1. Chih Ing Lim
  2. https://fpg.unc.edu/profiles/chih-ing-lim
  3. Senior Technical Assistance Specialist
  4. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  5. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  6. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPB Child Development Institute UNC, University of Denver
  1. Jessica Amsbary
  2. Technical Assistance Specialist
  3. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  4. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  5. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  1. Douglas Clements
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Clements
  3. Distinguished University Professor; Kennedy Endowed Chair in Early Childhood Learning; Executive Director, Marsico Institute for Early Learning and Literacy; and Professor
  4. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  5. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  6. University of Denver
  1. Christine Harradine
  2. http://stemie@fpg.unc.edu
  3. TA Specialist/Research Investigator
  4. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  5. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  6. FPB Child Development Institute UNC
  1. Toni Miguel
  2. Family
  3. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  4. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  5. FPB Child Development Institute UNC
  1. Julie Sarama
  2. Kennedy Endowed Chair of Innovative Learning Technologies
  3. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  4. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  5. University of Denver
  1. Elica Sharifnia
  2. https://www.linkedin.com/in/elica-sharifnia-phd-25139053/
  3. Postdoctoral Research Fellow
  4. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  5. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  6. University of Denver
  1. Megan Vinh
  2. https://fpg.unc.edu/profiles/megan-e-vinh
  3. Advanced Technical Assistance Specialist
  4. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  5. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  6. STEMIE, ECTA
  1. Hsiu-Wen Yang
  2. Research investigator
  3. STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education
  4. https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu
  5. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Public Discussion

Continue the discussion of this presentation on the Multiplex. Go to Multiplex

  • Icon for: Chih Ing Lim

    Chih Ing Lim

    Lead Presenter
    Senior Technical Assistance Specialist
    May 9, 2022 | 05:15 p.m.

    Thank you for visiting our video! Our Center, the STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education Center (STEMIE, https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu ) is funded by the Office of Special Education Programs, US Department of Education. STEMIE is a partnership between Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Marsico Institute at the University of Denver. Our work is focused on developing the evidence including instructional practices and learning trajectories for science, technology, and engineering, and further refining the well-developed math learning trajectories to ensure all young children (birth to five) especially those with disabilities can engage in early STEM learning opportunities in school and at home. 

    We have been working with practitioners, children with and without disabilities, and families in early childhood programs and early intervention home-based services conducting rapid cycles of testing of the learning trajectories. We will love to have a chat with you about the learning trajectories we are developing for early science, technology (computational thinking), and engineering, as well as refining the ones for math.

  • Icon for: Nancy Songer

    Nancy Songer

    Facilitator
    Dean
    May 10, 2022 | 01:29 p.m.

    Thank you for sharing your learning trajectories approach with the great annotated video clips showing Kingston and his mother exploring Force and Motion! The video was captivating because of both the wonderful video clips of Kingston and his mother combined with the narration and text materials illustrating what the video was showing.

    My question is related to impact: How are you gathering information on the impact of the intervention? Are you using both self-report or interview materials from the caregivers/parents and the students, or only one or the other group? Are there other forms of data gathering such as coding video excerpts for particular utterances or actions taken by the kids?

    Also, I would love to know what kinds of activities you are doing for younger kids than Kingston, such as those 18 months to up to 3 years old (Kingstron's age). Are you focusing on 3 years and up or do you also have programs for younger kids? If so, I would love to learn more.

    Thank you.

  • Icon for: Chih Ing Lim

    Chih Ing Lim

    Lead Presenter
    Senior Technical Assistance Specialist
    May 10, 2022 | 05:13 p.m.

    Hi Nancy,

    Thank you for visiting and for asking about our work! We are developing learning trajectories for science, technology (computational thinking), and engineering for children ages birth to 5 years.  We first did a very deep dive into the literature and also got a group of early STEM experts to give their input on important concepts and topics, as well as what they might have observed, researched, and experienced over the years of working with young children. From there we proposed a series of progressions through which all children move as their thinking develops and grows more sophisticated. We then went back to the experts again to ask the following questions: do we have the right ones?  Did we miss any? Are they in a predictable order? Our work then moved to testing these progressions and asking ourselves the same questions we asked the experts –  In order to do that, we are engaging in rapid cycles of working with children, families, and practitioners using short explorations  or investigations that are developed to answer these questions in our ‘incubator’ sites. Our team of investigators records interactions with the children, have discussions several times a week about the different video clips as well as what is being observed in each of the sites, and compare similarities and differences across children in different sites. The team also reflect on what we think may be gaps or changes needed in the progressions, or to the explorations, and what else children may be interested in that we can leverage to learn more about how they think about STEM. Much thought is also given to adaptations that might be needed for children with disabilities to participate fully in the explorations. The team also keep extensive notes on what we observe of children thinking, what worked, and what didn't.

     Some of our “incubator” sites are center-based and some are home visitor/early intervention based.  The work with the early interventionists also include a family coaching component. Much of the birth to three work also focuses on how STEM can be embedded within everyday routines and activities - e.g., opportunities within bath time, meals, diapering. 

    - on behalf of the STEMIE team

  • Icon for: Jessica Parker

    Jessica Parker

    Facilitator
    Senior Director
    May 10, 2022 | 05:37 p.m.

    Thanks so much for sharing this video case study of Kingston and his mom. I am wondering if you can say more about how you and your team are defining "early high-quality STEM learning experiences"? Are there specific kinds of experiences or actions you are looking to see with young children? Are there specific principles that are guiding you and the parents, caregivers, and others stakeholders?  

     
    1
    Discussion is closed. Upvoting is no longer available

    Jessica Parker
  • Icon for: Chih Ing Lim

    Chih Ing Lim

    Lead Presenter
    Senior Technical Assistance Specialist
    May 11, 2022 | 05:19 p.m.

    Hi Jessica,

    Great question. We are currently developing and testing a set of tools known as learning trajectories. Comprised of benchmarks, the development of children's thinking between the benchmarks, and connected learning experiences, materials, and games, as well as adaptation considerations, we hope these trajectories can enable families and early childhood professionals to implement experiential STEM learning for young children especially children with disabilities. Also the core value of our work at STEMIE is to foster the inclusion of young children with disabilities in early childhood programs and home-based early intervention programs. What that means is that young children with disabilities will not just have the access but also full participation in STEM learning opportunities alongside their peers. From our work and from research on inclusion, oftentimes children with disabilities may not be experiencing quality learning opportunities even within high quality early childhood programs. The specific kinds of experiences we are looking to see and do with young children include a variety of guided play and hands-on experiences or opportunities that have been set up intentionally to allow for independent explorations or to allow for peer collaborations. While these probably are what you might see as early STEM quality experiences for most children, they might not be accessible for some children with disabilities. Thus our work has also been to show how and what adaptations to the environment, materials, and instruction can be used to support children’s participation in these experiences, and many of these adaptations aren’t expensive and most are also what EC practitioners and families may be already doing. Another component of our work is also to support adults in attending to and responding contingently to children’s different actions/nonverbal cues because some children with disabilities may engage or communicate in different ways. 

     
    1
    Discussion is closed. Upvoting is no longer available

    Jessica Parker
  • Icon for: Ximena Dominguez

    Ximena Dominguez

    Researcher
    May 11, 2022 | 11:01 a.m.

    Hello, STEMIE team! It was great to watch your video and hear more about your work. I've reviewed some of the emerging trajectories in the past and I am eager to learn more about what your work uncovers. It's information that is very much needed in the field, to guide the development of programs and STEM innovations.

    One question that came to mind is whether you have explored/investigated trajectories for the science and engineering practices, in addition to the core ideas. This is something our team has been indirectly investigating as part of our R&D work. We have noticed young children are easily able to engage in some practices and need substantial support for others. I'm curious to learn if you have any emerging findings in this area. 

  • Icon for: Elica Sharifnia

    Elica Sharifnia

    Co-Presenter
    Postdoctoral Research Fellow
    May 13, 2022 | 05:36 p.m.

    Hi Xime!

    Thanks for viewing our video and for your thoughtful question! As Christine mentioned below, we are also investigating trajectories for these child level processes (observe, classify, document, investigate, reflect, etc.). As we’ve been exploring the trajectories for certain science domains (such as Physical Science – Force and Motion) in inclusive early childhood classrooms serving children ages birth to 5, we have found there is an implicit vs. explicit nature to children’s understanding of these concepts, which extends to their engagement in the practices as well. For example, younger children may notice the movement of objects by tracking the object with their eyes, indicating an implicit engagement in observing, but then as they progress and become more verbal, are able to extend the practice of observing by describing the movement of objects. I second Christine and would love to hear more about what you are finding! 

    -The STEMIE Team

  • Icon for: Christine Harradine

    Christine Harradine

    Co-Presenter
    TA Specialist/Research Investigator
    May 11, 2022 | 11:17 a.m.

    Hi Ximena,

    Thanks for viewing our video and asking your question.  We have teased apart what we call "child level processes" from the core domain-specific big ideas and are investigating progressions for those as well.  We felt that the child level processes each have their own set of progressions, and should be considered separate from any one domain since many of these cross domains.  Examples are classify, sort, describe, document, reflect, and others.  We are also developing progressions for 'cross-cutting concepts' that act in all domains and serve as another way in to observing and understanding children's thinking.  These include compare & contrast, patterns, cause & effect, change & stability, systems & their interactions, and structure & function.

    We would love to hear about what you are finding!  Thanks again for your interest.

    -On behalf of the STEMIE Team

  • Icon for: David Haury

    David Haury

    Facilitator
    Emeritus Professor
    May 12, 2022 | 10:58 a.m.

    I was impressed by the questioning pattern and timing employed by Kingston’s mother. This does not typically occur naturally, so I am wondering what sort of coaching or “parent professional development” processes you may have used. Could you say a bit about how you work with parent’s to implement the learning trajectories?  Thanks 

  • Icon for: Chih Ing Lim

    Chih Ing Lim

    Lead Presenter
    Senior Technical Assistance Specialist
    May 13, 2022 | 10:29 a.m.

    Hi David, 

    Thank you! This is a component we are currently still working together to refine with our early intervention practitioners and the families they are working to determine what might be the best way for them to work collectively to engage children. We have a guiding framework that we have worked with early intervention practitioners that is aligned to existing evidence-based early intervention family engagement and coaching practices. Basically it includes how to begin planning with the child's interests and thinking and potential goals on the individualized plans (e.g., IFSP), then considering how to implement opportunities within everyday routines and activities. This may include considering if the child requires adaptations (e.g., visual cues) to fully participate and also how to use STEM talk and open ended questions to facilitate these playful opportunities. We are co-creating some resources with these considerations together with practitioners and families to ensure the information and tips may be most useful for them. I do agree that these interactions are otherwise not typically occur naturally and we all have to make these shifts in our practice, and sometimes, even the smallest shifts can make a big impact.  

     

  • Icon for: Lauren Bauman

    Lauren Bauman

    Research Coordinator
    May 17, 2022 | 01:03 a.m.

    Thank you for sharing your work! I was also very impressed by the questioning pattern and timing employed by Kingston's mother, and it was wonderful to see how many great ideas Kingston had about the motion of objects on ramps.

    While watching your video, I couldn't help but draw connections to our work. Our video is about developing curricular materials for college-level introductory physics students that aim to leverage and build on the good ideas students already have about physics. Although the student population and content goals are different, the general approach/orientation towards learners' ideas are similar. I'd be curious if you have thought about how the principles of scaffolding and building on ideas that Kingston's mom is using could be applied to other contexts, particularly in supporting learning older students? 

  • Icon for: Christine Harradine

    Christine Harradine

    Co-Presenter
    TA Specialist/Research Investigator
    May 17, 2022 | 08:36 a.m.

     Hi Lauren! Thank you for viewing our video.  I just watched your video and boy are there connections between our work and yours! 

    At the core of what we do at STEMIE is the notion of starting with children's interests and trying to figure out what they are thinking in order to help guide their thinking along learning trajectories to more sophisticated levels of thinking and understanding.  That sounds like what you are doing, figuring out and capitalizing on what college students know and believe (especially if those knowings need to be adjusted!) before guiding them along more sophisticated understandings.

    Your work also makes me think about a struggle we are having in developing our learning trajectories.   We want to be sure to avoid building the foundation for common content misconceptions (such as a tennis ball and a bowling ball fall at different rates), yet when thinking about young children birth to 5 as we do, finding that line between too much information and offering enough accurate content is always on our minds.

    Thanks again for stopping by!

  • To post to this discussion go to