & Tsafos, 2010).
Kindergartens operate under the guidance of a detailed, national
curriculum for early childhood education which was first introduced in
2002 (Cross-thematic Curriculum Framework Syllabus Design, [CTC],
2002). The Institute of Educational Policies (IEP), an organisation super-
vised by the Hellenic Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, created
and facilitated the implementation of this preschool curriculum across
the country. CTC has a focus on child-led and child-directed pedagogies
which also emphasise the exploration of children’s interests and team-
work. The teacher’s role is to coordinate, facilitate and scaffold children’s
24 M. Hatzigianni et al.

learning. One of the main characteristics of the CTC is the cross-­thematic

approach to learning where the different areas (e.g., music, arts, science)
overlap and complement each other (Sofou & Tsafos, 2010).

The Macedonian Crisis

The ‘Macedonian conflict or struggle’ was a series of social, political, cul-

tural and military disputes that were mainly fought between Greek and
Bulgarian subjects who lived in Ottoman Macedonia between 1893 and
1908 (Koukoudakis, 2018; Zahariadis, 1994). The conflict was part of a
wider rebel war in which voluntary rebel groups of Greeks fought against
Bulgarians and Serbs. Greeks had concerns about their neighbours’ inten-
tions and tried to interrupt their expansion plans but also to save Greek
schools, religion and language (Zahariadis, 1994).
In the late 1980s, Greece initially opposed the breakup of the
Yugoslavian Federation and recognition of its constituent republics as
independent states. However, Greece was alone in this battle, and after a
series of failed negotiations to end the hostilities, Greece gave its consent
together with other European Community members and the US, and
recognised Croatia, Slovenia and later Bosnia-Herzegovina. Greece,
however, remained opposed to the recognition of the Former Republic
of Macedonia and secured the European Community’s commitment in
1992 that the former republic would not be recognised until it relin-
quishes the term ‘Macedonia’. Greece argued that this name would be
the first step for raising claims of territorial ambitions in the future.
Several agreements and disagreements have taken place over the last
40 years which are beyond the scope of this chapter to analyse.
Nevertheless, the crisis was never resolved, and this has led to numerous
disputes, tensions and protests in Greece (Exarchate et al., 2019;
Koukoudakis, 2018; Zahariadis, 1994).

The Prespes Agreement and Public Reactions

The Prespes Agreement reached on 12 June 2018 between Greece and

North Macedonia, under the auspices of the United Nations, resolved a
long-standing dispute over the latter’s name. Signed beside Lake Prespa
 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 25

from which it took its name and ratified by the parliaments of both coun-
tries on 25 January 2019, it came into force on 12 February 2019 when
the two countries notified the United Nations of the deal’s completion.

 he Educational and Social Challenge

T
Informing This Study
In Greece, the Prespes Agreement had direct negative political implica-
tions. There were large public demonstrations in 2018 and 2019 against
the Prespes Agreement which lasted for several days. Student protests took
place. The majority of people all over the country were dissatisfied with the
result and the name given, and this was particularly evident in the northern
part of Greece, in Macedonia, where this study took place. Young children,
as active citizens and contributors to their social world, were worried and
uncertain about what was happening all around them. Abstract concepts,
such as war, peace, border disputes, social justice, nationalism and others,
were frequently brought up by media and adults in their lives. Teachers
were trying to explain these difficult concepts to children but at the same
time tried to be as fair and optimistic as possible, emphasising that a war
between the two countries would not solve any problems. In this attempt
to unpack the meaning of real-life complex political issues, teachers adopted
a design thinking approach to frame their activities and projects. Together
with arts and digital technologies, they were able to explore and deepen
children’s knowledge and understanding of the issues.
This chapter is structured according to the IDEO design thinking
model adopted for this case study. Each stage of the IDEO model is
briefly explained at the start. The practical implementation of each stage
is then described and finally concluding thoughts are outlined. Following
the IDEO structure contributes to exploring the model in depth and also
clarifies how the different stages of the model were implemented (the
‘what’, the ‘why’ and the ‘how’). Data were collected over a period of
eight months, from November 2018 to June 2019. Prior to data collec-
tion, the Research Ethics committee of the Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki approved the ethics of the research design in order for
researchers to obtain access to the participating kindergarten schools. The
school counsellors and the directors of the kindergartens were also
26 M. Hatzigianni et al.

informed about the purpose and the methodology of the study. All kin-
dergarten teachers were informed about the study and consented to par-
ticipate in it. The parents were informed in detail and signed consent
forms were obtained. Finally, children were informed about the purpose
and the content of the study and advised that they could stop participat-
ing in the study at any time. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured,
and pseudonyms are used in this chapter.

The Design Thinking Stages

Four public kindergartens (four- to six-year-old children) from the prefec-
tures of Thessaloniki and Imathia in Northern Greece (Macedonia region)
participated in this study. Two of the kindergartens were situated in an
urban area and two were situated in a rural area. Seven female kindergarten
teachers with a mean age of 46 years and a mean of 16.5 teaching years, and
76 kindergarten children and their parents participated in the study (41
girls and 35 boys). The community (e.g., administrators; museums) around
each kindergarten was also informed about the aims of the study.

Discovery

This was the initial stage of the model during which all the preparation and
organisation took place and all participants built a clear understanding of
what the problem was, what the challenges were and how meaningful solu-
tions could be reached. During this stage, children, parents, teachers and
the community were all informed and their feedback was taken into con-
sideration. In the discovery stage, deep engagement and dialogues were
fundamental for increasing the chances of successfully addressing the chal-
lenges, but also for catering to children’s needs and interests.
In this first phase, teachers explored children’s existing funds of knowl-
edge about the constructs of war, border disputes, justice and especially
their knowledge of the period of the Macedonian struggle. To achieve
this, teachers conducted semi-structured interviews with children. They
asked questions around children’s interpretation of war, peace, Macedonia,
the crisis, the struggle, heroes and other related topics.
 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 27

War and peace were concepts with which most children were familiar.
Children could provide some concrete examples of what they understood
about these concepts. For example, Irene (four years old) said that ‘war is
when we fight and kill the bad guys’. Sunny (four years old) explained: ‘war
happens when they try to take over Greece’. A lot of children referred to
specific wars Greece was involved in and words like ‘fighting’, ‘guns’, ‘kill-
ings’, ‘hurting’, ‘shooting’ and ‘bad’ were often reported in their interviews.
A negative view of war was apparent in all children’s answers; whereas
peace was seen as positive.
In contrast, children found it difficult to explain ‘Macedonia’, ‘crisis’
and ‘struggle’. A few children referred to popular songs which included the
word ‘Macedonia’. Similarly, children were unable to explain what a ‘hero’
is and most of children referred to ‘superheroes’ such as ‘Superman’ and
‘Batman’. A small number of children were able to explain that heroes are
the ones ‘who win’ or ‘who are brave’.
Children’s answers provided the necessary initial information for
teachers and parents to locate the gaps in their understandings, or
stereotypes (e.g., heroes are only men) and to start discussions
around the Macedonian crisis/struggle topic. A deeper understand-
ing of the challenge, and reframing and restructuring of initial plans
took place at the end of this stage and then led to the second stage,
namely ‘interpretation’.

Interpretation

This stage was organised in two phases:

Phase One First, the topic was introduced. In this phase educational
visits to museums, invited guests and educational materials from external
sources offered some initial stimuli and information to enrich children’s
thinking. A field trip to the Museum of the Macedonian Struggle was
organised where children had the opportunity to learn information
and see exhibits related to that specific era. Each kindergarten received a
‘training suitcase’ from the museum with educational resources and rele-
vant activity suggestions. These activities were implemented in the kin-
dergartens (e.g., traditional puppet play with the heroes of that time;
28 M. Hatzigianni et al.

exploring the swamp of Giannitsa as the central point of the struggle

etc.). In addition, invited guests presented information and photographs
of that period and explained how people lived, how they commuted, how
they communicated, how schools operated and so on.

Phase Two After children had completed the activities mentioned above,
they spent time discussing their new knowledge with their teachers and
started brainstorming ways to find additional information. Children used
books, comics, photographs, concept maps and narratives of elders who
visited their schools. Parents were also involved in this stage. A letter was
sent to parents to ask them for their cooperation in locating relevant
information at home and to invite them to bring relevant information
and artefacts to school.
During this stage it was evident that children’s interest was extended,
and their understandings significantly expanded. Stories and visits trans-
formed children’s views and insights and enriched their knowledge.
Throughout this stage, extra attention was paid to avoiding stereotypes
regarding the countries and also suggesting ways to resolve conflicts in a
peaceful, just way. Rich conversations with teachers, parents and guests
inspired children not only to learn more, but also to take action and find
their ‘clear direction for ideation’ (IDEO Design Thinking for Educators,
2013, p. 39).

Ideation

Phase Three The third phase of the design model is all about brain-
storming, generating and exchanging ideas. Children’s views and ideas
were encouraged as much as possible in this stage. They brainstormed
information they would like to learn, questions they would like to ask
and activities and actions they would like to implement. Collaborating
and building on each other’s ideas was also a necessary element of this
stage. Visual clues (e.g., drawings and sketches) were also a vital part
and helped with the processing and categorisation of the collected
information and materials. They finalised their brainstorming
with ways in which they could ‘bring’ the heroes of the Macedonian
struggle into their own classrooms to help them find a peaceful solu-
 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 29

tion to their ‘struggle’. They decided to create a scenario for dramatic

play and to construct puppet figures of the heroes who participated in
the Macedonian struggle. Digital technology (eShadow software)
would help them to convert their drawings into animated figures for
their dramatic play on the screens of computers or during a live per-
formance. A local cultural group presented traditional clothes and
dresses people wore at that time, in order to enhance the accuracy
of children’s representations of people of that period. Children had
the opportunity to discuss the different materials and also to wear
some of those traditional clothes.
In one of the kindergartens, children created a timeline to follow the
events and the facts of the Macedonian struggle. In small groups, they
also drew paintings or created representations of the swamp of Giannitsa
(the main site of the Macedonian struggle—thus incorporating the arts).
Children’s new knowledge about people and places (integrating sci-
ence and mathematics) augmented their understanding but also
assisted with children’s efforts to design their paper-based and digital
puppets, bringing their creative ideas to life in the fourth stage: exper-
imentation. Digital technologies and arts played a fundamental role
in the next stage.

Experimentation

Phase Four Children’s creative ideas were made tangible in this phase.
Ideas were actualised and were shared with other people. Feedback from
teachers, parents and the community helped with the refinement of pro-
totypes (e.g., drawings, paper-based and digital puppets).
This fourth phase included the construction of the figures for the
shadow puppet theatre and the writing of scenarios for their dramatic
play. All the participating kindergarten classrooms were ‘brought together’
through Skype. Virtual conversations through Skype helped children to
decide which figures and characters they would like to draw and then
transform those into digital puppet figures. Shared leadership between
children was evident in this phase as they had to make decisions about who
was making what and for what reason. This was an important moment
in the study as children had to justify their decisions to their peers and
30 M. Hatzigianni et al.

Fig. 2.1 Paper-based figure of one of the most popular heroes: Pavlos Melas

also needed to persuade others about their ideas (e.g., which heroes they
would choose, their role in the script etc.). Time constraints required
children to make decisions quickly (e.g., who was drawing which hero).
Via Skype, they also had the opportunity to discuss and finalise their
scenario for the final performance.
Children first drew their protagonists, the main characters of their scenario
both Greeks and Bulgarians, on paper and then constructed their paper-
based puppet figures (Fig. 2.1) before digitising them with eShadow (Fig. 2.2).

Phase Five The fifth phase included activities relating to shadow theatre
(the traditional form of shadow theatre) and the introduction of the
eShadow software (http://www.eshadow.gr) to children. Shadow theatre
is a storytelling tradition common to many countries in Asia and the
Middle East using flat articulated puppets which are held between a light
source and a translucent screen or a scrim. It is a medium with significant
educational value (Hatzigianni et al., 2016) within the wider context of
drama and performance arts. eShadow enriches the features of traditional
shadow theatre with digital technology elements to offer a new way of
dramatised and personalised digital storytelling. It enables the produc-
tion of rich multimedia content, interactively using innovative input
 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 31

Fig. 2.2 The digital figure of Pavlos Melas

devices and it supports online collaboration. It offers an intuitive way of

setting up scenes and enacting them. The user can select desired scenery
objects and digital puppets and then move them with mouse drag opera-
tions. All movements can be easily recorded along with the voice of the
user. These recordings can be exported in appropriate file formats to be
further edited with external video processing tools.

eShadow emphasises the realistic motion simulation of shadow theatre

puppets. Realistic movement engages children and promotes various
learning activities (Moumoutzis, Christoulakis, Christodoulakis, &
Paneva-Marinova, 2018). Furthermore, realistic movement of digital
puppets creates an atmosphere of playful interaction where the users are
very easily engaged in theatrical improvisations. This encourages the
development of communication skills related to oral expression and
interpretation of body language.
Although eShadow has been used for several years in primary and second-
ary schools for supporting student projects, its use in kindergarten presented
some new challenges. Young children did not yet have the digital skills to
create their own digital puppets using image processing software, as it was
32 M. Hatzigianni et al.

done with older children, usually with the help of a computer science teacher
(Moumoutzis et al., 2017). The need to support a simpler and more intuitive
way of developing new digital puppets, as well as the need to combine this
process with the traditional process of producing paper-based puppets, led to
the design and implementation of an ePuppet, an ‘app’ for mobile devices that
is able to facilitate the digitisation of two- and four-part puppets, which are
the most common types of puppets in traditional shadow theatre.
To introduce eShadow and ePuppet to the participating teachers, a
workshop was held and several online meetings were conducted.
After familiarising themselves with the software, the teachers introduced it
to the participating children. Ongoing support was provided by the tech-
nical team to address any technical problems and to refine the ePuppet
app in order to ensure its usability and effectiveness during the process.
Children were given ample opportunities to experiment with the software
and the app. By the end of this phase, the digitisation of the puppets and the
preparation of the digital play were both completed. In addition, children
practised moving and ‘acting’ with their figures in the eShadow environment.
Dissemination activities were organised by children in order to present
their work and to demonstrate their competent use of the software. The
digital play was video recorded and presented to parents and the commu-
nity as well as to children from other classrooms/kindergartens.
Presentations took place at the end of the school year (June 2019, Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.3 Children play with the eShadow puppets on a computer

 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 33

Evolution

Phase Six In this final stage, children were able to collect memories by
reflecting on their favourite moments and any surprises or challenges
they had experienced. Through this process, children were able to build a
narrative; an overview of their thoughts, impressions and experiences.
These narratives were also shared amongst the participating kindergartens
and the broader community.

The last phase of this project included reflections and the gathering
of feedback from internal and external sources. The same questions
were again posed to all participating children during semi-structured
interviews to identify children’s new knowledge, impressions and under-
standings. Discussions regarding the value of peace and the knowledge
children had gained about that historical period took place during this
final stage. Children were now able to articulate what the Macedonian
struggle was about. Their views about heroes were much more realistic
and no reference was made to superheroes. For example, Sunny (four
years old) was able to provide more depth and detail in her answer and
explained that the Macedonian struggle was ‘when Macedonians fought
with Bulgarians who wanted to take Macedonia so that they could have an
exit to the sea’; Olga (four years old) was also very specific in her response:
‘the Greeks from Macedonia fought with Bulgarians’. Heroes, according
to children, were now ordinary, real people who ‘save others’, ‘win’, ‘fall
into battle’, ‘are brave like Pavlos Melas’ (Paul, 5 years old). Gendered
perceptions of heroes as always male had evolved as well: children also
referred to women’s and children’s roles in the struggle and how every-
one helped each other, having a strong sense of belonging and
community.
Children’s views on learning to use eShadow, their experiences of per-
forming a digital play, and the skills they had acquired and rehearsed were
also explored. Children enjoyed using eShadow and were eager to use it
again. With the support of their teachers, children reflected on the overall
progress of the project and identified areas that they would do differently if
34 M. Hatzigianni et al.

they could do it again (e.g., having more time to work on the puppets, visit-
ing the children at the other kindergartens and making the puppets together).
The digital documentation of their presentations helped with their reflec-
tions at this stage.
As June 2019 marked the end of the school year in Greece, teachers
could not plan further steps with the older children (the five-year-olds).
These children would start primary school the following September.
Teachers reported that when they returned to school in September 2019,
after the school holidays, the younger children who had not transitioned
to primary school were eager to work on eShadow software again and
started planning next steps. The creation of mind maps about future
ideas and questions children had for following projects contributed to
starting the whole process again, proving sustained interest despite a
three-month break. The project had thus contributed to building the
foundations for a strong community of learners and future designers.

Implications and Conclusion

Through this design thinking process, young children’s understanding of
a real-world issue that is relevant to their everyday lives was deepened.
The challenge of intentionally teaching complex, abstract concepts to
young children was successfully addressed. More importantly, children
had the chance to participate actively and creatively at every stage of the
project. By implementing the design thinking approach, teachers did not
separate knowledge in boxes of science, technology, engineering, the arts
and mathematics. They worked holistically, taking advantage of every
teachable moment, but also purposefully planning all learning experi-
ences. Children’s knowledge in all areas was advanced. Children explored
their local environment (e.g., the swamp—science), learnt about
clothes and materials that people used in different eras (materials—engi-
neering) and the technology that was available 100 years ago (e.g., no
cars, no Skype, no telephones—technology), experimented with different
artistic techniques (e.g., natural materials; collage, water paint.—arts),
created timelines and diagrams (mathematics) and also enhanced their
digital skills (Skype, eShadow, ePuppet—digital technology).
 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 35

The adoption of a design thinking approach in this study had numer-

ous advantages. It facilitated a smooth integration of digital technologies
and the arts but also helped children understand the continuity of learn-
ing. Children experienced organised brainstorming and careful design
through which they were able to address challenges (e.g., understanding
abstract concepts), solve problems (e.g., convert paper-based puppets
into digital, animated puppets; sharing their stories and plays) and
increase their impact on their community (e.g., by understanding the
value of peace and justice). Activities stemming from a design approach,
such as flow diagrams, process diagrams, paper prototypes, maps, two by
two grids, storyboards, storylines, sketches and many others, could be
particularly useful for young children. These activities made children’s
learning visible, underlining the value of process over product. Design
thinking in early childhood also enabled collaboration, teamwork and
the active involvement of parents, families and the local community.
Educators in this study were given broad directions around the IDEO
model and the different stages but overall they were free to adjust their
plans and activities according to children’s needs and interests, and also
according to their local context. The design thinking approach pro-
vided educators with enough flexibility to make them feel trusted, confi-
dent and relaxed throughout the process. They knew that certain activities
should be enacted (e.g., the interviews and the eShadow puppets)
but were at liberty to decide which artistic techniques they would use and
whether or not to organise a large performance at the end of the school
year. In addition, the fact that there was no testing or measuring of spe-
cific skills was also seen positively by the educators.
A recommendation for future projects would be to spend adequate
time in locating a worthy challenge with the children: a challenge which
would lead to the production of original, authentic and practical ideas
and solutions. Plenty of time is required when a design approach is imple-
mented, ideally more than one year, so that Phase 6: Evolution is suffi-
ciently addressed. The educators’ role is to guide and facilitate the whole
process but also to provide feedback and cultivate a classroom culture in
which children are encouraged to make, and learn from, mistakes and
trials (Swanson & Collins, 2018). Metacognitive strategies and analogies
between the problems they deal with and other problems that might be
faced in other similar situations/contexts would enhance children’s
36 M. Hatzigianni et al.

higher-order thinking and critical skills. For example, what would

Bulgarian children think of Greek children’s eShadow plays?
Overall, design thinking models have mostly concentrated on older
children. More research and support are needed for successfully imple-
menting them with young children. This study showed that early child-
hood education can easily accommodate design thinking approaches due
to its flexibility, multimodality and use of open-ended environments.

Recommendations for Educators and Parents

Explore and Identify Alternative Design Thinking Models for Your
Problem There are different design thinking models for education (see
Appendix, p. 38). This is an emerging field which keeps growing.
Reviewing the models available would give teachers/parents a more accu-
rate idea of which to utilise for their project and for their specific context.
Models with a strong educational background and with a range of free
resources would be more suitable and easier to implement.

Build Home–School–Community Partnerships Design thinking is

particularly useful for teamwork, collaboration and for projects which
require parents and educators to work together to solve a local (school or
community) problem/issue. Parents and community experts can have
active roles within the broader project, based on their diverse expertise.
Educators can coordinate the project, drawing on their leadership and
pedagogical skills. Adults modelling high levels of work ethic and build-
ing collaborative teams would be an invaluable lesson for children.

Careful and Meticulous Co-ordination and Organisation Design

thinking is a holistic approach, valuing authentic learning and process
over product. Children’s engagement and interest are almost guaranteed.
However, the role of the adults in encouraging children, coordinating
their work and encouraging sustained attention is crucial. Failures and
mistakes are a necessary part of solving problems and achieving success.
Children are encouraged to keep trying and practise resilience strategies.
Instilling confidence, positive dispositions and aspirations around
 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 37

STE(A)M disciplines is as vital as enhancing knowledge. Working inten-

tionally to eliminate any gender stereotypes (e.g., boys are not good at
paying attention; girls are not good at technology) and to promote digital
equity (e.g., being mindful that some children do not have access to digi-
tal devices at home) is also critical in the early years.

Provide Plenty of Time for the Whole Project and Particularly for
Evolution and Reflection (Metacognitive Skills) The last phase of any
design thinking model is reflection and being the last phase of a project,
is sometimes rushed. To avoid this rush, plenty of time should be allo-
cated to this phase right from the start. Children should have the oppor-
tunity to think back and evaluate the initial phases of their project, but
they also have the chance to think ahead and plan ways in which to
improve effectiveness and efficiency.

Strengthen Digital Literacy Skills The integration of digital technology

in this project was very successful. Depending on the topic of the project,
the age of the children, and the school/home resources, a variety of digital
tools could be incorporated. Some examples include survey software
(e.g., SurveyMonkey); brainstorming and concept maps (e.g., Kidspiration
Maps; Inspiration; CmapTools; Graphmind; Text 2 Mind Map; Coggle);
3D printers; 3D design apps (e.g., Makers Empire; Tinkercad; SketchUp);
whiteboard apps and software (Stormboard; Mural); cloud technologies
(e.g., Google suite; Dropbox); storyboard and presentation apps (e.g.,
Prezi Next, Canva, Seesaw, Popplet); Robotics; Programming (e.g.,
Scratch, ScratchJr); Internet of Toys (of Things); digital laser cutters and
laser engraving machines; AR and VR headsets and apps and many others.

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the hard work and

effort made by all the teachers, children and parents in order for this project to
be completed. Without their contribution, this study would not have been pos-
sible. Our special thanks to the teachers of the kindergarten who were directly
involved: Ioanna Karagiorgou, Despoina Kaladaridou, Alexia Panta, Euthemia
Gioti, Aspasia Zeibeki and Vicky Alexiou.
 38

Appendix
Design thinking coding—Actions and example dialogue for all children. Available from: https://primary-
makers.com
Model/stage Early Mid Late
Cooper Hewitt Identify Investigate Frame/ Generate Develop Evaluate Re-evaluate
(Hewitt, reframe
2011)
d.School (Hasso Empathise Define Ideate Prototype Test
M. Hatzigianni et al.

Plattner
Institute of
Design, 2017)
Design Minds Inquire Reflect Ideate Reflect Implement Reflect
(State library
of
Queensland,
2017)
IDEO (Fierst Discovery Interpretation Ideation Experimentation Evolution
et al., 2011)
IDESiGN Intending Defining Exploring Suggesting Innovating Goal-setting Knowing
(Burnette,
2005)
NoTosh Immersion Synthesis Ideation Prototyping Feedback
(Mcintosh,
2018)
Open Colleges Define the Consider Refine selected Execute the
(Briggs, 2013) problem multiple direction best plan
options of action
 2 Integrating Design Thinking, Digital Technologies… 39

References
Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science educa-
tion. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103.
Bower, M., Stevenson, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., & Hatzigianni, M. (2018).
Makerspaces in primary school settings – Advancing 21st century and STEM
capabilities using 3D design and 3D printing. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie
University. Available at https://primarymakers.com
Briggs, S. (2013, July 29). 45 Design Thinking Resources for Educators.
Retrieved April 27, 2021, from https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/
features/45-design-thinking-resources-for-educators/
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues,
8(2), 5–21.
Burnette, C. (2005). IDESiGN. Retrieved April 27, 2021, from http://www.
idesignthinking.com/main.html
Crockett, L. (2011). Literacy is not enough: 21st-century fluencies for the digital
age. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Exarchate, B., Mazarakis-Ainian, K., Koromilas, L., Demestichas, I., Katechakis,
G., Dragoumis, I., & Petkov, A. Macedonian struggle. Retrieved December 9,
2019., from https://infogalactic.com/info/Macedonian_Struggle
Fierst, K., Diefenthaler, A., & Diefenthaler, G. (2011). Design thinking for edu-
cators. Riverdale, CA: IDEO.
Filatro, A., Cavalcanti, C. C., & Muckenberger, E. (2017). Design thinking and
online education. Retrieved September 20, 2019, from https://digitalcom-
mons.andrews.edu/adventist-­learn-­online/2017/tuesday/12/
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. (2017). A Virtual Crash Course in Design
Thinking. Retrieved April 27, 2021, from https://dschool.stanford.edu/
resources-collections/a-virtual-crash-course-in-design-thinking
Hatzigianni, M., Miller, M., & Quiñones, G. (2016). Karagiozis in Australia:
Exploring principles of social justice in the arts for young children.
International Journal of Education & the Arts, 17(25), 1–20.
Hatzigianni, M., Stevenson, M., Falloon, G., Bower, M., & Forbes, A. (2020).
Children’s views on making and designing. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 28(2), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.108
0/1350293X.2020.1735747
Hewitt, C. (2011, September 9). Ready, Set, Design! Retrieved April 27, 2021,
from https://www.cooperhewitt.org/2011/09/09/ready-set-design/
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in
K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
40 M. Hatzigianni et al.

IDEO Design thinking for educators. (2013). Retrieved March 21, 2018, from
https://www.ideo.com/post/design-­thinking-­for-­educators
Kermani, H., & Aldemir, J. (2015). Preparing children for success: Integrating
science, math, and technology in early childhood classroom. Early Child
Development and Care, 185(9), 1504–1527.
Koukoudakis, G. (2018). The Macedonian question: An identity-based conflict.
Mediterranean Quarterly, 29(4), 3–18.
McIntosh, E. (2018, April 17). Think differently and change the way you choose
to work [text/html]. Retrieved May 29, 2018, from https://notosh.com/
search/results?q=McIntosh
Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. YC Young
Children, 65(5), 12–18.
Moumoutzis, N., Christoulakis, M., Christodoulakis, S., & Paneva-Marinova,
D. (2018). Renovating the cultural heritage of traditional shadow theatre
with eShadow. Design, implementation, evaluation and use in formal and
informal learning. Digital Presentation and Preservation of Cultural and
Scientific Heritage Proceedings, 8, 51–70.
Moumoutzis, N., Christoulakis, M., Pitsiladis, A., Maragoudakis, I.,
Christodoulakis, S., Menioudakis, M., & Tzoganidis, M. et al. (2017, April).
Using new media arts to enable project-based learning in technological
education. In 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference
(EDUCON) (pp. 287–296). Piraeus, Greece: IEEE.
Shively, K., & Stith, K. (2018). Measuring what matters: Assessing creativity,
critical thinking, and the Design Process. Gifted Child Today, 41(3), 149–158.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361
Sofou, E., & Tsafos, V. (2010). Preschool teachers’ understandings of the
national preschool curriculum in Greece. Early Childhood Education Journal,
37(5), 411–420.
State Library of Queensland. (2017). Design Minds | Design Online. Retrieved
April 27, 2021, from http://designonline.org.au/education/
Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., & Hatzigianni, M. (2019).
By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers’
makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology,
50(3), 1260–1274.
Swanson, H., & Collins, A. (2018). How failure is productive in the creative
process: Refining student explanations through theory-building discussion.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tsc.2018.03.005
Zahariadis, N. (1994). Nationalism and small-state foreign policy: The Greek
response to the Macedonian issue. Political Science Quarterly, 109(4), 647–667.
 3
Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s
Video Making Through Practice-Based
Learning
Suzannie K. Y. Leung, Kimburley W. Y. Choi,
and Mantak Yuen

Introduction
In this chapter, we focus on digital art as encompassing both the A (the
arts) and the T (technology) in STEAM education. In the twenty-first
century, digital play is part of young children’s lives. Most young children
grow up in technology-rich homes, and they engage in frequent digital

S. K. Y. Leung (*)
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
e-mail: [email protected]
K. W. Y. Choi
School of Creative Media, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong SAR, China
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Yuen
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 41

C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_3
42 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

play. Video art has also become increasingly popular in children’s worlds.
Children can capture moving images creatively using a video recorder.
This chapter uses a video-making project with young children as a case
study to discuss the potential value of creative digital art in early child-
hood education. The implementation processes are described for this suc-
cessful workshop, along with other possible activities for toddlers and
children, to undertake with teachers and parents.

Digital Play in Early Childhood Arts

‘Art’ in early childhood refers to original expression through dance, drama,
visual arts and music (Bresler, 1998). The arts are crucial for children’s
creative development in a play-oriented early learning context (Wright,
2007). Creative behaviours and visual patterns are usually found in early
childhood play activities (Arnold, 2010), and the symbiosis between cre-
ativity, art and play provides precious learning opportunities for children
in their early years (Wright, 2014). Art-making creates learning opportu-
nities for children to elaborate on their thoughts in a non-­verbal way and
serves as a platform for meaningful play (Korn-Bursztyn, 2002). It is
widely believed that children should be exposed to every art form in a bal-
anced fashion, since each form makes a specific positive contribution to
children’s development and learning (Bautista, Moreno-­ Núñez, Koh,
Amsah, & Bull, 2018; Gadsden, 2008; Hanna, 2014).
Along with fine-art genres such as drawing, painting and sculpture,
digital art is a new genre of contemporary arts and belongs to the spec-
trum of visual arts in early childhood education. Digital arts use digital
technology as part of the creative process. However, the place of digital
technology in early childhood has been controversial in the last two
decades. For example, some researchers have suggested that using digital
technology at a young age may cause children to experience negative out-
comes in three main areas: health and well-being, cognition and brain
development, and social and cultural competencies (Bolstad, 2004;
Stephen & Plowman, 2014). Nevertheless, it seems that digital play is
almost an unavoidable experience for young children in this age of
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 43

technology. Studies in several countries have illustrated that children are

growing up in technology-rich environments, with digital devices such as
tablet computers, smartphones, cameras and video recorders already part
of typical life at home (Fleer, 2013; Livingstone & Haddon, 2014;
Plowman, 2015). In light of this, some educators and researchers have
argued that digital technology should be utilised to support children’s
learning in different areas such as literacy (Marsh, 2012; Nash, 2012), the
arts (Terreni, 2011) and mathematics (Jowett, Moore, & Anderson, 2012).
Vygotsky (1997) theorised that children’s play and learning involve the
sociocultural concept of tool mediation. Tools in this sense are derived
from the cultural contexts in which people participate, and tool media-
tion refers to people’s use of tools to achieve a particular objective during
an activity (Vygotsky, 1997). This description seems to apply particularly
well to the relationship between children’s play and the use of digital
devices. Children’s higher-order mental functions that involve conceptual
development and logical thinking, and lower-order mental functions
such as memory and attention, are essentially supported and mediated by
the use of cultural tools (Daniels, 2008).
Hutt (1979) has suggested that children may change and adjust their
play behaviours according to their current experiences. Hutt’s subsequent
work with her colleagues involved studying young children’s play with
novel objects (Hutt, Tyler, Hutt, & Christopherson, 1989). They devel-
oped a taxonomy of play, based on two categories: epistemic play and
ludic play. Epistemic play occurs when children explore objects and envi-
ronments to acquire knowledge. Ludic play happens when children
manipulate or employ an object to create symbolic, innovative or imagi-
native play according to their learned experiences. More recently, Bird,
Colliver, and Edwards (2014) drew on Hutt’s (1979) taxonomy of chil-
dren’s play with novel objects and Vygotsky’s (1997) theory of the cul-
tural basis of knowledge formation to develop a “digital play framework”.
By showing how children systematically learned to use a still camera
through play, Bird et al. (2014) describe a set of behaviours that align
with epistemic and ludic activity. They showed that children demonstrat-
ing epistemic play tend to engage in exploration, problem-solving and
skill acquisition, while those involved in ludic activities are likely to
44 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

participate in symbolic or innovative play. Subsequently, Bird and

Edwards (2015) extended this work to develop a broader digital play
framework, in an attempt to understand how children learn to use vari-
ous kinds of technologies through play.

 he Arts in Early Childhood: The Hong

T
Kong Context
Over the past decade, early childhood education in Hong Kong has
undergone reform and there has been a dramatic change in curriculum.
As a result of the reform and the required changes in approach that it
brings, many kindergartens have faced considerable challenges because
curriculum changes have clashed with the traditional expectations of par-
ents. Traditionally, the programme in early childhood settings had been
influenced by an achievement-driven Chinese culture, with an emphasis
on formal instruction for young children (Cheng, 2001; Rao, Ng, &
Pearson, 2010). Time and resources were devoted mainly to academic
activities to ensure children’s school readiness. Prior to these curriculum
changes, early childhood educators in Hong Kong placed emphasis
mainly on language and cognitive development (Li, Rao, & Tse, 2012;
Ng & Rao, 2008) and very limited opportunities were provided for kin-
dergarten children to engage in creative arts experiences (Bautista et al.,
2018; Leung, 2018). When offered, visual arts activities were mainly lim-
ited to craft making since arts-related pedagogical practices in Asian kin-
dergartens tend to be product-oriented by nature (Bautista et al., 2018).
The Education Bureau in Hong Kong advocated for a much stronger
emphasis on respecting and fostering children’s uniqueness and creativity.
The Kindergarten Education Curriculum Guide was launched in 2017,
positioning “arts and creativity” as one of the core learning areas in the
preschool curriculum (Curriculum Development Council, 2017). Today,
the importance of arts education within balanced kindergarten, primary
and secondary curricula in Hong Kong is recognised. Further, the arts
have been combined with Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) to become STEAM (Maeda, 2013; Reitenbach,
2015; Sousa & Pilecki, 2012).
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 45

Innovations in arts education continue in Hong Kong. However,

whilst numerous overseas studies have shown that arts experiences have a
strong positive influence on children’s learning (Menzer, 2015), little
research has focused on early childhood art in the context of early educa-
tion in Hong Kong. The role of digital devices in educational contexts has
similarly not yet been fully investigated (Fleer, 2016; Marsh, Plowman,
Yamada-Rice, Bishop, & Scott, 2016). Drawing on both arts education
and digital technology, the first author set out to investigate children’s
learning about photographic art and recommended that kindergarten
teachers need to be equipped with digital arts knowledge and skills to
enhance children’s creativity (Leung, 2014). Kindergarten teachers also
reported that visual arts teaching is difficult because they had limited
evidence-based training in visual arts education (Leung, 2017).

 oving Images for Young Visual Thinkers:

M
A Case Study
The Centre for Advancement in Inclusive and Special Education (CAISE)
was established in February 2004 in The University of Hong Kong’s
Faculty of Education. The primary aims of the centre are to advance
research and services in special education, and to encourage cross-­
disciplinary research collaboration in the field of special education.
A two-day video-making workshop was designed and included in a
summer holiday creativity and talent development programme. The aims
of this workshop were to equip children to (1) demonstrate shooting and
editing skills to convey a message through the medium of video, (2) use
symbolic moving images to articulate their thoughts and viewpoints and
(3) use film language in their videos to demonstrate their aesthetic and
creative appreciation. The two-day workshop taught the children cine-
matic language through video making, technical skills through operating
a video camera and narrative techniques through creating storyboards.
With the support of the School of Creative Media at City University of
Hong Kong, workshop resources included technical support, seven
46 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

professional video cameras, four hand-held video cameras, three tripods

for recording moving images and computer notebooks for editing.
Nine primary school children (aged five to eight years; one boy and
eight girls) participated in a workshop entitled Moving Images for Young
Visual Thinkers. The children elected to participate in the workshop in
which each child would create a short movie, selecting the workshop
from a list of options available to them during the summer break. The
children were from local families and as they all spoke Cantonese and
English, the workshop was conducted bilingually.
Two of the authors of this chapter led the workshop with the assistance
of four facilitators. Both instructors are knowledgeable in film language
and techniques and one is an early childhood education specialist. We
were interested in how the children would interact with digital devices to
achieve a particular outcome, and how educators should support digital
learning for children. The four facilitators each hold bachelor degrees in
early childhood education and they were able to communicate easily with
the children at an appropriate language level. Three alumni of the School
of Creative Media served as movie editors for the children’s final
video works.
Since video art is a novel area in early childhood education, all the
learning and teaching behaviours in this workshop were recorded and
analysed as a research study. Parents were aware of the purpose of the
research and signed a consent form for their child to participate in the
study and to be recorded on video (without showing their faces) during
the workshop. The video recording of the children interacting with the
instructors and facilitators allowed the authors to observe and analyse the
processes and actions that took place.

 igital Play Through Practice-Based Exploration

D
and Guidance

The concept of moving images was explained on the first day of the video-­
making workshop by introducing a flipbook to the whole class as a
20-minute warm-up activity (Fig. 3.1).
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 47

Fig. 3.1 Flip book compilation by professional animators. (Source: https://www.

youtube.com/watch?v=JVzf9rtgf9Y)

Teacher: What can you see in this video?

Participant: There is a book!
Teacher: What did you see in this book?
Participant: The drawings! They are moving in the book.
Teacher: People try to use a flip book to show moving images. But
nowadays, since we have digital cameras, we can create
moving images through the machine.

The teaching team had created a tailor-made, child-appropriate

42-­second video to introduce concepts such as filler effect, long take, on-
and off-screen, point-of-view shot and zoom-in/zoom-out effects. One of
the facilitators, Winnie, and her friend, Winnie the Pooh (Fig. 3.2), took
the lead roles in this video, which helped to engage the children with the
content of the video. After the children had watched this video twice,
they were asked some questions about the basic features of a video.
48 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

Fig. 3.2 Training video created by the teaching team to introduce the daily-life
experiences of Winnie and Winnie the Pooh

Teacher: What can you see in this video?

Participant: Winnie and Winnie the Pooh!
Teacher: Are they standing still or moving?
Participant: They are moving.
Teacher: What kinds of colour do you see in this video?
Participant: Orange, black and grey.
Teacher: Did you hear any sound from this video?
Participant: Winnie is talking to the Pooh.
Teacher: Yes, now we know that a video has a cast, objects, sounds
and even a script so that people will know what it is about.

PowerPoint slides were then shared. These highlighted the concepts

that had been introduced in the video (filter effect, long take, on- and
off-screen, point-of-view shot and zoom-in/zoom-out effects). Specific
shots were played back and paused so that they could be discussed. For
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 49

Fig. 3.3 Example of a PowerPoint slide created by the teaching team to illustrate
filming techniques

instance, the children discussed the zoom-in/zoom-out effects with a

slide and the video together (Fig. 3.3).

Teacher: Could anyone tell us what a zoom-in effect is?

Participant: A zoom-in is something that gets an object more closely,
and that thing will become very big.
Teacher: (The teacher came closer to the children and shortened the
distance.) Is this a kind of zoom-in?
Participant: Yes!
Teacher: (The teacher stepped back from the children.) How
about now?
Participant: This is zoom-out!

This training session was followed by an exploratory session to allow the

participants to try out the video devices and techniques using a profes-
sional video camera. None of the children had seen a professional video
camera before. The children formed groups of three, with one facilitator
supporting them conceptually and technically. Each group was asked to
draw two cards, each reflecting a videoing technique they had learnt
50 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

about in the previous session. With the support of a facilitator, the chil-
dren then made short videos that showed these two techniques (three
minutes for each technique). This exploratory activity lasted around
30 minutes. The finished videos were connected and projected on the
screen one by one.

Teacher: How nice! What kind of effect is this? Who can make
a guess?
Participant: I know! He talks to the sky, so this is a point-of-view shot.
Teacher: Exactly! Let’s clap our hands for the video maker! Who did
this nice shot?

Later on, in another session, the children had 60 minutes to create a

video scene as a whole-group activity using the professional cameras
independently. Props provided by the teaching team included chopsticks,
spoons, stainless steel plates, fruit (bananas and oranges), towels, umbrel-
las, paper boxes, glasses, caps and hats. In one scene, the children used a
range of techniques to record symbolic play in which they were crossing
a river in a boat. The children who did not have an acting role served as
crew members to record the scenes and to show video recordings to the
children who had acted in the video.

Creative Narration in Storyboard Drawing

In order to draw on children’s lived experience, emails sent one day before
the workshop invited each child to bring one or two of their most pre-
cious possessions or toys from their home with them to the workshop.
This activity was called My Best Friend. The children used their toys to
brainstorm their video ideas and start the storyboard drawing process.
They asked questions such as the following:

“What is the toy’s name?”

“What does he look like?”
“What kind of food does he like to eat?”
“What does he like to do?”
“What do you like to do with him?”
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 51

Fig. 3.4 Emilie’s storyboard describing Elsa’s singing and dancing

The children were invited to share their stories with the other children.
After the sharing session, the children were divided into three groups.
Each group was supported by one facilitator, who helped the participants
with the video techniques as well as with the language to explain the
events and describe the characters (Fig. 3.4).

Video Art in a One-Minute Movie

During the second day of the workshop, the children used their story-
boards to shoot their videos, supported by adults who held the cameras
and handled the props. The children played the role of film directors,
while the adults acted as production assistants. The children shot all the
footage they wished to have according to their storyboards. The facilita-
tors then helped them record voiceover clips to add to the visual footage.
Two professional editors helped the children edit their footage into a one-­
minute video. The participants’ parents were invited to attend a screening
later that afternoon, in which the “directors’ dialogues” were shared with
the audience.
52 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

Operating the video camera and performing most of the film tech-
niques was challenging to Emilie (aged five) as she had small hands.
However, her fingers could reach the zoom buttons and initially she
zoomed in and out without apparent purpose. Emilie chose to focus on
her doll, Elsa (the main character of a famous movie), for her storyboard.
Emilie drew a picture to be a stage for Elsa, with snow and a castle. She
learned to place the camera by moving a tripod to an appropriate position
and, demonstrating epistemic play, located the correct angle so that the
stage would fit into the camera shot. She demonstrated the techniques of
zoom-in and zoom-out to ensure her desired composition using the stage
she had created as the background for a theatre in which Elsa could sing
and dance. While she was singing and manipulating Elsa’s body, the facil-
itators held and operated the camera for her (Fig. 3.5). Emilie put on
headphones, sang the song in the cartoon and edited this into her video
as an audio clip:

Let it go. Let it go.

I’m one with the wind and sky.
Let it go. Let it go.

Fig. 3.5 Emilie sang the song “Let It Go!” as she manipulated Elsa’s body so that
she could dance
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 53

The perfect girl is gone.

Here I stand and . . . I don’t care.
Let the storm rage on.
The cold never, never bothers me anyway.

Implications
Digital Play in Early Childhood

In this study, we observed how the children learned to explore and use a
novel instrument (a professional video camera) and supportive equip-
ment (the tripod and headphones) intentionally. Although it is almost
impossible to offer an absolute definition of play (Hännikainen, Singer,
& van Oers, 2013), this study showed how the children performed rec-
ognised forms of play associated with children’s early years. They explored,
manipulated, pretended and even innovated, using the digital devices to
create video works. The children’s epistemic play experiences extended to
ludic play activities using props and cinematographic techniques to cre-
ate a one-minute video.
By recording the children’s behaviour across the duration of the work-
shop, we are able to contribute further indicators associated with learning
to use video cameras through play (Leung, Choi, & Yuen, 2020) to Bird
et al.’s (2014) digital play framework. This case study also offers teachers
new insights into how children learn to use technologies through play. In
particular, the new indicators provide guidance on how to observe, plan
and integrate the use of digital technologies in play-based learning in
early childhood education (Table 3.1).

F acilitators’ and Instructors’ Perspectives: What Did

We Need to Know?

What do teachers need to know in order to teach? Teaching a subject does

not merely require teachers to acquire the necessary content knowledge;
they also need to understand how to deliver the subject matter in such a
54 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

Table 3.1 New indicators relating to digital play based on the digital play
framework
Existing indicators in the
Types of Specific digital play framework New indicators (Leung
digital play behaviours (Bird et al., 2014) et al., 2020)
Epistemic Exploration Holding the camera Moving the tripod
play upright around
Locating the start/stop
button
Orientating the viewfinder
Seemingly random footage
Problem-­ Pressing the start/stop Using a phone’s
solving button ringtone as
background music
Turning the camera in Placing the colour
relation to what is seen filter on top of the
in the viewfinder camera
Intentional but
“uncontrolled” footage
Skill Framing footage in the Tilting the tripod up
acquisition viewfinder and down
Using the zoom function Using headphones to
listen to the sound
recording
Intentional and controlled
footage of observable
people, events and
situations
Ludic play Symbolic Deliberate footage of Deliberate footage of
peers involved in play improvising with
props in pretend play
Deliberate footage of
pretend play established
for the purpose of
filming
Innovation Deliberate filming of Deliberate filming of
content generated for content by using film
the purpose of creating language in the
footage narration
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 55

way that the learner is supported to learn (Shulman, 1986). This requires
the teacher to know what came before the new knowledge and what will
be built on it, how it sits within a wider learning context, what may be
difficult for the child to understand and how to adapt the teaching pro-
cess to avoid such difficulties. In other words, teachers must also acquire
“pedagogical content knowledge” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9).
After the workshop, the researchers conducted a reflection meeting
with the facilitators and instructors. The facilitators shared how they per-
ceived their role in the children’s creative digital play in this workshop.
Their reflections revealed the importance of content knowledge (digital
media) and pedagogical content knowledge (how to support children
learning about digital media in developmentally appropriate ways) for
teachers involved in digital play. Facilitators and instructors with differ-
ent educational backgrounds coached children differently from facilita-
tors and instructors with digital media backgrounds. Those with early
childhood education backgrounds had less content knowledge and expe-
rienced difficulty in guiding the children to use storyboards to tell their
stories. Their lack of film arts education also hindered their attempts to
facilitate the children’s making of digital moving images, although they
displayed a great eagerness to teach. Clearly, if digital media, as one form
of technology education, are to be included in early childhood curricula,
then digital media education must be incorporated in pre-service teacher
education programmes (Table 3.2).

Affordances of Digital Devices

Investigations into how kindergarten teachers perceive the affordances of

different digital devices in visual arts education for young children are
rare. This study sought to reveal how the affordances of a video camera
may be affected by the device itself, the nature of the digital play and the
competencies of the facilitators in guiding the children to create their
video artworks. In a world in which children are spending increasing
amounts of time using digital media for different purposes, the contribu-
tion of digital media and how it can be used to support child learning is
an emerging area of early childhood research (Madanipour & Cohrssen,
2019) and one that is further addressed in two chapters of this book.
56 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

Table 3.2 Facilitators’ and instructors’ reflections on their teaching competencies

in different kinds of digital play activities in the workshop
Facilitator without Facilitator with Instructor with
Activities in the training in film informal training formal training in
workshop studies in film studies film studies
Digital I was just able to I showed them I introduced the
explorative instruct the how to use buttons with
play children in simple different buttons different
functions, like from the video functions to the
how to press the camera to children and then
record button perform film shot some trial
and how to zoom language (e.g., shots and
in and out. I was point-of-view explained the
not very shot and long effects to them
confident take). I was through the
teaching them to uncertain of the viewfinder. I did
operate the exact way to my teaching
video cameras. teach. I found naturally, and I
difficulties in had not planned
explaining the the details in the
concepts. teaching process.
(continued)
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 57

Table 3.2 (continued)

Facilitator without Facilitator with Instructor with
Activities in the training in film informal training formal training in
workshop studies in film studies film studies
Storyboard I tried to motivate It was not easy to We designed this
drawing the children by break down their course, from
saying that stories into drawing a
drawing a different scenes storyboard to
storyboard is a and add effects shooting a video,
good way to to the scenes. as a digital
express what This is not a learning process.
they want to common practice We do the same
shoot for their for me. It takes in our basic
videos clearly. some time to training in film
However, it was imagine how the studies, and we
very challenging shots are going transformed this
for me to to be shot, to as a kid’s version
facilitate them in consider the in this workshop.
expressing the selection of This is a usual
key idea in every filming practice for most
single shot. I techniques that filmmakers.
spent a lot of fit the scenario
time thinking of and the adoption
how to explain to of extra props,
the children etc. I tried to
which part was show them what
important and their toys were
which part was going to be like
less important in on screen with
order to finish a different effects.
one-minute
video.
(continued)
58 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

Table 3.2 (continued)

Facilitator without Facilitator with Instructor with
Activities in the training in film informal training formal training in
workshop studies in film studies film studies
Video shooting I found that the It was a difficult The children
children were task, really. The showed us their
absolutely out ideas from their storyboards, but
of control. I was storyboards some of them
not sure what were rough. could not tell us
exactly I had to When I asked how exactly he/
tell them to do, them about the she wanted the
especially for details, they shot to look like.
those who lost changed their I would try a shot
the ideas in their mind, and it was and confirm with
mind. I realised different from him/her by
that there was a the storyboard. viewing the shots
big gap between Sometimes I through the
their ideas and could hardly viewfinder.
my facilitation. catch up with
I had no idea their thoughts.
what else I Therefore, I had
should suggest a quick discussion
for them to do with them on
to create that how to shoot the
video. scene and
explained the
feasibility of their
ideas. It was very
time-consuming,
and we spent too
much time on the
discussions.

Practical Recommendations
Here we offer practical recommendations for teachers and parents to con-
sider when using digital media in play with very young children.

Clay Animation This activity, which integrates the elements of craft and
animation, is suitable for both toddlers and children. Teachers or parents
can invite children to create an object using clay. Let’s use a snowman as
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 59

an example. First, the lower body of the snowman is made. Then, the
child takes a photo of the snowman. (Make a mark to indicate where the
snowman is standing when the photo is taken.) The children then con-
tinue to create the middle part of the body and take another photo of the
snowman at the same spot. After this, the children finish the upper part
of the body and the other elements of the snowman (e.g., the buttons on
the body), taking photos of the snowman as it develops. The children
then insert the photos into a moviemaker app and connect the photos
sequentially as an animation showing the growth of the snowman. For
toddlers, teachers and parents can help put the photos into the
moviemaker.

Video Theatre Toddlers and children could explore this activity in dif-
ferent ways. Place the camera where it cannot be knocked over. Connect
it to a projector and leave it running. Toddlers develop self-concept as
they observe themselves on the projection screen. They learn how to con-
trol their emergence on the screen. Children can bring toys or found
objects from home and play with them creatively in front of the video
camera, at the same time, providing a voiceover as storytellers. Showing
these videos to other children, teachers or parents supports emerging
child identity.

Close-up Shooting Teachers and parents could try this activity with tod-
dlers and children to enjoy scientific exploration. By using a video camera
to capture visual images, children are able to observe some scientific phe-
nomena in their daily life experiences. Support children to set a video
camera on a table and shoot a cup of water (a close-up shot). They could
record the moment when sugar melts in hot water or two colours mix
together. Watch the video together asking what, why, when and how ques-
tions to encourage children to engage in higher-order thinking about what
may have caused this scientific process to occur. The children could also
play with the fast-forward button to demonstrate the concept of time.
This process lends itself to the use of a smartphone or a digital camera to
capture any form of change such as a bud in a vase opening into a flower,
or soap flakes and water becoming slime when mixed. The teachers and
parents could apply time-lapse techniques to the changes with children.
60 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

Conclusion
Incorporating technology and the arts, digital art is an important genre
in the contemporary arts and belongs to the spectrum of visual arts in
early childhood education, along with fine art genres such as drawing,
painting and sculpture. Although the concept of STEAM has been recog-
nised in early childhood education, few studies have focused on early
childhood arts in Hong Kong. Fewer yet have focused on creative digital
art with young children. This chapter seeks to bring a fresh perspective,
with the goal of expanding the arts education knowledge and pedagogies
of kindergarten teachers and parents from fine arts to media arts.

References
Arnold, C. (2010). Understanding schemas and emotions in early childhood.
London: Sage.
Bautista, A., Moreno-Núñez, A., Koh, S. F., Amsah, F., & Bull, R. (2018). Arts-­
related practices in preschool education: An Asian perspective. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 277–288.
Bird, J., Colliver, Y., & Edwards, S. (2014). The camera is not a methodology:
Towards a framework for understanding young children’s use of video cam-
eras. Early Child Development and Care, 184, 1741–1756.
Bird, J., & Edwards, S. (2015). Children learning to use technologies through
play: A digital play framework. British Journal of Educational Technology,
46(6), 1149–1160.
Bolstad, R. (2004). The role and potential of ICT in early childhood education:
A review of New Zealand and international literature. Retrieved from http://
www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/ictinecefinal.pdf
Bresler, L. (1998). “Child art,” “fine art,” and “art for children”: The shaping of
school practice and implications for change. Arts Education Policy Review,
100(1), 3–10.
Cheng, D. P. W. (2001). Difficulties of Hong Kong teachers’ understanding and
implementation of “play” in the curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17, 857–869.
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 61

Curriculum Development Council. (2017). Kindergarten education curriculum

guide. Hong Kong, China: Curriculum Development Council.
Daniels, D. (2008). Vygotsky and research. New York: Routledge.
Fleer, M. (2013). Digital positioning for inclusive practice in early childhood:
The cultural practices surrounding digital tablets in family homes. Computers
in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 25(1–3), 56–76.
Fleer, M. (2016). Theorising digital play: A cultural-historical conceptualisation
of children’s engagement in imaginary digital situations. International
Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(2), 75–90.
Gadsden, V. L. (2008). The arts and education: Knowledge generation, peda-
gogy, and the discourse of learning. Review of Research in Education, 32(1),
29–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x07309691
Hanna, W. (2014). A Reggio-inspired music atelier: Opening the door between
visual arts and music. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(4), 287–294.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-­013-­0610-­9
Hännikainen, M., Singer, E., & van Oers, B. (2013). Promoting play for a bet-
ter future. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
21(2), 172–184.
Hutt, C. (1979). Exploration and play. In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.), Play and
learning: The Johnson and Johnson pediatric round table (pp. 175–194).
New York: Gardner Press.
Hutt, J., Tyler, S., Hutt, C., & Christopherson, H. (1989). Play, exploration, and
learning: A natural history of the preschool. London: Routledge.
Jowett, E. L., Moore, D. W., & Anderson, A. (2012). Using an iPad-based video
modelling package to teach numeracy skills to a child with an autism spec-
trum disorder. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 15(4), 304–312.
Korn-Bursztyn, C. (2002). Scenes from a studio: Working with the arts in an
early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(1), 39–46.
Leung, S. K. Y. (2014). How does photography express children’s voice? Every
Child, 20(4), 16–17.
Leung, S. K. Y. (2017). Early visual arts in education Hong Kong kindergartens
[Doctoral thesis]. The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.
Leung, S. K. Y. (2018). An exploratory study of early visual arts education in
Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32, 392–403.
Leung, S. K. Y., Choi, W. Y., & Yuen, M. (2020). Video art as digital play for
young children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(2), 531–554.
62 S. K. Y. Leung et al.

Li, H., Rao, N., & Tse, S. K. (2012). Adapting Western pedagogies for Chinese
literacy instruction: Case studies of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Singapore
preschools. Early Education and Development, 23(4), 603–621.
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2014). EU kids online III: A thematic network to
stimulate and coordinate investigation into the use of new media by children
(final annual report). IDEAS working paper series from RePEc.
Madanipour, P., & Cohrssen, C. (2019). Augmented reality as a form of digital
technology in early childhood education. Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119885311
Maeda, J. (2013). STEM + art = STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 1(1), 1–3.
Marsh, J. (2012). Purposes for literacy in children’s use of the online virtual
world ‘Club Penguin’. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(2), 179–195.
Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital
play: A new classification. Early Years, 36(3), 242–253.
Menzer, M. (2015). The arts in early childhood: Social and emotional benefits of
arts participation. Washington, DC: NEA Office of Research and Analysis.
Nash, L. (2012). Exploring ipads in learning. Learning and Teaching, 31, 7–13.
Ng, S. S. N., & Rao, N. (2008). Mathematics teaching during the early years in
Hong Kong: A reflection of constructivism with Chinese characteristics?
Early Years, 28(2), 159–172.
Plowman, L. (2015). Researching young children’s everyday uses of technology
in the family home. Open Access in Interacting with Computers, 27(1), 36–46.
Rao, N., Ng, S. S., & Pearson, E. (2010). Preschool pedagogy: A fusion of tra-
ditional Chinese beliefs and contemporary notions of appropriate practice.
In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner: Changing
contexts, changing education (pp. 255–279). Hong Kong, China: Springer.
Reitenbach, G. (2015). From STEM to STEAM education. Power, 159(1), 6.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Sousa, D., & Pilecki, T. (2012). From STEM to STEAM: Using brain-compatible
strategies to integrate the arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Stephen, C., & Plowman, L. (2014). Digital play. In S. Edwards, M. Blaise, &
L. Brooker (Eds.), SAGE handbook of play and learning in early childhood
(pp. 330–341). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Terreni, L. (2011). Interactive whiteboards, art, and young children. Computers
in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, 23(1), 78–100.
 3 Creative Digital Art: Young Children’s Video Making… 63

Vygotsky, L. (1997). Research method. In R. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of

L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 4. The history of the development of high mental functions
(pp. 27–65). New York: Plenum Press.
Wright, S. (2007). Young children’s meaning-making through drawing and
“telling”: Analogies to filmic textual features. Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood, 32(4), 37–48.
Wright, S. (2014). The voice of art: Understanding children’s graphic-narrative-­
embodied communication. In D. Machin (Ed.), Visual communication
(pp. 515–534). Frankfurt, Germany: De Gruyter.
 4
Augmented Reality in Early Childhood
Education: Accessing Complex Concepts
Within Imaginative Play Worlds
Rhys George and Parian Madanipour

Introduction
Examples of technology are all around us: scissors, bicycles and tooth-
brushes are all examples of tools that help to make work easier—they are
all forms of technology. Digital technology is a particular type of technol-
ogy. It uses computers as tools that make our lives easier and more effi-
cient. Many young children have frequent access to smartphones, tablets,
laptops and computers on a daily basis. Parents and early childhood edu-
cators see very young children ‘swiping’ at paper books in order to turn a
page—evidence of how familiar they are with digital technology. Early
childhood education should provide opportunities for children to
explore, consolidate and extend learning, playfully, that reflect their real

The research presented as a case study in this chapter was completed in partial fulfilment of
requirements for a Master of Education degree from The University of Western Australia under
the supervision of Associate Professor Christine Howitt and Associate Professor Grace Oakley.

R. George (*) • P. Madanipour

Bold Park Community School, Wembley, WA, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 65

C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_4
66 R. George and P. Madanipour

lives. Digital technology is part of their lives. Apps for mobile devices
have been developed for infants, toddlers and children. As parents and
early childhood professionals, carefully incorporating digital technology
in early childhood curricula is important (Bird & Edwards, 2015;
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009;
Edwards, Straker, & Oakey, 2018; Grieshaber & Yelland, 2005).
Traditionally, ‘technology-based learning’ has typically referred to basic
point-and-explore devices, such as interactive whiteboards, digital cam-
eras and touchscreen technologies. However, new forms of technology
such as augmented reality (AR) have become increasingly
commonplace.
AR creates the perception that ‘virtual objects’—that is, images of
objects created by a digital device—are actually present in the world. At
first, it may seem that AR has little to do with early childhood education.
It may not even seem appropriate for early childhood at all. However, AR
is increasingly commonplace in the lives of many children. It is common
for children to put bunny ears or funny hats on faces whilst video-­chatting
with a grandparent or to create an avatar for digital messaging. These are
examples of AR.
More research is needed to determine the contribution of AR to teach-
ing and learning in early childhood (George, 2017; Madanipour &
Cohrssen, 2020). However, as a teaching and learning approach, AR is
attracting a lot of attention from researchers, educators and parents
because it actively engages learners in the learning process. Presenting
content from a three-dimensional perspective using handheld devices,
desktop computers, webcams and/or head-mounted displays makes
learning fun. It enables learners to visualise the invisible (Wu, Lee, Chang,
& Liang, 2013). This hands-on approach to learning is why AR is so
promising for helping learners to visually ‘see’ volcanoes, ‘visit’ faraway
places or ‘make’ rain. Hence, to achieve the best learning outcome from
this augmented environment, it is crucial for early childhood educators
and parents to understand how children learn to use this innovative tech-
nology within a play-based learning context.
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 67

 hat Is Augmented Reality Technology

W
in Early Childhood?
Books are the most obvious application of AR technology in early child-
hood. AR-based books supplement traditional paper books with virtual
elements, such as three-dimensional virtual objects, sounds, and anima-
tions displayed over a touchscreen device. Some examples of AR books
that cover the age range from two to eight years old include Goodnight
Lad,1 My Very Hungry Caterpillar AR2 and Rox’s Secret Code.3 Research has
found that the excitement, engagement and enjoyment which children
experience when using AR technology to supplement traditional learning
have a positive impact on learning (Chen & Chan, 2019; Han, Jo, Hyun,
& So, 2015; Wang, Lee, & Ju, 2019; Yilmaz, Kucuk, & Goktas, 2017).
Adults play a key role in children’s AR book reading. Cheng and Tsai
(2014) involved parents in the learning process of AR picture book read-
ing. Within the study, when parents and children interacted as a ‘com-
municative child-parent pair’ and children were jointly involved in the
reading process with their parents, higher cognitive attainments regard-
ing the AR book content explanation and appearance description were
evident. However, low communication levels, and either the child or the
parent dominating the AR book reading, were associated with low levels
of observed cognitive gains. Parents also believed that learning through
AR enhances a child’s presence to, and interactions with, the learning
material. Fostering motivation and drawing attention to reading are two
further benefits that parents have raised about learning through AR
(Cheng, 2017). This highlights both the importance of social scaffolding
as a pedagogical approach and the increased learning efficacy AR technol-
ogy can bring. Thus, the three main interactive mechanisms of traditional
shared-book reading (a book, a child and an adult) can be incorporated

1
Grimm, B. (2015). Goodnight Lad | Exploring hidden worlds in books. Retrieved from https://www.
goodnightlad.com
2
StoryToys Entertainment Ltd. (2018). My Very Hungry Caterpillar AR. Retrieved from https://
storytoys.com/app/my-very-hungry-caterpillar/
3
Lecocq, M. (2016). Rox’s Secret Code. Retrieved from https://www.yoursecretcode.
com/?fbclid=IwAR0D4AV5WeiM3-dHcGnIuyz-­eRGH9rAzKRUUt5nS1Zpo5qMiTtEzK1RX
NTw#/game
68 R. George and P. Madanipour

in a new innovative technology, creatively delivering an imaginary world

for the readers.
Beyond books, AR mobile applications have been developed to sup-
port curricula in various domains, including science (Merge Cube4),
engineering (Thomas & Friends Minis5), the arts (Quiver Education6),
mathematics (Math Alive7) and literacy (Letters Alive8). Researchers have
explored the impacts of some of these applications on children’s learning.
For instance, the AR application QuiverVision was found to increase
motivation and participation levels in four- to five-year-old children by
converting two-dimensional drawings into three-dimensional render-
ings. Children’s enthusiasm and enjoyment throughout this AR-based art
activity were indicated, particularly when seeing their drawings of aero-
planes suddenly coming alive in 3D (Huang, Li, & Fong, 2016). Higher
levels of interaction and greater learning achievements with other AR
applications such as Aurasma and Augment have also been portrayed
(Gecu-Parmaksiz & Delialioglu, 2019; Stotz, 2018).
These findings might be due to the wonder that AR promotes in chil-
dren. By overlaying a virtual layer on reality, children perceive AR as
both created and real phenomena that deliver a playful environment for
exploration. With no doubt, playful exploration and engagement are
effective in children’s learning process. For example, the preschool teach-
ers in a recent study indicated that the use of an AR application in sci-
ence prolonged the engagement and attention span of three- and
four-year-old children (Ozdamli & Karagozlu, 2018). Educators gener-
ally have positive attitudes towards AR technology and believe that a
hybrid learning environment which combines digital and physical
objects has potential to capture children’s engagement in the learning

4
MERGE, (2020). MERGE CUBE, the power to hold the digital world. Retrieved from: https://
mergeedu.com/merge-cube
5
Budge Studios, (2017). Thomas & Friends Minis. Retrieved from: https://budgestudios.com/en/
apps/detail/thomas-and-friends-minis/
6
QuiverVision, (2016). Quiver Education. Retrieved from: http://www.quivervision.com/apps/
quiver-education/
7
Alive Studios Zoo, (2017). Math Alive. Retrieved from: https://alivestudiosco.com/
math-alive-kit/
8
Alive Studios Zoo, (2017). Letters Alive. Retrieved from: https://alivestudiosco.com/
letters-alive-zoo-keeper-edition/
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 69

process (Chen & Chan, 2019). However, not all the perceptions Chen
and Chan’s (2019) study gleaned were good. The general consensus was
that different learning styles must be taken into account as some chil-
dren are non-visual learners and may become distracted by animation
and other special effects.
The studies undertaken to date cover a wide range of curricula in early
childhood, which bodes well for the strong educational potential of
AR. Studies overwhelmingly show that AR technology can be used as an
educational medium to improve children’s understanding of the real
world by enhancing it with virtual elements. Wu and colleagues. (2013)
assert that seeing AR as a concept rather than a type of technology is a
more constructive viewpoint for stakeholders, in that AR can and should
be used as a tool. Through AR exploration, children can be provided with
instant and simultaneous access to both virtual and physical information,
which in turn can facilitate their learning in associating the virtual con-
tent with the real world (George, Howitt & Oakley 2019). For instance,
placing a virtual aquarium right inside a classroom, and observing and
exploring the scientific features of sea creatures (FishingGO AR9) from
different perspectives, provides the learner immediate access to
both worlds.
In this age of digitisation and technology, research is emphasising the
role of education in developing important future-facing skills (Loble,
Greenaune, & Hayes, 2017). Dunleavy, Dede and Mitchell (2009, p. 20)
describe the unique ability of AR:

to create [an] immersive hybrid learning environment that combine[s]

digital and physical objects, thereby facilitating the development of process
skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and communicating uti-
lized through interdependent collaborative exercises.

These so-called twenty-first century skills are crucial for Science,

Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) learning and
so it is reasonable to infer that AR may help children to prepare for the

9
IVANOVICH GAMES, (2017). FishingGO AR. Retrieved from: http://www.ivanovichgames.
com/web/catalog/games/zfishinggo/
70 R. George and P. Madanipour

workforce requirements of the future. Early childhood educators and

parents are eager to help children to develop these skills.

The Digital Play Framework

The digital play framework, developed by Bird and Edwards (2015), is a
conceptual framework that explores how children learn to use technolo-
gies through play. This framework, as an assessment tool, aims to assist
adults to observe and assess children’s playful engagement with digital
technologies. Derived from Vygotskian perspectives, the framework
builds on a series of behaviours identified by Hutt, Tyler, Hutt and
Christopherson (1989). It is built around the concept that children learn
to use technologies through two forms of play. First, children begin to
understand the functions of a given technology through exploratory or
‘epistemic’ play where they wonder what it does. In this form of play,
children develop new skills and new knowledge (Hatzigianni,
Gregoriadis, Karagiorgou, & Chatzigeorgiadou, 2018). In this frame-
work, epistemic play involves three behaviours: (i) exploration, as chil-
dren explore various functions of a device, (ii) problem-solving,
when children test and evaluate different approaches on a device, and
(iii) skill acquisition, when mastering knowledge about the function of a
device happens. More advanced exploration appears when children tran-
sition into innovative or ‘ludic’ play. Here, children investigate and dis-
cover what they can do with that technology, demonstrating two
behaviours: (i) symbolic, using a device to represent their thoughts sym-
bolically, and (ii) innovative, where children’s creative thoughts are pro-
moted to come up with new ideas. This framework is also applied in
Chap. 3 of this book.
There is a sequence that is typically followed: children’s ludic play
emerges after epistemic play has been mastered. However, the framework
treats these two forms of play as a cycle, explaining that children might
return to epistemic play to learn and develop new skills. An example of
this would be a five-year-old child engaging in epistemic play while
exploring the functions of a tablet’s camera such as locating the shutter
release button or detecting the on/off button for the video camera. The
child is moving towards ludic play when he or she uses symbolic
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 71

thinking to purposefully record their journey into space. The learner may
go back to the first form of play while seeking assistance from a more
knowledgeable person in order to view the recorded footage, or to
move backwards or forwards in the video in order to watch and exam-
ine the recorded play. While mastering this skill, the child might to share
learned actions with peers (Edwards & Bird, 2017).

Case Study: Augmented Reality Sandbox

The case study we present draws on the Digital Play Framework to cate-
gorise children’s behaviours as they use an AR Sandbox for play. The AR
Sandbox augments a traditional sandbox experience with layered, contex-
tual visualisations.10 A user of an AR Sandbox will see three types of
visualisations on the sand surface; topographic contour lines, a colour
elevation map and virtual water (see Fig. 4.1). As the user interacts with

Fig. 4.1 Components of an AR Sandbox

10
University of California, (2016). Augmented Reality Sandbox. Retrieved from: https://arsandbox.
ucdavis.edu
72 R. George and P. Madanipour

the sand surface, these visualisations adapt in real time. Three main com-
ponents operate these visualisations in a continuous loop. First, a camera
positioned above the sandbox scans the terrain and informs a nearby con-
nected computer. The computer then processes the scan and reconstructs
an image of the sandbox. This image is received by the projector above,
which vertically illuminates visualisations on the top of the sand surface.
The colour elevation map lights the sand different colours depending on
its relative height in the sandbox. The lowest area is coloured blue, and as
the sand increases in height, it becomes green, then yellow, then red, then
white. The contour lines are thin black lines that join points of equal
height. The virtual water is a projected simulation that interacts with the
formations within the sandbox. Multiple users can see all three visualisa-
tions simultaneously from any perspective around the sandbox.
The research was conducted at an Australian metropolitan school that
adopts a social-constructivist pedagogical philosophy, inspired by Reggio
Emilia. The school was deliberately chosen as their teaching prac-
tices emphasise children’s learning through play. The educators are viewed
as facilitators in a classroom that values children’s ideas. They support
children to develop their own theories and acknowledge their need to
have control over their learning. The data were collected through a Mosaic
approach, a model that focuses on listening to children and uses multiple
ways to collect data (Clark & Moss, 2011). This approach views children
as experts of their own lives and through listening, children and adults
co-construct knowledge. This study focuses on a small group of four- to
five-year-old children, namely Dale, Josie, Evie and Andy, within a class-
room facilitated by two educators. Two mornings per week, over eight
consecutive weeks, the first author (Rhys) joined the class and collected
data. During each session, the researcher captured observational notes
and photographs while the children interacted with the AR Sandbox and
with each other. An audio recorder captured the children’s discussions
while they played together, and conversed with the researcher. There was
a reflexive quality to the researcher’s discussions with the children
which assisted in clarifying the children’s perspective. The children had
access to nearby digital cameras which they used to capture photographs
of their play. Throughout the study, the researcher and educators met
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 73

regularly to share their perspectives of the children’s exploration of the

AR Sandbox.
All children in the classroom were invited to participate in the study
through an interactive non-fiction narrative (Mayne, Howitt, & Rennie,
2017). A presentation was written to inform the children of the research
aims and consent process. The children understood their participation
with the research was optional and decided how they would express their
consent each day (Howitt, George, & Oakley, in press). The researcher
and educators reinforced that the children could play with the AR
Sandbox without having to participate in the study. Approval for the
study was also agreed upon by the school principal, educators, parents
and the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee.
The data analysis process was divided into three phases: gather and
organise, code behaviours and reconstruct vignettes. First, all handwrit-
ten observations and discussions were organised into electronic docu-
ments alongside the photographs. Second, a Mosaic document was
created for each of the four participant children capturing their play with
the AR Sandbox over time. Third, using the Digital Play Framework, the
researcher deductively reviewed the Mosaics for vignettes that would
highlight children’s play with the technology. The researcher looked for
examples of epistemic and ludic play to demonstrate how children learn
to use the AR Sandbox through play. One vignette was selected to high-
light epistemic play and another for ludic play. To demonstrate the chil-
dren’s transition between the two play forms, a third vignette was chosen
and positioned as a bridge between the two. The three vignettes were
constructed using the data collected.

Findings

Epistemic Vignette: Making Shadows

This first vignette showcases the children’s behaviours during their initial
interactions as they play to understand the AR Sandbox’s functionality.
The vignette is prefaced with a table to highlight children’s engagement
with the technology. Table 4.1 foregrounds the children’s activities as they
74 R. George and P. Madanipour

Table 4.1 Applying the digital play framework to understand how children learn
to use the AR Sandbox through epistemic play
Behaviours Indicators Activities
Exploration Seemingly random use of Children create shadows in the
the AR Sandbox projections
Locating the operating Children observe changes in
functions of the AR the colour visualisations
Sandbox when moving sand
Exploring the operating Dale and Josie construct sand
functions of the AR mountains
Sandbox
Following directions of Dale and Josie collaboratively
other people with the build a larger sand mountain
AR Sandbox
Seeking assistance for Dale asks Josie about the
desired outcome changing colours
Problem-solving Relating actions to the Josie shares her understanding
function of the relationship between
colour visualisation and the
sand height
Trying different actions Josie and Evie create shadows
to solve an issue of different sizes to discern
the projection’s properties
Intentional use of the Dale and Josie collaboratively
operating functions construct a sand mountain
Skill acquisition Intentional and Dale and Josie collaboratively
deliberate use of construct a sand landscape
functions for desired
outcome
Sharing learnt actions Josie explains the impact of
with others sand distribution as a large
mountain creates a larger
ocean
Intentional and Children deliberately minimise
controlled use for own their shadows to allow peers
purpose to construct within the
colour visualisations
Note. Adapted from Bird & Edwards (2015)
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 75

answer the question, ‘What does the AR Sandbox do?’ It categorises the
children’s epistemic behaviours as indicated in the Digital Play Framework.
When the AR Sandbox is first introduced in the classroom, Dale and
Josie head over to investigate it of their own accord. They instantly notice
the visualisations and quickly begin to move the sand around. During
these initial interactions, they seek understanding and share their obser-
vations of the AR Sandbox’s functionality.

Dale: Why does the sand change colour?

Josie: When you dig deeper, it changes to blue, when you build up it,
it changes to one of these colours.

To clarify her statement, Josie points to a sand construction illumi-

nated green, yellow, orange and red. Dale then begins to push sand
together to construct something larger. Using a nearby scoop, Josie pours
sand on top of Dale’s mountain as they collaborate.

Josie: Oh, wow, there is snow on Dale’s mountain. Snow is coming!

As Josie pours the sand on top of the mountain, the projected light illu-
minates the sand a bright white. Dale and Josie continue to build the moun-
tain together, and Josie shares her insights on the colour visualisations.

Josie: Wow! The bigger the mountain we make, the bigger the ocean is,
because the more we move from the ocean, the deeper it gets,
there is no more room left over.

During their construction play in the AR Sandbox, the children have

been noticing the colour projections on their hands with curiosity. They
move their hands beneath projections, observing how their hands are
illuminated with colours, and some notice shadows forming underneath.
To find the source of the bright colours, the children often look up and
notice the projector’s light positioned above. Josie notices the shadows
forming below and deliberately begins to create shadows with her friend
Evie. They move their hands both closer to the sand surface, and then fur-
ther away, noticing the shadows change in size. Their curiosity develops
76 R. George and P. Madanipour

into a science investigation, practising skills of observation and problem-

solving. They each grab a piece of paper and hold the paper at different
heights to compare the shadow sizes. Josie communicates her findings.

Rhys: I notice you’re making the shadows bigger and smaller.

Josie: We hold the piece of paper up close to the light. The higher the
piece of paper, the bigger the shadow.

Andy is observing Evie and Josie’s play. He is conducting an investiga-

tion of his own. Andy notices the individual pixels of the projector on a
piece of white paper. He begins counting each of the pixels when, all of a
sudden, Evie uses her paper to cast a shadow over the whole sandbox.

Andy: It went to night time!

The children discuss the impact when there is no colour visualisation

visible on the sand’s surface. They come to a consensus that it should
remain ‘day time’ so everyone can play in the coloured sand. They agree
to stop deliberately making shadows at the AR Sandbox.

Interpretation of Making Shadows

The children’s interactions in the Making Shadows vignette are evidence

of curiosity, as they explored the functions of the AR Sandbox. They
explored the colour visualisations by constructing sand mountains that
changed the projected colours and created shadows from the projector’s
light. The children approached the device as a scientific investigation:
observing, comparing, predicting and checking, discussing and collabo-
rating. They shared their observations on the relationship between the
sand height and the colour visualisations. Josie demonstrated her under-
standing of the impact of the sand distribution and colour visualisations
with her peers. The children created different-sized shadows and exam-
ined the projector’s properties. As they developed an understanding of
the projector’s properties and colour visualisations, they agreed on a rule:
to minimise shadows during their play. This rule highlighted their mas-
tery of the device by signalling a shift in their intentionality, using the AR
Sandbox for its unique visualisation functionality in their play.
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 77

Table 4.2 Learning through transferring knowledge

Behaviours Indicators Description of activities
Problem-­ Relating concepts from the Scaling AR visualisations to
solving AR functions real-world space
Skill Sharing learnt concepts with Dale rationalises his scale of AR
acquisition others visualisations to real-world space
Symbolic Deliberate use of AR Dale uses visualisations to create a
Sandbox to represent real model of nearby lake
spaces
Note. Adapted from Bird & Edwards (2015)

Transitional Vignette: Lake Packard

The second vignette showcases a transition from epistemic play to a ludic

phase of play and development in understanding the technology.
Table 4.2 highlights how Dale answers, ‘What can I do with the AR
Sandbox?’ and critically reflects on ‘What does the AR Sandbox do?’
In the second week of the installation, Dale proposes a play idea at the
AR Sandbox.

Dale: Hey guys, let’s make it Lake Packard in here.

Rhys: How are we going to make Lake Packard in here?
Dale: Well, it goes straight and then it curves, then it goes straight,
then it goes curved there, and then it’s straight and curves
back around.

Dale brings a selection of blocks over to the sandbox to create a perim-

eter for his design. He digs out the sand inside his edge of the sandbox,
manipulating the visualisations to turn blue. Dale takes a photograph of
his construction and explains, ‘This is Lake Packard’.
The following week, the class walk to the nearby Lake Packard where
they visit a hill that they enjoy running up and down together. Once
finished, the teacher asks, “If the hill was in the sandbox, what colour do
you think it would be?” The excited class offers a range of suggestions. All
the colours of the sandbox are mentioned except blue. Dale is among the
children asked to share his opinion with the class, to which he responds,
78 R. George and P. Madanipour

“Green, yellow, red and white.” As the class walks back to school, Rhys
approaches Dale asking him to reflect on why he chose those colours.

Dale: I have had a think and the hill would be green because the hill
was actually green.
Rhys: So it depends on the actual colour of the hill?
Dale: Hills are smaller than mountains and mountains are bigger than
hills. Green is land and it has to be above the water. It’s like a
bathtub, the water goes to the bottom and stays there.

Interpretation of Lake Packard

The Lake Packard vignette demonstrated how Dale moved between the
two forms of play (epistemic and ludic). Dale built a model of a real-­
world space, deliberately utilising the colour elevation map, unique to the
AR Sandbox. He dug out the middle to represent the lake as blue. When
the children visited Lake Packard, the concepts experienced in the AR
Sandbox were introduced into a real-world environment. When Dale
reflected on the educator’s question, he had to problem-solve how to
contextualise the concepts from the AR Sandbox in the real world. He
thought critically about what colour the real-world space was and shared
his response. Dale reasoned the hill was green as it symbolically repre-
sented the grassy environment and it also provided a relative height scale.
The adult promotes the thinking of the child through reflection of his
response. Dale’s understanding of the AR Sandbox visualisations devel-
ops. His relative colour elevation scale continues in the following vignette,
as it is implemented in the children’s creation of Dinosaur Park.

Ludic Vignette: Dinosaur Park

The Dinosaur Park vignette showcases how the children build upon their
mastery of the AR Sandbox’s functionality into a new imaginative play
experience. Table 4.3 introduces the children’s play as they ask the ques-
tion, ‘What can I do with the AR Sandbox?’
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 79

Table 4.3 Applying the digital play framework to understand how children learn
to use the AR Sandbox through ludic play
Behaviours Indicators Description of activities
Symbolic Seamless use of real objects Children use a mix of virtual and
and AR Sandbox for real objects in construction of
pretend play Dinosaur Park
Deliberate use of AR Children use AR colour visualisations
Sandbox for pretend play in their dinosaur play
Innovation Purposeful pretend play Children enable and integrate
created for the use of AR virtual water visualisation in
functions construction of Dinosaur Park
Deliberate manipulation of Children manipulate the virtual
AR functions for pretend water for pretend play with
play dinosaurs
Note. Adapted from Bird & Edwards (2015)

In the fifth week of the study, the children were incorporating dino-
saur figurines in the AR Sandbox.

Dale: I started making a volcano then I changed it into a Dinosaur

Park. This is the dry land and they would get really thirsty.
Andy: The dinosaur needs to eat trees to survive.
Dale: I want to go outside and get some trees for the dinosaur to live.

During playtime, the children have access to an area outside the class-
room filled with natural materials. Dale and Andy visit the space and
return with sticks and leaves.

Josie: I have lots of dinosaurs…they are in the water having a drink at

the waterhole.
Andy: My dinosaur is on the fence; he is about to jump.
Dale: Don’t let him escape! The T-Rex is going to eat all the trees.
Andy: The T-Rex are going to eat the other dinosaurs…the T-Rex is
digging at the fence.
Dale: He just wants to explore.
80 R. George and P. Madanipour

Josie, Andy and Dale are utilising the colour visualisations as they cre-
ate walls and pathways between sections in their Dinosaur Park. Dale
captures a photograph of his part of the park to show how the dinosaurs
live on the green areas. Like Josie’s waterhole, Dale has been taking his
dinosaurs for a drink where the green meets the lower blue areas. His sec-
tion is surrounded by large walls that are illuminated red, intended to
keep the dinosaurs in. The dinosaurs in Andy’s section are trying to escape.

Andy: Mine keeps getting water from this side, what about I could join
my pool to your pool?
Dale: Yeah and then the dinosaurs could come down there and we
could visit.
Andy: Then we could make a stream. They can visit through the stream.
Dale: I could make a dry path from here and then you can make a
wet path.

After Andy and Dale discuss pools, streams and paths, Dale requests
the virtual water feature be enabled. Josie and Andy agree to allow the
function and the children create rain that interacts with their sand
constructions.

Dale: It rained down and fills up the holes and gets full and drip drops
off the side like rain.
Josie: I’ve got a waterhole, and this is where they use the water for a
swimming pool.
Dale: I have built a bridge for the dinosaurs to cross (Fig. 4.2).
Josie: The sharks are in the water to protect the treasure by the leaf.

The children sculpt the landscape to incorporate the streams and path-
ways that direct the virtual water around their Dinosaur Park. The dino-
saurs begin to move up to the higher ground as the water pathways
become the boundaries for the children’s sections. Josie’s shallow swim-
ming pool has virtual water within it. Dale experiments constructing
bridges that allow his dinosaurs to join Andy’s area. He uses sand to create
his first bridge, adapting a technique the children had begun during the
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 81

Fig. 4.2 Dale builds his second bridge over the virtual water using sticks from
the outside area

second week of the study. Further along the stream, Dale constructs his
second bridge using the sticks he had previously used as trees that the
dinosaurs ate.

Interpretation of Dinosaur Park Vignette

Throughout the vignette, the children’s symbolic use of the dinosaur figu-
rines and sticks seamlessly merges with their symbolic use of the AR digi-
tal visualisations. Dale and the other children build upon their experience
from the Lake Packard vignette, where the colour visualisations were con-
textualised to a real-world landscape. In their Dinosaur Park, the dino-
saurs lived in the green areas and were enclosed by the red walls that were
too high to climb. As their collaborative pretend play developed, they
explored engineering concepts by creating bridges for the dinosaurs to
use. The children adapted the landscape of Dinosaur Park for the virtual
water functionality. They creatively sculpted streams, pools and pathways
82 R. George and P. Madanipour

in a way that channelled the virtual water for their dinosaurs to drink and
partitioned sections of their park.
As they included the virtual water in their play, it increased the com-
plexity of the use of AR in their shared world. The children built upon
their understandings to purposefully integrate the AR visualisations to
transform their play. They create a shared an imaginary world that could
only exist with the AR Sandbox’s unique functions.

Discussion

With the use of the Digital Play Framework, this study delivers useful
insights into how children learn to use the AR Sandbox through play.
Children built upon their understandings through epistemic play to ludic
play. In the first form of play, children engaged in playful exploration
activities to investigate and understand the functions of the new digital
technology, the AR Sandbox. In the second form of play, children pro-
gressed to a more imaginative use of the AR features by using symbolic
and innovative thought. Within these two forms of play, the AR Sandbox
demonstrated its ability to move beyond a traditional sandbox to provide
a hybrid learning environment that facilitated learners’ development of
twenty-first century skills by extending the complexity of their play.
Critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, collaboration and commu-
nication are the key examples of twenty-first century skills that children
showed while interacting with the AR Sandbox.
Within this context, the Digital Play Framework may be a suitable
assessment tool for both parents and early childhood educators in order
to understand children’s digital play. It is important to note the signifi-
cant role played by adults to promote and facilitate children’s thinking
and understanding through interacting with the AR. Within the deliv-
ered study, the interactions among the adults and the learners in devel-
oping knowledge and meaning together assisted the participants to share
and clarify their understanding of the AR Sandbox through both forms
of play. The adult and the children contributed to the thinking to
develop and extend their understanding of the AR Sandbox. This dem-
onstrates the crucial contribution made by early childhood educators
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 83

and parents, knowing how children learn to use AR technology through

play, when they involve themselves in children’s digital play to clarify
concepts and evaluate the learning experiences collaboratively.

Conclusion
One of the key pedagogical affordances of AR is its ability to create immer-
sive, hybrid learning environments that combine digital and non-­digital
elements. Users can experience both the virtual and the real in a way that
gives new meaning to both. The AR Sandbox extends the child-­centred
play experience of a traditional non-digital sandbox by providing aug-
mented experiences accessible to all ages. For example, infants and toddlers
could simultaneously access digital functions in a way that does not inter-
fere with their tangible experiences. As a digital technology for learning in
early childhood, the AR Sandbox provides opportunities to explore abstract
concepts contextualised within the world of children’s collaborative play.
Thus, AR can be used to create a rich learning environment suitable for
early childhood as it allows children to develop twenty-­first century skills
during play. The AR Sandbox installation is only one such example.
Consequently, more experimental research is required to examine the feasi-
bility of other forms of AR in early childhood contexts.
When given time to play with technology, children—and indeed
adults—deepen their understanding and internalise the concepts that are
fundamental to its use. This in turn encourages the user to think in new
ways. As humans create new technologies, they build upon the cumula-
tive cultural knowledge and skills of those before them. Thus, new tech-
nologies like AR influence both the thinking of the individuals using it,
and culture itself.
By definition, AR adds a layer of information to a user’s experience.
Conceptually, it shapes a user’s perspective, allowing abstract concepts to
merge with concrete experiences. The children in this case study used a
complex framework of thinking within a play world they had con-
structed. This is one of the greatest affordances of AR for young chil-
dren’s learning: it allows children to access complex concepts within
their imaginative play.
84 R. George and P. Madanipour

References
Bird, J., & Edwards, S. (2015). Children learning to use technologies through
play: A digital play framework. British Journal of Educational Technology,
46(6), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12191
Chen, R. W., & Chan, K. K. (2019). Using augmented reality flashcards to learn
vocabularies in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 57(7), 1812–1831. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119854028
Cheng, K.-H. (2017). Exploring parents’ conceptions of augmented reality
learning and approaches to learning by augmented reality with their children.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(6), 820–843.
Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Children and parents’ reading of an
augmented reality picture book: Analyses of behavioral patterns and cog-
nitive attainment. Computers & Education, 72, 302–312. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.003
Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach
(2nd ed.). London: National Children’s Bureau.
Department of Education, Employment and Work-place Relations (DEWWR).
(2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for
Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of
immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and
learning. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(1), 7–22. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10956-­9119-­1
Edwards, S., & Bird, J. (2017). Observing and assessing young children’s digital
play in the early years: Using the digital play framework. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 15(2), 158–173.
Edwards, S., Straker, L., & Oakey, H. (2018). Statement on young children and
digital technologies. Retrieved from http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.
au/our-work/submissions-statements/eca-statement-young-children-digital-
technologies/
Gecu-Parmaksiz, Z., & Delialioglu, O. (2019). Augmented reality-based virtual
manipulatives versus physical manipulatives for teaching geometric shapes to
preschool children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6),
3376–3390.
George, R. (2017). Young children’s use of an augmented reality sandbox for
spatial thinking through play (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://
research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/young-childrens-use-of-an-
augmented-reality-sandbox-for-spatial-t
 4 Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Education: Accessing… 85

George, R., Howitt, C., & Oakley, G. (2019). Young children’s use of an aug-
mented reality sandbox to enhance spatial thinking. Children’s Geographies.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1614533
Grieshaber, S., & Yelland, N. (2005). Living in liminal times: Early childhood
education and young children in the global/local information society. In
M. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education: Policies,
pedagogies and politics (pp. 191–207). New York: Peter Lang.
Han, J., Jo, M., Hyun, E., & So, H. J. (2015). Examining young children’s per-
ception toward augmented reality-infused dramatic play. Education Tech
Research Dev, 63, 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-­015-­9374-­9
Hatzigianni, M., Gregoriadis, A., Karagiorgou, I., & Chatzigeorgiadou,
S. (2018). Using tablets in free play: The implementation of the digi-
tal play framework in Greece. British Journal of Educational Technology,
49(5), 928–942.
Howitt, C., George, R., & Oakley, G. (in press). Using a narrative approach
informing story to engage 4- and 5-year olds in research in the context of a
study on the use of an augmented reality sandbox to enhance spatial think-
ing. In F. Mayne & C. Howitt (Eds.), The narrative approach and informing
story: making young children’s research participation meaningful. Routledge.
Huang, Y., Li, H., & Fong, R. (2016). Using augmented reality in early art edu-
cation: A case study in Hong Kong kindergarten. Early Child Development and
Care, 186(6), 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1067888
Hutt, S., Tyler, C., Hutt, C., & Christopherson, H. (1989). Play, exploration and
learning. A natural history of the preschool. London: Routledge.
Loble, L., Greenaune, T., & Hayes, J. (2017). Future frontiers: Education for an
AI world. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
Madanipour, P., & Cohrssen, C. (2020). Augmented reality as a form of digital
technology in early childhood education. Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood, 45(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119885311
Mayne, F., Howitt, C., & Rennie, L. (2017). Using interactive nonfiction nar-
rative to enhance competence in the informed consent process with 3-year-­
old children. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(3), 299–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1260833
Ozdamli, F., & Karagozlu, D. (2018). Preschool teachers’ opinion on the use of
augmented reality application in preschool science education. Croatian
Journal of Education, 20(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v20i1.2626
Stotz, M. D. (2018). Creature counting: The effects of augmented reality on perse-
verance and early numeracy skills (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5255&context=etd
86 R. George and P. Madanipour

Wang, L., Lee, H., & Ju, D. Y. (2019). Impact of digital content on young chil-
dren’s reading interest and concentration for books. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 38(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1502807
Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status,
opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers &
Education, 62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024
Yilmaz, R. M., Kucuk, S., & Goktas, Y. (2017). Are augmented reality picture
books magic or real for preschool children aged five to six? British Journal of
Educational Technology, 48(3), 824–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12452
 5
Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost
and Hands-on Approaches to Teaching
Coding and Engineering to Young
Children
Amanda Sullivan and Amanda Strawhacker

Introduction
In the United States and worldwide, there has been a growing focus on
promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
education during the early childhood and elementary years (National
Science and Technology Council, 2018). This may be due in part to the
noticeable lack of professionals qualified to take on jobs in the sciences. In
less than a decade from now, it is estimated that the United States will
need 1.7 million more engineers and computing professionals (Corbett &
Hill, 2015). Early childhood and early elementary school is a critical time
to reach future scientists and engineers in order to meet this growing
workforce need (Bers, 2012, 2018; Sullivan, 2019). Children who are
exposed to STEM curricula and programming at an early age

A. Sullivan (*) • A. Strawhacker

Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 87

C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_5
88 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

demonstrate fewer gender-based stereotypes regarding STEM careers, an

increased interest in engineering, and fewer obstacles entering these fields
later in life (Madill et al., 2007; Markert, 1996; Metz, 2007; Steele, 1997;
Sullivan, 2019; Sullivan & Bers, 2017). Moreover, we have seen many
cognitive and social benefits of implementing STEM, and particularly
computer science, robotics, and engineering curricula with young chil-
dren (e.g. Bers, 2008; Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013; Kazakoff,
Sullivan, & Bers, 2013; Lee, Sullivan, & Bers, 2013).
Despite the research, actually reaching children with quality STEM
content, particularly with regard to the “T” of technology and “E” of
engineering, during their foundational early childhood years has proven
to be a real challenge to many parents and educators. Choosing develop-
mentally appropriate ways to address fields like engineering and computer
science with young children presents both practical and ethical issues for
adults to consider. Innovative technologies to support STEM learning
such as iPads, robotics kits, and computers are expensive, and often the
cost of these materials (let alone the cost of training and professional
development for adults on how to use them effectively) makes them out
of reach for many parents and educators. This has opened the door to a
new type of “digital divide” in which some schools and homes have access
to high-quality STEM and computing devices while others do not.
In this chapter, we present a different approach to exploring technol-
ogy, engineering, and the sciences during the early childhood years. By
focusing on screen-free, low-tech, and collaborative approaches to topics
such as engineering and coding, we demonstrate that it is possible to
teach and learn technical STEM skills without access to expensive digital
technology and kits. These inclusive activities are designed to be accessi-
ble to children of any gender and background within the age range of
approximately three to eight years of age, and can be implemented in
both home and school settings. The activity examples within this chapter
highlight a Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics
(STEAM) rather than STEM approach to designing curriculum. By inte-
grating the arts with the sciences, this chapter explores the ways that
domains such as computer programming and engineering can be
enhanced by infusing opportunities for creativity and artistic expression
as well as an integration with other early childhood curricular content.
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 89

STEAM in Early Childhood Education

The STEAM Movement

Early childhood STEM education has historically focused on building

foundational numeracy skills and an understanding of the natural sci-
ences for young children (Bers, 2008; Bers, Seddighin, & Sullivan, 2013;
Moomaw & Davis, 2010). In the growing national and international
level discussion around STEM, how to effectively teach technology and
engineering has become more pressing to researchers and educators
(National Science and Technology Council [US], 2018; UK Department
of Education, 2013; US Department of Education, 2010). This concept
of promoting creativity and expression through technology and science is
articulated in a newer acronym called “STEAM” (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) that is growing in popularity across the
United States and worldwide (Allen-Handy, Ifill, Schaar, Rogers, &
Woodard, 2020; Watson, 2020; Yakman, 2008). The “A” of STEAM can
represent more than just the visual arts, but also the liberal arts, language
arts, social studies, music, and more.
Within an early childhood context, STEAM education means finding
ways for children to explore these subjects in an integrated way through
hands-on projects, books, discussions, experiments, art explorations, col-
laboration, games, physical play, and more. New technological tools such
as programmable robotics kits and programming languages designed for
young children have become a popular way to teach interdisciplinary
STEAM content by integrating arts and crafts, literacy, music, and more
with engineering and robotics (Barnes, FakhrHosseini, Vasey, Park, &
Jeon, 2020; Bravo Sánchez, González Correal, & Guerrero, 2017; Elkin,
Sullivan, & Bers, 2016; Sullivan, Strawhacker, & Bers, 2017). Robotics
kits have evolved in the tradition of educational manipulatives that allow
children to explore their understanding of shape and number, spatial
relations, and proportion (Brosterman, 1997; Kuh, 2014; Nicholson,
1972; Resnick et al., 1998).
In research trials with simple robotics and programming languages,
children as young as four years old have demonstrated understanding of
90 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

foundational engineering, programming, and robotics content (Bers,

Ponte, Juelich, Viera, & Schenker, 2002; Cejka, Rogers, & Portsmore,
2006; Sullivan, Kazakoff, & Bers, 2013; Sullivan & Bers, 2015; Perlman,
1976; Wyeth, 2008; Zviel-Girshin, Luria, & Shaham, 2020). In addition
to mastering this new content, programming interventions have been
shown to have positive benefits for children’s developing numeracy, lit-
eracy, and visual memory, and can also prompt collaboration and team-
work (Clements, 1999; Lee et al., 2013). Moreover, we have seen young
children use robotics kits to explore more than engineering and coding,
including culture, dance, music, and more within an integrative STEAM
context (e.g. Kim & Kim, 2020; Sullivan & Bers, 2017).
While there is growing evidence that programming education sup-
ports children’s attitudes and interest in STEM fields, research is ongoing
about the cognitive benefits of learning to code (Rodriguez, Rader, &
Camp, 2016). Critics argue that it is unclear whether or how the knowl-
edge that learners acquire when programming (often called computa-
tional thinking) can transfer to contexts beyond the coding environment
(e.g. Greiff et al., 2014; Scherer, 2016). In a recent meta-analysis of trans-
fer in computer programming education, the authors found a moderate
overall transfer effect between computer science learning and other cog-
nitive skills such as creativity, reasoning, mathematics, and metacogni-
tion (Scherer, Siddiq, & Sánchez Viveros, 2019). One conclusion from
this work is that learners show high ability to apply programming knowl-
edge in similar contexts to their learning environment, such as complet-
ing a novel task using a familiar programming platform (Scherer et al.,
2019). This finding has yet to be confirmed in non-technological con-
texts, such as when children engage in “unplugged” (non-technological)
coding activities (Hickmott, Prieto-Rodriguez, & Holmes, 2018).
However, preliminary studies of the comparative effect of “unplugged”
and technology-based coding activities on computational thinking found
no differences between children who completed unplugged and those
who used tablet-based coding activities (Messer, Thomas, Holliman, &
Kucirkova, 2018; Rodriguez et al., 2016). Indeed, one study found that
children who completed unplugged coding activities showed significantly
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 91

higher computational thinking than a non-coding control group

(Brackmann et al., 2017).
Although research is ongoing as to the cognitive outcomes of program-
ming and robotics knowledge to different settings, researchers do tend to
agree that unplugged coding and engineering activities are a useful way
for children and adults to meaningful and positively engage with novel
STEAM domains (e.g. Bell & Vahrenhold, 2018). Research on early
childhood STEM education confirms that parents and teachers are criti-
cal for supporting children’s positive early STEM experiences, but that
they need training and resources to effectively foster STEM learning (Bell
& Vahrenhold, 2018; McClure et al., 2017; Strawhacker, Lee, & Bers,
2017). This poses a challenge since teachers may not have had profes-
sional STEM training, but studies show that professional development
experiences that teachers who used unplugged, story-based, and physical
STEAM activities, like the ones we present in this chapter, expressed con-
fidence and willingness to integrate STEAM domains into their class-
room settings (Bell & Vahrenhold, 2018; Curzon, McOwan, Plant, &
Meagher, 2014; Sentance & Csizmadia, 2017; Smith et al., 2015).

STEAM and the New Digital Divide

There are now many digital tools, such as the robotics kits previously
mentioned, available for young children to explore STEAM. But many of
these new tools, despite their benefits, are inaccessible due to the cost,
technical support, and professional development needed to implement
them properly. For example, the KIBO Robotics Kit, developed by
KinderLab Robotics for children aged four to seven years, offers a screen-­
free and hands-on kit that has decades of research highlighting its educa-
tional benefits (e.g. Sullivan & Bers, 2015; Sullivan, Bers, & Mihm,
2017). But with a cost of $220–$500+ per kit, it is unfortunately
beyond the budget of many early childhood educators and parents.
Similarly, the LEGO WeDo robotics kit for children seven years and
older costs $221 per kit and requires the use of a tablet or other device for
programming. Bee-Bot, one of the cheaper robots for young children, is
still around $60 per robot, without any other accessories, and without
92 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

allowing for the building and constructing components that KIBO and
LEGO WeDo offer. Even free coding applications and games require
schools or homes to have access to tablets and computers for each child
for them to be used as intended. The costs of these devices alone are
already prohibitive to many, without factoring in fees and time for train-
ing and professional development for adults to feel confident using these
tools with young children.
The stark costs of new coding and engineering materials for young
children have opened the door to a new type of digital divide. The term
“digital divide” once simply referred to whether classrooms or homes had
computers and Internet access. Now that most homes and schools have
Internet connectivity basic hardware, this phrase has taken on a new
meaning. There is now a socioeconomic division between those with
access to high-quality, open-ended software and technology that pro-
motes creative STEAM learning and those who do not. For example,
access to computer science classes and clubs is generally lowest for stu-
dents from lower-income households (Busteed & Sorenson, 2015).
Inequitable access to computer science education could place these stu-
dents at a disadvantage as computer technology continues to advance,
especially as coding is thought of as “the new literacy” in this day and age
(Bers, 2018).

L ow-Cost and Screen-Free Materials

and Activities
Digital technology, games, robotics kits, and more can be wonderful ways
to explore STEAM at the early childhood level (see Sullivan, Strawhacker,
& Bers, 2017 for ideas on using robotics within a STEAM context).
In this chapter, we simply hope to demonstrate that expensive technology
is not the only way to teach coding and engineering to young children. In
an attempt to reach all young children, we focus on presenting STEAM
activity ideas and materials that are low-cost and accessible to all, in order
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 93

to help bridge the divide in access to computer science and engineering

education. All the activities and approaches can be done in homes or
classrooms that are strictly technology and screen-time free, or they can
be used to supplement other curricula that use computers, tablets, pro-
grammable robotics kits, and more. We will begin by exploring STEAM
materials for toddlers to explore engineering and progress to materials,
resources, and approaches for teaching computer science and engineering
to children in Kindergarten through second grade.

Exploring STEAM with Toddlers

A screen-free and hands-on approach to exploring STEAM may be espe-

cially useful for those parents and educators working with young children
under the age of four years. The American Academy of Pediatrics recom-
mends that preschool-aged children, between the ages of two and five,
should have limited screen-time each day (American Academy of
Pediatrics, 2018). Therefore, STEAM exploration for very young chil-
dren should focus on providing them with multisensory, hands-on expe-
riences that engage their senses and build on their natural curiosity.
It is typically the “T” in STEAM that gives adults pause when thinking
about reaching very young children. It is important to remember that
technology does not just have to mean expensive electronic devices, com-
puters, and tablets. Rather, we can think of technology simply as any
human-made tool that allows us to solve a problem or complete a task
more easily. When it comes to very young children, some developmen-
tally appropriate tools to explore may include child-safe scissors, tongs,
eye-droppers, magnifying glasses, ramps, and more. Toddlers can explore
engineering and mathematics through building and experimenting with
blocks, puzzles, building bricks, magnetic tiles, and more. Asking chil-
dren questions and encouraging them to make hypotheses and observa-
tions while they play can help foster scientific inquiry and an engineering
mindset.
94 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

A
 ctivity Example

In this example, a classic building activity from early childhood is aug-

mented with prompts developed and tested by the authors during educa-
tional STEAM research interventions at schools, makerspaces, and
weekend workshops with children. When exploring engineering and
design with young children, building tall towers is one of the easiest
activities parents and educators can implement (See Fig. 5.1). Young chil-
dren naturally explore stacking with blocks and nesting cups when they
are very young. By the time they reach preschool, many children are very
adept at stacking (and knocking down!) structures. For this simple activ-
ity, almost any materials you have available can work, from blocks and
building bricks to recycled materials like plastic cups, paper towel rolls,
and more.

Fig. 5.1 Toddler-created tower built with magnetic tiles

 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 95

This is an easy “free play” activity for children to explore on their own.
Adults should focus on asking prompting questions that focus children
on engineering and scientific method concepts. For example, adults could
take this activity deeper through one or more of the following:

• Provide children with a variety of different tower-making materials.

Encourage children to predict, or guess, which material will allow
them to build the tallest tower.
• Ask children to think about what makes their tower sturdy, or strong.
Is it having a wider base? Is it using a particular material?
• Help children to measure their towers and record the measurements.
• Encourage children to test and improve their towers. What is one
thing children could change about their designs to make them more
functional (i.e. stronger, taller, wider, etc.)?

While this activity has an explicit focus on science, mathematics, and

engineering, it can easily integrate into a longer STEAM curriculum unit
as well. For example, children can focus on the art and design of their
towers by allowing them time to work with paints, crayons, or other craft
materials that allow them to decorate and express their creativity. Children
could also move on from building towers to building replicas of their
own neighborhoods including houses, schools, supermarkets, and other
neighborhood landmarks. This could be one part of a larger interdisci-
plinary social studies unit that focuses on community and mapping, but
also on art and engineering, as children create and decorate community
maps for their structures to sit upon.

Computer Science Unplugged for Young Children

For toddlers, we have seen that the “T” of technology in STEAM can
focus on simple human-made tools like pencils, scissors, and more. The
previous section focused on fostering engineering within an interdisci-
plinary STEAM context, rather than on technical areas like computer
science. As young children grow older, they become more curious about
how other elements in their human-made world around them work.
96 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

They wonder how things like cell phones and computers function. This
becomes an opportunity to teach young children about technology and
computer science. Children can learn that their favorite apps and digital
games all work because of code. They can learn that just like they are
learning to read and write in English, Spanish, or any other language, and
they can also learn to read, write, and create code!
While there are many benefits to teaching coding to young children,
the complications of screen-time and reliance on expensive devices pres-
ent roadblocks in terms of accessibility. The “unplugged” approach to
computer science education has become a powerful movement over the
past two decades, as educators have recognized the value of integrating
activities that do not require knowledge of computers or other technolo-
gies into the computer science curriculum (Bell & Vahrenhold, 2018).
This unplugged (i.e. “tech free”) approach focuses on teaching program-
ming concepts through puzzles, games, art, and more, all without a com-
puter, robot, or tablet. Unplugged approaches to computer science claim
to enable the development of computational thinking without spending
time or cognitive resources on syntax and grammar of programming lan-
guages (Bell, Alexander, Freeman, & Grimley, 2009; Bell, Witten, &
Fellows, 1998). The original Computer Science Unplugged project was
based at Canterbury University and has since been widely adopted inter-
nationally (translated into 12 languages), and it is also recommended in
The Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) K-12 curriculum
(Bell et al., 2009).

Computer Science Unplugged Activity Example

This example comes from free resources posted on the CS Unplugged

website by the Computer Science Education Research Group at the
University of Canterbury (the authors share no affiliation with this
research group) (Bell et al., 2009). By visiting csunplugged.com, parents
and educators can find a range of unplugged activities to implement with
young children. The website has activities organized by topic and age
range (see Fig. 5.2). For example, there is a list of activities to explore
binary numbers, error detection, searching algorithms, and more. The
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 97

Fig. 5.2 Screenshot of activity topics on CS Unplugged website

prompts suggested for each topic typically involve a hands-on activity

that may include the use of arts and crafts or other tangible materials,
group discussion prompts, and ideas for play and exploration.
One lesson example presented for children as young as five years of age
involves the binary number system. Why is the binary number sys-
tem important for us to know about? Binary code is how computers talk
and represent information. Children can think of binary as a fun new
number language to explore. Children may be interested to learn that
letters, numbers, and pictures (basically everything you see on the com-
puter) is made up of different combinations of 0’s and 1’s.
Binary is a base-2 number system. This sounds complicated, but is just
a bit different from the more common decimal, or base-10, number sys-
tem. Every number “place” in our base-10 system is a multiple of 10, and
we combine 10 digits (0–9) to create any number we want. For example,
the number 158 only uses only three digits, but the order of the numbers
matter: there is a 1 in the hundreds-place, a 5 in the tens-place, and an
8 in the ones-place. In binary, the system is exactly the same except that
there are only 2 digits (0 and 1), and all the number places are multiples
of 2. Computers use binary because it is simpler for a machine to under-
stand than the complex decimal system. A 5-digit binary system can
98 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

express numbers from 0–99,999. This is called “5 bit,” and it actually is a

shortened phrase that simply means “5 binary digits.” CS Unplugged
provides a helpful 5-bit binary to alphabet key that adults can adapt into
posters or worksheets for their students (see Fig. 5.3). In 5-bit binary,
each English letter can be represented by a combination of five 0s and 1s.
In the CS Unplugged activity, children create a necklace with their
initials written in 5-bit binary. Adults do not need to cover the whole of
binary to run this activity. Instead, this project is simply intended to be a
fun and hands-on introduction to how computers store information. To
complete this activity, decide which bead color will represent 1 and which
bead will represent 0. For example, 0 could be blue and 1 could be red.
Next, children choose their letters and see how their initials are translated
into binary and then into colored beads. For example, the letter A
(00001 in binary, see Fig. 5.3) would be represented by the following
beads: blue, blue, blue, blue, red. To make this activity even simpler for
young children, adults can create a poster showing a direct translation of

Fig. 5.3 Screenshot of alphabet to 5-bit binary key from CS Unplugged

 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 99

how each letter of the alphabet would be represented by colored beads as

well as worksheets for children to lay their beads on before stringing them.
In addition to exploring the concept of binary, activities like this can
easily integrate into a longer STEAM curriculum that integrates art, fash-
ion, and design in the creation of all sorts of jewelry, the creation of
friendship bracelets, and more. While a deep understanding of binary is
not needed for this activity, a basic understanding of what binary is can
be helpful. CS Unplugged also provides a 45-minute lesson plan that can
be used in conjunction with this activity that includes guided prompts on
how to first introduce the topic of binary number system to young chil-
dren, before getting into this hands-on activity.

Board Games to Explore Coding

From within the CS Unplugged movement, a new crop of unplugged

coding board games and card games has been growing in popularity over
the past decade. Board games and card games are some of the easiest (and
most fun!) ways to explore computer programming with young children
because you do not need a computer or any other device. Coding board
games are also more conducive to learning and playing in home environ-
ments and informal education environments because they can be played
with multiple players of mixed ages. Playing these games as a family can
help younger children learn and understand the rules of the games faster
than if they were to play by themselves. Table 5.1 outlines a few examples
of popular coding board games that are designed to reach players younger
than eight years of age. All of these examples are available for less than
US$25, making board games a cost-effective solution for those without
access to expensive tablets, computers, or robotics kits.
In addition to these coding-explicit games, parents and educators
should remember that many traditional board games like Chess, Go and
Backgammon can also be used to teach and reinforce the same problem-
solving and strategy skills that are necessary across STEAM disciplines.
Board games also help to teach young children important interpersonal
skills such as patience, turn-taking, and being a gracious winner/loser.
100 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

Table 5.1 Coding board games for young children

Board Age
game range Cost and description STEAM skills
Robot 3+ $21—multiplayer board game with Sequencing
Turtles the goal of programming your turtle Problem-solving
to navigate a maze to reach its Debugging
jewel. Functions
Planning
Turn-taking
LittleCodr 4+ $13—a card game in which children Logic
program their parents or friends to Sequential
do crazy things by using simple thinking
action cards Prototyping
debugging
Turn-taking
Coding 7+ $14—children play the game with Java programming
Farmers action cards in two ways: regular Addition
English and Java code. By playing Subtraction
the game several times, Reading/
children learn to connect their vocabulary
actions with written code. Turn-taking
Note. All prices given in USD

Board Game Example: Robot Turtles

This example comes from a board game developed by a software engineer

who wanted a way to teach coding to his young children and was pro-
duced by a private company called ThinkFun (www.thinkfun.com) (the
authors share no affiliation with the developers or producers of Robot
Turtles) (Shapiro, 2014). The Robot Turtles board game teaches coding
concepts to children ages three years and older, and was the most-backed
board game in Kickstarter history at the time its campaign closed in 2014
(Shapiro, 2014). The game setup and rules of Robot Turtles are easy for
young children to master: you create a maze on the board with the turtles
in the corners and the jewels in the center (see Fig. 5.4). Children play
instruction cards during their turn (such as, turn right, turn left, move
forward, etc.) in order to “program” their turtles to get to their jewels.
When a player’s turtle reaches their jewel, they win. If they make a mis-
take, they can use a “Bug” card to undo a move. Creating these programs
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 101

Fig. 5.4 Robot Turtles board game

encourages sequential thinking and problem-solving: two key compo-

nents of computer programming.
One of the great things about this particular board game is that the
board can be set up differently each time you play, ensuring this is not a
game you play once and then leave on a shelf in your closet. Additionally,
it can increase in complexity as children grow up or become more familiar
with the cards and logic of the game. For example, the “Function Frog”
card is used to represent a set of several moves (i.e. it allows users to create
a function or subroutine). By using this card, players learn to shorten their
program by using this single card to represent a sequence of movements.
Robot Turtles can be a playful addition to family game night or used
as a center activity in schools and informal education settings like camps
or after-school programs. Parents and educators can take the board game
concept further by encouraging children to design and create their own
coding board games. This could develop into a longer STEAM
102 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

curriculum unit that involves writing rules for the games, designing and
decorating a playing board and/or cards, testing and improving the game
by playing it with friends and peers, and more.

Books and Stories

Up to this point, we have focused on board games and hands-on materi-

als or products to explore STEAM. But if parents and educators want to
get started exploring STEAM in a very familiar way, it can be as easy as
strategically integrating new books into your storytime practices. Adults
can try reading and discussing engineering- or science-themed picture
books and have discussions around what the characters did and why. A
few notable examples include Rosie Revere, Engineer by Andrea Beaty;
Ada Twist, Scientist by Andrea Beaty; If I Built a Car by Chris Van Dusen;
If I Built a House by Chris Van Dusen; and Going Places by Paul Reynolds
and Peter Reynolds.

Picture Book STEAM Activity Example

The authors developed this activity and reading list as part of their work,
which included offering paid weekend-and-holiday STEM experiences
for young children in the greater Boston area. Many picture books can
naturally lead to a hands-on STEAM activity. For example, the book If I
Built a House by Chris Van Dusen focuses on a child imagining the design
of his dream house and all the fantastical elements it might include. After
reading this book, children can create blueprints for their own dream
houses, inspired by the blueprints in If I Built a House. Adults may also
wish to facilitate a longer discussion about real-world structures, take a
look at real building blueprints, and explore architecture from cultures
around the world.
This can lead to a hands-on building activity that focuses on the engi-
neering design process. The engineering design process refers to the cycli-
cal or iterative process engineers use to design an artifact in order to meet
a need. While there are many versions of the engineering design process,
it typically includes a version of the following steps: identifying a
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 103

problem, looking for ideas for solutions and choosing one, developing a
prototype, testing, improving, and sharing solutions with others.
Figure 5.5 shows one example of the engineering design process created
by the Developmental Technologies Research Group at Tufts University.
After learning about the engineering design process, children can use a
variety of materials such as LEGO, popsicle sticks, recycled materials,
and more to bring their dream house blueprint designs to life (see
Fig. 5.6). When faced with the actual materials at hand, some children
may wish to revise their designs. All children should be encouraged to
engage in the “test and improve” stage of the engineering design process
by ensuring their houses are sturdy and implementing improvements or
changes as needed.
From a STEAM perspective, this type of engineering activity can easily
integrate more with fine arts, by incorporating a focus on painting, deco-
rating, and considering the aesthetics of the houses. Or, it could integrate
with literacy by connecting to a classic story such as the Three Little Pigs.
Children could test the sturdiness of their houses against the breath of the
“Big Bad Wolf ” (i.e. a fan) and make any changes to their design based
on the results of this test.

Fig. 5.5 The engineering design process

104 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

Fig. 5.6 Dream house creations made by children in K to Second Grade

Tips for Parents and Educators

Choosing appropriate tools and materials is only the beginning of what
adults need to consider when it comes to implementing quality STEAM
education for young children. Just as important as the tools we use, are
the mindsets, attitudes, and role modeling to which we expose young
children. This section focuses on providing parents and educators with
tips, ideas, and resources for best practices exploring STEAM with young
children.

Fostering a Growth Mindset

One of the most important things that parents and educators can do to
support young children’s STEAM education is fostering the right
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 105

mindset toward hard work, perseverance, and failure. Research has shown
that personal views about intelligence and failure may impact children’s
achievement and persistence in STEM fields. Psychologist Carol Dweck
spent decades researching achievement and success and developed the
concept of the “growth mindset” (Dweck, 2002, 2008). The “growth
mindset” is the belief that intelligence is not fixed, but instead can change
and grow incrementally through practice.
It is worth noting that Dweck’s findings have met with criticism from
the research community for her methodological approach, which her
team attempted to address by launching a large-scale study of 12,000
students involving third-party research evaluators and methodological
analysts. This confirmed core elements of her prior results, albeit with
extremely small effects (Yeager et al., 2019). However, replication studies
of Dweck’s work, particularly randomized control trials, have met with
mixed success. For example, Li and Bates (2017) found no achievement
differences predicted by mindset in a sample of over 600 children, whereas
Bettinger, Ludvigsen, Rege, Solli, and Yeager (2018) claim to have repli-
cated Dweck’s findings, and attribute their success to close adherence to
Dweck’s original intervention approach (see Denworth, 2019 for a full
discussion of the ongoing debate about growth mindset). Despite this
ongoing debate, education and psychology practitioners continue to use
growth mindset in their practice, and researchers who support Dweck’s
work argue that educational interventions must be judged in a real-world
context, where even small effects can be important (Denworth, 2019).
One way that adults can support a growth mindset is learning to praise
children differently. Instead of simply telling children they are smart,
which does not encourage growth, praise their effort. Praise the time and
hard work children put into their project or mastering a new skill rather
than just the outcome. Offering praise like “wow, you are so smart!” cer-
tainly can offer a short-term self-esteem boost, but in the long term, it
can make children lose confidence when tasks become hard. Consider
offering nuanced praise, such as, “I am so impressed that you spent so
many hours working hard and building that LEGO house—I can tell it
is really sturdy because of the wide base!” Not only does this type of praise
help to foster the growth mindset, but it also shows you are paying close
attention to their work, rather than offering generic compliments.
106 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

Role Modeling

Parents and educators should be aware of what and who young children
are seeing on an everyday basis in school, at home, in the media, and in
books. Are they exposed to engineers and scientists who look like them?
Do they see women and minorities excelling at mathematics and using
technology? Children need role models who reflect aspects of themselves
that they can admire and look up to, especially within the sciences and
technology. Adults can try to address this need by introducing young
children to both fictional characters and real-life role models from
STEAM fields that represent a range of genders and backgrounds. Some
of the picture books referenced earlier in this chapter could be a great
place to start. For example, Rosie Revere, Engineer and Ada Twist, Scientist
both feature a female protagonist engaging in STEM.
Meeting real-world scientists and engineers can also be a powerful expe-
rience for young children. Educators can reach out to children’s families
for volunteers and may be surprised to find connections within your own
classroom network. Parents and teachers can arrange trips to science muse-
ums, makerspaces, and laboratories for an exciting chance to meet or learn
about scientists and engineers from a range of backgrounds. Local colleges
and universities can also be a resource for finding diverse role models
majoring in STEAM fields who may be interested in collaborating with you.
It is critical that parents and teachers do not forget about children’s
most impactful role models – the adults who care for them each day!
Children are always watching and listening to what parents, teachers, and
caregivers say and do. It is important for these adults to be modeling their
own sense of scientific inquiry. How do you do this? You could start by
pointing out to children when you have a hypothesis or idea that you are
testing, demonstrate how you solved an engineering challenge, or share
with children how mathematics or science knowledge helped you solve a
problem in your everyday life. When you do not know the answer to a
question a child asks, use this as an authentic opportunity to model
problem-­solving strategies rather than shying away from the question. In
this way, you are modeling your own belief in the growth mindset and
demonstrating your ability to apply the engineering and problem-solving
skills you are teaching them.
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 107

Using the STEAM Resources Available

This chapter has focused on providing parents, educators, and caregivers

with information about tools and approaches for teaching screen-free
(and low-cost) STEAM activities to young children. But it is unlikely
that anyone embarking on teaching early childhood STEAM for the first
time would need to start from scratch. There are many resources avail-
able, both in-person and online. Within your own community, be sure to
explore local children’s libraries, museums, and makerspaces for STEAM-
related resources and events. Settings like these will have access to tablets,
computers, robotics kits, and other more expensive STEAM materials
that you may be able to borrow or use without purchasing your own.
There are also many online resources from which parents and educa-
tors can benefit. From YouTube videos teaching the Engineering Design
Process to free curriculum downloads, a variety of sites and resources sup-
port parents and early childhood educators on their STEAM journeys.
For example, CS Unplugged, which was mentioned earlier in this chap-
ter, has a range of activity and curriculum guides freely available online at
csunplugged.com/. A few notable examples are as below:

• Code.org—Code.org offers many useful resources for parents and

educators embarking on teaching computer science to children in
grades K-12. As it relates to low-cost and screen-free activities, they
have compiled a list of their unplugged curriculum ideas and resources
here: code.org/curriculum/unplugged
• NASA for Educators—Lesson plans, teacher guides, classroom activi-
ties, posters and more for teachers and students as young as
Kindergarten. www.nasa.gov/stem/foreducators/k-­12/index.html
• Teach Engineering—A digital library comprised of standards-based
engineering curricula for K-12 educators. See: www.teachengi-
neering.org/
108 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

Conclusion
Young children are budding scientists and engineers who are naturally curi-
ous about the world around them and how things fit together and work.
This means they are at a perfect age to explore STEAM and particularly,
concepts of engineering and computer science. While there has been a
growing focus on innovative new applications, digital devices, and software
to encourage young children’s exploration of computer science and engi-
neering, there are also many low-cost and screen-free approaches to teach-
ing the same concepts. Moreover, low-cost and low-tech materials and
approaches may be useful in reaching schools and communities that are
unable to afford new technologies and professional development for educa-
tors. Low-cost and low-tech STEAM approaches are accessible for parents
and teachers, even those with little-to-no STEM background themselves.
With this new crop of board games, card games, and unplugged activities,
computer science and engineering is becoming more accessible to all.

Conflict-of-Interest Disclosure

The activities and resources presented in this chapter were developed by

the authors during research-based and professional education interven-
tions, or were available through third-party outlets (see specific examples
for more information about their origins). The KIBO Robotics Kit
described in the introduction is produced and marketed through
KinderLab Robotics, Inc., where both authors have previously been
employed. The authors are in no way affiliated with any of the other
products described in the chapter.

References
Allen-Handy, A., Ifill, V., Schaar, R. Y., Rogers, M., & Woodard, M. (2020).
Black girls STEAMing through dance: Inspiring STEAM literacies, STEAM
identities, and positive self-concept. In Challenges and opportunities for trans-
forming from STEM to STEAM education (pp. 198–219). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global.
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 109

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2018). Children and media tips from the
American academy of pediatrics.
Barnes, J., FakhrHosseini, S. M., Vasey, E., Park, C. H., & Jeon, M. (2020).
Child-robot theater: Engaging elementary students in informal STEAM edu-
cation using robots. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 19(1), 22–31.
Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., & Grimley, M. (2009). Computer science
unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. The
New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology,
13(1), 20–29.
Bell, T., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS unplugged—How is it used, and does it
work? In Adventures between lower bounds and higher altitudes (pp. 497–521).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Bell, T. C., Witten, I. H., & Fellows, M. (1998). Computer Science unplugged:
Off-line activities and games for all ages. Canterbury, UK: Computer Science
Unplugged.
Bers, M., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as
designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. In Information
technology in childhood education (pp. 123–145). Morgantown, W. Va: AACE.
Bers, M. U. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early child-
hood classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development:
From playpen to playground. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.
Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational
thinking in the early childhood classroom. New York: Routledge Press.
Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing
together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355–377.
Bettinger, E., Ludvigsen, S., Rege, M., Solli, I. F., & Yeager, D. (2018). Increasing
perseverance in math: Evidence from a field experiment in Norway. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 146, 1–15.
Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali,
A., & Barone, D. (2017, November). Development of computational think-
ing skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In Proceedings of the
12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education (pp. 65–72).
Bravo Sánchez, F. Á., González Correal, A. M., & Guerrero, E. G. (2017).
Interactive drama with robots for teaching non-technical subjects. Journal of
Human-Robot Interaction, 6(2), 48–69.
Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York: Henry N. Abrams.
110 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

Busteed, B., & Sorenson, S. (2015, August 20). Many students lack access to com-
puter science learning. Retrieved from: www.gallup.com/education/243416/
students-­lack-­access-­computer-­science-­learning.aspx
Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using
robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary
school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711.
Clements, D. H. (1999). The future of educational computing research: The
case of computer programming. Information Technology in Childhood
Education Annual, 1, 147–179.
Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the equation: The variables for women’s
success in engineering and computing. Washington, DC: American Association
of University Women.
Curzon, P., McOwan, P. W., Plant, N., & Meagher, L. R. (2014, November).
Introducing teachers to computational thinking using unplugged storytell-
ing. In Proceedings of the 9th workshop in primary and secondary computing
education (pp. 89–92). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
Denworth, J. (2019). Debate arises over teaching “growth mindsets” to stu-
dents. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.
com/article/debate-­a rises-­overteaching-­g rowth-­m indsets-­t o-­m otivate-­
students
Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In Development
of achievement motivation (pp. 57–88). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random
House Digital Inc.
Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO
robotics kit in preschool classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3),
169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1216251
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years
old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case
study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97.
Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser,
A. C., et al. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in
the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74–83.
Hickmott, D., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., & Holmes, K. (2018). A scoping review of
studies on computational thinking in K–12 mathematics classrooms. Digital
Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 48–69.
Kazakoff, E., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based
intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 111

childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s10643-­012-­0554-­5
Kim, J. O., & Kim, J. (2020). Development and application of art based
STEAM education program using educational robot. In Robotic systems:
Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1675–1687). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global.
Kuh, L. P. (Ed.). (2014). Thinking critically about environments for young chil-
dren: Bridging theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lee, K., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using
robotics to foster social interaction in kindergarten. Computers in the Schools,
30(3), 271–281.
Li, Y., & Bates, T. (2017). Does growth mindset improve children’s IQ, educational
attainment or response to setbacks? Active-control interventions and data on chil-
dren’s own mindsets. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh. https://osf.io/
preprints/socarxiv/tsdwy/
Madill, H., Campbell, R. G., Cullen, D. M., Armour, M. A., Einsiedel, A. A.,
Ciccocioppo, A. L., et al. (2007). Developing career commitment in STEM-­
related fields: Myth versus reality. In R. J. Burke, M. C. Mattis, & E. Elgar
(Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathemat-
ics: Upping the numbers (pp. 210–244). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Markert, L. R. (1996). Gender related to success in science and technology. The
Journal of Technology Studies, 22(2), 21–29.
McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J.,
Kendall-Taylor, N., et al. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science,
technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. In Joan
Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. New York: Joan Ganz Cooney
Center at Sesame Workshop.
Messer, D., Thomas, L., Holliman, A., & Kucirkova, N. (2018). Evaluating the
effectiveness of an educational programming intervention on children’s
mathematics skills, spatial awareness and working memory. Education and
Information Technologies, 23(6), 2879–2888.
Metz, S. S. (2007). Attracting the engineering of 2020 today. In R. J. Burke,
M. C. Mattis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 184–209).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. A. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. YC Young
Children, 65(5), 12.
112 A. Sullivan and A. Strawhacker

National Science and Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success:
America’s strategy for STEM education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from:
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2018/12/STEM-­Education-­
Strategic-­Plan-­2018.pdf
Nicholson, S. (1972). The theory of loose parts, an important principle for
design methodology. Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology,
4(2), 5–14.
Perlman, R. (1976). Using computer technology to provide a creative learning envi-
ronment for preschool children. Cambridge, MA: MIT, A.I. Laboratory.
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., &
Silverman, B. (1998, January). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think
with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing
systems (pp. 281–287). United States: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.
Rodriguez, B., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2016, July). Using student performance
to assess CS unplugged activities in a classroom environment. In proceedings
of the 2016 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science
education (pp. 95–100). New York, NY, United States: Association for
Computing Machinery
Scherer, R. (2016). Learning from the past–the need for empirical evidence on
the transfer effects of computer programming skills. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 1390.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2019). The cognitive benefits of
learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 764.
Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges
and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information
Technologies, 22(2), 469–495.
Shapiro, D. (2014, August). Robot turtles: The board game for little programmers.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/danshapiro/robot-­turtles-­the-­board-­game-­for-­
little-­programmer/posts/597883
Smith, N., Allsop, Y., Caldwell, H., Hill, D., Dimitriadi, Y., & Csizmadia,
A. P. (2015, November). Master teachers in computing: What have we
achieved?. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing
Education (pp. 21–24).
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual
identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Strawhacker, A. L., Lee, M. S. C., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Teaching tools, teach-
ers’ rules: Exploring the impact of teaching styles on young children’s pro-
 5 Screen-Free STEAM: Low-Cost and Hands-on Approaches… 113

gramming knowledge in ScratchJr. International Journal of Technology and

Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-­017-­9400-­9
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Robotics in the early childhood classroom:
Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten
through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and
robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication. doi:https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10798-­017-­9397-­0
Sullivan, A., Bers, M. U., Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, playing, & coding with
KIBO: Using KIBO robotics to Foster computational thinking in young
children. In Proceedings of the international conference on computational think-
ing education. Wanchai, Hong Kong.
Sullivan, A. A. (2019). Breaking the STEM stereotype: Reaching girls in early child-
hood. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
U.K. Department for Education. (September, 2013). National curriculum in
England: Computing programmes of study. Statutory guidance. London: Crown
copyright.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education:
Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: www.
ed.gov/technology/netp-­2010
Watson, E. (2020). STEM or STEAM?: The critical role of arts in technology
education (and the critical role of art in technology). Irish Journal of Academic
Practice, 8(1), 8.
Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action,
and logic blocks. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517–550.
Yakman, G. (2008, February). STEAM education: An overview of creating a
model of integrative education. In Pupils’ attitudes towards technology
(PATT-19) conference: Research on technology. Salt Lake City, Utah: Innovation,
Design & Engineering Teaching.
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller,
C., et al. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset
improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369.
Zviel-Girshin, R., Luria, A., & Shaham, C. (2020). Robotics as a tool to enhance
technological thinking in early childhood. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 29, 294–302.
 6
Integrating Engineering Within Early
STEM and STEAM Education
Lyn D. English

Why Early Engineering?

Engineering learning in kindergarten and the beginning school years is
an underrepresented field, yet it is one of the most practical and real-­
world learning domains that all children can experience. Indeed, many of
the activities that children naturally engage in at play both at school and
at home are rich examples of early engineering. Because engineering
shapes so much of our actual and virtual worlds, it is an ideal discipline
to both link and promote the varied capabilities that young children
bring to informal and formal learning environments.
Early engineering draws on both the content and processes of engi-
neering, with the foundational content concerned with aspects of our
human-made world (Evangelou & Bagiati, 2019). As such, early

L. D. English (*)
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 115
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_6
116 L. D. English

engineering offers a range of topics suitable for young learners, topics that
span multiple disciplines, not just mathematics, science, and technology.
Engineering-based activities can thus be developed to fit in with a school’s
curriculum, community projects, children’s home environments, and
local playgrounds.
If you’ve ever watched children at play, then you know they’re fasci-
nated with building things—and with taking things apart to see how they
work. In other words, children are natural-born engineers (Cunningham
et al., 2020).
Given the relevance and adaptability of engineering to early learning,
one wonders why the E in STEM remains mostly silent, especially dur-
ing the kindergarten and early school years. As Cunningham emphasised
several years ago,1 children learn about the natural world while studying
science, “but what about the human-­made world built on top of it—the
buildings and vehicles and screens where they spend the vast majority of
their time?” Much of the world in which we live is designed by engineers,
so it is of considerable concern that the discipline is largely ignored until
late secondary or university levels in many nations. Several possible reasons
exist for this, including a belief that children do not have the capabilities to
engage with such an “advanced” discipline knowledge, an apparent lack of
resources for implementing early engineering, and limited teacher devel-
opment programmes. While the availability of resources has increased in
recent years, especially in the United States, teacher preparation remains
problematic, with many teachers thus lacking confidence in engineering
and STEM education more broadly (Crismond & Adams, 2012; National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). Of particular
concern to this chapter, however, is the underestimation of children’s capa-
bilities for the discipline—a view that is a potential barrier to implement-
ing engineering.
Developmentally appropriate engineering experiences remain a miss-
ing link in children’s early education (Lippard, Lamm, Tank, & Choi,
2019). To ignore the STEM capabilities of young learners is to deny
them the rich learning of which they are capable. Unfortunately, in

1
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-­s ciences/teaching-­k ids-­t o-­t hink-­l ike-­e ngineers#.
UwZzZvldXh4.
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 117

underestimating what young learners can achieve, educators tend to

remain with basic activities that fail to adequately meet learners’ potential
(Engel, Claessens, Watts, & Farkas, 2016). The learning capabilities of
children thus remain untapped, with few opportunities to extend their
vibrant kindergarten and school-entry knowledge (MacDonald &
Carmichael, 2018).
Young learners are eminently capable of working with engineering-­
based problems—their natural curiosity, inquiry, and desire to explore
their world form not only the cornerstone of early childhood develop-
ment (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008), but also are a key
element of “thinking like an engineer” (Elkin, Sullivan, & Bers, 2018).
To ignore this early childhood potential is to deny children the diverse
experiences that engineering can provide. The urgent need for more
developmentally and culturally appropriate curriculum resources in engi-
neering remains a pressing concern (Early Childhood STEM Working
Group, 2017). We need to increase awareness of, and capitalise on, chil-
dren’s skills as independent problem-solvers, who relish challenges, perse-
vere in the face of failure, and learn from both what “works” and what
does not. Educators, including parents, should be cognizant of how chil-
dren’s talents can be harnessed and enriched to sow the seeds of engineer-
ing education.
Early childhood curricula seldom highlight the ease with which engi-
neering can be integrated with the other STEM disciplines, as well as
with the arts and aesthetics more broadly, including literature. As Petroski
(2016) highlighted, “Engineering is not an end in itself. It operates in a
moral, social, economic, and aesthetic context” (p. 21). Engineering is
thus an ideal discipline for developing STEAM programmes, with its
focus on the design and creation of human-made products and processes
within the contexts that Petroski describes (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020).
118 L. D. English

Early Engineering Literacy

A recent report from the Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine (2020) defined an engineering literate person as one who “has
a basic understanding of the people and processes involved in creating the
human-built world” (p. 47). With this foundation, one can think criti-
cally and make decisions about a range of issues important to one’s life,
family, and community. Drawing on general principles for K-12 engi-
neering education (NAE & NRC, 2009), the Academies highlighted a
number of core features of engineering literacy. These include develop-
mentally appropriate mathematics, science, and technology skills, and
the promotion of “engineering habits of mind”—ways of thinking and
acting that are important for both early engineering learning and overall
school readiness (Lippard et al., 2019). Additional features can be added
to engineering literacy for children, namely, an appreciation of the work
of engineers and engineering in the immediate and wider world, a curios-
ity for learning “how things work”, an awareness of how engineering
draws on the other STEM disciplines, and a keenness to solve hands-on,
real-world problems for which multiple solutions are possible (English &
Moore, 2018). Implicit in these components is an appreciation of aes-
thetics in engineering, an important feature to which I return.

Engineering Design

Engineering design provides foundational, interdisciplinary links that are

invaluable in developing modelling and problem-solving capabilities
across the STEM fields (English, 2018a, b). Engineering design is often
referred to as the “interdisciplinary glue” that facilitates learning in the
other STEM disciplines, as well as in other domains such as literature and
engineering (Tank et al., 2018, p. 175). Yet the multiple applications of
engineering design in the curriculum are not being acknowledged ade-
quately, let alone utilised.
Numerous descriptions of engineering design have appeared in the lit-
erature (McCormick & Hammer, 2016; Watkins, Spencer, & Hammer,
2014). Engineering design is usually defined as iterative in nature and
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 119

comprising processes such as identifying problem goals, brainstorming

ideas, meeting problem constraints, sketching designs, balancing trade-­
offs, predicting possible outcomes, testing and assessing initial construc-
tions, and redesigning and reconstructing. Although engineering design
encompasses complex, multi-faceted processes, it is readily accessible to
young learners (Purzer & Douglas, 2018). For example, Tank et al.
(2018) developed a representation of engineering design for the begin-
ning school grades that consisted of six main components divided into
problem scoping (define and learn) and solution generation (plan, try
out, test, and decide [whether a solution meets the criteria and con-
straints, or whether a redesign is needed]). Each design component is
linked with the important processes of communication and teamwork.
These latter processes form part of the engineering habits of mind, which
go hand-in-hand with design processes.
In another recent study, Tank, Rynearson and Moore (2018) investi-
gated how an engineering design-based STEM integration unit was
enacted across three kindergarten classrooms. Their results suggested that
kindergarten children were able to engage meaningfully in, and with,
multiple phases of engineering design while also developing an under-
standing of the work of scientists and engineers. Through multiple
instances of child-initiated talk, interactions between children, and the
use of explicit engineering language, the children were observed to make
connections to prior learning. The research further revealed that engi-
neering design activities in the early school years should incorporate mul-
tiple aspects of engineering and engineering design, together with
interdisciplinary content and a context for STEM integration. Tank,
Moore, et al. (2018) concluded that kindergarten children are able to
complete long-term, multi-component engineering design projects that
incorporate integrated STEM lessons, and that young children can
develop high levels of understanding and engagement. The researchers
warned, however, that teachers need to facilitate and guide their students
in their learning during an engineering design-based project, but at the
same time, not constrain them. Such an approach calls for preservice and
in-­service teacher programmes that guide teachers in the implementation
of activities incorporating engineering design processes.
120 L. D. English

Engineering Habits of Mind

Engineering habits of mind encompass several of the so-called twenty-­

first century skills (P21, 2015) and include systems thinking, creativity,
optimism, collaboration, communication, and attention to ethical consider-
ations (Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009; Lippard, Riley, & Lamm, 2018;
National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2009;
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020,
p. 30). Like design processes, engineering habits of mind (Lippard et al.,
2019) are powerful thinking skills that are applicable across all of the
STEM disciplines as well as other domains. Systems thinking in particu-
lar, as a twenty-first century skill, is a significant habit of mind that can
be fostered as children recognise disciplinary links within their engineer-
ing experiences. Children learn how interactions among the components
of an engineering problem (the system) can have unanticipated effects on
the solution (e.g., how a child places individual building blocks in creat-
ing a chosen structure can lead to a stable or unstable product). Children
are capable of systems thinking (Lippard et al., 2018), yet this skill is
underrepresented in our education programmes (Salado, Chowdhury, &
Norton, 2018). Indeed, systems thinking is essential to dealing with
world problems that impact us all, such as global economies, the spread
of viruses, population growth, and overcrowding of cities. Systems think-
ing should be introduced early through the provision of challenging
problems that involve interactions among parts impacting on the whole.
Yet as Salado et al. (2018) indicate, we know little about the developmen-
tal or cognitive components of systems thinking.
Engineering naturally engenders creativity in children, as it fosters the
use of “imagination in the design processes of engineering” (Loveland &
Dunn, 2014, p. 14). As evidenced in the Palmer and van Bommel (2018)
study, young children are both creative and competent as they engage in
challenging mathematical and engineering-based tasks for which they do
not seem to need any kind of “special preparation” (p. 1788). Engineering-­
based activities promote creativity as children consider, for example, the
limitations and possibilities of construction materials available to them
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 121

(Lippard et al., 2018), as they design and plan possible solutions, and as
they create a desired product.
Engineering experiences foster optimism, empowering all children to
experience a sense of success in generating their own solution to a prob-
lem for which multiple solutions are possible. The iterative processes of
design enable children to create and test prototypes to determine if prob-
lem requirements and constraints are met. Opportunities to redesign, if
necessary, provide a basis for optimism to flourish as children persevere in
their efforts to improve their creations. Encouraging optimistic disposi-
tions is critical in children’s learning more broadly, where possessing the
motivation to engage and remain engaged in challenging tasks and con-
cepts should be developed early. Indeed, optimism is frequently observed
in young children’s general play activities, yet such an important habit of
mind can frequently fall by the wayside as children progress to the higher
year levels (Potvin & Hasni, 2014).
Both collaboration and communication are essential for children to par-
ticipate productively in group engineering activities as well as in whole-­
class discussions about their creations. Effective communication is a
primary requirement of productive group collaboration. Through inter-
acting with group members, children are afforded opportunities to
strengthen their STEM knowledge, appreciate the different viewpoints of
group members, and share, debate and refine individual and group ideas
(English, 2017; Loveland & Dunn, 2014). Explaining ideas, justifying
and defending arguments, and developing an in-depth understanding of
different solution approaches are foundational to early engineering learn-
ing as well as to STEM more broadly.
Communication within and between groups is not the only way chil-
dren communicate their ideas in early engineering—their design sketches
also play a vital role in communication. Design sketches help develop
and convey meaning and understanding about a problem (Anning, 1997;
English, 2017; Song & Agogino, 2004) to their peers. Young children’s
simple sketches communicate how their desired artefact will be con-
structed; the inclusion of a range of annotations, such as measurements,
orientations, materials use, and construction steps, enhances
communication.
122 L. D. English

The final engineering habit of mind pertains to ethical considerations,

where “any given solution to a problem will impact others in the environ-
ment and the environment itself ” (Lippard et al., 2018, p. 26). This habit
of mind is a sophisticated one for young children and usually requires adult
scaffolding, such as encouraging children to make predictions and antici-
pate possible outcomes or impacts of their engineering actions (Lippard
et al., 2018). Consideration of ethical factors can be further heightened
when children discuss, for example, new projects or constructions in their
environment that could have a potential negative impact on people’s lives.
In sum, by incorporating engineering design and engineering habits of
mind within an early learning curriculum, young children’s conceptual
understanding across the STEM disciplines can be fostered (English,
2018b). Ultimately, such conceptual learning should lead to the develop-
ment of what McKenna (2014) refers to as “adaptive expertise” (p. 232)
where learning from one problem-solving activity is adapted and applied
to new situations. In other words, engineering-based problems have the
potential to encourage young students to “learn from and about the
problem, while continually reflecting on, and possibly reshaping, prior
knowledge and experiences” (McKenna, 2014, p. 232). Early engineering-­
based problems that embed design constraints and draw on meaningful
interdisciplinary contexts can assist learners to recognise what knowledge
they need to apply to a new problem situation.

The Arts and Engineering

The importance of the arts (including literature) in engineering learning
has not been realised as fully as it should. While some use has been made
of literature, which provides a natural companion to STEM learning, the
arts and aesthetic experiences more broadly remain under-utilised and
under-researched (English, 2018b; Ostrowski, Becker, Diaz Caceres,
Lam-Herrera, & Rothschuh, 2018; Sinclair, 2006). Integration of the
arts within STEM is readily accomplished when addressing early engi-
neering. By its very nature, early engineering is aesthetically enticing, as
are numerous engineering feats across the globe. Indeed, we can find end-
less examples of engineering creations in our world that are designed to
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 123

be both functional and aesthetically appealing. Jorn Utzon, for example,

designed the Sydney Opera House (Australia), for which Sydney is
famous. He was inspired by nature, its forms, its functions, and colours
in creating his design which was influenced by bird wings and the shape
and form of clouds, shells, palm trees, and walnuts. In drawing on nature,
Utzon designed a structure that was functional, sustainable, efficient, and
aesthetically pleasing.
Research on aesthetics in children’s mathematical learning (e.g.,
Sinclair, 2006) has revealed how young learners can find beauty in the
mathematics they experience, which can override a preoccupation with
“correctness” and “passing tests”. Fortunately, early engineering provides
opportunities for aesthetically pleasing experiences where learners can
create artefacts that hold beauty and personal meaning for them. On the
other hand, adding another discipline to the STEM acronym may pro-
mote further compartmentalisation of its disciplines, rather than more
cohesiveness in their integration (Ostrowski et al., 2018). At the same
time, integrating five disciplines presents the danger of watering down
each of them. Clearly, further research is needed on this issue. This debate
is further addressed in this book.
One component of the arts that integrates effectively with engineering
is literature. The appealing illustrations and stories in children’s picture
books provide powerful contexts for stimulating engineering experi-
ences—whether it be general children’s literature (non-engineering spe-
cific) or engineering-specific literature (English, 2018b). Both types
provide valuable resources, with the latter becoming more prevalent in
recent years (e.g., King & Johnston, 2014). Research has indicated that
combining the engineering-centred literature with classroom discussions
can be a powerful way to broaden children’s participation in engineering
education (Cunningham, Lachapelle, & Davis, 2018; Pantoya, Aguirre-­
Munoz, & Hunt, 2015). Pantoya et al., for example, developed an
engineering-­centred literacy programme that can be integrated within, or
complement, national science curricula. Implementing the programme
across pre-K to second grade, the authors incorporated a concept sketch-
ing activity to develop an engineering identity, that is, to help the chil-
dren learn about the work of different engineers who shape our world.
The storybook, Engineering Elephants (Hunt & Pantoya, 2010), engaged
children in an interactive journey of an elephant as he questioned the
124 L. D. English

world around him. The study findings show how their engineering-­
centred literature not only enhanced the children’s creative skills but also
developed an appreciation of the nature and role of engineers and their
work. In doing so, the programme prompted an early interest in, and
enthusiasm for, engineering-based activities.
Other engineering-centred children’s literature includes the series
developed by King and Johnston (e.g., 2014), which takes children on a
journey with human and animal characters as they solve appealing prob-
lems. Children are encouraged to contribute to problem solution as each
new scenario is presented, with hypotheses considered. The problem sce-
narios in this series are primarily engineering-based but also incorporate
the other STEM areas. The series is aesthetically pleasing with the art-
work not only designed to captivate young children’s interest but also to
support the problems presented and provide options for possible solu-
tions. Figure 6.1 provides an example of the way in which the artwork
serves these two primary purposes.

Fig. 6.1 The front cover of Engibear’s Bridge (2014), with kind permission from
King and Johnston
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 125

 xamples of Engineering Within STEAM

E
for Kindergarten and the Home
Block building is a common activity both in kindergarten and in the
home. Observations of children’s free block play in kindergarten class-
rooms have shown that their actions reflect similarities to engineering
design processes, as well as a range of engineering habits of mind. Bagiati
and Evangelou’s (2016) qualitative observational study of 18 pre-­
schoolers’ free play with blocks over a period of four months demon-
strated instances of early engineering behaviour. Videotaped data showed
the children articulating goal-oriented behaviour, problem-solving pro-
cesses, innovative actions, multiple approaches to designing, pattern rep-
etition, and testing and improving.
Given that building blocks are a staple of early childhood centres and
are frequently found in children’s home, they are an ideal tool for foster-
ing early engineering. In particular, building blocks can serve as an infor-
mal introduction to engineering construction and design processes.
Within a home setting, parents/carers can observe children’s block play to
identify their early engagement with engineering processes. For example,
children often identify a “pretend” problem they are trying to solve (e.g.,
building a house, a bridge, a tall tower, etc.), set goals they wish to achieve,
share their ideas, create their desired product, test their constructions,
and improve on their initial creations (Bagiati & Evangelou, 2016).
Parents can question their children with queries such as the following:
Tell me what you have built. What does this part of your (construction) do?
Why did you place that block/s there? What might have happened if you had
placed these blocks over here? How did you stop your (construction) from
toppling over? How did you make it balance? Was your (construction) easy or
difficult to build? Why? Did you need to place some blocks in a different posi-
tion? And what might you do to make your (construction) even better?
A more advanced block activity appears in Family Engineering: An
Activity & Event Planning Guide (2011). Using 14 tubes (e.g., empty
toilet paper rolls) and 3 squares of corrugated cardboard (each 30 cm x
30 cm), children are to build a tower as displayed in Fig. 6.2. Given the
following constraints, children are required to take turns in removing one
126 L. D. English

Fig. 6.2 Problem activity involving tower building

tube at a time from the tower, without letting the three cardboard plat-
forms fall: (a) both hands may be used; (b) the cardboard platforms may
only be touched when removing or moving a tube; and (c) the position
of the remaining tubes may be changed. Following the activity, children
describe the steps they took to keep the tower from tumbling. ­When/
if their tower eventually falls, then children can explain what caused it
to fall.
Other productive engineering experiences for both kindergarten and
the home include the use of children’s literature to foster engineering and
STEM learning more broadly. Such interdisciplinary experiences
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 127

promote both engineering and literacy development, as well as learning

in other STEM areas. In the Novel Engineering programme (Portsmore &
Milto, 2018), for example, children’s literature is used as the basis and
stimulus for engineering design challenges, drawing details from the
book to identify the characters facing a problem and the constraints they
confront in finding a solution. With multiple interpretations, a book’s
text can foster interactive idea generation where children connect their
own experiences in helping the central character/s solve the dilemma
being faced.
Typically, a teacher (or parent) would stop the reading of the book at
appropriate points, giving children opportunities to identify the
character/s’ problem, the actions or situations that led to the problem,
and to define the challenge being met. Applying design processes, chil-
dren can discuss what is needed in solving the dilemma, steps that might
be taken, and simple materials that might be needed. Sketching a design
of a possible solution and using the sketch to help solve the dilemma
would follow. For example, the new storybook, The Goat Café (Simon &
Broadley, 2019), relates numerous problems that arose when a garden
gate was left open and goats escaped, heading towards a small, country
café to begin their adventure. Given that goats love to eat anything and
everything, the goats not only devoured all the fresh food in the café, but
also the café signs, the garden bed, a shed, the surrounding shrubs, and
neighbouring fences. The story provides an appealing context for chil-
dren to identify numerous problems that arose, and might arise, for the
characters involved. Children can suggest possible approaches to resolv-
ing the problems and subsequently construct their solutions (e.g., using
building materials to design and construct a new “goat-proof ” fence, or
design a new “goat café” with new signs and menus).

Suggested Resources
There is an increasing range of resources to help teachers and parents
in promoting engineering learning in early childhood. Several worth-
while online resources include eGFI (http://teachers.egfi-­k12.org/),
TeachEngineering (https://www.teachengineering.org/), Engineering is
128 L. D. English

Elementary (EiE; https://www.eie.org/), and PictureSTEM (http://pictur-

estem.org/picturestem-­units/). These sites contain rich examples of engi-
neering activities including those designed for kindergarten children. For
example, the TeachEngineering website incorporates downloadable activi-
ties for homeschooling, while PictureSTEM comprises lesson plans for
STEM activities across K-2 that focus on the engineering design process.
The programme, Engineering is Elementary, incorporates “EIE for
Kindergarten” (https://info.eie.org/eie-­k) as well as “Wee Engineer”
(https://info.eie.org/wee-­engineer), both of which cater to very young
children. The main programme, Engineering is Elementary, is the original
programme and targets grades K-5. Wee Engineer the latest component
comprises activities that guide children in applying a simplified version of
the engineering design process: Explore (Find out more), Create (try an
idea), and Improve (make it better). EiE for Kindergarten focuses on
strong foundations for problem-solving and critical thinking designed to
prepare children for success in school and life.
A delightful new book kit, Young Engineers, has been created by King,
Lewin, and Johnston (2019). The kit comprises the picture storybook,
Young Engineers, a CD of songs about engineering for young children,
and an activity book, Young Engineers Projects: Dream It, STEAM It. The
activity book contains a collection of rich, easily accessible engineering
activities, which cover a range of engineering fields that are directly rele-
vant to the world of young children. The activities include background
information on the particular engineering field/s, a description of the
activity itself, and preparation, procedures, related experiences, and help-
ful hints on activity set-up.

Future Developments
Although the introduction of early engineering within kindergarten and the
early school years has yet to gain substantial momentum in many coun-
tries, there is growing interest in the field especially in the opportunities
it provides for linking the STEM disciplines (e.g., English, 2018a, b;
Jurgenson & Delaney, 2020). Further advancement is needed, however.
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 129

It is imperative that we begin with a greater awareness of young children’s

competencies for undertaking early engineering activities. Although
research has repeatedly shown what young learners can achieve when
challenged with new experiences, their talents often remain unseen, espe-
cially when school-entry measures or other such benchmarks are used to
determine what they can accomplish. Research that focuses solely on
children’s current knowledge and reasoning, rather than the extent of
their capability is inadequate (English, 2016; Ginsburg, 2016). Awareness
of young learners’ potential, needs to be accompanied by more profes-
sional development and an increase in teacher resources for developing
early engineering.
There is more to professional development, however, than just provid-
ing one-off sessions to introduce a new programme. Estapa and Tank
(2017) report research that highlights the need for sustained, coherent,
and collaborative teacher programmes, which develop more in-depth
understandings of the STEM domains and various ways of integrating
engineering within regular programmes. Assisting teachers to better
understand the nature and role of engineering learning, together with
effective planning and enactment of integrated STEM lessons, appears a
key area for future research and action. At the same time, changes in
policy that inform curriculum improvement are required.

References
Anning, A. (1997). Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 219–239.
Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2016). Engineering Curriculum in the Preschool
Classroom: The Teacher’s Experience. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 23, 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.
2014.991099.
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineer-
ing education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education,
97(3), 369–387.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and
learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.
130 L. D. English

Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, & Davis, M. E. (2018). Engineering con-

cepts, practices, and trajectories for early childhood education. In L. D. English
& T. J. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 273–284).
Singapore: Springer.
Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., Brennan, R. T., Kelly, G. J., San Antonio
Tunis, C., & Gentry, C. A. (2020). The impact of engineering curriculum
design principles on elementary students’ engineering and science learning.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 57, 423–453 https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.21601.
Early Childhood STEM Working Group. (2017). Early STEM matters: Providing
high-quality STEM experiences for all young learners. http://ecstem.
uchicago.edu
Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. (2018). Books, butterflies, and ‘bots:
Integrating engineering and robotics into early childhood curricula. In
L. D. English & T. J. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 225–248).
Singapore: Springer.
Engel, M., Claessens, A., Watts, T., & Farkas, G. (2016). Mathematics content
coverage and student learning in kindergarten. Educational Researcher,
45(5), 293–300.
English, L. D. (2016). Developing Early Foundations through Modeling with
Data. In C. Hirsch (Ed.). Annual perspectives in mathematics education:
Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 187–195). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM educa-
tion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15,
Supplement 1, 5–24.
English, L. D. (2018a). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated
STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-­018-­9482-­z
English, L. D. (2018b). Disruption and learning innovation across
STEM. Plenary presented at the 5th International Conference of STEM in
Education. Brisbane. https://stem-­in-­ed2018.com.au/proceedings-­2/.
English, L. D., & Moore T. (Eds.), (2018). Early Engineering Learning.
Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8621-­2_4.
Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the ele-
mentary classroom: A professional development approach centered on an
engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(6).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-­017-­0058-­3
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 131

Evangelou, D., & Bagiati, A. (2019). Engineering in early learning environ-

ments. In L. Cohen & S. Whyte-Stupianski (Eds.), STEM in early childhood
education: How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics strengthen
learning (pp. 46–62). Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Frances.
Family Engineering. (2011). Foundation for family science & engineering and
Michigan Technological University.
Ginsburg, H. P. (2016). Helping early childhood educators to understand and
assess young children’s mathematical minds. ZDM Mathematics Education,
48(7), 491.
Hunt, E. M., & Pantoya, M.L. (2010). Engineering Elephants. Author House
Publishing, ISBN: 978-1-4490-5816-6.
Jurgenson, K. N., & Delaney, A. R. (2020). The three little engineers.
Mathematics Teacher: Learning & Teaching, PK-12, 113(2), 110–116.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). The status and nature of K-12
engineering education in the United States. The Bridge: Linking Engineering
and Society, 39(3), 5–10. https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/
16145/16161.aspx
King, A., & Johnston, B. (illustrator). (2014). Engibear’s bridge. Frenchs Forest,
NSW: Little Steps Publishing.
King, A., Lewin, S., & Johnston, B. (2019). Young Engineers (and young engi-
neers songs, and young engineers projects: Dream it, steam it). Frenchs Forest,
Australia: Little Steps Publishing.
Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., Tank, C. M., & Choi, J. Y. (2019). Pre-­
engineering thinking and enginering habits of mind in pre-school classroom.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 187–198.
Lippard, C. N., Riley, K. L., & Lamm, M. H. (2018). Encouraging the develop-
ment of engineering habits of mind in prekindergarten learners. In
L. D. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 19–36).
Singapore: Springer.
Loveland, T. & Dunn, D. (2014). Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73
(8), 13–19.
MacDonald, A., & Carmichael, C. (2018). Early mathematical competencies
and later achievement: Insights from the longitudinal study of Australian
children. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(4), 429–444.
McCormick, M., & Hammer, D. (2016). Stable beginnings in engineering
design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(1), 4.
McKenna, A. F. (2014). Adaptive expertise and knowledge fluency in design and
innovation. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engi-
132 L. D. English

neering education research (pp. 227–242). New York: Cambridge

University Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Building
capacity for teaching engineering in K-12 education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25612
National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2009).
Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the
prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.
org/10.17226/12635.
Ostrowski, C. P., Becker, S., Diaz Caceres, Z., Lam-Herrera, M., & Rothschuh,
S. (2018). Exploring the margins of the field: Rethinking STEM in educa-
tion. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the learning Sciences
(pp. 1105–1108). https://doi.dx.org/10.22318/cscl2018.1105
P21 (2015). P21 framework for 21st century learning. The partnership for 21st
century learning.
Palmer, H., & van Bommel, J. (2018). Problem solving in early mathematics
teaching—A way to promote creativity? Creative Education, 9, 1775–1793.
Pantoya, M. L., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., & Hunt, E. M. (2015). Developing an
engineering identity in early childhood. American Journal of Engineering
Education, 6(2), 61–68.
Petroski, H. (2016, September 21). Refractions: Feeling superior? PRISM.
Portsmore, M., & Milto, E. (2018). Novel engineering in early elementary class-
rooms. In L. D. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning
(pp. 203–224). Singapore: Springer.
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Analysis of the decline in interest towards school
science and technology from grades 5 through 11. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 3, 784–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-­014-­9512-­x
Purzer, S., & Douglas, K. (2018). Assessing early engineering thinking and
deigns competencies in the classroom. In L. D. English & T. Moore (Eds.),
Early engineering learning (pp. 113–134). Singapore: Springer.
Salado, A., Chowdhury, A. H., & Norton, A. (2018). Systems thinking and
mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 1–10. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12312
Simon, F., & Broadley, L. (illustrator). (2019). The goat café. London: Faber
and Faber.
Sinclair, N. (2006). The aesthetic sensibilities of mathematicians. In N. Sinclair,
D. Pimm, & W. Higgins (Eds.), Mathematics and the aesthetic: New approaches
to an ancient affinity (pp. 87–104). New York: Springer.
 6 Integrating Engineering Within Early STEM and STEAM… 133

Song, S., & Agogino, A. M. (2004, September 28–October 2). Insights on

designers’ sketching activities in new product design teams. In Proceedings of
the DETC’04 ASME 2004 design engineering technical conference and comput-
ers and information in engineering conference (pp. 1–10). Salt Lake City, Utah.
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: English L., Moore T. (eds) Early Engineering Learning. Early
Mathematics Learning and Development. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­8621-­2_9
Tank, K. M., Rynearson, A., M., & Moore, T. J. (2018). Examining student and
teacher Talk within engineering design in kindergarten. European Journal of
STEM Education, 3(3), Article 10.
Watkins, K., Spencer, J., & Hammer, D. (2014). Examining young students’
problem scoping in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research, 4(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-­9288.1082
 7
STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-­
Reaction Learning
Jan Deans and Susan Wright

 erceptual, Sensory and Multi-modal Thinking:

P
The Underpinnings of All STEAM Disciplines
To understand how Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and
Mathematics (STEAM) curriculum content can be applied within the
early childhood setting we must begin with focusing attention on how
young children learn. As noted by Eisner (2002), the senses are the first
avenues to consciousness. It is through the senses that children experi-
ence the qualitative world beginning at birth (and even before birth),
with initial learning being reflexive and reactive (Piaget, 1953, 1969). For
instance, in the early weeks of life, the infant learns to recognize, dis-
criminate and recall, and is motivated to seek out various forms of stimu-
lation and to explore sensorially in a quest to make meaning of everything
that is available in the environment. Hence, it is recognized that young

J. Deans (*) • S. Wright

The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 135
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_7
136 J. Deans and S. Wright

children’s learning is based on sensory explorations and relies on active

and physical engagement with the world, as is illustrated in the anecdote
‘Pink Pig’.

Pink Pig
It is bath time for Alfie. Upon contact with the water, he begins to move his
arms rhythmically up and down splashing the water. He focuses intently on
the impact that his physical actions are creating; he is watching the droplets
rise and fall and the surface patterns created by the moving water. He is
exploring through play the properties of water, enjoying its soothing tex-
ture, its translucent quality and most importantly his capacity to displace the
water with his hands and create an intriguing visual of droplets and patterns.
Alfie notices a rubber pink pig resting on the edge of the bath. He is
determined to seize it and reaches out, turning his whole body towards the
object, stretching to grasp the toy in both hands. He immediately puts it in
his mouth, chews on it, turns it over, and passes it from one hand to the
other, squealing with delight as he smashes it through the surface of the
water several times. He focuses intently on the object’s capacity to displace
the water. He repeats the action over and then by chance, he squeezes the
pink pig and a stream of water hits him in the face. This is exciting! He reg-
isters surprise and for a moment he looks as though he might cry, but he
once again thrusts the pig down into the water and draws it upwards
squeezing it again, watching the stream of water reappear. Alfie is engaged
in sensory-based action-reaction play that is supporting his growing under-
standings of the properties of water, cause and effect, the impact of bodily
force on materials, and his position in space.

Eisner (2002) describes cognition as a generic process of coming to

know the world through the senses. This example of Alfie’s learning
exemplifies how the sensory system stimulates thinking and cultivates
imaginative and expressive capabilities. Thus, it is recognized that the
learning process for the young child is dependent on a host of perceptual
and information-processing activities. These activities stimulate the
abstraction of a wide range of sensory-based concepts, which are made
available from the environment (e.g. ‘warm’, ‘patterned’ water; ‘floating/
sinking’ pig; ‘squeezing’ to produce an outcome; ‘spatially’ locating the
pig in relation to self; ‘bodily’ movement to reach the pig; repetition of
‘action’). Through sensory-based encounters, concepts are being formed,
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 137

reformed and then joined with other concepts (Piaget, 1969; Taylor,
1988). For instance, Alfie discovered that the pig was hollow, which
allowed water to enter it. Squeezing the pig caused the water to squirt
out. Such conceptual learning enables children, even when they are ‘pre-­
verbal’, to make meaning of their environment, predict probability pat-
terns and regulate a wide range of interactions with the world and
people in it.
Young children are acutely ‘sensorially tuned in’ to their immediate
environments, absorbing wide-ranging stimuli through the senses of
sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch (Hull & Nelson, 2005; Narey,
2009). Children’s kinaesthetic responses enable actions to be brought
upon objects that they encounter. Hence, learning for young children can
be explained in terms of ‘sensory-based action-reaction’ combined with
innate curiosity, which leads to the exploration of what objects look like,
what they feel like, how they move and what can be done with them. As
with the anecdote of Alfie, you only need to watch the young child at
play to recognize how important the senses are when it comes to learning:
the child touches an object, registers whether it is hard, soft or malleable,
whether it can be grasped, sucked or stretched, whether it can be rolled
tipped or pushed, whether it is capable of making sound and whether it
is pleasing to the taste buds. Thus, we can appreciate that the child’s
intuitive understanding of the world is based on actions and reactions to
a rich array of environmental stimuli.
Montessori, a renowned early childhood theorist, drew attention to
the important link between thinking and physical activity. She noted that
intellectual development is inextricably connected with movement and,
indeed, is dependent on it. Piaget (1969) also identified that perception
and motor activity are at the core of young children’s thinking, and that
young children imitate actions and come to understand that objects are
autonomous and independent of self. In the process, their thinking and
feeling becomes increasingly systematic and well organized. In addition,
children begin to produce new behaviours and novel events which fall
within the realm of creative and artistic experience. Symbolic thought
emerges as a natural outcome of natural play behaviours all of which rely
on multi-modal explorations of a multi-modal world. Indeed, STEAM
138 J. Deans and S. Wright

can be recognized as multi-modal ‘linked symbol systems’ (e.g. mathe-

matical, scientific, artistic) that support integrated and holistic learning
(e.g. visual, spatial, temporal, physical, numerical, written). For young
children, such holistic learning comes easily, and children often unite
symbol systems through play or playfulness (e.g. singing while painting,
dancing to the rhythm of environmental sound or music). Governed by
innate natural curiosity and a desire to explore and learn about the world,
children demonstrate a significant capacity to live in and through their
playing. Play is consequently acknowledged to be a creative act and early
childhood scholars recognize that it is through play that much of chil-
dren’s learning is achieved (Fleer, 2017; Grieshaber & McArdle, 2010;
Niland, 2009).
Through play, children’s spontaneous and improvisational processing
of ideas, forms, colours, shapes, materials, sounds and movements can
lead to new interpretations or impressions. As such, children have ongo-
ing opportunities to ‘self-scaffold’ their learning, and to enliven and
enlarge their imaginations, as was the case with Alfie in self-initiated play
with the pink pig. In the processing of experience, young children find
out what they need to “know next through self-initiated problem-­solving/
finding” (St. John, cited in Connery, John-Steiner, & Marjanović-Shane,
2010, p. 66).
In his writings about children’s imagination and creativity, Vygotsky
(1978) introduced the notion of the circular path of imagination. This
process involves the filtering of lived experience through imaginative
embodied processing, which combines and recombines elements of the
experience, to create artistic products such as an image, music, dance
or story.
By way of another example, Alfie has a strong attachment to his
cheesecloth swaddling blanket (his ‘Shnugie’). When he requires com-
fort, he seeks it out either nuzzling his face into it or draping it over his
entire body. The Shnugie provides emotional security and maintains
Alfie’s primal-level connection to his mother through association with
earlier experiences during the significant attachment period of devel-
opment. But the Shnugie also offers many opportunities for play, with
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 139

Alfie using it for hiding, playing peek-a-boo and for draping over his
toys or his mother. He is observed covering his whole body with the
material, dragging it slowly off and draping it over his toys that he is
pushing around in his trolley. Such play behaviours demonstrate how
the circular pathway of imagination is activated through sensory-based
action-reaction learning and how this learning provides opportunities
for the integration of STEAM disciplines. For instance, Alfie explores
the concept of three dimensionality by draping the Shnugie over his
whole body; ‘becoming’ the form of an enclosed shape in space. He
also explores concepts such as light and dark, and open and closed.
Dramatic intent is also embedded in his play, as he enacts ‘surprise’
(similar to peek-a-boo), with mother as play partner and audience.
This surprise moment provides an extra dimension to his artistic explo-
rations. According to Vygotsky, for the circular path to be completed,
intellectual, emotional, physical and social factors need to be involved.
As exemplified, Alfie has established a relationship between creativity
and multi-modal experiencing, with playful enactment being funda-
mental to the experience.
Through play, the young child transforms information from the mate-
rial and social world of lived experience. In this process, the young child
learns about everyday concepts through repeated or spontaneous experi-
ences. For instance, through the bathing experience, Alfie explored the
material concepts of size, shape, form, enclosure, under, over and sur-
rounding; he also learned social concepts of reciprocal play with his
mother: child as initiator/mother as responder.
It is through open-ended play and language exchange such as the
play we have described that young children develop and re-conceptualize
these everyday concepts into more formal scientific concepts (e.g. through
other experiences with water play, children might encounter, for instance,
concepts about heavy/light, floating/sinking or still/flowing). Children’s
transformations from everyday concepts to scientific understandings are
strongly embedded in processes of semiotic meaning-making—which is
described in greater detail in the next section.
140 J. Deans and S. Wright

F rom Everyday to Scientific Concepts: A Focus

on the ‘A’ in STEAM
In general terms, semiotics is the study of signs of all kinds (a sign being
something that stands for something else). Hence, the field of semiotics
looks at meanings and messages in a range of forms and across multiple
contexts. For instance, acts and objects are signs that produce meaning,
which can be interpreted by others.
This notion strongly underpins the Reggio Emilia-inspired concept
of children’s “hundred languages” (Malaguzzi, 1998). In early child-
hood education, semiotics is understood to be the capacity of children
to use a variety of symbolic languages—drawing, dancing, painting,
singing, dramatizing as examples. Children also learn the multiple ways
in which each of these languages might be ‘spoken’ and ‘read’. Through
these ‘languages’, children construct and formulate concepts, and con-
solidate their knowledge and understandings. Rather than thinking of
the discrete disciplines of S, T, E, A and M, a semiotic perspective of an
integrated STEAM centres on multiple ‘languages’ and a range of
modes of thinking that work together (e.g. language, movement, imag-
ery). This idea parallels Gardner’s (1983, 1993) taxonomy of multiple
intelligences, which highlights the capacities of individuals to actively
construct understandings across multiple intellectual modes including
verbal-linguistic, logical mathematical, spatial visual, bodily-kinaes-
thetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential
and pedagogical intelligences. As the reader will see, neither Malaguzzi
nor Gardner talks about discrete disciplines, such as science, technol-
ogy, engineering, arts and mathematics. Rather, they refer to multiple
modalities that cross over several, broad domains and are applicable to
a range of disciplines.
Hence, a key goal of this chapter is to illustrate children’s integrated
learning across a range of disciplines (and their various sign-making
systems). For instance, science embraces a sign system that centres
around big issues such as time, space, energy and flow. Indeed, these
constructs are also fundamental to dance (Laban, 1963), music and
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 141

drama. Likewise, the disciplines of technology, engineering and math-

ematics all feature concepts of time, space, energy and flow, albeit in
different ways. Each discipline has its own distinct symbol system, with
its own ‘affordances’ of how it might be used. In other words, some-
times it’s clearer to communicate through numbers than through words,
through movement than through sound, or through music than through
poetry. Humans, of all ages, learn to select the system that is most suited
for the expression of their meaning. Young children, for instance, might
at times find it easier to draw a picture about an experience than to give
a narrative account of the event—at other times it might be easier to
talk rather than illustrate.
Hence, each of the sign systems has unique organizational principles
that have elements and conventions that do not have precisely equiva-
lent meanings within other sign systems. For instance, the symbol sys-
tem of the visual arts centres on principles surrounding the use of
colour, shape, texture, composition and the like. There are no direct
equivalents within the symbol system of mathematics or language,
which use constructs such as numbers, formulae, letters or words. Yet
‘equivalency’ can function at a metaphoric level, through ‘likenesses’.
By way of example, in poetry, words function similarly to music, where
the rhythm, timing and intonation of the words create type of energy
and flow. Likewise, mathematical ideas may be used to shape the design
of a pattern, or visual perspective within an artwork—matters that have
to do with space.
Young children seem to quite naturally grasp such metaphoric quali-
ties of meaning-making and readily bridge symbol systems to more
accurately communicate that which may not easily be communicated
through a single mode. Observers of young children will note that
children cross modalities and bring their funds of knowledge to new
learning experiences. In the example below, Ryle immediately recog-
nizes the affordances of aesthetically stimulating fabric to enact the
process of metamorphosis, through costuming, adornment and
dramatization.
142 J. Deans and S. Wright

Ryle has been engaged in a unit of learning about metamorphosis. The con-
tent has focused on caterpillars, growth, cocoons, transformation, and but-
terflies. He chooses to explore the transformation from caterpillar to
butterfly through dance. He is attracted to the colour and quality of a
vibrant yellow, diaphanous material with the express purpose of enhancing
his dance exploration. He gathers the material around his body moving
onto the floor, rolling over and over until he is fully encased. As the music
begins, he rolls in the opposite direction, gradually releasing himself from
his imagined cocoon. He slowly rises, stretching his arms outwards and
upwards, focusing his attention on his very personal transformation from a
caterpillar to a butterfly and his emergence from the cocoon—states of
‘being’ that are beyond his human experience.
Ryle later selected a second ‘affordance’, drawing, to reflect upon and
depict his memory of ‘being’ throughout the three stages of metamorpho-
sis. Drawing helps him to aesthetically and emotionally construct an alter-
native expression of his dance experience. His drawing consisted of
intertwining circular shapes, and he commented, “I made a circle – It’s going
to fall down and I’m in there and I died. The big round circle was very heavy,
and it fell down.” Ryle’s comment about ‘dying’ reflects his understanding
of the transformative state of moving from a caterpillar to a butterfly; it
also reflects his metaphoric, emotional state of ‘being’ while shrouded in
the fabric and then while emerging and flying in a free condition.

Let us elaborate a bit on what is involved when children ‘cross over’

various modes. Often this is a multi-modal experience, where one mode
mediates another—together, the modes enrich and inform each other as
the child engages in processes of meaning-making. Suhor (1984) called
this ‘transmediation’. Transmediation is central to the sensory-based
action-reaction principle we described earlier. In Ryle’s case, he transme-
diated from one concrete reality to an imaginative reality. He drew upon
his scientific knowledge of cocoons, his awareness of change occurring
within the cocoon, and his imagery of himself as ‘being’ with wings when
he emerges. He transmediates from science concepts into the artistic,
imaginative sphere, through dramatic action. Transmediation is a funda-
mental, perhaps innate, process in young children’s thinking and experi-
encing. When children transmediate, they seamlessly configure and
reconfigure their ideas, thoughts and feelings across modes (Kress, 2003).
The argument presented in this chapter is that at the core of such
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 143

transmediation is the role of the body and the senses as the child explores,
and embodies, a range of concepts. In this example, Ryle is consolidating
his learning about metamorphosis through dance and dramatic enact-
ment. He is exploring body shape in space, in time, with energy and flow:
in particular, three dimensionality, rising and falling, opening and clos-
ing, high and low. These concepts are metaphorically applicable to other
disciplines such as music, drama, maths, science and engineering.
The following case study illustrates the process of transmediation
through dance-play and drawing-telling. It highlights the link between
children’s sensory-motor cognition, play and creative imagination and
how children transmediate across sign systems as they make meaning. The
case highlights the co-existence of scientific (i.e. formal or conceptual)
and everyday (i.e. experiential) concepts as children learn. Using teacher-
developed “learning stories” (Carr, 2001), photographic and correspond-
ing drawing-tellings (Wright, 2007a, 2007b), the case study demonstrates
how children learn STEAM concepts through open-ended playful experi-
ences, multi-modal inquiry and language exchange, and then re-concep-
tualize these into more formal conceptual understandings.
Within this case study, three modes of children’s representation
(Bruner, 1966) are featured, namely:

• enactive representation (action-based, in this case, dance),

• iconic representation (image-based, in this case, drawing), and
• symbolic representation (language-based, in this case, narrative telling).

This triad of learning modalities is showcased through an in-depth

description of one learning exemplar, to illustrate how multi-modality
and transmediation is applicable to a range of STEAM-oriented learning
experiences.

A Case Study
The setting was an inner-city university research and demonstration pre-
school. The participants were 20 four-year-old children and their teacher
who engaged in one-hour weekly sessions in a carpeted multi-purpose
144 J. Deans and S. Wright

open space within the preschool. The ambience was one of ‘overall soft-
ness’, inviting multi-sensory participation. The class structure included a
welcome which focused on children articulating their interests and ideas,
a physical warm-up, practice of selected dance skills, free dance improvi-
sation, relaxation and drawing-telling.
The topic of butterflies had developed organically out of the children’s
interest in flying insects and bugs. The teacher facilitated a discussion
with the whole group about the life cycle of the butterfly. Visual images
of a variety of species of butterflies had been shown and embroidered
pieces of lace in the shape of the butterfly had been dispersed amongst the
children to enable them to have the hands-on experience of feeling the
texture of the lace and to get physically and emotionally in touch with the
qualities of lightness, the delicacy of the butterfly wings and butterfly
movements (see Fig. 7.1).

Fig. 7.1 Visual and tactile stimuli used to support children’s focused participation
and creative thinking
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 145

Fig. 7.2 The up and down again butterfly. (Child: Amelee, free dance solo
observed by the audience of peers and the teacher, Duration: 58 seconds, Music:
Bach Partition Violincelle)

The dance objective was to explore light lifting and lowering of arms,
moving through the space lightly, exploring meandering pathways and
landing lightly in different spaces in the room. At the time of the introduc-
tory discussion, Amelee was recorded as saying: “I saw hundreds of butter-
flies at the zoo. The butterflies’ wings are paused and open. That’s what real
butterflies do”. Figure 7.2 presents still frames of the sequence of Amelee’s
dance and the teacher’s anecdotal recording of Amelee’s dance event.
Amelee requests the recorded music used earlier in the class to accom-
pany explorations of light arm gestures. She locates herself in the centre
of the room and creates a closed body shape on the floor. She rests on her
knees and lower legs, bending her upper body over her thighs. Her head
is placed on the floor and her arms are stretched out. As the music begins,
she rises and runs quickly and lightly to the back wall facing away from
the audience. Working with the rhythmic structure of the music she
moves into the floor, closes her torso over her knees and stretches her
arms out behind her in a ‘wing-like’ shape. Amelee pauses in this position
and then on cue with the phrasing of the music she rises and returns to a
light run, moving centrally forwards in the space towards the audience.
She comes to stillness and returns to the body shape on the floor previ-
ously adopted. She waits in stillness before rising again. She repeats the
146 J. Deans and S. Wright

sequence of light running and closed floor shape. Working closely with
the phrasing of the music she repeats the sequence three more times and
with each repeat she is observed smiling. Amelee concludes the dance on
the floor returning to the same shape she began with, holding it until the
end of the phrasing of the music. She rises and faces the audience smiling.
This record of Amelee’s individual dance provides insight into how she
drew on her “funds of knowledge” (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005)
obtained from personal experiences of seeing butterflies at the zoo, to
engage in a multi-modal exploration using her body as the primary com-
munication tool. Amelee’s dance supported her to connect her concep-
tual understandings with her felt and lived experience. In creating the ‘up
and down again butterfly dance’, she communicated her scientific under-
standing of flight, together with her mathematical understandings of
time and space, as she coordinated her body movement with the rhythms
and phrasing within a musical accompaniment. Her thoughtfully selected
body activities and gestures, which included a repeated on-­the-­floor body
shape, controlled rising and falling, purposeful use of space and levels, a
circular floor pathway, repeated opening and closing arms and light run-
ning, enabled her to effectively express a dramatic and aesthetically
imbued, free flowing enactment of the butterfly. The centrality of aesthet-
ics was evident in her emotional, cognitive and social learning (Vygotsky,
1978). In this solo performance, Amelee’s aesthetic selection of move-
ments coalesced, where her ‘internal coherence’ became apparent, as
properties and parts of her dance became ‘a whole’.
The dance also demonstrates Amelee’s capacity for symbolization
through choreographic form, which is significantly reliant on the pro-
cessing of mathematical concepts and understandings (Pugh McCutchen,
2006). Through the purposeful selection of movements, spatial structures
and repetition, she demonstrates her ability to think kinaesthetically,
musically, scientifically and mathematically, integrating the various sym-
bol systems to communicate the particular “dynamic line” (Sheets-­
Johnstone, 1979) of her artistic thinking processing. Although the dance
took place within the genre of improvisation, where the rules vary accord-
ing to the individual’s inclinations, this dance was nevertheless imbued
with a considered sense of form and design. Form was exemplified
through Amelee’s attention to her lifting and lowering arm gestures, and
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 147

their light quality, which were selected and enacted to communicate her
thoughts and feelings, multi-modally.
Amelee commented to the teacher that “I’ve put a lot of thought into my
dance”, a statement which affirms the role of meta-cognitive processes in
her learning. Clearly, she was indicating that she had created a mental
model of how the dance would unfold—its movement content, its spatial
configurations and its dynamic quality. It might have been that Amelee
had devised a choreographic plan for her dance, tried it out, evaluated it,
made additions or deletions to it. Her conscious realization of artistic
judgments and decision-making were given final form in the dance,
where ‘thought in action’ supported her creative processing.
Amelee crossed dance, graphic and verbal modalities by re-­representing,
through drawing-telling, her lived experience of observing the butterflies
in the zoo and dancing a butterfly in class (Deans & Wright, 2018). Her
drawing-telling (see Fig. 7.3) provides insight into her transmediation
across symbol systems using visual-spatial imagery and language.
Wright (2007b) explains that “images can be thought of as stopped
action frames or visual representations of actions” (p. 2). For instance, the
image in Fig. 7.3 presents two stopped action frames, of two moments in
time: (a) Amelee located centrally on the paper ‘being the butterfly’ with
arms outstretched; (b) herself again, as a smaller figure to represent the
‘down again’ movement in contrast with the large movement. As shown

Fig. 7.3 That’s me being a butterfly and I went up again and down
148 J. Deans and S. Wright

Fig. 7.4 Resting and flying butterfly wings

in Fig. 7.4, the resting and ‘flying’ image in contrast with the folded floor
shape were repeated movement motifs in her dance. Her narrative, “That’s
me being a butterfly and I went up again and down”, is intimately linked
to the bodily action of her dance.
Wright (2007a, 2007b) noted that, for the young child, moving, draw-
ing and talking are mutually inclusive transformative processes that sup-
port the construction of knowledge through thinking in action. Brooks
(2005) also notes the relationship between drawing and visual thought,
proposing that drawing, when “used as a medium of exchange, can form
a dynamic function that allows an elaboration of an initial idea and the
definition of a concept as well as assisting with building empirical con-
nections between concepts and systems” (p. 5). The inclusion of drawing-­
telling as a repeated activity at the end of each dance class provided the
children with the opportunity to unite memory, imagination and obser-
vation. Drawing-telling enabled collaborative discussions between indi-
vidual children and the teacher, along with the one-on-one process of
recording the three key and integrated components of descriptive narra-
tive, expressive vocalisms and gestures (Wright, 2010).
In addition to dancing and drawing-telling, Amelee demonstrated a
cross-modal connection between movement and music as complemen-
tary semiotic tools for making meaning. The musical recording selected
by Amelee was one to which she had danced in previous classes. Amelee
embodied the music, coordinating the beginnings and endings of musical
phrases with her improvised movement sequences of ‘up and down’. In so
doing, she was transmediating across the symbolic domains of dance and
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 149

music, while simultaneously drawing upon inter-related aspects with the

disciplines of science (space, force, time, flow), mathematics (above-­
below, large-small, near-far). She demonstrated her understandings across
multiple modes (physical, aural, visual) and self-scaffolded, seamlessly
interchanging a number of semiotic tools for the express purpose of artis-
tic meaning-making.
These are indications of Amelee’s capacity for abstract thinking, evi-
denced through her manipulation of structural-mathematical dance ele-
ments, including spatial forms, levels, variety, contrast, harmony,
repetition, phrasing and sequencing—all of which were intentionally
selected to give the dance its communicative form. Amelee was not
attempting to ‘express herself ’ per se, but rather, she was using her scien-
tific and mathematical knowledge to communicate/express her personal-
ized feelings about the delicate quality of the butterfly and the lightness of
its movements. Her dance was an outcome of imaginative and affective
consciousness (Wright & Deans, 2020a) that was given form through the
selection and manipulation of the discipline knowledge of dance, music,
mathematics and science.
Amelee was clearly captivated by the movement and dynamic qualities
inherent in the butterflies that she had observed at the zoo; an image that
was further stimulated by her holding and moving the delicate lace but-
terfly that her teacher had presented to the group as a sensorial stimu-
lus (see Fig. 7.1). These images triggered her desire to engage in a creative
process, which enabled her to integrate a number of symbolic forms in a
purposeful manner, dramatically enacting a multi-modal response. The
‘up and down again butterfly’ solo tells the observer a lot about four-year-­
old Amelee’s knowledge and capacity for symbolic, expressive communi-
cation. Amelee represented what she had experienced in nature, which
required her to recall visual information and to use her imagination and
body to metaphorically recreate the qualities of ‘butterflyness’. Through
the enactive mode of dance, and the iconic/symbolic mode of drawing-­
telling, Amelee symbolized her felt understanding, by assembling the
following:

• perceptions of sensations from the environment,

• imagined ideas, thoughts, images and emotions, and
• embodied time, space, force and flow (Wright & Deans, 2020b).
150 J. Deans and S. Wright

The resultant artistic outcome is technically sound and filled with high
levels of emotional content that is sensitively communicated through the
integration of body, mind and spirit—a state that is identified as per-
ezhivanie, or intensely emotional lived experience (Vygotsky, 1978). At
no time throughout the dance did she lose her aesthetic sensibility for the
re-enactment of the butterfly; it seemed she felt internally the intensity
and imagery which was supporting her self-initiated ZPD, leading her to
challenge herself to perform at a level that seemed like she was a “head
taller” (Vygotsky, 1978)—in other words, instantly, more ‘developed’.
In summary, this analysis and synthesis of Amelee’s ‘up and down again
butterfly’ solo provides insight into how dance and drawing-telling stimu-
lates STEAM thinking and learning, through a particular emphasis on
perception, imagination and embodiment, rather than a narrow focus on
specific disciplinary areas. For Amelee, the coordinated dance to music
(and ensuing drawing-telling) moved her understandings beyond the
everyday and predictable, into a space where aesthetic reasoning and emo-
tional connectedness resulted, and where the communication of novel
forms of body thinking and expressing were enacted and acknowledged.
The open-ended dance-play improvisation and experimentation provided
her with a natural way of learning about the world and about how to
depict this world via movement and via pen-on-paper. It also offered her
a dynamic and kinaesthetically oriented opportunity to access her imagi-
nation, to make concrete the familiar and to combine known understand-
ings with new ways of experiencing. In short, to see knowledge in a
new light.
Such processes are akin to those used in creative engagement within
the fields of mathematics and science. Indeed, as illustrated through
Amelee’s exemplar, dance, drawing, mathematics and science all involve
processes of critical analysis and reflection, re-creation and re-formation.
As with all forms of higher order thinking, we transform our everyday
concepts (e.g. butterfly) with our thinking, feeling and aesthetic under-
standings and scientific concepts (e.g. metamorphosis). When this hap-
pens, we often experience what Vygotsky (1978) terms catharsis, or in
other words, emotional knowledge of an embodied image or concept. As
was the case with Amelee, such encounters bring into focus a range of
learning dispositions such as motivation, self-control, self-determination,
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 151

persistence, meta-cognition, imagination and creative innovation. In

turn, these dispositions stimulate higher order thinking, often blending
body, mind and spirit.

Conclusion
This chapter has discussed young children’s learning from the perspective
of sensory-based action-reaction meaning-making, which is multi-modal
and reliant on the social construction of knowledge. STEAM is presented
as an integrated curriculum form that relies on transmediation across
modes to enable flexible and holistic learning. The exemplars of Alfie,
Ryle and Amelee highlight how artistic, expressive explorations play a
central role in supporting generative thinking and learning, through mul-
tiple sign systems, each of which has unique organizational principles.
When these sign systems work together, they afford a deep level of engage-
ment in thinking, feeling and learning processes that transmediate across
multiple modalities. The case studies also exemplify how young children
engage in problem solving, decision-making and creative thinking, as
established connections are reinforced, and new understandings devel-
oped across various disciplines.

Takeaway Message
Teachers and parents have an opportunity to consider new possibilities
for teaching and learning STEAM by providing opportunities for chil-
dren to make meaning across multiple modes, rather than considering
the discipline areas singly. As Kress (2003) reminds us, young children
learn about their world through multiple sign systems long before they
are exposed to separate subject areas. This chapter stimulates readers to
think about sensory-based action-reaction thinking and experiencing
and the important role that adults play in helping young children to
fully explore STEAM concepts and ideas through multi-modal
meaning-making.
152 J. Deans and S. Wright

References
Brooks, M. (2005). Drawing as a unique mental development tool for young
children: Interpersonal and intrapersonal dialogues. Contemporary Issues in
Early Childhood, 6(1), 80–91.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood settings: Learning stories. London:
Sage Publications.
Connery, C., John-Steiner, V. P., & Marjanović-Shane, A. (2010). Vygotsky and
creativity. A cultural-historical approach to play, meaning-making, and the arts.
New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Deans, J., & Wright, S. (2018). Dance-play and drawing telling as semiotic tools
for young children’s learning. London: Routledge.
Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of the mind. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Fleer, M. (2017). Play in the early years (2nd ed.). Port Melbourne, VIC:
Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York:
Basic Books.
González, L., Moll, C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grieshaber, S., & McArdle, F. (2010). The trouble with play. Berkshire UK:
Open University Press.
Hull, G., & Nelson, M. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality.
Written Communication, 22(2), 224–261.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge, Taylor
Francis Group.
Laban, R. (1963). Modern educational dance (Rev. 2nd ed.). L. Ullmann (Ed.).
London: MacDonald and Evans.
Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas and basic philosophy: An interview with
Lella Gandini by Loris Malaguzzi. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman
(Eds.), The hundred languages of children: Advanced reflections. London: Ablex
Publishers.
 7 STEAM Through Sensory-Based Action-Reaction Learning 153

Narey, N. (Ed.). (2009). Making meaning. Constructing multimodal perspectives

of language, literacy, and learning through arts-based early childhood education.
Pittsburgh, USA: Springer.
Niland, A. (2009). The power of musical play: The value of play-based, child-­
centered curriculum in early childhood music education. General Music
Today, 23(1), 17–21.
Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in children. New York: Int.
University Press.
Piaget, J. (1969). The mechanisms of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pugh McCutchen, B. (2006). Teaching dance as art in education. Chelsea, MI:
Sheridan Books.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1979). The phenomenology of dance. London: Dance
Books Ltd.
Suhor, C. (1984). Towards a semiotic-based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 16(3), 247–257.
Taylor, M. (1988). The development of children’s understanding of the seeing-­
knowing distinction. In J. W. Astington, P. L. Harris, & D. R. Olson (Eds.),
Developing theories of mind (pp. 207–225). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological pro-
cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wright, S. (2007a). Graphic-narrative play: Young children’s authoring through
drawing and telling. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 8, 1–28.
Wright, S. (2007b). Young children’s meaning-making through drawing and
‘telling’: Analogies to filmic textual features. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 32(4), 37–48.
Wright, S. (2010). Understanding creativity in early childhood: Meaning-making
and Children’s drawing. Washington DC: Sage.
Wright, S., & Deans, J. (2020a). Learning through the Arts. In A. Kilderry &
B. Raban (Eds.), Strong foundations. Evidence-informed Practice for early child-
hood. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press.
Wright, S., & Deans, J. (2020b). The role of movement, dynamics and expres-
sion in children’s drawings of dancing. In C. S. Nielsen & S. Burridge (Eds.),
Dancing across borders: Perspectives on dance, young people and change
(pp. 157–169).
 8
To STEAM or Not to STEAM:
Investigating Arts Immersion to Support
Children’s Learning
Susan Narelle Chapman, Georgina Barton,
and Susanne Garvis

Introduction
Over recent years the concepts of interdisciplinary learning involv-
ing Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and
additionally Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics
(STEAM) education have become popular approaches in a range of edu-
cational contexts, especially within the early years. Despite this

S. N. Chapman (*)
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Barton
University of Southern Queensland, Darling Heights, QLD, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Garvis
Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 155
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_8
156 S. N. Chapman et al.

popularity, there is limited evidence in the scholarly literature highlight-

ing the benefits and importance of STEAM for children’s learning out-
comes and experiences. Further, some reports outline how the arts (dance,
drama, media arts, music and visual arts) are often superficially tagged
onto a STEM approach rather than embedding the arts authentically
through learning and teaching.
Advocates for a STEAM approach suggest scientific progress will be
enhanced by the type of creative thinking that is embedded in the arts
(Daugherty, 2013; Taylor, 2016). The concepts which underpin STEAM
have been traced back to the ideas of John Dewey, who recommended an
integrated curriculum with real-world applications to improve students’
practical understanding of the world (Watson & Watson, 2013).
Supporters of interdisciplinary learning hold the view that this holistic
approach to the curriculum can connect interdisciplinary knowledge and
provide students with a new perspective on their “home discipline”
(Guyotte, Sochacka, Costantino, Kellam, & Walther, 2015). There is a
general acceptance in most of the STEAM literature that interdisciplinar-
ity is a way forward, though how that could happen is often not clear. In
this chapter we demonstrate how this could happen.
Enacting a STEAM (rather than STEM) approach allows children to
become more active learners and provides natural opportunities for
exploration. The arts provide children with other ways of knowing and
understanding (Eisner, 2003, 2005), making meaning by using their
bodies and their minds together so that thought, emotion and action are
blended (Wright, 2012). Young children naturally tend to connect the
mind and the body as equal partners in learning (Schiller & Meiners,
2012). By learning in, with and through the arts, young children can use
uniquely expressive and symbolic ways to communicate what they know
(Wright, 2012). These ways of learning differ from scientific ways of
learning. While there is much talk calling for STEM learning areas to
embrace creative learning strategies (Taylor, 2016), Arts-based approaches
to teaching and learning provide workable opportunities for this to hap-
pen (Daugherty, 2013). However, arts-based approaches require teachers
and families to have adequate knowledge and skills in these areas.
Critics of integrated learning approaches—like STEAM—have been
concerned that this approach will lower teaching and learning standards
 8 To STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts Immersion… 157

by omitting the development of knowledge and skills that are associated

with specific subjects (Humes, 2013). There are reports that the subjects
that are included in the STEM group have often been taught in tradi-
tional ways that concentrate on students repeating what they are told and
sitting at their desks to learn by listening and writing (Taylor, 2016).
Concerns have been expressed that these approaches to teaching older
students have been reflected in the increased emphasis on formal school-
ing for children as young as three years of age (Ang, 2014). This view has
been supported by the ‘back to basics’ motto which tends to favour teach-
ing to a formula and rote learning. By contrast, the creative and expres-
sive capacity of the arts can help children to view science as a creative
human endeavour (ACARA, 2015). It does not follow that integrated
learning negates the need for subject-specific knowledge, or that links to
subject-specific curricula are ignored. High-quality integrated learning
embraces both the intrinsic value of each subject and the bigger picture
thinking that can connect different ways of thinking.
With the influence of high-stakes testing in schools, teachers may feel
like “the meat in the sandwich” (Klenowski, 2011; Thompson, 2013).
The benefits of wide-ranging creative teaching strategies may not be
included in their pre-service training and cannot be guaranteed in their
practicum learning placement. Faced with the demands of ensuring chil-
dren achieve high test scores, teachers may either be unaware of creative
teaching strategies or feel pressured to ignore creative approaches and
teach to the test (Garvis, 2012; Garvis & Lemon, 2013). Some children
do not prosper in such learning environments, but children are able to
thrive when educators acknowledge that learners are not all the same and
one size does not fit all. Teachers and families can play an important role
together in helping all children to learn in the most effective ways possi-
ble. The opportunity to learn well needs to be offered to all children, and
not delivered in a way that favours some children over others. Research
suggests that when teachers use creative arts-based approaches to learn-
ing, rather than organizing their teaching around practising for high-­
stakes tests, students are more engaged in learning, retain their learning
longer and apply knowledge and skills to other contexts independently of
teacher instruction (Chapman, 2018). The arts thus play an important
role in unlocking learning for children.
158 S. N. Chapman et al.

In this chapter we describe an Arts Immersion approach in classrooms

to support improved learning outcomes (Chapman, 2018) and to opti-
mize the use of children’s first languages: play and the arts (Wright, 2012).
This approach could be adopted to support learning across all ages and
year levels. Arts Immersion therefore pushes back against the dominance
of word-based text in the classroom, which may privilege some students
and disengage others (Chapman, 2020) and advocates for “the use of any
form of representation in which meaning is conveyed or construed”
(Eisner, 2003, p. 342). As the arts represent a unique set of languages,
they are used in the case studies described below as a domain of learning
(learning about the arts) and as a vehicle to access other learning (learning
with and through the arts). Arts Immersion acknowledges children’s diver-
sity and offers more inclusive strategies for learning and teaching. We
suggest this approach is highly beneficial for teachers to support the
learning of all children—from those who benefit from additional support
to those who have mastered core ideas and are eager to learn more. The
interdisciplinary use of these arts languages in educational contexts cre-
ates opportunities for working collaboratively with STEM subjects and
reshaping children’s experiences of learning. Early years curricula have an
advantage in this regard since these documents describe outcomes which
are not subject-based and provide opportunities for the seamless involve-
ment of arts experiences for children. The curriculum focus is on play-
based learning and communication as well as social and emotional
development. These align effectively with arts-based methods and enable
learning and teaching in early childhood settings to be more effectively
integrated across the curriculum, rather than siloed into separate sub-
ject areas.

Arts Immersion Approach

Arts Immersion refers to the purposeful use of the arts to support learn-
ing across different disciplines (Chapman, 2015). STEAM, which inte-
grates the arts and STEM learning areas, sits within an Arts Immersion
approach, and involves teaching with and through the arts, across the
curriculum. Early years curricula align well with an Arts Immersion
 8 To STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts Immersion… 159

approach and integrated STEAM learning. For example, in the Early

Years Learning Framework for Australia (Department of Education
Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009), children are explicitly
encouraged to develop learning dispositions which include curiosity, cre-
ativity and imagination, and to express ideas and make meaning using a
range of media. In some cases, due to limiting interpretations of national
curricula, a hierarchy of teaching strategies may emerge where creative
approaches are regarded as less worthy. The case study examples in this
chapter explore how a broader arts-based pedagogy can benefit learning
and teaching for young children. The findings from the case studies also
suggest that the enactment of STEAM education, through learning and
teaching approaches common to early years contexts, may hold valuable
lessons for teachers across all year levels.
An Arts Immersion approach to learning and teaching aligns with
embodied learning in which the body and the mind work together closely
to engage the students’ senses and intellect (Wright, 2012). As the intent
of teaching is to develop learning, embodied pedagogy concerns the rela-
tionship between teachers and their students, and between their teaching
and learning practices. From this viewpoint, our minds and bodies unite
in helping us to interpret our experiences and perceptions of the world
(Stolz, 2015). Interdisciplinary learning with and through the arts lays
the foundation for broader learning choices and a greater variety of teach-
ing strategies that encourage active learning. Knowledge is constructed
through embodied learning experiences rather than being acquired only
through instruction.
However, arts-based pedagogies may be less popular in primary schools
than in early childhood education settings. For example, the EYLF
(DEEWR, 2009) supports a natural interdisciplinary approach
(Goodfellow, 2009). The curriculum for older students, however, is
arranged in distinctly separate learning areas (Daugherty, 2013; Ewing,
Miller, & Locke, 2014). For example, the EYLF proposes that creative
and expressive arts are ways for children to express ideas and make mean-
ing, leading to their development as effective communicators.
Furthermore, early childhood teachers are encouraged to use a wide range
160 S. N. Chapman et al.

of teaching strategies to accommodate different ways of learning.

However, this approach does not appear to be emphasized in the inter-
pretation of curricula for older students, and concerns have been expressed
regarding the wisdom of this approach when children start formal school-
ing (Humes, 2013). As authors, we suggest that interdisciplinary
approaches should be continued into formal schooling to support the
learning of all children.

 nacting an Arts Immersion Approach

E
to STEAM
Two case studies are presented to demonstrate the benefits of authentic
STEAM approaches to learning and teaching. It is hoped they will inspire
our readers to enhance their own interdisciplinary pedagogy across all
levels of education in implementing STEAM approaches. Ways to extend
STEAM education into the home environment by engaging families in
their children’s learning are also suggested.

Case Study 1: Bird Feeders

Infants and toddlers instinctively explore the world through their senses,
making meaning through experiences that are first experienced in their
bodies before they are processed in their minds. Infants and toddlers
express their knowing by enacting what they understand. As such, the
arts function as natural interdisciplinary languages that transcend disci-
plinary, cultural and developmental boundaries.
In this case study, Arts Immersion was chosen by the teacher in a tod-
dlers’ room to explore a design approach based on the children’s interest
in birds. The teacher had extensive experience with Arts Immersion
approaches and encouraged children to engage in sensory exploration.
The researcher documented the teacher’s daily interactions using written
observations and photographs. In addition, the teacher regularly dis-
cussed her approach—and the rationale for her approach—with the
researcher to explain specific planned learning experiences.
 8 To STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts Immersion… 161

The teacher drew on developmental pedagogy as her learning frame-

work (Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008) Developmental
pedagogy includes specific features of dialogue (e.g. the use of question-
ing with children), a focus on learning acts as opposed to learning objects
(e.g. what do I want the children to do today, rather than what do I want
the children to develop in terms of arts ability), and discernment/varia-
tion to enhance children’s learning (e.g. creating variation in an activity
such as different tempos in music or different shades of the same colour).
According to Pramling Samuelsson, Asplund Carlsson, Olsson, Pramling,
and Wallerstedt, “to learn means to change from one way of experiencing
something to another way of experiencing the same thing” (2009, p. 124).
Accordingly, the role of the early years teacher in this approach is to cre-
ate opportunities, situations and activities that challenge children’s ways
of experiencing or making sense of something (Pramling Samuelsson &
Asplund Carlsson, 2008).
The point of departure for the teacher in this case study was the chil-
dren’s interest in the birds that had recently returned to the trees in the
playground. The children were excited to greet the birds each day when
they went outside. They wanted to know more about how birds lived and
what they ate. Initially, the teacher asked the children to draw and paint
the birds they had seen outside. Next, the teacher taught the children
songs about birds and filled the room with various books about birds and
images of birds. The goal was to show the children how birds lived and
ate. Videos about birds were also incorporated into circle time to prompt
conversations. During one circle time, the children began to talk about
building a bird feeder they had seen in a video. As children’s verbal lan-
guage skills were emerging, the teacher encouraged the children to express
their ideas in drawing and artwork. This enabled the teacher to develop
an understanding of the children’s perspectives and to understand the
children’s sense-making (Doverborg & Pramling Samuelsson, 2000). The
teacher asked open-ended questions to encourage the children to share
their ideas and express their understanding. Further, the children were
also invited to ask questions. In this way, children’s knowledge and inter-
est guided the learning process.
The children began to design their bird feeders on paper, before work-
ing with recyclable material to build the design. The children engaged in
162 S. N. Chapman et al.

various drawings and paintings, experimenting with different visual arts

materials in their design. During this process, the teacher spoke about
different shapes and incorporated various objects into art activities. The
teacher had two different size recyclable material objects for the children
to explore with a toy bird and the children consequently decided that
milk containers were a good size for small birds after experimenting to see
which objects the toy bird would fit into.
The children had learnt from watching a video that some birds are
attracted to bright colours. Consequently, the children decided to paint
the bird feeders in bright colours so the birds could see them. Their
teacher continued to ask questions to encourage children’s learning about
the colour, shape, texture and design of the bird feeders as well as about
painting techniques. Conversations were organic and responsive to each
child over time, guided by children’s individual understandings about the
bird feeder.
When the bird feeders were finished, the children put them in the
garden. At the end of the week, the children took their bird feeders home.
Parents had been informed about the STEAM learning journey; they
were encouraged to use the bird feeder at home and to continue conver-
sations about birds. Parents were also asked to encourage their children to
keep a record of the birds (in paintings and drawings) and over the fol-
lowing week, to share this with the teacher when the children came to
preschool. With the teacher’s support, the toddlers kept a tally of the
number and colour of the birds they had seen at home using the chil-
dren’s drawings of birds (in the correct colour) as tally marks. These were
added to the tally chart and thus constituted data that could be used to
answer simple questions, such as ‘Were there more brown birds, or black
birds?’ In this way, continuity of learning across settings was supported,
families were included in the early learning centre’s curriculum develop-
ment and meaningful conversations between teacher, families and chil-
dren were supported.
 8 To STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts Immersion… 163

Case Study 2: Electrons

An Arts Immersion approach is also effective in primary school. In this

case study, we demonstrate how it was enacted with school students who
had highly diverse backgrounds in the context of a research project. A
teacher who was interested in using arts-based pedagogy agreed to take
part in a project that focused on science—specifically, learning about
electrons. Both the school principal and the participating teacher had
extensive experience in early childhood education. However, the partici-
pating teacher was new to primary school teaching.
Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) was employed to
explore how using the arts, as a core approach (Arts Immersion), might
influence learning and teaching with primary school students. CPAR
involves investigating practices, such as a teaching practice, with the
intention of bringing about improved outcomes for the participants
(Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon, 2014). In addition, the theoretical lens
of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014) was used to frame
researcher and teacher observations and reflections as ‘sayings’ (thinking
space), ‘doings’ (physical space) and ‘relatings’ (social space). These theo-
retical lenses were applied to understand the ways in which students com-
municated their understanding, used their learning space and resources
and related to each other and to the teacher and researcher.
During the data collection period, the researcher worked alongside the
teacher. First, the teacher provided her lesson plans to the researcher. The
researcher developed arts experiences that supported learning and assess-
ment and were aligned with the lessons. In a second step, the researcher
and the teacher refined the arts experiences before the teacher used them
in class. As often happens, timetable changes required flexibility. A Year 3
teacher at the same school was interested in this process. She volunteered
to observe some of the classes and to provide feedback—both informally
and through interviews.
A preliminary trial gave the researcher an opportunity to build a col-
legial relationship with the teacher and to get to know the students.
Thereafter, the process of lesson planning, Arts Immersion activity plan-
ning, refining and classroom delivery was repeated four times. We called
164 S. N. Chapman et al.

this phase, the ‘Reconnaissance’ stage. The purpose of the Reconnaissance

stage was to gather preliminary information and to introduce Arts
Immersion as a new approach since the arts were usually taught as a sepa-
rate subject.
The activity involved a collaboration between drama and science in which
students enacted the flow of electrons moving in a negative-­to-­positive direc-
tion, from a battery (the power source) to a light bulb. The battery and light
bulbs were represented by green buckets with picture labels. The ‘battery’
bucket was filled with pegs which symbolized small quantities of energy.
Embodying and communicating learning, the students picked up the pegs
from the ‘battery’ bucket and carried them in the appropriate direction to
the ‘light bulb’ bucket where they deposited the pegs, indicating that the
electricity had been transferred from the battery to the light bulb. The recon-
figuring of furniture in the classroom provided a large space that was suitable
for accommodating movement and not defined by desks. The teacher and
researcher observed how the students used their learning space and resources,
and how students related to each other and to the teacher and researcher.
Students engaged in coordinated movement, were energized, and
enjoyed working with their peers in the reconfigured space to represent
an electrical circuit. This simple collaborative activity was focused on
direction of movement rather than expressive quality, although students
chose to modify this movement to suggest a ‘robotic’ and continuous
flow of energy without gaps or interruptions. Students were able to trans-
fer their bodily kinaesthetic understanding to drawn diagrams con-
structed immediately straight after this drama-based activity (see Fig. 8.1).
By first enacting the movement of electrons in an electrical circuit and
embodying this knowledge, students were able to retain their learning
and express it in other forms.

The drama that was used to illustrate the movement of electrons made a huge
impact as reflected in student assessment when they drew the drama. (Researcher
Journal) (Chapman, 2018)

Figure 8.2 presents an example of formative assessment gathered later

in the week. The use of drama to enact the movement of electrons had
reinforced Heidi’s learning.
 8 To STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts Immersion… 165

Fig. 8.1 Electrical circuit

Fig. 8.2 Heidi’s formative assessment response. (Chapman, 2018, p. 85)

166 S. N. Chapman et al.

Students were welcome to provide their written, formative assessment

responses using word- and picture-based representations of learning. This
was in marked contrast with established practice at the school. Pictorial
representations can also act as a stimulus for discussion equipping stu-
dents to refer to the pictures as a starting point for explaining aloud.
This simple activity fostered the connection between mind and body.
It included all students, regardless of developmental level, disability, cul-
ture, gender or language background. Language learning in the primary
years may often be regarded as synonymous with word-based text.
However, in this STEAM approach, the arts language of drama became
the language of learning about the flow of electrons in an electrical cir-
cuit. Rather than limiting learning and lowering achievement standards,
this STEAM activity promoted clearer understanding and helped stu-
dents to remember what they had learned.
In the course of this research project, students became ‘arts ready’:
their familiarity with the use of arts languages across the curriculum was
established. Over time, Arts Immersion activities, including STEAM
strategies for learning, grew in complexity. Students who did not usually
engage with STEM subjects or attain required achievement levels were
supported in reaching improved outcomes. By working with a researcher
who was an arts specialist, professional learning occurred in the class-
room. The opportunity for the teacher to learn ‘on-the-job’ provided an
effective strategy for building teacher capacity in using an integrated
STEAM pedagogy, as part of a wider Arts Immersion approach to learn-
ing and teaching.

Moving Forward
An arts-based approach to teaching creates opportunities for children to
share their knowledge and ideas in creative ways. STEAM, as one aspect
of an arts-based approach, draws on the arts to enhance student engage-
ment with STEM learning areas and encourages students’ view of them-
selves as competent learners in STEAM subjects. Generating knowledge
through high-quality integrated STEAM learning does not necessarily
lead to lowered academic standards and a watering down of learning
 8 To STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts Immersion… 167

objectives. Rather, informed STEAM planning seeks to address specific

aspects of the curriculum and reflects developmentally appropriate teach-
ing strategies for young children.
Learning and teaching are influenced by an evolving social and policy
environment. This approach offers teachers an opportunity to reflect on
their teaching practice. Reflective practice includes action: either to con-
tinue with existing practices or to change practice in light of new theories
and research. As part of this process, teachers may reconsider what
authentic learning looks like for young children and how this can be sup-
ported with developmentally appropriate pedagogy.
To be able to apply an Arts Immersion approach, teachers need to be
confident in critically reflecting on their own practice and in collaborat-
ing with a more experienced teacher. It takes confidence for a teacher to
avoid the dangers of adopting a defensive stance, a non-questioning atti-
tude and resistance towards new ideas and emerging research. Rather,
teachers need to be comfortable with allowing their students to become
active learners through exploration and inquiry.
It is not necessary for teachers engaging in this type of professional
learning to be experienced in arts education. However, they need to be
open to engaging with other learning processes, skills and ways of know-
ing. In applying an arts Immersion approach, the role of a teacher includes
helping students find the best answer rather than the quickest answer,
providing a range of media with which students can communicate, and
encouraging students to accept responsibility for their own learning.
Teacher reflective practice is also called for. In enacting an Arts Immersion
approach, teachers value a wide range of student responses to tasks, are
comfortable with ambiguity, acknowledge and reflect upon their own
areas of bias and celebrate individual and group cultural diversity by cre-
ating inclusive learning environments.
This arts-based approach to learning and teaching relies on a construc-
tivist pedagogy in which learners construct knowledge through a series of
experiences as they explore problems, ideas and issues. This contrasts
markedly with a focus on having students memorize facts that have been
provided by the teacher. Through authentic experiences, young children
can take responsibility for their own learning by thinking deeply.
168 S. N. Chapman et al.

Engaging with concrete objects, acquiring knowledge and skills, com-

municating understanding and collaborating with others reflect active
and immersive learning. Some teachers may view the body as subordinate
to the mind and a playful distraction best left to young children.
However, teachers may benefit from acknowledging what early learn-
ers seem to know instinctively—that the world is first experienced in the
body before it is processed in the mind. The cohesive use of the mind and
body that characterizes embodied learning has benefits far beyond early
childhood education.
Key findings from the case study:

• Initial introduction of Arts Immersion activities requires careful plan-

ning and delivery.
• Introductory activities should be simple and rely on existing resources.
• Beginning Arts Immersion teachers should be encouraged to share the
responsibility of sourcing and designing activities with more experi-
enced Arts Immersion teachers.
• Positive experiences with simpler Arts immersion strategies can pave
the way to building confidence and competence.
• More complex Arts Immersion approaches can be developed over time
with the assistance of experienced Arts Immersion teachers if required.

 uggestions for Family-Based Arts

S
Immersion Activities
Learning is naturally integrated into everyday activities when family
members explore concepts with children. Home-school partnerships are
important for children’s learning and the home environment offers end-
less opportunities for families to support learning, fostering a purposeful
connection between mind and body through arts activities (such as paint-
ing, drawing, music, dance and drama). When children’s learning is sup-
ported at home, children realize that learning does not only happen
at school.
 8 To STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts Immersion… 169

Some suggestions of Arts Immersed learning opportunities for young

children are provided below.

• Establish a neighbourhood cooperative with a few families to learn

about animals in the backyard or near the family home. Design, create
and refine objects to support the welfare of these animals (e.g. create
water containers, bird baths, feeders and safe spaces for animals).
• Create a book about a family holiday using text, photographs
and drawings.
• Create family/community dances and movement activities to explain
scientific concepts such as melting ice and water vapour. Incorporate
music. These can also be recorded as a media arts artefact or presented
at a family concert.
• Express a biological cycle as a series of family friezes/tableaux (drama).
For example, show the stages of change in the life cycle of a frog (eggs,
different stages of a tadpole, frog) or butterfly (eggs, caterpillar, chrysa-
lis, butterfly). You could photograph the family frieze and display it at
home or at your local library.
• Create an innovative book club with family and friends. At book club
meetings, stories (or parts of stories) could be acted out, or people
could take on a character from a book and be interviewed. Extend this
idea by wearing costumes! Invent (or act out) different endings or
change the characters (e.g. a big, bad wolf who is timid and likes to
collect flowers).
• Invite local musicians to help with designing and creating musical
instruments together (e.g. shakers or drums using different quantities
of water in bottles to make different pitches, wind chimes, ‘string’
instruments with boxes and rubber bands or percussion instruments
like drums and thongaphones).
• Use digital arts in the form of animation software to explain scientific,
mathematical or engineering processes—for example, Renderforest,
Biteable, Moovly, Animaker, Animatron, Toonator, Powtoon and
GoAnimate. You could share these with experts in the relevant fields,
in an online forum, or on an educational resource site.
170 S. N. Chapman et al.

• Play charades. Science-, technology-, engineering- and mathematics-­

related concepts and processes can be acted out using the language of
dance, drama and music.
• Invent your own version of Pictionary. Science-, technology-, engi-
neering- and mathematics-related concepts and processes can be drawn
for people to guess. In this way, you incorporate visual arts with STEM.

Conclusion
This chapter has articulated the why, what and how of authentic STEAM
approaches with children in the early years. The case studies presented
demonstrate how a STEAM approach, as part of a broader Arts Immersion
approach to learning and teaching, enhanced student engagement and
improved outcomes in STEM subjects by reframing them as exciting and
dynamic learning areas. Toddlers benefited from the purposeful inclusion
of planning, refining, constructing and decorating bird feeders, using
an interest in birds as the springboard for exploring engineering and tech-
nology concepts within an Arts Immersion approach. Primary school
students were provided with an opportunity to learn by doing, and to
represent their knowledge with words and pictures.
A STEAM-based approach opens up the possibility of multimodal and
interdisciplinary learning and lends itself to teaching and learning across
the early years from birth to age eight. It embraces student diversity,
equity in the classroom, and creative problem solving with and through
the arts.

References
Ang, L. (2014). Preschool or prep school? Rethinking the role of early years
education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(2), 185–199. https://
doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.15.2.185
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). Australian
curriculum: The arts foundation to year 10—version 8.3. Retrieved from
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-­10-­curriculum/the-­arts/
 8 To STEAM or Not to STEAM: Investigating Arts Immersion… 171

References Withheld

Chapman, S. N. (2015). Arts immersion: Using the arts as a language across the
primary school Curriculum. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(9),
86–101. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1871585919/
Chapman, S. N. (2018). Arts Immersion across the curriculum: An action research
Case study in using the Arts as the home language in a primary school classroom.
Doctoral Dissertation, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. http://hdl.
handle.net/10072/384903
Chapman, S. N. (2020). STEAMing ahead: Using the arts languages to engage
students and enhance learning. Practical Literacy: Early and Primary Years.
25(2), 17–19.
Daugherty, M. (2013). The prospect of an “a” in STEM education. Journal of
STEM Education, 14(2), 10–15. http://www.uastem.com/wp-­content/
uploads/2012/08/The-­Prospect-­of-­an-­A-­in-­STEM-­Education.pdf
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009).
Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia.
Canberra, ACT, Australia: Council of Australian Governments.
Doverborg, E., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2000). Att förstå barns tankar.
Metodik för barnintervjuer (2:a rev. uppl.). Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
Ewing, R., Miller, C., & Locke, T. (2014). Editorial: An Arts-led English and
literacy curriculum. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 13(2), 1–4.
Eisner, E. (2003). The arts and the creation of mind. Language Arts, 80(5),
340–344.
Eisner, E. (2005). Opening a shuttered window: An introduction to a special
section on the arts and the intellect. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 8–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700104
Garvis, S. (2012). Beginning generalist teacher self-efficacy for music compared
with maths and English. British Journal of Music Education, 30(1), 85–101.
https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0265051712000411
Garvis, S., & Lemon, N. (2013). Are the arts important in schooling? Clear
messages from the voices of pre-service generalist teachers in Australia.
Australian Journal of Music Education, 2, 98–104.
Goodfellow, J. (2009). The early years learning framework: Getting started. Deakin
West, ACT, Australia: Early Childhood Australia.
Guyotte, K., Sochacka, N., Costantino, T., Kellam, N., & Walther, J. (2015).
Collaborative creativity in STEAM: Narratives of art education students’
experiences in transdisciplinary spaces. International Journal of Education &
the Arts, 16(15), 1–39. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1773231622/
172 S. N. Chapman et al.

Humes, W. (2013). Curriculum for excellence and interdisciplinary learning.

Scottish Educational Review, 45(1), 82–93.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner:
Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-­9814560-­67-­2
Klenowski, V. (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability era:
Queensland, Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 78–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.003
Pramling Samuelsson, I., Asplund Carlsson, M., Olsson, B., Pramling, N., &
Wallerstedt, C. (2009). The art of teaching children the arts: Music, dance
and poetry with children aged 2-8 years old. International Journal of Early
Years Education, 17(2), 119–135.
Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008). The playing learning
child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641.
Schiller, W., & Meiners, J. (2012). Dance: Moving beyond steps to ideas. In
S. Wright (Ed.), Children, meaning-making and the arts (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–29).
Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson. https://doi.org/10.4225/35/5a39a42c85b42
Stolz, S. A. (2015). Embodied learning, educational philosophy and theory.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(5), 474–487. https://doi.org/10.108
0/00131857.2013.879694
Taylor, P. (2016, August 7–9). Why is a STEAM curriculum perspective crucial to
the 21st century? [Conference paper]. Brisbane, Queensland: Australian
Council for Educational Research (ACER) Research Conference. https://
research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=research_
conference
Thompson, G. (2013). NAPLAN, MySchool and accountability: Teacher per-
ceptions of the effects of high stakes testing in Australia. International
Education Journal, 12(2), 62–84. http://search.proquest.com/docview/
1651841160
Watson, A., & Watson, G. (2013, October, 1–4). Transitioning STEM to
STEAM: Reformation of engineering education. The Journal for Quality and
Participation. https://www.academia.edu/8766909/Transitioning_STEM_
to_STEAM_Reformation_of_Engineering_Education
Wright, S. (2012). Children, meaning-making and the arts (2nd ed.). Frenchs
Forest, NSW: Pearson.
 9
Using Mathematical Investigations
in Projects for STEAM Integration
Marianne Knaus

Mathematics as an Act of Inquiry

Mathematics is a way of describing the world we live in and is more about
processes, structure, order and relationships rather than simply providing
answers. In daily life, we can explore mathematics concepts all around us;
maths is everywhere if you take the time to notice it (Knaus, 2013). From
birth, babies are developing an awareness of mathematics, recognising shape,
pattern and number. Children are busily engaged in exploring and finding
out and not cognizant that they might be learning mathematics. In the early
years, children do not necessarily recognise or compartmentalise subject
areas such as maths, science, arts and technology. The focus is on the learn-
ing and inquiry to find out and know more about their world. It is parents
and teachers who are able to elaborate on the child’s inquiry to extend the
learning and introduce mathematics concepts. When folding the washing,

M. Knaus (*)
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 173
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_9
174 M. Knaus

for example, a child may notice that there are two socks in each pile as a par-
ent folds them into one bundle. The socks become groups of two. Experiences
like this can start a conversation about counting in twos, or form the early
basis of grouping and multiplication. Teachers and parents can make the
most of incidental opportunities that occur every day.

Ruben’s Encounter with a Puddle

On a walk with his parents, Ruben (16 months of age) noticed a puddle.
Lately, the family has been on many walks and Ruben has been testing out
his new gumboots in all the puddles he could find after the recent rain. He
walks into the puddle immersing his boots right in the middle of the water,
exploring the depth. He uses his hands to dig down deeper to find the bot-
tom of the puddle (Fig. 9.1). He explores the leaves and grass, pulling them
from the water. He then watches the water as it slowly drips off his fingers,
making concentric circle patterns as each drop lands on the surface.
It is during informal, everyday opportunities like the above example,
that mathematics can be noticed and discussed. The Let’s Count programme
in Australia successfully uses the mantra “notice, explore and talk about” in
their workshops that bring together early childhood educators, parents and
other family members. This programme has proven successful in enhancing
children’s mathematical engagement, learning outcomes and dispositions
(Perry, Gervasoni, & Dockett, 2012). The term mathematising is used by
Rosales (2015) to describe the way in which mathematics concepts are
extended in contextual situations during opportune moments to help chil-
dren understand the mathematics that is occurring. It is in real-world con-
texts that mathematics becomes meaningful and purposeful, and adults play
an essential role in mathematising everyday experiences. However, in order
to make the most of these learning experiences, it is necessary to have an
understanding of mathematics concepts to be able to promote this learning.
The basic concepts children learn include aspects of number, geometry,
measurement, algebra, data and probability. Experiences with these con-
cepts will, however, look different for children aged under five years
when compared with children at school. The way children start to make
sense of the world and gain knowledge of mathematics is through a range
of high-quality play opportunities. It is during play and everyday
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 175

Fig. 9.1 Ruben investigates a puddle

opportunities that children are purposefully engaged in problem-solving,

discovering, reasoning, and using trial and error in ways that enable math-
ematics concepts to be explored. These concrete experiences are the build-
ing blocks of knowledge that are later transformed into more complex,
abstract concepts. The path to concept development moves from informal
understanding to formal knowledge according to Bruner’s (1966) concep-
tion of the enactive-iconic-symbolic representation. A concept is first
experienced through a physical experience; an enactive form. The enactive
phase occurs between birth and one year of age. A typical example for
babies would be when they shake a rattle. This is a physical action the baby
has stored in their memory. The next step in the progression from concrete
to abstract concepts is iconic representation, when an image is recalled. For
example, a toddler may see a picture of a rattle in a book and point to it as
it as they recall a rattle. The iconic phase uses visual images to assist the
176 M. Knaus

thinking process and is typically observed when a child is between one and
six years of age. Symbolic representation, when a rattle is represented as a
spoken word or written in a symbolic form, is observed at about six to
seven years of age. When children begin to learn about mathematics, we
provide concrete materials for them to explore, and with time and rehearsal
opportunities, combined with the language of mathematics, more com-
plex concepts can be developed. It is using the words alongside the ‘doing’
that is most important in concept formation.
The foundation for learning these concepts is the processes or skills
which include identifying and describing attributes, matching, sorting,
comparing and ordering (Irons, 2007). Attributes are particular character-
istics of an object such as colour, shape or size. When playing and talking
with babies, we encourage them to observe the attributes of objects: the ball
is round, it is red. These conversations help them to distinguish attributes
of objects by referring to similarities and differences. Matching, for toddlers
and pre-schoolers, is finding two attributes that are the same. Matching is
a necessary skill for learning one-to-one correspondence, and there are
many ways we can encourage this skill through matching everyday items.
Sorting also involves matching, but we use a greater number of objects. We
can sort shells, buttons or leaves. When introducing sorting, we start off
with one attribute at a time. Sorting becomes more complex when children
learn to sort by two attributes. The process of comparing is important too:
looking for differences between two or more items. Babies and toddlers are
able to compare size differences such as big and small. With measurement,
we compare length, weight, capacity, area and time, and pre-school chil-
dren start to learn more complex measurement language. In number, chil-
dren also compare sets or groups of objects. Ordering involves comparing
and placing items into sequence, for example, from the shortest to the tall-
est. There are many items that can be ordered, from blocks and crayons to
rocks and leaves. Groups of objects can be ordered too: a plate with one
grape, a plate with two grapes and a plate with three grapes. The beginning
processes support the development of mathematical ideas and more com-
plex concepts across the year levels moving towards school entry. A break-
down of the concepts relative to age groups is shown in Table 9.1. Play
alone does not ensure that children are learning mathematics. Parents,
teachers and other adults can enhance children’s learning by asking ques-
tions and mathematising their ideas (Table 9.1).
Table 9.1 Mathematics concepts relative to year levels
Concepts Birth to 2 years 2–3 years 3–4 years 4–5 years
Number Chants some counting Recites counting words Recites counting words to 5, Counts beyond 10
words (not necessarily in right then 10 Counts items using 1:1
Differentiates order) Uses number names in correspondence
quantities from 0 Uses terms: more, same, stable order Subitises to 5
to 3 different Recognises numerals to 5 Recognises numerals to 10
Compares small sets of Subitises up to 4 and that they represent Represents cardinal number
objects objects numbers Counts on from small numbers
Developing an Becomes more accurate in Subitises, names and Counts back from 10
understanding of counting small numbers selects 3 or 4 objects Recognises decades 10, 20, 30, 40, 50…
“oneness”, of objects Partitions small numbers Skip counts in 2s, 5s, 10s
“twoness” Constructs equivalent sets Draws symbols to represent Recognises patterns to 10
Subitises up to 3 of objects numbers Partitions sets
objects Adds one more Recognises patterns on a Combines two groups of objects to
Recognises order in dice add or take away
sets of size Compares collections of Shares objects equally into fair shares
objects and describes more Divides sets into groups
or less
Geometry Distinguishes between Distinguishes between Recognises common shapes Recognises more shapes: hexagon,
(shapes) open and closed circles, squares and triangle, circle, square rhombus, trapezium
shapes triangles Explores and sorts shapes Draws common shapes: triangle,
Stacks 3D shapes Compares two shapes if Constructs and deconstructs circle, square
Makes arrangements they are same or shapes Compares and classifies shapes
of shapes and lines different Fits shapes together and Knows properties of simple 2D and
Matches and names Stacks 3D shapes and takes them apart 3D shapes (number of sides)
9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM…

basic shapes (square, builds towers and walls Matches shapes in puzzles Creates complex block play
triangle) Matches two identical 3D and posting boxes enclosures, arches, corners
objects
Manipulates shapes and
177

takes them apart

(continued)
Table 9.1  (continued)
178

Concepts Birth to 2 years 2–3 years 3–4 years 4–5 years

Geometry Starts to get a sense of Locates familiar objects in Locates objects when they Gives and follows directions
(spatial their own bodies and environment have been moved Locates items on a map
awareness) the relationship to Points to familiar Follows verbal directions Draws simple maps of routes
the space around landmarks along a route Follows simple maps Block play becomes more complex
them Remember short journey Bridging in block play to Rotates and recognises a shape
M. Knaus

Recognises patterns of sequences create more complex Explores reflection and symmetry
movement and tracks Stacks blocks vertically or structures Rotates, flips, turns and slides puzzle
objects with eyes horizontally in rows Builds models pieces and shapes
Recognises and Creates enclosures with Understands position words: Understands position words: left and
reaches for things in blocks in front, behind right
the distance Understands position
Develops path words: beside, between
integration
Explores the
characteristics of
blocks
Understands position
words: on, in, under,
up, down
(continued)
Table 9.1  (continued)
Concepts Birth to 2 years 2–3 years 3–4 years 4–5 years
Measurement Explores attributes Recognises and names Compares items that are Makes estimations and comparisons
through sensory- attributes: big, little, longer and heavier or the of length, weight, capacity
motor play: reaching, small, long, tall, high same Makes ordered arrangements shortest
moving, lifting, Becomes familiar with Compares capacity pouring to tallest using seriation
turning, covering, fill, routine times into containers Familiar with daily routine and days
empty Explores angles through of the week
block building
Recognises time as a
sequence of events
Algebra Notices items with a Engages in repetitive Verbalises before, after, next Sorts and classifies familiar objects
fixed order tasks filling, emptying to, start, finish and explains the basis for these
Notices patterns in Lines up toys in repeating Makes line patterns classifications
fabric and patterns Recognises a symmetrical Copies and extends a sequence
environment Makes repeated marks in pattern Recognises a cyclical pattern
Recognises pattern painting and drawing Copies and creates simple Copies, continues, creates patterns
and in familiar songs Creates imprints in dough two-part patterns with objects and drawings
and rhymes Recognises a growing pattern
Makes repeated
patterns by shaking a
rattle
(continued)
9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM…
179
Table 9.1 (continued)
180

Concepts Birth to 2 years 2–3 years 3–4 years 4–5 years

Data and Discovers attributes of Recognises attributes such Sorts, classifies and matches Uses the language of chance,
probability objects and names as colour, shape, size objects according to possible, impossible, likely, unlikely
them Compares objects that are attributes Answers simple questions to collect
same or different Orders according to one information (yes/no)
Matches two or more attribute Represents data using concrete
M. Knaus

objects Groups items such as materials and interprets data

Makes purposeful favourite pets Uses pictographic materials and
collections interprets data
Moves items from one
group to another to sort
them
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 181

An Example of Mathematisation

“SHE’S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21…SHE’S 21 BIG.”

The educators overheard an interesting dialogue taking place: a group

of children were gathered around their whole-body portraits and were
questioning the portraits’ identities and genders.

Jamie: “How big is she?”

Alex: “She’s bigger than me.”
Riley: “She’s taller than me, she’s big!”
Asha: “Wait, stand back, I’ll do it properly. She’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21…She’s 21 big.”

The children’s interest then shifted to “how big” the whole-body

was. The children were standing next to or in front of one whole-body
portrait, comparing themselves and others to its size. The children used
their hands and bodies to investigate “how big” the figure was; they did
this both individually and collaboratively. In response to the children’s
evolving ideas, the kindergarten educators saw this as an opportunity to
scaffold the children’s learning by challenging their thinking and guiding
their learning. They provided the children with investigation baskets con-
taining multiple measuring tools, clipboards, paper and pencils.
When the children discovered the baskets of measuring tools, they imme-
diately unrolled the measuring tapes and held them up to the whole-­body
portraits. The children shared their opinions on the length of the figures.

Asha: “Well, she is 60 long.”

Riley: “Six – zero, that means sixty.”

The children then took out the clipboards and documented their find-
ings: Asha and Riley both drew an approximation of the number 60
(Acknowledgement: Nido Early School QV1).
Knowledge of mathematics concepts is a starting point for being able
to mathematise. Rosales (2015) has developed a framework for mathe-
matising as a learning process. The framework includes four components:
182 M. Knaus

1. Observing—identifying and recognising a learning opportunity from

which to create engaging mathematical learning experiences.
2. Exploration—promoting curiosity and learning with the use of mate-
rials to create, construct and develop thinking skills.
3. Language modelling—using appropriate language to label, question,
expand and extend.
4. Inquiry—using strategies that lead to projects that incorporate higher-­
level thinking skills: problem-solving, reasoning, critical thinking and
reflection.

Rosales’ (2015) framework can be applied any time, anywhere, in an

informal or a formal learning environment. Everyday routines and situa-
tions are ideal starting points for specific concepts to be discussed and math-
ematised, including with infants and toddlers who are investigating their
world. The fourth component, inquiry, is explained in more depth below.

Inquiry Approaches
Mathematics learning through inquiry assists children to make meaning
from their investigations within real-world contexts. An inquiry focuses
on the learner as an active participant in knowledge acquisition, based on
constructivist theories of learning advanced by Dewey (1938), Piaget
(1952), Bruner (1966) and Vygotsky (1978). Using an inquiry approach
has many benefits, and according to Rosicka (2016, p. 8), “Inquiry-based
learning builds from a natural process of inquiry in which students experi-
ence a ‘need to know’ that motivates and deepens learning”. The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) (2012)
endorses inquiry-based learning as key to the development of twenty-­first
century skills which include critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and
communication. Inquiry and exploration are the foundations of scientific
learning and are essential features of STEAM. An inquiry approach
encourages positive dispositions for learning and engagement in deeper
levels of thinking that include predicting, critical thinking, developing
hypotheses, reasoning and problem-solving. Emphasis is placed on the
process skills of investigation, exploration and experimentation, as well as
communication and sharing ideas collaboratively with others.
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 183

Babies and toddlers are engaged in inquiry as they explore and navi-
gate their world. Parents and teachers can support this inquiry by provid-
ing an active learning environment with interesting materials, sensory
opportunities and provocations (DECS, 2008). Interactions with babies
and toddlers while engaged in exploration can motivate and inspire fur-
ther curiosity, especially when adults mathematise child behaviours by
making links to specific concepts (Knaus, 2013). Inquiries become more
complex with pre-school children.
Building connections with families to learn about cultural practices, rou-
tines and children’s interests is necessary to support mathematics inquiry. The
contribution of the life experiences of children and families, and their contri-
bution to learning, has been theorised. Funds of Knowledge is an educational
theory that recognises the life experiences of children and families as a source
of knowledge that provides many possibilities for positive pedagogical prac-
tices (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). The research of Hedges and Cooper
(2014) further illustrates the influence of home learning environments on the
interests and inquiries of babies and toddlers and consolidates this using the
theory of funds of knowledge. Teachers are equipped to respond to children’s
interests and inquiries using authentic questions and meaningful learning
when engaged in collaboration with families.
There are many different approaches and cycles that can be adopted to
enact inquiry learning. The 5E Model was developed in 1987 by the
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) and uses the structure of
Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate (Bybee, 2014). Another
inquiry approach is one developed by Pedaste et al. (2015) as illustrated
in Fig. 9.2. In the first phase, the inquiry begins with Orientation during
which the topic is introduced through a provocation, an inquiry ques-
tion, or a problem. Phase Two includes the Conceptualisation of the inves-
tigation. This phase is based on questioning, with the assistance of a
teacher, to guide the inquiry and generate a hypothesis. Phase Three is
about Investigation and could take days, weeks or months depending on
the topic, interest and age of the children. During this phase, teachers
and children explore, experiment and collect data to try out their ideas
and test their current understandings. It can also involve fieldwork, draw-
ings, videos, photographs, documentation and visits from experts on the
topic. Phase Four is the Conclusion to the inquiry at which point explana-
tions are provided and an evaluation of the hypothesis undertaken.
184 M. Knaus

ORIENTATION
DISCUSSION

Orientation
CONCEPTUALIZATION

Hypothesis
Questioning
Generation
Communication

Reflection
INVESTIGATION

Exploration Experimentation

Data
Interpretation
CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Fig. 9.2 Inquiry-based learning framework (Pedaste et al. 2015)

Discussion is incorporated in all of the phases of the inquiry. Here, com-

munication and reflection with peers and teachers assist in explanation of
their understanding through reflection and the sharing of ideas.
Kath Murdoch (2015) proposes an inquiry model with a sequence of
phases (see Fig. 9.3) described as a journey of learning that can be con-
ducted over a series of weeks. However, the Kath Murdoch approach is
more than just going through the motions of a cyclical model; it posi-
tions understanding as the focus of the inquiry to help children inquire,
 9
Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM…
185

Fig. 9.3 A model for designing a journey of inquiry (Murdoch, 2019)

186 M. Knaus

question and reflect as new learning is constructed. The planning is

scaffolded with the children, but is not necessarily linear as it
occurs through an immersion of phases and intentions as a process of
investigation. Ideas, questions and suggestions frame the inquiry form-
ing possibilities and conceptual underpinnings. From these initial big
ideas, information is gathered with the children to determine what is
known about the topic. Children and teachers tune in and make con-
nections with previous knowledge and understanding. Next is the find-
ing out phase with the gathering of new information in various ways
and the recording of this information to help children think more
deeply on the topic. Children then make sense of the information in
the sorting out phase through analysing, comparing, reflecting and
revisiting new thinking and previous questions. In the going further
phase, children are encouraged to work independently to extend the
inquiry. Children in the reflecting and acting phase review what they
have learned and share this new knowledge, often in a collaborative
way. Finally, evaluating is conducted by the teacher to review the effec-
tiveness of the inquiry, assess the children and look back on the under-
standings gained through the journey of the whole inquiry.
Restricting mathematics learning to formal experiences only, does
not enhance a child’s inner drive to acquire new knowledge. Children
start learning from a desire to find out and know as a consequence
of their curious nature and do not conceive of learning taking place in
subject silos. Krogh and Morehouse (2014, p. 1) state that “learning
through inquiry begins at birth as infants explore their new environ-
ment and the people in it. Children learn more in their first few years
of life than they will in any other development phase. They learn
through continual inquiry and observation using all their senses, cou-
pled with encouragement and modeling of adults”. Mathematics is not
just about knowing facts; learning through inquiry can enrich and
extend concept understanding and in particular, reasoning and prob-
lem-solving. Using the pedagogical practice of inquiry, mathematics is
best learned in meaningful situations through guidance of more expe-
rienced others where concepts can be connected to real-world prob-
lems and situations.
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 187

Intentional Teaching
During inquiry, parents, teachers and adults lead and guide the learning
through sensitive intervention in appropriate and opportune moments so
that the mathematics is made visible and relevant. The Early Years Learning
Framework for Australia (Department of Education, Employment, and
Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2009, p. 15) recommends that to
teach intentionally, we need to be “deliberate, purposeful and thoughtful”
and to use “strategies such as modelling and demonstrating, open ques-
tioning, speculating, explaining, engaging in shared thinking and problem
solving to extend children’s thinking and learning”. Siraj-Blatchford
(2009) refers to sustained shared thinking to describe two people–often a
teacher or a parent and a child–co-­constructing learning by sharing knowl-
edge and understanding to support and extend learning. The interchange
of ideas could include discussing, challenging thinking, questioning and
modelling to scaffold the child’s learning. Inquiry learning is integral to
intentional teaching and through ongoing reflective practice, teach-
ers become “in-tune” with children’s thinking and equipped to adapt ped-
agogical practices and strategies to the context.
Intentional teaching also involves setting up physical spaces. Effective
mathematics inquiry takes place within active play environments that fos-
ter curiosity, wonder, problem-solving, persistence and confidence.
Provision of suitable spaces and resources, as well as time to explore, are
important considerations. Provocations and interesting materials provide
stimuli for inquiry and questions. Children are able to lead investigations
when they are encouraged to explore and collaborate with others in unhur-
ried environments. They need time for ideas to develop and to engage
more deeply in their thinking. Intentional teaching can be facilitated by
more experienced peers as well as teachers and parents. Indeed, a study on
inquiry learning conduct by Wu and Lin (2016) found that communica-
tion in mathematics was important and that children’s peers were the best
learning partners, particularly with regard to sharing and expressing ideas.
The use of language plays a critical role in mathematics learning and is an
essential component of intentional teaching. For babies and toddlers, we
model ‘labelling language’ to introduce mathematics language. From label-
ling, we extend the words we use with very young children to expand
188 M. Knaus

vocabulary (Rosales, 2015). The use of children’s literature, puppets, poems

and rhymes based on mathematics themes are very helpful in introducing new
language for all ages. For example, singing the song, Five Little Ducks, and
using puppets to demonstrate the ducks going over the hill and far away, pro-
vides a both a mental image and the words to introduce the concept of sub-
traction. There are many words that are specific to mathematics that can be
quite complex as well as words that have dual meanings like ‘odd’, ‘mass’ and
‘mean’ and these can be confusing. When mathematical language is used in
meaningful contexts, it assists children to make the link between the spoken
word and the meaning of the words. Concepts are learnt when experienced in
everyday experiences, and if this happens often, children will learn the vocabu-
lary and understand the concept. Taking part in discussions helps children
to make sense of the mathematics they are learning and to clarify concepts.
Language is necessary to foster higher-order thinking in mathematics: to rea-
son, explain, justify and reflect (Riccomini, Smith, Hughes & Fries, 2015).
The effective use of questions encourages language production and is an
important component of intentional teaching. Questions are necessary for
an inquiry approach as they encourage children’s thinking and nurture
curiosity. Murdoch (2015) suggests that questions themselves can be the
focus of an inquiry, but we also need to help children learn how to pose
questions. The types of questions children ask may sustain an inquiry over
days and weeks. As teachers and parents we can encourage children to:

1. Manipulate prior information;

2. State an idea in their own words;
3. Find a solution to a problem;
4. Observe and describe an event or an object;
5. Compare two or more objects;
6. Give examples;
7. Explain their thinking;
8. Apply ideas to new situations;
9. Compare and find relationships;
10. Make predictions or inferences; and
11. Make a judgement (MacDonald, 2015, p. 26).

Good inquiry questions will provoke thinking and further exploration

in all the STEAM disciplines.
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 189

Integrated Learning
Active learning through inquiry promotes a variety of ideas and perspec-
tives from different disciplines. STEAM incorporates the disciplines of
Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics. There is debate
as to how much of each discipline needs to be included to call it a STEAM
project. Some people argue that incorporating any two of the disciplines
is regarded as STEAM (Bybee, 2013, Moomaw, 2013, Sanders 2009)
while others recommend that all components of STEAM need to be inte-
grated into a project (Dugger, 2010, Pelesko, 2015). Dugger (2010, p. 3)
defines mathematics as “the science of patterns and relationships” and
goes on to conclude that this definition is itself a perfect description of
STEAM as a whole. The National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics
and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (ND) identify the
importance of the STEAM disciplines, but also uphold the role of math-
ematics underpinning a firm foundation at the centre of any STEAM
programme. Children require sound mathematics skills to tackle prob-
lems and endeavour to find solutions. Other benefits to an inte-
grated STEAM curriculum include increased motivation, increased
problem-solving skills and an understanding of how and what is being
learnt (Rosicka, 2016).
Moomaw and Davis (2010) suggest that connecting topics through
an integrated curriculum is recommended practice in early childhood
education. As children play and investigate, there is a natural crossover
between science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics.
Learning is not compartmentalised into curriculum areas but woven
into discovery and investigation. Using children’s natural curiosity, the
learning is meaningful and relevant, and strengthened by intrinsic moti-
vation. STEAM is recognised to have many more benefits than just
teaching the academic skills of the five disciplines. STEAM is credited
with contributing to the acquisition of twenty-first century skills, some-
times referred to as ‘employability skills’ or ‘soft skills’, such as problem-
solving, collaboration, creativity and innovation (Timms, Moyle,
Weldon & Mitchell, 2018).
190 M. Knaus

Projects
Inquiry-based learning provides opportunities for children to identify
solutions to problems. These investigations can lead to extended, ongo-
ing investigations or projects to develop knowledge, understanding and
skills: “learning experiences that extend beyond one-off activities, that
can be repeated or returned to, and that lend themselves to ongoing
involvement, encourage deep learning. The ongoing nature of such expe-
riences ensures that children’s engagement with them becomes deeper
and richer” (Touhill, 2012, p. 2). A project can take weeks or months and
cultivate learning in creative and interesting ways. Teachers can integrate
specific curriculum goals within such inquiry projects, providing a holis-
tic approach to learning.
Children are actively engaged in multi-disciplinary learning and sup-
ported to represent their thinking through displays and presentations. In
line with this, mathematics can be incorporated in projects in many ways
(Table 9.2).

Case Study of Nido Early School QV1

At Nido Early School QV1, engaging in research with and alongside the
children is an integral part of the curriculum. This example of an inquiry
project originated from the unique location of the early learning centre in
the upper plaza of the QV1, a 43-story building in the heart of the Perth
central business district. One of the Nido team documented the inquiry,
demonstrating how STEAM opportunities can evolve from the everyday
experiences of children and staff.

We wanted to view the city through the eyes of the children and under-
stand what was of significance to them. Whilst we were working on creat-
ing on a sense of belonging within our school, we were also part of a larger
QV1 complex: the heart of the CBD. We wondered how we could make
the most of our unique location allowing our children to be valued and
visible occupants and participants within.
What were the identified places they believed connected them to our
community: our city, and how did these places connect them together?
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 191

Table 9.2   Mathematics concepts and their representations in projects

Mathematics
concept Representation
Number Counting items and labelling them
Using numerals to label items
Using number words
Counting and comparing sets of items
Using operations such as addition and subtraction
Using symbols for addition, subtraction, multiplication
and division
Representing part/whole items
Using money
Geometry Two-dimensional shapes
Three-dimensional shapes
Maps
Diagrams
Dioramas
Symmetry
Measurement Length
Weight
Area
Volume
Capacity
Timelines
Algebra Patterns
Ordering
Sequences in flow charts
Data and Sorting attributes into categories for graphs
probability Estimation
Prediction
‘Fair shares’
Frequency data represented in bar graphs, charts, Venn
diagrams

Excursions became an integral part of our curriculum as we explored

the Perth CBD and exposed our children to a variety of experiences, places
and people in our city. By September, we became QV1 locals as we partici-
pated in all that it had to offer. We joined in NAIDOC and Springfest
celebrations; we viewed live performances whilst sipping on our babycci-
nos at the real Mary Street Bakery and continued to visit our community
garden regularly to plan, plant and marvel at the garden’s growth, saying
hello to the chickens inhabiting this space.
192 M. Knaus

Fig. 9.4 A map of the city developed with the children identifying where Nido
Early School is located in the QVI building

In order to build a sense of connectedness to “the helicopter school” aka

Nido Early School and to identify connections between our homes, Nido
QV1 and other places significant to their city, we embarked on
a mapping project.
We revisited the photos of our children’s homes and mapped them out
according to their location in relation to Nido and the CBD. We linked
them via transport modes as many children catch trains and buses to get to
the city from their homes. Our map illustrations included familiar loca-
tions such as their families’ work buildings, the City of Perth Library which
we have visited and other sights they would see on the way to and from
Nido (Fig. 9.4).
We could see that our excursions played a crucial role within our project,
inspiring our children’s work back at the centre and steering the direction
of this venture. Our children started to take pride in the map, initiating
discussions around the map by sharing information and the locations of
their homes and other places of significance to them. With the group
expanding, some families began to share their home languages with us:
teach us simple words spoken at home.
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 193

Aaron: “I speak Australia.”

Mr Gee: “Yeah, your grandad lives on a farm, so you use a lot of farm
style language, don’t you?”
Aaron: “Yeah like tractors and sheep…my mum told me that she
wroted that to you.”

Adding cultural elements to our map meant our children were exposed
to different family structures and cultural differences. Yet the visual aid of
a map served as a great tool for our children to understand that despite the
differences, we all belonged to the same city.
To give children further opportunities and new perspectives the city
view, we took them to QV1 rooftop viewing deck which allowed the chil-
dren to have a bird’s eye view and see many of the sights of the CBD from
high above.
Reflecting on this experience, the group talked about what they remem-
bered seeing from the top of the tower. These memories were then repre-
sented using the artistic medium of clay. Utilising the art studio, we used a
projector to revisit some of the images of the views on a large scale. The
children responded with excitement and enthusiasm and continued their
city inquiry. We have created a gallery of our children’s city representations
for them to view and revisit daily.
We feel that this project is only just starting to bloom, and we are excited
about the journey ahead. Our intent going forward is to find a way for our
children not only to become active participants within their community,
but also to create an educating community: where the educational quality
and the rights of children are at the forefront.

The mapping project enabled children to explore many mathemati-

cal skills and concepts including geometry (spatial awareness, two- and
three-dimensional shape, maps, symmetry), measurement (length,
height, area), algebra (patterns, ordering, sequences), number (count-
ing, recognising numerals, money), data and probability (prediction,
estimation, sorting). Using an inquiry approach created opportunities
for exploring learning through investigation of real-world experiences
and the integration of the arts, mathematics, science, technology and
engineering.
194 M. Knaus

Implementing STEAM Through

Inquiry Approaches
Each of the STEAM disciplines involves problem-solving, creative thinking,
reasoning, analysis and communication. Through play and investigation,
children are involved in these processes as they acquire new knowledge.
Even very young children can learn through STEAM experiences.

STEAM Tips for Babies and Toddlers

• Make the most of everyday experiences and routines such as cooking,

folding the washing and setting the table. Provide interesting mobiles
to look at and toys to explore during nappy changing.
• Use routines as opportunities to talk about STEAM and to ask ques-
tions that stimulate conversation: when washing hands, ask where the
water comes from and where it goes. Mealtimes, nappy changes
and driving in the car all provide opportunities to ask questions.
• Provide opportunities for sensory exploration. Encourage children to
feel, see, hear and smell while playing with sand, water, mud, clay,
playdough, bubbles, slime, shaving cream and goop.
• Encourage play and curiosity by offering toys that foster trial and error,
cause and effect, repetition, discovery, problem-solving, counting,
learning about attributes, sorting and matching, filling and emptying.
• Offer materials that lead to discovery such as boxes, blocks, cardboard
tubes, different types and sizes of balls.
• Provide outdoor experiences in the natural world: playing in snow
or splashing in rain puddles. Natural materials such as shells, rocks,
leaves, bark, seed pods and clay encourage new insights and exploration.
• Allow children to use tools like magnifying glasses, tongs, tweezers, eye
droppers, digital devices and ramps.
• Encourage children to use art materials to draw, paint, cut and
create collages.
• Provide opportunities for role play with dress-ups, scarves, shoes, tele-
phones, teapots and cups, dolls and strollers.
• Play music and encourage your child to dance and sing, use musi-
cal instruments and explore sounds and rhythms.
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 195

STEAM Tips for Three- to Eight-Year-Old Children

• Integrate learning areas and curriculum across the five STEAM

disciplines for children to make connections to real and meaningful
experiences.
• Talk about the weather, seasons, birdlife, animals or natural cycles dur-
ing everyday, outdoor experiences. While shopping, question where
the vegetables, fruit or milk come from, and talk about how butter and
cheese are made. This could lead to further investigation.
• Provide tools such as pulleys, levers, ramps and wheels in playful con-
texts such as the sandpit to encourage exploration of cause and effect,
problem-solving and reasoning.
• Go on excursions to explore and discover authentic real-world STEAM
learning. Excursions do not need to be whole-class trips to a zoo; an
excursion as simple as a walk to a park may also provide stimuli for
new learning. As part of a project, excursions or incursions can orient
children to first-hand observations and experiences. Invite experts into
your centre to talk to the children. If a project is investigating how
bread is made, visit a local bakery.
• Creative art experiences such as box constructions, printing, painting,
drawing, sculpting can all lead to thinking across all STEAM disciplines.
• Dramatic play, music, dance, choreography encourage children to
express their feelings, explore location and direction, and to innovate.
• Materials to design, construct and build such as blocks, manipulatives
like LEGO and construction kits encourage engineering, mathematics
and science.
• Hands-on opportunities to produce constructions by having a carpen-
try bench with timber, nails, hammers, screwdrivers, saw, a vice and
recyclables will require close supervision but also encourage creativity
and innovation.
• Set up a tinkering space for children to create and invent. A myriad of
objects could be included such as magnets, circuits, robotic toys,
LEDs, alligator clips, recyclable materials and items to join things
together such as blue tac, playdough, and tape.
196 M. Knaus

• Provide outdoor experiences in nature to explore shadows, wind,

weather, reflections, or to observe plants, insects, birds and animals.
Extend on these based on children’s interests and motivation.
• Design activities that provide opportunities to measure, weigh,
sequence, sort, order, classify and compare.
• Use children’s literature to inspire STEAM opportunities, for example,
Who Sank the Boat, Mr Archimedes’ Bath, There’s a Hippopotamus Sitting
on My Roof Eating Cake, What the Ladybird Heard or Alexander’s Outing.
• Provide provocations to invite learning and provoke thinking such as
a light table with a collection of fascinating objects. The collec-
tion could be based on observations of children’s interest such as a
bird’s nest, a bird’s eggs, and related photographs. Provide clipboards
for children to draw, write and ponder. A pushbike for children to
dismantle and explore, or an engine to examine, invite many
possibilities.

Any of the suggestions above could become the impetus for project
work in which children take the lead in their learning, supported by
teachers or parents. When STEAM experiences are purposefully planned,
they provide meaningful opportunities for observing, making predic-
tions, discussing, carrying out experiments, forming questions, finding
patterns and building theories. Open-ended opportunities assist children
to engage in planning, decision-making, and collaborating. All provide
opportunities to embed mathematic thinking, making connections across
the STEAM disciplines.

References
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: challenges and opportunities.
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and
contemporary implications. Science and Children, Apr.–May. http://go.gale-
group.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA377575190&v=2.1&u=cowan&it=r&p
=AONE&sw=w&asid=4c7b596fb31108ad66a2200428b98476
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 197

Department of Education and Children’s Services South Australia. (2008).

Assessing for learning and development in the early years using observation scales:
Reflect, respect, relate. Hindmarsh, Australia: DECS Publishing.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).
(2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for
Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Springfield, OH: Collier Books.
Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Sixth Biennial
International Conference on Technology Education Research.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge:
Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hedges, H., & Cooper, M. (2014). Inquiring minds, meaningful responses: chil-
dren’s interests, inquiries, and working theories. Wellington, New Zealand: TLRI.
Irons, R. (2007). Mathematics for young minds: Beginning processes. Brendale,
Australia: Origo Education.
Knaus, M. (2013). Maths is all around you: Developing mathematical concepts in
the early years. Albert Park, Australia: Teaching Solutions.
Knaus, M. (2017). Supporting early mathematics learning in early childhood
settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(3), 4–13.
Krogh, S., & Morehouse, P. (2014). The early childhood curriculum: Inquiry
learning through integration (2nd ed.). New York/London: Routledge.
MacDonald, A. (2015). Investigating mathematics, science and technology in early
childhood. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Moomaw, S. (2013). Teaching STEM the early years: activities for integrating sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Moomaw, S., & Davis, J. (2010). STEM comes to preschool. Young Children,
65(5), 12–18.
Murdoch, K. (2015). The power of inquiry: Teaching and learning with curiosity,
creativity and purpose in the contemporary classroom. Northcote, Australia:
Seastar Education.
Murdoch, K. (2019). Updated diagram – Designing a journey of inquiry 2019.
https://www.kathmurdoch.com.au/
National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics. (n.d.). Building STEM education on a sound
mathematical foundation: A joint position statement on STEM from the
national council of supervisors of mathematics and the national council of
teachers mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_
198 M. Knaus

a n d _ Po s i t i o n s / Po s i t i o n _ St a t e m e n t s / B u i l d i n g % 2 0 S T E M % 2 0
Education%20on%20a%20Sound%20Mathematical%20
Foundation%20(NCSM-­NCTM%202018).pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD). (2012). The
nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice: Practitioner guide from the
innovative learning environments project. Paris: OECD Publications.
Pedaste, M., Maeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp,
E. T., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the
inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.
Pelesko, J. A. (2015). STEM musings. Model with mathematics website: http://
modelwithmathematics.com/2015/11/stem-­musings/
Perry, B., Gervasoni, A., & Dockett, S. (2012). Let’s count: Evaluation of a pilot
early mathematics program in low socioeconomic locations in Australia. In
J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding
horizons (Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia) (Vol. 2, pp. 594–601). Adelaide, Australia:
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (8, 5, pp. 18–1952).
New York: International Universities Press.
Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E., & Fries, K. M. (2015). The language
of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical
vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235–252. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/10573569.2015.1030995
Rosales, A. (2015). Mathematizing: An emergent math curriculum approach for
young children. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Rosicka, C. (2016). From concept to classroom: translating STEM education
research into practice. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council of
Educational Research (ACER).
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology
Teacher, 68(4), 20–26. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/51616
Siraj-Blatchord, I. (2009). Conceptualising progression in the pedagogy of play
and sustained shared thinking in early childhood education: A Vygotskian
perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 26, 2.
Timms, M., Moyle, K., Weldon, P., & Mitchell, P. (2018). Policy insights:
Challenges in STEM learning in Australian schools. Issue 7 May 2018.
Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
 9 Using Mathematical Investigations in Projects for STEAM… 199

Touhill, L. (2012). Inquiry-based learning. National quality standard profes-

sional learning program e-Newsletter no. 45. http://www.luketouhill.com.
au/downloads/1791122/NQS_PLP_E-­Newsletter_No45.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wu, S.-C., & Lin, F.-L. (2016). Inquiry-based mathematics curriculum design
for young children: Teaching experiment and reflection. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(4), 843–860.
 10
Toddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body
Learning
Karin Franzén

Introduction
Internationally, many studies in preschool mathematics have focused on
older children. However, there is growing interest in the mathematical
thinking of children aged under three years, as well as what this means for
teaching practice in the context of play-based learning. This chapter
addresses the M of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and
Mathematics education (STEAM): mathematics. We will focus on the
ways in which a toddler, Sara, used her body to develop mathematical
knowledge. In the first example, Sara extracts a ball from under a cabinet.
In the second example, she explores the size of a big wooden car. Both
examples demonstrate an understanding of shape, location and direction,
as well as problem-solving and perseverance. A child may not be aware
that they are using mathematical thinking to solve a real-world problem.
However, when teachers and parents recognise this behaviour, talk about

K. Franzén (*)
Karlstads University, Karlstad, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 201
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_10
202 K. Franzén

what the child is doing and praise perseverance, they encourage indepen-
dent problem-solving, exploration, mathematical language acquisition
and positive learning dispositions.
Let us set the scene for this chapter by meeting Sara. She is 13 months
old and has recently started attending preschool in Sweden. Although she
has been walking for a short time, Sara often crawls because it is a more
efficient way for her to get around.

Sara crawls into the playroom. Suddenly, she stops. Sara has noticed a ball
beneath a cabinet. She lies on her stomach and peers under the cabinet. Then,
she bends her head to one side and tries to crawl beneath the cabinet. She
bumps her head and stops moving. She lies still for a moment then she lowers
her head closer to the floor, before wiggling further. She stretches out one arm as
far as she can and pushes the ball with her fingertips. It rolls out from beneath
the cabinet. Sara wiggles backwards, with her head tilted to one side. When she
emerges from under the cabinet, she sits up, turns to her teacher and smiles.

The Scandinavian countries have a strong social pedagogy tradition

and a holistic approach to learning. Further, play and learning are regarded
as inextricably linked. In line with the Swedish Education Act (2010.800)
and the Swedish Curriculum for the Preschool (SNAE, 2018), early child-
hood education in Sweden is characterised by child-­centred practice. The
curriculum development goals are broad, and the child’s own interest has
great impact (Bennett, 2005; Broström, 2017). Thus, the curriculum
emphasises the importance of following children’s interests, and preschool
teachers are required to integrate early mathematical education in chil-
dren’s play activities. It also requires teachers to understand what a child
knows already and what they are ready to learn next. Evidence of a child’s
existing capabilities informs learning goals, and carefully planned play-
based opportunities are the vehicles for learning (Anders & Rossbach,
2015; Björklund, 2013; Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2012; McCray
& Chen, 2012; Opperman, Anders, & Hachfeld, 2016).
Some early childhood teachers and parents may believe that support-
ing the mathematical thinking of children under three years is unneces-
sary. However, research shows a relationship between children’s early
mathematical knowledge and their later mathematical achievements
(Bailey, Siegler, & Geary, 2014; Claessenn & Engel, 2013; Watts,
 10 Toddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body Learning 203

Duncan, Siegler, & Davis-Kean, 2014). Moreover, the period from one
to three years of age may be a critical period for exploring mathematical
concepts (Sheridan, Pramling Samuelsson, & Johansson, 2009). This is
not to suggest that exploring mathematical concepts should be anything
other than playful, as play-based learning is both developmentally appro-
priate and supports learning dispositions. Indeed, the Swedish Curriculum
for the Preschool states:

All children should experience the satisfaction and joy that come from mak-
ing progress, overcoming difficulties and being an asset in the group. The
preschool should give children the opportunity to develop a positive percep-
tion of themselves as learning, creative individuals. Children should there-
fore have the opportunity to discover and marvel, try and explore, and also
to acquire and shape different skills and experiences. (SNAE, 2018, p. 10)

Let us return to Sara to see how her actions relate to this statement.
She overcame the challenge of reaching the ball. Achieving this indepen-
dently, both reflected and nurtured Sara’s positive perception of her own
ability to be creative in solving the problem. In future, Sara is likely to
bend her head very low when crawling under furniture to avoid bumping
her head and she will know that to reach a distant object, she needs to
stretch her body as far as she can.
We could also use a mathematical lens in order to interpret Sara’s
actions. To do this, we need to know what mathematical thinking is asso-
ciated with toddler development. However, it may be necessary for par-
ents and early childhood teachers to reframe early mathematics learning
(Nichols, Levay, O’Neil, & Volmert, 2019). Mathematical thinking does
not start when children start school. Instead, it occurs along a continuum
that starts at birth (Baroody, Clements, & Sarama, 2019). Clements and
Sarama (2014) propose a learning trajectory approach that describes
child behaviours (as indicators of emerging capabilities), aligning these
with number knowledge; verbal and object counting; comparing, order-
ing and estimating; spatial thinking; knowledge about shapes labelling
shapes as well as understanding what shapes are created when shapes are
put together (or split into parts) and measurement (amongst other capa-
bilities). In addition, they also discuss other mathematical processes and
practices that children demonstrate and rehearse (again, along a
204 K. Franzén

continuum that starts at birth) such as reasoning, critical thinking and

problem-solving.
In describing Care, Development and Learning, the Swedish
Curriculum for the Preschool (SNAE, 2018) describes the following
mathematics-related goals for children (pp. 14–15):

The preschool should provide each child with the conditions to

develop:
• an ability to use mathematics to investigate, reflect on and try out dif-
ferent solutions to problems raised by themselves and others,
• an understanding of space, time and form, and the basic properties of
sets, patterns, quantities, order, numbers, measurement and change,
and to reason mathematically about this,
• an ability to discern, express, investigate and use mathematical con-
cepts and their interrelationships.

What does Sara know? Rautio (2014) explains that adults “need to
trust that the interaction between children and the world, seemingly irra-
tional and mostly unreflecting, also has value” (p. 402). When we look
closely at Sara’s behaviours, we see that they are rational and goal-­oriented.
When analysing her efforts to reach the ball, a four-step process for
problem-­solving is observed: understanding the problem, devising a plan,
carrying out the plan and looking back to check (Pólya, 2004). Sara
understands she has a problem when she realises she cannot reach the ball.
She knows the ball is under the cabinet and that the bottom of the cabi-
net is close to the floor. Sara devises a plan to reach the ball. This is evi-
denced by her lying on her stomach and turning her head to one side
before reaching for the ball. Sara knows that the ball is far away from her.
This is evidenced by her immediately stretching as far as she can and
without grasping at the ball, pushing it with her fingertips, applying force
to propel it out from under the cabinet. The process of carrying out the
problem, when she moves the ball out from under the cabinet, was an
opportunity for Sara to investigate and try out different solutions inde-
pendently. The extent to which she reflected on them is beyond the scope
of what may be inferred from this brief snapshot. However, given that
Sara appeared to know immediately what to do suggests that she may
 10 Toddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body Learning 205

have prior experience with similar problems to which she could be looking
back since she has encountered similar challenges in the past. Sara dem-
onstrates an understanding of space and form—she knew that the ball
was beneath the cabinet, and she understood that balls roll when pushed.
Let us take these learning goals one step further to determine what the
shape, spatial thinking and measurement developmental progression may
look like for toddlers. Clements and Sarama (2014) suggest that by the
age of two years, children typically recognise shapes that are the same or
different. They are likely to be able to match shapes like squares, circles
and triangles that are the same size and initially, the same orientation (e.g.
both triangles are “standing” on a flat side). Children under the age of
two years are unlikely to recognise length as an attribute of an object.
Toddlers use a distance landmark to find an object and as they acquire the
locational language of “on,” “in,” “under” and so forth, they learn how to
use shapes or blocks to copy a picture or a simple construction. However,
teachers may require support in recognising and responding to children’s
demonstrations of mathematical thinking. Here, the greater a preschool
teacher’s own mathematical concept knowledge, the better they are rec-
ognising mathematics in children’s play (Opperman et al., 2016).
Without this mathematics concept knowledge, a child’s actions may be
perceived to be “too mundane, too obvious, too pointless, or too insig-
nificant to write about, explain, or even think about” (Horton & Kraftl,
2006, p. 71).
Of course, the reader recognises that Sara’s actions were significant and
so our attention now turns to the way in which toddlers use their bodies
for learning in a way that adults have long since abandoned!

Toddlers’ Learning
Sara lay on the floor beside the cabinet and turned her head. After bump-
ing it, she turned her head more, wiggled forward, reached out her arm
and pushed with her fingers. Her body was thus the instrument of her
learning. Where adults and older children use their eyes to observe and
comprehend attributes of objects, very young children use their bodies.
When older children see a doll’s chair, they know it will be too small to
206 K. Franzén

sit on; toddlers, on the other hand, need to try this out (Franzén, 2015a).
A toddler’s body is thus a tool for meaning-making.
Whilst we have reflected on typical learning trajectories and com-
mented on opportunities for adults to recognise and support learning by
narrating the child’s actions using mathematical language, this approach
is underpinned by the notion that learning is essentially an internal men-
tal process that is influenced by prior experience and shaped by social
interaction, which includes language modelling and language acquisi-
tion. However, learning is more than language and thinking (Franzén,
2014, 2015a, 2015b; Lenz Taguchi, 2010, 2011; Merrell, 2003; Palmer,
2011; Rautio, 2014; Yelland, 2010). Let us now consider an alternative
view of learning.
Merrell (2003) asserts that nothing can be attributed only to the mind
or to the body. Rather, there is reciprocity between the mind and the
body that makes it impossible to separate what we learn with our bodies
from what we learn by thinking. It can be understood as a reciprocal flow,
a fusion of spirit and body (Merrell, 2003). Applying this theoretical
approach to understand Sara’s behaviours, we recognise that her under-
standing of the need to lower her head, lower it further and then to reach
as far as she could to push the ball, reflects a reciprocal flow between her
thinking and her physical experience. Macedonia uses the concept of
“embodied cognition” and claims that the mind is integrated into the
body’s sensorimotor system (2019, p. 3):

In fact, if we observe how children acquire language, they perform a mul-

titude of sensorimotor acts. Children hear and repeat sequences of sounds
(words), i.e., symbols but these symbols are related to objects they perceive
with their senses or to actions they perform.

Young children touch, smell and mouth objects. Thus, a word symbol-
ises a sensorimotor network that reflects all experiences, including the
physical experiences encapsulated in the concept (Macedonia, 2019). For
example, the concepts of low and high are bodily experiences as well as
cognitive knowledge. Whether one prefers the notion of reciprocal flows
or embodied cognition, common to both is the suggestion that a child’s
learning should offer opportunities for physical exploration of their
 10 Toddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body Learning 207

worlds as learning results from thinking and physical experience.

Certainly, as the child interacts with her environment, by thinking and
by using her body, learning is prompted (Franzén, 2014, 2015a, 2015b),
and in this way, the environment plays an important role in developing a
child’s knowledge. According to Barad (2007), meaning-making is influ-
enced by objects, the environment, teachers, peers and the child’s
thoughts and feelings. Indeed, Barad argues that the child intra-acts
(rather than interacts) with the environment since objects, the environ-
ment and the body all participate in the learning situation to affect
meaning-making—learning.
Parents and early childhood teachers know that very young children
use all available senses to experience their environments—this sensory
exploration includes sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. A child may
not be able to describe an experience using spoken words but many
researchers have explained how gestures help children and adults to com-
municate concepts—particularly spatial concepts (e.g. Ehrlich, Levine,
& Goldin-Meadow, 2006; Elia, Gagatsis, & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen,
2014; Hedge & Cohrssen, 2019; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014;
Owens, 2015).
If we take an intra-active perspective, does Sara’s learning become vis-
ible? Sara gained experience in the mathematical concepts of shape, loca-
tion and direction. Using this perspective, we observe intra-action
between Sara’s understanding, Sara’s body, the ball and the cabinet. From
this perspective, it is not only the child’s thinking and language that affect
the learning situation but also objects in the environment, her peers, her
teachers, the child’s emotions and the preschool context, all contribute to
the creation of knowledge.
In this way, even inanimate objects may be understood as active agents
as they are co-producers in the production of meaning. This perspective
may offer a better understanding of very young children’s learning pro-
cesses: learning is an intra-action between many different things, both
human and non-human. If the ball had not been under the cabinet, Sara
would not have had that opportunity to examine mathematic concepts in
the way she did. Drawing on the notion of intra-action, the ball can be
seen as having a form of agency since it participates in the learning expe-
rience. The ball lies there and Sara wants to play with it. In order to do
208 K. Franzén

so, Sara must work out where her body is in relation to the ball and how
to change the position of her body in space to reach it. When she first
tries to reach the ball, Sara’s head bumps the edge of the cabinet—in this
way, from an intra-active perspective, the cabinet contributes to her
learning. Sara learns from this, recognising that the gap between the floor
and the bottom of the cabinet is smaller than she had first understood
and repositions her body in order to wiggle under the cabinet to reach the
ball. She already knows about the attributes of the ball—that balls roll—
and so she knows that if she pokes the ball a little it is likely to roll out
from under the cabinet. Sara’s mood and feelings also play a role in what
she does and how the situation develops. Exercising emotional self-­
regulation and goal-directed behaviour throughout this process, she does
not ask for help. Instead, Sara perseveres and consequently experiences
success. This success is likely to be motivating and to reinforce her sense
of agency and self-efficacy.

Observing Intra-active Learning

If toddlers’ learning is intra-active, what does this mean in practice? Let

us consider examples from one Swedish research project. Seven teachers
working at four preschools participated in interviews that focused on the
provision of mathematical learning experiences to children from
12 months to 3 years of age (Franzén, 2014). Teachers were asked to share
how they include opportunities for mathematical learning in their plan-
ning, whilst following children’s interests. During these interviews, teach-
ers referred to the importance of supporting children’s mathematical
thinking, choosing developmentally appropriate and aesthetically pleas-
ing resources for play. They spoke of the way in which the physical envi-
ronment was set up to support learning and development. The teachers
also emphasised the importance of modelling specific vocabulary when
narrating their own, or the toddlers’ behaviours. For example, they would
say, “Now we will try to climb up high,” and “We put your shoes under
the shelf.” They reported that hearing the word, whilst experiencing the
concept, supported toddlers’ learning. Several teachers commented on
the crucial role played by the toddlers’ bodies in learning about space,
shapes, location and direction. Additional examples are provided below.
 10 Toddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body Learning 209

Spatial Location in Relation to Oneself

When looking at illustrations in a storybook with a toddler, telling the

child that a car is parked in front of a house may not support the child’s
understanding of the spatial relationship between the car and the house
as an illustration is not three dimensional. It is more meaningful to a
child to explain the locational concept, “in front of ” by referring to chil-
dren’s own bodies: “Look, Eric, you are standing in front of Hannah!
Hannah, you are standing behind Eric.” The younger a child is, the more
the child learns with help of their body—as children mature, language
alone may be enough to support understanding (Franzén, 2014).

Using the Body as a Unit of Measurement

Two children (both two years old) are playing with a box. They take
everything out of the box and before both climbing into it, they jump
and laugh, attracting their friends’ attention without using words.
However, sitting down in the box poses a problem because there is not
enough room for their legs. At first, the children kick each other. After a
while, they work out how to position all four legs inside the box. The
problem is solved, and they laugh again. However, a third child starts to
climb into the box. One of the children already inside the box shakes her
head and says firmly, “No place, no place.” Note that the child does not
say, “No, no,” but, “No place, no place.” This suggests that having expe-
rienced the challenge of fitting two bodies (and four legs!) into the box,
the children had investigated and learnt about the dimensions of the
space within the box. Here, it is not suggested that formal measurement
had occurred. Rather, the children have learnt that if they are to sit down
inside the box, it is only big enough for two children. Here, the informal
unit of measurement is the child’s body. Further, this aligns with the pro-
gression point along the trajectory for volume for children aged under
three years: the children have identified capacity of volume as an attribute
of the box (Clements & Sarama, 2014, p. 207).
Let us return to 13-month-old Sara. She notices a large, wooden car
that is popular with the children. On seeing the car, Sara drops to her
hands and knees and crawls quickly towards the car. Crawling quickly
210 K. Franzén

(rather than slowly) indicates an understanding of time: reaching the car

before other children will mean that she has the first turn. On reaching
the car, she stands up on wobbly legs before trying to climb into the car.
She makes a few attempts but does not lift her leg high enough. Toddlers
often measure space with their bodies (Franzén, 2014, 2015a), and these
repeated attempts to raise her leg up and over the side of the car are evi-
dence of Sara using her body to understand height. Finally, Sara manages
to get one foot into the car. Now she is standing with one foot inside the
car and one outside. She stands still for a little while, then she leans her
body forward, using it as a lever to swing her other leg into the car. Once
inside the car, Sara sits in the driver’s seat. She begins to “drive,” turning
the steering wheel and simultaneously following the direction of the steer-
ing wheel with her whole body. Suddenly, she stops driving. Something is
troubling her. She turns and looks behind her, first to one side and then
to the other. With much effort, she climbs out of the car again. She walks
around the whole car, keeping one hand on the side of the car. In some
places, she needs to bend down a little to follow the car’s shape with her
hand. After walking all around the car, Sara climbs into it again, sits down
and begins to “drive” again. She is smiling and looks pleased with herself.
What was Sara doing? As very young children do not yet communicate
their thoughts with spoken language, early childhood professionals and
parents observe children and make inferences based on the ways in which
children use their bodies for communicating and as tools for learning.
Consequently, we infer that when Sara is inside the car, she is experienc-
ing the car’s size. She can see that the car is big when she is seated inside
it, but she is not content with this. She needs to examine the size further.
By walking around the car (bending down at times), and with help of her
hand touching its surface, Sara understands more about its size and shape.
(For additional analysis of Sara’s intra-action with the wooden car, see
Franzén, 2015a.)

Sensory Exploration of Shapes and Textures with Feet

Co-teachers in one early learning setting described toddlers playing with

plastic construction bricks, taking off their socks to walk on the bricks
with bare feet. Initially, the teachers were concerned that the children
 10 Toddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body Learning 211

were too young to use the bricks and discussed removing them to protect
children’s health and safety. However, on reflection, the teachers agreed
that whilst many children use their hands to examine objects, some use
their mouths and others like to use their feet. The teachers decided to
take a strength-based approach, left the bricks in the play area and ensured
that close supervision was provided. This decision reflected their under-
standing that the sensory experience of walking on the bricks and feeling
their differing sizes and shapes would be fundamentally different from
the experience of handling the bricks with fingers and would thus sup-
port learning.

Visual Stimuli to Encourage Pattern-and-Structure Play

Teachers at one preschool reported that children showed no interest in

exploring a large jar of coloured beads. Noticing this, the teachers sorted
the beads by colour into two different jars. When the children saw pink
beads in one jar and yellow in another, they began to use them. The chil-
dren worked at patterning for extended periods of time, setting up oppor-
tunities for teachers to talk with the children about the structure of their
patterns. Counting the beads also created opportunities for children to
rehearse the counting principles (Gelman & Gallistel, 1978).

 houghts and Suggestions for Parents

T
and Teachers
One frequently hears that “mathematics is everywhere,” but as teachers
and parents, we need to notice toddlers’ demonstrations of mathematical
thinking in their spontaneous play in order to encourage this thinking
and to model mathematical language. Some thoughts and suggestions for
parents and teachers are provided below.

• Remember that toddlers use their bodies as tools for understanding

mathematical concepts. Be alert to the problems that a child is trying
to solve and use this as your starting point when modelling mathemat-
ical language and encouraging mathematical problem-solving. For
212 K. Franzén

example, you could say, “How many children are going to have apples?
Apple children, let’s stand here. Orange children, let’s stand here. Are
there more apple children or more orange children? How do we know?
This group has more children. Let’s count to check.” Note that this
approach takes time.
• Help toddlers to express their thinking, to persevere (with your sup-
port) and to problem-solve. This supports emerging language skills,
sustained attention and positive attitude to learning. It also gives them
agency over their own educational development.
• Talk to toddlers about what they are doing and what you are doing.
Describe shapes and attributes of shapes. (For instance, “Your ball is
round. It will roll. That block has flat sides. It doesn’t roll.”)
• Talk to toddlers about where things are (e.g. “Your teddy is sitting on
the big, grey couch”).
• Use number words in a practical context. (For instance, “Look at the
big group of children! Let’s count them. One, two, three, four, five.
Five children!”)
• Recognise that mathematics learning is more than numbers, counting
and naming shapes. Learning occurs across different mathematical
strands simultaneously. Children are learning about number and
quantity at the same time as they are learning about shapes and mea-
surement. They are also learning to find answers to simple questions
(e.g. “Who has the most peas on their plate?”)—data analysis. They are
learning about probability (e.g. “You think it will rain today? Why do
you think that?”). Reflect on whether you need to reframe your own
understanding of mathematics learning in early childhood.
• Reflect on whether you need to improve your mathematical content
knowledge. Find a text that explains the learning trajectory for math-
ematics in early childhood.
• Remember that learning occurs when the child’s thinking, the child’s
body, the child’s feelings, objects in the learning environment, and a
problem that is meaningful to the child, all intra-act to support learning.
• Encourage learning by creating a learning environment that sets up
opportunities for exploration and conversation.
 10 Toddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body Learning 213

• Make explicit connections between the words and physical experiences

to help children associate mathematical language with feeling these
concepts concurrently in their bodies.
• Have fun!

References
Anders, Y., & Rossbach, H. G. (2015). ‘Preschool Teachers’ Sensitivity to
Mathematics in Children’s Play: The Influence of Math-Related School
Experiences, Emotional Attitudes, and Pedagogical Beliefs.’ Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 29(3), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.108
0/02568543.2015.1040564.
Bailey, D., Siegler, R., & Geary, D. (2014). Early predictors of middle school
fraction knowledge. Developmental Science, 17(5), 775–785.
Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the
entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Baroody, A. J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2019). Teaching and learning
mathematics in early childhood programs. In C. Brown, M. B. McMullen, &
N. File (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood care and education (pp. 329–353).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell Publishing.
Bennett, J. (2005). Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(2), 5–23.
Björklund, C. (2013). Matematiklärande för de allra yngsta. [Mathematical
learning for the very youngest]. In Holmqvist Olander (Eds.). Learning study
in preschool. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Broström, S. (2017). A dynamic learning concept in early years’ education: A
possible way to prevent schoolification. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 25(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196
Claessenn, A., & Engel, M. (2013). ‘How Important Is Where You Start? Early
Mathematics Knowledge and Later School Success.’ Teachers College Record.
The voice of scholarship in education. V 115 (6).
Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learn-
ing trajectories approach. New York: Routledge.
Ehrlich, S. B., Levine, S. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The importance of
gesture in children’s spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42(6),
1259–1268.
214 K. Franzén

Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2014). The role of ges-
tures in making connections between space and shape aspects and their ver-
bal representations in the early years: findings from a case study. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 26(4), 735–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13394-­013-­0104-­5
Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, M. (2012). Fostering mathematical
thinking through playful learning. In E. Reese & S. P. Segate (Eds.),
Contemporary Debates on Child Development and Education (pp. 81–92).
New York: Routledge.
Franzén, K. (2014). Under threes mathematical learning: The teacher’s perspec-
tive. Early Years. An International Journal, 34(3), 241–254.
Franzén, K. (2015a). Under threes mathematical learning. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1350293X.2014.970855
Franzén, K. (2015b). Being a tour guide or travel companion on the children’s
knowledge journey. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12),
1928–1943.
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, R. C. (1978). The child’s understanding of number.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hedge, K., & Cohrssen, C. (2019). Between the red and yellow windows: A
fine-­grained focus on supporting children’s spatial thinking during play.
SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019809551
Horton, J., & Kraftl, P. (2006). What else? Some more ways of thinking and
doing ‘children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 4(1), 69–95.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Rethinking pedagogical practices in early childhood
education: A multidimensional approach to learning and inclusion. In
N. Yelland (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on early childhood education
(pp. 14–32). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2011). Investigation learning, participation and becoming in
early childhood practices with a relational materialist approach. Global Studies
of Childhood, 1(1), 36–50.
Macedonia, M. (2019, October 1). Embodied learning: why at school the mind
needs the body. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2098.
McCray, J., & Chen, J.-Q. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge for pre-
school mathematics: Construct validity of a new teacher interview. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 26(3), 291–307.
Merrell, F. (2003). Sensing corporeally: Toward a posthuman understanding.
Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
 10 Toddlers’ Mathematics: Whole Body Learning 215

Nichols, J., Levay, K., O’Neil, M., & Volmert, A. (2019). Reframing early math
learning. Retrieved from http://frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/
Early%20Math/early-­math-­learning-­mm-­2019.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Paying attention to spatial reasoning
K-12: Support document for ‘paying attention to mathematics education’. http://
www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/lnspayingattention.pdf
Opperman, E., Anders, Y., & Hachfeld, A. (2016). The influence of preschool
teacher’s content knowledge and mathematical ability beliefs on their sensi-
tivity to mathematics in children’s play. Teaching and Teacher Education,
58, 174–184.
Owens, K. (2015). Introduction: Visuospatial reasoning in context. In Visuospatial
reasoning: An Ecocultural Perspective for Space, Geometry and Measurement
Education (pp. 1–16). Springer.
Palmer, A. (2011). Hur blir man matematisk? Att skapa nya relationer till matema-
tik och genus i arbetet med yngre barn. [How to become mathematical? creat-
ing new relationships with mathematics, and gender in the work with young
children]. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
Pólya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rautio, P. (2014). Children who carry stones in their pockets: On autotelic
material practices in everyday life. Children’s Geographies, 11(4), 394–408.
SFS. (2010:800). Skollag (The Education Act). Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket.
Sheridan, S., Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Johansson, E. (2009). Barns tidiga
lärande: En tvärsnittsstudie om förskolan som miljö för barns lärande [Children’s
early learning: A cross-sectional study of preschool as environment for chil-
dren’s learning]. (Göteborgs Studies in Educational Sciences 284). Göteborg,
Sweden: Göteborgs University.
Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2010). Läroplan för
förskolan, Lpfö 98, Rev. ed. [Curriculum for preschool Lpfö98]. Stockholm,
Sweden: Skolverket. [The Swedish National Agency for Education].
SNAE, Swedish National Agency for Education. 2018. Läroplan för förskolan
2018. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Watts, T., Duncan, G., Siegler, R., & Davies-Kean, P. (2014). ‘What’s Past Is
Prologue: Relations Between Early Mathematics Knowledge and High
School Achievement. ’Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.310
2/0013189X14553660.
Yelland, N. (2010). Extended possibilities and practices in early childhood edu-
cation. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on early childhood edu-
cation. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
 11
The Mechanics of Interaction in Early
Childhood STEAM
Amelia Church and Caroline Cohrssen

Introduction
Social interaction is a locus for learning, because children learn about
their world through interactions with others. From birth, infants encoun-
ter the patterns and principles of turn-taking in conversation, and as their
language develops, children take a more active role in initiating and sus-
taining conversations with parents, siblings, peers and teachers.
Participation in conversation enables the exploration of concepts, and
extending topics through sequences of questions, answers and attuned
responses allows us to see what children know and build on this knowl-
edge. The quality of conversations with children, both at home with

A. Church (*)
The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
C. Cohrssen
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 217
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_11
218 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

parents and with peers and teachers in early childhood settings, has a
great deal of influence on the quality of early learning.
Research in early childhood education has shown that high-quality
interactions start with joint attention. Joint attention happens when two
people pay attention to the same object or actions, orienting to each
other’s perspective on this same object. Joint attention can be achieved
through a range of verbal or non-verbal actions. For example, an infant
may turn her head away to indicate ‘enough’ and the responsive adult
recognizes this action as communicating a particular need. A toddler may
point at an object and the adult responds by handing the object to the
child, commenting on some property of the object or the child’s atten-
tion. Sometimes, conversations are a mixture of verbal and non-verbal: a
child may dance in circles when exploring the concept of ‘round’ and the
adult may comment, ‘You are dancing in circles, around and around’. In
each example, the adult and the child are both paying attention to the
same object or action.
Joint attention is a prerequisite for learning in any environment—at
home with parents or in early childhood settings—but we need to do
more than simply acknowledge the same object for children’s cognitive
growth. Extended interactions with children are opportunities for adults
to support concept development, to provide feedback that consolidates
and extends learning, and to model advanced language (Pianta, La Paro,
& Hamre, 2008). This happens when adults ask questions or prompt
discussion that builds on what children already know, stimulates curios-
ity, and supports higher-order thinking and concept transferral. The role
of the early childhood teacher is to respond attentively to children and to
model the language that is associated with the child’s thinking or behav-
iour. For example, the language of mathematics has been shown to be
vital in fostering acquisition of language and meta-cognitive abilities
which, in turn, supports the development of mathematical thinking
(Warren & de Vries, 2009).
Research has found, however, that early childhood teachers may
require support with enacting reciprocal learning interactions with chil-
dren. Large-scale studies in the United Kingdom (EPPE; Sylva, Melhuish,
Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010), Australia (E4Kids; Tayler,
2016) and the United States (La Paro et al., 2009) reveal that early
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 219

childhood settings typically score well on providing emotional support

for children and on providing opportunities for children to keep busy,
but that cognitively stimulating opportunities—created in extended con-
versations between children and teachers—are infrequent. The reasons
for this are complex and numerous. They include the qualifications and
experience of staff, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, policy imperatives,
time demands, staff ratios and access to professional learning.
Professional learning is the purpose of this book, specifically in relation
to how teachers and parents can support Science, Technology, Engineering,
Art and Mathematics (STEAM) in early learning contexts. Each chapter
in this book provides illustrations of how to create opportunities for
learning in play-based STEM or STEAM activities or narratives. This
chapter provides foundational knowledge of the elements of interaction
itself by highlighting some of the building blocks of what teachers refer
to as cognitively challenging conversations (Durden & Dangel, 2008;
Massey, 2004) or sustained shared thinking (Siraj & Asani, 2015; Siraj,
Kingston, & Melhuish, 2015).
If we want to know how talking with children advances their learning
and development, it helps to understand how talk is structured and orga-
nized. We intuitively understand that effective communication is key to
effective concept development in interactions with young children. For
professional learning, however, we want to move past intuition and expe-
rience. We want to draw on substantive evidence of how learning interac-
tions improve children’s outcomes. When we can identify the ‘how’ of
effective talk-in-interaction, we can include this in our interactions with
children in purposeful and responsive conversations. Although many
methodologies are concerned with the intricacies of talk, this chapter
relies on the transparency of conversation analysis (CA) to tease apart
interactions between children and teachers.
The examples in this chapter—extracts of published research in con-
versation analysis—draw from activities focused on spatial thinking,
measurement, particles and matter, and digital literacy, but the insights
apply to interactions between teachers and children more broadly. To
show how an understanding of the mechanics of interaction can inform
intentional teaching practices, we will explain findings from CA research.
In this chapter we will (1) introduce the main features of
220 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

talk-in-interaction (i.e. what?), (2) explain why an understanding of these

features is useful for teaching and learning in early childhood education
and care (ECEC) (i.e. why?) and (3) provide examples of interaction
between teachers and four-year-old children which support concept
development (i.e. how?).
Conversation analysts observe naturally occurring interactions and
then transcribe and analyse this video-recorded data with ‘unmotivated
looking’. The analyst is not looking for categories of actions (cf. Land,
Tyminski, & Drake, 2019), but rather to see how actions relate to one
another in the ongoing sequences of talk. We can see what happens in
real-life contexts: we pay attention to the very same things that children,
parents and teachers are noticing. This approach does not make assump-
tions about what might be relevant to children’s exploration of STEAM
concepts. Instead, conversation analysis provides a transparent tool for
looking at talk. This enables us to see where particular practices lead dur-
ing typical learning-in-interaction that happens every day in early child-
hood settings. By enabling us to see interactions that support learning,
we can try these interactions ourselves with the children in our class-
rooms or at home.

 hat Do We Need to Know About

W
the Structure of Interactions?
The rules that govern the organization of talk are important in conversa-
tion analysis. They reveal the ‘how’ of talk-in-interaction. Sacks, Schegloff,
and Jefferson (1974) set out the foundational rules of conversation: (1)
turns at talk occur one at a time; (2) speakers take turns, that is, one per-
son speaks after the other; and (3) turn-taking is repeated. This appears
simple, but it is this nextness, the ‘one turn after another’ organization of
talk as a social practice, that allows us to make sense of one another.
When the listener demonstrates they understood the speaker’s previous
turn(s), intersubjectivity—shared meaning—is achieved. This common
focus enables people to manage, negotiate and track shared meaning, as
‘next-turn proof procedure’ (Hutchby & Woofitt, 1998, p. 15; Schegloff
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 221

& Sacks, 1973). In other words, what happens next reveals an under-
standing of prior turns. Sometimes, turns are actions or gestures. For
example, when describing the shape of a roof, a child may use their hands
to show the shape (Hedge & Cohrssen, 2019). At times, children initiate
the talk and the role of the adult is to provide feedback that consolidates
what the child knows and to extend that knowledge a little further
(Church & Bateman, 2019). With each child’s turn, we can see what they
understood from the prior talk and how they mobilize this understand-
ing in their response to it in the next action (Stivers & Rossano, 2010). It
is the nextness of these turns at talk that provide adults with evidence of
children’s understanding and orientation to the concept. This evidence
provides opportunities for in-the-moment assessment.
If we think of turns at talk as achieving actions (see Enfield & Sidnell,
2017), we can see that in a sequence there are relevant next actions. A
question should usually be followed by an answer. There are all sorts of
things that speakers do to orient to this rule, including repeating the
question if no answer is forthcoming. Indeed, the third turn in a sequence
of talk is where pedagogy resides (Cohrssen & Church, 2017; Lee, 2007;
Park, 2015) by providing feedback, acknowledging the learner’s contri-
bution, and reorienting the group to the relevant next action. However,
teaching and learning are not limited to three-part sequences. They usu-
ally unfold in a series of turns, where the sequence has multiple turns and
builds cumulatively.
In the following example from Bateman’s (2013) study of intersubjec-
tivity in early learning environments in New Zealand, the teacher is
exploring concepts of measurement and impermanence with two three-­
year-­old boys. The teacher (ECT) is sitting on the side of the sandpit,
where the boys (Fred and Levi) are pouring buckets of water into the
sand. Free play in the sandpit provides rich opportunities for STEAM
learning. This transcript excerpt uses CA transcription convention
(Jefferson, 2004), and the punctuation is used to try to capture how the
talk is done (emphasis, overlap, pauses and so on; see Appendix).
222 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

Extract 1

79 ECT: the:re we go:=look how its flowing down=but what’s


happened? (0.6)
80 where’s the water gone.
81 Fred: gone. ((holds palms of hands out to sides))
82 (2.9)
83 Levi: its not working. ((runs to get more water))
84 ECT: 
its not working anymore. why do you think it’s not
working anymore.
85 ((continues digging sand))
86 Fred: coz it’s not.((digs with teacher))
87 ECT: coz it’s no::t.
88 Fred: [no]
89 ECT: [but] why isn’t it working anymore. do you know why?
90 (6.5)
91 Fra: ((runs to get more water))

This episode continues for some time with the boys continuing to pour
water into the sand and the teacher persisting with prompts for hypoth-
eses (‘why do you think…’). The boys engage with these prompts, pro-
posing the water has gone ‘under’ and ‘through that hole’. The teacher’s
repetition serves to acknowledge each observation made by Fred and
encourage ongoing exploration of the process. Bateman (2013, p. 280)
notes that ‘by indicating that there is a problem worth investigating in the
sandpit, [the teacher] is opening the topic up for further discussion with
the children.’ We see that building sequences of interaction facilitates the
exploration of ideas and concepts and that the teacher’s turns shape chil-
dren’s contributions to the ongoing activity (Walsh, 2011). It is the
extended sequence of question and answers that creates the opportunity
for scientific inquiry.
In Extract 1, we saw that the boys’ collecting, carrying and pouring of
water was embedded in their experience of measurement, fluidity and
infiltration. That is, the sequence of talk involved not only utterances
from the teacher and children but also accompanying gesture (e.g. open
palm of hands for ‘gone’) and interaction with resources (e.g. carrying the
bucket of water). Talk-in-interaction is a term that aims to capture the
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 223

Fig. 11.1 ‘What’s the opposite of this block?’

dynamic and multimodal nature of conversations as talk encompasses all

elements of face-to-face communication: words, intonation and empha-
sis, pauses, eye gaze, gesture and embodied action. In fact, the language
we use to express mathematical and scientific concepts is often embodied
(e.g. ‘larger’, ‘closer’, measured with arm width or gesture, and other deic-
tic pronouns such as ‘this’, ‘that’ with pointing or head nods). For exam-
ple, in Extract 2, the teacher is drawing children’s attention to spatial
orientation of shapes on a light table (see Fig. 11.1), touching the shapes
simultaneously as he speaks (Hedge & Cohrssen, 2019, p. 6):

Extract 2

89 TEA: ook. (0.4) Keira is on this one (0.6) what’s the-

l
what’s the
90 opposite of that one.
on ’this’ and ’that’ teacher touches block closest

to centre
91     (0.8)
92 TEA: what’s the opposite of this block.
224 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

Embodiment is also relevant to the exploration and expression of ideas

of younger children as they orient themselves to the world around them.
Infants and toddlers may turn their bodies away from food to indicate
‘enough’ and use a full range of gestures and eye gaze to engage in early
learning. Very young children use pointing (Filipi, 2009) and holding
objects into the sightline of adults targeted as an audience to label,
request, seek information and claim objects for their experiential play
(Kidwell, 2011). Older children also use the body to explore scientific
and spatial concepts. For example, Hoey, DeLiema, Chen, and Flood
(2018) show how children aged five to six years use their bodies to enact
the states of matter by ‘being’ particles during a science lesson (see Hoey
et al., 2018, p. 14, Fig. 2). In the activity, children are required to map
the position of their own body in the room in relation to each other to
see how particles (i.e. their relative positions) are mapped on the screen
projection in front of the class.

Why Pay Close Attention to How Talk Is Done?

Close attention to the mechanics of interaction reveals the systematic
particularities and predictability of turns at talk. The timing, interdepen-
dency and adaptability of the mechanics of talk are complex yet often
seamless. For example, overlapping speech is rarely done, as speakers reli-
ably time their next turn within 0.2 of a second of the other speaker fin-
ishing (see Enfield, 2017 for review). Children are enculturated into this
sensitivity to the speech of others from interactions with parents and
other caregivers from birth.
As a methodological approach, conversation analysis reveals the details
of talk-in-interaction which we would not otherwise remember (see
Sacks, 1984; Stokoe, 2011). Recalling our conversations with children
does not capture how topics are realized and talked into being, and we are
not always able to imagine what children might do or say. Studying class-
room interactions (i.e. through recording, transcribing and analysing the
real thing) reveals a perspective that—however experienced we are in
working with young children—is often not obvious. Using data from
CA—or other research that presents the original data for reflection—
allows us to specify how learning opportunities are created.
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 225

For example, in Extract 3 (Church & Bateman, 2019, p. 271), Max—

aged four years—proposes that the concept and application of time can,
in fact, be negotiated:

Extract 3

01 ECT: “no one (.) can stop time you know.”

02 (2.2)
03 Max: people can stop the time. (0.3) they can just- (0.5)
04 turn the clock and hold it where it is (.) and then
05 they- (0.2) (yeah) (.) people allow them to have time?
06 (0.5)
07 ECT: (well). maybe we could !try that one day. (1.4) and
08 see what happens.

Capturing the detail of these learning sequences allows us to see that

interaction is a collaborative endeavour. We are not prioritizing what the
teacher does, or isolating children’s responses, but rather concerned with
how children and teachers build on each contribution to the ongoing talk as
a jointly coordinated activity. Teaching and learning are viewed as a social
process, and all participants have a role in both the process (all the elements
of the talk) and the product (what the interactions lead to in terms of learn-
ing). If we return to the example from Church and Bateman (2019, p. 271),
we see that the exploration of the concept of time is only made possible
through the teacher AND children co-constructing the extended sequence.

Extract 4

07 ECT: (well). maybe we could !try that one day. (1.4) and
08   see what happens.
09 (0.6)
10 TCH: what will happen to the rest of (0.6) all the other
11 children if we put the clock back.
12 (0.8)
13 Max: um (.) be too much time (.) no one could
14 [be-] [ °xxx ° ]
15 Ali: [and](.) [and we’ll] be muddled up and we’ll have
16 dinner at- (1.6)<!breakfast ti:me.>=
226 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

The discussion continues with all four children sitting with the teacher
as she reads a book about a child going in search of time. The sequence is
built, however, with the teacher designing questions to elicit theories
from the children and the children not only collaborating in their
responses to these prompts, but also recycling and extending suggestions
made by other children in the group (see Walsh & Li, 2013, for further
discussion of successful elicitation in classroom interaction). The details
of how the talk is done prove useful for reflection and development—for
teachers and parents alike. This means that we can base our understand-
ings of effective interactions on evidence of what actually happens and
how sustained-shared thinking is actually built.

 ow Can Teachers Extend Interactions

H
in STEAM?
We have made a case for paying close attention to naturalistic data for
professional learning. Now let’s look at the detail of interactions between
children and teachers that focus on STEAM learning. Each chapter in
this book details different aspects or concepts explored in early childhood
education and so here we will illustrate the ‘how’ of three features of
high-quality learning interactions: (1) elements of question design; (2)
how pauses can be used to enable opportunities for thinking; and (3) how
responsiveness can be (collaboratively) achieved.
How we design questions determines the range of possible next
actions for children. The design of questions is an important part of
intentional teaching. Teachers aim to use ‘open-ended questions’ (e.g.
‘why do you think…?’) rather than closed questions (e.g. ‘what colour is
that?’) to encourage children’s exploration and agency (see Siraj-
Blatchford & Manni, 2008). Using an ‘open-ended’ question, however,
does not necessarily lead to learning-in-interaction. Researchers have
shown that particular question prefaces actually increase the likelihood
of children offering their ideas or opinions. Epistemic asymmetry (teach-
ers having more knowledge than children) is inevitable in classrooms
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 227

(see Gardner, 2019), but lessening this asymmetry creates space for
exploration of ideas (see Walsh & Li, 2013, on conversational space for
learning). Sandra Houen, for example, found that when teachers used ‘I
wonder’ formulations, this less-knowing stance adopted by the teacher
was ‘more successful than the explicit “wh” question design in gaining a
response’ (Houen, Danby, Farrell, & Thorpe, 2016, p. 75).
In Extract 5, the teacher (ECT) and a small group of four-year-old
children have been looking at an image of a lady beetle on a computer
(Houen et al., 2016, p. 74). They have talked about and counted the six
legs. Here, the teacher draws the children’s attention to the lady beetle’s
antennae:

Extract 5

156 ECT: =what’s tha:t. ((gazes at Mena))

156    (1.6)
157 ECT: >I wonder what< that is.
158    (0.6)
159 Mena: ey::es. ((gazes at teacher))
160 ECT: ey:es!¿=
161 =do you think it might be eye:s.
162    (2.2)((all gaze at screen))
163 Rory: an:tennaes ((looking at teacher))"
164    (0.4)
165 ECT: >you think it might be< antennaes Rory.=
166 Mena: =this is-=
167 ECT: =>what do they use< antennaes for.((gazes at Rory))

In this extract, we see that the teacher was seeking a response from
Mena in particular by looking at her while asking the question ‘What’s
that?’. The teacher gives Mena time to consider and provide a response
(note the 1.6-second pause at line 158) before reformulating the question
as an invitation to volunteer ideas rather than provide the correct (known
by the teacher) answer. We can see that this is effective, because in
response to the ‘I wonder’ formulation, Mena offers the suggestion ‘eyes’.
228 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

The subsequent neutral turn from the teacher (i.e. the teacher does not
evaluate ‘eyes’) invites further suppositions from the group, and Rory
(line 163) provides the correct anatomical noun for the antennae. Houen
et al. (2016) propose that it is the formulation ‘I wonder’ that encourages
Mena to offer her ideas in the group discussion. This claim can be made
based on the evidence within the interaction itself: Mena does not
respond to the initial request for factual information (Margutti, 2007),
but she does attempt an answer following the teacher’s re-framing of the
question as ‘I wonder what that is’, and in addition, she is sufficiently
encouraged by the re-design of the question to continue to offer her ideas
with the group (see the halted turn in line 166).
Extract 5 illustrates the importance of question design in eliciting
evidence of what children already know. It also provides an example of
how pauses can be used in STEAM pedagogy to facilitate learning, by
allowing children time to consider the problem posed (i.e. Rowe’s defi-
nition of ‘wait time’; 1986, 1987) and formulate a relevant response.
Cohrssen, Church, and Tayler (2014a, 2014b) have shown the impor-
tance of teachers’ pausing at decisive points in the interaction when
engaged in mathematics activities. Creating space in the interaction
(Walsh & Li, 2013), in addition to providing optimal opportunities for
children to respond, also allows teachers to assess children’s mathemati-
cal knowledge. As a result, they are equipped to design subsequent turns
at talk that align with children’s current knowledge and extend concepts
through targeted use of questions and reinforcing content (i.e. scaffold-
ing learning).
In Extract 6 (Cohrssen et al., 2014b, p. 97), the teacher (ECT) is
playing a game with three children, aged between four and five years, all
of whom have English as a second language, where each child, in turn,
rolls a die, counts the number of dots, then chooses the corresponding
number of objects from the counters in the centre of the table. Just
prior to this excerpt, Halla has rolled the die, which has landed with
six on top.
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 229

Extract 6

46 Hal: ((looks at teacher))

47 ECT: ((nods))
48 Hal:  ((pushes the die in direction of teacher, then looks
at teacher))
49 ECT:   ∘ how much di=did you roll?∘((looks at Halla, then
passes the die back
50 to her))
51 Hal:  ((touches the surface of the die repeatedly with an
index finger,
52 then looks up at teacher who is watching))
53 (2.0)
54 ECT: shall we touch them? (.) together? ((touches the die))
55 (0:2)
56 Hal: ((nods, puts her head to one side))

In this sequence, the teacher provides a range of encouragements for

Halla to identify the number on the die, including the embodied go-­
ahead (the nod in line 47) in response to Halla’s unspoken request for
assistance (looking at the teacher in line 46). Notably, in line 53, the
teacher waits—two seconds is an audibly extended pause—for Halla to
count the dots and provide an answer. When Halla returns her gaze to the
teacher, the teacher then provides an alternative next action, inviting the
group to count ‘together’ (line 54), which is immediately agreed to by
Halla. Following Halla’s affirmation, the teacher invites the other two
children to join in the counting, ‘let’s help her count them’ (line 57).

Extract 7

57 ECT: let’s help her. count them. ready? you touch them.
58 Hal: 
[((touches each dot in time with each number spoken/
chant by
59 Lukaz and Johanna))]
60 Luk: [one, two, three, four, five, six]
61 Joa: [one, two, three, four, five, six]
62 ECT: [((nods in time with the count))]
230 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

63 Hal:
((looks at teacher))
64 ECT:
six? ((nodding))
65 ECT:
c’n you count out six pieces? ((points to box))
66 Luk:
[(speech inaudible due to classroom noise)]
67 Joa:
[(speech inaudible due to classroom noise)]
68 Hal:

[((draws six counters towards her, one at a
time))] (9:4)
69 ECT: okay, ((picks up the die))

It becomes clear once Halla selects six objects that she understands
one-to-one correspondence. This was not evident at the beginning of the
sequence, but the teacher does not treat the absence of relevant next
action (line 48) as an indication that Halla does not know the answer.
English is Halla’s second language; she is also quite shy and soft-spoken.
The extended pauses and multiple opportunities created by the teacher
enable Halla to display her knowledge, engage in the activity as part of a
group, and build confidence and self-efficacy in the game. Assessment for
learning at this moment requires extended pauses—including allowing
time for Hall a to select six counters from the centre of the table—to cre-
ate opportunities for Halla to demonstrate her mathematical knowledge.
The pauses also provide emotional support for the children involved in
the activity. The longer sequence from which the extract above was taken
shows the teacher moderating her requests for information based on the
individual needs—that is cognitive, linguistic and social—of each child
(see Cohrssen et al., 2014b). Creating spaces for a range of possible
answer actions from children through the purposeful use of extended
pauses is intentional teaching which respects and recognizes the abilities
of each child (Church & Bateman, 2019; Walsh & Li, 2013). Responsive
interactions build foundations of responsive and respectful relationships
(Australian Early Years Learning Framework, DEEWR, 2009) with peers
and adults alike. This responsivity focuses our attention on the collabora-
tive nature of talk; not so much what the teachers say, but what the chil-
dren and teacher do together.
The next example in Extract 8 provides a delightful illustration of how
intentional teaching can be built into play-based learning. Here is an
activity of high-jinks: three boys are playing around the school and
grounds they have built with blocks, part of a six-week inquiry project
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 231

(see Cohrssen, de Quadros-Wander, Page, & Klarin, 2017 for details).

Learning experiences in this project were built around ‘starting school’
and children sketched, photographed, mapped and designed 2D and 3D
representations of the school they would attend the following year. This
excerpt is taken from an activity where the teacher’s aim was to consoli-
date the children’s use of spatial language (e.g. in, on, under, up, down,
beside, between, in front of, behind, near, far, opposite, left and right).
The boys are laughing, moving around the blocks (the school) on the
table, making jokes and being silly. The teacher—and here is the respon-
sive design of his talk—joins the children in their activity. He is pretend-
ing to be a delivery man on the phone at the school gates, asking children
to put pictures of objects in specific places in the 3D/block plan of the
school. This has been purposefully planned to enable the teacher to assess
the boys’ mastery of concepts of relative position (i.e. on top of, under-
neath etc.). The responsivity of the talk is found in the teacher’s decision
to join in the silliness of the boys’ already established play (evident in the
laughter, use of exaggerated gestures and making jokes), by giving non-
sensical directions for these objects. This extract from Hedge and
Cohrssen (2019, p. 7; talk from two other boys off camera not included
here) begins with a question designed by the teacher to elicit assessment
of Humphrey’s understanding of ‘in between’ that functions as a request
from the delivery man providing instructions of where objects are to be
distributed.

Extract 8

05 ECT: [I havva delivery=c’n you tell wo=this=is,

06 HUM: computer!
...
09 TEA:   
computer, well done, now this computer (.) [needs ta
go::,] on top
10   of the:::   red no=in between a red an yellow window, please.
11 ((passes card to Humphrey))
12 HUM: 
(okay,) ((walks around the table to a position opposite
the teacher))
..
232 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

19 TEA: [in=between, a red an yellow window.

20 (4.0)
21 HUM: 
((walks around the table, looking at the sides of
the block
22   construction of a school building))
23 GAR:  
it’s=supposed tah go hee-yah! ((gestures towards
building))
24 HUM: red=an=yellow window.
25 (3.0)
26 HUM: 
((walks back around the table then places card on
top of red and
27 yellow window))

This short sequence tells us many things about four-and-a-half-year-old

Humphrey’s spatial reasoning, given that he places the picture of the com-
puter on top of rather than in between the windows. We provide the extract
to illustrate how responsive and respectful practice can be achieved in that
the teacher has maintained the learning goals (reinforcing learning of spatial
orientation) but has managed to build this pedagogy into the boys’ already
established play (the teacher goes on to join in the jokes, asking ‘Humphrey
Highpants’ to deliver objects etc.). Paying close attention to the sequences of
actions allows us to see how STEAM interactions can be done.

Conclusion
Social interaction is the locus of learning in early childhood, and oppor-
tunities for STEAM learning occur throughout the day, across activities,
indoors, outdoors, with peers, with teachers and with family members. In
this chapter, we have illustrated the fine-grained detail of high-quality
interactions that support learning. We have shone a spotlight on the
what, how and why of effective adult-child interactions. We have used
examples of talk-in-interaction during science and mathematics activities
in order to show how teachers intentionally build on immediately prior
actions to support children’s concept acquisition and language learning.
We hope that by making specific interactional characteristics of effective
talk-in-interaction visible, early childhood teachers and parents will feel
encouraged to employ these strategies in their interactions with children
for purposeful, evidence-based and responsive opportunities for learning.
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 233

Appendix: Transcription Conventions

The transcription conventions used in this article follow the original work
of Sacks et al. (1974).

. falling intonation
, slightly rising or continuing intonation
? rising intonation
¿ intonation that rises more than a comma but less than a
question mark
:: lengthened syllable
↓ sharp fall in pitch
↑ sharp rise in pitch
Bold emphasis
CAP increased volume
[] overlapping talk
() unintelligible stretch
(0.5) length of silence in tenths of a second
< increase in tempo, rushed stretch of talk
<> slower tempo
hh audible outbreath
.hh audible inbreath
[°] talk that is quieter than the surrounding talk
$ spoken while smiling
(( )) description of accompanying behaviour

References
Church, A., & Bateman, A. (2019). Children’s right to participate: How can
teachers extend child-initiated learning sequences. International Journal of
Early Childhood, 51(3), 265–281.
Cohrssen, C., & Church, A. (2017). The ‘how’ of high quality child-educator inter-
actions in play-based mathematics. In A. Bateman & A. Church (Eds.), Children’s
knowledge-in-interaction: studies in conversation analysis. Singapore: Springer.
Cohrssen, C., Church, A., & Tayler, C. (2014a). Purposeful pauses: Teacher talk
during early childhood mathematics activities. International Journal of Early
Years Education, 22(2), 169–183.
234 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

Cohrssen, C., Church, A., & Tayler, C. (2014b). Pausing for learning.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 95–102.
Cohrssen, C., de Quadros-Wander, B., Page, J., & Klarin, S. (2017). Between
the big trees: A project-based approach to investigating shape and spatial
thinking in a kindergarten program. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,
42(1), 94–104.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR)
for the Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Belonging, being and
becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Durden, T., & Dangel, D. R. (2008). Teacher-involved conversations with
young children during small group activity. Early Years, 28(3), 251–266.
Enfield, N. J. (2017). How we talk: The inner workings of conversation. New York:
Basic Books.
Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J. (2017). The concept of action. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Filipi, A. (2009). Toddler and parent interaction: the organization of gaze, pointing
and vocalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gardner, R. (2019). Classroom interaction research: The state of the art. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 212–226.
Hedge, K., & Cohrssen, C. (2019). Between the red and yellow windows: A
fine-grained focus on supporting children’s spatial thinking during play.
SAGE Open, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829551
Hoey, E. M., DeLiema, D., Chen, R. S. Y., & Flood, V. (2018). Imitation in
children’s locomotor play. Research on Children and Social Interaction,
2(1), 1–24.
Houen, S., Danby, S., Farrell, A., & Thorpe, K. (2016). ‘I wonder what you
know…’: Teachers designing requests for factual information. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 59, 68–78.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices
and applications. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In
G.H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation,
(pp.13–31). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Kidwell, M. (2011). Epistemics and embodiment in the interactions of very
young children. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality
of knowledge in conversation (pp. 257–284). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
 11 The Mechanics of Interaction in Early Childhood Steam 235

La Paro, B., Hamre, K., Locasale-Crouch, J., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D.,
et al. (2009). Quality in kindergarten classrooms: Observational evidence for
the need to increase children’s learning opportunities in early education class-
rooms. Early Education and Development, 20(4), 657–692.
Land, T. J., Tyminski, A. M., & Drake, C. (2019). Examining aspects of teach-
ers’ posing of problems in response to children’s mathematical thinking.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(4), 331–353.
Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the
work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 180–206.
Margutti, P. (2007). “Are you human beings?” Order and knowledge construc-
tion through questioning in primary classroom interaction. Linguistics and
Education, 17(4), 313–346.
Massey, S. (2004). Teacher–child conversation in the preschool classroom. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 31(4), 227–231.
Park, I. (2015). Or-PREFACED third turn self-repairs in student questions.
Linguistics and Education, 31(1), 101–114.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment
Scoring System™: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Rowe, M. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up!
Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 43–50.
Rowe, M. (1987). Using wait time to stimulate inquiry. In W. Wilen (Ed.),
Questions, questioning techniques, and effective teaching (pp. 95–106).
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage
(Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for
the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica,
8, 289–327.
Siraj, I., & Asani, R. (2015). The role of sustained shared thinking, play and
metacognition in young children’s learning’. In S. Robson & S. Quinn (Eds.),
The Routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking and under-
standing. London: Routledge.
Siraj, I., Kingston, D., & Melhuish, E. (2015). Assessing quality: Sustained shared
thinking and emotional well-being (SSTEW) rating scale. London: Trentham
Books & UCL Press.
236 A. Church and C. Cohrssen

Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Manni, L. (2008). “Would you like to tidy up now?” An
analysis of adult questioning in the English foundation stage. Early Years,
28(1), 5–22.
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.
Stokoe, E. (2011) Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The
‘Conversation Analytic Roleplay Method’. In Antaki, C.E. (Ed.) Applied
conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices (pp. 119–139).
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2010).
Early childhood matters: Evidence from the effective pre-school and primary
education project. London: Routledge.
Tayler, C. (2016). Reforming Australian early childhood education and care
provision (2009–2015). Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 27–31.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: language in action. London:
Routledge.
Walsh, S., & Li, L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 247–266.
Warren, E. and de Vries, E. (2009) Young Australian Indigenous students’
engagement with numeracy: Actions that assist to bridge the gap, Australian
Journal of Education, 53(2), Article 4.
 12
STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive
Partnerships Supporting Transitions
from Preschool to School Growing
a Generation of New Learners
Nicola Yelland

Introduction
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education
has become an imperative in education in recent times with the growing
realisation that schooling systems require additional strategies and mea-
sures to prepare students for life in society which are very different from
those in previous eras (Aldemir & Kermani, 2016; Carter, 2016; Early
Childhood STEM working group, 2017; Katz, 2010). In Australia this
imperative was instigated by the National Science Innovation Agenda
(NISA, 2015a), which was the catalyst for the National STEM school
education strategy (2016–2026) (NISA, 2015b). The strategy promoted
the imperatives for developing mathematical, scientific and digital

N. Yelland (*)
The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 237
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_12
238 N. Yelland

literacy for all Australian children, as well as promoting problem solving,

critical analysis and creative thinking skills in authentic investigative
learning environments.
The challenge was also taken up by the twenty-first century skills
movement (e.g. Partnerships for the 21st century, 2008; Trilling & Fadel,
2009) which emphasised the importance of learning dispositions, and
the acquisition of the key learning skills of critical thinking, creativity,
collaborations and communication. This interdisciplinary approach
could easily have incorporated Arts and become Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM), yet the STEM acronym
has already become pervasive in its use at this time, and it would seem it
is already accepted by many. In fact, the acronym started out as SMET,
but it was soon realised that using STEM was more attractive in applica-
tion (Blackley & Howell, 2015).
In the context of these developments, it was evident that knowledge
creation is fundamental for learning, and that it requires building on
existing knowledge and applying skills of inquiry to generate new ideas
that are relevant in a variety of contexts. For governments and indeed all
educators, the problems associated with contemporary learning have
been viewed as a science-based issue, and they have been particularly
concerned about the lack of interest students have shown to study the
traditional science subjects in schools and universities. This concern is
clearly manifested in the STEM movement. In the early years (birth to
eight years of age) a focus on STEM thinking has been regarded as being
a way to advance changes to existing curriculum by, for example, engag-
ing pre-school children in experimentation and inquiry in play-based
learning environments (Cohrssen & Page, 2016; Hofer, Farran &
Cummings, 2013).
The origin of the acronym (STEM) dates back to 1985, when the
Carnegie Foundation had a stated goal to ensure that all children should
have the opportunity to participate in and adapt to a society character-
ised by changing economies. This was linked to the notion that high
performing economies had schools that enabled their students to expe-
rience authentic experiences via collaborative learning, critical and cre-
ative thinking and the sharing of ideas. Since 1985, educational forums
have pondered the ways that the sciences can facilitate knowledge
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 239

creation and technological innovation in order for economies to flour-

ish in the twenty-­first century. While there was a recognition of the
importance of the traditional disciplines, it was evident that new ways
of thinking about them needed to be promoted. Finding the synergies
between the science disciplines required reconceptualising interdisci-
plinary thinking around their core principles and a realisation that this
learning had to occur in contexts that were meaningful to learners.
In 2006 a definition of STEM education was generated by a group in
the United States:1

STEM Education is an interdisciplinary approach to learning where rigor-

ous academic concepts are coupled with real world lessons where students
apply science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in contexts that
make connections between school, community, work, and global enter-
prise enabling the development of STEM literacy and with it the ability to
compete in the new economy. (p. 3) [italics added for emphasis]

There are two key aspects to the definition. First, that STEM has an
interdisciplinary focus and secondly, that experiences should be authentic
and involve ‘real world’ applications of knowledge and skills (Blackley &
Howell, 2015; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Yelland, 2020). In schools,
STEM education required that teachers integrate the concepts and pro-
cesses that were usually taught as separate subjects and emphasise the
application of knowledge and skills in real-life situations. STEM experi-
ences were not lessons in which content was studied, but rather inquiries
that originated in wonderings about the world, and posing questions or
hypotheses about authentic events.

STEM in Early Childhood

The contribution of early childhood education and home and family

environments and their impact on subsequent learning as children prog-
ress through schooling systems has long been recognised (e.g. Schweinhart,

1
Pennsylvania STEM Network, Southwest Region, “Long Range Plan (2009–2018), Plan
Summary,” (2009) http://www.cmu.edu/gelfand/documents/stem-survey-report-cmu-iu1.pdf
240 N. Yelland

2007). If we are able to build and support twenty-first century STEM

education in the early years, we have the potential to grow a generation
of new learners who will participate in knowledge creation, skill building
and be confident to solve everyday problems in communities of learners.
Play-based pedagogies complement the interdisciplinary STEM
approach to teaching and learning (Bennett, Wood & Rogers, 1997;
Yelland, 2011). The essential skills and processes that are inherent to sci-
ence, mathematics, engineering and design, encourage ‘learning by doing’
in authentic contexts and provide opportunities for intentional teaching
when educators are able to effectively scaffold learning and lay the foun-
dations for future possibilities. What is different about learning today is
that it is multimodal with the incorporation of digital devices (Yelland,
2018). Learning occurs in linguistic, visual, kinaesthetic, aural and spa-
tial modalities and occurs in both digital and physical spaces—in the
home environment, in early learning centres and in school. Taking this
into consideration, the conceptualisation adopted here is that

STEM education in the early years provides a context for designing active
learning ecologies that connect with children’s natural curiosity about their
world. It engages children in authentic investigations, using critical and cre-
ative thinking in systematic ways to build knowledge, acquire skills and culti-
vate confident dispositions for learning.

It is widely believed that curriculum and pedagogies in the early years

(birth to eight years of age) occur best in play-based contexts, in which
teachers prompt and scaffold children’s learning (Brenneman, Lange &
Nayfield, 2019; French, 2004; Fusaro & Smith, 2018; John, Sibuma,
Wunnava, Anggoro & Dubosarsky, 2018). Effective learning scenarios
are flexible, and they originate when the teacher observes and responds to
individual children’s learning needs. However, when compulsory school-
ing begins there is pressure on teachers to adopt more formal and didactic
pedagogies in which more academic skills and knowledge are fore-
grounded. In Australia, the Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR,
2009) guides early childhood educators in the preschool years while the
National Curriculum guides school-based teachers. In the case study
which follows, it is demonstrated that play-based pedagogies are effective
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 241

in the early years of school, creating STEM learning ecologies that went
beyond the walls of Reception classrooms. Reception teachers maintained
their professional responsibility to the mandated National Curriculum
whilst enacting innovative pedagogical and curriculum designs. They
incorporated detailed pedagogical documentation not only to justify
their decision-making but also to act as props for re-launching investiga-
tions at a later date as the children became more curious about their find-
ings and reflected on them after time had passed.

Case Study: The STEM Bridge Project

The aims of STEM Bridge Project were to create a learning vision for the
young children as one in which they would be confident learners
who were:

• Articulate: Able to communicate their ideas, feelings and discoveries

in different ways showing how they understand their life worlds;
• Respectful: Work collaboratively with others in communities of prac-
tice, listening and questioning and striving for common and multiple
goals; and
• Knowledgeable: Able to support their plans with accurate and rele-
vant data, and facts that illustrate logical and creative thinking in
diverse contexts.

There were 34 participants in this year-long project. They included 14

preschool educators, eight teachers of children aged six years (enrolled in
what is known as the Reception year in the Australian state in which the
project took place), six principals and six early childhood leaders (ECL)
for preschool in each region. Each school principal and ECL participated
in the two professional learning workshops held during the year and also
attended the on-site pedagogical conversation meetings (one on each site
with the researchers) about the project. In the initial one-day introduc-
tion workshop session it was evident from conversations that the pre-
school educators who participated in the project were confident with
play-based pedagogical repertoires, but the Reception teachers were more
242 N. Yelland

cautious about giving the children the opportunity to lead their learn-
ing—given the mandated imperatives of the Australian National
Curriculum. At the initial workshop and in the pedagogical conversa-
tions that took place on return to the preschools and schools, the educa-
tors and teachers at each site collectively decided on a focus for their
collaboration and shared this with the research team in their pedagogical
documentation. At each of the six sites, the teachers located in the schools
created plans and opportunities in which they described wanting to
increase opportunities for child-initiated provocations and hands-on
explorations that would encourage the children to imagine, explore and
use flexible thinking to solve authentic inquiries. One of the major
imperatives for the Reception teachers was that they needed these activi-
ties to be within the scope of the topics and content mandated in the
National Curriculum.
At the initial whole-day professional learning workshop to introduce
the project, the general focus for the project design was negotiated
between groups of educators and teachers at each of the sites. In this first
session, they expressed bold learning desires and recognised they would
have to rethink their approaches and pedagogical strategies in order to
incorporate more of the children’s voice into their learning encounters. In
doing so, they wanted a notable shift in creating learning ecologies which
went beyond the traditional learning environments in order to stimulate
engagement between people, rather than just between teacher and
students.
The research questions were:

1. In what ways can preschool educators and Reception teachers col-

laborate to facilitate transitions?
2. Does STEM learning provide a useful context to encourage collabora-
tive learning designs for preschool and Reception learners?
3. What pedagogies are enabled in this collaboration?

At the same time, the conversations led the educators and teachers to
state their educational aspirations for the children.
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 243

Focus on Practice

At the centre of this research project, the teachers engaged in critical

action research (CAR) (Kemmis & McTaggert, 2007). CAR was selected
as the research methodology since it involves being self-reflective in the
study of one’s practice, which was at the core of this project. It includes
an awareness of the ways in which language is used, a recognition of the
impact of context and how power relationships impact on practice with
the general goal of wanting to improve practice. It emerges from a desire
to change, more specifically to improve, practices (pedagogies and cur-
riculum reconceptualisation). Classroom action research deploys qualita-
tive interpretive methods of inquiry and data collection by preschool
educators and teachers, here in collaboration with departmental person-
nel and a university academic as ‘participant observers’, with decisions
being made about how practices might be improved.
The data collection involved all the preschool educators and teachers
collating a reflective journal, collecting samples of children’s work, and
reflecting on and documenting the pedagogical conversations with the
university-based academic and department personnel as well as between
themselves. This triangulation of data enabled analyses that were shared
by all research participants.
The theoretical sampling of the data using the Grounded Theory
Approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) enabled preschool educators and
teachers, department personnel and the researcher to review our ideas
and theories as they emerged during the year. In using grounded theory
to analyse the data we were able, as researchers, to generate explanations
as theory via an inductive analytic process. This meant that the analysis
and consideration of themes, via coding, was characterised by a bottom-
­up approach incorporating the identification of important pedagogical
incidents, analysing them and reporting them in the form of narratives
and pedagogical documentation to illustrate the children’s meaning-­
making and understandings about the individual topics in each location.
The explanations about learning generated by the educators and teachers
from their pedagogical documentation were interpretative since they go
beyond the semantic meaning associated with pedagogical decision
244 N. Yelland

making into the realms of critically considering the ideas, assumptions

and conceptualisations which form the basis of the designs for learning
process. As a result, the pedagogical documentation collected and pro-
duced to reflect on the learning processes was an integral part of data
collection and analysis. Further, the narratives created as case studies
reflect practical and insightful documentation of the design and learning
process of the children for other educators to consider and use as provo-
cations in their own learning ecologies.

Documentation

The role of documentation by the preschool educators and teachers and

by the children became important in this project. For the preschool edu-
cators and teachers, the data generated became a record of their actions—
a diary of events with examples from practice. For the children,
participation in the documentation process gave them the chance to
review their work so that it became a record of their learning. The educa-
tors valued the documentation as a valuable record of events and a cata-
lyst for conversations. The learning stories created were a testament to the
changes in their practices and their renewed focus on play-based
inquiries—and their role at the centre of learning and often provided the
context to re-launch ideas and inquiries at a later date.

Pedagogies

The STEM Bridge project involved the children and their teachers in
many different inquiries during the course of the year. We began to dif-
ferentiate the variety of new pedagogical ‘moves’ that the educators and
teachers were using and to refer to them collectively as a ‘pedagogical
repertoire’. These included the pedagogies of:

• Rethinking and creating learning ecologies that embodied the

following:
–– Pedagogical conversations
–– Questioning
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 245

–– Noticing
–– Describing, analysing and recording
–– Re-launching ideas and inquiries
–– Inquiry-based learning in explorations
–– Scaffolding learning via a variety of processes
–– Knowledge building
• Reflecting on learning with peers, and with pedagogical documenta-
tion and learning panels

Pedagogical practices were transformed. The transformation was made

possible by preschool educators and teachers across all the sites making
time to collaborate, discuss and implement inquiries. The principals and
ECLs participated in these design and conversation days and the teachers
noted that having this support from their leaders was an important factor
in their ability to make dramatic pedagogical shifts. They could justify
their new pedagogical approaches, knowing their ideas would be
supported.

Narratives of Authentic, Interdisciplinary Inquiries

Inquiry: Learning in the Wirra

At one of the sites there was a patch of native vegetation called the Wirra
(Fig. 12.1). Initially, the Reception teacher was reluctant to take her class
to explore the Wirra as part of their everyday learning experiences
because the administrative processes associated with working outside the
classroom were complex. However, when these were considered in a prac-
tical way with the support of the principal, it was made possible by view-
ing the time in the Wirra as simply an extension of the classroom and a
rich place of learning. The short walk to the Wirra within the context of
the school grounds meant that it was not considered as being ‘off site’
because it was adjacent to the preschool and school. The area became the
focus of shared learning experiences for the preschool and Reception chil-
dren on a weekly basis from the start of the project and continued on a
246 N. Yelland

Fig. 12.1 The Wirra

regular basis. These shared learning experiences were in contrast with the
traditional orientation-focused transition process which occurred at the
end of the year when the pre-schoolers joined the Reception class for two
visits and did some fun activities. Thus, the concept of transition as ori-
entation was immediately changed to one in which collaboration and
shared learning ecologies were foregrounded.
As stated above, the challenge of using outdoor space was noted by all
teachers as a cause of concern in their consideration of creating new con-
texts for learning. They had come from the perspective that it was too
difficult to organise and thus avoided it. However, with the new impera-
tives created by participation in the STEM Bridge project, these shared
inquiry times became a focal point for deep learning and inquiry. Teachers
noticed, for example, that ‘compliant, quiet children’ became confident
talkers and observers in the context of this outdoor learning. The two
groups and their teachers engaged in what they called, ‘Wirra
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 247

Fig. 12.2 Wonderings about the Wirra

wonderings’ (Fig. 12.2), For example, one child noticed the wild orchids
growing in the Wirra and suggested that we needed to put markers
around them so that visitors would know they were there and would not
step on them. Another source of wonder was the different types of plants
that were identified as native and ‘introduced’ soursobs (scientific name:
Oxalis pes-caprae)—which ones could they feed to the chickens at the
kindergarten?
The preschool educators and teachers noted the following in their
journals:

• “We have created time and space in our program for the children to
connect with nature within a familiar shared space.”
• “We have been carefully considering the types of questions we use in
our Wirra wonderings. For example, shifting from: ‘What do you
know about birds?’ to, ‘What are your ideas about birds?’”
248 N. Yelland

• “We have a vision of STEM learning in the early years as being playful
and beginning in the children’s curiosity. We have been exploring how
we can plan to build on these experiences back in the centre/classroom”
• “We have a shared vision about why we are doing this – it is because
we want our children to connect kindy experiences with school experi-
ences to make their transitions smooth and relevant to them.”
[Educator/Teacher journals, 2018, Site A]

When the children returned inside, the educators asked them to ‘draw
what you see’. In one instance they saw butterflies in the Wirra and then
came in to watch a short video called ‘Austin’s butterfly’. The educators
also borrowed butterfly collections from the Nature Education centre
and the children began to study the details of the butterflies and record
them in their drawings, pointing out the various features as they com-
pleted the drawing (Fig. 12.3).

Fig. 12.3 Technical drawings

 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 249

The educators noted that when given time to explore, the children had
sustained opportunities to engage in the mathematical and science pro-
cess skills of listening, observing, comparing, classifying and describing,
and documenting their discoveries in the Wirra. In addition, their fol-
low-­up work (e.g. conversations discussions and documentation) after
spending time in the Wirra became more detailed and their language
more sophisticated. Accordingly, the teachers created more opportunities
for the children to notice, talk and record their observations from
the Wirra.

Inquiry: Dylan and the Mat in the Playground

In another scenario, Dylan, a Year 5 boy from a primary school not partici-
pating in the project, moved a striped mat from the cubby house to under
a tree near the boundary between the preschool and school (Fig. 12.4).
The teacher asked the children,: “What was he thinking?” Initially the
children voiced their suggestions. For example:

Fig. 12.4 Dylan put the mat under the tree—why?

250 N. Yelland

Fig. 12.5 Why did Dylan do this?

“[H]e moved that mat from the cubby house to the tree. I think he wanted
to lie down on the mat to do something.” (Fig. 12.5). “It’s really strange. I
don’t know why?”

The children were then asked: “Should we just leave it there?”

A combined community of inquiry gave every child a voice in this
decision. They talked through their reasons and then voted with the
majority deciding that the mat should be moved because it did not belong
under the tree. Piper said:

“I don’t think we should leave the mat under the tree because it needs to be
all natured up!” (Fig. 12.6).
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 251

Fig. 12.6 All natured up

Fig. 12.7 Natural materials

This led the Reception class to think about natural and man-made
materials. The question, “What does all natured up look like?” led to
drawings that reveal their concepts about these things (Fig. 12.7).
252 N. Yelland

Conversations ensued about what did belong under the tree and the
children decided it should be a cubby house or a snail playground or
something that belonged outside, not like a mat! All children began a
design process for a cubby in the spot, drawing on scientific, mathemati-
cal, engineering and technology knowledge using systems, design and
computational thinking. They used blocks to experiment with possible
designs and completed drawings of their plans. In the preschool, another
vote occurred to consider the final design for a cubby. They would use
loose parts. In the process of building the cubby, the children were engaged
in negotiating, using practical building skills, problem solving, rethinking,
while continually revisiting and adapting their plans. When the cubby was
finalised, they wrote a letter to the Reception class to ask if they thought it
was a good design and if they could build it on the shared site.
The Reception children replied with some questions and state-
ments like:

Will you wreck the cubby that is already there?

How many people can fit into your cubby?
Can you make it bigger?
Is it waterproof?
One boy commented: We think the block on the top of the cubby would
be unsafe?

To answer questions like, “Is it waterproof?” the preschool children

designed experiments to find out and tested their theories. They also
worked out how many children could fit into the cubby.
These learning events took place over the period of one month and
illustrated the ways in which each group participated in the inquiry in
different ways and collaborated to build a new cubby on a shared site.

Inquiry: Playing with Shadows

One of the important parts of the project was the use of pedagogical
documentation in the form of ‘panels’ to which both teachers and chil-
dren contributed (Rintakorpi & Reunamo, 2017). For example, the chil-
dren’s explorations of shadows, light and colour were documented in a
panel called ‘Shadows’ (Fig. 12.8). In the panels, the teachers’ summary
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 253

how

learning through the inquiry process.

Deepening child-led learning...exploring children's theories

Eric's theory was that the movement of shadows occurred due to the movement of the sun. The educators relaunched this idea

How and why did the sun move Eric?

“Cos it’s Winter, some days it’s Winter.

Why does the sun move each day?

ink it
moves and moves and moves ...it looks like a different place for the sun. I can see sun in a different place. I think it follows the car
when you are driving...it follows you.”
How does the sun follow you?
Maybe the moon moves and then...the sun goes to the same place. The moon follows my car at night. I think IT moves...moves to
places. Maybe...to different countries. I think it always follows you. It stops in different places.

“The sun is going down

and the moon is coming
up. Follows your car. The
sun went to a different window.”

It moves, the sun moves...cos...it

moves all around and...moves to
“The moon moves and the sun comes different places. Zarliah
Thomas

Fig. 12.8 Shadows

254 N. Yelland

and reflections are evident as well as the children’s recorded observations

and their theories about making colours and how light works.
The documentation panels were shared as a resource for the other
teachers to explore the concepts, supporting teacher collaborative prac-
tice. This proved to be a major factor in the transformation of pedagogi-
cal practices. One teacher commented, “I did not realise I could do it….
until I saw it …. Then it was so exciting… I had to try it!”
The learning often began when the children noticed and were curious
about their own shadows and conversations sprang up between chil-
dren and with the teachers. Questions were posed and theories discussed.
For example, Eric’s theory was:

the movement of shadows occurred due to the movement of the sun.

The educators then re-launched this idea through a series of questions that
responded to his emerging theories, and enabled him to articulate his ideas:

How and why does the sun move Eric?

Why does the sun move each day?
How does the sun follow you?

Other children also participated, drawing and explaining their reason-

ing about shadows to the educator. These drawings are also included in
the panel.

Conclusions
In the STEM Bridge project, preschool educators and Reception teachers
at each research site explored the ways in which they could elevate peda-
gogical conversations around children’s voice. The practices of noticing
and generating questions formed the basis of investigations, and extend-
ing play-based inquiries into the school cosntext was a major feature of
the preschool and school collaborations. In rethinking the learning ecolo-
gies in which the young children were immersed, the educators reflected
on the changes in their own ideas and attitudes to learning over the year.
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 255

By the end of the year, the teachers were describing their pedagogical
shifts as being ‘child led’ with teacher guidance and scaffolding support-
ing the children’s deep learning. This had come about because of the col-
laborative approach to planning that the preschool educator and
Reception teachers initiated for the purposes of the STEM Bridge proj-
ect. For all participants, the teacher’s role changed to being more proac-
tive and provocative—challenging each other’s thinking in new and
dynamic ways. The Reception teachers, in particular, became much more
flexible in designing and extending their learning ecologies into the out-
door areas available to them. For Reception teachers, the starting points,
or provocations, for explorations were later to be described as ‘natural’
and achievable at multiple entry and exit points. They recognised that the
children were becoming more proactive in their response to provocation-­
based inquiries. They wanted to be challenged and they definitely wanted
to make use of valuable outside learning environments. Additionally, the
teachers were using a wider range of pedagogical strategies and more
sophisticated questioning techniques. Teachers were extending conversa-
tions and re-launching ideas and inquiries at a later date.
The preschool educators highlighted their increased awareness of the
value of flexible approaches to the use of space and shared materials, and
of building connections between the preschool and school environs, and
approaches to pedagogies and learning. They also reflected on the ways in
which their different curriculum imperatives could be incorporated into
these changing learning ecologies. Finally, they reflected on the shift from
a traditional view of transition as being ‘school ready’ to one in which
discussions of pedagogy were elevated to focus on the learner. For the
Reception teachers this also involved being challenged to justify their
new pedagogical approaches in the context of achieving the mandated
aims and outcomes of learning areas in the National Curriculum
(ACARA, n.d.) by the Year 1 and Year 2 teacher colleagues. In one
instance the Reception teacher smiled as she told us the story of how the
Year 1 teacher had said the children were just “playing”… and thought
that when they came into Year 1 the following year, they would not have
mastered the required content knowledge. The experienced Reception
teacher, who had been at the school for seven years, responded by
256 N. Yelland

referring to her planning documentation that indicated that the class

were in fact studying:

Science as understanding, as a human endeavor and using the Science

inquiry skills as they:

Studied that living things had basic needs [ACSSU002]

Understood that objects are made of materials that have observable proper-
ties [ACSSU003]
(Earth Sciences) Recognised that there were daily and seasonal changes in
their lives [ACSSU004]
Asked questions and described and recorded their findings [ACSHE013]
Made predictions about familiar objects and events [ACSIS014]
Were engaged in planning investigations and making observations with all
their senses [ACSIS011]
Engaging in discussions about their observations and reporting their ideas
and theories [ACSIS012]
Communicating and sharing their observations and finding in multimodal
formats [ACAIA012]

and

Mathematics when using number and place value [ACMN002], comparing

and ordering, and making comparisons between collections [ACMN289],
and using patterns, measurement and geometry in their investigations.
This included using statistics and probability to create and answer ques-
tions about their wonderings and noticings and generating theories about
their world (e.g. why shadows moved their position?)

The most overt changes were evident in the pedagogical practices of the
Reception teachers as they incorporated play-based pedagogies and
STEM learning ecologies that extended beyond their classrooms.

This project has provided me with the opportunity to experience and support
learners in a play-based environment.
Educators mentor and support each other around possibilities and missed
opportunities as we reflect and modify our practices.
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 257

For example…. Feeling supported and having permission to continue with

sustained interactions in play spaces. (Reception Teacher, STEM
Bridge Project)

Learning Pathways
In this chapter, STEM education has been conceptualised as providing a
context for active learning and inquiries that respond to children’s natural
curiosity about the world in which they live. Preschool educators and
Reception teachers purposefully provided opportunities for children to
apply critical, creative and design thinking skills as they used their skills
to build knowledge, and acquire confident dispositions for learning.
These ways of doing pedagogies are prioritised:

• Teachers being engaged in reflective practice and having pedagogical

conversations about their work in open and collegial ways across two
sectors of education, which traditionally have only casual encounters
as the end of a school year approaches.
• Engaging in rich conversations that lead to deep collaborations
between all the educators. Here, these went beyond superficial actions
and included opportunities for teachers mentoring and coaching each
other which broadened each teacher’s pedagogical repertoire.
• A cross-sector, whole-system approach which was supported by princi-
pals and the Department for Education so that all participants were
investing in the desire to transform their pedagogies to support
deep learning.
• The importance of building time into the curriculum for all educators
so that they were able to design and enact a STEM inquiry approach
that was meaningful and relevant to themselves and the children.

In practice, the STEM Bridge project illustrated the following:

• STEM learning ecologies can act as a catalyst for creating communi-

ties of practice with a focus on inquiry, active learning and cre-
ative thinking.
258 N. Yelland

• The importance of being fluent in asking questions that promote cre-

ativity and extend thinking (e.g. What are your ideas about birds?) and
sharing these strategies so that parents can build on them at home.
• Creating play-based learning scenarios that encouraged the use
of STEM processes (e.g. noticing, observing, questioning, classifying,
describing) enabled inquiries that led to knowledge building. In con-
structing their own knowledge, the children were interacting with cur-
riculum content in a personal way that gave every child an intimate
sense of belonging and engagement that ensured deep learning.

References
Aldemir, J., & Kermani, H. (2016). Integrated STEM curriculum: Improving
educational outcomes for head start children. Early Childhood Education and
Care, 187(11), 1694–1705.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (n.d.).
F-10 curriculum. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-­10-­curriculum/
Bennett, N., Wood, L., & Rogers, S. (1997). Teaching through play: Teachers’
thinking and classroom practice. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102–112. https://doi.
org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.8
Brenneman, K., Lange, A., & Nayfeld, I. (2019). Integrating STEM into pre-
school education; developing a professional development model in diverse
settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 15–28.
Carter, A. (2016). Why is there such an emphasis on STEM subjects. Science
Educational News, 65(3), 11–19.
Cohrssen, C., & Page, J. (2016). Articulating a rights based argument for math-
ematics teaching and learning in early childhood education. Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood, 41(3), 104–107.
DEEWR (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations).
(2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for
Australia. Retrieved from http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/
other/belonging_being_and_becoming_the_early_years_learning_frame-
work_for_australia.pdf
 12 STEM Learning Ecologies: Productive Partnerships… 259

Early Childhood STEM Working Group. (2017). Early STEM matters.

Providing high quality STEM experiences for all young learners. Retrieved
25 August 2018, from http://d3lwefg3pyezlb.cloudfront.net/docs/Early_
STEM_Matters_FINAL.pdf
French, L. (2004). Science at the center of a Coherent, integrated early child-
hood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149.
Fusaro, M. S., & Smith, M. C. (2018). Preschoolers’ inquisitiveness and science-­
relevant problem solving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 119–127.
Hofer, K. G., Farran, D. C., & Cummings, T. P. (2013). Preschool children’s
math-related behaviors mediate curriculum effects of math achievement
gains. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 487–495.
John, M. S., Sibuma, B., Wunnava, S., Anggoro, F., & Dubosarsky, M. (2018).
An iterative participatory approach to developing an early childhood prob-
lem based STEM curriculum. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3),
2468–4368.
Katz, L. (2010). STEM in the early years. Early Childhood Research and Practice,
(Fall), 1–7.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J.G. (2016). A Conceptual framework for integrated
STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11). https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40594-­016-­0046-­2
Kemmis, S., & McTaggert, R. (2007). Retrieved 19 August 2019 from http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.473.4759&rep=r
ep1&type=pdf
National Innovation in Schools (NISA). (2015a). Welcome to the ideas boom.
Agenda report. https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/July%20
2018/document/pdf/national-­i nnovation-­a nd-­s cience-­a genda-­r eport.
pdf?acsf_files_redirect
National Innovation in Schools (NISA). (2015b). National STEM education
schools strategy. Canberra, ACT: Education Council for Australia. http://
www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/
National%20STEM%20School%20Education%20Strategy.pdf
Partnerships for the 21st Century. (2008). 21st Century skills, education &
competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Retrieved from Washington,
DC: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519337.pdf
Rintakorpi, K., & Reunamo, J. (2017). Pedagogical documentation and its rela-
tion to every activities in early years. Early Childhood Education and Care,
187(11), 1611–1622.
Schweinhart, L. J. (2007). Outcomes of the High/ Scope Perry Preschool Study
and Michigan School Readiness Program. Retrieved from https://www.
260 N. Yelland

researchgate.net/publication/254108264_Outcomes_of_the_HighScope_
Perry_Preschool_Study_and_Michigan_School_Readiness_Program.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our
times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yelland, N. J. (2011). Reconceptualising play and learning in the lives of chil-
dren. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 4–12.
Yelland, N. J. (2018). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: young children and multi-
modal learning with tablets. British Journal of Educational Technology,
49(5), 847–858.
 13
STEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated
or Interdisciplinary?
Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama

Introduction
This book exemplifies a growing interest in STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) education in the early years (Committee
on STEM Education, 2018; McClure et al., 2017; Sarama et al., 2018;
Sarama, Brenneman, Clements, Duke, & Hemmeter, 2017). We discuss
two tendencies in this movement. The first is the addition of one or more
domains, resulting in the acronym STEAM or STREAM. The second is
the notion that the best educational approach is to fully integrate these
and all other domains. We present arguments and evidence that these
tendencies appear positive, but may inadvertently negatively impact the
critical increase of STEM in early education. We present an alternative
approach that maintains the positive aspects of these tendencies while
avoiding the possible negatives.

D. H. Clements (*) • J. Sarama

University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 261
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9_13
262 D. H. Clements and J. Sarama

STEM or STEAM or STREAM or…?

Although STEM is the original and prominent acronym, many, includ-
ing Head Start in the USA, prefer the acronym STEAM, to emphasize
the inclusion of the arts. Although the importance of arts education can-
not be denied, we believe that extending the acronym is unwise, as it both
loosens the coherence of the STEM domains and excludes other domains
that are as, or more, important to the construction of rich interdisciplin-
ary educational experiences for young children. We discuss three reasons
for this position: (a) STEM is a serious movement across ages and coun-
tries with which we should align, (b) adding an “A” to STEM and leaving
other domains out is not justifiable, and (c) adding the arts or other
domains weakens the coherence of the STEM domains, which differ
from others. We discuss each of these in turn.

The STEM Movement, Birth Through University

STEM is a serious movement across ages and countries with which we

should align. One of us is a member of the national STEM Education
Advisory Panel, and the acronym and activities are always STEM, not
something else. One might argue that all organizations should change the
acronym, but that is extremely unlikely. Instead, we early educators
would increase the unfortunate disconnect between us and others. Again,
one might respond that the other domains simply cannot be ignored! The
next two reasons address that issue.

What Domains Should Be Included

Adding an “A” to STEM or an “R” and “A” (R for Reading, Furman,

2017) is understandable but not justifiable. To begin, if one is to add the
arts, why not music (the “arts” often implies visual forms, although this
is a limited interpretation), among other forms of expression? Specific
gross (athletics) and fine motor (Grissmer, Grimm, Aiyer, Murrah, &
Steele, 2010) domains should not be ignored, either.
 13 STEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated or Interdisciplinary? 263

Perhaps more important, why not language and literacy and social-­
emotional development, two clearly critical domains? Arguably (and sup-
ported by research evidence), done well, STEM contributes more to
authentic language and literacy and social-emotional development than
it does to the arts. Exaggerating to make a point, the unpronounceable
initialism would then stand as STREAMMLLSEFMGM (STREAM +
Music, Language, Literacy, Social, Emotional, Fine Motor, Gross Motor).
A devil’s advocate might say, “We have enough literacy! Enough social-­
emotional! We don’t need to add those!” However, physical education is
often underemphasized, as are music, dance, and other forms (music is
often “done”—but not well!). Further, the STEM movement is simply
the wrong place for those with justifiable desires to enrich the curriculum
to “add on” their own preferences. One good reason for this is that STEM
is a coherent domain, different from the others—our third reason.

The Coherence of STEM

Perhaps the most important reason to maintain STEM is that adding the
arts, reading, or other domains weakens the subject matter content, peda-
gogical, and epistemological coherence of STEM, which differ substan-
tially from the other domains. Considering content, science, technology,
and engineering are a tight group, with science providing the concepts
and processes used in creating and refining new technologies and engi-
neering advances and explaining why some unexpected feats of engineer-
ing work. Similarly, technology and engineering put science to work,
ideally for the good of humanity and the planet.
What is the role of mathematics? Mathematics remains the queen of
all science (and technology and engineering) both in its realization in the
world and educationally. Almost every STEM advance and project is
expressed in the language of mathematics.1 Educationally, mathematical
development is central. What mathematics children know when they
enter kindergarten predicts their mathematics achievement for years to

1
For example: “Mathematics is the alphabet with which God has written the universe” (Galileo).
“How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experi-
ence, fits so excellently the objects of reality?” (Einstein).
264 D. H. Clements and J. Sarama

come (Duncan et al., 2007). Mathematics also predicts later success in

reading (Duncan et al., 2007; Duncan & Magnuson, 2011), so mathe-
matics appears to be a core component of cognition. Further, knowledge of
mathematics in the early years is the best predictor of graduating high
school (McCoy et al., 2017; Watts, Duncan, Siegler, & Davis-Kean,
2014). Finally, number and arithmetic knowledge at age 7 predicts socio-
economic status at age 42 (even controlling for all other variables; Ritchie
& Bates, 2013).
Mathematics is also important in more advanced education. The more
mathematics courses high school students take predicts their university
performance not just in mathematics, but in biology, chemistry, and
physics—with a strength that matches or excels the amount of those sub-
jects students study (Sadler & Tai, 2007).
Thus, both in subject matter content and in educational contexts,
there is a tight, coherent linkage among the STEM domains. This does
not imply that there are no connections to other domains. High-quality
experiences in early science and mathematics, for example, have been
connected to later development of language, reading, and executive func-
tion competencies (e.g., Duncan et al., 2007; Institute of Medicine
(IOM) and National Research Council (NRC), 2015), even in rigorous
causal studies (Clements, Sarama, Layzer, Unlu, & Fesler, 2020; Sarama,
Lange, Clements, & Wolfe, 2012). Further, these relationships are bidi-
rectional (Clements, Sarama, & Germeroth, 2016; Purpura, Hume,
Sims, & Lonigan, 2011). However, these are smaller and looser connec-
tions that emerge from one domain supporting the other (distinct) domain
educationally.
STEM differs markedly from the arts in epistemology, or “how you
know you know something” in a domain. So, just shoving STEM together
with the arts to make a point about foci confuses important issues that we
believe should be clarified. Let us begin this discussion by noting that
even within the STEM field there is one important difference in how you
find “truth.” Validity in mathematics comes from logic, reasoning, and
proof—it’s “in your head.” Validity in STE stems from scientific testing
of ideas and theories in the world. Even preschoolers implicitly learn
these knowledge foundations. One four-year-old said to another, “You
don’t have to ask the teacher. Triangles have three sides connected. This
 13 STEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated or Interdisciplinary? 265

one is really skinny, but it’s got that. It has to be a triangle!” In contrast,
in the same classroom, the teacher recorded a long discussion ending
with, “We don’t know if this design is the best. We need to test it.” Despite
this difference in knowledge foundations between STE and M, however,
the tight linkages of STEM make these domains remarkably complemen-
tary and dependent on one another.
In contrast, arts and literature are a distinctly different way of under-
standing humanity and our world. The nature of knowledge and “truth”
is distinct. Jerome Bruner puts it this way.

There are two modes of cognitive functioning, two modes of thought, each pro-
viding distinctive ways of ordering experience, of constructing reality. The two
(though complementary) are irreducible to one another. Efforts to reduce one
mode to the other or to ignore one at the expense of the other inevitably fail to
capture the rich diversity of thought.
Each of the ways of knowing, moreover, has operating principles of its own
and its own criteria of well-formedness. They differ radically in their procedures
for verification. A good story and a well-formed argument are different natural
kinds. Both can be used as means for convincing another. Yet what they con-
vince of is fundamentally different: arguments convince one of their truth, sto-
ries of their lifelikeness. The one verifies by eventual appeal to procedures for
establishing formal and empirical proof. The other establishes not truth but
verisimilitude. It has been claimed that the one is a refinement of or an abstrac-
tion from the other. But this must be either false or true only in the most unen-
lightening way. (Bruner, 1986, p. 11)

The first, Bruner calls the “logico-scientific,” and it includes all of

STEM. The second, the narrative/artistic way of knowing, includes rea-
soning and experience, of course, but through literature and the arts,
interpreting the meaning of existence, beauty, and the “verisimilitudes of
intention” (p. 11). As Einstein said, “Not everything that can be counted,
counts; and not everything that counts, can be counted.”
Thus, we return to a critical point: Yes, we want arts and literature,
social and emotional development, all seamlessly connected to STEM. For
example, we know science experiences are related to children’s vocabulary
growth (French, 2004) and use of more complex grammatical structures,
such as causal connectives (Peterson & French, 2008). However,
266 D. H. Clements and J. Sarama

expanding STEM to include these other domains muddies the concep-

tual waters and expands STEM’s nature to incoherence. How then should
we connect them? That is the topic of the next section, addressing the
second tendency in early childhood STEM.

Integrated or Interdisciplinary?
Given the connections, it is reasonable to claim that curricula and peda-
gogical approaches should fully integrate all aspects of STEM and other
domains. That is, every planned or emergent experience should be guided
to include all valued domains. However, the history of such educational
efforts and research evaluations raise concerns about such complete
integration.

Problems with the Fully Integrated Approach

Research comparing various types of curricula do not support such full

integration. For example, reviews of fully integrated curricula (e.g., activ-
ities that involve all subject matter areas) in preschool and higher reveal
little evidence that they are superior to traditional structures and that
there are challenges in implementing such curricula (Czerniak, Weber Jr.,
Sandmann, & Ahern, 1999; George, 1996; Preschool Curriculum
Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008).
Why might this be so? One hint emerged from half-century-old inte-
grated science and mathematics National Science Foundation (NSF)-
funded projects such as USMES (Ellis, 2004). USMES is an acronym for
Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools, although it
was informally renamed by some Unified Science and Mathematics and
English for Schools due to the large amount of language and literacy
included. One of us worked with local fifth and sixth grades implement-
ing units. The integration of all these domains was clear. The problem
was that the mathematics almost never surpassed adding and subtracting
two-digit numbers. This taught nothing in mathematics to these
intermediate-­ grade students. They needed daily work with division,
 13 STEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated or Interdisciplinary? 267

fractions, advanced measurement and geometry, and so forth—and the

only mathematics they did for months was second grade level. The proj-
ect took precedence over the needs of the subject. One sees similar exam-
ples in early childhood. For example, planting seeds in Spring is good for
science in pre-K or Kindergarten. Counting those that germinated for
each student is not good mathematics for those children.2

Creating the Interdisciplinary Approach

For this reason and based on our belief that each domain requires some
unique strategies for teaching and learning, we created an interdisciplin-
ary approach, in which rich connections are made between domains, but
each retains its core conceptual, procedural, and knowledge foundation
(epistemological) structures. That is, two or more domains would always
(albeit only) be integrated when that combination is both consistent and
complementary with those structures for each domain. Thus, for exam-
ple, children gain exposure to prerequisite mathematics skills in an appro-
priate sequence and science inquiry is designed to promote a deep
understanding of conceptual content and science processes. On the other
hand, when connections are drawn between mathematics and science,
they are genuine and detailed, with their impact undiluted by less fruitful
attempts at integration.
To realize the potential of this approach, we created an interdisciplin-
ary curriculum for science/engineering, mathematics, literacy, and social-­
emotional learning called “Connect4Learning” (C4L, Sarama,
Brenneman, Clements, Duke, & Hemmeter, 2016). The “4” in C4L
refers to the fact that most children in pre-K, the setting we are targeting,
are 4 years old and to the 4 domains we emphasize. And, of course, we
use the homophone (“four”/“for”) to emphasize that we connect the
domains for learning. That is, we provide supports to teachers and chil-
dren to make connections within and among the domains to support the
learning and development of the “whole child.” Thus, we believe that it is
possible to provide high-quality learning experiences for young children
2
Especially for our own children, except for possibly their concept of zero! They routinely brought
home cups containing only very wet mud.
268 D. H. Clements and J. Sarama

across all critical domains—not only in the language and literacy and
social-emotional domains—and that the fundamental academic domains
of STEM provide rich content on which to build these learning experi-
ences. We integrate them whenever it is advantageous to each of the
domains so connected but do not force integration. Further, “we” means all
the experts we collaborated with us on C4L: Dr. Kimberley Brenneman
in science and engineering, Dr. Nell Duke in language and literacy, and
Dr. Mary Louise Hemmeter in social and emotional development.
Working together, these five authors, along with many graduate research
assistants, especially Lindsay N. Giroux and Lynne M. Watanabe, created
a series of units, integrating instructional activities when appropriate—if
and only if such integration represents a happy alignment in which the
cognitive activity serves children’s development along learning trajectories
in two or more core domains. Thus, we determined the best way to struc-
ture the complex interaction among the domains. One strategy was to
begin with mathematics for which there is a research-based developmental
sequence of core concepts and core process skills (Clements & Sarama,
2014; Sarama & Clements, 2009) and then to determine connections to
science. Based on this analysis, the science units could often be sequenced
to maximize opportunities for integration, allowing these units to influ-
ence the placement and sequence of the relatively independent (e.g.,
geometry vs. number) mathematics learning trajectories.
Language and literacy competencies were structured into these
mathematics-­and-science units, informed by the broader learning trajec-
tories of language and literacy (e.g., phonemic awareness and alphabet
recognition to early graphophonemic analysis). We employed pedagogi-
cal strategies for implementing these instructional activities in ways
known to foster social-emotional development and self-regulation.
Further, we used social contexts and practices to provide a context for
providing instruction across domains. For example, Think-Pair-Share is
used during read-aloud and cooperative learning activities are used to
teach content from other domains.
We all recognized the disadvantages of this interdisciplinary approach,
especially that the careful curricular planning and integration it requires
are quite difficult. Extending our previous example, we wanted to do the
garden unit in the Spring but agreed that counting the number of seeds
 13 STEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated or Interdisciplinary? 269

each child germinates did not fit our mathematical learning trajectories,
which were far beyond such simple counting. Therefore, this case, the
science topic determined the sequence and we planned that some arith-
metic operations would be involved. Moreover, we focused most of the
mathematics activities on geometric shape composition (e.g., making
pictures of flowers by composing shapes to make compound shapes),
which were developed at a similar time of year in the original learning
trajectories (e.g., Clements & Sarama, 2004, 2014; Sarama & Clements,
2009). This is a main reason we created the C4L curriculum, to spend
years wrestling with these difficulties to provide examples of research-­
based interdisciplinary educational units.

An Example Unit

One C4L unit focuses on how structures and tools work and how to
make and do things (Clements, Sarama, Brenneman, Duke, & Hemmeter,
2020; Sarama et al., 2016). As an example of rich integration among four
domains, teachers read Albert’s Alphabet, by Leslie Tryon, in which
Albert the duck reads a letter from his supervisor asking him to make all
26 letters throughout their park. Children describe (many pages have no
text) and discuss how Albert used materials and forms. They reason about
structure and function—straight, rigid lumber works build letters like A
and E, but B, C, and D need curved pipe or flexible materials. Later,
children worked together to choose materials to make their own letters
such as cutting paper straws to make line segments for an F, but flexible
chenille sticks for the curves of a C. Children found yarn to be flexible
enough, but it did not hold its shape. Science includes physics and the
identification of attributes of materials, technology, and engineering in
the choice and manipulation of materials and recognition of form and
function, and mathematics in the geometric relations (one child: “A has
two straight lines the same length, one slanted this way, one slanted that
way, and a shorter straight line between them. That makes a triangle at
the top!”). The literacy connections are clear, from books to letter naming
(and “writing”), and positive social interactions are engendered as chil-
dren solved problems cooperatively and shared solutions.
270 D. H. Clements and J. Sarama

The themes continue with a read-aloud of Spoon, by Amy Krause

Rosenthal. The main character, Spoon, wishes he were more like his
friends Fork, Knife, and Chopsticks because they can twirl spaghetti
(Fork) and cut food (Knife). Children discussed form and function ques-
tions such as “Why is Fork better than Spoon for twirling spaghetti?” and
“What parts does Fork have that Spoon doesn’t have?” Later in the read
aloud, when Spoon’s mother helps him to recognize his own special tal-
ents, the children discussed questions such as “What is special about a
spoon that makes it a good tool for eating soup?” In a discussion of this
literature, children discuss not only structure and function, but also
social and emotional learning themes. Later, they engaged in a chopstick
challenge, attempting to pick up beads and pom-poms with chopsticks,
and made connections about how an object’s form, material, and attri-
butes affect its function. Note that they saw that technology is not just
computers—it includes tools like chopsticks, knives and scissors.
Thinking about the design and function of everyday kitchen tools con-
tinued with a visit from Conrad the Confused Chameleon. Conrad
couldn’t find a bowl for his breakfast cereal. Children help him under-
stand why, despite its shape, a colander was not a good substitute and
why a flat plate—despite having no holes—wasn’t either! In small-group
learning experiences and related centers, the children had more opportu-
nities to explore the structures and functions of common tools
(technologies).
What experiences were less integrated but just right for the children?
Activities on calming strategies and solving social problem were clearly in
the social-emotional domain. Although they included language develop-
ment, STEM is not forced into these concentrated activities. In mathe-
matics, playful fast focus activities help children (a) recognize small
quantities—like three beads—quickly without counting (known as
“subitizing”) and (b) construct understanding of the connection between
counting and simple addition and subtraction (add one, the result is the
next counting number). Similarly, the language arts are emphasized in
“fast focus” lessons on P (name and linking to its sound) and on the fea-
tures and use of a how-to text (materials, steps—preparing for the final
project as we’ll see). The children were strongly invested in following the
procedure for making their snack, ants on a log.
 13 STEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated or Interdisciplinary? 271

All these build the foundation for the unit project, in which children
imagine, design, and create toys. In small groups, children worked as
engineers to first determine the best ball to use (various options were
available) and then figure out (by testing their ideas) what size hole they’d
need to create to make a good scoop to catch their ball. They eventually
produce a procedural text on how to make a ball and scoop using a
research-supported instructional technique called interactive writing
(Hall et al. 2014). That is, the teacher is the primary writer; however, the
children and the teacher compose the text together, with the children
contributing some of the writing.
Creating and sharing the toys and informational texts complete the
curricular unit, but the preschoolers also keep duplicate toys they make.
They use these toys (and many others) in dramatic play, where they pre-
tended to buy and sell toys in their own toy store. They made signs, lists,
and price tags and then took the roles of cashier, bagger, wrapper, and
shipper. So, once again, we see carefully planned, fruitful integration.

Final Words: What We Are and Are Not Saying

We argue that extending the STEM acronym is unwise, as it simultane-
ously weakens the coherence of the STEM domains and excludes other
domains that are critical to the construction of rich interdisciplinary edu-
cational experiences for young children. We provided three reasons for
this position.

• STEM is a serious movement across ages and countries with which we

should align.
• Adding other subjects to STEM and leaving other domains out is not
justifiable.
• Adding other domains weakens the content, pedagogical, and knowl-
edge foundation coherence of STEM.

We are not saying STEM is more important than or unrelated to these

other domains. Young children need high-quality experiences with
them all.
272 D. H. Clements and J. Sarama

We further argue that a fully integrated approach to early childhood

education, within which all experiences are guided to include all valued
domains is also unwise. Instead, we define an interdisciplinary approach
as one in which rich connections are made between domains, but each
retains its core conceptual, procedural, and epistemological structures.
Thus, we are not saying domains should be taught separately—quite
the opposite. We celebrate integration, but only as it serves the needs of
each domain. Thus, we believe educational planning, simultaneously from
balanced and interactive integrated and separate disciplinary perspec-
tives, provides the “best of all worlds.”
The interdisciplinary approach promoted here suggests the following
guidelines (Clements, Sarama, Brenneman, et al., 2020).

• Don’t underestimate what children can do in each domain.

• Incorporate research-supported practices: Specific techniques inside
and outside of STEM, such as providing practice with subitizing and
interactive writing, can be embedded within and contribute to the
unit project’s purpose.
• Establish a real-world purpose for children’s STEM projects.
• Consider the role of each domain in the project: It may be easier to see
where the science and mathematics come in but be sure to consider the
technology and engineering as well as literacy, music, the arts, gross
and fine motor, and so on.
• Take an interdisciplinary approach. Look for all possible connections
between domains, but avoid forcing integration.
• Attend to all of the science disciplines: Too often, science education
with young children focuses on biology (such as learning about ani-
mals and habitats) to the exclusion of earth science, engineering, and
physical science.

Acknowledgment This work was supported in part by the National Science

Foundation under Grant No. DRL-1020118. Any opinions, findings, and
­conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
 13 STEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated or Interdisciplinary? 273

References
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics
education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 81–89. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_1
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The
learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Brenneman, K., Duke, N. K., & Hemmeter,
M. L. (2020). STREAM education at work—No, at play! A toy-making unit.
YC Young Children, 75(2), 36–43.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Germeroth, C. (2016). Learning executive
function and early mathematics: Directions of causal relations. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 36(3), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecresq.2015.12.009
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Layzer, C., Unlu, F., & Fesler, L. (2020). Effects
on mathematics and executive function of a mathematics and play interven-
tion versus mathematics alone. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
51(3), 301–333. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresemtheduc-­2019-­0069
Committee on STEM Education. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s
strategy for STEM education. Washington, DC: Office of Science and
Technology Policy. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-­content/
uploads/2018/12/STEM-­Education-­Strategic-­Plan-­2018.pdf
Czerniak, C. M., Weber Jr., W. B., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (1999). A litera-
ture review of science and mathematics integration. School Science and
Mathematics, 99(8), 421–430.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C.,
Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement.
Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0012-­1649.43.6.1428
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2011). The nature and impact of early achieve-
ment skills, attention skills, and behavior problems. In G. J. Duncan &
R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain
life chances of low-income children (pp. 47–70). New York: Sage.
Ellis, A. K. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory. New York: Routledge.
274 D. H. Clements and J. Sarama

French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early child-

hood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 138–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.004
Furman, R. L. (2017). STEM needs to be updated to STREAM. Retrieved from
website: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stem-­needs-­updated-­to-­str_b_
5461814?guccounter=1
George, P. S. (1996). The integrated curriculum: A reality check. Middle School
Journal, 28(1), 12–19.
Grissmer, D., Grimm, K. J., Aiyer, S. M., Murrah, W. M., & Steele, J. S. (2010).
Fine motor skills and early comprehension of the world: Two new school
readiness indicators. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1008–1017. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0020104 and https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020104.supp
(Supplemental)
Hall, A. H., Toland, M. D., Grisham-Brown, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Exploring
interactive writing as an effective practice for increasing Head Start students’
alphabet knowledge skills. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 423–430.
Institute of Medicine (IOM) and National Research Council (NRC). (2015).
Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying founda-
tion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
McClure, E. R., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N., Nichols, J.,
Kendall-Taylor, N., et al. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, tech-
nology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. New York: The
Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
McCoy, D. C., Yoshikawa, H., Ziol-Guest, K. M., Duncan, G. J., Schindler,
H. S., Magnuson, K., et al. (2017). Impacts of early childhood education on
medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher,
46(8), 474–487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17737739
Peterson, S. M., & French, L. (2008). Supporting young children’s explanations
through inquiry science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
23, 395–408.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008). Effects of pre-
school curriculum programs on school readiness (NCER 2008–2009). Retrieved
from Government Printing Office website: http://ncer.ed.gov
Purpura, D. J., Hume, L. E., Sims, D. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early lit-
eracy and early numeracy: The value of including early literacy skills in the
prediction of numeracy development. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 110, 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004
 13 STEM or STEAM or STREAM? Integrated or Interdisciplinary? 275

Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathemat-
ics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological
Science, 24, 1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466268
Sadler, P. M., & Tai, R. H. (2007). The two high-school pillars supporting col-
lege science. Science, 317(27), 457–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1144214
Sarama, J., Brenneman, K., Clements, D. H., Duke, N. K., & Hemmeter,
M. L. (2016). Connect4Learning: The Pre-K curriculum. Lewisville, NC:
Connect4Learning.
Sarama, J., Brenneman, K., Clements, D. H., Duke, N. K., & Hemmeter,
M. L. (2017). Interdisciplinary teaching across multiple domains: The C4L
(Connect4Learning) curriculum. In L. B. Bailey (Ed.), Implementing the com-
mon core state standards across the early childhood curriculum (pp. 1–53).
New York: Routledge.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education
research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York: Routledge.
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Nielsen, N., Blanton, M., Romance, N., Hoover,
M., … McCulloch, C. (2018). Considerations for STEM education from PreK
through grade 3. Retrieved from Education Development Center, Inc. web-
site: http://cadrek12.org/resources/considerations-­stem-­education-­prek-­
through-­grade-­3
Sarama, J., Lange, A., Clements, D. H., & Wolfe, C. B. (2012). The impacts of
an early mathematics curriculum on emerging literacy and language. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecresq.2011.12.002
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. https://doi.org/10.310
2/0013189X14553660
 Index

A B
Aesthetic, 45, 103, 117, 118, 122, Binary, 96–99
146, 150 Bodies, 181, 205, 206,
Aesthetically, 122, 124, 141, 142, 209–212, 224
146, 208 Bruner, 143, 175, 182, 265
Agency, 207, 208, 212, 226
Analyse, 12, 16, 24, 46, 220, 243
Arts, 2, 14, 23–25, 29, 30, 34, 35, C
41–45, 55, 60, 68, 88, 89, 97, Camera, 43, 45–47, 49–53, 55, 59,
103, 117, 122, 123, 141, 189, 66, 70, 72, 231
193, 262–265, 270, 272 Challenge/challenges/challen
Assessment, 11–13, 70, 82, 221, ging, 14, 16, 23, 26, 27, 31,
230, 231 33–35, 88, 91, 117, 127,
Attention, 28, 43, 66–68, 105, 120, 150, 203, 205, 209, 238,
135, 137, 142, 146, 205, 209, 246, 266, 270
212, 218, 220, 223, 224, 226, Child-centred/child-directed/
227, 230, 232 child-led, 23, 83, 202
Augmented Reality (AR), 66, 67, 83 Classify/classifying/classification, 2,
See also Sandbox 5, 6, 17, 196, 249, 258
Authentic, 12, 35, 36, 106, 183, Code/coding, 73, 90, 96, 97,
195, 238–240, 242, 263 99–101, 243

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 277
C. Cohrssen, S. Garvis (eds.), Embedding STEAM in Early Childhood Education and
Care, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65624-9
278 Index

Cognition/cognitive/cognitively, 35, 244, 246, 251, 254, 257, 263,

37, 42, 44, 67, 88, 90, 91, 96, 266–268, 272
120, 136, 143, 146, 147, 151, Connect/connected/connecting/
206, 218, 219, 230, 268 connections/connectivity, 22,
Collaborate/collaborated/ 50, 59, 72, 92, 103, 106, 119,
collaboration/collaborating/ 127, 137, 138, 146, 148, 150,
collaborative/collaboratively, 151, 183, 186, 189, 190, 192,
28, 31, 35, 36, 45, 69, 75, 76, 195, 213, 247, 255, 264–267,
81–83, 88–90, 106, 121, 148, 269, 270, 272
181–183, 186, 187, 189, 196, Connect4Learning, 267
225, 226, 230, 238, 241–243, Consolidate, 7, 8, 13, 18, 65, 140,
245, 252, 254, 255, 257, 268 183, 218, 221, 231
Communicate/communicating/ Construct/constructivist/
communicators/ constructivism/co-construct/
communication, 7–8, 12, 17, co-constructivist/
28, 46, 69, 76, 121, 141, 146, co-constructivism/
147, 149, 150, 207, 210, co-producer, 26, 29, 30, 69,
218, 241 72, 73, 75–77, 80, 83, 92,
Community/communities, 24, 26, 119–122, 125, 127, 140,
29, 32–36, 95, 105, 107, 108, 141, 148, 151, 182, 186,
116, 118, 190, 191, 240, 241, 187, 195, 205, 207, 210,
250, 257 225, 258, 262, 270, 271
Computer/computers/computing/ Context/contextualise/
computational, 29, 32, 43, 46, contextualised, 4, 8, 11,
65, 66, 72, 88, 90, 92, 93, 23–25, 30, 35, 42–45, 71, 78,
95–99, 101, 107, 108, 227, 81–83, 89, 90, 92, 95, 105,
232, 270 117, 119, 122, 123, 127, 140,
Concept/concepts/conceptual/ 174, 182, 187, 188, 195, 207,
conceptually/ 212, 219, 220, 238–240,
conceptualisation/ 242–246, 254, 255, 257,
conceptualization, 7, 8, 18, 22, 264, 268
23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37, 43, Continuum, 203
46–49, 59, 60, 69, 70, 78, 81, See also Progression; ­Trajectory/
83, 89, 95, 96, 99–101, 105, trajectories
108, 121–123, 136, 139–143, Conversation/conversational/
146, 148, 150, 151, 173, 174, conversations, 2, 28, 29, 174,
176, 181–183, 186, 188, 193, 176, 212, 217–220, 223, 224,
203–208, 211, 213, 217, 218, 227, 241–245, 252, 254,
220–226, 228, 231, 232, 239, 255, 257
 Index 279

Create/creates/creating/creation/ 176, 184, 188, 203, 207,

creatively/creativity, 1, 2, 4, 6, 210, 212, 221, 245, 249,
13, 16, 22, 23, 29, 31, 34, 255, 258, 269
42–47, 50–53, 55, 58–60, 66, Design/design-based/designing, 22,
68, 70, 73, 75–77, 80–83, 25–37, 45, 77, 88, 89, 94, 95,
88–90, 92, 95–98, 100–103, 99, 102, 103, 107, 116–122,
117, 118, 120–122, 124, 125, 125, 127, 141, 146, 195, 226,
137–139, 141, 143, 145–147, 228, 231, 240–242, 244, 252,
149–151, 182, 189, 190, 255, 257, 265, 267, 270, 271
193–195, 203, 207, 211, 212, Develops/developing/developmental/
219, 222, 224, 227, 228, 230, developmentally, 2, 4–8, 13,
238, 240–242, 244, 246, 249, 17, 22, 32, 42–45, 55, 59, 69,
256, 257, 263, 267–269, 271 70, 72, 75, 77, 78, 82, 83, 88,
Culture/cultural, 24, 29, 35, 42–44, 90, 91, 93, 96, 100, 102, 104,
83, 90, 102, 117, 183, 193 108, 116, 118–121, 127, 139,
Curious/curiosity, 76, 95, 108, 186, 143, 173, 175, 181, 186,
241, 254 202–204, 208, 212, 218–220,
Curricula/curriculum, 14, 23–24, 226, 239, 263–265, 267,
44, 55, 66, 68, 69, 93, 117, 268, 270
123, 135, 151, 189–191, 195, Dewey, J., 182
202, 238, 240, 243, 255, 257, Dialogue, 14, 26, 51, 181
258, 263, 266, 267 Digital/digitalisation, 4, 25, 29–33,
35, 37, 41–50, 53, 55, 58, 60,
65, 66, 68, 70–72, 75, 81–83,
D 88, 91–92, 96, 108, 194, 219,
Dance, 42, 52, 90, 138, 140, 237, 240
142–150, 194, 195, 218, 263 Discuss/discussion/discussions, 2, 5,
Demonstrate/demonstrates/ 7, 8, 27–30, 33, 42, 48, 72,
demonstration/demonstrations, 73, 76, 80, 89, 97, 102, 105,
4, 5, 11–14, 25, 45, 52, 59, 121–123, 127, 144, 145, 148,
73, 76, 78, 82, 88, 89, 92, 174, 182, 187, 188, 192, 196,
106, 125, 138, 139, 143, 146, 203, 211, 218, 222, 226, 245,
149, 188, 190, 203–205, 211, 249, 254, 255, 262, 264, 265,
220, 230, 240 269, 270
Describe/described/describes/ Dispositions, 36, 121, 150, 151,
describing, 6–8, 12, 25, 42, 174, 182, 203, 238, 257
43, 51, 69, 108, 117, 126, Domain/s, 68, 88, 91, 115, 118,
136, 139, 142, 173, 174, 120, 140, 148, 261–272
280 Index

Drama/dramatic/dramatize/ 228, 230, 238, 242, 243,

dramatizing, 29, 30, 42, 246, 249, 252, 257,
139–142, 146, 195, 245, 271 258, 270
Draw/drawing/drawings/drawing-­ Engineer/engineering/engineering-­
telling/drawing-tellings, 1, 4, based/engineers, 1, 14, 34, 44,
11, 22, 28–30, 42, 45, 49–53, 68, 81, 87–93, 95, 100, 102,
60, 67, 68, 115, 118, 122, 103, 106, 108, 115–127, 141,
123, 127, 140, 141, 143, 144, 193, 219, 240, 252, 263, 269,
147–150, 181, 183, 194–196, 271, 272
207, 219, 223, 227, 248, 251, Environment/environments/
252, 267 environs, 1, 4, 6, 8, 32, 34, 36,
43, 66, 68, 78, 83, 90, 99,
115, 122, 255
E Epistemic, 43, 52, 53, 70, 73, 75,
Ecologies, 240–242, 244, 77, 78, 82
246, 254–257 Evidence/evidence-based, 7, 11, 12,
Elementary, see Primary 45, 65, 90, 120, 149, 202,
Embody/embodied/embodiment/ 204, 210, 219, 221, 226, 228,
embodying, 76, 138, 148–150, 232, 261, 263
206, 223, 224, 229, 244 Experience/experiencing/experiential,
Emotion/emotional/emotions, 138, 2, 8, 13, 16, 21, 33, 34,
139, 142, 144, 146, 149, 150, 42–45, 50, 53, 59, 67, 71, 78,
207, 208, 219, 230, 263, 265, 81, 83, 91, 93, 102, 106,
267, 268 115–117, 120–123, 126, 135,
Encourage/encouraged/encourages/ 137–139, 141, 143, 144, 146,
encouraging, 4, 6–8, 28, 35, 147, 150, 174, 182, 183, 186,
36, 45, 59, 95, 101, 103, 105, 188, 190, 191, 205, 206, 208,
108, 122, 124, 176, 182, 211, 219, 231, 238, 239, 245,
186–188, 190, 194, 195, 211, 262, 264, 267, 270, 272
212, 222, 226, 228, 229, 232, Experiment/experimentation/
240, 242 experimenting/experiments, 1,
Engage/engaged/engagement/ 3, 7, 13, 21, 22, 29, 32, 34,
engages/engaging, 2, 22, 26, 80, 83, 89, 93, 150, 182, 183,
31, 36, 41, 43, 44, 47, 59, 196, 238, 252
66–68, 70, 82, 90, 91, 93, Explain/explained/explaining/
103, 106, 115, 116, 119, explains/explanation, 8, 14, 16,
120, 123, 125, 136, 142, 25, 27, 51, 70, 77, 126, 137,
143, 146, 149, 150, 173, 147, 187, 188, 205, 209, 212,
175, 182, 183, 190, 222, 219, 243
 Index 281

Exploration/explorations/ H
exploratory/explore/ Habits of mind, 118–122, 125
explored/explores/ Hypotheses/hypothesis, 93, 106,
exploring, 5–8, 13, 17, 124, 182, 183, 222, 239
22, 23, 25, 28, 36, 65,
68–70, 73, 76, 82, 88,
92–95, 97, 99–102, 104, I
143, 145, 173, 174, 193, Iconic, iconic/symbolic, 143,
203, 211, 218, 248 149, 175
Imaginary/imagination/imaginations/
imaginative, 43, 68, 70, 78, 82,
F 83, 102, 120, 136, 138, 142,
Facilitate/facilitates/ 143, 149, 150, 224
facilitating/facilitation/ Innovate/innovated/innovation/
facilitator, 23, 35, 46, innovations/innovative, 30,
49, 51–55, 72, 82, 102, 43–45, 66, 68, 70, 82, 88, 108,
118, 119, 144, 187, 222, 125, 151, 189, 195, 239, 241
228, 238, 242 Inquiries/inquiry/inquiry-based, 5,
Family/family-based, 174 21, 93, 106, 117, 143,
See also Parent 173–174, 182–186, 188, 190,
Flexibility/flexible, 13, 35, 36, 151, 194–196, 222, 230, 238, 242,
240, 242, 255, 269 244–255, 257, 267
Foundation/foundational/ Integrate/integrated/integrates/
foundations, 3, 34, 88–90, integrating/integration, 5, 14,
115, 118, 121, 176, 182, 189, 21, 22, 35, 37, 53, 58, 82, 88,
219, 220, 230, 240, 264, 265, 90, 95, 96, 99, 102, 103, 117,
267, 271 119, 122, 123, 138–140,
Framework, 4, 43, 44, 53, 70, 71, 148–151, 189, 190, 193, 195,
82, 83, 181, 182 202, 239, 266–272
See also Curricula/curriculum Intentional/intentionally, 7, 34, 37,
53, 76, 149, 187–188, 226,
230, 232, 240
G Interacting/interaction/interactional/
Gardner, 140, 227 interactions/interactive/
Gender, 1, 37, 88, 106, 181 interacts/Interpersonal, 2, 17,
Gesture, 145, 146, 148, 207, 18, 30, 31, 46, 66–68, 72, 73,
222–224, 231 75, 76, 80, 82, 97, 119, 120,
Growth mindset, 104–105 137, 183, 204–206, 211,
See also Mindset 217–232, 258, 268, 269, 272
282 Index

Inter-connected, 3 103, 116, 122, 135, 137, 138,

Inter-disciplinary/interdisciplinary, 143, 150, 151, 173, 176, 181,
21, 89, 95, 118, 119, 122, 182, 184, 187, 189, 202, 203,
126, 238–240, 205–211, 217–219, 221, 226,
245–254, 266–272 230, 238, 240, 241, 245–249,
Interest/s, 2, 4, 6, 11–13, 16, 18, 23, 254, 255, 257, 258, 267, 270
26, 28, 34–36, 88, 90, 124, Ludic, 43, 53, 70, 73, 77, 78, 82
144, 181, 183, 196, 202, 208,
211, 238, 261
Interpersonal, see Interacts M
Inter-related, 149 Makerspaces, 94, 106, 107
Intersubjectivity, 220, 221 Math/mathematics/mathematical/
Intra-acts/intra-active, 207–212 mathematically/mathematics/
Investigate/investigated/ mathematics-related/
investigating/investigation/ mathematize, 3, 14, 22, 29,
investigations, 16, 18, 45, 55, 34, 43, 44, 68, 87, 90, 93,
70, 75, 76, 82, 181–183, 187, 95, 106, 116, 118, 120, 123,
189, 204, 222, 238, 241, 254 138, 140, 141, 143, 146,
149, 150, 176, 181–183,
186, 187, 189, 193, 202,
K 203, 206, 218, 223, 230,
Kinaesthetic, 137, 140, 150, 240 237, 240, 263, 266, 269
Knowledge/knowledge-in-­ Media/multimedia, 7, 25, 30, 55,
interaction, 2, 7, 8, 14, 26, 34, 58, 60, 106
43, 53, 60, 70, 72, 90 Meta-cognition/meta-cognitive/
metacognition/metacognitive,
35, 37, 90, 147, 151, 218
L Mindset, see Growth mindset
Laban, 140 Modeling/modelling, 36, 104, 106,
Language, 8, 14, 24, 31, 44–46, 51, 118, 182, 186, 187, 206,
89, 96, 97, 119, 139–141, 208, 211
143, 147, 176, 182, 187, 188, Movement/movements/moving, 31,
192, 205–207, 209–212, 217, 32, 42, 45–50, 52, 70, 89–91,
218, 223, 228, 230–232, 243, 96, 99, 101, 126, 136–138,
249, 263, 264, 266, 268, 270 140, 141, 144–150, 238, 261,
Learning/learning-in-interaction, 1, 262, 271
2, 4, 8, 11–14, 22, 31, 35, 42, Multimodal/multimodality, 36,
43, 45, 46, 55, 66, 67, 83, 88, 135–139, 143, 223, 240
 Index 283

N 102, 104–107, 117, 127, 173,

Narrating/narrative/narrative/artistic/ 187, 203, 207, 211–213, 218,
narratives, 33, 45, 73, 141, 219, 224, 232, 258
143, 148, 219, 243–254, 265 See also Family
Natural/naturalistic/nature, 2, 4, 34, Pause/pausing, 48, 93, 145, 221,
44, 55, 89, 93, 116, 118, 123, 223, 226, 227, 229, 230
137, 140, 149, 150, 182, 186, Pedagogical content knowledge, 55
189, 194, 196, 255, 257, Perezhivanie, 150
265, 266 Persevere/perseverance, 105, 117,
Non-living, 4–6 121, 208, 212
Notice/noticed/notices/noticing/ Persist/persistence/persisting, 105,
noticings, 1, 3, 4, 16, 75, 76, 151, 187, 222
87, 173, 174, 209, 211, 245, Photograph/photographic/
246, 254, 256, 258 photographs, 4, 45, 72, 73, 77,
Numeracy, 14, 89, 90 80, 143, 183, 196, 231
Piaget, 135, 137, 182
Plan/planning, 2, 8, 11, 13, 16, 24,
O 27, 34, 35, 37, 53, 99, 119,
Observable/observation/ 121, 147, 186, 196, 202, 204,
observational/observations/ 208, 231, 241, 242, 248, 252,
observe/observed/observes/ 255, 256, 266, 271, 272
observing, 2–4, 6, 7, 11, 12, Play/play-based/play-oriented/
17, 46, 53, 59, 69, 70, 73, 75, played/playful/playfulness/
76, 93, 119, 121, 125, 148, playing/plays/playtime, 1–6,
176, 182, 186, 188, 195, 204, 11, 13, 14, 18, 27, 29, 31–33,
205, 207–211, 222, 240, 243, 35, 41–44, 46–50, 52, 53, 55,
249, 254, 258 58, 59, 65, 66, 68, 70–73,
Open-ended, 2, 14, 16, 36, 92, 139, 75–79, 81–83, 95, 97,
143, 150, 226 99–101, 116, 121, 125,
Outdoor/outdoors/outside, 79, 210, 137–139, 151, 174, 176, 187,
232, 245, 246, 252, 255, 272 189, 194, 202, 207, 209–211,
221, 224, 228, 230–232, 238,
240, 241, 244, 252, 254, 256,
P 258, 270, 271
Parent/parents/parent/carers, 1, 3, 6, Predict/predicted/predicting/
8, 14, 17, 26, 28, 29, 32, prediction/predictions, 2, 6–8,
35–37, 42, 44, 51, 58–60, 66, 13, 17, 95, 105, 119, 122,
67, 70, 82, 83, 88, 91, 94, 99, 137, 182, 188, 193, 263
284 Index

Primary, 23, 31, 34, 44, 46, 249 Q

See also Elementary Question/questioning/questions, 2,
Problem/problem-solve/problem 6–8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 26, 28,
solving/problem-solving/ 33, 34, 47, 50, 78, 93, 95,
finding, 23, 25, 26, 32, 35, 36, 106, 123, 125, 176, 181–183,
43, 69, 76, 78, 93, 99, 101, 186–188, 195, 212, 217, 218,
103, 106, 117, 119, 121, 124, 226, 227, 231, 239, 241, 242,
125, 127, 138, 175, 182, 186, 244, 247, 254, 255, 270
187, 189, 190, 194, 195, 203,
204, 211, 222, 228, 238, 240,
252, 266, 267 R
Process/processes, 1–17, 22, 32–35, Real-world, 34, 78, 81, 102, 105,
42, 46, 50, 59, 67, 69, 72, 73, 106, 115, 118, 195, 272
102, 115, 118–120, 125, 127, Reason/reasoning, 2, 3, 29, 90,
136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 148, 116, 150, 175, 182, 186,
150, 173, 176, 182, 186, 203, 188, 194, 195, 203, 204,
204, 207, 225, 240, 244, 245, 219, 232, 250, 254,
252, 258, 267 262–265, 267, 269, 271
Programming, 87–91, 96, 99, 101 Record/recorded/recorder/recording,
Progression, 209 2, 4, 7–8, 11, 12, 17, 31, 32,
See also Continuum; Trajectory/ 46, 50, 51, 53, 59, 71, 95,
trajectories 145, 148, 186, 224, 244, 248,
Project/s, 22, 25, 31, 33–37, 42, 96, 249, 254, 265
98, 105, 116, 119, 122, 182, Recyclable/recyclables/recycle/
189–193, 195, 196, 208, 230, recycling, 94, 103, 195, 226
241–254, 257, 263, 267, Reflect/reflecting/reflection/
270, 272 reflections/reflective/reflects, 8,
Prompting/prompts, 2, 6, 12, 95, 14, 16–18, 21, 33, 37, 49, 65,
97, 99, 222, 226 77, 78, 106, 122, 150, 184,
Provocation/provocation-based/ 186–188, 193, 203–206, 211,
provocations, 183, 187, 196, 212, 224, 226, 241, 243, 244,
242, 244, 255 254, 255, 257
Puppets, 29–32, 34, 35, 188 Reggio Emilia, 72, 140
Purpose/purposeful/purposefully, 1, Relations/relationship/relationships,
4, 12, 16, 18, 34, 46, 52, 55, 43, 76, 89, 136, 139, 148,
71, 82, 124, 143, 146, 149, 173, 188, 189, 202, 204, 208,
174, 187, 219, 230–232, 255, 209, 219, 224, 230, 243,
257, 272 264, 269
 Index 285

Represent/representation/ 173, 182, 189, 219, 222, 224,

representations/representing/ 237, 238, 240, 249, 252, 256,
represents, 1, 29, 70, 78, 89, 263–265, 267–269, 272
97, 98, 101, 106, 115, 119, Screen-free, 88, 91–103, 107, 108
143, 147, 149, 175, 190, 193, Screen-time, 93, 96
231, 268 Self-control, 150
Research, 6, 7, 55, 66, 67, 69, 72, Self-regulation, 208, 268
73, 83, 88–91, 94, 96, 105, Semiosis/semiotic, 139, 148
108, 119, 123, 143, 183, 190, Sensorial/sensorimotor/sensory/
202, 208, 218, 219, 224, 242, sensory-motor, 93, 135–139,
243, 254, 263, 266, 268, 269, 142–144, 149, 151, 183, 194,
271, 272 206, 207, 211
Responds/responsive/responsiveness, Sequence/sequences/sequencing/
2, 4, 14, 18, 183, 193, 205, sequential, 70, 101, 145, 146,
218, 228, 230–232, 240, 148, 149, 176, 184, 193, 196,
257, 262 206, 217, 220–222, 225, 226,
Robotics, 37, 88–93, 99, 107, 108 229, 230, 232, 267–269
Social-constructivist/socio-­
constructivist, 72, 182
S Sociocultural, 43
Sandbox, see Augmented Spatial, 89, 136, 138, 140, 146,
Reality (AR) 147, 149, 193, 203, 205,
Scaffold/scaffolding, 4, 6, 13, 22, 23, 207, 209, 219, 223, 224,
67, 122, 138, 149, 181, 186, 231, 232, 240
187, 228, 240, 255 Storyboard, 51, 52, 55
School/school-based/school-entry/ Symbolic/symbolize/symbolized/
schooling/schools, 24, 25, 28, symbolization/symbolizes/
34, 36, 37, 44, 46, 72, 73, 78, symbols, 43–45, 50, 70, 78,
87, 88, 92, 94, 101, 106, 108, 81, 82, 137, 140, 143, 146,
115, 117–119, 174, 176, 190, 148, 149, 176, 206
231, 237–241, 249, 255, 257,
264, 266
Science/science-based/science/ T
engineering/sciences/scientific/ Tablet/tablet-based, 43, 65, 70, 90,
scientifically/scientist/scientists, 91, 93, 96, 99, 107
1–18, 22, 24, 29, 32, 34, 44, Talk/talk-in-interaction, 2, 97, 119,
59, 68, 69, 76, 87–89, 92, 93, 141, 174, 194, 195, 211, 212,
95–99, 106, 108, 116, 118, 219–222, 224–226, 228, 230,
123, 138–143, 146, 149, 150, 232, 249
286 Index

Taxonomies, 13 Turn-taking, 99, 217, 220

Technological/technological-based/ 21st century skills, 69, 82, 83, 120,
technologies/technology/ 189, 238
technology-based/technology-­
rich, 6, 14, 29, 30, 34, 37, 42,
66, 89, 106, 116, 118, 141, U
219, 252, 263, 269, 270, 272 Understand/understanding, 3, 6, 8,
Technology-based learning, 66 11, 14, 16, 25–29, 33–35, 44,
Thinking, 1, 2, 6, 8, 14, 16, 22, 53, 55, 66, 69, 70, 73, 75–78,
23, 25, 27, 28, 34–37, 43, 82, 83, 89, 97, 99, 118, 119,
59, 69, 78, 82, 83, 90, 91, 121, 122, 135–137, 139, 140,
93, 96, 101, 117, 118, 142, 143, 146, 149–151, 174,
135–140, 142, 146, 175, 183, 184, 186–190, 193,
149–151, 176, 181, 182, 202–204, 206–212, 219, 221,
186–188, 190, 194–196, 226, 230, 231, 241, 243, 256,
202–208, 211, 212, 218, 267, 270
219, 226, 238, 241, 242,
249, 252, 254, 255, 257,
258, 270 V
Toddler/toddlers/toddler-created, 2, Virtual, 29, 66–69, 71, 72,
42, 58, 59, 66, 83, 93–95, 80–83, 115
175, 176, 182, 183, 187, 194, Vygotsky, L. S., 43, 138, 139,
203–211, 218, 224 146, 150
Toys, 37, 50, 59, 139, 194, 195, 271
Trajectory/trajectories, 3, 203, 206,
209, 212, 268, 269 Z
Transmediated/transmediates/ Zone of proximal development
transmediating, 142, 148 (ZPD), 150