In Austria, early childhood educator training programs generally lack a strong emphasis on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education and talent development. This study investigates the extent to which Austrian early childhood educators are prepared to integrate STEM concepts into their pedagogical practices and support giftedness in young children. The research examines the alignment between educators’ training and the goals outlined in the Austrian National Education Framework Plan, as well as the General Competencies for Early Childhood Educators. Through semi-structured interviews with early childhood educators, the study identifies significant gaps in training related to STEM education, particularly in the practical application of STEM concepts and the promotion of giftedness. Despite a strong theoretical foundation in STEM subjects, participants reported insufficient practical experience and a lack of training in gifted education. Structural barriers, including resource shortages and personnel constraints, further hindered the integration of STEM activities in early childhood education centers. Moreover, while many educators expressed enthusiasm for STEM and talent development, they were often unaware of professional development opportunities in these areas. The findings underscore the need for a more integrated approach to STEM and talent promotion in early childhood educator training, aligning curricula with the Austrian National Education Framework Plan and the General Competencies. By addressing these gaps, it is possible to better equip educators to foster STEM-related skills and identify and nurture giftedness in young children.
AryD.JacobsL. C.SorensenC. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
2.
BeilockS. L.GundersonE. A.RamirezG.LevineS. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(5), 1860–1863. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910967107
3.
BenaquistoL. (2008). Open coding. In GivenL. (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (2016). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). Routledge.
8.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
9.
ColemanM. R. (2016). Recognizing young children with high potential: U-STARS∼PLUS. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/NYAS.13161
10.
CraigS.GraesserA.SullinsJ.GholsonB. (2004). Affect and learning: An exploratory look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165042000283101
11.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. J. (2014). School-based conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521522
DuschlR. A.SchweingruberH. A.ShouseA. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11625.html
14.
Forbes-RileyK.LitmanD.FriedbergH. (2011). Annotating disengagement for spoken dialogue computer tutoring. In CalvoR.D’MelloS. (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 169–181). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1
15.
GagnéF. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553709
16.
GreenfieldD. B.JiroutJ.DominguezX.GreenbergA.MaierM.FuccilloJ. (2009). Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education & Development, 20(2), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802595441
17.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
18.
HenninkM.HutterI.BaileyA. (2010). Qualitative research methods. Sage.
19.
HinterplattnerS.WolfensbergerM. V. C.LaviczaZ. (2022). Honors students’ experiences and coping strategies for waiting in secondary schools and at university. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 45(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532211063945
20.
International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707
MatthewsD. J.FosterJ. F. (2008). Wrestling with misconceptions: Is the gifted label good or bad?Understanding Our Gifted, 20(4), 3–7. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ840376
23.
McClureE.GuernseyL.ClementsD. H.Nall BalesS.NicholsJ.Kendall-TaylorN.LevineM. H. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in early childhood. The joan Ganz Cooney Center at sesame Workshop new America. https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/stem-starts-early/
24.
MissettT. C.BrunnerM. M.CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.AzanoA. P. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214541326
25.
NeubauerA.SternE. (2007). Lernen macht intelligent: Warum begabung gefördert werden muss [Learning makes you intelligent: Why talent must be fostered]. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
OECD. (2017). Starting strong V: Transitions from early childhood education and care to primary education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en
28.
OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
29.
OECD. (2020). Early learning and child well-being: A study of five-year-olds in England, Estonia, and the United States. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3990407f-en
ParkM.-H.DimitrovD. M.PattersonL. G.ParkD.-Y. (2016). Early childhood teachers' beliefs about readiness for teaching STEM concepts. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15614040
32.
ParkS.Steve OliverJ. (2009). The translation of teachers’ understanding of gifted students into instructional strategies for teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9138-7
PyetanE.Oni-GrinbergA.NevoU.ShoftyS.YankielowiczS. (2014). Designing a proficient academic science education for the gifted youth. In: IEEE global engineering education conference (pp. 751–754). EDUCON. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2014.6826178
37.
RizzaM. G.MorrisonW. F. (2003). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities. Roeper Review, 25(2), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554202
38.
RotigelJ. V.FelloS. (2016). Mathematically gifted students: How can we meet their needs?Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.4219/GCT-2004-150
TayJ.SalazarA.LeeH. (2017). Parental perceptions of STEM enrichment for young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217745159
