Can Blended/Online Learning work for Special Education Centered Early Childhood Education Programs?

We know that young children learn best through play, interaction, and hands-on experiences. With the rise of digital technology and blended learning models, many of us wonder: Can blended or online learning be a realistic and effective option for early childhood education that focuses on meeting the needs of students with disabilities? Based on my experience developing a blended early-learning literacy course — and a review of recent research — I believe it can be effective, but only if designed thoughtfully, intentionally, and with strong support. I have spent the last eight weeks learning about building the framework for a blended early literacy class, specifically designed for students with disabilities. Here is what I learned:

What the Research Says About Blended and Online Learning in Early Childhood

• Su et al. (2023) found that interest in digital tools for children aged 3–8 has grown rapidly over the past two decades. The authors noted that while the research base remains comparatively small, the increasing number of studies reflects growing attention to the potential benefits (e.g., early exposure to technology, opportunities for creativity, problem-solving, and early digital literacy).

• Sukini et al. (2024) found that a blended-learning model had a “very large effect” on the language skills of prospective early childhood education teachers. Although this particular study targets pre-service teachers rather than children, it highlights how blended learning can significantly impact the skills of adults preparing to work with young children.

• A case study of a blended preschool program showed positive child outcomes over a six-month period when the program was implemented with strong quality supports (Keesbury, 2015).

• Reports from the pandemic period, when many early childhood programs shifted to remote learning, offer mixed but useful insights. For example, in a study of 51 parents and 53 teachers, both groups agreed that remote learning could support communication and parental involvement; however, parents generally viewed online activities as less effective for engaging children than teachers did (Plotka & Guirguis, 2022)

• Expert guidance suggests that blended learning offers advantages when online and hands-on activities are intentionally integrated, and when technology is used to support, not replace, developmentally appropriate practice (Tarski-Rodriguez, 2021)

Together, these findings suggest that blended and online learning can make a meaningful contribution to early childhood education. Especially when used carefully, with attention to quality, relationships, and alignment with developmental needs.

Challenges to Look Out For

1. Finding the Right Balance Between Technology and Play

One of the biggest challenges was designing digital components that did not compromise the hands-on, exploratory learning that is foundational in early childhood education. Young children need to move, manipulate materials, listen to stories, and engage in conversations with peers. Even high-quality digital tools can unintentionally overshadow these experiences if not used carefully. I found myself continually revising lessons to ensure the online portions were purposeful, short, and tightly connected to real-world play.

2. Designing Family-Friendly Supports

In early learning, families function as co-teachers. Blended instruction magnifies this because the home becomes an extension of the classroom. Creating clear, accessible family supports took more time than expected. I found myself revising instructions repeatedly to reduce jargon, shorten directions, and make printable materials that complemented the digital activities. Without strong family-facing tools, the blended components risked creating frustration rather than empowerment.

3. Ensuring Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning

Although UDL principles guided the design, consistently implementing them across all modalities proved challenging. Young children need multiple representations of content, varied ways to express their learning, and environments that reduce cognitive load. Translating these needs into both digital and hands-on activities required careful attention. Some lessons initially included too many steps, too many embedded links, or too much text on the screen. Streamlining for clarity became a major part of the revision process. Ensuring that I understood the needs of diverse learners and engaging in task analysis for each lesson was a critical step.

4. Aligning Digital Assessment With Developmentally Appropriate Practice

Digital assessments for early learners should be simple, authentic, and closely tied to observable behaviors. I struggled with determining how much of the assessment should occur online versus in person. Eventually, I anchored assessments in artifacts children already created during hands-on literacy explorations, with digital tools serving as documentation rather than evaluation. This shift improved the course but required substantial redesign.

Design Strategies for Future Iterations

1. Start With a “Less Is More” Approach

Identifying only the essential online tools that genuinely enhance literacy development. From there, I would intentionally layer in technology to support.

2. Create Family Resources First

Instead of designing the course and then building family supports around it, I would reverse the order. Beginning with a Family Guide, quick-start videos, and printable visuals would ensure that families feel confident before ever navigating the digital platform. This shift would likely promote stronger home–school partnerships.

3. Pilot Test Activities Before Integration

Gather small groups of teachers or families to test content for practical application and engagement early in the development process. This feedback would help refine pacing, clarity, and engagement.

Considerations for Other Audiences

If this blended literacy course were designed for a different group of preschool learners, the structure, scaffolds, and instructional priorities would look noticeably different. Two groups in particular—typically developing preschool children and preschool English Language Learners (ELLs)—would require intentional shifts in design.

For Typically Developing Preschool Children

If the course were tailored for typically developing preschoolers instead of children with special needs, several elements of instruction could be streamlined or expanded:

• Less intensive scaffolding. Lessons could include fewer step-by-step prompts, shorter modeling sequences, and more opportunities for independent exploration, since typically developing students generally acquire early literacy skills with less explicit repetition.

• Faster pacing and more complex tasks. The course could move more quickly between literacy concepts such as phonological awareness, emergent writing, and vocabulary-building games. Activities could incorporate longer whole-group experiences and peer-collaboration tasks.

• Reduced reliance on specialized access supports. While visuals, hands-on materials, and movement are beneficial for all learners, the course would not need the same level of adapted communication systems, sensory supports, or individualized pathways that are essential for many children with special needs.

• More emphasis on child-led inquiry. Typically developing preschoolers often sustain attention longer, allowing for digital learning centers, open-ended storytelling activities, and choice-based literacy play within the blended structure.

• Simplified differentiation. Supports could be offered through tiered instruction rather than individualized learning plans, enabling teachers to flexibly adjust groups without redesigning entire activities.

Overall, a blended course for typically developing preschoolers would still be rooted in developmentally appropriate practice, but it would feature fewer modifications, quicker progression, and greater independence than a course designed for students with specialized learning needs.

For Preschool English Language Learners (ELLs)

If the course were built for young ELL students, the design would shift to emphasize language-rich, culturally responsive, and highly visual instruction:

• Heightened focus on oral language development. Activities would incorporate songs, chants, shared reading, and dialogic interactions that build vocabulary and expressive language. Digital components could include recorded models of key phrases or sentence frames for repeated listening.

• Increased visual and multimodal supports. Images, gestures, picture cues, and real objects would anchor meaning. Digital tools that pair audio with visuals would play a larger role in helping ELL students connect words to concepts.

• Integration of home languages when possible. The blended format makes it easier to include multilingual read-alouds, family-recorded stories, and labeled print in students’ home languages to strengthen comprehension and cultural connection.

• Structured opportunities for language practice with peers. Collaborative play, partner activities, and small-group discussions would be intentionally embedded to encourage oral language production in low-pressure settings.

• Adjusted assessment practices. Instead of relying heavily on verbal responses or written tasks, assessments would capture growth through demonstrations, pictures, participation, and recorded storytelling. Digital portfolios could help document progress across languages.

• Family partnership as a core component. ELL families often have rich literacy practices at home, and the blended course would seek to bridge these strengths by providing multilingual resources, videos, and suggestions for shared reading in the home language.

In short, a course designed for preschool ELLs would prioritize meaning-making, vocabulary development, cultural responsiveness, and multimodal communication, while still offering the play-based and developmentally grounded experiences essential in early childhood education.

Final Thoughts

Blended learning in early childhood education is not about putting young children in front of screens. It is about designing thoughtful, developmentally grounded experiences that bridge home and school while honoring the ways children naturally learn. The process of creating this course reminded me that technology can support meaningful literacy instruction, but only when used with precision, intentionality, and a commitment to whole-child development.

As teachers, our willingness to reflect, revise, and grow ensures that each new iteration of our work becomes more effective, more accessible, and more joyful for our learners.

References:

Keesbury, S. A. (2015). Student outcomes in a blended preschool program. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 147–173.

Plotka, R., & Guirguis, R. (2022). Distance Learning in Early Childhood During the COVID-19 Crisis: Family and Educators' Experiences. Early childhood education journal, 1–12. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01384-5

Su, Jiahong & Zhong, Yuchun & Chen, Xinyu. (2023). Technology education in early childhood education: systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments. 1-14. 10.1080/10494820.2022.2160470.

Sukini, S., Uluk, E., Masruchiyah, N., Nurhayati4, R., Safar, M., Agustina, I., … Santosa, T. A. (2024). Effectiveness of Blended Learning Model Assisted By Scholoogy to Improve Language Skills of Early Childhood Education Teachers. Jurnal Obsesi : Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 8(6), 1363–1374. https://doi.org/10.31004/obsesi.v8i6.6226

Tarski-Rodriguez, M. (2021, November 5). Implementing blended learning with pre-K students. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/implementing-blended-learning-pre-k-students