View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Engineering in Preschool: What Little Minds Can Teach Us about Big Skills

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Engineering in Preschool: What Little Minds Can Teach Us about Big Skills
Language: English
Authors: Gurupriya Ramanathan (ORCID 0000-0002-3957-8219), Sydney Cosso, Juli Pool
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2024 52(6):1245-1257.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Preschool Education, Engineering, Learning Activities, Inquiry, Teaching Methods, Teacher Attitudes, Preschool Teachers, Private Schools, Preschool Children, Cooperative Learning, Teacher Role
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-023-01512-9
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: The natural curiosity of young children, makes the preschool period an important time for introducing and reinforcing engineering practices. Engineering here is defined as goal-oriented thinking that addresses problems and decisions within constraints by drawing on available resources. Engineering encompasses hands-on activity, inquiry, teamwork, and other instructional practices that develop children's critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. However, exposure to engineering in early childhood education is mostly incidental, rather than exclusively through engineering. Further, while there is an emerging body of literature on engineering curricula and activities in early childhood, little information is provided about what preschool engineering looks like, as well as reflections from such implementation. The purpose of this study was to implement engineering challenges in a preschool classroom framed in an inquiry-based teaching approach, and to document teacher reflections and lessons learned. The study was conducted in a private preschool program for students aged 3-5, including children with or at-risk for developmental delays. Thirteen preschool students and one preschool teacher participated in this study, wherein, four engineering activities were implemented in the classroom over a four-week period. The teacher's reflections reveal the importance of engineering activities in providing a platform for preschool students with diverse needs to work together, practice skills from a multitude of domains, and engage in authentic peer interactions. Implications for early childhood educators seeking to incorporate engineering experiences in their classroom are shared. Recommendations for practice including how preschool students can meaningfully participate in similar inquiry-driven activities as well as the teacher's role in supporting their participation is discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1429901
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHsbexmDoNwsIUDlIU3_39eAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBbSZdysZnPLKt7t3gIBEICBmnLr3LbHWuyVQLZ8UdzVVeGlMF_seRl23pXScjcLtTXtA92wkx8R3KtDyhYafKKxB23rwZ1Eznk9xE2OjuI0Jp9VPnI-4HlaGA4uLenJoHjliFVr6UVGt5hhpZkOHJFyAc0-k0056_fHQzQNgN-M33KoLjhRsyXwoL2D6bBoojJuEQWzqvqTtm2rfTznHF9TZFrdhAm7PD8vL4I=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178316386;5mx01aug.24;2024Jul10.05:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178316386-1">Engineering in Preschool: What Little Minds Can Teach Us About Big Skills </title> <p>The natural curiosity of young children, makes the preschool period an important time for introducing and reinforcing engineering practices. Engineering here is defined as goal-oriented thinking that addresses problems and decisions within constraints by drawing on available resources. Engineering encompasses hands-on activity, inquiry, teamwork, and other instructional practices that develop children's critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. However, exposure to engineering in early childhood education is mostly incidental, rather than exclusively through engineering. Further, while there is an emerging body of literature on engineering curricula and activities in early childhood, little information is provided about what preschool engineering looks like, as well as reflections from such implementation. The purpose of this study was to implement engineering challenges in a preschool classroom framed in an inquiry-based teaching approach, and to document teacher reflections and lessons learned. The study was conducted in a private preschool program for students aged 3–5, including children with or at-risk for developmental delays. Thirteen preschool students and one preschool teacher participated in this study, wherein, four engineering activities were implemented in the classroom over a four-week period. The teacher's reflections reveal the importance of engineering activities in providing a platform for preschool students with diverse needs to work together, practice skills from a multitude of domains, and engage in authentic peer interactions. Implications for early childhood educators seeking to incorporate engineering experiences in their classroom are shared. Recommendations for practice including how preschool students can meaningfully participate in similar inquiry-driven activities as well as the teacher's role in supporting their participation is discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Preschool; Engineering education; Science; Inquiry; Social-emotional development</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-2">Opening Vignette</hd> <p>Andrew, William, and Daniel start out building their own houses using various materials provided: recyclable materials, pieces of fabric, and cardboard boxes. None of these students were each other's preferred play partners and initially began work on their own designs. Soon, however, requests and offers for help were provided and two of the students began helping each other out, which then morphed into a common design in which both students were contributing:William was attempting to cut the flaps off a cardboard box for his design:William: Can you help me?Daniel: I can help you with your plan (<emph>approaches William</emph>)William: I need to cut on this line (<emph>points to where the flap is</emph>)...I need to cut all the pieces (<emph>points to all four flaps on the box</emph>)</p> <p>Daniel took over and attempted this task while William proceeded to explore and gather more materials needed for the house. After a few minutes, Benjamin (who was also neither of these students' preferred play partners) joined in:Benjamin: William, I can help youWilliam: We're cutting these pieces off (<emph>demonstrates what Daniel is doing</emph>)</p> <p>Benjamin then joined in helping with this design: while Daniel was on one side of the box cutting a flap off, Benjamin was working on the other side of the box. William brought over different pieces of fabric, some cotton balls, and glue. He then checked in on Daniel and Benjamin:William: Are you cutting on the line? (<emph>demonstrates how he wanted it done</emph>)</p> <p>Noticing this, Annie joined in:Annie: What are you doing?Daniel: We're trying to cut these pieces off but the scissors is not working.Annie: I know what you can do, let me show you...(<emph>she goes to the shelf and brings over a different pair of scissors and demonstrates cutting the flaps off with it</emph>)...I used the same scissors on mine, see!</p> <p>The teacher also stepped in at this point to suggest that one student could hold the box so that it did not keep moving across the table while cutting, while the other student could cut the flaps.</p> <p>After a few minutes, Daniel left but rejoined this challenge:Daniel: What are you doing William?William: We finished cutting now we need to glue the paper (<emph>demonstrates to Daniel how he is coloring on the paper and then gluing it</emph>)Daniel: I can glue it for you (<emph>proceeds to help</emph>)Annie: Here's some tape. Use this.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-3">Preschool Engineering</hd> <p>The natural curiosity of young children makes the preschool developmental period an important time for introducing and reinforcing engineering practices (Lippard et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]). The <emph>Framework for K-12 Science Education</emph> (National Research Council [NRC], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]) recommends that students learn how to engage in engineering design practices to solve problems. Particularly, it notes that young children are natural engineers: "...children's capabilities to design structures and use a variety of tools and materials for their own playful purposes can be enhanced by having them pay attention to points of failure and asking them to create and test redesigns." (NRC, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>], p. 70).</p> <p>The authors define engineering in this paper as goal-oriented thinking that addresses problems and decisions within constraints by drawing on available resources. Twenty-first century educational goals encourage classroom discourse that focus on creativity, collaboration, distributed expertise, innovation, higher-order thinking, and life-long learning (Scardamalia, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]). Engineering encompasses hands-on activity, inquiry, teamwork, and other instructional practices that develop children's twenty-first century skills, including critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity (Lachapelle & Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Children use goal-oriented thinking to address problems and make decisions within traditional engineering play such as block building (e.g., how to build a stable tower.). Here, children have to think about their goal (i.e., building a tower that will not fall, within the constraints presented, how tall it can be without falling over, and the available resources), and in other activities such as dramatic play and art (Lippard et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref6">16</reflink>]). In fact, preschool children are primed for engineering thinking. Recent work by Lucas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]) indicates that preschool-age children are particularly open to taking in information and effective at using that information to formulate hypotheses. Children are more likely to explore broadly and test hypotheses when given open-ended opportunities with materials, as opposed to direct instruction (Bonawitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]). These situations arise authentically whenever children engage in solving problems within a given set of constraints to reach a decision or meet a goal.</p> <p>The developmental engineering hypothesis also suggests that young children's exploratory, inquisitive, and creative behaviors resemble traits highly desirable in engineering (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]). Evangelou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>]) argued that engineering and early childhood education share quite a bit in common. In their research framework outlining the commonalities as well as precursor ideas that the two fields share, Evangelou et al. suggests that some of the most desirable engineering educational outcomes are addressed via the same educational structures that are important to early childhood education as well.</p> <p>Preliminary research findings examining the developmental appropriateness of engineering in early childhood suggest that activities and materials related to engineering are suitable for young children (Bagiati, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]). Additionally, these findings suggest that precursors to engineering knowledge and behaviors are already present in children of preschool age (Bagiati, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]; Brophy & Evangelou, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]; Evangelou et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]; Van Meeteren & Zan, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref15">28</reflink>]). Studies of preschool students engaging in block-building activities and play projects have focused on instances and patterns of the engineering design process, and on ways in which children construct and communicate their designs as evidence of precursors to engineering thinking (Bagiati, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]; Brophy & Evangelou, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]; Evangelou et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]; Johnsey, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]). Brophy and Evangelou ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]) focused on the processes that young children use to build with blocks. In their analysis of a series of videotaped vignettes, the researchers concluded that children are as interested in the process of block building as they are in the product. For instance, children showed interest in the process of designing and building something stable with blocks; problem-solving when coming across obstacles; asking and offering suggestions; and following peers' suggestions. Of particular importance here is the finding that children demonstrated the ability to collaborate with each other to come up with the final construction, and the ability to follow a child identified as the 'expert' and work under his/her instructions. Findings from such studies support the notion that not only are early engineering behaviors present in young children's play, but also that young children can engage in collaborative work to complete a shared goal, an essential aspect of the engineering design process (hereon referred to as EDP).</p> <p>The EDP is a cyclical method that students follow to collectively build a solution to a problem (Gruber-Hine, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]). The EDP at an elementary level includes: defining a problem, brainstorming possible solutions, planning and creating a solution, testing and evaluating a solution, redesigning to improve a solution, and communicating solutions (Gruber-Hine, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are multiple examples in the literature of young children engaging collaboratively in engineering practices that range from designing playground renovations (Blank & Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]) to construction of homes for birds (Tippet & Milford, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref24">26</reflink>]) to designing an open and closed circuit using a variety of tools (Torres-Crespo et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]). In each case, students were presented with a problem relevant to their lives and then encouraged to and supported in engaging in the EDP. This meant that students defined a problem, brainstormed possible solutions, planned and created a solution, tested and evaluated the solution, redesigned to improve the solution, and tested it again. While engaging in the EDP, students have to verbally communicate with each other. This can take on various forms whether it be to ask questions about the problem, collaborate in brainstorming ideas and exploring materials, sharing materials, making predictions, collaborate in creating and testing solutions, and evaluating the solutions. Numerous categories of learning are identified within the EDP, including skills such as identifying a need, defining a problem to solve, conducting research, understanding constraints, developing criteria to evaluate ideas, coming up with alternative solutions, analyzing the outcomes, making decisions, documenting design specifications and communicating ideas (Mosborg et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref26">19</reflink>]). Categorized learning outcomes following the EDP include learning by doing, learning from brainstorming and prototyping, learning by iteration, learning from feedback and failure, learning by noticing, drawing, and troubleshooting, learning by dialoguing with ideas, materials and people, and learning from reflection.</p> <p>Young children's learning hinges on their ability to explore their environments, ask questions, address problems, identify solutions, and make decisions. Yet, exposure to engineering in early childhood education is mostly incidental as part of teaching and learning through science, technology, and mathematics, rather than exclusively through engineering (Bagiati & Evangelou, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]). This is made even more challenging when considering that most educators have not experienced engineering or participated in engineering pedagogical development while training in teacher education programs (Cunningham & Carlsen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]). Even though many early childhood educators believe in the importance and appropriateness of teaching STEM and in particular engineering to young children (Park et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]), preschool teachers often report feeling unprepared to teach engineering (Greenfield et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, while there is an emerging body of literature on implementation of engineering activities or curricula in early childhood, little information is provided about what preschool engineering (specifically, ages 3–4) looks like, as well as reflections from such implementation. The purpose of the current study was to implement engineering challenges in a preschool classroom framed in an inquiry-based teaching approach, rather than follow a specific curriculum, and to document reflections and lessons learned. A description of the study is provided below. In order to provide more context on what we mean by inquiry-based teaching approach, a description of the teacher's classroom/teaching philosophy and approach is also provided. This is followed by the teacher's reflections on the engineering challenges implemented, before ending with suggestions for practitioners on how to get started with engineering in their own classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-4">Current Study</hd> <p>The study was conducted in a private preschool setting that provides education to children ages 3–5, including children with or at-risk for developmental delays. The classroom participating in the study had 13 students that were four years of age. This study was conducted between December-February with most students turning five years old by the Spring of that school year.</p> <p>There were two co-teachers in the classroom. The teacher who participated in this study (hereon referred to as 'the teacher') was a first-year teacher with a master's degree in early childhood and special education. She received teaching experience in various settings during her bachelor's degree, and while completing her Master's degree. She had been teaching the classroom all year while the co-teacher joined halfway through the year. The co-teacher was not part of the study and often while the teacher facilitated engineering activities for the study, the co-teacher led alternative small-group activities for students who wanted the choice. In addition to the two co-teachers, there were two teaching assistants in the room.</p> <p>The preschool program's core philosophy follows the Developmental-Interaction Approach Nager and Shapiro ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]) which fosters individualized learning based on each child's stages of cognitive and social-emotional development. The program sees development as a process—not as something that happens to a child, but rather as the result of the child's lively interactions in the social and physical world. The staff see development as being affected by the interaction of emotional and cognitive experiences: children learn best through active and independent investment of self in a stimulating environment—solving problems with other children, wondering, conferring with a teacher, expressing ideas, role play, and being expressive with materials. This approach is ingrained in the way all teachers plan and set up the classroom environment, materials, and in the way they plan and deliver instruction. Therefore, the participant classroom already had an established inquiry-based philosophy and culture, and implementation prior to the study taking place.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-5">Classroom and Teaching Philosophy</hd> <p>The teacher recalled one of her main concerns when first approached to participate in the study was that she did not want the study to take away from or dilute the inquiry-based teaching approach currently implemented but rather focus on finding ways to incorporate engineering challenges into the existing approach. The teacher's philosophy centers around a play- and inquiry-based, emergent curriculum, with a focus on social and emotional skills, including cooperation, collaboration, empathy, listening, problem-solving, and conflict resolution. These facets are expanded on below in the teacher's own words.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-6">Teacher Framed and Child Directed</hd> <p>The teacher believes early childhood education should be "teacher framed, and child directed." Teachers are to support and guide, provide opportunities to learn, expose children to materials and experiences, and learn alongside the children. The children are the pilots, telling us what they need. Adults need to sit back, intentionally observe, listen, and watch the children to figure out the direction we should take. What are they curious about? What are they talking about during lunch or snack? What does their play look like? (e.g., are there common themes, role playing, etc.) Let's stop and focus on that play piece. Young children need lots of uninterrupted, unstructured time for play. Play is their work, it is where they can practice and learn new skills, test out new skills or new ideas, interact with one another, practice communication skills, and learn to empathize.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-7">Emphasis on Social-emotional Skills</hd> <p>Social-emotional skills are those that support development in areas like emotional regulation, coping, and management; they support empathizing and putting ourselves in someone else's shoes; cooperation and working with others; conflict resolution; and appropriately expressing our feelings. When it comes down to it, skills everyone needs to be functioning members of society! What do these look like in a classroom? It looks like allowing students the space to navigate all of these feelings, emotions, and concepts; to let them know it is okay to make mistakes, to have big feelings, to get upset, to maybe do the "wrong thing" because they know their teacher is there to support them and offer guidance for the next time. Thinking back to that idea of being 'teacher framed and child directed', how can adults support and guide and "frame" the development of these "soft skills"? They can do it by modeling desired and expected behaviors, by talking children through what is going on, by being nonjudgmental and unconditional in our reactions and responses to them. Children are going to do things we don't necessarily want them to do, like push another child while playing. It is unavoidable! It is the job of teachers to meet those children where they are at, provide support and guidance, model and teach appropriate skills, and then allow the children to practice those.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-8">Importance of Classroom Environment and Materials</hd> <p>A core belief of the teacher's philosophy is that the classroom environment itself is another teacher of the classroom. It should be set up in a way that is inviting, practical, functional, and engaging. In the classroom, all areas and materials are available for children to use when they want and (for the most part) how they want. It is the teacher's daily practice to set out provocations and invitations on the tables. These provocations and invitations are based on the interest of the children, things they asked to do, or materials she was interested in seeing how the children would engage and interact. Children were never forced to participate with the table provocations/invitations or with the other areas of the class. It was up to them to decide where they wanted to play and work, and for how long. It is the teacher's belief that children should be able to choose where they want to work and play and allow them autonomy. She did not want to interfere with the nature of the room. It was of utmost importance to the teacher that the emergent, child-led approach would continue to be implemented while also promoting engineering in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-9">EDP Process</hd> <p>Each week the teacher would carefully observe and document students' interests and questions, as well as the stations they would engage in the most and use this documentation to guide how she planned and set up stations and materials for the following week. Open-ended materials and loose parts (e.g., blocks, bottlecaps) are regularly used in the classroom. For example, building and tinkering with recyclables such as cardboard boxes, Styrofoam, and popsicle sticks is an activity frequently set up at a station (with the teacher noting that students enjoy this station and spend a large portion of time tinkering there). The teacher, rather than directly teaching students what to do with materials, guides their exploration with open-ended questions and demonstrations. She then encourages them to tinker with the materials to produce something. The block area is also popular, often seeing 5–6 students tinkering, constructing, and using their designs during free-play sessions.</p> <p>In keeping with the inquiry-based teaching approach of the classroom, the teacher was not provided specific engineering challenges to implement in the classroom, however she was provided with a copy of the four-step EDP (Fig. 1) and received guidance and information on the four stages of the EDP as relevant to the study, beginning with identifying an engineering problem to solve and asking questions about it, and ending with reflecting on testing results. The teacher was also provided with a handout of a breakdown of each stage of the EDP along with what students are expected to do at each stage (Table 1). The teacher received further guidance on the four strategies that can be used to intentionally implement the EDP (Ramanathan et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref33">24</reflink>]) and encourage students through each stage.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 EDP</p> <p>Table 1 Overview of the EDP</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>EDP</p></th><th align="left"><p>Breakdown of EDP:</p></th><th align="left"><p>Students:</p></th><th align="left"><p>Teacher:</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Ask</p></td><td align="left"><p>Identify the problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>Discuss</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ask open-ended questions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Ask questions about the problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ask and respond to questions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Use scientific language to name and notice</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Explore</p></td><td align="left"><p>Explore materials</p></td><td align="left"><p>Share out ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provide open-ended materials</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Brainstorm</p></td><td align="left"><p>Share materials</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provide space and time to work in small groups</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Identify and gather materials needed</p></td><td align="left"><p>Demonstrate</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ask open-ended questions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Ask and respond to questions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Use scientific language</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Make predictions</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Explain</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Create</p></td><td align="left"><p>Carry out the plan: create the design</p></td><td align="left"><p>Share materials</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provide open-ended materials</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Test the design</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ask for suggestions or help</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provide space and time to work</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Respond to questions in small groups</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Collaborate in creating and testing</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Improve</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reflect on testing results and how to improve</p></td><td align="left"><p>Discuss in small groups</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provide open-ended materials</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Plan for, create new design, test new design</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ask for suggestions, help</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provide space and time to work in small groups</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Respond to questions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ask open-ended questions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Make predictions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Use scientific language</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Collaborate in creating and re-testing</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A practitioner article highlighting an example of preschool students' engagement in the EDP (Blank & Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]) was shared with the teacher. Examples of engineering activities using the EDP (e.g., the <emph>Picture-Perfect Science Lessons</emph> series (Ansberry & Morgan, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]); <emph>Making and Tinkering with STEM: Solving Design Challenges with Young Children</emph> (Heroman, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>])) were also provided to the teacher as references. Instances of how other teachers have asked questions and guided students in engaging in the EDP, as well as the language they used in these examples were highlighted and further discussed during planning meetings to demonstrate what the teacher could do. The teacher was also guided on planning a question or a problem to solve in the engineering activities.</p> <p>The purpose here was not to instruct the teacher on what to do, but rather to provide a guide to implementing the EDP with intentional strategies to facilitate students progressing through the steps of the EDP. Two 30-min meetings with the teacher at the site prior to the study were conducted. In addition, at the end of each week of data collection, the researcher and teacher brainstormed engineering challenges for each week during planning meetings. The four engineering challenges implemented are outlined in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2 Engineering Challenges Implemented in Study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Engineering Challenge</p></th><th align="left"><p>What Students Did</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Forts</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students worked together to build a fort out of plastic straws, flexible clips, and connector pieces. Students (group of 4) wanted to be able to fit inside and sit comfortably in the fort as well as have a blanket on top of the structure itself. Upon completion, students tested the strength and durability of their fort by attempting to place blankets of various weights (weighted blanket and cotton blanket) over the structure as well as crawling inside to test interior sturdiness</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Houses</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students built miniature houses for toy animals out of loose parts, recyclables and similar open-ended materials provided</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Boats</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students built boats out of open-ended materials. Students then tested their boats on water in plastic containers to see if it would float, sink, or become lopsided in the water and come apart. If the boat did not float, students worked to redesign and improve their designs and test them in water again until they were successful</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ramps</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students worked together to recreate a maze using wooden blocks and ramps. Students studied pictures of systems of ramps to see how they had been constructed and then brainstormed and came up with a plan to build their own ramps. Although these began as individual efforts, with teacher facilitation, a group of three students joined their individual designs to create one larger maze. They tested their design out by rolling marbles down the maze. At places where the marbles got stuck or fell off a slope, students troubleshooted and tweaked their design to ensure smooth passage</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0178316386-10">Reflections on the Study</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178316386-11">Dynamics of Peer Interactions</hd> <p>One of the biggest takeaways from the study was how the engineering provocations encouraged students to work together who typically did not. As with any class, the group of students had their cliques and preferred play partners. However, the engaging materials were enough of a common interest to encourage those who typically did not interact with one another to branch out and work together. Notably, participating students now had a common interest, a common inquiry. The classroom teacher commented on how some of these interactions surprised her, and made her feel proud to see her students interacting with "new" playmates, and enjoying the company of others.</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-12">Intrinsic Motivation</hd> <p>Students liked seeing the fruits of their labor—building or creating an artifact that they could use in their everyday play sessions meant that they were invested in the engineering challenge.</p> <p>Upon reflecting on each week of the study, the teacher and researcher often noted how long each engineering challenge lasted, often throughout an entire week. The students were excited and motivated to work on their designs every day. The teacher noted that an important factor in their continuing to persevere was that they could see their work, they could see the progress they were making on their designs and how they were 'coming alive'. Each day they would go and grab their preferred tool and get to work. It was this tangible, hands-on project and result. This project was also one of the first times the teacher observed intrinsic motivation take place. There really was no external reward, the students who were working on this day after day were doing it for pure enjoyment. The teacher indicated that this was a huge moment in this study—realizing this and being able to say, "Y<emph>es! Preschoolers can participate in intrinsically motivated activities!".</emph></p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-13">Students' Skill Sets Played a Huge Role in the Project and Outcome</hd> <p>A personal challenge for the teacher during the study was thinking about how she would balance inserting herself into the children's work and play just enough to encourage engineering and social skills, while also being respectful of her teaching philosophy and allowing the work to be child-led. She did not want to force her thoughts into their play but also wanted to support, challenge, and encourage them. One thing that affected this was the dynamic of the students participating in the activity. The teacher's levels of interaction and support did differ depending on which students were engaging and working together. For example, there were a few students in the class who naturally would take on a leadership role and jumpstart a project or idea. Some who were more followers and game to try anything. Within the class, there were those who developmentally were able to communicate their plans and others who were more "work in the moment" types. In other words, children used various levels of processing and planning when responding to a project or challenge. The mix of children played a huge role in how the challenges progressed: How much support was needed? Were there two leaders who clashed and needed help with conflict resolution? Was there a group of "go with the flow" children who needed a little help getting the project started? The impact of group dynamics was a takeaway the classroom teacher did not anticipate.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-14">Articulating Plans vs. Spur of the Moment Working</hd> <p>A goal the classroom teacher had for the students was to spend some time designing or planning their project. The teacher really did not know what this would look like given the age of her students, their developmental levels, and what the designing piece would be like for them. Personally, she was worried about them skipping the planning stage or just not putting any thought into their projects. In other words, the teacher was worried how they would articulate their planning. She knew many were capable, but wondered if they would be able to demonstrate this. She often reflected on the number of students who were more situated in the phase of 'working in the moment' versus planning out a project and carrying it out. Given the age and developmental stage of the students at the time, these obesrvations were not surprising. Planning is a difficult skill for preschoolers, and prior to the study it was never really worked on in class. After the study, the teacher reflected on how she could have supported the planning and designing of the project. This reflection confirms important takeaways including the importance of being aware of your students, knowing what is developmentally appropriate for them, and having realistic expectations.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-15">A Multitude of Skills Being Used at Once</hd> <p>The classroom teacher in this study noted the importance of viewing learning and development across domains. There was never a moment when students were only using isolated engineering or social skills. Developmental domains and skills were always intertwined. Going back to the vignette at the beginning of this article, three children were involved in an engineering related activity, but they were not just using engineering skills. They were using skills from other developmental domains as well. They communicated ideas to one another; they listened to and comprehended the teacher's suggestions and used cognitive skills to think of a plan; and when encountering problems where social and emotional skills were needed to avoid major conflicts and generate possible solutions, the students joined forces and worked together. The learning and play seen in the vignette would not have happened had the children only been using one skill, or skills in a single developmental domain. Children are always using skills across developmental domains. Within one activity, there are ways to embed learning opportunities for multiple skills and domains. Teachers can encourage play skills while encouraging early academic skills. They can support collaboration while practicing communication skills. Developmental domains and skills sets within these areas are laced together, and educators should be intentional about providing opportunities that promote growth in all domains.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-16">Summary and Recommendations for Practice</hd> <p>The natural curiosity of preschool children makes this developmental period an important time for introducing and reinforcing engineering practices (Lippard et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]). Preschool students are natural engineers as seen in their capability to design structures and use a variety of tools and materials for their playful purposes. Such capabilities can be enhanced by having students pay attention to missteps and encouraging students to re-create and test redesigns. When doing so, students not only learn to engineer and follow the steps of the engineering design process, but also have opportunities to practice important skills and meet developmental milestones. Students were observed communicating ideas to one another; listening to and comprehending the teacher's suggestions; using cognitive skills to think of a plan and follow through; and utilizing appropriate social-emotional skills. While building their designs students did not work in silos but often collaborated in building together, or at least stopped to check in with their peers and offer help or suggestions. Often, we observed students working together who typically did not work or play together during the regular classroom routine. The materials provided were enough of a common interest that these students did not mind stepping out of their regular play routine and reach out to these peers.</p> <p>Engineering challenges also encouraged students to persevere through initial missteps. Students liked to see the fruits of their labor; whether that was building a house together and displaying it outside the classroom or building a maze in the block area and using it during dramatic play. Students were invested in the engineering challenges. Equally important here was the role of the teacher. Whether it was in helping a student approach a peer working on a design or in encouraging a student to ask for help from peers, the teacher's role was crucial to the implementation of engineering and the students' participation in it. This aligns with research on the teacher's role in developing children's play. The teacher's involvement in play interactions can increase the frequency, duration, and complexity of children's play (McAfee & Leong, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>In providing suggestions and encouragement, the teacher did not "give away the answers" as to how to proceed with the engineering challenge, nor did she instruct students as to what to do next. This leant further authenticity to how students approached and worked with one another. In phrasing open-ended questions and "I wonder..." statements the teacher prompted students to not only view each other as friends or resources to seek out, but also offered support for the children′s continued working on the challenges they encountered.</p> <p>Seeing engineering through the teacher's eyes, it is also interesting to think about how much detail and insight such activities provide teachers on students' skill sets. Given that engineering activities provide insight into numerous learning outcomes, they also provide rich perspectives on students' social-emotional skill set; specifically, where students currently stand in terms of their strengths and areas of need (Ramanathan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]). In fact, in describing these patterns, the teacher remarked that she did not expect to see such interactions during engineering activities, but that they "stood out", especially among students who did not typically engage in such activities or in the block area. This implies that these types of experiences offer teachers opportunities to engage in ongoing learning about their students' capabilities, strengths, and areas in which the teacher might offer greater support support. In a manner of speaking, engineering provided an empty canvas on which students came together, asked questions, discussed ideas back and forth, tested and reflected on solutions, and helped one another. These are patterns of behavior and communication which might not ordinarily have been seen in other classroom areas. Such observations could not only provide insight into students' skills, but also assist the teacher in planning for future activities to facilitate peer interactions and participation.</p> <p>Overall, here, we want to reinforce the importance of engineering in preschool. While engineering forms a part of the larger STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) field, its benefits go beyond imparting engineering knowledge to domain-general skills. Domain-general skills and developmental milestones such as planning, ideating, carrying out the plan, brainstorming and working together, self-regulation and conflict resolution, along with the physical skills needed to build the design, are part and parcel of engineering. Importantly, they are skills needed by all preschoolers transitioning through this age (3–5 years) and into kindergarten.</p> <p>While engineering can seem daunting to early childhood educators, we hope that our description of the study and reflections on our journey help to normalize how educators view engineering in an early childhood setting. Engineering as a content area is for all teachers, and not just STEM teachers and enthusiasts. Engineering as a content area can be integrated into every classroom, regardless of existing activities or routines. It simply requires thoughtful integration with a balance of children's interests and questions. We end with a few suggestions for practitioners on how to integrate engineering in their settings.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-17">Suggestions for Practitioners</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Use what you have You do not need to buy new materials to begin engineering in your classroom, which can be overwhelming and expensive. Take inventory of the materials in your current classroom. What do you have that you could either add to or use? For example, manipulatives or block areas naturally encourage engineering. Perhaps adding a book, some loose parts, or changing up how you present the material will ignite learning and exploring. Sometimes moving the material to a rug or a table can be the little change students need to use material differently.</item> <p></p> <item> Consider the current interests of your students. One of the classroom teacher's worries was forcing topics, themes, or projects onto the students. How could she encourage them to put on their engineer caps while also being responsive to their interests? She found that adding preferences to engineering activities or materials helped. For example, during the time of the study she had students who loved animals. She added animal figurines to blocks and building materials to capture her students' attention.</item> <p></p> <item> Be flexible and willing to shift. It is okay if you plan something, and your students take it down a completely different path. That comes with the territory of being a teacher, especially one in a preschool classroom. Present your students with engaging and inviting materials, and if they start to do something different than you intended, let them. Observe what they are doing and saying, and reflect on why they responded in the way they did. If the interest shifted from making a house with cardboard boxes to suddenly wanting to make a spaceship, meet your students where they are and consider providing new materials relevant to their current interests.</item> <p></p> <item> Start small and do what will work for you and your classroom environment. Every teacher has a different philosophy, and every classroom is different. Find a small window of flexibility and try something there. If that works, proceed! And if it doesn't work, reflect and try something else. It is okay for ideas to flop. Preschoolers tend to be forgiving and may learn from and enjoy these experiences. Follow their lead and see where it takes you.</item> <p></p> <item> Don't underestimate the power of a book and/or visuals. During the study, books proved to be an effective way to introduce an idea or topic. They were a good balance of just the right amount of directness and open-endedness. Books/visuals were direct enough to introduce an idea, question, or challenge without the teacher having to explicitly say <emph>"I want you to...".</emph> Visuals were also helpful to introduce ideas or concepts and light an imaginative spark. Reading a book, and then adding manipulatives and loose parts to an area like blocks—which naturally promotes engineering activities—is a great way to expand students' creativity and exploration. In Table 3 below we provide examples of popular children's books with suggestions on how to share these in an early childhood setting, as well as images of the idea in action in our classroom.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 3 Recommendations for Practice</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Book:</p></th><th align="left"><p>Try This:</p></th><th align="left"><p>Idea In Action:</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Figi_HTML.jpg" /></p></td><td align="left"><p>• Read the story during meeting/whole group/circle time</p><p>• Add the book, manipulatives and loose parts to different classroom areas. For example, add people and animal figurines and cars to the block area to encourage work and play based on the story</p></td><td align="left"><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Figj_HTML.jpg" /></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Figk_HTML.jpg" /></p></td><td align="left"><p>• Set the book on a table as a provocation or play invitation</p><p>• Include various items for students to use to create their own houses, like cardboard boxes, fabric pieces, pompoms, cotton</p><p>• Set out paper and writing materials: students may want to sketch a "blueprint" of their design or revise iterations of their design on paper before building</p><p>• Such a book can be used to encourage long term projects. Students could draw their own houses, and then use those plans to guide creations and projects</p></td><td align="left"><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Figl_HTML.jpg" /></p><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Figm_HTML.jpg" /></p><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Fign_HTML.jpg" /></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Figo_HTML.gif" /></p></td><td align="left"><p>• Set the book out with no stated expectations, and allow the students to explore it on their own</p><p>• Include items to support ideas and possible projects, like the building straws</p><p>• If possible, print out 1–2 visuals of toy airplanes and helicopters. Set them at or tape them to a wall at the station/blocks area. Let these visuals serve as inspiration to the students. Students do not have to recreate the same design as the visual but for those who are stuck or needing a guiding push initially, visuals can serve as inspiration</p></td><td align="left"><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Figp_HTML.jpg" /></p><p><inline-graphic href="MediaObjects/10643_2023_1512_Figq_HTML.jpg" /></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0178316386-18">Funding</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-19">Data Availability</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-20">Code Availability</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-21">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178316386-22">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0178316386-23">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0178316386-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams R, Evangelou D, English L, Figueiredo ADD, Mousoulides N, Pawley AL, Wilson DM. Multiple perspectives on engaging future engineers. Journal of Engineering Education. 2011; 100; 1: 48. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00004.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ansberry, K. R, & Morgan, E. R. (2007). More Picture-perfect Science Lessons: Using Children's Books to Guide Inquiry, K-4. NSTA press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bagiati, A, & Evangelou, D. (2009). An examination of web-based P-12 engineering curricula: Issues of pedagogical and engineering content fidelity. In Proceedings of the research in engineering education symposium.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bagiati, A. (2011). Early engineering: A developmentally appropriate curriculum for young children. (Publication No. 3512219) [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref28" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bagiati A, Evangelou D. Engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom: The teacher's experience. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2015; 23; 1: 112-128. 10.1080/1350293X.2014.991099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref23" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blank, J, & Lynch, S. (2018). The design process: Engineering practices in preschool. Young Children, 73(4), 89–93. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/sep2018/design-process-engineering-preschool">www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/sep2018/design-process-engineering-preschool</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bonawitz E, Shafto P, Gweon H, Goodman ND, Spelke E, Schulz L. The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition. 2011; 120: 322-330. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brophy, S, & Evangelou, D. (2007, June). Precursors to engineering thinking (PET). In 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 12–1169). DOI https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--3011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cunningham CM, Carlsen WS. Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2014; 25; 2: 197-210. 10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evangelou D, Dobbs-oates J, Bagiati A, Choi JY. Talking about artifacts: Preschool children's explorations with sketches, stories, and tangible objects. Early Childhood Research & Practice. 2010; 12; 2: 1-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenfield DB, Jirout J, Dominguez X, Greenberg A, Maier M, Fuccillo J. Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education and Development. 2009; 20; 2: 238-264. 10.1080/10409280802595441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber-Hine, L. (2018). Engineering is elementary: Identifying instances of collaboration during the engineering design process. (Publication No. 10807862) [Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved from https://surface.syr.edu/etd/848</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heroman C. Making and tinkering with STEM: Solving design challenges with young children. 2017; National Association for the Education of Young Children</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnsey, R. (1995). Observing the way primary children design and make in the classroom: An analysis of the behaviors exhibited. Paper presented at IDATER 1993 Conference, Loughborough University, Loughborough. Retrieved from https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/account/articles/9344087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lachapelle, C. P, & Cunningham, C. M. (2014). Engineering in elementary schools. Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, And Practices, 61–88. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. <ulink href="http://www.eie.org/sites/default/files/downloads/EiE/ResearchPublications/lachapelle%5fand%5fcunningham%5f2014.pdf">http://www.eie.org/sites/default/files/downloads/EiE/ResearchPublications/lachapelle%5fand%5fcunningham%5f2014.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lippard CN, Lamm MH, Riley KL. Engineering thinking in prekindergarten children: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education. 2017; 106; 3: 454-474. 10.1002/jee.20174</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucas CG, Bridgers S, Griffiths TL, Gopnik A. When children are better (or at least more open-minded) learners than adults: Developmental differences in learning the forms of causal relationships. Cognition. 2014; 131; 2: 284-299. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAfee O, Leong D. Assessing and guiding young children's development and learning. 20105; Pearson</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosborg, S, Adams, R, Kim, R, Atman, C, Turns, J, & Cardella, M. (2005, June). Conceptions of the engineering design process: An expert study of advanced practicing professionals. In 2005 Annual Conference (pp. 10–337). DOI https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2—14999</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nager, N, & Shapiro, E. K. (1999). The developmental-interaction approach to education: Retrospect and prospect. Occasional Paper Series, 1999(1), 1. Retrieved from https://educate.bankstreet.edu/occasionalpaper-series/vol1999/iss1/1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/13165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park MH, Dimitrov DM, Patterson LG, Park DY. Early childhood teachers' beliefs about readiness for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research. 2017; 15; 3: 275-291. 10.1177/1476718X15614040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramanathan, G. (2021). An Exploration of the Nature of Social Interactions between Preschool Students with Diverse Social-Emotional Skills during Engineering Activities. (Publication No. 28646713) [Doctoral dissertation, Boise State University] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. DOI https://doi.org/10.18122/td.1866.boisestate</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramanathan, G, Carter, D, & Wenner, J. (2022). A framework for scientific inquiry in preschool. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(7), 1263–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01259-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scardamalia M. Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society. 2002; 97: 67-98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tippett CD, Milford TM. Findings from a pre-kindergarten classroom: Making the case for STEM in early childhood education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2017; 15; 1: 67-86. 10.1007/S10763-017-9812-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torres-Crespo MN, Kraatz E, Pallansch L. From fearing STEM to playing with it: The natural integration of STEM into the preschool classroom. Journal of the Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators. 2014; 23; 2: 8-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Meeteren, B, & Zan, B. (2010). Revealing the work of young engineers in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gurupriya Ramanathan; Sydney Cosso and Juli Pool</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref39"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1429901
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Engineering in Preschool: What Little Minds Can Teach Us about Big Skills
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gurupriya+Ramanathan%22">Gurupriya Ramanathan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3957-8219">0000-0002-3957-8219</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sydney+Cosso%22">Sydney Cosso</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Juli+Pool%22">Juli Pool</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2024 52(6):1245-1257.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering%22">Engineering</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Activities%22">Learning Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inquiry%22">Inquiry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Private+Schools%22">Private Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-023-01512-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The natural curiosity of young children, makes the preschool period an important time for introducing and reinforcing engineering practices. Engineering here is defined as goal-oriented thinking that addresses problems and decisions within constraints by drawing on available resources. Engineering encompasses hands-on activity, inquiry, teamwork, and other instructional practices that develop children's critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. However, exposure to engineering in early childhood education is mostly incidental, rather than exclusively through engineering. Further, while there is an emerging body of literature on engineering curricula and activities in early childhood, little information is provided about what preschool engineering looks like, as well as reflections from such implementation. The purpose of this study was to implement engineering challenges in a preschool classroom framed in an inquiry-based teaching approach, and to document teacher reflections and lessons learned. The study was conducted in a private preschool program for students aged 3-5, including children with or at-risk for developmental delays. Thirteen preschool students and one preschool teacher participated in this study, wherein, four engineering activities were implemented in the classroom over a four-week period. The teacher's reflections reveal the importance of engineering activities in providing a platform for preschool students with diverse needs to work together, practice skills from a multitude of domains, and engage in authentic peer interactions. Implications for early childhood educators seeking to incorporate engineering experiences in their classroom are shared. Recommendations for practice including how preschool students can meaningfully participate in similar inquiry-driven activities as well as the teacher's role in supporting their participation is discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1429901
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1429901
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-023-01512-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1245
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inquiry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Private Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Role
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Engineering in Preschool: What Little Minds Can Teach Us about Big Skills
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gurupriya Ramanathan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sydney Cosso
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Juli Pool
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1