Empowering Diverse Learners: Integrating Tangible Technologies and Low-Tech Tools to Foster STEM Engagement and Creativity in Early Childhood Education

Abstract

This qualitative case study explores how preschool teachers enact inclusive pedagogical practices by integrating tangible technologies, low-tech, and no-tech tools within an inquiry-based learning framework. Focusing on teacher decision-making and children’s multimodal engagement, the study examines two questions: (1) How do early childhood teachers use a range of tools to support inclusive, inquiry-driven learning? and (2) How do children engage with these tools to communicate, collaborate, and construct knowledge? Drawing on classroom observations, teacher-created storyboards, child artifacts, and educator reflections, findings illustrate how programmable robots, recycled materials, and hands-on resources support accessibility and creative expression for diverse learners. Children used alternative modalities such as coding, drawing, building, and storytelling to represent their ideas and engage in problem-solving across a range of developmental and linguistic needs. Teachers are positioned as pedagogical designers who scaffold inclusive participation through flexible environments, intentional provocations, and responsive guidance. Rather than treating technology as a standalone innovation, the study emphasizes how its integration, when grounded in play, inquiry, and real-world relevance, can promote equity and engagement. These findings contribute to research on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), early STEM education, and inclusive instructional design in early childhood classrooms.

1. Introduction

Equitable education begins with inclusion, ensuring that learning environments meet the diverse developmental, linguistic, emotional, and social needs of all children. This is particularly vital in early childhood education, where young learners arrive with varying abilities, many of which remain undiagnosed (Jechura et al., 2016; DeVries et al., 2002). Inquiry-based learning offers a flexible, child-centered framework that accommodates different ways of exploring and representing knowledge, making it a natural fit for inclusive education (Chien, 2017). However, while technology is often championed as a tool for supporting diverse learners, its application in early childhood settings remains inconsistent (Papadakis, 2021; Yelland, 2018). High-tech solutions dominate conversations on educational innovation, often overlooking the value of low-tech and no-tech resources in fostering engagement and accessibility (Falloon, 2020; Bers et al., 2014).

This study investigates how a blended approach of integrating tangible technologies, low-tech manipulatives, and everyday materials supports inclusive learning in an early childhood classroom. By incorporating programmable robots alongside simple hands-on tools, this research explores how a balanced technological ecosystem fosters engagement, creativity, and problem-solving skills while ensuring accessibility for all learners.

Grounded in the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), this research emphasizes flexibility, creativity, and multimodal engagement as essential components of inclusive education (CAST, 2018; Al-Azawei et al., 2017). By examining the impact of diverse learning tools within an inquiry-based framework, this study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on how educators can design equitable, adaptable learning environments that meet the unique needs of every child.

1.1. Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education

Inclusive practices in early childhood education create learning environments that support all children. Inclusion in early childhood settings is broadly defined as providing equitable access and meaningful participation for all learners, particularly those with disabilities and diverse learning needs (Odom et al., 2011; Gauvreau et al., 2019). Effective inclusion relies on differentiated instruction, culturally sustaining practices, individualized support, and intentional classroom design that fosters engagement and accessibility (Guralnick, 2017; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Research indicates that inclusive classrooms promote social–emotional development, enhance peer relationships, and contribute to positive learning outcomes for all children (Barton & Smith, 2015; Szumski et al., 2017).

To address diverse developmental and educational needs, educators implement strategies such as UDL, differentiated instruction, and scaffolded learning experiences (CAST, 2018; Al-Azawei et al., 2017). Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is particularly effective in inclusive settings, as it allows children to explore concepts through their own interests, represent their knowledge in varied ways, and learn at their own pace while fostering curiosity and engagement (Helm et al., 2023; Chien, 2017). Teachers in IBL settings play a crucial role in ensuring all students access content, participate meaningfully, and develop critical thinking skills, acting as facilitators who structure activities that encourage problem-solving, collaboration, and adaptive learning experiences (Loyens & Rikers, 2011; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007).

Play and collaboration are essential components of inclusive, inquiry-based education. Play-based inquiry allows children to experiment, negotiate, and build knowledge in social contexts, promoting cognitive and social inclusion (Wood, 2014; Samuelsson & Carlsson, 2008). Collaborative learning experiences such as peer mentoring and cooperative problem-solving support diverse learners by promoting communication, teamwork, and shared discovery (Vygotsky, 1978; Palincsar, 1998). STEM education also benefits from an inquiry stance: open-ended exploration, hands-on learning, and problem-solving tasks align naturally with inclusion principles (Johnson et al., 2020; Chen & Tippett, 2022).

When STEM activities are designed with accessibility in mind, they provide all learners with opportunities to engage in scientific thinking and innovation (Donegan-Ritter & Zan, 2017; Papadakis, 2021). By integrating inclusive practices with inquiry-based approaches, educators create learning environments that nurture the development of all young learners, regardless of background or ability.

1.2. Technology Integration in Early Childhood Education

Technology integration in early childhood education encompasses a spectrum of high-tech, low-tech, and no-tech tools, all aimed at enhancing inclusivity and supporting diverse learning needs within developmentally appropriate, inquiry-based frameworks. While the field traditionally emphasizes tactile, relational, and play-based experiences, recent research underscores the innovative and purposeful ways educators leverage technology to broaden access, facilitate communication, and deepen engagement for every child.

Low-tech tools, such as interactive storyboards, promote hands-on engagement and active participation among young learners (Flewitt et al., 2015). At the same time, no-tech strategies like collaborative play and storytelling remain vital for balancing screen time and nurturing social interaction, ensuring that technology does not overshadow essential interpersonal experiences (Edwards, 2013). High-tech resources, including tablets, interactive whiteboards, and assistive technologies, provide individualized support and enable multimodal expression, particularly benefiting children with disabilities (National Center on Accessible Educational Materials, 2024).

Importantly, research from early childhood settings across Canada and Europe highlights that these technological tools are most effective when thoughtfully combined with low-tech and no-tech practices. Such integration prioritizes embodied learning, social interaction, and sensory engagement, reinforcing the foundational principles of early education (Abels, 2014).

Among the most promising developments are tangible technologies, which represent a convergence of digital innovation and developmentally appropriate practice within inquiry-based frameworks (Bers, 2022). These physical, touchable tools, such as programmable robots (e.g., Bee-Bots, Cubetto), interactive coding boards, construction kits, and augmented reality cards, bridge the digital and physical worlds. By making abstract concepts like sequencing, logic, and spatial relationships accessible through playful, concrete experiences, tangible technologies foster creativity, collaboration, early computational thinking, and hands-on exploration, all while upholding the core values of child-led inquiry and meaning-making (Bers, 2022; Neumann, 2018; Zosh et al., 2017).

Empirical studies from international contexts further demonstrate the critical role of low-tech and tangible tools in fostering inclusion. Teachers in inclusive early childhood classrooms report that simple adaptations such as slant boards, pencil grips, and visual organizers not only support participation and independence but also help cultivate a shared learning environment that values every learner’s contribution (Al-Attiyah et al., 2022). These findings emphasize the effectiveness of inclusion stems not from the tools themselves, but from their integration into responsive and intentional pedagogical practices.

While technology integration in secondary education often centers on high-tech solutions and multimedia tasks, the literature on the early years reveals a different trajectory, one grounded in balance, adaptability, and relationship-building. Nevertheless, there remains a notable gap in empirical research specifically examining how technology is used in preschool and early learning contexts to support inclusive practices. Much of the existing literature consists of conceptual analyses, systematic reviews, or studies focused primarily on elementary and secondary education, highlighting an urgent need for scholarship that explores the nuanced and complex integration of technology in early childhood settings.

Effectively integrating high-tech, low-tech, and no-tech tools within inquiry-rich early childhood contexts demands a nuanced understanding of child development, inclusion, and pedagogy. International research consistently shows that it is not the mere presence of technology, but its intentional, inclusive, and inquiry-aligned use, that creates equitable and engaging learning environments. By recognizing the unique affordances of diverse technologies alongside the enduring power of play, touch, and storytelling, educators can support children’s holistic development while preparing them for future digital competencies. However, these opportunities are accompanied by ongoing challenges related to equitable access, teacher preparation, and managing screen time (Donohue & Schomburg, 2017).

1.3. Digital Literacies and Inquiry-Based Learning

Digital literacies, defined broadly by UNICEF as “the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow children to flourish … in a global digital world, being both safe and empowered … appropriate to their age and local cultures and contexts” (Nascimbeni & Vosloo, 2019, p. 6) intersect with IBL by enabling multimodal communication, visual and symbolic representation, and connections between digital and physical worlds (Marsh et al., 2015). In early childhood settings, children use technology not just for consumption but for authorship, storytelling, and knowledge building (Burnett & Merchant, 2021).

Research suggests integrating digital tools in IBL fosters agency, collaboration, and deeper engagement, as children use technology to test ideas, express creativity, and engage in iterative problem-solving (Hinostroza et al., 2024). For example, robotics and coding introduce children to computational thinking in developmentally appropriate ways, reinforcing coding as a form of literacy through language that can be read, written, and revised (Bers, 2020). These foundational digital literacy experiences support critical thinking, design thinking, and digital citizenship, helping children see themselves as capable creators of technology (Rowsell et al., 2017). By situating digital literacy within IBL, educators can cultivate inclusive, equitable environments that empower diverse learners to explore, collaborate, and make meaning using technology (Vasquez & Felderman, 2012; Helm et al., 2023).

2. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study is grounded in social constructivism and IBL, both of which provide a foundation for understanding how children learn through active participation in social and cultural contexts. Social constructivism emphasizes that knowledge is co-constructed through interaction with others in socially and culturally meaningful environments (Vygotsky, 1978). It highlights strategies such as guided participation, scaffolding, and peer collaboration that are approaches central to inclusive pedagogy and early childhood education. IBL builds on these theoretical principles by emphasizing student agency, curiosity, and problem-solving. Children are encouraged to ask questions, explore materials, and construct knowledge collaboratively with peers and educators (Bruner, 1997). IBL operationalizes constructivist theory by guiding the pedagogical design and implementation of child-centered, exploratory learning experiences in early learning settings.

The conceptual framework guiding this study is UDL, which offers a proactive and flexible approach to curriculum design. UDL supports a wide range of learning needs by incorporating multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement (CAST, 2018; Meyer et al., 2014). It fosters learning environments where all children, particularly those with disabilities or diverse learning profiles, can access and participate meaningfully in learning activities. Importantly, UDL promotes the development of expert learners who understand their individual strengths and can make informed choices about how they learn best (Rose & Dalton, 2009).

Together, the theoretical frameworks of social constructivism and IBL inform the collaborative and exploratory nature of learning, while the conceptual framework of UDL provides the structure and tools for equitable access and meaningful engagement. This integrated approach allows for the design of inclusive, inquiry-rich environments that respond to the diverse needs and strengths of all learners.

This study draws on this integrated framework to examine how no-tech, low-tech, and high-tech tools are used to support inclusive inquiry-based learning in early childhood classrooms. Specifically, it investigates two guiding research questions:

(1)

In what ways do early childhood teachers draw on tangible technologies, low-tech, and no-tech approaches to enact inclusive practices within an inquiry-based learning framework? And

(2)

In what ways do children engage with low-tech and high-tech tools in an inclusive classroom?

3. Methods

This study employs case study to describe the ways in which technology in an early childhood classroom promotes inclusion and explores how children engage with low- and high-tech tools (Stake, 1995). Case study supports the exploration of a complex phenomenon in real-world settings, which aligns with our goal of understanding how inclusive education practices emerge through tangible technologies in an early childhood classroom. Case study is suited to explore the interplay between diverse learners, tools, and teacher facilitation in a specific, naturalistic environment (Stake, 1995). By focusing on a particular classroom setting, this methodology enables a rich, contextually grounded analysis of how inclusive teaching strategies and technology integration interact to support learning.

Furthermore, qualitative case study facilitates the examination of both individual and collective learning experiences, capturing the nuances of inquiry-based education in practice. This methodology allows researchers to gather detailed qualitative data through observations, interviews, and document analysis, offering insights into how children engage with tangible technologies in inclusive classrooms (Tisdell et al., 2025). Through case study, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of effective inclusive practices and the role of technology in fostering meaningful learning experiences for all young learners.

3.1. Context

This study takes place at a teacher educator laboratory preschool affiliated with a state university in the southwest U.S. The preschool strives to be a leader in inquiry-based, inclusive early childhood education through education, research, and community engagement, while its mission is to provide high-quality care and demonstrate exemplary practices. Through this aim, both the teachers working in the program and the children engage in inquiry. Teachers meet weekly with the director and pedagogical liaison (Victoria Damjanovic) in a professional learning community (PLC) where they engage in action research on a topic relevant to their classroom where they analyze data collected during the week in their classroom. This weekly form of job-embedded professional development supports the teachers in a continuous learning process while also finding ways to meet the needs of the children in the classroom and challenging them to engage in inquiry. For the classroom that is the focus of the study, the teachers were exploring the ways in which technology could be incorporated into the classroom, an area which they felt she had limited knowledge and understanding. They felt a sense of discomfort and excitement as she embarked on this inquiry.

The school’s philosophy emphasizes that all children are capable and are provided the opportunity to engage in critical thinking and problem-solving in real-world contexts. Children are viewed through an asset lens; therefore, the curriculum design highlights the unique capabilities of each child. The school uses the Project Approach as a framework to enact their inquiry-based curriculum where children explore the world around them and their role in it (Helm et al., 2023). The Project Approach fosters inclusive practices in early childhood by allowing children to engage with content in ways that reflect their unique experiences, interests, and cultural backgrounds. This inquiry-based framework encourages collaboration, provides opportunities for differentiated learning, and supports diverse learning styles, ensuring that all children, regardless of background or ability, can participate meaningfully in the exploration process and contribute to the collective learning experience (Helm et al., 2023).

3.2. Participants

The participants in this study are situated in a classroom that includes two teachers and fifteen three-year-old children. The lead teacher has a master’s degree in early childhood education and has four years of teaching experience. The co-teacher has a bachelor’s degree in early childhood special education and is currently completing their master’s degree in early childhood education. This is their first year of teaching. The children consist of student, faculty, and staff children from the university. The children come from diverse backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, developmental, and educational needs, including Dual Language Learners (DLL) and students with speech delays. Figure 1 below shows the classroom demographics.

3.3. Data Sources

This qualitative case study was conducted in a preschool classroom over the course of a 16-week robotics project. The aim was to explore how children engaged with no-tech, low-tech, and high-tech tools within an inquiry-based, inclusive learning environment. Data sources included teacher-created storyboards (comprising transcripts of children’s conversations, photographs, and videos), children’s multimodal artifacts, teacher reflection journals, and written parent feedback. This range of materials enabled a holistic and contextualized understanding of how technology supported individual learning needs and fostered inclusive engagement in early childhood.

Table 1. Data sources.

Data Source	Description
Teacher Storyboards	Documentation of children’s engagement, dialog, and responses
Children’s Multimodal Compositions	Drawings, storytelling, videos, 2D and 3D representation connected to technologies
Teacher Reflection Journals	Teachers’ written reflections on technology integration
Parent Feedback	Insights from families about children’s engagement with technology

below provides a description of the data sources.

4. Data Analysis

Given the multimodal nature of the data, we employed a two-pronged analytic strategy that integrated visual and thematic analysis. Visual analysis focused on children’s interactions with materials and peers, particularly as captured in photographs and video excerpts. We drew on Rose’s (2022) framework for visual methodology, which emphasizes the interpretive and contextual dimensions of images. Through this lens, we examined nonverbal cues, spatial arrangements, gestures, and tool use to understand the embodied and collaborative nature of technology engagement. This was particularly important for identifying inclusive learning behaviors that may not be easily captured through verbal or textual data.

In parallel, we conducted a thematic analysis of textual data, including teacher reflections, child transcripts, and parent feedback. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to thematic analysis, we began by familiarizing ourselves with the data, generating initial codes, and collaboratively refining themes that emerged inductively. Coding categories were guided by our research questions and aligned with theoretical constructs from UDL and social constructivism. Two researchers independently coded a subset of the data, then compared and reconciled discrepancies through discussion to ensure inter-rater reliability.

Triangulation

To enhance the validity and credibility of our findings, we implemented multiple strategies to ensure methodological rigor. First, triangulation was achieved by cross-analyzing diverse data sources—visual, textual, observational, and reflective. Each data type offered a different perspective: real-time observations captured spontaneous inquiry-based interactions; teacher journals revealed evolving pedagogical insights; student artifacts demonstrated learning processes; and parent feedback contextualized the classroom experiences within children’s broader digital literacy development. This multi-perspective triangulation enabled us to identify converging patterns and contradictions across data, strengthening the reliability of our interpretations (Saldaña, 2021).

Additionally, peer debriefing sessions were held throughout the analytic process to examine assumptions, challenge interpretations, and improve analytic depth. By integrating these layers of validation, the study ensured that findings reflected a credible, richly detailed portrayal of how technology-enhanced inquiry supports inclusion in early learning environments.

5. Findings

The findings from this study illustrate how integrating tangible technologies, along with low- and no-tech strategies, within an inquiry-based framework promotes inclusive education through the development of agency, collaboration, and critical thinking. The results are presented in two interrelated sections: (1) Pedagogical Strategies for Inclusive Technology Integration and (2) Children’s Interactions with Technological Tools. Each section includes thematic findings supported by teacher reflections, classroom observations, and artifacts, with suggested placeholders for enriched data.

5.1. Pedagogical Strategies for Inclusive Technology Integration

Educators initially expressed apprehension toward technology integration, often citing a lack of confidence or experience. However, their stance evolved as they observed children’s engagement and capacity to navigate technology independently. This shift aligns with inclusive teaching frameworks like UDL which promote flexible pathways for learning and expression.

At the beginning of the project, Bianca admitted feeling unsure about introducing coding into a preschool classroom. “I kept thinking, how are four- and five-year-olds going to understand programming? I don’t even really understand it myself,” she reflected.

But after just a few weeks, Bianca’s perspective began to shift as she observed the children independently exploring coding tools, collaborating on story maps, and helping each other debug their robot paths. During one morning reflection, she shared, “I was genuinely surprised, not just by what they could do, but by how fearless they were. I was the one who was nervous about getting it wrong, but they just jumped in. They weren’t intimidated at all. They were problem-solvers. Watching them take the lead gave me the confidence to let go of being the expert and focus on learning alongside them.”

This mindset shift was echoed by Haden, who added, “I realized that I didn’t need to have all the answers before starting. The children’s curiosity guided us. They weren’t waiting for instructions, they were experimenting, noticing patterns, asking questions. That’s when I understood that the tech wasn’t the challenge, our own assumptions were.”

Teachers described how they supported access and engagement by offering open-ended materials and experiences. During the project, students could explore coding concepts through drawing, sculpting, storytelling, and collaborative play.

The classroom was intentionally arranged to support exploration through a variety of entry points and materials. In one corner, a “Tinkering Lab” was set up with child-safe tools, deconstructed electronics, and a workbench for open-ended construction. Nearby, the “Coding Corner” featured screen-free robots like Cubetto and Bee-Bot, coding tiles, directional arrows, and large floor maps for collaborative programming. The center of the room held an “Inquiry Hub” with nonfiction texts, diagrams, and artifacts related to robotics, animals, and community helpers, many drawn from children’s own interests.

Open shelves displayed loose parts such as gears, buttons, fabric, pipe cleaners, cardboard, and recycled materials. Art supplies were always available to encourage children to sketch, paint, or build representations of their thinking. A light table, magnifying glasses, and iPads for documentation were also integrated into different learning areas to support multimodal expression.

Literacy was woven throughout the space. Clipboards, journals, and mini word walls were accessible in each center, inviting children to label their creations, write stories about their designs, or dictate reflections to teachers. Visual cues, bilingual labels, and flexible seating supported accessibility and independence.

Haden reflected, “We wanted the room to invite children to explore, ask questions, and share what they know in the way that works best for them. The setup wasn’t just about materials, it was about creating opportunities for every child to find their voice and their way into the learning.”

Children’s representations of robots across various modalities (e.g., paint, recycled materials, digital drawings) exemplified this multimodal approach (see Figure 2). Teachers created a supportive environment where children with diverse needs, including DLL students and children with speech delays, could engage using alternative communication methods such as coding and robotics.

For example, one child, Mateo, a DLL who was still developing expressive language in both English and Spanish, often hesitated to speak during group discussions. However, during the robotics inquiry, Mateo became highly engaged with Cubetto. While he rarely initiated verbal explanations, he used the coding tiles to program the robot to move across a handmade storymap he had co-created with peers. When prompted by a teacher to describe his robot’s journey, Mateo pointed to the sequence of tiles and smiled, then drew a quick sketch of the robot moving toward a “hospital” icon on the map. A peer interpreted, “He’s going to help the dog,” which Mateo nodded to and confirmed with a thumbs up. This moment reflected how Mateo used a combination of physical coding, gesture, and drawing to express a narrative, demonstrating communicative competence through multimodal, nonverbal means.

Before formal coding tools were introduced, children explored the concept of “uncoding”, analyzing how everyday signs and symbols communicate information. This scaffolded approach laid the foundation for more complex tasks involving screen-free robots and programmable devices (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

During an early phase of the project, the class explored the concept of “uncoding” by examining everyday symbols and signs. Children were invited to bring in images or drawings of symbols they encountered outside of school. One child, Laila, excitedly pointed to a picture of a crosswalk sign and said, “This means we stop! Cars have to wait because people are walking.” Another child added, “Like when I go with my grandma, she pushes the button so we can go.” This conversation led to a group discussion about how signs give instructions, just like code.

Reflecting on this moment, Haden, one of the teachers, shared, “It was in this conversation that I saw them make the connection that code isn’t just something on a computer, it’s all around them. The uncoding activity gave them a language to talk about how things work. And for a few of our quieter students, pointing to signs or using pictures gave them a way to participate and share their thinking without having to speak right away.”

Teachers intentionally integrated technology into storytelling activities, such as using Cubetto on story maps during read-alouds. These experiences emphasized process over product and aligned with recommendations to embed coding into play and literacy-based learning (Bers, 2022).

During a literacy-focused inquiry, the teachers introduced Cubetto as part of a storytelling experience. A large paper map was placed on the floor, divided into narrative settings with labeled images: a forest, a river, a bridge, and a cave. Children worked together to retell a familiar story, using the coding tiles to move Cubetto from one part of the story map to the next. As the robot traveled, children narrated the events aloud, adding dialog, sound effects, and gestures.

One group coded Cubetto to go through the “forest,” stopping at a tree symbol. “This is where the bear is hiding!” Maya exclaimed. Another child programmed a turn and said, “Now it’s running away to the bridge so it can escape!” They spontaneously created new storylines, expanding on the original text.

Reflecting on the experience, Haden shared, “This activity was incredibly powerful because it let every child engage with the story in a way that made sense to them. Some used the robot and tiles, others added drawings or acted things out. It was layered, and that’s what made it inclusive. Even children who don’t usually speak up during circle time were pointing and directing Cubetto, helping their peers debug the route, and adding their own twists to the story. The coding didn’t take away from the literacy, it enhanced it. It helped them see that stories can be built, moved, and told in many ways.”

5.2. Children’s Interactions with Technological Tools

Children’s interest in technology stemmed from their lived experiences. Their curiosity about devices like Roombas and food delivery robots shaped the direction of the inquiry. This connection between personal experience and exploration created authentic learning opportunities.

The children’s interest in everyday robotics was sparked during a class discussion about technology they recognized from home. Several children mentioned the Roomba vacuum cleaner. One child, Jordan, announced, “We have a robot at my house! It’s called Roomba, and it sucks up all the crumbs.” Another added, “Ours got stuck under the couch once and just kept beeping.” These exchanges led to the donation of an old Roomba, which was placed in the classroom’s “tinkering lab.”

The children eagerly gathered around as the teachers’ introduced screwdrivers and magnifying glasses. “We’re going to see what’s inside the robot,” Bianca explained. As the children opened the device, one child observed, “There are wires! Maybe that’s how it knows where to go.” Another pointed at the wheels and said, “These make it turn, like when it bumps the wall!”

Reflecting on the experience, Bianca shared, “We had planned to spend one day on the Roomba, but the children kept going back to it. They were so interested in figuring out how it worked, like little engineers. What surprised me most was how they connected it to coding later. One child even said, ‘Maybe the Roomba has a code that says when to stop and turn!’ They were making really sophisticated connections just by being able to explore and ask questions.”

When an old, non-functioning Roomba was donated to the classroom, the teachers set up a provocation in the inquiry lab titled “What’s Inside a Robot?” Equipped with child-safe tools, magnifying glasses, and sketch pads, the children gathered around the Roomba, eager to explore.

Matty carefully turned the Roomba over and exclaimed, “It has wheels like a car!” Zara pointed at the circuit board inside and asked, “Is that the robot’s brain?” As the children unscrewed the casing, they took turns drawing what they saw. One group labeled their sketches: “wires = power,” “round thing = battery,” and “brush = cleaning.”

During reflection, Bianca noted, “They weren’t just taking it apart for fun, they were studying it. They were asking how it moved, what made it turn, how it knew to stop. It wasn’t just about technology, it became a literacy and science lesson. They made labels, diagrams, and even guesses about the function of each part. One child said, ‘I think this is how it knows not to fall down the stairs,’ and that launched an entire discussion about sensors.”

The Roomba remained in the lab for several weeks, as children returned to explore it through drawing, storytelling, and design. This tangible interaction provided a concrete foundation for later understanding coding and robotics concepts, grounded in something familiar from their everyday lives.

Teachers supported this curiosity by designing literacy-rich activities around real-world technologies. Read-alouds, vocabulary-building discussions, and visual modeling (e.g., prosthetic design with 3D printers) allowed children to connect emergent literacy with digital literacies (Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7).

The class’s curiosity about prosthetics began after reading a picture book about an elephant who received a prosthetic leg. During the read-aloud, Nina asked, “Can people get robot legs too?” Another child, Jalen, followed up with, “How does it stay on? What if it falls off when you’re running?” These questions led to a deeper inquiry into human and animal prosthetics, with children exploring models, diagrams, and videos of 3D-printed limbs. The teachers arranged for a field expert to come in and answer the children’s questions.

Inspired by the images, children began designing their own prosthetics using clay and recycled materials. While shaping a clay limb for a toy figure, Kamari said, “I’m making this one bend like a knee. It needs to move like our legs do.” Meanwhile, Mila drew a design and explained, “This one’s for a cat. It needs to be soft on the bottom, so it doesn’t hurt its paw.”

Reflecting on the process, Haden shared, “The children were so empathetic in their thinking. They weren’t just building something that looked cool, they were trying to solve problems and thinking about comfort, strength, and movement. One child even said, ‘I think the robot part should be squishy inside so it feels nice.’ These moments showed us that engineering and compassion can grow side by side.”

The children later visited the library’s 3D printing lab to bring their designs to life, integrating vocabulary and concepts from anatomy, robotics, and design thinking. Their final prosthetics became part of the dramatic play area, where they used them in stories about healing, helping, and friendship which provided evidence of their deep understanding and connection to the topic.

Children built and revised their understanding of coding as a symbolic, narrative tool. In one activity, they created “town maps” using community landmarks, integrating coding, drawing, and storytelling. These maps (Figure 8) reflected both their technical skills and social understanding.

As part of the “Coding Around Town” project, children collaborated to create a large floor map that represented important places in their community. Using signs, symbols, and small landmarks made from paper and recycled materials, the children programmed Sphero Bolt’s to navigate from one location to another using directional coding tiles.

One child, Leilani, carefully placed a small cardboard version of Target near the center of the map. When asked why she chose that location, she explained, “Because me and my mom go there every Sunday. We get snacks and I always get to pick a new marker or toy if I help carry the bags.” She then coded Sphero to stop at Target, saying, “Now it’s Sphero’s turn to go shopping!”

Another child, Malik, added Chick-fil-A to the map and said, “That’s where my grandpa takes me after swimming lessons. It’s our ‘special lunch.’” He used the coding board to program a path from the “swimming pool” to “Chick-fil-A,” and narrated Sphero’s journey: “Swim is done. Now, time to get nuggets!”

Reflecting on the activity, Bianca shared, “What stood out to us was that the children weren’t just coding movement, they were coding meaning. The places they added had emotional connections. They told stories, shared routines, and used the robot to recreate experiences that mattered to them. It was a beautiful intersection of digital literacy, storytelling, and community mapping.”

These experiences underscored the power of technology as a medium for narrative construction and inclusive self-expression. Children not only developed foundational STEM and literacy skills but also gained agency in representing their experiences and identities.

As the project neared its end, the children gathered to showcase their maps, robots, and prosthetic designs to families during a classroom “Tech Celebration Day.” Each child had a chance to demonstrate how they had used coding tools and materials to represent ideas and solve problems.

When it was his turn, Isaiah programmed a robot to navigate from the library to the fire station on the class map. After watching it complete the route, he raised his hands in the air and shouted, “I did it! I made it go exactly where I wanted!” Later, when asked how he felt about using coding tools, he said, “I didn’t think I could do it at first. Now I can teach the robot anything.”

Bianca reflected, “There was a clear shift in how the children saw themselves. At the beginning, many were unsure or passive around the tech tools. But by the end, they weren’t just using the tools, they were owning them. They were inventors, designers, problem-solvers. It wasn’t about the robots, it was about the confidence they built through making, trying, and figuring things out together.”

These findings demonstrate how inclusive pedagogical strategies, grounded in inquiry and UDL principles, can transform early childhood technology education. When children are provided with equitable, developmentally appropriate access to technology, it becomes a tool for expression, identity formation, and critical engagement with the world.

6. Discussion

The findings of this study highlight the powerful role early, inquiry-based experiences play in shaping children’s developing relationships with technology. By embedding digital literacies into play and exploration, children engage in foundational practices of computational thinking, problem-solving, symbolic representation, and collaboration. There are skills consistently identified as precursors to later STEM success (Murcia et al., 2020). Unlike approaches that present technology as a standalone tool, this study reframes coding and robotics as expressive languages. When positioned this way, technology becomes a medium for creativity, narrative construction, and critical inquiry.

This approach advances current understandings of early technology education by demonstrating that even the youngest learners can engage meaningfully with complex concepts when they are introduced through developmentally appropriate, play-based contexts. Rather than relying on passive interaction with digital tools, children in this study explored, constructed, and questioned technological systems. This orientation aligns with the work of Bers (2020), who argues for a constructionist approach to digital literacy, and extends it by illustrating how these practices can be embedded equitably within inclusive early learning settings.

Significantly, this study contributes to ongoing conversations around equity and access in STEM education. In classrooms where children had varied language backgrounds and developmental needs, inquiry-based frameworks allowed for multiple points of entry into learning (Helm et al., 2023; CAST, 2018). The integration of storytelling, drawing, collaborative coding, and hands-on exploration affirmed that digital literacies need not rely solely on screen-based or text-heavy formats. Rather, children’s diverse expressions of understanding through multimodal and tactile engagements, demonstrate that digital learning can be both inclusive and empowering. These findings bolster calls for early childhood settings to adopt UDL principles to ensure technology integration supports all learners (CAST, 2018; Guralnick, 2017).

Another central insight emerging from the study is the essential role of the teacher as a facilitator of inquiry and innovation. Educators guided children’s explorations through provocations and open-ended questions while also reflecting on their own learning and attitudes toward technology. Initial teacher hesitations transformed into confidence as they observed children’s capabilities which support Donohue and Schomburg’s (2017) assertion that ongoing, contextualized professional development is key to successful and equitable technology integration. This research adds to the literature by illustrating not only how young children can engage with coding and robotics, but also how teacher mindsets and practices shift in response to these engagements (Edwards, 2013; Neumann, 2018).

This study also extends prior work by highlighting the importance of family and community partnerships in supporting digital literacy. When families contributed materials, shared home experiences, and participated in classroom events, children saw their technological explorations as meaningful beyond the classroom. Community members further enhanced learning by contextualizing technology in real-world applications, such as the use of campus delivery robots or careers in engineering. These collaborations reflect culturally responsive pedagogy and affirm the importance of integrating children’s sociocultural contexts into STEM learning (Murcia et al., 2020).

Perhaps most compellingly, children’s culminating presentations, where they led adults through coding sequences and explained their robot designs that revealed their emerging identities as confident and competent technology users. These moments suggest that young children are not only capable of understanding technical concepts, but also of teaching others, thereby positioning themselves as knowledge producers. This finding resonates with Flewitt et al. (2015), who argue for recognizing children as active participants in digital environments and expands the field’s understanding of how agency can be cultivated through early exposure to technological inquiry.

These findings suggest that effective technology integration in early childhood classrooms depends not only on inclusive pedagogical frameworks like UDL and inquiry-based learning but also on the careful selection of tools that align with children’s developmental stages and learning goals. For younger learners, particularly toddlers, no-tech and low-tech tools, such as manipulatives, construction materials, and tangible coding kits like KIBO support emerging skills in sequencing, cause and effect, and symbolic play. These tools promote hands-on exploration and are well-suited to early learners’ needs for tactile engagement and concrete representation. For slightly older children (ages 3–5), high-tech tools such as iPads with coding apps or tangible technologies such as Cubetto and Bee-Bot can introduce more abstract concepts like algorithmic thinking, digital storytelling, and iterative design. Across age groups, the most effective tools were those that allowed for multimodal expression, open-ended exploration, and collaborative learning features that align with both UDL principles and inquiry-based pedagogy. These insights can guide educators in selecting and sequencing technologies that not only support skill development but also foster equity, engagement, and agency.

While this study offers rich, contextualized insights into how early childhood educators and children engage with technology in inclusive, inquiry-based classrooms, its findings are not intended to be generalizable to all early learning settings. The small sample size and site-specific nature of the research limit external validity. Instead, the study prioritizes depth over breadth, aiming to illuminate the processes, interactions, and pedagogical decisions within particular contexts. As such, the findings should be interpreted as illustrative rather than predictive, offering implications that may inform practices in early childhood spaces, but not directly extend to every early childhood environments.

6.1. Implications

The findings from this study have meaningful implications for the design of inclusive learning environments in early childhood education. The integration of UDL and IBL offers a framework that moves beyond traditional, one-size-fits-all instruction to embrace flexible, child-centered pedagogies. These approaches create space for all children, including those with disabilities, dual language learners, and children from marginalized communities, to participate meaningfully in technology-rich learning.

Pedagogically, this study reinforces that inclusion is not merely about physical presence, but about ensuring equitable access to learning experiences that affirm diverse ways of knowing, doing, and expressing. Practices such as offering multiple means of engagement, incorporating storytelling and play alongside digital tools, and allowing children to co-construct knowledge with peers and educators, support the development of identity, agency, and a sense of belonging in the classroom. When children are positioned as capable creators, designers, and problem-solvers, technology becomes a vehicle for empowerment rather than a barrier to participation.

These findings suggest that creating more inclusive learning spaces requires a shift in both mindset and instructional design toward pedagogies that are proactive, flexible, and grounded in children’s interests and strengths. Educators should be supported in reimagining technology as an inclusive tool rather than an add-on or enrichment for a few. By embedding inclusive pedagogical practices into daily routines and project work, teachers can cultivate environments where all children have the opportunity to thrive as confident, creative, and collaborative learners.

6.2. Future Research

As technologies and innovations continue to evolve, the early childhood field must critically examine not only what digital tools are used, but how, why, and for whom they are implemented. Building on the findings of this study, future research should explore the broader implications of digital literacy and technology integration within diverse early learning environments. This includes examining how different technologies adapt across various classroom contexts and how sustained exposure to these tools’ influences children’s long-term learning and development.

Future research could further investigate how sustained, reciprocal partnerships between families, communities, and early childhood educators shape children’s digital literacy development over time. While this study highlighted the positive impact of family contributions and community engagement in a single inquiry-based project, longitudinal research could explore how these relationships evolve and influence children’s dispositions toward technology and STEM learning across different developmental stages.

Finally, research is needed to examine the role of culturally sustaining digital literacy practices in diverse communities, particularly how children’s home languages, digital interests, and family knowledge systems can be more intentionally integrated into classroom technology experiences. Investigating how families and community members view their roles in supporting young children’s technology use, especially in under-resourced or multilingual contexts, could provide critical insights for designing inclusive and equitable digital learning environments.

7. Conclusions

This study demonstrates how the intentional integration of tangible technologies, low-tech, and no-tech tools within an inquiry-based framework can foster inclusive, engaging, and developmentally appropriate learning experiences in early childhood education (Bers, 2022; Zosh et al., 2017). Rather than positioning inclusion as a separate implication, our findings show that inclusive learning environments are constructed through daily pedagogical decisions that prioritize flexibility, multimodal engagement, and child agency which connects to the work of CAST (2018) and Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011), who emphasize the role of responsive teaching in inclusive design.

Consistent with Papadakis (2021) and Marsh et al. (2015), this study found that children used diverse communicative modes such as drawing, storytelling, coding, construction, and tinkering to engage with content, underscoring that young learners benefit from opportunities to express understanding through multiple modalities. These practices exemplify UDL principles in action and support previous findings that multimodal approaches enhance access for children with varied developmental and linguistic profiles (Al-Azawei et al., 2017; Guralnick, 2017).

Our findings also align with Neumann (2018), who highlight the importance of embedding technology within meaningful contexts rather than treating it as an isolated skill. Like these studies, we found that technology became most powerful when used as a vehicle for inquiry, rather than the focus of instruction. Importantly, we expand this conversation by showing how teachers’ confidence in using technology grew through reflective observation of children’s engagement, a dynamic echoed in Donohue and Schomburg (2017) and Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), who emphasize the critical role of teacher learning and facilitation.

By framing technology not as an outcome but as a medium for exploration and collaboration, our study supports prior research calling for equitable and purposeful integration of digital tools (Johnson et al., 2020; Vasquez & Felderman, 2012). It also builds on Burnett and Merchant’s (2021) work by showing how early learning environments can cultivate digital literacies in ways that are playful, inclusive, and grounded in children’s lived experiences.

This study contributes to a growing body of scholarship affirming that inclusion in early childhood technology education is not dependent on the tools themselves, but on how those tools are used to support diverse learners in inquiry-rich, collaborative settings. As early childhood programs increasingly consider how to integrate digital resources, our findings underscore the importance of centering inquiry, play, and inclusion—not just as pedagogical choices, but as equity commitments embedded in everyday practice (Wood, 2014; Florian & Spratt, 2013).