The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 50 A Head Start on Stem: Investigating the Relationship Of Early Childhood Educator Knowledge and Self-Efficacy The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 2025, Volume 28, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.55370/thedialog.v28i2.1661 Contact: Paula Thompson - thompsonpj@unk.edu Copyright © 2025 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/). A HEAD START ON STEM ABSTRACT Research substantiates that providing high-quality STEM experiences at an early age is important for young children to become college and career ready (Moore et al, 2016). However, not all early childhood educators are as knowledgeable and/or confident in supporting early STEM instruction. How educators feel, think, and motivate themselves on the job is often influenced by their self-efficacy beliefs. Individuals with strong self-efficacy tend to commit to goals that challenge their current capabilities (Bandura, 1993). Therefore, educators may be more inclined to implement early STEM lessons if they feel knowl- edgeable and confident. The study used a multiple method design including scales, surveys, and self-re- flection logs of 13 Head Start preschool educators over 11-months. The findings suggested a significant increase from pre-survey to post-survey in the partic- ipants’ self-efficacies for supporting preschool-age children’s STEM instruction. KEYWORDS Early STEM, self-Efficacy, Head Start, STEM instruc- tion, professional development, early childhood educator preparation, preschool Why STEM Instruction? Between 2019 and 2029 in the United States, science and engineering careers are predicted to grow by nearly 10% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). During this timeframe, new jobs requiring strong skills in science, math, technology, and engineering (STEM), such as science and engineering manag- ers, health care practitioners and technicians, and computer/mathematical scientists are predicted to grow the most. To meet the nation’s workforce needs, it is essential that PK-12 educators provide high-qual- ity STEM instruction to positively impact future generations in college and career readiness (McClure et al., 2017). “By providing practitioners with the tools they need to continue facilitating progressive STEM Paula Thompson Dena Harshbarger Jane Strawhecker Libby Yungdahl University of Nebraska at Kearney mailto:thompsonpj@unk.edu The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 51 learning, we are leveraging a growth-based ap- proach that supports success beyond the early childhood years,” (Frank Porter Graham Child De- velopment Institute, 2022). To address the United States (U.S.) workforce needs, many professional organizations (e.g., National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), Nation- al Council of Teaching Mathematics (NCTM), National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)) through standards, frameworks, guidelines, and position statements advocate for the inclusion of STEM curriculum during the early years. Why Early STEM Instruction According to the American University’s School of Education (2020), birth to age five is when young minds are most malleable and capable of develop- ing lifelong thinking skills. During this time-peri- od, young children are rapidly making connections and creating neural pathways in the brain at an un- paralleled rate. If these connections are not devel- oped and fostered during the early years; the neural pathways will be lost. To prevent this from occur- ring, early childhood (EC) educators must sup- port the development of these essential pathways by tapping into young children’s inherent curiosity (NSTA Position Statement, 2014). Young children want to know how things work and why things happen. According to the National Science Teach- ers Association (2014), on average, preschool-age children ask 100 questions per day. In addition to asking questions, they also have the capacity and propensity to observe, explore, discover, and make sense of the world around them (National Research Council, 2001). The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC & NCTM, 2010) stated that young children can and should engage in developmentally appropriate science and engineering practices (i.e., making predictions, carrying out experiments, and collecting data) to set the foundation for successful K-12 learning. Throughout these early STEM experiences, young children are not only gaining STEM knowledge but simultaneously developing character traits such as critical thinking and persistence (Sarama et al., 2018). These traits may help young children build foundational background knowledge and interest in STEM over time. Because STEM is inextricably linked to other disciplines, the experiences may en- hance learning and academic achievement in oth- er content areas (American University’s School of Education, 2020). Early STEM investigations and results can be used to launch discussions and elic- it written expressions to better understand STEM concepts thus, creating a direct link between sci- ence and/or math instruction and the improve- ment of literacy and language learning (Clements & Sarama, 2014; Sarama et al., 2018). Therefore, when early childhood educators provide intention- al and ongoing early STEM opportunities, young children’s academic knowledge can continuously grow and advance, which increases the likelihood of career readiness for STEM-based jobs. Young children’s STEM readiness While STEM experiences offer many benefits to young children, there are external factors that can hinder young children’s preparedness and suc- cess with STEM instruction. EC educators face several challenges in supporting young children’s STEM learning, including their varied levels of un- derstanding, experiences, and skills (Lange et al., 2019). Young children considered at risk of school failure often come from low-income homes and/or are minorities. Young children considered at risk are often underserved and face barriers that neg- atively affect their STEM readiness and academic achievement. Recently, ACT scores for under- served students correlate with a cumulative sup- pressing effect on college readiness (ACT, 2017). Furthermore, a significantly lower percentage of high school students who represent more than one of the underserved student criteria (e.g., minorities, low income) met the nation’s ACT STEM Bench- mark (Allen & Radunzel, 2017). Since 1965, the federal Head Start program has provided care and education services to our nation’s most vulnerable young children, often at-risk for school failure. Examples of risk factors include liv- ing in poverty, receiving special education services, experiencing homelessness, and receiving public assistance. Poverty can impact many areas of a child’s life, such as limited access to food, adequate living conditions, health care, and quality care and education (e.g., childcare, preschool). Currently, the maximum income for a qualifying Head Start A HEAD START ON STEM The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 52 family of four is $31,200.00 (Office of the Assis- tant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, United States Health and Human Services, 2024). Since Head Start educators are charged with supporting these vulnerable populations, steps must be taken to provide the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to promote school and fu- ture career readiness for the young children they serve. EC educators and those that support EC ed- ucators (i.e., managers, instructional coaches) must be confident and equipped to plan and implement STEM instruction for young learners. Unfortu- nately, research shows that several factors hinder EC educators’ abilities to do so. EC Educators’ STEM Beliefs, Attitudes, and STEM Subject Matter Knowledge Many EC educators’ beliefs and attitudes about STEM are sometimes negative or steeped in feel- ings of anxiety, possibly due to previous personal experiences. Lange et al. (2019) reported EC ed- ucators’ lack of confidence as a limiting factor to young children’s STEM success, stating that past experiences and current attitudes, often lead EC educators to be less inclined to provide STEM op- portunities for young children. To address these past issues and current beliefs, Lange et al. (2019) suggested immersing EC educators in engaging, inquiry-based, and purposeful STEM-based teach- ing practices. These purposeful experiences should provide opportunities for EC educators to revise their beliefs and begin to cultivate positive attitudes toward STEM instruction so they may be more inclined and equipped to be effective role models during STEM activities with young children. According to Wilson et al. (1987) content knowledge refers to knowledge specific to the dis- ciplinary concepts, skills, or topics being taught. Kind et al. (2022) reiterated that content knowl- edge allows educators to be better equipped to de- sign and implement high-quality instruction for any given discipline(s). If educators have a good understanding of content knowledge relevant to the lesson being taught, they can strategically se- lect “instructional strategies appropriate for a stu- dent group, justify choices by explaining how these meet student learning needs; and track students’ learning and adapt in-class activities accordingly” (Kind et al., 2022, p. 331). In other words, strong content knowledge allows educators to interpret and respond to learners’ needs more effectively and intuitively when teaching in educational settings. Therefore, EC educators should be provided with opportunities to learn content knowledge specific to the concepts and skills they teach to young chil- dren within the four STEM disciplines. For science, educators must have knowledge related to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NRC, 2013) Cross Cutting Concepts (i.e., structure and function, cause and effect, and pat- terns) as they apply to the four domains or Disci- plinary Core Ideas (DCIs) (Physical Science, Earth Science, Life Science, and Engineering Technol- ogy and Applications of Science). According to the NGSS Standards (2013), educators also need knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to Sci- ence and Engineering Practices which emulate what scientists do to investigate the world as well as how engineers design and build systems so that they can effectively teach STEM to young children. For math, NAEYC along with NCTM (2010) and Clements & Sarama (2014) stated educators must understand the mathematical learning tra- jectories to provide developmentally appropriate instruction that serves as a foundation for future learning. EC educators, themselves, require foun- dational knowledge of mathematical concepts such as number and operations, geometry, spatial relationships, and measurement, as well as having background knowledge of essential mathematical process skills (e.g., composing and decomposing, and unitizing) to support young learners’ mathe- matical understanding. However, having mathematical and science content knowledge does not necessarily make one an effective STEM educator. Educators must also have pedagogical content knowledge (Wilson et al., 1987) to effectively convey the meaning of STEM concepts in a way young children can understand and apply to new situations (Lange et al., 2019). It is recommended that high-quality early STEM expe- riences incorporate educators’ pedagogical content knowledge through use of the following strategies (Lange et al., 2019): • provide and facilitate hands-on, exploratory learning opportunities • provide opportunities for young children A HEAD START ON STEM The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 53 to “play” within the STEM disciplines using blocks, games, socio-dramatic play, and/or ma- nipulatives • ask open-ended questions to make young chil- dren think and wonder • listen, observe, and take anecdotal notes about alternative conceptions and what young chil- dren understand about STEM concepts • use anecdotal notes to tailor and individualize future instruction • promote creativity and encourage multiple re- sponses or different ways to solve problems or complete tasks even if “incorrect” • make connections within STEM disciplines and other cross-curricular subjects • encourage young children to communicate and explain their thinking using evidence • refer to young children as scientists, mathe- maticians, or engineers as they design, test, and improve plans or prototypes through tri- al-and-error experiential learning • suggest ways to extend the investigation to ex- plore emerging ideas The importance of early STEM instruction is supported by research; however, increasing knowl- edge of the STEM disciplines and/or learning how to teach early STEM concepts, using child-centered strategies may be overwhelming and intimidating for many EC educators (Clements & Sarama, 2016; NSTA, 2014), possibly due to past experiences and confidence levels related to one or more of the STEM disciplines. EC Educators’ Self-Efficacy for STEM Instruc- tion According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in one’s ability to reach a specific goal. Unfortunately, many EC educators reported a lack of confidence, having low self-efficacy related to their abilities for designing and facilitating early STEM instruction (Lange et al., 2019). A study by Gerde et al. (2018) found that self-efficacious edu- cators were typically more willing and motivated to incorporate newer approaches such as those often aligned with STEM instruction. However, they also noted when EC educators lacked self-efficacy in STEM, they were less likely to provide STEM expe- riences for the young children they served. Accord- ingly, EC educator self-efficacy is yet another factor that may impact young children’s future STEM pre- paredness and success with STEM. To increase EC educators’ STEM self-efficacy, it is recommended that they participate in ongo- ing and interconnected professional development (PD) opportunities that are intentionally designed to grow STEM content knowledge and to model developmentally appropriate pedagogy (McClure et al., 2017). When EC educators partake in PD that models the same hands-on, engaging learning experiences and practices recommended for young children, it can positively impact their pre-existing anxiety and/or attitudes about STEM. For instance, a recent study (Chen et al., 2021) indicated that EC educators who participated in STEM-related activities and/or STEM PD, reported higher levels of STEM self-efficacy. In 2016, Zee and Koomen found that teachers who held positive affective at- titudes were more likely to implement and further develop innovative pedagogical beliefs. The find- ings supported PD opportunities for educators as an effective means of increasing self-efficacy and promoting STEM instruction. Professional Development and Early STEM In- struction There are many research-based recommen- dations for designing and implementing quali- ty STEM instruction. According to Sarama et al. (2018), effective PD opportunities should support EC educators in three areas including (1) learning developmentally appropriate STEM concepts and practices; (2) becoming familiar with pedagogical strategies that strengthen early STEM learning; and (3) applying strategies to promote inclusiveness and cultural responsiveness to form home connec- tions with families, caregivers, and the community. However, PD should not be done using a “one and done” approach (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). To be effective, PD opportunities for EC educators should be ongoing, connected to their personal teaching practice, and/ or instructional setting, and tailored to the EC educator’s changing needs (Des- imone, 2009; Sarama et. al, 2018). When designing PD opportunities for EC educators, research sug- gests maximizing the benefits by including one or A HEAD START ON STEM The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 54 more of the following (Sarama et al., 2018, p. 4): • one-on-one coaching • well-structured professional learning commu- nities or cohorts (i.e., a group of educators who participate in multiple PD opportunities to- gether over time) • opportunities to rehearse, analyze, reflect on instructional practice, and set goals • engagement of teachers as leaders who facili- tate early STEM PD activities and provide a range of supports to their colleagues. Relatedly, Blonder and Vescio (2022) found that PD opportunities with formative feedback from peers, coaches, and/or instructors, as educa- tors applied what they were learning, increased ed- ucators’ self-confidence. A conceptual framework for effective PD suggested by Desimone (2009) indicated that active learning, coherence, and col- laboration are three essential components of PD. During PD teachers engaged in active learning practices like observing, receiving feedback, and analyzing student work whereas coherence ensured alignment with teacher knowledge, teacher beliefs, and student needs. To foster collaboration during sustained PD, teachers within the same grade or subject build a supportive professional communi- ty. Furthermore, the benefits of PD opportunities were often compounded when teachers engaged in self-reflection and goal setting based upon for- mative feedback (Desimone, 2009; Melton et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2019). The primary purpose of the study was to determine how PD opportuni- ties specifically designed to support participants’ knowledge for planning and implementing STEM with preschool-age children and incorporating re- search-based methods/approaches (e.g., self-reflec- tion, goal setting), impacted EC educators’ self-ef- ficacy and perceptions of early STEM instruction. There were two main research questions: 1) What impact does a targeted professional development program have on early childhood educators’ self-efficacy of STEM teaching? 2) What impact does a targeted professional development program have on early childhood educators’ planning and implementation of STEM instruction? Methods Participants This study used a sample of Head Start educa- tors, all enrolled in the same online graduate-level courses and engaged in an ongoing, collaborative early STEM project at a midwestern university. The project provided a cohort model of instruction with four online graduate courses over a span of one year: two with a concentration on early STEM, one on improving instruction in early math, and one focused on deeper understanding of develop- mentally appropriate practices in early childhood education. The Primary Investigator (PI) for the study invited the Head Start educators by email to participate in the study. Initially, fourteen Head Start educators consented to participate, however one chose to withdraw prior to pre-survey comple- tion. The thirteen participants were white, En- glish-speaking females, working in Head Start pro- grams as preschool classroom teachers (54%) or managers/coaches supporting preschool classroom teachers (46%) in the same midwestern state. Most participants fell within the 26 to 35 year age range (54%), with 31% of the participants in the 36 to 45 age range. All participants held a bachelor’s degree and for the majority (77%), the degree was in early childhood education (ECE). Those without a bach- elor’s degree in ECE had degrees in related fields (e.g., elementary education, social services). All participants (100%) were working in or supporting teachers working in preschool classroom settings. On av- erage, participants had seven years of experience working directly with preschool-age children (e.g., ages 3-5) with a range of 3 to 17 years of experience. At the time of the post-survey, only twelve partici- pants were retained. Table 1 provides a summary of participants’ demographics. A HEAD START ON STEM The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 55 A HEAD START ON STEM Table 1  Participant Demographics  Characteristics    Participants (N = 13) Employment Role/Title Classroom Teacher 7 Management (non-coaching) 4 Coach 2 Age Range in Years       19 – 25   1   26 – 35 7 36 – 45 4 46 – 55 1 Gender   Female   13   Race        White, non-Hispanic   13   Language Preference        English   13   Highest Level of Education      Master’s Degree (Early Childhood) 1 Bachelor’s Degree (Early Childhood)   9   Bachelor’s Degree (Other) 3 Average Years of Experience Working with Young Children      Ages Birth to Three 3 Ages Three to Five 7 Ages Birth to Five 7 Ages Five to Eight 2 The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 56 A HEAD START ON STEM Demographics Demographic information collected related to the participants’ age, gender, race, primary language, age range of children served, type of classroom (e.g., full year), employment (e.g., job role, work schedule), additional/outside employment (e.g., summer em- ployment), experience working with young children, highest education level achieved, and licensure/cer- tifications. Measures This study used two main sources of information to explore participants’ behaviors and self-efficacies associated with planning and implementing STEM content for preschool-age children. A pre/post sur- vey was completed to assist in answering research question one, gathering quantitative data related to participants’ change in self-efficacy for teaching early STEM. The pre-survey, which was administered af- ter participants consented and prior to beginning a graduate-level college course specific to the cohort, collected both demographic and self-efficacy data. Eleven months after the pre-survey and near the com- pletion of the study, a post-survey collected self-effi- cacy data. The post-survey used the same self-efficacy survey questions previously asked in the pre-survey. STEM self-reflection logs were completed to assist in answering research question two, gathering quantita- tive and qualitative data for participants’ planning and implementation of early STEM instruction. STEM self-reflection logs were used to collect perceptive data about how the participants implemented and/ or promoted STEM learning activities in preschool classrooms. EC Educator Self-Efficacy Scale (ECESES) for sup- porting preschoolers’ STEM development The ECESES-STEM was developed for the current study by examining two existing self-efficacy scales. The Coaching Efficacy Scale (Feltz et al., 1999), a 24- item scale, focused on coaching individual athletes and/or athletic teams, whereas the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (Riggs & Enochs, 1990) used a 25-item scale to determine elementary teach- er self-efficacy for teaching science. Both scales were considered in the development of the ECESES-STEM to assist with wording of questions and scale format. The ECESES-STEM included a total of 40-items, 10-items in each of the four STEM disciplines (i.e., sci- ence, technology, engineering, math). Wording was consistent across each of the four STEM disciplines, however each subset of ten focused on one STEM discipline. For example, item one for the Science dis- cipline stated, “I believe I can effectively use observa- tion/documentation to find out if a preschooler is in need of individualized support in science,” whereas item one for the technology discipline replaces the word “science” to “technology”. The scale was rated on a 5- point Likert scale asking participants to indicate the confidence with which they felt each statement to be true (1 = Not Confident to 5 = Extremely Confi- dent). The stem for each item was “I believe I can….” (e.g., I believe I can effectively use observation/doc- umentation to find out if a preschooler is in need of individualized support in science). Overall mean rat- ings were calculated for each of the 40 items. In ad- dition, overall mean ratings were calculated for each of the four STEM disciplines. Mean ratings between 4 and 5 suggested participants had higher perceived confidence for planning and implementing content for preschool-age children. Mean ratings of 3 to 3.9 suggested moderate perceived confidence, and mean ratings of 1 to 2.9 suggested lower perceived confi- dence. The ECESES-STEM has not been validated for use with EC educators; however, the PI conducted a pilot study of the ECESES-STEM with three-experienced EC educators not affiliated with this study prior to its use in the current study. The pilot group completed the scale via Qualtrics and provided written feedback via email to the PI regarding: ease of use, length of scale completion time, and general feedback on the wording and clarity of questions. The pilot group feedback was utilized to fine-tune the survey prior to implementation by establishing an anticipated com- pletion time, and rewording instructions to increase clarity. A copy of the ECESES-STEM is available upon request. STEM Self-reflection Logs The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 57 A HEAD START ON STEM The STEM self-reflection logs used in this study were a modification of logs available from the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (Friday Insti- tute for Educational Innovation, 2012).The logs were modified to align with research question two and for use with preschool educators rather than elementa- ry teachers. The logs were used to collect perceptive data about how the participants implemented and/ or promoted preschool STEM learning activities over time. Six monthly self-reflection logs were emailed to the participants as linked Google forms to gath- er data about early STEM lesson applications in the preschool work setting and establish goals for fu- ture early STEM instruction. A link to the log was emailed to each participant on the 20th of the month, followed by one email reminder on the first day of the subsequent month. The self-reflection logs used five open-ended prompts (e.g. Something I tried this month to promote STEM learning through the use of indoor environment was...). The three sub- sequent prompts asked about early STEM learning through the outdoor environment, direct instruction, and family engagement. On the final question, par- ticipants were prompted to share their feelings and thoughts regarding the implementation and/or out- comes of early STEM instruction with preschool-age children. A copy of the STEM Self-Reflection Log is available upon request. Procedures Recruitment and informed consent The PI for the current study emailed the poten- tial participants, explained the study, and obtained informed consent. Once informed consent was ob- tained, participants were prompted to complete an online Qualtrics survey that included a collection of demographic information and self-efficacy for planning and implementing STEM content for pre- school-age children (pre-survey). ECESES-STEM survey The demographic survey and self-efficacy scale were generated using Qualtrics (2021) software, and participants utilized their own computer and internet connection to complete the survey and scales within the stated 2-week time period. The completed surveys provided information about participant demograph- ics, as well as their self-efficacy data for planning and implementing STEM content for preschool-age chil- dren. ECESES-STEM Survey Scoring Individual mean ratings were calculated for the ECESES-STEM pre-survey and post-survey. Addi- tionally, mean ratings from the pre and post surveys were calculated for each of the 40-items and the four STEM disciplines (i.e., science, technology, engineer- ing, math). STEM Self-reflection Logs Review Each of the six individual participants’ self-re- flection logs were combined into one transcript, for a total of six transcripts (i.e., February, March, April, September, October and November). Using an in- ductive coding method, two independent observers completed a first cycle review of each transcript to establish emerging codes. After reviewing the self-re- flection logs’ transcripts, the two coders met to create a codebook. A total of two self-reflection logs’ tran- scripts (30%) were randomly selected for a check of interrater agreement. The same two independent ob- servers coded the randomly selected self-reflection logs’ transcripts and were required to be 80% reliable (Salkind, 2006) across all previously identified codes. Interrater agreement scores below 80%, prompted mutual review of the code definitions and consensus for coding those transcripts. Individual codes had in- terrater agreements of 80% - 96%, except for three; teacher responsiveness (29%), hands-on exploration (55%), and teacher growth (56%). After establishing consensus of the codes and updating the codebook, the two observers completed a second and final inde- pendent review, with each observer coding half of the self-reflection logs’ transcripts. Analysis To allow for a richer understanding of the partic- ipants’ knowledge, skills, and self-efficacies for plan- The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 58 A HEAD START ON STEM -ning and implementing developmentally appropriate STEM activities for preschool-age children, a multi- ple methods research design (Morse, 2003) was used. First, quantitative data from the self-efficacy scale pre and post ratings were collected and summarized. This data provided information about participants’ perceived confidence for planning and implement- ing STEM content for preschool-age children (e.g., self-efficacy pre and post survey data). Specifically, data was analyzed for the ECES- ES-STEM scale completed by the participants at two different times (pre and post) for this study. The re- sults from the pre and post surveys represented partic- ipants’ perceptions of their self-efficacy for planning and implementing STEM learning for preschool-age children. An overall mean rating was calculated for each pre and post survey. In addition, mean ratings were calculated for each of the 40-items across the four STEM disciplines. A visual inspection of the mean scores was used to examine how Head Start preschool educators’ self-ef- ficacies differed from pre-survey to post-survey. The four STEM disciplines pre and post-survey means of- fered insight to the participants’ self-efficacy levels for 1) identifying individual needs of preschool children, 2) recognizing age appropriate skill development, 3) evaluating skill development, 4) facilitating effec- tive activities, 5) providing individualized supports, 6) providing independent learning opportunities through use of the indoor and outdoor learning en- vironments, 7) promoting content through everyday situations and daily routines, 8) involving parents in the learning process, 9) answering young children’s content questions, and 10) teaching STEM content as well as they do other content areas (e.g., language, literacy, creative arts). In addition, a t-test was used to compare the mean scores and to examine whether the change was statistically significant. Next, quantitative data from the coded STEM Self-Reflection Logs’ transcripts was collected and analyzed. The frequency of each code was deter- mined by adding up the number of times each associ- ated code was used over all six combined transcripts. The most frequently mentioned codes were identified from the data. In addition, qualitative data from the transcripts was analyzed through visual inspection, providing evidence for understanding and describ- ing the ’participants’ planning and implementation of early STEM instruction over the 11-month time frame. Results Self-Efficacy for Supporting Preschool-Age Chil- dren’s STEM Development Mean ratings from the ECESES-STEM pre and post surveys were used to evaluate participants’ self-efficacy for supporting preschool-age children’s STEM development. The scale was rated on a 5- point Likert scale asking participants to indicate the confi- dence with which they felt each statement to be true (1 = Not Confident to 5 = Extremely Confident). Table 2 provides the mean ECESES-STEM pre and post sur- vey scores categorized by the four STEM disciplines, along with the overall pre and post survey means. At both pre and post survey, participants reported high- er confidence levels in the STEM disciplines pertain- ing to science and math in comparison to technology and engineering. Pre-survey On the ECESES-STEM pre-survey, mean scores ranged from 1.3 to 4.2. Participants reported the highest confidence level at for three criteria, all with- in math instruction (M = 4.2): using observation/doc- umentation to identify individual supports; facilitating activities to support development; and promoting skill development through everyday situations/daily rou- tines. The lowest levels reported in the pre-survey included confidence for teaching one specific STEM discipline (of the four) at the same level of confidence as for non-STEM disciplines such as literacy. The mean scores ranged from 1.3 (engineering) to 2.4 (math). Post-survey Post-survey mean scores ranged from 2.5 to 5.0. At the time of the post-survey, the highest confidence level (M = 5.0) was for facilitating activities to support development for math. As shown on the last post-sur- vey item, lower perceived confidence levels still exist- ed for teaching technology at the same confidence lev- el as other subjects (M = 2.6) and teaching The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 59 A HEAD START ON STEM Table 2 Mean Ratings for 1st and 2nd Completion of the Early Childhood Educator Self-Efficacy Scale for Support- ing Preschool-Age Children’s STEM Development Scale Mean Rating Pre-Survey Mean Rating Post-Survey S T E M S T E M ECESES-STEM 3.7 3.2 3.0 4.1 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.6 ECESES-STEM Overall Means 3.3 * 4.3 Prompt: “I believe I can...” use observation/documentation to identify individual supports. 3.7 3.5 3.2 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.5 recognize age-appropriate develop- ment. 3.5 3.2 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.3 4.1 4.7 evaluate age-appropriate develop- ment. 3.5 3.2 2.9 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.5 facilitate activities to support devel- opment. 3.9 3.2 3.0 4.2 4.7 4.5 4.3 5.0 provide opportunities for those in need of additional support. 3.7 3.2 3.0 4.0 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.5 promote independent opportunities through learning environments. 3.8 3.3 3.2 3.9 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.6 promote skill development through everyday situations/daily routines. 3.8 3.2 3.2 4.2 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.6 involve parents in their child’s skill development. 3.5 3.1 2.9 3.7 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.3 answer children’s questions. 3.8 3.3 3.0 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.0 4.6 teach ______ as well as other sub- jects. (e.g., science, technology, engi- neering, math) 2.0 1.6 1.3 2.4 3.2 2.6 2.5 3.2 Note. The scale is measured on a 5-point Likert scale; EC = Early Childhood; ECESES-STEM = Early Childhood Educator Self-Efficacy Scale for Supporting Young Children’s STEM Development; S = Sci- ence; T = Technology; E = Engineering; M = Math; *p < .0001. The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 60 A HEAD START ON STEM engineering as well as other subjects (M = 2.5). The lowest yet still moderate to higher confidence levels at post-survey were shown for involving parents in their child’s engineering skill development (M = 3.9) and teaching science and math as well as other subjects (M = 3.2). See Table 3. Confidence levels across all four disciplines in- creased from pre-survey to post-survey, with a sta- tistically significant difference in the overall ECSES- STEM means (M = 3.3; M = 4.3). The results from the pre-survey (M = 3.3, SD = 0.5) and post-survey (M = 4.3 SD = 0.5) indicate that the participants’ self-effi- cacies for early STEM changed, t = 25.71, p <.0.0001. See Table 3. Implementation of STEM in preschool classrooms The 13 participants were asked to self-reflect six times over the 11-month timeframe about their im- plementation and/or promotion of STEM activities in preschool classrooms. Data from the self-reflec- tion logs revealed six common themes including: 1) Implementation of Early STEM Activities, 2) Child Responsiveness, 3) Teacher Growth, 4) Teacher Re- sponsiveness, 5) Sharing with Colleagues, and 6) Hands-on Exploration. The frequency of each theme was determined by the number of times the partic- ipants mentioned each theme within the combined self-reflection logs’ transcripts, as shown in Table 4. Qualitative data for each of the six themes follows in rank order of the frequently mentioned themes. Table 3 Overall Mean for Pre-Survey and Post-Survey Scores on the ECESES-STEM (N = 13) Survey Mean Standard Deviation t-value Pre-Survey 3.34 0.54 Post-Survey 4.26 0.50 25.7093 Table 4 Themes: Number of Times Mentioned in Combined STEM Self-Reflection Logs Transcripts Theme Number of Times Mentioned Implementation of Early STEM Activities 78 Child Responsiveness 75 Teacher Growth 67 Teacher Responsiveness 44 Sharing With Colleagues 42 Hands-On Exploration 35 The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 61 A HEAD START ON STEM Theme 1: Implementation of Early STEM Activities. Participants most frequently mentioned implementation of planned early STEM activities through direct teaching and/or use of the indoor and/or outdoor environments. This theme was men- tioned by participants 78 times within the combined self-reflection logs transcripts. Building and engineering activities. The partic- ipants commonly described the implementation of early STEM activities in which young children built and engineered structures. For instance, one EC edu- cator shared that small groups of young children used provided materials to build structures stating, “Many of the children used the materials to build and engi- neer different structures based on their own devel- opmental levels.” Other participants described how they implemented early STEM activities in which the young children engineered and built houses, towers, musical instruments, water pipes, and sprout houses to plant seeds. Outdoor STEM activities. Accounts of early STEM implementation went beyond the classroom setting with many participants purposefully planning and providing outdoor STEM experiences. One EC educator described the use of “STEM boxes or bins” [a box, tub, bin, kit containing purposefully provided materials] so the young children could readily explore outdoors. Two examples of young children using an outdoor STEM box included using materials to ex- periment with how long it takes snow to melt and to see what kind of food ants prefer eating. Additionally, participants implemented early STEM activities outdoors. One described, “...building ramps on the playground using different materials to zoom matchbox cars down.” Another participant connected early STEM to their study of physical sci- ence simple machines unit by encouraging the young children to find different machines around their play- ground. This outdoor exploration of simple machines led to the implementation of an indoor investigatory early STEM activity where young children learned more about how a teeter totter worked as a machine. “The children worked in small groups indoors to build teeter totters and find ways to make it [the teeter tot- ter] balance using plastic counting bears” as weights. Early STEM discipline activities. Many partic- ipants mentioned implementation of early STEM learning opportunities directly related to particular STEM disciplines such as science or math. Instanc- es of implementing science activities were most fre- quently mentioned in participants’ February, March, and October self-reflection logs. For instance, one EC educator described taking young children on na- ture walks and having them use magnifying lenses to explore and describe their surroundings during their walk. Several participants described how nature walks led to discussions about life science topics col- lectively including leaves, bark, tree beans, pumpkins, and pinecones. Participants described implementing physical science activities such as light and shadows, sound, magnetism, density, and properties of matter. One EC educator described a physical science activ- ity in which young children took rhythm sticks out- doors to try to find “instrumental objects” [objects that make sounds when moved or manipulated] and then compared the sounds the objects made. Another participant shared how they implemented water play with a sandbox creating a “mud kitchen” as a means of investigating the physical science concept of prop- erties of matter (e.g., liquids, solids, and mixtures. A third EC educator shared how the students explored physical science with magnets. Just last week we spent time identifying the kind of things the magnet would or would not stick [to] and coming up with the reason why that is. We also explored a little with the magnetism in the sense that the magnetic pull can go through things such as a piece of paper, book, and table to make the paper clip move around. Implementation of math activities was most fre- quently mentioned in the participants’ self-reflection logs during the months of September, October, and November. Reported instances of implementation of early STEM activities highlighting math concepts in- cluded subitizing, graphing, using 10-frames to cre- ate numbers, and geometry/shape-related activities. Incorporating math talk and using activities from the Learning Trajectories website (Clements and Sarama, 2017/2019) were commonly mentioned. One EC ed- ucator described planning and implementing a large group activity in which they “drew two shapes and The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 62 A HEAD START ON STEM the children identified and discussed their attributes, similarities, and differences.” Another EC educator described having young children create shapes with various materials, stating, “the children composed different-shaped bubble wands and tested different types of bubble solutions.” Yet another EC educator incorporated shapes into a unit about clothing. Using stories to launch early STEM activities. Several participants mentioned using young chil- dren’s stories to introduce or enrich early STEM ex- periences for large group activities or in conjunction with learning centers. Two participants described a project in which young children used different ma- terials to build a house after reading the story, The Three Little Pigs. Another EC educator described us- ing a different version of the traditional story, We read the story, The Three Little Super Pigs. Af- terwards, I asked the kids what they could build to keep the wolf in. First the kids drew their building plan and then they got to build it [their planned building]. Several participants mentioned reading children’s books aloud during large group times and then im- plementing related early STEM activities during small group time and/or center time. One EC educa- tor shared, One of my recent favorites involved reading the chil- dren’s book, After the Fall: How Humpty Dumpty Got Back Up Again (Santat, 2019) in a large group setting and then challenging my students to work in small groups to create a safer wall for Humpty Dumpty using Legos and other materials. Another EC educator referenced, Dreaming Up: A Celebration of Building (Hale, 2012), stating, “Earlier this month we talked about towers and how we think they were built. The kids then explored with building up. It has taken off. Students loved it.” Yet another EC educator read the story, 10 Sparkly Snowflakes (Tales, 2017) and had the young children go outdoors to col- lect snowflakes so they could look at them through magnifying glasses. This EC educator shared how the young children noticed and discussed, “the unique patterns of each snowflake before making their own snowflakes using various mediums.” Theme 2: Child Responsiveness. The theme of Child Responsiveness was mentioned by participants 75 times within the combined self-reflection logs tran- scripts. Child responsiveness conveyed the participants’ perceptions of how the young children responded to planned/implemented early STEM activities, learning environments, and/or materials provided. Descrip- tions included but were not limited to: (a) the chil- dren’s enjoyment; (b) finding multiple ways to solve problems or complete challenges; and (c) social inter- actions, discussions, and learning. Children’s enjoyment. The words, “fun” and “enjoyed” frequently emerged in the participant’s self-reflection logs when describing young children’s responses to planned/implemented early STEM activ- ities. Three examples follow, “Seeing how real snow- flakes are all different was such a fun activity for all in- volved,” and “It was a lot of fun- students really loved it and learned a lot!” Another participant described creating a song, This [musical STEM activity] was super FUN! We somehow created the pattern with floor sticks while playing a pattern. One of my friends [child] made the connection to a song, and belted out, We will… we will…rock you! Instances of participants describing young children’s enjoyment follow, “The kids really enjoyed making their pond,” while another EC educator stated, “I did my final project from my STEM class [developed during one of the courses completed as part of the study], the kids really enjoyed all the extra things in the centers.” Other participants shared that the young children enjoyed subitizing math games, graphing ac- tivities, mathematical learning trajectories activities, exploring with funnels and sand to figure out why wet sand gets stuck, yet dry sand goes through, and predicting and testing items to see which sink or float. Several participants shared that the children enjoyed the early STEM activities, and the children wanted to do the activities again. Children’s participation and engagement. Many of the participants described the young children’s active participation and engagement during early STEM activities. One stated, “Children were engaged, responded to the question she [educator] asked, and they were excited to predict what was going to hap- The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 63 A HEAD START ON STEM -pen.” Another EC educator reported feeling “amazed” as she watched the young children so engaged in working through the problem. Yet another EC edu- cator described the young children as being “engaged and wanting to learn more about trees” and being “engaged when they were actively exploring the room and making discoveries of what a magnet will stick to.” Two additional participants stated, “I love that they [children] got so engaged and they [children] were in so much control of their learning” and “I am in a 6-hour classroom with 25 students who have nu- merous disabilities, and all of the students absolutely love STEM time.” Multiple ways to solve problems or complete challenges. Participants mentioned the young chil- dren wanting to solve problems or complete STEM challenges. One EC educator shared, “Some of them [children] even got excited when their towers fell be- cause they were able to build it better.” Another EC ed- ucator stated, “the children really had to think about and discuss how they wanted to design and build the roof of their house in terms of size and shape [flat or inclined].” Several participants described the young chil- dren’s use of imagination during open-ended STEM activities. For instance, an EC educator described, “the children had fun finding new ways to use the STEM materials through ongoing exposure and op- portunities to use them.” Another EC educator de- scribed the young children using their imagination during play, The students were pretending that the swings were rocket ships and they were on them and were flying to the moon. Then when they got inside, they start- ed building ‘rocketships with Legos. Yet another EC educator shared, “It was absolutely awesome to see what my preschoolers came up with and listen to them explain their thought process about why their wall was safer.” Social interactions, discussions, and learning. Several participants’ self-reflection logs included de- scriptions of young children working together and in- teracting with one another. The young children were frequently described as working in small groups and talking to one another as they solved problems and completed early STEM activities. Several participants cited instances of young children making suggestions about how to use the materials and/or building upon their peers’ ideas and designs. Additionally, partici- pants mentioned that the young children asked and answered questions while learning from one anoth- er. One EC educator wrote, “It [the STEM activity] increased conversations about the topic and students asked questions we hadn’t even thought to talk about previously,” and another EC educator shared, [One] little guy had never thought to build [the tower] against a wall so with the right questions and inquiries, it became his idea. The next thing the little guy knew, he had several friends with him trying to build a tower as high as they could against the wall. Theme 3: Teacher Growth. Participants de- scribed Teacher Growth 67 times within the combined self-reflection logs transcripts. Reflections related to Teacher Growth related to: (a) increased self-efficacy; (b) collaboration; and (c) other benefits of the study in terms of professional development opportunities. EC educator self-efficacy. Many participants shared positive or affirmative statements regarding their self-efficacy or confidence related to early STEM implementation across the six self-reflection logs. Many described personal growth and/or feeling more confident. For instance, one EC educator described STEM implementation as “feeling natural” in her classroom and others described STEM implementa- tion as becoming easier with experience. . One EC stated, “In the past, it was always easy to overthink implementing science and math activities or even trying to implement technology and engineering.” Another EC educator shared, “I love how much easier it is getting to implement STEM into day-to-day ac- tivities! I see STEM teaching opportunities in places where I hadn’t thought of before.” “One EC educator described STEM implementation as “feeling natural” in her classroom and others described STEM implementation as becoming easier with experience. ” The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 64 A HEAD START ON STEM Four different participants shared, “It’s still taking some adapting to spending more time on projects and lessons, but it is getting so much better!” “I love doing different STEM activities all day long and I have learned to implement it as part of my lesson that it has just become such an easy transition.” “I am feeling that what I have learned has made me a better teacher and supervisor because now I am able to teach my staff as well which make me proud,” and, “I need to slow down a little because I get so excited and I want to implement everything all at once - I constantly remind myself this is not the most effec- tive way to promote STEM learning.” Collaboration. Participants often stated feeling more confident using a team approach to early STEM instruction. One shared, “We’re learning together as a team to break lessons and topic down more and spread it out so we can really dive into it.” Another stated, My team has been printing off many of the lesson ideas to have for future reference and have been working on implementing more STEM based les- sons. We have also been adding more STEM ma- terials to our classroom and exploring them along with the kids to kind of learn as we go. Yet another shared, This was a wonderful opportunity for Head Start Staff. The STEM team [study team] has provided us with so much knowledge, practical approaches, experiences along with a wealth of resources that we can make our programs STEM Rich! Benefits of professional development opportu- nities related to the study. Many participants identi- fied early STEM materials, resources, and practices/ strategies shared within the college courses they com- pleted as part of the study as being beneficial to their professional growth and development. Participants’ responses included, “I feel like I’m getting more and more resources with every class [course taken as part of the study]” and “I appreciate that we’ve gained so many ideas through these classes [courses provided as part of the study] to share with children.” Another stated, I am really enjoying the textbook, specifically the STEM books. Since graduating college almost 10 years ago, a lot has changed! I think I understand STEM better as it being described more as an ap- proach-all day everyday- rather than one solitary experience. Participants also shared the benefits of the grad- uate-level college courses in terms of camaraderie provided as part of the overall study. The final De- cember self-reflection logs contained the following participants’ comments, “I am absolutely loving all that I am learning, along with the collaboration with instructors and classmates - this has been incredibly valuable, and I am beyond grateful!” Another EC ed- ucator wrote, As this is my last reflection log, I cannot begin to explain how invaluable our coursework, our pro- fessors, the people in our cohort has been to me. I feel so grateful that I will be able to provide more meaningful, engaging STEM lessons in my class- room, which will benefit my students for years to come. Other participants described future collaboration, in- cluding this quote, We are working to plan a family STEM night at our next parent meeting! We’re hoping to set up some fun and engaging STEM activities for parents to engage in with their preschoolers. I have so many ideas I have gleaned from our classes. Theme 4: Teacher Responsiveness. Participants’ STEM self-reflection log transcripts also contained descriptions of and/or perceptions of how the EC educators responded before, during, or after adult- child interactions, activities, or using learning envi- ronments. This theme emerged 44 times within the combined self-reflection logs transcripts. Many self-reflection logs entries conveyed a sense of teacher enjoyment about using early STEM activities with the young children. For instance, the following quotes were shared by various participants: “I am having a blast teaching the [STEM] lessons!”, “I have actually enjoyed bringing the math lessons [shoe graph and math game] into the classroom.”, “Students and staff enjoyed it and were really engaged!”, and “Teachers loved the activities because they were easy to follow and kept students engaged in activities.” The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 65 A HEAD START ON STEM EC educators’ responses and facilitation during early STEM activities. Participants shared instances of how they responded to or facilitated early STEM activities. One participant shared, After viewing a video [in a college course relat- ed to the study] of a child who couldn’t stop his tower from tipping and then moving to build it against a wall, I saw this same opportunity with- in the classroom and seized it once the little one became upset that he couldn’t get Godzilla to the top. Another EC educator shared that the young children initially thought they could only collect insects in the containers she provided for them to use during out- door exploration. Once she noted this, she explained to the young children that the containers could be used to hold any item they wanted to bring back for closer observation in the classroom. Once she clari- fied this point, she shared that, “the containers have been in constant use.” Another EC educator shared that the young children wanted to make different shapes, so she brought out more supplies for them to do so. Yet another EC educator described how she fol- lowed the child’s lead and tried to engage the young children in different challenges using the materials in the “STEM boxes or bins she had created for one of the early STEM college courses she had completed as part of the study. EC educators’ goals and adjustments for future early STEM implementation. After implementing early STEM activities, several participants shared goals for doing the same early STEM activities again and/or modifying and adjusting the early STEM ac- tivity for future early STEM implementation. For instance, one EC educator shared, “I would like to spend more time doing intentional activities with the materials so that students have a better understanding of what the materials are and ideas for using them.” Other participants mentioned wanting to change up materials throughout the year and using a variety of open-ended materials to enhance the young children’s experience. One EC educator noted, “When there are more of those open-ended materials the young chil- dren seem to engage with them for a longer amount of time both during the day and over a duration of days.” Another EC educator described incidentally imple- menting a early STEM activity using sand and funnels and how she now planned to build upon this “happy discovery” in the future by “having the children try it with materials other than sand, such as water, snow, and ice.” After seeing the young children engage in outdoor exploration, another EC educator described her plan to make exploratory STEM kits containing magnifying glasses, clipboards, paper, pencils, and bug catchers that go outdoors daily with the young children. Theme 5: Sharing with Colleagues. The self-re- flection logs’ entries referenced how many of the participants shared or planned to share information or ideas for early STEM instruction with other edu- cators, colleagues, and/or administrators via training opportunities and/or coaching. The theme emerged 42 times within the combined self-reflection logs transcripts. Training opportunities. Several participants de- scribed how they provided or planned to provide STEM training for colleagues and/or team members. One participant shared, “I think it would be wonder- ful to introduce STEM and train staff on it when they return in August.” Another participant described de- veloping a short training for teaching staff in Janu- ary, “I am excited to share what we have learned and how it can easily be included into our lesson plans.” Yet another EC educator wrote, “I want to work with teaching staff to intentionally focus on challenging the students by posing the questions and problems and emphasizing Twenty-First Century Skills.” Coaching. Many participants described coach- ing as a means of providing suggestions for their colleagues and/or other EC educators. Suggestions that participants shared or planned to share with colleagues and staff included: using math language daily, using STEM during choice time, providing more time for early STEM projects, incorporating small group or team activities, and taking materi- als outside. One EC educator shared an instance in which she was observing in an EC classroom that was struggling with classroom management. “I sug- gested changing up the lesson plans and providing more hands-on, engaging activities, and I suggested open-ended materials where they [the children] can create their own things.” The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 66 A HEAD START ON STEM Other participants shared or planned to coach by sharing specific information and/or resources with colleagues and/or EC educators from the early STEM college courses they completed during the study. For instance, many participants indicated that when coaching colleagues or other EC educators, they planned to recommend the use of resources from Learning Trajectories website (Clements & Sarama, 2017/2019). Another stated, “In completing some of my STEM activities for our classes [college courses completed as part of the study], I have encouraged my co-teachers to do similar activities with their groups and they have (subitizing, graphing, science experiments).” Another participant wrote, “I have en- couraged a few of my teaching staff to try and use my STEM kit [created during courses completed as part of the study] in their classroom. Theme 6: Hands-on Exploration. The partici- pants also described how the young children used hands-on materials for building, creating, or explor- ing in various learning environments. This theme emerged 35 times within the combined transcripts. Many participants reported early STEM activities in which the young children used hands-on materials to design, engineer, create, explore, and/or build. Partic- ipants mentioned using household and/or recyclable materials for early STEM activities including 3D foam pieces, felt, blocks, cardboard tubes, rocks, toothpicks, glue, markers, straws, wooden craft sticks, toothpicks, and a type of clay referred to as ‘model magic.’ Partic- ipants also cited young children using mathematical and scientific materials such as ten-frames, tweezers, magnifying lenses, petri dishes, balances, scales, and STEM boxes or bins for hands-on experiences. Many participants described how the young chil- dren used hands-on materials and manipulatives to create structures or models. For instance, young chil- dren created shadows, shapes, houses, buildings, tee- ter totters, and snowflakes with the varied materials provided by the participants. Other participants de- scribed how the young children solved a particular problem or challenge using hands-on materials in the classroom or in an outdoor environment. For example, after reading a story about the Three Little Pigs, some participants described young children using materi- als to design a house that could withstand the wolf ’s “huffing and puffing.” Others described young children using hands-on materials to build sprout houses for planting seeds, designing catapults, creating shadow towers, making a volcano out of a pumpkin, crafting animal habitats, and fashioning musical instruments so they could have, “their very our own little march- ing band.” Additionally, several participants described how the young children engaged in open-ended op- portunities in which they used hands-on materials to explore and create with minimal constraints or direc- tions from the participants. Discussion and Implications The multiple methods study examined Head Start preschool educators’ self-efficacy and instruction- al practices for supporting preschool-age children’s STEM learning during their participation in a target- ed professional development program that consisted of four graduate-level courses. As shown by the re- sults, each of the 40 ECESES-STEM confidence-level mean scores increased. At the time of the pre-survey, six of the 10 indicators were deemed to be at the lower level of perceived confidence whereas after the inter- vention, only two mean ratings fell below 3.0. Con- sistent with findings from Sarama, et al. (2018), the implementation of a cohort model for professional learning over time and connected to educators’ class- rooms, increases the likelihood that change will occur. With an increased understanding of how to integrate STEM in early childhood classrooms, educators are more likely to involve young children in purposeful interactions with STEM materials, increasing oppor- tunities for young children’s development of critical thinking skills (Englehart, 2016). Relatedly, with opportunities for formative feedback overtime and from the college instructors and peers, the partici- pants’ confidence levels were positively influenced (Blonder & Vescio, 2022). In addition to survey data, the combined tran- scripts from the self-reflection logs revealed six com- mon themes (e.g., Implementation of Early STEM Activities, Child Responsiveness, Teacher Growth, Teacher Responsiveness, Sharing with Colleagues, and Hands-on Exploration) which contained perceptive data related to the participants’ confidence and in- The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 67 A HEAD START ON STEM structional STEM practices. Three of the themes (i.e., Teacher Growth, Teach- er Responsiveness, and Sharing with Colleagues) re- late to participants’ increased confidence. Several participants described personal growth in terms of increased preparedness and confidence throughout the study and professional development opportunity. Many mentioned greater early STEM understanding and/ or having more confidence after trying STEM activities with the preschool-age children. These findings align with what is known about self-efficacy and PD. Educators are more likely to gain confidence when they participate in ongoing and interconnected PD opportunities designed to increase content and pedagogical knowledge (Desimone, 2009; McClure et al., 2017). This study incorporated Sarama et al. (2018) recommendations for effective PD opportu- nities as it was ongoing (i.e., four courses taken over 11 months), connected to personal teaching practice and/ or instructional setting (i.e., preschool educators, instructional coaches, and program directors), and tailored to the EC educators’ needs (i.e., instructor and peer feedback, e-meeting times). Consistent with a study conducted by Chen et al. (2021), many par- ticipants in this study reported higher levels of STEM self-efficacy after participating in early STEM-related activities and PD. Furthermore, the self-reflection logs’ transcripts frequently suggested an increase in participants’ confidence via Teacher Responsiveness. In this study, Teacher Responsiveness included opportunities to apply what was learned, self-reflect and set profes- sional goals, all of which are known to be impacted by one’s self-confidence (Bandura, 1993; Gerde et al., 2018). The participants frequently shared instances of teacher responsiveness after applying their early STEM knowledge to their own instructional setting. Their self-reflection logs often conveyed personal enjoyment when watching young children partake in early STEM activities, suggesting a positive effect. Many of the participants mentioned their eagerness to plan for and implement additional early STEM activ- ities. The findings confirm Zee and Koomen’s (2016) study showing that educators with positive affective attitudes are more likely to implement and develop innovative pedagogical beliefs. Relatedly, the theme of Sharing with Colleagues suggests educators must have confidence in order to willingly exchange instructional strategies and/or ideas with other educators. Several of the participants disclosed either a future goal for sharing or having shared their early STEM knowledge and/ or activi- ties with colleagues. The EC educators in this study participated in structured PD in which they had on- going opportunities to engage as educational leaders. For example, they facilitated early STEM PD activities and provided a range of supports to their colleagues with frequent opportunities to rehearse, analyze, re- flect on instructional practices, and set goals (Sara- ma et al., 2018, p.4). The results of this study parallel previous studies (Chen et al., 2021; Desimone, 2009; McClure et al., 2017) related to ongoing PD opportu- nities as an effective means of increasing self-efficacy and promoting early STEM instruction. The remaining themes of Implementation of Early STEM Activities, Hands-on Exploration, and Child Re- sponsiveness pertain to the participants’ instruction- al practices. The prevalence of the Implementation of Early STEM Activities theme indicates ongoing implementation throughout the study. As advocat- ed by Lange et al. (2019) and Sarama et al. (2018), the participants frequently described whole and/or small group early STEM implementation in which young children simultaneously incorporated STEM disciplines to investigate and/or solve a phenome- non-based, real-world problem. As recommended by Lange (2019), the self-reflection logs transcripts contained descriptions of participants incorporating early STEM experiences in which young children used multi-modal senses to observe and explore, discover patterns, and learn through trial-and-error. Many participants provided play-based indoor and/ or outdoor learning experiences to immerse young children in the scientific process. Research supports the role of “play” as fundamental to effective STEM instruction (Stipek, 2017). The participants’ implementation of early STEM included specific references to math, science, en- gineering, and technology. All four NGSS (2013) Disciplinary Core Ideas (e.g., Life Science, Earth Science, Physical Science, and Engineering, Tech- nology, and Systems) were represented in the par- ticipants’ account of early STEM implementation. The participants described using exploratory science The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 68 A HEAD START ON STEM experiences in which young children asked ques- tions, made predictions, observed, explored, collect- ed, and discussed the data collected through hands- on, inquiry-based investigations. Bredekamp (2019) supports these experiences since they allow young children to grow their knowledge and skills related to life science, physical science, earth science, and engineering. STEM technology refers to materials, resources, or tools that young children can use to solve a prob- lem or to complete a design task (Lange et al., 2019). The participants provided accounts of young children using technologies, including hands-on materials (e.g., household items or tools) to explore scientif- ic phenomena or complete engineering designs. As supported by Bredekamp (2019), blocks, math ma- nipulatives, and games were also frequently used for STEM implementation. The self-reflection logs’ transcripts also contained evidence of teaching specific mathematical process skills including reasoning and problem solving, com- municating, and composing and decomposing (Na- tional Research Council, 2009). These interrelated skills have the potential to collectively enrich young children’s understanding of STEM concepts, helping young children develop the character traits of curios- ity, problem-solving, and perseverance (Lange et al., 2019). Additionally, many participants described young children’s responses to planned/ implemented early STEM activities in terms of fun and enjoyment. The findings align with a study by Atma et al. (2021) stat- ing when students enjoy and are motivated to learn, they have a positive attitude. Similarly, Cudney and Ezzell (2017) stated that motivation fostered a desire to learn and encouraged students to produce mean- ingful work. The results of the current study indicate that the young children enjoyed early STEM activities and wanted to do them again, suggesting a desire for continued learning. Relatedly, many participants described the young children’s active participation and engagement during early STEM activities. Reeve et al. (2004) described engagement as a student’s emotional and active in- volvement during a learning activity. Active learning engages students and is therefore considered to be a teaching technique that supports learning (Atma et al., 2021). The participants’ self-reflection logs’ tran- scripts provide evidence to support the National Asso- ciation for the Education of Young Children and Na- tional Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NAEYC & NCTM, 2010) joint position statement affirms that young children can engage in the science and engi- neering practices (i.e., making predictions, carrying out experiments, and collecting data). Furthermore, the National Research Council (2001) stated that in addition to asking questions, young children should have the capacity and propensity to observe, explore, discover, and make sense of the world around them. One way that young children in this study were reported to make sense of the world around them during early STEM activities was through social inter- actions. Accounts of groups or pairs of preschool-age children working and interacting with one another as they engaged in learning from one another while participating in early STEM activities substantiates what is known about social learning (Vygotsky, 1986). In addition, the young children being reported as ac- tively participating in early STEM activities, the par- ticipants also described how young children persist- ed and often found multiple ways to solve problems or complete challenges. This is supported by Sarama et al. (2018) and Lange et al. (2019) who found that STEM experiences allow young children to gain STEM knowledge while simultaneously developing character traits that may build foundational back- ground knowledge and interest in STEM. Limitations and Future Studies While the findings are encouraging, it must be acknowledged that the small sample size used for “The participants provided accounts of young children using technologies, including hands-on materials (e.g., household items or tools) to explore scientific phenomena or complete engineering designs. ” The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 69 A HEAD START ON STEM this study limits generalization of the findings. In addition, the study yielded inconsistencies with the return rate for the six self-reflection logs. Future research focusing on EC educators’ abili- ties and use of strategies for promoting early STEM instruction in both indoor and outdoor learning en- vironments, particularly during times of inclement weather may help in preparing teachers to effective- ly and efficiently plan and implement early STEM instruction. In addition, focusing on the dyadic relationship between coach and coachee and their self-efficacy levels before and after shared profession- al development opportunities, may assist the field in further defining the value of the coaching model and potential benefits for alignment of coaching and PD experiences. While it is important to remember the ever-in- creasing STEM workforce demands, it is equally if not more important to consider how STEM knowl- edge, skills and self-efficacy may impact career choic- es and/or readiness of young children, our future workforce. Workforce demands often lead to higher compensation and benefits. Ensuring EC educators, particularly those providing care and education to Head Start children, often at higher risk of school fail- ure is important not only to fill the increased STEM workforce demands, but to provide pathways toward financial stability. References ACT. (2017). STEM education in the US: Where we are and what we can do. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/doc- uments/STEM/2017/STEM-Education-in-the-US-2017.pdf American University’s School of Education. (2020, July 9). Why is STEM important in early childhood education? Understanding child development and learning. [SOE blog]. https://soeonline. american.edu/blog/stem-in-early-childhood-education/ Allen, J., & Radunzel, J. (2017). What are the ACT® college read- iness benchmarks. Reading, 54 (75), 130-954. https://www.act. org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/pdfs/R1670-col- lege-readiness-benchmarks-2017-11.pdf Atma, B. A., Azahra, F. F., Mustadi, A., & Adina, C. A. (2021). Teaching style, learning motivation, and learning achievement: Do they have significant and positive relationships. Jurnal Prima Edukasia, 9(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.2183/jpe.v9il.33770 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theo- ry of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive develop- ment and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 Blonder, R., & Vescio, V. (2022). Professional learning communi- ties across science teachers’ careers: The importance of differenti- ating learning. Handbook of Research on Science Teacher Educa- tion, 300-312. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003098478-26 Bredekamp, S. (2019). Effective practices in early childhood education: Building a foundation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/ef- fective-practices-in-early-childhood-education-building-a-foun- dation/P200000000827/9780137528653 Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Special tabulations of the 2019–2029 employment projections: Science and engineering indicators. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212/u-s-stem-work- force-definition-size-and-growth Chen, Y. L., Huang, L. F., & Wu, P. C. (2021). Preservice pre- school teachers’ self-efficacy in and need for STEM education professional development: STEM pedagogical belief as a media- tor. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49, 137-147. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10643-020-01055-3 Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching ear- ly math: The learning trajectories approach, (2nd ed.) New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203520574 Clements, D.H. & Sarama, J. (2016). Math, science, and technolo- gy in the early grades. Future of Children, 26(2), 75-94. https://doi. org/10.1353/foc.2016.0013 Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2017/2019). Learning and teaching with learning trajectories [LT]2. Retrieved from Marsico Institute, Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver. https:// www.learningtrajectories.org/pages/resources Cudney, E. A., & Ezzell, J. M. (2017). Evaluating the impact of teaching methods on student motivation. Journal of STEM Ed- ucation: Innovations and Research, 18(1). https://www.jstem.org/ jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/2197 Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effec- tive teacher professional development (research brief). Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/ product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. https://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X08331140 The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 70 A HEAD START ON STEM Englehart, D. (2016). STEM Play: Integrating Inquiry into Learn- ing Centers. Lewisville, NC: Gryphon House. https://shop.gry- phonhouse.com/products/stem-play?variant=47751245496612 Feltz, D., Chase, M., Moritz, S., & Sullivan, P. (1999). A conceptu- al model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and in- strument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 765-776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.765 Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (2012). Teacher Ef- ficacy and Attitudes Toward STEM Survey- Elementary Teachers. Raleigh, NC: Author. Gerde, H. K., Pierce, S. J., Lee, K., & Van Egeren, L. A. (2018). Early childhood educators’ self-efficacy in science, math, and literacy instruction and science practice in the classroom. Early Education and Development, 29(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10409289.2017.1360127 Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute (2022). STEM Innovation for Inclusion in Early Education (STEMIE). https://ste- mie.fpg.unc.edu/our-work Hale, C. (2012). Dreaming up: A celebration of building. Lee & Low Books. https://www.leeandlow.com/books/dreaming-up/ Kind, V., Park, S., & Chan, K. K. H. (2022). Science teach- er professional knowledge and its relationship to high-quality science instruction. Handbook of Research on Science Teacher Education, 329-339. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/ edit/10.4324/9781003098478-29/science-teacher-profession- al-knowledge-relationship-high-quality-science-instruction-va- nessa-kind-soonhye-park-kennedy-kam-ho-chan Lange, Alyssa A. (October 14, 2019). Engaging preschoolers in STEM: It’s easier than you think! Development and Research in Ear- ly Math Education (DREME). [blog]. https://dreme.stanford.edu/ news/engaging-preschoolers-in-stem-its-easier-than-you-think/ Lange, A. A., Brenneman, K., & Mano, H. (2019). Teaching STEM in the preschool classroom: Exploring big ideas with 3-to 5-year- olds. Teachers College Press. https://www.tcpress.com/teaching- stem-in-the-preschool-classroom-9780807761366 McClure, E., Guernsey, L., Clements, D., Bales, S., Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levine, M. (2017). How to integrate STEM into early childhood education. Science and Children, 55(2), 8-10. https://www.nsta.org/science-and-children#tab Melton, J., Miller, M., & Brobst, J. (2019). Mentoring the mentors: Hybridizing professional development to support cooperating teachers’ mentoring practice in science. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 23-44. https://cite- journal.org/volume-19/issue-1-19/science/mentoring-the-men- tors-hybridizing-professional-development-to-support-cooperat- ing-teachers-mentoring-practice-in-science/ Miller, M., Hanley, D., & Brobst, J. (2019). The impacts of a re- search-based model for mentoring elementary preservice teachers in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(4), 357-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1573127 Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Engineering in pre-col- lege settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35-60). Purdue University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq7bh.7 Morse J. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/224927643_Principles_of_Mixed_Methods_and_ Multimethod_Research_Design National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) & National Council of Teaching Mathematics (NCTM). (2010). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings (A joint position statement). Washington, DC. https://www.naeyc. org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resourc- es/position-statements/psmath.pdf National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. https://www.naeyc. org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resourc- es/position-statements/ps_technology.pdf National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Na- tional Academy Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/cata- log/10019/knowing-what-students-know-the-science-and-de- sign-of-educational National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Next generation sci- ence standards: For states, by states. https://nap.nationalacade- mies.org/catalog/18290/next-generation-science-standards-for- states-by-states National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2014). NSTA Position Statement. Adopted by the NSTA Board of Direc- tors. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/early-child- hood-science-education Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Eval- uation, United States Health and Human Services (Jan- uary 2024). Annual Update of the Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.feder- alregister.gov/documents/2024/01/17/2024-00796/annual-up- date-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines Qualtrics. (2021). Qualtrics Software. Retrieved from https:// www.qualtrics.com Reeve J., Jang H., Carrell D., Jeon S., Barch J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147-169. The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 71 A HEAD START ON STEM https://doi.org/10.1023/b:moem.0000032312.95499.6f Riggs, I. & Enochs, L. (1990), Toward the development of an el- ementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625-637. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1002/sce.3730740605 Salkind, N. (2006). Tests and Measurement for People Who Think They Hate Tests and Measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Santat, D. (2019). After the Fall: How Humpty Dumpty Got Back Up Again). Xiao Tian Xia. https://us.macmillan.com/ books/9781250190994/afterthefallhowhumptydumptygotback- upagain/ Sarama, J., Clements, D., Nielsen, N., Blanton, M., Romance, N., Hoover, M., Staudt, C., Baroody, A., McWayne, C., and Mc- Culloch, C., (2018). Considerations for STEM education from PreK through grade 3. MA: Education Development Center, Inc. https://cadrek12.org/sites/default/files/DRK12-Early-STEM- Learning-Brief.pdf Stipek, D. (2017). Playful math instruction in the context of stan- dards and accountability. Young Children, 72(3), 8-13. https:// www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/jul2017/playful-math-in- struction-standards Tales, T. (Ed.). (2017). Ten sparkly snowflakes. Tiger Tales. https:// www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/634849/ten-spark- ly-snowflakes-by-tiger-tales-illustrated-by-russell-julian/ Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language-revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https:// mitpress.mit.edu/9780262517713/thought-and-language/ Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S. & Richert, A. E. (1987). “150 differ- ent ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). Cassell. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Re- view of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi. org/10.3102/0034654315626801