Designing Inclusive Science Activities and Embedding Individualized Instruction

Abstract

Ms. Cami is a teacher in an inclusive preschool classroom. She carefully plans developmentally appropriate activities to meet her state’s early learning standards and to embed instruction on children’s individualized goals. She has recently realized that she does not provide many activities in her classroom related to science. She wonders how she can provide high-quality science experiences in her classroom and include all children in these activities.

Like many teachers, Ms. Cami wants to provide meaningful science activities and instruction in her classroom that benefit all young children. This is consistent with the increasing focus on enhancing science experiences and instruction in preschool classrooms.

Recommendations for how to engage in early childhood science activities are available, as are science curricula and instruction for preschool-aged children (e.g., Chaillé & Britain, 2003; Charlesworth & Lind, 2010; DeVries & Sales, 2011; Gelman, Brenneman, MacDonald, & Román, 2010; Stone-MacDonald, Wendell, Douglass, Love, & Hyson, 2015; Worth & Grollman, 2003). In addition, within the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) field, there is an effort to encourage the provision of high-quality STEM education to preschoolers (Donegan-Ritter, 2017; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2016). Despite this effort to promote science instruction, researchers have found that preschool teachers and children often do not engage in science activities, even when science-related materials are in the environment (Nayfield, Brenneman, & Gelman, 2011; Tu, 2006).

There is limited research on the efficacy of science instruction, particularly inquiry-based instruction. However, there is some research to suggest that science concepts can be taught to preschool-aged children (3- to 5-year-olds). For example, storybook reading and retelling activities can increase young children’s science vocabulary (Leung, 2008); teachers’ use of explanatory language within the context of an inquiry-based curriculum can positively impact children’s language related to science concepts (Peterson & French, 2008); and posted visuals of questions related to science process skills can be effective for increasing teachers’ use of science instruction in the classroom, with additional positive effects on children’s engagement in science concepts (Ramsey & Fowler, 2004). Although there is need for further research in science instruction for preschoolers (Greenfield, 2015; Greenfield et al., 2009), there is sufficient theory and research to support the provision of science instruction to young children. There is also evidence that using a variety of instructional strategies, including explicit instruction, is effective in helping preschool children acquire science knowledge (Hong & Diamond, 2012).

This article builds on Donegan-Ritter’s (2017) recommendations for planning accessible science activities for children with disabilities by (a) explaining why science instruction is desirable for preschool children, (b) briefly describing inquiry-based learning, (c) presenting a rationale for how young children with disabilities can benefit from inclusion in science activities and instruction, and (d) providing guidance around the design of inclusive science activities in which instruction for Individualized Education Program (IEP) objectives can be embedded. This article reflects multiple Recommended Practices (Division for Early Childhood [DEC], 2014) (see environment: E1, E2, E3, and instruction: INS1, INS2, INS4, INS5, INS6). Throughout the article, we revisit Ms. Cami’s classroom to illustrate the ideas discussed.

Why Focus on Science?

There are many reasons to focus on science with preschool-aged children. First, participating in early science activities helps children develop positive approaches to learning, such as motivation to learn, persistence, and flexibility (Charlesworth & Lind, 2010). Second, science instruction can help children develop thinking processes such as problem solving that may apply to all domains of development (Bosse, Jacobs, & Anderson, 2009). Third, science instruction can build on children’s curiosity and interest in the world (Gelman et al., 2010) and use children’s interest as a springboard to develop complex skills and knowledge. Fourth, young children have the ability to learn science content and engage in scientific reasoning through appropriate experiences and support (Gelman et al., 2010).

“Being intentional allows teachers to avoid “pushing down” expectations for older children, and instead, promote knowledge and process skills in ways that are consistent with children’s developmental levels and include necessary adaptations and modifications.”

Although all young children can benefit from science content and process skills, young children with disabilities can further benefit from being included in classroom-wide science activities (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2016). First, through science instruction, teachers can provide multiple opportunities for children to access the general education curriculum. Research shows that students with disabilities, when included in curricular and classroom activities, are more likely to feel and be viewed as valued members of the classroom community (Meyer & Ostrosky, 2016) and can learn academic content (Courtade, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2010; Cushing, Clark, Carter, & Kennedy, 2005). Second, in the context of early childhood science activities, teachers can provide children with disabilities multiple opportunities to interact with peers and scaffold friendship-building (Meyer & Ostrosky, 2016). Third, including young children with disabilities in science activities can provide a context for addressing individual learning objectives. When early childhood science activities are designed appropriately, they provide an ideal context for providing embedded instruction to young children with disabilities. Let us return to Ms. Cami as she reflects on how to design meaningful activities for all children in her classroom:

Ms. Cami’s preschool classroom has 16 children, including some with disabilities. One of these children, Maya, is 4 years old and has significant disabilities. She is nonverbal and is unable to walk and be in some positions due to her disabilities and contractures. She communicates her wants and needs by crying, smiling, pointing, and pushing things away. She can also communicate by pointing to or choosing pictures. She has limited fine motor abilities, but enjoys trying to manipulate objects with her hands, including writing utensils. Her limited communication and mobility make it difficult for her to demonstrate her cognitive skills. Maya’s fine motor IEP goal is that she will perform fine motor tasks using both hands, and her social goal is that she will interact socially with her peers. Ms. Cami wants to design science activities that address her state’s early learning standards and will benefit all children. She also wants to embed instruction on children’s IEP objectives in these activities.

Classroom Considerations for Designing Inclusive Science Activities

Designing science instruction for all young children requires intentional planning. Science instruction should be engaging, hands-on, and developmentally appropriate (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Being intentional allows teachers to avoid “pushing down” expectations for older children, and instead, promote knowledge and process skills in ways that are consistent with children’s developmental levels and include necessary adaptations and modifications (Gelman et al., 2010).

“The social, political, and cultural context should also be considered carefully when designing activities. For example, if the classroom was in a community where water scarcity is an issue, an activity which requires the use of water might not be appropriate.”

When designing and implementing inclusive science activities, teachers should intentionally consider (a) using children’s interests and backgrounds, (b) addressing early learning standards, (c) utilizing hands-on exploration, (d) focusing on inquiry, (e) selecting activities and materials, (f) choosing tiered instructional strategies, and (g) embedding instruction on IEP objectives (DEC, 2014). This planning process is illustrated in Figure 1, and each consideration is discussed below.

Figure 1

Process for designing inclusive science activities

Children’s Interests and Backgrounds

Children’s interests and backgrounds should be used to inform activity design and planning (Helm & Katz, 2011). This practice embraces the child’s family and culture and is essential in engaging children (see DEC Recommended Practice INS1: Practitioners, with the family, identify each child’s strengths, preferences, and interests to engage the child in active learning).

Construction site equipment near a classroom, for example, could spur children’s interest in exploring simple tools. If a child in the classroom has a parent who works in a recycling plant, this could elicit excitement in learning more about recycling. The backgrounds of the children and the social, political, and cultural context of the classroom could also provide a wealth of ideas for exploring science. For example, if teaching children from a culture that emphasizes connection with nature, many culturally relevant activities could be planned that reflects this belief (see Roehrig, Dubosarsky, Mason, Carlson, & Murphy, 2011). The social, political, and cultural context should also be considered carefully when designing activities. For example, if the classroom was in a community where water scarcity is an issue, an activity which requires the use of water might not be appropriate.

“Hands-on exploration promotes children’s engagement, and it also is how children can best begin to understand science content and use science process skills.”

Early Learning Standards

The second consideration in designing inclusive science activities is to consider the early learning standards that will be addressed (Dorsey, Danner, & Laumann, 2014). It is important to plan activities with the goal of addressing early learning standards, rather than planning activities simply because they are cute or engaging. For example, a teacher might have the goal of addressing early learning standards around (a) using senses to observe and gather information and (b) observing and describing living things. With these standards in mind, the teacher might then plan an activity to teach children how a plant grows. Examples of early learning standards can be found in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework: Ages Birth to Five (Office of Head Start, 2015), as well as in the early learning standards developed by individual states. Early learning standards in science often encompass the following areas: Observing and documenting, engaging in inquiry, the scientific method, physical science, life science, and earth and space science (Charlesworth & Lind, 2010; Gronlund, 2014; Office of Head Start, 2015).

Hands-On Exploration

The third consideration in designing inclusive science activities is to plan activities that involve hands-on exploration. Hands-on exploration promotes children’s engagement, and it also is how children can best begin to understand science content and use science process skills (National Research Council, 1996). For example, consider an activity that teaches children about how plants grow. The teacher could plan an activity in which she tells them how plants grow from seeds and then have them color the different stages a plant goes through as it grows. An alternate, hands-on activity might involve the children planting their own seeds and documenting plant growth over time. The latter activity engages children and helps them understand a plant’s growth.

Inquiry

In addition to being “hands-on,” science activities also should engage children in inquiry (National Research Council, 1996). Inquiry has been defined as involving multiple components, including observing, asking questions, conducting research, planning investigations, gathering and analyzing data, and summarizing and communicating results (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23). For example, consider an activity in which children are making single-portion muffins (Zan, Edmiaston, & Sales, 2002). This is a hands-on activity, but it is not necessarily one that engages children in inquiry—this depends on the teacher’s behavior. For example, the teacher could require children to follow an exact recipe, disallowing variations to the recipe. Alternately, the teacher could encourage children to explore how adding different amounts of the ingredients impacts the muffins, discuss the resulting differences in their muffins, and generate drawings or words to represent the differences. In the latter example, the children are engaging in scientific inquiry by experimenting with variables, analyzing the results, and documenting their findings. Inquiry can be supported in other ways as well, depending on the context and children.

Activities and Materials That Support Varied Participation

A fifth consideration in designing inclusive science activities is to plan activities that allow the teacher to meet the needs of all children within the context of a single activity. This is consistent with DEC Recommended Practice INS4: Practitioners plan for and provide the level of support, accommodations, and adaptations needed for the child to access, participate, and learn within and across activities and routines (DEC, 2014). This consideration involves planning activities that (a) allow children to participate in different ways, (b) are neither too hard nor too easy for children, and (c) allow for meaningful child choice and expression (Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008). For example, a teacher might plan an activity to teach children about volume by experimenting with water. The teacher might plan to have water in the sensory table, with different vessels for holding and pouring water. Children can participate in an activity like this in a variety of different ways, and there are numerous opportunities for child choice. For example, children can scoop and pour water using different vessels, pour water from one vessel into another, make holes in plastic cups and observe how water drains, and direct the movement of water from one vessel to another using plastic tubing.

Tiered Instructional Strategies

The sixth consideration is to plan instructional strategies that will help children access science content. Instructional strategies can be categorized as universal instruction, targeted intensive, individualized, and intentional instruction (Grisham-Brown et al., 2014; Grisham-Brown & Pretti-Frontczak, 2013). For example, in the volume activity above, the teacher could use all three types of strategies. A universal strategy might be “I wonder what happens when you keep filling that big container with water.” A targeted strategy with some children might be “How many cups does it take to fill up the big container? Count them as you pour.” An individualized and intensive strategy could be used with an individual child by providing hand-over-hand assistance as the child pours water into a cup and prompting the child to count as the child pours. In each of these examples, the children are being given an opportunity to access and explore science concepts.

Embedding IEP Objectives

The seventh consideration in designing inclusive science activities is to determine which IEP objectives can be embedded in the activity. Embedding objectives in classroom activities and routines is a recommended, evidence-based practice (DEC, 2014; Macy & Bricker, 2006). It can be done most easily through the use of an activity matrix, which is used to help plan how IEP objectives will be addressed throughout the day in a classroom (Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998; Sandall, Schwartz, & Gauvreau, 2016). An activity matrix consists of a table with the typical activities of the classroom written in the left column and the objectives that need to be met written in the top row. In each box in the table, the teacher writes how the specific objective will be addressed in the activity type. See Table 1 for a partial example using Maya’s IEP objectives. In addition to using an activity matrix, the teacher must determine how IEP objectives will be embedded in specific activities.

Table 1

IEP Objectives and Sample Activity Matrix for Maya

	Fine motor objective: During at least three different daily activities that require use of two hands, Maya will independently use one hand to hold or steady an object while the other hand manipulates the object or performs a movement during 90% of trials for three consecutive data collection days.	Social objective: During a variety of daily activities, Maya will initiate a social interaction with a peer by extending an object and making eye contact four times a day for three consecutive data collection days.
Circle		Greet peer next to her
Dramatic play center	Holding a doll and feeding it with a bottle; holding a pot on the stove and stirring with the other hand	Share toy with peer
Art	Holding down paper and using other hand to paint, color, draw, stamp, etc.; holding strips of paper with one hand and cutting with scissors	Share materials with peers
Science center	Grip object (e.g., toilet paper) with one hand and use the other hand to act on the object (e.g., tear a section of toilet paper off of the roll)	Share materials with peers

Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Inclusive Science Activities in Practice

In Table 2, a science activity is described, adapted from Chaillé and Britain (2003). We describe how Ms. Cami could implement this activity in her diverse preschool classroom using the framework outlined above. We include examples of how to differentiate instruction within this activity, using universal, targeted, and intensive, individualized, and intentional instruction. We also discuss how one of Maya’s IEP objectives might be addressed in the context of the classroom activity. Additional activity examples are available from the first author upon request.

Table 2

Planning Process Illustration

Step	Toilet paper mush (Chaillé & Britain, 2003)
1. Consider children’s interests and backgrounds	Observe where children spend time in the classroom. Prepare the areas, such as the sensory table or science area, to encourage children’s exploration of water and its properties.
2. Determine early learning standards	Review science standards to guide learning in these areas:(a) Uses senses to observe and gather information and(b) observes, describes, and discusses transformation of substances. Ms. Cami’s first activity in the science center involves making “toilet paper mush.” She plans the center so the children have a few weeks to explore and experiment with the activities in the center.
3. Promote hands-on exploration	Promote children’s experimentation by adding different amounts of toilet paper and water and encouraging observations about consistency.
4. Promote inquiry	Ask open-ended questions to encourage hypothesis development (e.g., “What do you think will happen if you keep mixing the paper and water?”).Support experimentation by helping children engage in actions to answer questions.Help children generate their own questions and support them in new ways of thinking. For example, a child might ask, “What would happen if I threw the toilet paper mush?”Encourage documentation and data collection. For example, help children write the amount of toilet paper and water added together (e.g., 10 squares of toilet paper and 2 scoops of water) and then draw a picture of the resulting substance.
5. Plan activities and materials that support varied participation.	Children can engage in this activity in a variety of ways, by:Simply alternating adding toilet paper and adding water.Experimenting with adding specific amounts of water to the mixture (e.g., one spoonful) and specific amounts of toilet paper (e.g., five squares), allowing them to practice math concepts.Making predictions about what will happen before they combine the toilet paper and water.Documenting what they observe using photographs, drawings, and writing.
6. Use tiered instructional strategies.	Provide universal instruction by:Modeling how to use the materials,Commenting on what is observedAsking questions (e.g., “What do you think would happen if you added just a spoonful of water to 10 toilet paper squares?”).Provide targeted instruction by:Creating a task strip with visuals of the steps to be completed in the activity,Providing directives to encourage children’s exploration of the materials, such as, “Try adding a little bit of water at a time.”Provide intensive, individualized, and intentional instruction by:Using a response prompting procedure to assist individual children in completing the steps of the activityHelping individual children choose which substance to add to the mixture by providing visuals of choices and prompting the child to request the desired item.
7. Embed IEP objectives.	Maya’s fine motor objective is: During at least three different daily activities that require use of two hands, Maya will independently use one hand to hold or steady an object while the other hand manipulates the object or performs a movement during 90% of trials for three consecutive data collection days. This could be embedded in this activity by encouraging Maya to hold a small toilet paper roll with one hand and use the other hand to tear the toilet paper off of the roll. The teacher could use graduated guidance, physically shadowing the child and providing physical prompts as needed to help the child complete the task successfully (Collins, 2012). This would involve providing Maya with physical assistance to use both hands to hold the toilet paper roll and tear off a piece, adjusting the amount of assistance provided based on Maya’s needs.

Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program.

By crafting activities to address specific early learning standards, Ms. Cami is ensuring that her activities are purposeful and designed to enhance all children’s learning. In addition, by embedding IEP objectives in this activity, the teacher provides Maya with the opportunity to engage in science learning, make progress on IEP objectives, and interact with peers.

Conclusion

Young children have been described as “scientists-in-waiting” (Gelman et al., 2010, p. 2). It is important that teachers are prepared to nurture young children’s interest and capacity to engage in science. Teachers can do this by providing high-quality science activities that support children in engaging in exploration and inquiry. Activities such as those described above should be designed to be reflective of the interests, needs, and abilities of the children in a given classroom. In addition, with thoughtful planning, high-quality science activities can be a natural and ideal context for embedding instruction on children’s individualized goals and objectives. Instruction must be tailored to fit each unique classroom context, as well as children’s individual needs. Providing science activities to all children has the added benefit of giving children opportunities to access the general education curriculum, develop friendships with peers, and learn science content and process skills. It is incumbent on early childhood educators to ensure that developmentally appropriate and recommended practices are followed when providing inclusive science activities and instruction. Furthermore, additional research is needed to support the provision of science education for young children with and without disabilities, to gather evidence of its efficacy and establish guidelines for its use.

References

Bose

Jacobs

Anderson

T. L.

(2009). Science in the air. Young Children, 64(6), 10-15.

Chaillé

Britain

(2003). The young child as scientist: A constructivist approach to early childhood science education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Charlesworth

Lind

K. K.

(2010). Math and science for young children (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Collins

B. C.

(2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Copple

Bredekamp

(2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Courtade

G. R.

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

DiBiase

(2010). Training teachings to use an inquiry-based task analysis to teach science to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 378-399.

Cushing

L. S.

Clark

N. M.

Carter

E. W.

Kennedy

C. H.

(2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(2), 6-13.

DeVries

Sales

(2011). Ramps & pathways: A constructivist approach to physics with young children. Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices

10.

Donegan-Ritter

(2017). STEM for all children: Preschool teachers supporting engagement of children with special needs in physical science learning centers. Young Exceptional Children, 20(1), 3-15.

11.

Dorsey

Danner

Laumann

(2014). Adapting lesson plans for preschoolers: Addressing state early learning standards. In Pretti-Frontczak

Grisham-Brown

Sullivan

(Eds.), Blending practices for all children (YEC Monograph No. 16, pp. 39-57). Los Angeles, CA: Division for Early Childhood.

12.

Gelman

Brenneman

MacDonald

Román

(2010). Preschool pathways to science: Facilitating scientific ways of thinking, talking, doing, and understanding. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

13.

Greenfield

D. B.

(2015). Assessment in early childhood science education. In Trundle

K. C.

Saçkes

(Eds.), Research in early childhood science education (pp. 353-380). New York, NY: Springer.

14.

Greenfield

D. B.

Jirout

Dominguez

Greenberg

Maier

Fuccillo

(2009). Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education and Development, 20, 238-264.

15.

Grisham-Brown

Hemmeter

M. L.

(1998). Writing IEP goals and objectives: Reflecting an activity-based approach to instruction for young children with disabilities. Young Exceptional Children, 1(3), 2-10.

16.

Gronlund

(2014). Make early learning standards come alive: Connecting your practice and curriculum to state guidelines (2nd. ed.). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

17.

Helm

J. H.

Katz

(2011). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

18.

Hong

Diamond

K. E.

(2012). Two approaches to teaching young children science concepts, vocabulary, and scientific problem-solving skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 295-305.

19.

Leung

C. B.

(2008). Preschoolers’ acquisition of scientific vocabulary through repeated read-aloud events, retellings, and hands-on science activities. Reading Psychology, 29, 165-193.

20.

Macy

M. G.

Bricker

D. D.

(2006). Practical applications for using curriculum-based assessment to create embedded learning opportunities for young children. Young Exceptional Children, 9(4), 12-21.

21.

Meyer

L. E.

Ostrosky

M. M.

(2016). Impact of an affective intervention on the friendships of kindergarteners with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35, 200-210.

22.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

23.

Nayfield

Brenneman

Gelman

(2011). Science in the classroom: Finding a balance between autonomous exploration and teacher-led instruction in preschool settings. Early Education and Development, 22, 970-988.

24.

Office of Head Start. (2015). Head start early learning outcomes framework: Ages birth to five. Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/sr/approach/pdf/ohs-framework.pdf

25.

Peterson

S. M.

French

. Supporting young children’s explanations through inquiry science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 395-408.

26.

Ramsey

J. L.

Fowler

M. L.

(2004). “What do you notice?” Using posters containing questions and general instructions to guide preschoolers’ science and mathematics learning. Early Child Development and Care, 174, 31-45.

27.

Rock

M. L.

Gregg

Ellis

Gable

R. A.

(2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 31-47.

28.

Roehrig

G. H.

Dubosarsky

Mason

Carlson

Murphy

(2011). We look more, listen more, notice more: Impact of sustained professional development on head start teachers’ inquiry-based and culturally relevant science teaching practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 566-578.

29.

Sandall

S. R.

Schwartz

I. S.

Gauvreau

(2016). Using modifications and accommodations to enhance learning of young children with disabilities: Little changes that yield big impacts. In Reichow

B. R.

Boyd

Barton

Odom

(Eds.), Handbook of early childhood special education (pp. 349-361). New York, NY: Springer.

30.

Stone-MacDonald

A. K.

Wendell

K. B.

Douglass

Love

M. L.

Hyson

(2015). Engaging young engineers: Teaching problem solving skills through STEM. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

31.

(2006). Preschool science environment: What is available in a preschool classroom? Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 245-251.

32.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. Washington, DC: Author.

33.

Worth

Grollman

. (2003). Worms, shadows, and whirlpools: Science in the early childhood classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

34.

Zan

Edmiaston

Sales

(2002). Cooking transformations. In DeVries

Zan

Hildebrandt

Edmiaston

Sales

(Eds.) Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: Practical principles and activities (pp. 121-139). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.