Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-01004-9

Effective Early Childhood STEM Education: Findings from the Little

Scientists Evaluation
Amy MacDonald1 · Carmen Huser1 · Shukla Sikder2 · Lena Danaia3

Published online: 21 November 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
This article reports findings from a two-year independent evaluation of the Little Scientists program; a program providing
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professional development for early childhood educators across
Australia. This article reports on the qualitative data gathered with educators to illustrate early childhood STEM education
in practice. Data are analysed using an established framework for effective STEM education in order to demonstrate how the
Little Scientists program is supporting best-practice in early childhood STEM education. Findings suggest that educators’
confidence in teaching STEM has increased, and participants are more aware of children’s skills and knowledge in STEM.
Educators are fostering communities of STEM inquiry where children and educators learn and research together, with space
for children’s self-directed and play-based explorations. It appears that participation in Little Scientists has afforded a range
of benefits for participants and, by extension through their practices, for the children with whom they work.

Keywords Early childhood · STEM education · Science education · Educators · Professional development · Evaluation

Introduction under the National Innovation Science Agenda (NISA),

committed $4 million over 3 years from 2016 to 2017, to
There has been a growing number of initiatives aimed at expand the delivery of the Little Scientists program to more
improving children’s knowledge and skills in the fields of early education and care services across Australia and to
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). extend the STEM community of practice in the early years.
In the early childhood sector, many of these have aimed to As part of this expansion, the authors of this article success-
implement a STEM program or curriculum by providing fully tendered to conduct a two-year independent evaluation
effective professional development for early childhood edu- to examine the impact of the Little Scientists program upon:
cators. One such initiative is Little Scientists; a not-for-profit (1) the educators; (2) the context of the early childhood set-
initiative designed to facilitate children’s natural curiosity ting, including its culture; and (3) the children within the
for STEM in the early years through child-appropriate, setting. A component of the larger study has been the forma-
fun, and playful experiments and inquiry-based learning. tion of Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) to generate
It should be noted that the authors of this article did not qualitative insights about the Little Scientists program in
develop the program; rather, the program originates from practice. This article reports findings from these PLNs in
Germany (“Haus der kleinen Forscher”), and is managed in order to illustrate how the program is promoting effective
Australia by Froebel Australia. The Australian Government, STEM education in early childhood contexts.

* Amy MacDonald
[email protected] Background
1
School of Education, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, This is a growing body of research to suggest that the
Albury, NSW 2640, Australia
early childhood years lay the foundation for future learn-
2
School of Teacher Education, Charles Sturt University, ing in STEM (Campbell et al. 2018). For example, early,
Bathurst, Australia
meaningful experiences of science for young children have
3
Faculty of Arts and Education, Charles Sturt University, been found to enhance self-belief in their ability to learn
Bathurst, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
354 Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363

science and to promote greater interest in science (Patrick Capabilities

et al. 2009), and that such experiences trigger an apprecia-
tion for science and its value to everyday life (Fleer et al. STEM capabilities “include, but are more extensive than, the
2006). Similarly, the mathematical skills developed at an knowledge and skills associated with the individual STEM
early age, such as number sense and ordinality, are strong disciplines” (Murphy et al. 2018, p. 3). STEM knowledge
predictors of later academic success (Hunting et al. 2012). should be seen as flexible and evolving, rather than con-
It has been suggested that teachers can engage children in ceived as stable content. STEM skills are similarly flexible
STEM activities that take advantage of children’s prior expe- and diverse, and include skills such as adaptability, prob-
riences, knowledge, and interests (Campbell et al. 2018). lem solving, creativity, critical thinking, and design thinking
Research has shown that early childhood environments are (Bybee 2013; Prinsley and Baranyai 2015). The literature
rich in opportunities for children to be involved in STEM, suggests that STEM capabilities are best developed through
and sciences can be naturally integrated with mathematics STEM education practices that use real world contexts and
and/or technologies through the activity of the child (Camp- present learners with authentic problems or projects to work
bell et al. 2018). However, the pedagogy supporting STEM upon (e.g. Hefty 2015; Kelley et al. 2010; Redmond et al.
learning is presented in different ways. As Campbell et al. 2011).
(2018, p. 24) explains, “educators typically plan for specific
disciplines and incorporate a range of defined activities,
Dispositions
but offer fewer opportunities for an integrated approach to
STEM. Most acknowledge that this is an area where they
STEM dispositions are “the attitudes and states of mind that
could improve.”
support students achieving success in STEM education and
Educators’ beliefs, attitudes, and self-perceptions of their
the pursuit of STEM career pathways” (Murphy et al. 2018,
competences and skills in STEM greatly impact their STEM
p. 3). The research literature highlights the role of affect
education practices (Aldemir and Kermani 2017; Alexander
in effective STEM education and advocates for favourable
et al. 2014; Atiles et al. 2013; Eng Tek et al. 2016; Hedlin
dispositions to be cultivated from the early childhood years
and Gunnarsson 2014; Park et al. 2017). Many educators
onwards (Patrick et al. 2009). Children’s STEM disposi-
experience uncertainty (Cohrssen and Page 2016) or even
tions can be influenced by educators, and teacher practice,
fear (Hedlin and Gunnarsson 2014) in relation to STEM
curriculum, and pedagogical choices can have a significant
content, and this impacts their confidence in STEM educa-
impact on children’s dispositions (Panizzon and Westwell
tion. STEM intervention studies have therefore focused on
2009; McPhan et al. 2008).
educators’ general professional skills (Aldemir and Kermani
2017; Eng Tek et al. 2016), specific teaching and pedagogi-
cal skills (Atiles et al. 2013; Bers et al. 2013), and STEM Educational Practices
related content knowledge (Bers et al. 2013; Eng Tek et al.
2016). Educator participation in STEM professional devel- STEM educational practices are “intentional actions that
opment has been found to promote positive attitudes and schools and educators take to create STEM learning envi-
increase confidence in STEM education (Alexander et al. ronments that build student STEM capabilities and nurture
2014; Bers et al. 2013). STEM dispositions” (Murphy et al. 2018, p. 4). There is
general agreement that real world inquiry and problem-
based learning have a positive impact upon students’ STEM
capabilities and dispositions (Gee and Wong 2012; MacLeod
Conceptual Framework 2013; McDonald 2016; Ralph 2015). There is also a call for
the increased use of digital technologies in STEM education
In a study that seeks to evaluate the efficacy of the Little on the basis that digital learning practices expand available
Scientists STEM professional learning program, it is useful learning contexts (Starkey 2012), facilitate the development
to consider the ways in which the Little Scientists program of problem solving and higher order thinking skills (McDon-
is contributing to effective STEM education in early child- ald 2016), and improve student interest and motivation in
hood. To help address this consideration, the evaluation STEM (Lai Poh et al. 2016; McDonald 2016; Starkey 2012).
study has been guided by a conceptual framework estab-
lished by Murphy et al. (2018) that articulates how effective
Equity
STEM education can be achieved. The framework consists
of six elements of effective STEM education: capabilities,
Research has established that there are a number of inequi-
dispositions, educational practices, equity, trajectories, and
ties in STEM achievement, particularly for female, rural,
educator capacities.

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363 355

Indigenous, and socio-economically disadvantaged students provides educators with take-home materials and resources
(Murphy et al. 2018). Effective STEM education must seek that support them to implement the concepts and experi-
to address these inequities through curricular and pedagogi- ments with the children in their care.
cal choices that have a positive impact on the dispositions
and academic success of different groups of learners (e.g. Participants
Gee and Wong 2012; Patrick et al. 2009).
All participants in the Little Scientists program were invited
Trajectories to participate in the evaluation study, and more than 600
educators have participated in the larger study. Within this
A student’s STEM trajectory is a long-term view of their sample, a number of small groups of educators were invited
movement through the education system, from early child- to form Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) which were
hood through to senior secondary and beyond (Murphy et al. facilitated by a member of the research team. During the
2018). International research demonstrates the relationship course of the study, five PLNs were established and a total
between early STEM capabilities and later outcomes in of 30 educators participated in these. PLN participants were
STEM (Johnston 2011; Watts et al. 2014). located in all states and territories of Australia, with the
majority from New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern
Educator Capacities Territory.
Recruitment for the PLNs employed a range of different
Effective STEM education requires educators who have the strategies, with the intention of bringing together a diverse
ability to deliver inquiry-based STEM programs that develop range of participants. The first PLN was established with a
STEM capabilities and positive dispositions for all children group of teacher education students who had participated in
(Murphy et al. 2018). Research shows that STEM profes- a Little Scientists workshop in Penrith, NSW. This first PLN
sional development can deepen both the content and peda- was established through initial face-to-face communication
gogical knowledge of educators, leading to positive changes during the workshop day and additionally through continu-
in classroom practice and improved student achievement ing email communication. The second recruitment strategy
(McDonald 2016; Perry and MacDonald 2015; Reimers utilised the support of Little Scientists “network partners”,
et al. 2015). who help to facilitate workshops around Australia. With sup-
port of the Northern Territory Department of Education, one
of the researchers was able to visit the Northern Territory to
Research Design engage with groups of educators in Katherine and Darwin
and establish the second PLN. Using a similar strategy, a
As noted earlier, this article reports findings from a two- third PLN was established in Melbourne, VIC, following
year independent evaluation of the Little Scientists program; a Little Scientists workshop. Another recruitment strategy
a program providing STEM professional development for was to invite participation from the winners of the Little Sci-
early childhood educators across Australia. entists National and State “Early STEM Awards”,1 several
of whom formed the fourth PLN. Finally, a fifth PLN was
The Little Scientists Program established with a group of educators who self-identified
through a survey conducted for the larger study.
The Little Scientists program is based on professional In summary, three of the five PLNs integrated face-
development workshops for early childhood educators who to-face meetings and virtual conversations, and two were
then facilitate the program at their education and care ser- virtual groups only. All five PLNs then formed an online
vices. These workshops take a multidisciplinary approach professional learning community. The structure of the PLN
and cover a number of STEM topics (for example, water, strategy is summarised in Fig. 1.
optics, engineering, computer science), with approximately
two new topics being introduced every year. The pedagogi-
cal approach is based on the scientific method, or “Inquiry
Cycle”, which encourages educators to take up children’s
questions and explore their environment together with them.
The program is tailored towards children from 3 to 6 years
of age. Each workshop engages educators in hands-on
1
exploration of everyday materials and digital resources, in The Little Scientists Australia ‘Early STEM Awards’ were awarded
to winners from each state and territory, with an overall national
order to build educators’ confidence in facilitating inquiry- winner. The awards celebrated commitment and dedication to early
based learning experiences with children. The program also STEM education and inquiry-based learning.

13
356 Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363

Fig. 1  Professional learning

networks PLN 2: PLN 3: PLN 4:
PLN 1: Katherine & Melbourne, National PLN 5:
Penrith, NSW Darwin, NT VIC National
Early STEM
Students Network Network Award Self-Identified
Partner Partner Winners

Face-to-Face Meetings

Online Professional Learning Community

Data Gathering Data Analysis

The PLNs were designed to provide scaffolded support The evaluation of the PLN data utilised a theoretical the-
to enable participants to share their experience of the Lit- matic analysis approach (Boyatzis 1998), informed by the
tle Scientists program in an online professional learning conceptual framework of effective STEM education (Mur-
community. Using a secure online platform provided by phy et al. 2018). The analysis was deductive and looked for
the Australian Government, the educators shared evidence six themes: capabilities, dispositions, educational practices,
of: (1) their development as a STEM educator; (2) changes equity, trajectories, and educator capacities. Coding themes
to practice in their setting; and (3) changes to children’s and associated key words developed for the conceptual
engagement with, and development of understandings in, framework (Murphy et al. 2018) were applied to the analysis
STEM. of the qualitative data set in this evaluation.
The virtual PLN conversations started with broad and
introductory questions which aimed to create a shared and
safe space to exchange experiences and ideas via online
postings. Participants were prompted to tell the facilitator Findings
and the other participants about themselves, how many
years or months they have been part of the Little Scientists During the focus group conversations and online discus-
community, and how many workshops they had attended. sions, educators shared many stories around STEM edu-
Initially, participants generally discussed their experiences cation in their services after attending the Little Scientists
with STEM education and how they have been using the workshops. Excerpts from the online and focus group con-
ideas from Little Scientists workshops at their centre. As versations exemplify how five of the six conceptual themes
the conversations continued, the researcher prompted fur- of effective STEM education (Murphy et al. 2018) have rel-
ther questions to the whole group or to particular partici- evance for the educators who participated in the PLNs. The
pants to elaborate further on their posts. Some participants theme of STEM trajectories was not evident in the data;
also encouraged their peers to provide more detail and however, this is unsurprising given that participants were
responded to each other’s questions. not expected to reflect on the program longitudinally. Thus,
In addition to the online postings, qualitative insights this section presents findings in relation to the themes of
were provided through the face-to-face meetings of PLNs capabilities, dispositions, educational practices, equity, and
1, 2, and 3. With the participants’ consent, focus-group educator capacities.
conversations were audio recorded at these meetings
and later transcribed. These transcripts were combined
with the online discussion transcripts to form the corpus Capabilities
of qualitative data for the study. This project has been
approved by Charles Sturt University’s Human Research Many of the online posts and contributions in the focus
Ethics Committee (Approval No. 100/2017/03). group conversations discussed children’s STEM related

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363 357

capabilities that have been identified to equip them for times the language rather than the actual concepts
their futures. Educators in both modes noticed the children they already know a lot of it. (FG, PLN2-E3)
hypothesising and predicting:
This was consistent with an online post that indicated, “these
For instance some of our children discovered the learning opportunities encouraged the children to think
other day that when they put the batman figure with about scientific concepts” (O, PLN5, E10). While some edu-
a cape on top of the central heating vent on the floor cators focused on what the children were already capable of,
(which blows air upwards) that the cape would blow others highlighted their role in supporting children so they
up and around with the air. This then led to discus- develop their scientific thinking.
sions around why the cape was moving, what they A big focus on educator role was on providing children
thought was happening and also about if we can see with the language and terms and hence children’s commu-
the air? (Online, PLN1-Educator 10) nication skills around STEM. Online posts talked about the
conscious use of scientific language by educators, for exam-
Such thinking and hypothesising have been a focus in
ple, that they “introduced [the children] to words, such as
the educators’ conversations, but also capabilities such as
experiment” (O, PLN5-E10), and that the team “embraced
problem-solving, planning, and designing. One educator
a new vocabulary to make STEM more visible to children
was fascinated how the children transferred knowledge
and parents” (O, PLN5-E9). The focus groups also discussed
into their play:
this topic; educators emphasised that having the language
I found that my children have begun to understand to talk about science enables the children to communicate
the thinking process. They love making hypotheses their knowledge:
and find the results… The engineering corner helped
But when you give them the words, then empow-
them to bring the new knowledge into their construc-
ers them with their learning. So, it’s not so much as
tion and building games. Now they plan before exe-
imparting the knowledge – they already got a lot of
cute [sic] which is fascinating. (O, PLN5-E9)
knowledge. (FG, PLN2-E3)
In another centre, the educators got the children involved And we do experiments. And we talk about what we
in thinking about an issue in their outdoor area. The chil- hypothesize. We predict. We use these words with the
dren and educators were faced with the problem of how children in the preschool. We record. And we evaluate
to get the children’s bikes over a creek. From a real-life in the end: Did it work? Why didn’t it work? We use all
problem, the children created mind maps of solutions and these techniques with the kids. (FG, PLN2-E3)
experimented with different material. There was a lot of And being able to talk to them and questioning in those
“trial and error”, as the educator reported, and they were different ways of speaking to them, and that can lead
“still working through a ‘workable’ plan for a new bridge” on to more things you can do. (FG, PLN2-E3)
(O, PLN5-E5). However, this example also illustrates the
Exploring and self-directed learning are both relevant
creative problem solving and collaborative thinking, plan-
capabilities for children and their future STEM professional
ning and executing of ideas between children and educa-
opportunities. Both have been recognised and supported by
tors, as well as children with their peers.
PLN participants. Many educators discussed practices to
The notion that science and mathematics is present in
provide free exploration for the children at their services.
any daily activity and that children bring many capabili-
However, on another note, educators reflected on their role
ties to their STEM learning was acknowledged by the
particularly within such practices and what strategies are
PLN participants. The Darwin-based PLN explored sim-
beneficial for children’s developing capabilities:
ple activities, such as mixing colours or cooking and bak-
ing, that involve STEM capabilities; to which the children Throughout the STEM project educators realised the
bring knowledge and skills: importance of stepping back when it came to lead-
ing the project. Children are very capable of leading
Well, they’re just mixing but they’re learning so
a project and allowing them to lead it makes the pro-
many different things while doing. They know like
ject flow more naturally. Educators found that giving
full and empty, and how heavy things are. If things
the children the space, time and resources to explore
will tip over, how many colours. You know. All these
allowed them to deepen their understanding, express
different things. (Focus group, PLN2- E2)
their creativity and explored more. (O, PLN5-E4)
I find that children already have a really strong back-
ground knowledge of full and empty, and all sorts of What could start with a Little Scientists-influenced edu-
concepts. What we’re helping them with is some- cator-child collaboration or an educator-initiated STEM
idea would often turn into a children-led project. Educators

13
358 Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363

noticed children’s developing and growing STEM capabili- At the same time, the Little Scientists program itself “gen-
ties, for example, in a project that focused children categoris- erates much interest with the children and provides options
ing and grouping insects: for great extension of learning” (O-PLN5-E4), as one of the
educators posted to the PLN forum. Apart from children’s
Children and educators conversed about the habitats
interest and curiosity, the three Darwin-based participants
that insects come from, explored climate that insects
identified fun as the factor that explains why children engage
like to live in, and what they like to eat. Children incor-
so well with STEM learning, as well as the novelty of such
porated mathematical concepts and questions - how
activities:
many legs, length of insects, exploring metamorphosis
with caterpillars; insects that camouflaged; insects that It’s simple little things. But sometimes, it’s just for
were nocturnal, and explored such meanings. Children children – is big, huge. It’s new experiences for them
explored how to handle and care for the insects and too. New words. New ways they’re learning. That’s
created rules, so that children were not harming the experience. And that’s what they take on board. Chil-
insects and developed understanding of the importance dren experience science. (FG, PLN2-E1)
of caring for the insects within the enclosures - provid-
Comments during the face-to-face conversation and online
ing water and food. Children asked many questions
were about children’s increasing confidence in STEM. One
- particularly around habitats, food, which insects are
of the Darwin-based educators was sure that the children
nocturnal or have camouflage. (O, PLN5-E4)
were “wanting to learn more” (FG, PLN2-E2). But she
Interestingly, digital STEM capabilities, including coding, also reflected that a key aspect is to acknowledge children’s
digital literacy and ICT skills, were not mentioned, neither own pace “where they’re happy and they’re confident with
online nor in the focus group conversation. The only time, themselves”. Children will learn best when they experience
such skills around emerging technologies were mentioned moments of pride: “Wow, look what I did.” To support chil-
in educators’ comments were about the use of iPads to docu- dren in those moments, documenting the child’s learning, as
ment children’s learning and projects, or for looking up and well as sharing it with peers was a strategy, an educator used
finding information. to boost the child’s confidence.

Dispositions Educational Practices

Many of the educators mentioned children’s positive atti- Many of PLN conversations were about the educators’
tudes towards STEM learning after implementing Little Sci- STEM practices since they have started to implement what
entists in their services. When the PLN participants shared they took from the Little Scientists workshops. There was a
observations of the children, they described that the children range of practices that the PLN covered. Educational prac-
engaged with STEM activities joyfully, with curiosity and tices included: outdoor learning, hands-on experiences, play-
motivation, which can all be identified as STEM disposi- based learning, interdisciplinary learning, demonstrations,
tions. The following example illustrates this notion: child-led explorations questioning and talking about science.
Two major starting points were identified. In one way, the
I have noticed since then when I say we are going to
educators introduced a topic through a demonstration to
do an experiment today, they are very excited to par-
inspire children’s exploration:
ticipate and join the group. It’s been lovely to see these
positive dispositions developing around science. (O, With the children, we have been putting lots of this
PLN1-E10) into practice using open ended questions, giving dem-
onstrations and providing learning spaces and experi-
It seems that educators also made use of children’s general
ences for the children to experiment with. I have set
dispositions for learning to support their motivation and
up a float and sink testing area and a table to explore
positive mind-set towards STEM. In doing so, the educa-
the different weights of objects using scales and a bal-
tors were responsive to children’s questions and their inter-
ance scale to allow the children to compare weights.
ests, built and expanded on children’s explorations and
(O, PLN5-E6)
play ideas. For example, a play in the sandpit could turn
into a STEM related exploration. In one scenario, one par- In another online comment, an educator’s demonstration
ticipant explained that their project on rain, rainbows and that was inspired by the Little Scientists ‘Engineering’ work-
light started with a “downpour of rain” (O, PLN5-E5) and shop created much interest in the children who continued
stemmed from children’s initiative. In this way, STEM learn- their own explorations in the dramatic play corner. The edu-
ing became meaningful to the children and was something cator encouraged the continuation by providing resources
to which they could relate. which aligns with discussions around the role of the educator

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363 359

“to guide, provide the resources and scaffold learning” (O, going to happen?” And then doing it with us. But it
PLN5-E6). was us doing it all. This [Little Scientists] is all about
The participants agreed that discovery and exploration open-ended materials, and the children exploring it in
through play are at the heart of teaching STEM. Children play and coming up with concepts themselves, and us
learn through their own explorations, while the adult bal- helping them to develop those concepts. So a very dif-
ances a combination of roles: co-learner, helper, director, ferent angle from what we were doing. (FG, PLN2-E3)
and recorder of children’s learning. Hence, considering the
With their change in STEM teaching, the educator also saw
different roles educators can play, another way was to build
a change in culture around educational practice. STEM is
on children’s own initial interests. Educators provided sev-
now a collaboration between educators and children where
eral examples where the children’s initiative was extended
they engage in conversations together and explore in which
by providing resources or offering interdisciplinary learning,
the educator identified as a “community of inquiry”:
using all sorts of ways of approaching a topic through role
play, books for looking up facts, storybooks, music, experi- We put our photos of some of the things they create,
ments, and outdoor experiences: and we have big discussions, and I think the group dis-
cussions have been really great for the kids. We were
One exciting learning journey I can share is that of
making boats, and I was saying to Carmen, most of
children’s exploration of bugs and insects. This excit-
them just sank right to the bottom. And some floated.
ing journey began with a child’s interest with discov-
So we were like: why do we think this one would float?
ery of a beetle. The journey began with examining the
And a lot of children would just go: “I don’t know.”
beetle features, how it moved and its habitat. This was
And then somebody would come up with an idea. And
extended with catching bugs with bug catchers and
every single child would go: “Ahhh. Yes.” So they
using magnifying glasses to examine the bugs and
were all learning from each other. It’s not the teacher
beetles. This was further extended with bug hunting
going: “A boat floats because of…” And then we’d
with magnifying glasses and investigation of bees
say: “Ah ok, so if you think that, let’s see if we can
with an incursion from a beekeeper. Exploration and
test that.” And all together we made: “Maybe it should
research action inquiry then took place on pollen and
float, maybe it should sink again – but that’s ok”. So I
nectar and individual collections of bugs in buckets.
think it’s that community of inquiry. (FG, PLN2-E3)
A bug enclosure was set up with exploration of stick
insects - getting to know the bugs, bug bravery, Bug- While the inquiry-based learning approach has inspired the
mania extension and Bug Rules! The children applied educational practices, the Little Scientists program seems
this new knowledge gained and became familiar with also appealing to the educators, as it allows flexibility, as
upkeep of bugs. The life of a caterpillar was examined some of the comments reported how the educators adapted
and extended with musical and literacy experiences. their educational STEM practices in relation to the context
(O, PLN5-E4) of the setting. In a small rural centre with a mix of ages rang-
ing from infants to school children, “experiences are done in
With Little Scientists, the educators reported that their
small bursts rather than concentrated projects” (O, PLN5-
STEM teaching has changed. One educator reflected that
E5). Another advantage the educators discussed was that
while her team always practiced and cultivated STEM learn-
existing educational practices could be intertwined with the
ing, Little Scientists offered a range of approaches that made
new STEM ideas. The educators, in particular the Darwin-
it very enjoyable for everyone. This emerged from the shift
based PLN members, drew strong lines between Little Scien-
in their practices from educator-led to child-led learning.
tists and play-based learning for their educational practices.
She highlighted that it allows children and educators to take
their time and for free exploration. Although their former
Equity
practice had their appeal, the educator’s emphasis is on this
new approach:
Few educators in both conversation modes, online and dur-
So, what we would be doing is the teacher doing an ing the face-to-face focus group, raised issues around equity.
experiment, and children would help with the experi- However, some of the participants experiences of being a
ment. And then we’d use the words hypothesize, you small and rural early childhood education service could be
know questioning, predicting. Is it going to – and these challenging in regards to STEM education. For one thing,
are the materials. If it was going to explode, we wear a challenge for small regional services with a low intake
goggles. It was all exciting. The children could do it of children is that they have to provide mixed age learning
themselves afterwards. But it was us imparting knowl- environments to have the sufficient numbers of children to
edge. It was a teacher saying: “What do you think is continue their service. A range of ages, including babies

13
360 Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363

up to school children who come in after school hours share You might have been the worst scientist at school, the
the environment, and different children attend the service worst mathematician, but you use it every day - for
during a week. One of the educators took this mix to task very basic things. But you just don’t know that until –
on in the online forum, as she mentioned her difficulties in it just opens your mind and you go: “Ah yeah, I can do
managing projects. Another difficulty small services face is this. (FG, PLN2-E2)
the challenge of sending staff to professional development It’s like simple little things that you do every day.
workshops, as they have no relief staff and a small budget That’s what I was saying. I didn’t realise this can be
available to cover the costs. This issue seems to connect with a science … We did think science is something like
educators’ capacities which is presented later on, but gener- you mix chemicals and all of the things, it’s going to
ally speaking, the delivery of STEM education is strongly be fantastic. It’s not. It’s simple little things that can
linked to having trained staff. One of the educators therefore flick the children’s minds: Oh this is science… It’s eve-
expressed how she valued the accessibility of the Little Sci- rywhere. What we learn from the school - my back-
entists program: ground, maybe you guys are different, because where
we came from, science is something that you learn
And what I was trying to say – because you were say-
seriously. (FG, PLN2-E1)
ing you had that big STEM – but this is a school [com-
paring her small service with the other participant’s However, attending the workshops made them realise that,
preschool]. And it’s really nice to have things like for example science does not have to be associated with
Little Scientists to go to small places who don’t have hard-to-understand theoretical input; rather science can be
access to all those things, and they can bring those found in everyday experiences and in a very practical way:
into these small centres for the children. That’s a really
I think - the teachers – even though we already know
good thing to do. (FG, PLN2-E2)
about teachable moments, it opens up the teachable
One educator highlighted that it was important that Little science moments. (FG, PLN2-E3)
Scientists workshops were accessible to remote and Indig-
In the online discussions, it was evident that low confi-
enous communities. Other equity issues that are related to
dence can also have other sources. One participant explored
gender or children who are socio-economically disadvan-
how she and her team found that they faced challenges in
taged were not addressed.
implementing Australia’s national early childhood curricu-
lum framework due to its perceived vagueness. In addition,
Educator Capacities educators would deal with “doubt” and “anxiety” question-
ing if what they did was right. She reported that “it [Little
Analysis of the online conversations indicates that the Little Scientists] has given our team more of a prescriptive cycle”
Scientists program has had an impact on educators’ capaci- (O, PLN5-E5). Her team felt that the Little Scientists pro-
ties. For one thing, their confidence in teaching STEM has gram’s inquiry-based learning “links beautifully” with the
increased. Some of the PLN participants noticed that their national framework and has been easy to implement. She
low confidence was related to their own childhood experi- embraces Little Scientists as a guidance for STEM pedagogi-
ences and their memories from when they attended school as cal approaches.
a child, and how they did not enjoy STEM related subjects: The attendance of Little Scientists workshops has also
raised educators’ awareness of what they already do:
We talked about that in the Little Scientists and when
went to the workshop, most people didn’t like sciences I went to water in July and my goal was to build my
at school. As teachers, you don’t want to bring sciences confidence and learn more tools to implement STEM
into the classroom because you actually didn’t enjoy in my educational program. Soon, I discovered that I
it. (FG, PLN2-E3) was already doing lots of different projects without
knowing. (O, PLN5-E9)
With this, educators reflected that they experienced a
I think these workshops have grown my awareness
change of mindset. The educators in Darwin elaborated on
of seeing and following up science related learning
the influence of their childhood experiences to avoid STEM
opportunities in the everyday. (O, PLN5-E10)
in their teaching and educational practices, but that the pro-
Educators are more aware of the scientific terms
fessional development through Little Scientists made them
and how to explain specific terms to children who
feel confident:
are inquiring about it. Furthermore educators have
Because it’s the concept. You can remember that hard- learnt that the STEM project required for all educa-
ness of maths and science. You know it doesn’t have tors to bring individual strategies, ideas and practice
to be like that. You don’t realize how much you use. to the classroom and project. The STEM project has

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363 361

allowed for educators to explore science, engineering I found the cards easy to follow we adapted some of
and mathematics in small yet significant ways with the ideas to the questions and interests my group were
the children. (O, PLN5-E4) having. (O, PLN5-E7)
But I think Little Scientists having those really easy
Other PLN online participants shared similar views in
cards that you can flip side to side that hasn’t got too
that the professional development through Little Scientists
much information. You can actually go – teachers are
workshops has guided them, for example they “seem to
always time-poor, every educator is time-poor. Having
have more purpose and intentionality in their program”
a resource you can flip through with photos. You know
(O, PLN5-E5). Motivation “to focus on the science and
the children are really interested in this, and we’ve seen
maths components of the curriculum” (O, PLN5-E4) has
this, I know I got one [a card] here somewhere: “Ahhh
increased and challenges were overcome. One online
this is the concept, these are some ideas”, see some
comment highlighted that the educators in this team per-
photos, and that’s good for sharing when you come
ceive themselves now as “researchers” and feel confident
back from Little Scientists to share with other people.
in “applying new knowledge to practice” (O, PLN5-E4).
(FG, PLN2-E3)
Another post illustrated that educators are co-researchers,
noticing “the importance of learning together with the Educators wish to have more access to professional devel-
children” (O, PLN5-E4) which relates to the “community opment opportunities and enjoyed in particular the Little
of inquiry” mentioned in the shift of educational practices. Scientists workshop. However, a big issue for many of them
Overall, professional development boosts the educators’ is being time-poor. They reported that it is hard to find the
confidence to become effective STEM teachers: time during opening hours, or to get a relief teacher while a
staff member is attending a workshop. Professional devel-
It empowers you - When you do question in a differ-
opment, like the Little Scientists program, has opened the
ent way, and you get that reaction from the children,
educators’ eyes for what they already do, but also has built
and it just snowballs along. It empowers you that you
on their skills, and receiving training would be essential for
like: “Yes! This is great, and we’re going to -” And
their STEM education.
it kind of gives you that way forward, you know. So
In addition to feeling time-poor, having a low budget was
that you’re not sort of: “Hmm, what are we going to
a challenge PLN participants mentioned in their conversa-
do next?” (FG, PLN2-E2)
tions. Also, professional development is often inaccessible
The Little Scientists program also seems to have the for small services which cannot get relief educators for that
advantage of being accessible for anyone. Accessibility is day. However, the program’s comprehensiveness has con-
linked to resources and material, as well as to its compre- tributed to lower this barrier. Being able to send just one
hensiveness. Many of the educators discussed that Little staff member to a Little Scientists workshop has impact. The
Scientists provides resources that are easy and flexible to hands-on and practical approach of the workshops contrib-
implement, as the program does not require special mate- uted to its easy implementation into the practices. Addition-
rial or expensive learning sets which would need to be ally, the language was perceived as easy to bring back into
purchased. Instead, everyday materials – or how one edu- the service and share with colleagues. This was a particular
cator named it, “simple material but it can be amazing” focus of the Darwin-based PLN:
(FG, PLN2-E1) and “whatever you can find” (FG, PLN2-
But because of our low budgeting, it’s very difficult
E3) – forms the basis for ideas for how to explore sci-
to do a lot of PDs and this. And time away is nearly
entific concepts, technology, or maths in simple learning
impossible. So, it’s great to be able to learn these
experiences. Another educator reflected during the focus
things and bring them back and teach other people
group conversation that “it doesn’t need special material,
because it’s a language that’s easy for everyone to
of course, but it gives another avenue for educators to learn
understand. (FG, PLN2-E2)
what to do and how you can use everyday products” (FG,
The day of learning [at the LS workshop] is fun when
PLN2-E2).
you go. Bringing back [Workshop insights] is fun. And
Besides the everydayness of materials that can be used,
it’s easy to share. So I have shared it across the whole
the comprehensive material for the educators with infor-
junior school. I did a workshop on return and shared
mation and ideas was highlighted, as well as the adapt-
Little Scientists and how we do STEM. That was really
ability of material to the different contexts of the settings.
lovely. We did photos of what we’ve done with the
Within the workshop package, each participant receives
children and where they took it. (FG, PLN2-E3)
a booklet and cards to the theme of the workshop. PLN
I think for our service – having the way it is set up
participants in both modes, online and face to face, appre-
–means that - I have only limited funds of course but
ciated them:
I can send her – she can come in and share it with

13
362 Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363

everyone because it is set up in a language that every- Equity issues in STEM education could be discussed more
body – that she is confident to give to us. It’s not like explicitly within the Little Scientists program.
sitting down. It’s so hands-on, it’s fun. Then you can The educators evaluated the implementation of the Lit-
go back and you can share it with others. Because it tle Scientists program as positive for creating a community
was fun. They can give it to the other persons as well. of inquiry where children and educators learn and research
It’s a really good platform to bring that PD training together, with space for children’s self-directed and play-
into a service. (FG, PLN2-E2) based explorations. Adults can take on varied roles, includ-
ing director, helper, co-learner or recorder of children’s
Regardless of these challenges, the program led to the edu-
learning.
cators feeling empowered and confident to go back to their
Educators’ confidence in teaching STEM has increased,
services with the feeling that they had learned something
and participants reflected on their beliefs and attitudes.
they could implement the following day. In general, educa-
With Little Scientists, they have overcome doubts and have
tors are motivated to further their knowledge and skills for
realised that STEM can be simple and found in everyday
STEM education.
activities. Participants are more aware of what they already
do, and in addition, have changed their self-perception, now
understanding themselves as researchers and co-learners.
Among the different PLNs, there were both similarities
Discussion and Conclusion
and differences in relation to participation. Similarities were
apparent for the participants’ reflection of the themes, par-
The idea of the PLN established for the purpose of this eval-
ticularly around capabilities, dispositions, educational prac-
uation was well received, as it provided participants with a
tices, and educator capacities which were the most discussed
space to exchange ideas and practices, and share exemplars.
in both modes of data generation in the online forum and
It was unsurprising that in a study of a professional learn-
through the Focus Group. While the study did not aim to
ing program focused on building educators’ capacities to
compare the PLN groups, but rather aspired to form one
develop children’s STEM capabilities, “capabilities” and
learning community, active participation was linked to PLNs
“educator capacities” were the most emphasised themes.
and ranged from none to high activity. During the Focus
Educators have noticed children’s STEM capabilities, and
Group, there was high intensity of participation with all
have described how the children have shown high levels of
three participating educators contributing through verbal
motivation and interest, as well as a growing confidence in
accounts. However, these educators did not engage online
STEM related learning experiences. It would appear that
although they had sparked the idea of having a social media
participants are more aware of children’s existing, but also
platform and online forum to share ideas and photos. The
growing, skills and knowledge in STEM, including crea-
PLN that contributed most posts in the online forum was
tive thinking, problem-solving, hypothesising, and self-
comprised of survey participants who had self-nominated to
investigating. However, participants did not mention digital
partake in the qualitative data generation. Only one teacher
literacy or ICT skills, despite connections to digital learning
student from PLN1 posted, inspite of the fact that other
being provided in the professional learning program. Indeed,
members of this PLN had expressed interest in doing so,
none of the PLN participants reported the use of digital
after the relationship with the researcher had been estab-
technologies, unless for documenting children’s learning or
lished during the workshop and in follow up emails. One
looking up information with children. It is potentially the
of the five State Award Winners from PLN4 shared insights
case that the program’s emphasis on “everyday materials”
and visual documentation of their educational practices on
shifts attention away from the potential of digital technolo-
the online forum. Interestingly, the participants from the
gies in inquiry-based learning. This seems to be an area for
face-to-face workshops decided to stay silent despite some
improvement within the program.
activating their online forum account. PLN3 was the least
All PLN participants appear to feel positive about the
active and their form of participating remained in informal
Little Scientists workshops and have implemented ideas
conversations with the researcher throughout the workshop
easily into their educational practices. They tie this back
day. It seems that educators from all PLNs were interested
to the program’s hands-on, accessible and comprehensive
in having opportunities to exchange reflection and practical
nature, as well as the everydayness of materials, flexibility,
ideas. However, the self-nominated participants made most
and adaptability to services’ individual contexts. While the
use of the given online space.
participants found that the program’s accessibility responds
In conclusion, it would appear that participation in Little
to the needs of small and regional communities, there was
Scientists has afforded a range of benefits for participants
less to no awareness of equity issues related to gender,
and, by extension through their practices, for the children
socio-economic backgrounds, and Indigenous communities.
with whom they work. Five of the six elements of effective

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2020) 48:353–363 363

STEM education as outlined by Murphy et al. (2018) were Hunting, R., Mousley, J., & Perry, B. (2012). A study of rural preschool
evident among the corpus of qualitative data from the eval- practitioners’ views on young children’s mathematical thinking.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24, 39–57.
uation study. These findings suggest that the Little Scien- Johnston, J. (2011). The impact of home and school on early years
tists program is promoting best-practice in early childhood scientific development. Education in Science, 245, 30–31.
STEM education, and stands to have a lasting impact upon Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches
STEM education practices in Australia. to engineering design: Observations in STEM education. Journal
of STEM Teacher Education, 47(2), 5–40.
Lai Poh, T., Causo, A., Pei-Wen, T., I-Ming, C., & Yeo, S. H. (2016).
Acknowledgements This work was supported by an external competi- A review on the use of robots in education and young children.
tive grant provided by FROEBEL Australia Limited. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 19(2), 148–163.
MacLeod, K. (2013). Physics education and STSE: Perspectives from
the literature. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(4), 1–12.
References McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM education: A review of the contribu-
tion of the disciplines of Science, Technology. Engineering and
Mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530–569.
Aldemir, J., & Kermani, H. (2017). Integrated STEM curriculum: McPhan, G., Morony, W., Pegg, J., Cooksey, R., & Lynch, T. (2008).
Improving educational outcomes for Head Start children. Early Maths? Why not?. Canberra: Department of Education, Employ-
Child Development & Care, 187(11), 1694–1706. https​://doi. ment and Workplace Relations.
org/10.1080/03004​430.2016.11851​02. Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, & L., Wang, C. (2018). An analy-
Alexander, C., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Bull, sis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in
G. (2014). The impact of project-based learning on pre-service Education. https​://doi.org/10.1177/14782​10318​77419​0.
teachers’ technology attitudes and skills. Journal of Computers in Panizzon, D., & Westwell, M. (2009). Engaging students in STEM-
Mathematics & Science Teaching, 33(3), 257–282. related subjects. What does the research evidence say? Retrieved
Atiles, J. T., Jones, J. L., & Anderson, J. A. (2013). More than a read- February 8, 2017, from http://www.flinde​ rs.edu.au/scienc​ e_engin​
aloud: Preparing and inspiring early childhood teachers to develop eerin​g/scien​ce-21-files​/brief​i ngs/Engag​ing%20stu​dents​.pdf.
our future scientists. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), Park, M.-H., Dimitrov, D. M., Patterson, L. G., & Park, D.-Y. (2017).
285–299. Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teach-
Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: ing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Jour-
Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher nal of Early Childhood Research, 15(3), 275–291. https​://doi.
education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), org/10.1177/14767​18X15​61404​0.
355–377. Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Moti-
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: The- vation for learning science in Kindergarten: Is there a gender gap
matic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a differ-
Publications. ence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 166–191.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and Perry, B., & MacDonald, A. (2015). Educators’ expectations and aspi-
opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. rations around young children’s mathematical knowledge. Profes-
Campbell, C., Speldewinde, C., Howitt, C., & MacDonald, A. (2018). sional Development in Education, 41(2), 366–381.
STEM practice in the early years. Creative Education, 9(1), Prinsley, R., & Baranyai, K. (2015). STEM skills in the workforce.
11–25. https​://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.91002​. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from http://www.chief​scien​tist.gov.
Cohrssen, C., & Page, J. (2016). Articulating a rights-based argument au/wp-conte​nt/uploa​ds/OPS09​_02Mar​2015_Web.pdf.
for mathematics teaching and learning in early childhood educa- Redmond, A., Thomas, J., High, K., Scott, M., Jordan, P., & Dockers, J.
tion. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(3), 104–108. (2011). Enriching science and math through engineering. School
Eng Tek, O. N. G., Ayob, A., Ibrahim, M. N., Adnan, M., Shariff, J., Science and Mathematics, 111(8), 399–408.
& Ishak, N. (2016). The effectiveness of an in-service training of Reimers, J. E., Farmer, C. L., & Klein-Gardner, S. S. (2015). An intro-
early childhood teachers on STEM integration through Project- duction to the standards for preparation and professional develop-
Based Inquiry Learning (PIL). Journal of Turkish Science Educa- ment for teachers of engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engi-
tion (TUSED), 13, 44–58. https​://doi.org/10.12973​/tused​.10170​a. neering Education Research, 5(1), 40–60.
Fleer, M., March, S., & Gunstone, D. (2006). Investigations into the Starkey, L. (2012). Teaching and learning in the digital age. New York:
engagement of preschool and primary aged children in science, Taylor and Francis.
engineering and technology. Report by Monash University, Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014).
Department of Science and Training. What’s past is prologue: Relations between early mathematics
Gee, K. A., & Wong, K. K. (2012). A cross national examination of knowledge and high school achievement. Educational Researcher,
inquiry and its relationship to student performance in science: 43(7), 352–360.
Evidence from the Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA) 2006. International Journal of Educational Research, 53,
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
303–318.
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Hedlin, M., & Gunnarsson, G. (2014). Preschool student teachers, tech-
nology, and gender: Positive expectations despite mixed experi-
ences from their own school days. Early Child Development and
Care, 184(12), 1948–1959.
Hefty, L. J. (2015). STEM gives meaning to mathematics. Teaching
Children Mathematics, 21(7), 422–429.

13