Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching science,technology,engineering,and mathematics

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine beliefs of early childhood teachers about their readiness for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, with a focus on testing for heterogeneity of such beliefs and differential effects of teacher-related factors. The results from latent class analysis of survey data revealed two latent classes of teachers, not known a priori, with significant differences in levels of teachers’ beliefs about readiness to teach science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The teachers’ teaching experience and their awareness of the importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and potential challenges in teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics played a differential role in the classification of teachers into latent classes. In addition, the analysis of two open-ended survey questions revealed several themes in the early childhood teachers’ opinions about early childhood science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Study findings support the necessity for professional development practices that will enhance teachers’ understanding of the importance of early childhood science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, as well as their knowledge of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines and potential challenges of teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Keywords

early childhood education latent class analysis STEM education teacher beliefs

Introduction

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is an integrated approach that teaches technology and engineering based on science and mathematics in kindergarten through 12th grades (Bybee, 2010). Although the context of STEM education is commonly described as ranging from kindergarten to 12th grade, research on STEM education has generally put emphasis on upper elementary and secondary education settings (e.g. Merrill and Daugherty, 2010; Moorehead and Grillo, 2013). As a result, limited attention has been paid to teaching STEM in early childhood education settings. However, the National Research Council (2011) has clearly emphasized the need to include kindergarten to third grade in advancing STEM education and specifically suggested several goals for successful K–12 STEM education. The first goal is to produce advanced students pursuing STEM field careers and to increase the number of women and minority students who are involved in STEM areas. One driver of this goal in the United States is the imbalance of academic achievement among low socioeconomic status and minority students, including Hispanics and African Americans, which creates a political burden (Wyner et al., 2008). The increase in STEM workforces within these groups would assist in constructing a stronger society. The second goal of STEM education is to produce more STEM experts. Modern society requires more STEM-trained workers who can help resolve complex problems in everyday life, and a nation’s STEM workforce is an indication of its global strength and competitiveness. Currently, the demand for such workers surpasses the supply in the United States. The third goal is to increase STEM literacy of students at all grade levels. STEM literacy is an important goal for all students, regardless of their majors, because STEM literacy is needed for individual decision-making, cultural advancement, and economic productivity. It applies to all students at all levels. Therefore, educational institutions must strive to produce STEM-literate citizens who can think critically and creatively to solve STEM-related complex problems.

A growing body of research has indicated that early STEM experiences (defined as preschool to third grade) play an important role in enhancing children’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for the jobs of the future and preparing students for an economy that demands innovative solutions to complex problems (see Aronin and Floyd, 2013; Chesloff, 2013; DeJarnette, 2012; New, 1999). For example, Chesloff (2013) argued that STEM education should start in early childhood since “concepts at the heart of STEM—curiosity, creativity, collaboration, critical thinking—are in demand” (p. 27).

Although the growing necessity to start STEM education in preschool has been justified in research and policies, the idea of teaching STEM to young children (aged 3–8 years) still sounds remote to teachers and administrators in schools, and early childhood education seems to be labeled as a marginalized sector in STEM education (Parette et al., 2010). This mismatch of STEM education in early childhood has caused early childhood teachers to avoid teaching STEM and thereby fail to develop their confidence to teach subjects related to STEM education in classrooms (Brown, 2005; Fenty and Anderson, 2014; Timur, 2012).

Teachers’ beliefs about teaching have been studied from various viewpoints, including how teachers’ beliefs influence (a) their instructional decision-making and practices (Nathan et al., 2010; Sherin, 2002), (b) their interpretation and actual classroom practices regarding what they have learned from training and professional development (Breffni, 2011; Hughes, 2005; Polly et al., 2014), and (c) their efforts and resistance level toward new practices and reforms (Feldon, 2007; Richardson, 2003). Vartuli (2005: 82) stressed the importance of analyzing teachers’ beliefs, arguing that “beliefs are the heart of teaching” and teachers’ beliefs are not merely hypothetical understandings but also guide their behaviors and decisions in classrooms.

Although many researchers claim that teachers’ beliefs are difficult to change, they also argue that teachers’ beliefs are associated with teaching experience (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1997; Pendergast et al., 2011). This connection suggests the need for administrative efforts to improve teaching practices, support, and experiences in order to enhance teachers’ beliefs about their teaching (Kim et al., 2013). Specifically, teachers’ beliefs toward the subject matter being taught, subject matter knowledge, and teaching practices can be changed through supportive training or professional development (Breffni, 2011; Hughes, 2005; Maier et al., 2013; Polly et al., 2014).

Teachers’ readiness is also viewed as “a significant predictor of change in practice” (Lang, 1992: 301). Teacher readiness for teaching has specific elements, including knowledge, attitudes, and interests that are critical components that directly contribute to the effectiveness of creating and implementing teaching methods (Jusoh, 2012; Lang, 1992). Lang (1992: 301) conducted a study on teacher readiness—which he defined as “teachers’ awareness of curricular intentions and their reactions indicated by interest, motivation, willingness, and attitudes and activated knowledge in a school context”—and found that teachers with an affirmative view of their knowledge, attitude, and interest toward using computers showed a high level of computer readiness (Lang, 1992).

Purpose of the study

This study was motivated by (a) the shortage (if not total lack) of studies on early childhood teachers’ beliefs about their readiness for teaching STEM, and (b) the fact that all previous studies on teachers’ beliefs about teaching STEM assume that the study population of teachers is homogeneous in response profiles across items of the respective questionnaire. This, however, may not be the case because the targeted population of teachers may break into latent classes with different response profiles. Furthermore, relationships between teachers’ beliefs in their readiness for teaching STEM and other variables of interest may have differential effects across latent classes of respondents (if such classes exist). For example, given the strong arguments about the appropriateness of early childhood STEM education (e.g. Aronin and Floyd, 2013; Chesloff, 2013), the awareness of early childhood teachers about the importance of early childhood STEM education and the challenges they may encounter in teaching STEM can play a differential role in their beliefs regarding their readiness to teach STEM and its relationship with the teaching experience.

Therefore, this study sought to examine the beliefs of early childhood teachers in terms of their readiness for teaching STEM, paying particular attention to (a) possible heterogeneity among teachers regarding their beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM; (b) the relationship between such beliefs and teacher experience, with possible differential effects attributed to teachers’ awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education and challenges they may encounter in teaching STEM; and (c) the perceptions of early childhood teachers regarding issues and problems related to their beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM. To achieve this purpose, the following three research questions (RQs) were addressed:

Does the targeted teacher population break down into different latent classes, not known a priori, based on the response profiles across items in a survey on early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM?

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM and their teaching experience, with possible differential effects due to their awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education and the difficulties they may encounter in teaching STEM?

What issues and problems emerge from the opinions of early childhood teachers about the importance of early childhood STEM education and the difficulties that they may encounter in teaching STEM?

Methodology

Participants

The participants in this study were 830 early childhood teachers in preschool–third grade representing public elementary schools in rural areas located in Western Kentucky. The data consisted of the responses of the study participants on a survey of teachers’ beliefs regarding readiness for teaching STEM developed specifically for this study (see Appendix 1).

The participants’ teaching grades included preschool (12.7%), kindergarten (29.3%), first grade (20.4%), second grade (18.8%), and third grade (18.8%). The participants’ gender breakdown was male (3.2%) and female (96.8%), while their teaching experience included 0–5 years (18%), 6–10 years (24.9%), 11–16 years (22.9%), and more than 17 years (34.2%). In addition, their reported educational attainment was as follows: less than 2 years of college (0.5%), associate’s degree (0.6%), bachelor’s degree (17%), and postgraduate degree (81.9%). In terms of the subject areas that participants were interested in and/or passionate about teaching, responses included science (21.1%), technology (9.2%), mathematics (53.3%), and none of these (16.4%). Although engineering is an integral part of STEM education, it was not included as a subject in this study because it has not yet been added to the curriculum in early education. Finally, the participants’ reported race breakdown was White (89.8%), Black African American (8.6%), Asian or Pacific Islander (0.5%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), and Latino or Hispanic (1.1%).

Procedures

The data were collected through the online SurveyMonkey^® system (see http://www.surveymonkey.com) from August to October 2013. The survey of teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM was distributed to 3000 early childhood teachers who were teaching preschool to third grade. The emails of potential participants in the study were obtained through websites of public elementary schools in Western Kentucky. The participants and their responses were kept completely anonymous. Neither their email addresses nor their school mailing addresses were connected with the survey. The participants received an incentive to participate, as previous studies (e.g. Dillman et al., 1998) have indicated that incentives (such as gift cards) increase response rates significantly.

The return rate of 27.67 percent (830 out of 3000) was relatively low, but the study sample was considered adequate for the exploratory purpose of this study. As described earlier, the study sample (N = 830) consisted predominantly of White (89.8%) and females (96.8%) in terms of race and gender, respectively. However, issues of potential return bias in the survey related to race and gender were ruled out, given that the demographic makeup of early childhood teachers in Kentucky is 96 percent White and 78 percent female (Kentucky Department of Education, 2013).

Measures

The construct of interest in this study was beliefs in readiness for teaching STEM for the study population of early childhood teachers (preschool–third grade). The measures of this construct consisted of the responses of the participants on seven survey items that were designed to serve as indicators of the teachers’ beliefs about their readiness for teaching STEM. The survey was based on a review of empirical studies on teacher beliefs about readiness to teach in a specific context (e.g. Jusoh, 2012; Lee, 2005; Maier et al., 2013; Nathan et al., 2010). The survey items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree). The “neutral” (middle) category of this scale was omitted to avoid measurement problems stemming from a central tendency bias, which occurs when respondents avoid using extreme categories (e.g. see Dimitrov, 2012: 10). The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of internal consistency reliability of the scores was 0.894, which is an adequate level of measurement accuracy for the purpose of this study.

In addition to the seven survey items on early education teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM, three other variables were used in testing for differential effects: (a) level of teaching experience, scaled as 1 = from 0 to 5 years, 2 = from 6 to 10 years, 3 = from 11 to 16 years, and 4 = 17 or more years; (b) an open-ended question on awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education, with the responses coded as 0 and 1 (0 = lack of awareness, 1 = awareness); and (c) an open-ended question on awareness of difficulties that the respondents may encounter in teaching STEM, with the responses coded as 0 and 1 (0 = lack of awareness, 1 = awareness).

Data analysis

The first RQ (RQ1) was addressed through the use of a statistical method referred to as latent class analysis (LCA; e.g. Agresti, 2002; Dayton and Macready, 2002; Hagenaars and McCutcheon, 2002; Lazarsfeld and Henry, 1968; McCutcheon, 1987; Muthén, 2001). Using LCA allowed for the following information to be obtained: (a) the number of latent classes in which respondents fell depending on their survey responses; (b) the probability with which any respondent belongs to each of the latent classes, with the highest probability used to assign the respondent to a given latent class; (c) the count of respondents in each latent class; and (d) the expected mean score on each survey item across different latent classes of respondents. The LCA procedures were conducted through the use of the computer program Mplus (Muthén and Muthén, 2010).

The second RQ (RQ2), related to the relationship between teachers’ beliefs about readiness to teach STEM and three teacher-related variables—teaching experience, awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education, and awareness of difficulties in teaching STEM—was addressed by including these three variables as covariates in the LCA model. This allowed for the examination of differential effects of the covariates on the classification of early childhood teachers into latent classes based on their beliefs about readiness to teach STEM.

The third RQ (RQ3), which focused on participants’ responses to the two open-ended survey questions, including (a) their awareness of the importance of STEM in early childhood education (357 teachers responded) and (b) the difficulties they may encounter in teaching STEM (319 teachers responded), was addressed through data analysis grounded in the constant comparative method (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Three researchers read and reread the participants’ responses independently until a unit of data was identified. A unit of data refers to “any meaningful (or potentially meaningful) segment of data” (Merriam, 1998: 179). A unit of data in this study was defined as meaningful words and phrases that were related to the questions from the survey and recursively emerged from the data (e.g. categories or themes). Specifically, the responses of the first participant were carefully examined and then revisited by comparing them with the next participant’s responses; these comparisons were conducted until the last participant’s responses were examined. Following an approach suggested by Fowler (2014), the three researchers independently coded responses by classifying each response to only one category and that was cross-checked among the researchers. While examining the teachers’ responses, each researcher independently took notes and created a preliminary unit of data (e.g. categories or themes as they emerged from the responses). Through this process, the identified themes evolved with the accumulation of new responses (Merriam, 1998). Each researcher’s notes were then compared and contrasted to ensure whether they coded in the same way, and the researchers finalized the unit of data. When unclear coding rules were identified, the researchers discussed and clarified each other until they come to an agreement to secure “internal consistency” (Fowler, 2014: 132). These comparisons were conducted until the last participant’s responses were analyzed. After emergent themes were identified, the researchers reviewed the entire body of analysis to refine and confirm or refute their preliminary identification of themes. This was done with the purpose of enhancing the trustworthiness of the outcomes from the analyses on identification of themes (e.g. Fowler, 2014). Then, the researchers highlighted themes with different colors, wrote coding numbers next to the subthemes within participants’ responses, and developed a list to visually display overarching themes by combining similar categories that emerged from the analyzed responses.

Findings

Results related to RQ1

A key step in LCA is to decide how many latent classes of respondents to retain (if such classes exist). In this study, the decision was based on three main statistics used in testing for the proper number of latent classes: the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion adjusted for sample size (aBIC), and the Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (aLRT). The testing for the number of latent classes starts with a single class model and gradually increases the number of latent classes until a decision about the proper number of classes is reached. Under the AIC and aBIC criteria, smaller values indicate better data fit. Under the aLRT, the decision about the proper number of latent classes is based on the p values associated with the test in the comparison of a model with (K − 1) classes versus a model with K classes. If the p value indicates significance for a model with (K − 1) classes (p < 0.05) and the p value for the model with K classes indicates a lack of significance (p > 0.05), then the decision is to retain (K − 1) latent classes. In such a case, the difference in data fit between the models with (K − 1) and K classes is negligible, so the more parsimonious model with (K − 1) classes is preferred.

The results of testing for the number of latent classes are summarized in Table 1. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the decision was to retain two latent classes.

Table 1.

Testing for number of latent classes of early childhood teachers based on their responses on survey items about beliefs in readiness to teach STEM.

Number of classes	AIC	aBIC	aLRT (p value)
One class	16,065.534	16,096.281	NA
Two classes	4173.449	4187.005	617.205 (p = 0.0001)
Three classes	3689.532	3709.053	497.993 (p = 0.2398)

AIC: Akaike information criterion; aBIC: Bayesian information criterion adjusted for sample size; aLRT: Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test.

The LCA profiles of the mean scores across the survey items for the two latent classes are depicted in Figure 1. Latent class 1, with the lower-level beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM, contained 69.4 percent of the participants, whereas latent class 2, with the higher-level beliefs about readiness to teach STEM, contained 30.6 percent of the participants.

Figure 1.

Two latent classes of early childhood teachers based on their beliefs in readiness to teach STEM.

The means and standard deviations of the scores on the survey items for the two latent classes are given in Table 2. The results from t-tests for the comparison of the two latent classes across the seven survey items showed that all item mean differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001), with higher values for the teachers in latent class 2.

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations of items by two latent classes of early childhood teachers on the survey of their beliefs in readiness to teach STEM.

Survey item	Latent class 1 (N = 210)		Latent class 2 (N = 93)
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Item 1	2.87	0.62	3.41	0.54
Item 2	2.19	0.72	3.27	0.49
Item 3	1.64	0.56	2.38	0.83
Item 4	1.71	0.62	2.78	0.75
Item 5	1.88	0.52	3.12	0.49
Item 6	1.70	0.54	2.69	0.71
Item 7	1.75	0.52	2.55	0.65

All item mean differences are statistically significant (p = 0.001), with higher values for latent class 2 (30.6%). All survey items are on a 4-point scale, with higher scores indicating higher-level beliefs about readiness to teach STEM.

Results related to RQ2

Related to the second RQ (RQ2) are results obtained for the three covariates used with the LCA model: teaching experience of the teachers, their awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education, and their awareness of the difficulties that they may encounter in teaching STEM. The results revealed a differential role of the three covariates in the classification of early childhood teachers into latent classes. Specifically, results showed the probability that an early childhood teacher belongs to a specific latent class given the code values for that teacher on the covariates, namely, (a) from 1 to 4, for the level of teaching experience (as described in section “Methods”); (b) 1 or 0, for awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education; and (c) 1 or 0, for awareness of difficulties that the teacher may encounter in teaching STEM.

The probabilities of belonging to latent class 2, with the higher-level beliefs about readiness to teach STEM, are depicted in Figure 2. Clearly, the highest probability of belonging to class 2 is associated with teachers who have a strong awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education and the difficulties that they may encounter in teaching STEM. This probability increased from 0.390 to 0.484 with the increase in teaching experience, that is, the chances of belonging to latent class 2 increase from 39.0 to 48.4 percent with the increase in teaching experience from level 1 (0–5 years) to level 4 (17 or more years). For teachers with an awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education, but a lack of awareness about the difficulties that they may encounter in teaching STEM, the probabilities of belonging to latent class 2 were smaller, although they also increase with the increase in teaching experience—from 0.220 to 0.293, that is, the chances of belonging to class 2 increase from 22.0 to 29.3 percent with the increase in teaching experience. Finally, for the teachers with no awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education, there was no chance of belonging to class 2, regardless of their awareness of the difficulties that they may encounter in teaching STEM.

Figure 2.

Effects of the teaching experience of early childhood teachers and their awareness of the importance of STEM and challenges that they may encounter in teaching STEM on their probability of belonging to latent class 2 (32.7%), with a higher level of item responses on beliefs about readiness to teach STEM.

The probabilities of belonging to latent class 1, with the lower-level teachers’ beliefs about readiness to teach STEM (Figure 1), are not depicted here because they are inversely related to the probabilities of belonging to class 2. Specifically, if p denotes the probability for a teacher to belong to latent class 2, then 1 − p is the probability for that teacher to be in latent class 1. For example, as shown above, the probability of belonging to latent class 2 was 0.390 for teachers with teaching experience ranging from 0 to 5 years who were aware of the importance of early childhood STEM education and the difficulties that they may encounter in teaching STEM. Therefore, the probability of belonging to latent class 1 for these teachers is 1−0.390 = 0.610, that is, they had a 61.0 percent chance of belonging to class 1.

Results related to RQ3

Related to the third RQ (RQ3) are the results from a qualitative-type analysis of the participants’ responses to the two open-ended survey questions about their awareness of the importance of STEM in early childhood education and the difficulties that they may encounter in teaching STEM. Specifically, the analysis of responses on the question about the appropriateness and importance of early childhood STEM education revealed several emerging themes. One of the salient themes (about 24%) was that the participants tended to believe that early childhood STEM education is critical and developmentally appropriate for building a foundation of concepts, knowledge, and skills related to STEM subjects. Following are some of the statements from early childhood teacher participants in this regard:

An early foundation in all of these areas is critical if our students are to be competitive in the world market.

Young children have many questions about the world and how things work, and the nature of STEM education is ideal to build on this natural inquisitiveness and set the foundation for interest in math and science.

Early learners are naturally inquiry/experiential/discovery learners. Using STEM in early childhood will help students develop much-needed thinking and questioning skills and strategies enhancing their abilities to be critical thinkers as they progress through their learning years.

Even our youngest students are able to problem solve and apply their knowledge if guided properly. Thus, it is important to provide developmentally appropriate lessons and opportunities to explore STEM topics.

Other noticeable themes regarding the question about the appropriateness and importance of early childhood STEM education were related to the positive role of STEM in jobs (19%), global competitiveness (8%), parental involvement (6%), and gender gap in STEM education (4%). Following are some sample illustrative statements of participants:

I believe STEM education is important because most of the jobs in our country are now geared toward science, technology, engineering, and math. With the rise in technological advances and the international need to communicate through different forms of technology, I think it is extremely crucial that we incorporate science and technology into all subject areas. STEM will help our students become competitive globally.

The earlier we can get children, and parents, involved in their STEM education, the better.

In my opinion, STEM education would be an important component to inspire females to go into these areas after high school and get degrees in any of these areas. We simply need more females to be inspired and confident in these areas.

It should be noted, however, that about 30 percent of the participants responded that they did not believe in the appropriateness and importance of early STEM education. For example, one participant stated,

STEM education is not seen as a priority for K–3 students at this time. Instead of expecting teachers to get another certification, I feel it’d be beneficial to set up a program like Junior Achievement where others come in once a week for a set amount of time to teach a few topics and build the foundation for the students. I feel that literacy is the most important aspect of early childhood education. If you can’t read, you can’t do any of the other areas. I do think it is most beneficial to begin the program no earlier than the upper elementary or intermediate grades. At this age, the students have a good foundation in math and reading, therefore, they will understand the concepts and make the connections much easier.

It should be mentioned that about 6 percent of the participants showed a lack of awareness (responses coded as 0) by stating that they do not know anything about STEM. In addition, about 2 percent of the participants were categorized as other because their responses were not appropriate for the purpose of the RQ.

The results from the analysis of the participants’ responses on the second open-ended question in the survey, which was about the difficulties that they may encounter in teaching STEM, revealed seven themes: (a) lack of time to teach STEM (24%); (b) lack of instructional resources (16%); (c) lack of professional development (14%); (d) lack of administrative support (12%); (e) lack of knowledge about STEM topics, particularly engineering (8%); (f) lack of parental participation (7%); and (g) reluctance of teachers to collaborate (6%). Following are some sample responses to the related open-ended question:

We are departmentalized so I don’t get to teach science very often. In Pre-K–2 much emphasis is placed on learning to read, write, and comprehend. Math instruction is also emphasized. Our administration is very adamant that we only teach reading, writing, and math in first grade. She said our only focus should be getting all children reading on grade level and scoring proficient on MAP [Measures of Academic Progress] testing. Unfortunately, that leaves little to no time to teach all the components of STEM education in my classroom.

Principals, other administrators, and especially district/state personnel constantly mandate new initiatives with little or no effective professional development, not to mention the poor implementation of ALL initiatives put forth.

It is frustrating that I only have three computers in my room, none of which worked by the end of the school year. I have recently acquired an iPad through a district grant, but it is the only one I have in my room.

I have never seen STEM professional development advertised or promoted in our district. My knowledge about STEM is so limited it would not be a good idea for me to teach STEM to my precious little students. It would be more confusing for them and me without proper training!

I could see that engineering might be a little more difficult to teach in an early childhood classroom. I know very little concerning engineering. Engineering standards are not developed at this level. Technology is somewhat challenging, but they [students] are surrounded by it every day.

I can easily teach, but my students are from very low income families where technology is not of the utmost importance. Parents are not educated about STEM, and that was not how they were taught. Also, if these areas are to be learned and learned well, the appropriate tools need to be at hand for children to use—many parents have no clue about any of these fields, at least in my school district.

Having your team of teachers follow the STEM method of teaching so all students can learn the same strategies. The attitude of non-kindergarten teachers is that K students are too young.

Some participants discussed difficulties in meeting their students’ diverse needs, including different learning levels and disabilities and cognitive developmental levels. For example, one participant said,

Students who have learning disabilities may not perform as well. Not all students enter with the same level of knowledge, so this makes teaching anything a little more difficult. The students do not always have the basics of simple communication down in early childhood or primary—let’s handle this first.

Another participant stressed the mismatching of STEM concepts and children’s developmental levels: “Some concepts are more abstract and difficult for younger children to understand as well as children not having the foundational skills and background knowledge coming into the classroom.”

About 12 percent of the participants showed a lack of awareness (responses coded as 0) by stating that they did not know enough about STEM to answer this question. In addition, about 1 percent of the participants were categorized as other because their responses were not suitable for the purpose of the RQ.

Discussion

This study was motivated by the importance of teaching STEM in the context of early childhood education and understanding the role of teachers’ beliefs about their readiness for teaching STEM in the quality of teaching and related outcomes of student learning in this context. The purpose was to examine the beliefs of early childhood teachers about their readiness for teaching STEM, with a focus on possible heterogeneity among teachers regarding such beliefs, the relationship between such beliefs and (a) the teachers’ teaching experience and (b) the teachers’ awareness of the importance of early childhood STEM education, and the challenges they may encounter in teaching STEM. In addition, issues and problems that emerged from opinions of early childhood teachers about the importance of early childhood STEM education and the difficulties they may encounter in teaching STEM were examined through qualitative-type analysis of the participants’ responses to two open-ended survey questions.

Heterogeneity of teachers’ beliefs about readiness to teach STEM

The results from the LCA revealed that the early childhood teachers fell into two latent classes, not known a priori, based on their responses to seven survey items about their beliefs regarding readiness to teach STEM. These two latent classes differ in mean scores on all survey items, with 69.4 percent of teachers in the lower-level latent class and 30.6 percent in the upper-level latent class (Figure 1). The heterogeneity of early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness to teach STEM—with about one-third ranging quite high—signals that it would be misleading to generalize the claim made in some previous studies that early childhood teachers tend to neglect teaching STEM and thereby miss opportunities to practice and master the necessary knowledge and skills to teach subjects related to STEM education (Bencze, 2010; Brown, 2005; Fenty and Anderson, 2014).

The LCA results in this study also showed that the chances of higher beliefs in readiness for teaching STEM increased with an increase in teaching experience for the participants who were aware of the importance of early childhood STEM education, and these chances were further enhanced if the teachers were also aware of the challenges they might encounter in teaching STEM. In contrast, the chances of having higher beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM were close to zero for early childhood teacher participants who were not aware of the importance of early childhood STEM education, regardless of their teaching experience or awareness of challenges they might encounter in teaching STEM. This finding provides more refined information compared to the general statement in previous research that teachers’ beliefs are associated with teaching experience (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1997; Pendergast et al., 2011). In this context (and in general), testing for population heterogeneity and differential effects of relevant factors would be useful in the validation of study results, especially in cases of controversial findings.

Teachers’ opinions about the importance of early childhood STEM education

The analysis of the responses to the open-ended survey question about the importance of early childhood STEM education revealed several emerging themes. One theme was that the participating teachers tend to believe that early childhood STEM education is critical and developmentally appropriate for building a foundation of concepts, knowledge, and skills related to STEM subjects. This finding is in line with previous research claims that concepts and skills learned from birth through 8 years of age are significant precursors to children’s subsequent learning and school achievement (Chesloff, 2013; Lind, 1999; New, 1999).

Other themes were related to the positive role of STEM in jobs and global competitiveness, parental involvement, and gender gap in STEM education. These themes are also in line with findings from previous research on the topic (e.g. Bagiati et al., 2010; Bybee and Fuchs, 2006). For example, issues related to the gender gap in STEM education have been examined in previous studies, with a focus on challenging the stereotype that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are male domains and providing parental, school, and social support to females in pursuing STEM studies and interests (e.g. Pajares, 2005; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997).

Although the majority of participating teachers support the idea that early childhood STEM education is a significant foundational component, it should be noted that about 30 percent of them do not believe in the appropriateness and importance of early STEM education.

Teachers’ opinions about challenges they may encounter in teaching STEM

The qualitative-type analysis of the responses of early childhood teacher participants on the open-ended question about the challenges that they may encounter in teaching STEM revealed several themes, namely, (a) lack of time to teach STEM, (b) lack of instructional resources, (c) lack of professional development, (d) lack of administrative support, (e) lack of knowledge about STEM topics, (f) lack of parental participation, and (g) reluctance of teachers to collaborate. In addition, some teachers refer to difficulties they encounter in meeting their students’ diverse needs, including different learning levels and disabilities and cognitive developmental levels. These themes are in line with findings in previous research on STEM education (e.g. Brown et al., 2011; Gebbie et al., 2012; Lang, 1992; Lind, 1999). For example, on the issue of collaboration, Brown et al. (2011) suggested the need for collaboration in schools on STEM education when teachers have not been trained outside of their content area on issues related to STEM education. Regarding the problem of difficulties with meeting diverse student needs, Lind (1999) pointed out that teachers should tailor or adapt activities to accommodate individual children’s strengths and needs so that they are challenging but achievable and emphasized the importance of selecting science content that matches the cognitive capacities of students.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that although the sample size was adequate for the analysis conducted in this study, it provides limited demographic information, with the participants being predominantly White female early childhood teachers from public schools in Western Kentucky. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable across important demographic variables such as gender, ethnicity, and regions. Another limitation is that the survey developed for the purpose of this study does not include a comprehensive set of indicators of teachers’ beliefs about readiness to teach STEM. Therefore, it is likely that some important aspects (e.g. attitudes and in-depth content knowledge, idiosyncratic background knowledge) of the construct of interest are left out of consideration in this study.

Conclusion

The results in this study reveal that the study population of early childhood teachers is heterogeneous in beliefs about readiness to teach STEM. The participants fell into two latent classes, not known a priori, with significantly different levels of responses on survey items about such beliefs. The teacher-related factors used in this study (teaching experience, awareness of the importance of STEM education, and awareness of potential challenges in teaching STEM) play a differential role in the classification of early childhood teachers into the two latent classes being identified. These findings suggest that, in general, results from research on teacher self-efficacy beliefs about teaching STEM should be interpreted with caution if they are not based on testing for population heterogeneity and differential effects of relevant factors. This is particularly important when different studies report discrepant (or controversial) findings. Therefore, attention should be paid to factors that relate to positive beliefs in early childhood teachers about teaching STEM, and efforts should be made to foster such factors, say, through appropriate design of professional development.

As shown in this study, there is a positive relationship between the level of early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness to teach STEM and their awareness of the importance of STEM education and challenges they may encounter in teaching STEM. An important implication from this finding is the necessity for professional development practices that will enhance teachers’ understanding of the importance of early childhood STEM education, as well as their knowledge of STEM disciplines and challenges that they may encounter in teaching STEM. Of course, as previous research suggests, teachers having confidence about teaching STEM may also run into challenges when they actually teach STEM in their classrooms (Chesloff, 2013; DeJarnette, 2012). However, with proper training, they will perhaps be better prepared to anticipate and address those challenges.

In conclusion, the hope is that the methodology used in this study for investigating the heterogeneity of teachers’ beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM and the differential effects of teacher-related factors can be useful to empirical researchers in the field of STEM education and other areas. Also, the teachers’ beliefs and teacher-related variables (e.g. teachers’ attitudes and in-depth content knowledge) should be considered when designing STEM teacher professional development and pre-service STEM teacher training programs. Furthermore, given the positive effects of teachers’ beliefs on their instructional decisions (Borko and Shavelson, 1990; Thompson, 1992), further research is needed to investigate how such effects may transfer in the context of teaching STEM in early childhood classrooms.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Following is a copy of the survey questions used to examine early childhood teachers’ beliefs in readiness for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in preschool through third-grade classrooms.

Please respond to the following items by checking the appropriate option that applies to you.

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using the scale provided below and then answer the open-ended questions at the end as fully as you can.

1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree

Acknowledgements

We thank the study participants, known herein as Western Kentucky early childhood teachers, without whom this study would not have been possible.

Funding

This study was supported by the College of Education and Human Services at Murray State University and Western Kentucky early childhood teachers. We wish to gratefully acknowledge the College of Education and Human Services for providing Faculty Incentive Grants that funded this study.

References

Agresti

(2002) Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Aronin

Floyd

(2013) Using an iPad in inclusive preschool classrooms to introduce STEM concepts. Teaching Exceptional Children 45(4): 34–39.

Bagiati

Yoon

Evangelou

et al . (2010) Engineering curricula in early education: describing the landscape of open resources. Early Childhood Research & Practice 12(2). Available at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/index.html (accessed 20 August 2013).

Bencze

(2010) Promoting student-led science and technology projects in elementary teacher education: entry into core pedagogical practices through technological design. International Journal of Technology & Design Education 20(1): 43–63.

Borko

Shavelson

(1990) Teacher decision making. In: Jones

Idol

(eds) Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 311–346.

Breffni

(2011) Impact of curriculum training on state-funded prekindergarten teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 32(2): 176–193.

Brown

(2005) The influence of teachers’ efficacy and beliefs regarding mathematics instruction in the early childhood classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 26: 239–257.

Brown

Reardon

et al . (2011) Understanding STEM: current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher 70(6): 5–9.

Bybee

(2010) Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher 70(1): 30–35.

10.

Bybee

Fuchs

(2006) Preparing the 21st century workforce: a new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43: 349–352.

11.

Chesloff

(2013) Why STEM education must start in early childhood. Education Week 32(23): 27–32.

12.

Dayton

Macready

(2002) Use of categorical and continuous covariates in latent class analysis. In: Hagenaars

McCutcheon

(eds) Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 213–233.

13.

DeJarnette

(2012) America’s children: providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education 133(1): 77–84.

14.

Dillman

Tortora

Bowker

(1998) Principles for constructing web surveys. Available at: http://www.websm.org/uploadi/editor/Dillman_1998_Principles_for%20Constructing.pdf (accessed 29 October 2015).

15.

Dimitrov

(2012) Statistical Methods for Validation of Assessment Scale Data in Counseling and Related Fields. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

16.

Feldon

(2007) Cognitive load and classroom teaching: the double edged sword of automaticity. Educational Psychologist 42: 123–137.

17.

Fenty

Anderson

(2014) Examining educators’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices about using technology with young children. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 35: 114–134.

18.

Fowler

(2014) Survey Research Methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

19.

Gebbie

Ceglowski

Taylor

et al . (2012) The role of teacher efficacy in strengthening classroom support for preschool children with disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviors. Early Childhood Education Journal 40: 35–46.

20.

Hagenaars

McCutcheon

(2002) Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Hughes

(2005) The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 13: 277–302.

22.

Jusoh

(2012) Effects of teachers’ readiness in teaching and learning of entrepreneurship education in primary schools. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education 1(7): 98–102.

23.

Kagan

(1992) Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist 27: 65–90.

24.

Kentucky Department of Education (2013) Kentucky education facts. Available at: http://education.ky.gov/comm/edfacts/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 7 November 2013).

25.

Kim

Lee

et al . (2013) Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education 29: 76–85.

26.

Lang

(1992) Computer readiness of teachers. Computers & Education 19(3): 301–308.

27.

Lazarsfeld

Henry

(1968) Latent Structure Analysis. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

28.

Lee

(2005) Correlations between kindergarten teachers’ attitudes toward mathematics and teaching practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25(2): 173–184.

29.

Lind

(1999) Science in early childhood: developing and acquiring fundamental concepts and skills. In: Dialogue on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education: First Experience in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available at: http://www.project2061.org/publications/earlychild/online/experience/lind.htm (accessed 5 August 2014).

30.

McCutcheon

(1987) Latent Class Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

31.

Maier

Greenfield

Bulotsky-Shearer

(2013) Development and validation of a preschool teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward science teaching questionnaire. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28(2): 366–378.

32.

Merriam

(1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Merrill

Daugherty

(2010) STEM education and leadership: a mathematics and science partnership approach. Journal of Technology Education 21(2): 21–34.

34.

Moorehead

Grillo

(2013) Celebrating the reality of inclusive STEM education: co-teaching in science and mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children 45(4): 50–57.

35.

Muthén

(2001) Latent variable mixture modeling. In: Marcoulides

Schumacher

(eds) New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–33.

36.

Muthén

(2010) Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

37.

Nathan

Tran

Atwood

et al . (2010) Beliefs and expectations about engineering preparation exhibited by high school STEM teachers. Journal of Engineering Education 99(4): 409–426.

38.

National Research Council (2011) Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

39.

New

(1999) Playing fair and square: issues of equity in preschool mathematics, science, and technology. In: Dialogue on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education: Fostering High Quality Programs. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available at: http://www.project2061.org/publications/earlychild/online/fostering/new.htm (accessed 5 August 2014).

40.

Pajares

(1997) Current directions in self-efficacy research. In: Maehr

Pintrich

(eds) Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 1–49.

41.

Pajares

(2005) Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In: Gallagher

Kaufman

(eds) Gender Differences in Mathematics: An Integrative Psychological Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 294–315.

42.

Parette

Quesenberry

Blum

(2010) Missing the boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: a 21^st century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Early Childhood Education Journal 37: 335–343.

43.

Pendergast

Garvis

Keogh

(2011) Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: an insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36(12): 46–57.

44.

Polly

Neale

Pugalee

(2014) How does ongoing task-focused mathematics professional development influence elementary school teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and enacted pedagogies? Early Childhood Education Journal 42(1): 1–10.

45.

Richardson

(2003) Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In: Raths

McAninch

(eds) Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The Impact of Teacher Education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 1–22.

46.

Seymour

Hewitt

(1997) Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

47.

Sherin

(2002) When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction 20(2): 119–150.

48.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

49.

Thompson

(1992) Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of the research. In: Grouws

(ed.) Handbook of Research in Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan, pp. 127–145.

50.

Timur

(2012) Determination of factors affecting preschool teacher candidates’ attitudes toward science teaching. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 12(4): 2997–3009.

51.

Vartuli

(2005) Beliefs: the heart of teaching. Young Children 60(5): 76–86.

52.

Wyner

Bridgeland

Diulio

(2008) The Achievement Trap: How America is Failing Millions of High-Achieving Students from Lower Income Families. Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.