Quality Improvement in Early Childhood Education: International Perspectives on Enhancing Learning Outcomes 3030731812, 9783030731816

Citation preview

Quality Improvement in Early Childhood Education International Perspectives on Enhancing Learning Outcomes Edited by Susanne Garvis · Hillevi Lenz Taguchi

Quality Improvement in Early Childhood Education

Susanne Garvis  •  Hillevi Lenz Taguchi Editors

Quality Improvement in Early Childhood Education International Perspectives on Enhancing Learning Outcomes

Editors Susanne Garvis Department of Education Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia

Hillevi Lenz Taguchi Department of Child and Youth Studies Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden

ISBN 978-3-030-73181-6    ISBN 978-3-030-73182-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73182-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Specialized Pedagogical Approaches to Enhance Quality for Infants and Toddlers in ECE: Some Thoughts from Aotearoa New Zealand  1 Karyn Aspden, Tara McLaughlin, and Linda Clarke 2 Evaluating Quality in Finnish Early Childhood Education 21 Johanna Heikka, Elina Fonsén, Marjo Mäntyjärvi, Laura Kiuru, Katja Suhonen, and Lauri Heikonen 3 Measuring Danish Preschool Quality 45 Torben Næsby 4 Continuous Improvement in Early Childhood Pedagogical Practice: The Victorian Advancing Early Learning (VAEL) Study 69 Patricia Eadie, Jane Page, and Lisa Murray 5 Developmental Work as Student-Driven Quality Improvements in ECEC Settings 93 Alicja R. Sadownik and Wenche Aasen

v

vi 

Contents

6 Perspectives on Quality in ECEC in Finland: A Content Analysis on First-Year Teacher Students’ Views111 Marina Lundkvist and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen 7 Quality Improvement and Preschool Teacher Competence in Sweden127 Susanne Garvis, Pia Williams, and Sonja Sheridan 8 Improving the Quality of Early Childhood Education and Care in Oman145 Ali Kemal Tekin, Laila Al-Salmi, and Maryam Al-Mamari 9 Quality Monitoring in Day Care Centers and Preschools: Discourses, Concepts and Experiences from German Early Childhood Education and Care163 Stefan Faas and Sabrina Dahlheimer 10 Quality Evaluation and Challenges of Kindergarten in China: A Systematic Review181 Yan Zhang and Susanne Garvis 11 Neuroscientific Approaches to Optimize Self-­regulatory Skills in Children from Backgrounds of Poverty in Different Cultural Contexts199 Eric Pakulak and Sebastián Javier Lipina Index229

Notes on Contributors

Wenche Aasen  is an associate professor at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences. She is the author of books and articles on educational leadership and teamwork in ECEC, which are used as obligatory literature within initial ECEC teacher education among the whole Norway. Her research focuses on educational leadership and exercise of professional competence when leading quality improvements in the ECEC sector. Maryam  Al-Mamari  graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) in Oman and obtained her master’s in Early Childhood Education from the University of Texas at Austin. She is a lecturer at SQU and her research interests include curriculum in ECE, agency producing learning/teaching, ECE policy and teacher preparation. Laila Al-Salmi  obtained her MAT and PhD degrees from the University of Texas at El Paso, USA. Her research interests focus on bilingual development at childhood, parental involvement and early education teacher preparation. She is Assistant Professor of Early Education Department at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. Karyn Aspden  is Senior Lecturer in Early Years Education at the Institute of Education, Massey University. She began her career as a teacher and leader in a range of early childhood services, before moving into initial teacher education. Her teaching and research interests include practicum, professional practice, effective teaching practice, early intervention, and infant and toddler pedagogy. The importance of meaningful relationships

vii

viii 

Notes on Contributors

and intentional teaching is the thread that weaves through each of these areas. Linda  Clarke  has a master’s in Education, works part time as a senior tutor in Massey University’s Institute of Education and is a full-time doctoral student. Her research interests include teachers’ professional development and teaching practices that support the unique needs of toddlers. Linda’s PhD involves an investigation of practice-based coaching to foster social-emotional teaching practices for toddlers. Sabrina Dahlheimer  holds a PhD and is a research group leader at the University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd (Germany). Her work is focused on empirical family research and early childhood studies as well as quality measurement and quality development. Patricia Eadie  is Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education and Care and Director, REEaCh (Research in Effective Education in Early Childhood), at the University of Melbourne. Tricia’s research focuses on young children’s developmental pathways, educator-child interactions and evaluating professional learning interventions that enable educators to implement high-quality intentional teaching practices. Stefan Faas  holds a PhD, is Professor of Social Pedagogy at the University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd (Germany) and a board member of the Paedquis Foundation Berlin for quality measurement and quality development in ECE. His research is focused on early childhood education, family and parent education, professionalization as well as internationalization of education and social support. Elina Fonsén  holds a PhD, is an adjunct professor and works as a lecturer at the University of Helsinki. Her post-doctoral research interest focuses on the professional development of ECE teachers, leadership in the educational field and the quality of ECE pedagogy. She also leads the international research project ‘Discourse of Leadership in the Diverse Field of Early Childhood Education’ and the ‘EduLeaders Development and Research Project of Leadership Studies’ in the educational field. Susanne Garvis  is Professor of Education and Chair of the Department of Education at Swinburne University of Technology. She is an international expert in early childhood education policy and quality and has worked with numerous governments, NGOs and professional organizations around the world.

  Notes on Contributors 

ix

Heidi Harju-Luukkainen  holds a PhD in Education, a special education teacher qualification and a qualification in leadership and management from Finland. She has published more than 200 international books, journal articles and reports as well as worked in more than 30 projects globally. Harju-Luukkainen has worked at top-ranked universities in the United States like UCLA and USC as well as at many Nordic research universities. She has developed education programmes for universities, been a principal investigator of PISA sub-assessments in Finland and has functioned as a board professional. Johanna Heikka  holds a PhD and works as a senior lecturer at the School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests focus on leadership, quality and pedagogical development in early childhood education. She is a leader and/or a member of leadership development projects and research groups in Finland and internationally. Lauri Heikonen  is a PhD student at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. His research interests are early-career teacher learning, teacher agency and educational leadership. He works at the Centre for Educational Assessment, University of Helsinki. Laura Kiuru  holds a Master of Arts in Education and works as a technical assistant at the ‘EduLeaders’ project at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests focus on early childhood education, educational leadership and work well-being. Hillevi  Lenz  Taguchi  is professor of Education and Child and Youth studies at the Department of Child and Youth Studies and Early Childhood Education, Stockholm University, Sweden. She is an expert in praxis-­ oriented and action research but with recent experiences of leading the first intervention randomized control trial in Swedish preschools using brain-imaging data measuring attention skills. Sebastián  Javier  Lipina is a researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) of Argentina and directs the Applied Neurobiology Unit at CEMIC-CONICET.  His research interests include the exploration of the impact of poverty on neural and cognitive aspects of self-regulatory development, and the design, implementation and transfer of interventions aimed at optimizing it.

x 

Notes on Contributors

Marina Lundkvist  is a university lecturer and holds a PhD in Education, a teacher qualification and a qualification in leadership from Finland. She has a solid and extensive experience and knowledge of early childhood education in Finland, partly through development and research work within the university world and partly in close connection with pedagogical activities in kindergartens. Marjo Mäntyjärvi  holds a Master of Arts in Education and is a university teacher and a doctoral candidate at the University of Oulu. Her study focuses on early childhood education and care in private ECE centres. Leadership specializations, social relationships, teamwork and quality in ECE contexts are among her special areas of interest. Tara  McLaughlin is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Education, Massey University. She has worked with young children and children with disabilities and their families in inclusive learning settings in the United States and in New Zealand for over 15 years. Her research interests relate to (a) teaching practices that support children’s learning and social-­ emotional competence within natural environments, (b) professional learning opportunities for early childhood teachers and teams, and (c) assessment practices in early childhood education. Lisa Murray  is a research fellow in the REEaCh Hub. Lisa has a broad research experience, having worked across a range of projects relating to educational policy and practice, including a national longitudinal study and more recently a study with Indigenous children in remote Northern Territory communities. Torben  Næsby  is an associate professor and a senior researcher at the University College of Northern Denmark in Aalborg. Furthermore, he holds a PhD in Educational Research. In recent years, his main interest has been research in and measurement of the quality of ECEC from various perspectives and using environment rating scales. Jane Page  is an associate professor at the University of Melbourne and a senior researcher in the REEaCh Hub. Jane’s research centres on teacher effectiveness, coaching and educational leadership. Jane has been engaged in a range of projects with state and local governments that focus on early years teachers’ pedagogical practices.

  Notes on Contributors 

xi

Eric  Pakulak  is an assistant professor at the Department of Child and Youth Studies at Stockholm University, Sweden. His research interests are the neuroplasticity of brain systems important for language and self-­ regulation in the context of early adversity and the development and implementation of evidence-based two-generation training programmes for families. Alicja  R.  Sadownik  is an associate professor at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences and a researcher at the Kindergarten Knowledge Centre for Systemic Research and Sustainable Futures. She leads a master’s course connected to management of quality improvement in kindergartens. Her research focuses on the experienced quality of ECEC by different stakeholder and user groups, where migrant children and their parents are the main focus. Sonja  Sheridan is Professor Emerita of Education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her research is oriented towards early childhood education, focusing on quality issues related to conditions for children’s learning and preschool teachers’ competence. She has been a consultant for several authorities, led research projects and authored a wide range of books and articles. Katja Suhonen  holds a Master of Arts in Education and works as a project researcher at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests focus on leadership and quality in ECE. In addition, her work and interests focus on children’s socio-emotional skills and ECE staff’s pedagogical group sensitivity. Ali Kemal Tekin  is an associate professor and an international expert in early childhood education (ECE). He holds master’s and PhD degrees from the Pennsylvania State University. He has numerous publications and conference appearances, including keynote speeches at the international level in over 20 countries. His research interests are parent involvement, early bilingual education, motivation and efficacy of ECE teachers. He also serves at international organizations such as UNESCO, NAEYC and AECE. Pia Williams  is Professor of Child and Youth Studies at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. She has authored a wide range of publications in the field of early childhood education and care. Her research involves

xii 

Notes on Contributors

studies of conditions of children’s well-being, learning and development in preschool, preschool teachers’ competence and the impact of group size on children’s learning. Yan Zhang  is a lecture at the Yunnan Normal University, China. She got her MA from Yunnan Normal University (Preschool Education). She has been teaching ‘preschool pedagogy’ and ‘children psychology’. Her research interests focus on the professional development of preschool inservice teachers and assessment of kindergartens. She directed and finished some research projects in China.

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 4.6 Fig. 4.7 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2

The quality evaluation model of ECE. (Adaptation from Hujala-­Huttunen, 1995; Hujala et al. 1999; Hujala & Fonsén, 2010a, 2010b) Means of the quality factors assessed by ECE staff and parents ECERS-3 mean scores on a 1–7 Likert scale, N = 165, M = 3.28, STD = 1.1 Variation on Item 30: staff-child interaction Variation on Item 29: individual teaching and learning CLASS domains and dimensions Structure of the professional learning model delivered across the pilot, sustainability and implementation years (2014–2016) Average Toddler CLASS domain scores across the pilot and sustainability years 2014–2015 (service 1, birth to three-year-olds’ rooms) Toddler CLASS domain scores across the 2016 implementation year (service 2, birth to three-year-olds’ rooms) Pre-K CLASS domain scores across the 2016 implementation year (service 2, 3- to 5-year-olds’ rooms) Time sample outcomes: educator interactions across the pilot and sustainability years 2014–2015 (service 1, birth to three-year-olds’ rooms) Time sample outcomes: educator talk type across the 2016 implementation year (service 2, 3- to 5-year-olds’ rooms) Overview of the types of quality reconstructed in the students’ assignments in relation to the expected change Overall average scores on the KES-RZ from 2014 to 2018 Average values on the KES-RZ by area from 2014 to 2018

29 31 59 61 62 77 80 81 82 83 84 85 101 171 172 xiii

xiv 

List of Figures

Fig. 9.3 Fig. 9.4 Fig. 9.5 Fig. 9.6

Overall average scores on the KES-RE from 2014 to 2018 Domain-specific average values on the KES-E from 2014 to 2018 Overall average scores on the KRIPS-R from 2014 to 2018 Average values on the KRIPS-R by area from 2014 to 2018

174 174 176 176

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 8.1

Teachers’ actions as to develop relationships ECE staff’s and parents’ assessments of the variables in the structural factor ECE staff’s and parents’ assessments of the variables in the intermediate factor ECE staff’s and parents’ assessments of the variables in the educational plans factor ECE staff’s and parents’ assessments of the variables in the process factor ECE staff’s and parents’ assessments of the variables in the effect factor VAEL educator characteristics Talk type definitions used in the time sampling tool Statistics of enrolment in Omani kindergartens

10 32 33 34 36 38 74 78 153

xv

Introduction

Achieving quality within early childhood education and care environments is a goal of many governments around the world. Through higher quality within early childhood services, young children can be supported in their positive development and learning, leading to positive life trajectories. We also know that early childhood services allow a ‘levelling’ field for children, where all children can have access and opportunity to achieve their potential. This has meant some countries have moved to ‘universal access’ models for the delivery of early childhood education and care provision. Numerous governments have attempted to enhance quality through a variety of policy implementations. This includes structural measures (such as teacher qualifications, ratios, regulatory bodies, national curricula/ frameworks, leadership structures and organization of the learning environment) and process measures (focusing on teacher-child interactions and the professional learning of early childhood teachers to support interactions). This has led to an ongoing notion of ‘quality improvement’ to support the sustained and developed notion of quality. However, critique of universal quality criteria has also opened up the discussion to a broarder and more diverse understanding of quality, which can be more culturally responsive and contexutally situated.  Furthermore, new perspectives within neuroscience are also influencing quality development, especially with insights around young children’s self-regulation and socio-­emotional development. These scientific findings point to the socio-biological interactions and the co-constitution of nature and nurture, and why ECE research needs to expand into interdisciplinary collaborations. In this way,

xvii

xviii 

Introduction

it might be possible to understand quality in ECE services in simultaneously a broader and more inclusive and a more adaped and individualized manner.  The purpose of this book is to bring together different perspectives of quality improvement to inform current insights around policy and practice within early childhood education and care. By understanding what other countries are implementing, we are also able to gain a better understanding of early childhood education and care provision and policy within our own countries. What is also evident is that each country has approached quality improvement in different ways, based on cultural and contextual norms. This volume consists of 11 evidence-based chapters from around the world, reporting and documenting important insights around quality improvement in early childhood education and care. Each chapter is different based on the country’s cultural and contextual influences, also highlighting the diversity that exists within policy and governance within early childhood education and care. The first chapter shares insights from New Zealand, where the importance of enhancing quality for infants and toddlers through effective teaching practices is growing. The chapter explores the importance of identifying, articulating and implementing effective teaching practices, drawn from a growing field of research. Effective teaching practices include informed contemporary understandings of brain development and socialemotional competence. The chapter draws on a New Zealand-based study, The Teaching Practices Project, that identified, developed and examined a stakeholder-validated list of teaching practices that promoted the learning and social-emotional competence of infants and toddlers in early childhood settings. The list comprises of over 200 actionable practices that articulate a teacher’s work with infants and toddlers. The context of Finland is presented in chapter 2. The chapter presents results from a study where early childhood education quality was evaluated in two Finnish municipalities by a tool based on current research, national quality indicators and Finnish early childhood education policy documents. One of the key aims was to compare staff and parent evaluations of early childhood education quality. The theoretical foundation of the early childhood education evaluation was development-oriented and the understanding that early childhood education quality is formulated according to national values and results. While results indicated that there was relatively

 Introduction 

xix

high-quality early childhood education, differences did emerge between staff and parents. The third chapter moves to Denmark, where a large majority of children aged 3–6  years attend preschool. Preschool is also considered an important point for ensuring all children have equal development opportunities to support their development and learning. However, as shown in the chapter, not all resource allocations for preschool are equal, with decisions made by local authorities, leading to disparity in quality. The chapter provides an overview of recent national studies on preschool quality in Denmark and presents findings from an ongoing national sample using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Version 3 (Harms, Clifford & Cryer, 2015). The fourth chapter is around quality in early childhood education in Australia. The chapter draws upon a professional learning model developed in the Victorian Advancing Early Learning (VAEL) Study. The study was established in response to the Effective Early Educational Experiences (E4Kids) Study, which highlighted the need for quality pedagogy (educator-child interactions) to support children’s learning and development (Tayler, Cleveland, Ishimine, Clone & Thorpe, 2013). The VAEL professional learning model provided educators with pedagogical training and coaching with evidence-based teaching strategies to improve the quality of interactions with young children. The model demonstrated the importance of investing in professional learning programmes to support educator knowledge development and allow educators to successfully implement teaching strategies (Page & Eadie, 2019). In chapter 5, we travel to another Nordic country, Norway. In the chapter, pre-­service teacher education programmes in Norway are explored with a focus on how they provide students with experiences of educational leadership within quality improvement. During placement, pre-service teachers are required to conduct and report on development work with a kindergarten. Developmental work is a considered a systematic approach to improving institutional practices, leading to improvements in quality. Interestingly, pre-service teachers were able to lead change-making within kindergartens, challenging staff with new ways of understanding and exercising their own practice. The approach allowed pre-service teachers the ability to fully enter a community of practice within early childhood education and care. Chapter 6 again returns to Finland, showcasing the extensive work on quality improvement in the Nordic region. The focus is again on

xx 

Introduction

pre-service teachers to enhance the quality of early learning environments. The study explores 25 first-year pre-service teachers’ views on important quality aspects regarding early learning in Finland. Two main categories emerged from the data, structural and process-related quality factors vis-àvis the learning environment. The findings also highlight the importance of developing teacher education to support the understanding of quality within early childhood education contexts. The context of Sweden is shared in chapter 7, where the focus shifts towards enhancing preschool quality. The chapter discusses concepts of equivalence and findings from recent studies, based on discussions of declining quality within early childhood education and care. The chapter concludes with suggestions for moving forward to enhance preschool quality within Sweden, with a deeper understanding of how to actually support children’s development and learning outcomes. Chapter 8 focuses on early childhood education and care within Oman. While there is a vision for early childhood education and care, the sector is often left to private entrepreneurs to enact, leading to strong variations in standards. The chapter outlines ways to improve the continued and sustained quality of early childhood education and care in Oman, focusing on major domains. The implications of each are discussed, with proposals for ways forward given. In chapter 9 German day care centres are explored. The chapter beings with a discussion of the contemporary discourses and concepts related to pedagogical quality and quality monitoring procedures within the German context. It then reports on a quality monitoring project to measure pedagogical quality within 39  day care centres, including the use of quality dialogues, showing that quality improved over a longer time-period. The project’s challenges and opportunities are also shared, providing important insights for the future of pedagogical quality. Chapter 10 visits early childhood education in China. While there are many discussions around quality improvement, a top-down perspective persists, although more contextualized and culturally responsive perspectives are also emering into the discussion. While quality evaluation tools have been imported from other countries, they have also become localized to form part of the future national quality monitoring system. Suggestions for quality improvement in the future are given.

 Introduction 

xxi

The final chapter (chapter 11) provides new insights into the importance of neuroscience within quality improvements. The contexts of Argentina and the United States are shared, where interventions aimed at enhancing cognitive performance and self-regulation  of children aged 4–5 years were explored. In the US context, this also included assessment of a two-generation intervention for preschoolers and their parents. The chapter concludes with a critical discussion of the potential, as well as the limitations, of such approaches to ameliorate the effects of early adversity in different cultural contexts. We would like to thank the reviewers of each book chapter, to have allowed us to undertake a thorough and important peer review process. Without your support for the peer review process, especially during COVID times, this book would not have come to fruition. Lastly, we dedicate this book to all children currently in early childhood education and care across the world. We hope that as policy makers and leaders engage with this book, since  new approaches around quality improvement can be understood and implemented to support the learning and well-being of all children, regardless of location. We also urge our fellow research colleagues to read the book in order to get inspired to undertake more research on quality in ECE. This includes the need for collaboration and bi-directional reciprocity between researchers from different disciplines to support quality improvement work. Melbourne, Australia Stockholm, Sweden

Susanne Garvis Hillevi Lenz Taguchi

References Harms, T., Clifford, R.M. & Cryer, D. (2015). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, Third Edition (ECERS-3), New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Page, J., & Eadie, P. (2019). Coaching for continuous improvement in collaborative, interdisciplinary early childhood teams. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 270–283, https://doi.org/0.1177/1836939119855542. Tayler, C., Ishimine, K., Cloney, D., Cleveland, G., & Thorpe, K. (2013). The quality of early childhood education and care services in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(2), 13–21.

CHAPTER 1

Specialized Pedagogical Approaches to Enhance Quality for Infants and Toddlers in ECE: Some Thoughts from Aotearoa New Zealand Karyn Aspden, Tara McLaughlin, and Linda Clarke

He taonga te mokopuna, kia whāngaia, kia tipu, kia rea. A child is a treasure, to be nurtured, to grow, to flourish. (Ministry of Education, 2017, p. 2)

Introduction In Aotearoa New Zealand, as with many developed and developing nations, infants and toddlers are the fastest growing demographic attending early childhood services (Statistics NZ, 2017). Changing employment patterns, financial pressures and shifting sociological, political and cultural perspectives are changing the nature of care and education for our

K. Aspden (*) • T. McLaughlin • L. Clarke Massey University, Manawatū, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Garvis, H. L. Taguchi (eds.), Quality Improvement in Early Childhood Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73182-3_1

1

2 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

youngest children. Acknowledging that infants and toddlers are most vulnerable to poor practice (Angus & Carroll-Lind, 2011; Dalli et al., 2011), there is a groundswell of research seeking to address questions related to the nature of quality early childhood education (ECE) for children less than three years of age. The research literature to date well-establishes that our youngest children thrive within the context of supportive relationships and responsive interactions with adults in early education and care services (UNICEF, 2017), yet recent New Zealand national evaluation reviews suggest there are persisting concerns about effective curriculum implementation and the breadth of experiences offered (Education Review Office, 2015). On this premise, the quality of teachers’ pedagogical practices is a key determinant of children’s experiences and outcomes in both the short and long term (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Teaching practices, being the intentional, responsive or preventive actions (and words) of teachers to promote infants’ and toddlers’ learning and development in the context of play and daily routines are thereby critical. Moreover, teaching practices for infants and toddlers need to be informed by contemporary understandings of brain development and the foundations of social-emotional competence that are laid down in the critical first three years of life (National Council on the Developing Child, Children’s emotional development is built into the architecture of their brain: Working paper no. 2, 2004). Yet persisting challenges in relation to organizational culture, timetables, large group sizes, poor adult/child ratios and high turnover of staff serve to constrain meaningful implementation of effective practices (Dalli et  al., 2011; Rockel, 2014). This chapter explores the importance of identifying, articulating and implementing effective teaching practices for infants and toddlers in education and care settings as a means to enhance quality provision, drawing from a New Zealand–based study, the Teaching Practices Project—Infants and Toddlers (Aspden & McLaughlin, 2016, 2017), to highlight specialized pedagogical practices. The teaching practices identified through the Teaching Practices Project— Infants and Toddlers focus on the actions that teachers can take to enhance quality experiences for all infants and toddlers and are relevant in international, as well as New Zealand, contexts. The chapter argues the need for specialized teaching approaches that are pedagogically fit for the unique characteristics of infants and toddlers supported by aligned practice and progress measures, along with the concomitant policy and structural supports necessary to uphold quality practice.

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

3

The Need for Specialized Pedagogical Strategies There is growing international acknowledgement across researchers, educators, and policy makers that the first three years are a distinct developmental period, unique within the broader conceptualisation of early childhood (Chazan-Cohen et  al., 2017). Contemporary neurological research has heralded greater understanding of the way in which the foundations of thinking, language, identity and social-emotional competence are laid down in the context of infants’ relationships with the people, places and things of their world (Dalli, 2018). The critical first three years of the child’s life are defined by a deep reliance on the adults who care for them, heightened vulnerability to the environments in which they come to know the world, and the rapid pace at which learning and development occur. If we accept the central tenet that the overlapping periods of infancy (birth to 18 months) and toddlerhood (12 months to 3 years) are unique phases of the lifespan, then a shift in emphasis towards specialized pedagogical approaches that directly attend to the unique ways in which infants and toddlers learn and develop is needed. Working with infants and toddlers requires different theoretical understanding and different kinds of practices than those required when working with preschool-aged children (White et al., 2016), especially in navigating the balance of both care and learning dimensions (Garvis & Lemon, 2015). Scaled-down versions of programmes typically designed for three- and four-year-olds will not serve well in meeting the needs of our youngest learners (Lally, 2000), heralding a call for both specialization and professionalization of the infant/ toddler workforce. The call for specialization marries with the emergence of infant and toddler pedagogy as a construct and a corresponding reconceptualization of curriculum for children under three. As White, Peter and Redder (2015) point out, ‘infant pedagogy’ is a relatively recent concept arising from greater attendance in formal out of home care, and the increasing recognition and visibility of infants and toddlers in core policy and curriculum documents internationally. A curriculum for infants and toddlers is manifested in their lived experiences (Cooper et  al., 2015) in which relationships are the embodiment of curriculum, expressed through each interaction and intentional support. Therefore, the successful implementation of curriculum is contingent on teachers’ rich knowledge of both

4 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

child development and appropriate pedagogy (Chazan-Cohen et  al., 2017). The need to individualize curriculum in responsive and sensitive ways for infants and toddlers is imperative, requiring skilful, informed and highly reflective practitioners. As Recchia and Shin (2012) argue, creating a quality learning environment that effectively attends to each child’s learning, development and emergent interests may seem simple, yet is in truth multi-layered and highly complex. Alongside the call for increasing specialization is a concurrent mandate to enhance the professional identity of the infant/toddler workforce. The duality of care and education roles that define the work of infant/toddler teachers (Recchia & Shin, 2012), combined with an emphasis on learning through play and routines/rituals, challenges conventional conceptualizations of what teaching and teachers looks like. Traditionally, those who teach the youngest of children have often been the least qualified (if qualified at all), with policy and practice driven by sociological and cultural perspectives on the construct of early childhood and the nature of mothering and collective care. The enhanced care work of infant toddler teachers has often been most visible, positioned through a maternal lens of caregiving, while the significant professional role to supporting learning and development is often minimized. Infant and toddler teachers have historically been perceived as caregivers—childminders whose role does not require skill or expertise beyond a maternal instinct. There is persistent ignorance of the complex and specialized skills necessary to support the development and learning of infants and toddlers in group care. Such positioning is most evident in that, to date, there is not a strong tradition of qualified teachers working with infants and toddlers (Garvis & Lemon, 2015). Furthermore, the status of teachers who work with infants and toddlers has typically been lowly regarded, too often viewed as an extension of mothering or caregiving, rather than professional teaching requiring complex and specialized skills, and seldom receiving parity with counterparts who teach older children. The infant/toddler teacher’s role is often marked by lower pay, limited recognition and less favourable working conditions (Rockel, 2014). The impact of neurological research, specifically the understanding that the earliest of experiences actively shape the architecture of the developing brain, thereby playing a pivotal role in both short-term and life-long outcomes for children, has been a watershed moment for infant and toddler provision (Dalli, 2018). Increased understanding of the influence of experiences and relationships, coupled with increasing recognition of each

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

5

child’s right to high quality care (Te One, 2010) and the right to be taken seriously as active and competent members of society (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2017), contribute to a deep imperative for quality improvement and policy supports in infant/toddler provision.

Infant and Toddler Pedagogy in New Zealand From the original conceptualization of the New Zealand early childhood curriculum framework Te Whāriki (MoE, 1996, 2017), the authors identified the unique characteristics of infants (birth to 18 months), toddlers (one to three years) and young children (two and half years to school entry), recognizing three distinct (yet overlapping) groups and the need for associated responsive pedagogical practices. The curriculum affirms the need for a differentiated infant/toddler pedagogy, recognizing that “providing for the care and education of infants requires specialised knowledge and practice” (MoE, 2017, p. 14). It is of note that Te Whāriki positions care and education holistically, as dual imperatives for all licensed early childhood education services in New Zealand. In New Zealand policy, the terms ‘education’ and ‘care’ are typically used together, to affirm that such constructs are not to be pulled apart but rather seen as constantly interdependent. Te Whāriki is not a prescriptive curriculum, but rather an aspirational document, founded on core principles and experiences deemed important for quality early childhood provision. Underpinning Te Wha ̄riki is the vision that children are “competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society” (MoE, 2017, p. 6). Te Whāriki mandates an individualized and responsive curriculum developed to best fit each unique setting, expressed in the notion of local curriculum, in which the aspirations of families are central. In high quality early learning settings, teachers ensure that infants and toddlers are learning that their rights and values are being cared about and being cared for. This requires: • “sensitive, responsive, and expressive interactions between adults and children • a high level of teacher qualification, knowledge, and commitment • a curriculum and programme focus • an interest and willingness to work in tandem with parents and whānau • a safe and healthy physical environment” (Te Whāriki Online, 2019).

6 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

In New Zealand the independent external accountability body for education is the Education Review Office (ERO). Tasked with the ongoing review and quality assurance of all licensed early childhood services and schools on a cyclical basis, ERO also collect nationwide data on curriculum implementation, quality practices and improvements to inform policy and practice. For early childhood services, the review process is guided by the document He Pou Tātaki (ERO, 2013), which outlines the quality indicators that should be in evidence in each setting, in ways that are responsive to the children, families and community. Of note, He Pou Ta ̄taki identifies infants and toddlers as priority learners, noting their increased vulnerability and susceptibility to the negative impacts of poor quality early childhood provision. These quality indicators make clear the connection between structural supports, such as ratios, and the nature of relationships and interactions that such supports facilitate: Attuned adults and the provision of quality environments are now understood to have a marked impact on the development and learning of children up to two years of age. Adults are more likely to be attuned to very young children if they have responsibility for a smaller number of children up to the age of two (the recommended ratio is 1:3 adults to children), and have specialist knowledge about working with this age group. (ERO, 2013, p. 9)

Throughout early 2014, the Education Review Office conducted a national review that examined the way in which 235 early childhood services were working to support infants and toddlers to become competent and confident communicators and explorers (ERO, 2015). Their findings affirmed the rich relational work that was evident in teachers’ practices, yet raised concerns in relation to the way in which teachers actively supported infants and toddlers to communicate and explore, two of the key strands of Te Whāriki. They found that teachers in less responsive ECE services were less likely to build on opportunities for rich extended conversations and oral language development, and provided fewer opportunities for infants and toddlers to explore and develop their physical confidence. Furthermore, teaching practices were less individualized and responsive to children’s interests, development and learning cues, important features of specialized infant/toddler pedagogy and professional teaching practice. Such issues are compounded by the fact that current New Zealand policy only requires that a minimum of 50% of teachers hold a relevant early childhood teaching qualification (McLachlan et al., 2018).

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

7

Following sector advocacy and consultation, in 2019 the current Labour-led Government launched He taonga te tamaiti—Every Child a Taonga: Early Learning Action Plan 2019–2029 (MoE, 2019). The result of widespread consultation with early childhood stakeholders, this action plan lays out policy priorities for quality early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand for the next decade. Of particular note in the context of infant/toddler provision is the mandate to improve the ratios of adults to children under the age of three years in teacher-led, centre-based early learning services, with a concurrent commitment to require teachers to be organized among groups of children in ways that support secure and consistent care, language learning pathways and positive transitions for children and whānau. To support enhanced professionalism, the action plan also restores funding to services who employ 100% qualified (or in-­ training teachers) and establishes an expectation that over the timeframe of the plan all teacher-led services will move to a fully qualified workforce. The plan further identifies a need for robust, locally co-constructed and contextualized progress and practice measures to support meaningful assessment and quality improvement. These measures herald significant shifts in relation to policy and funding imperatives for early childhood education in New Zealand and affirm the central message that the first three years of life are both critical and unique, thereby demanding high quality provision and associated supports.

Fostering Quality Improvement Through Practice and Progress Tools As services for infants and toddlers have grown, so too have the efforts to support quality improvement in services for infants and toddlers, as well as foster rich and positive outcomes for children and families (OECD, 2016). The central issue has progressed from whether infants and toddlers should attend out of home care settings to one of determining, in those out of home care settings, the features and qualities of evidence-based practice that best support learning, development and social-competence in individually, culturally and pedagogically appropriate ways (Chazan-Cohen et  al., 2017). There is an increasing call internationally for practice and progress tools to inform and guide infant/toddler provision, to enhance the positive experiences of infants and toddlers and to mitigate as much as possible the potential negative impact of poor quality early childhood

8 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

practice (Melhuish et al., 2015). This is a complex and contested task, in the context of varied individual, institutional, financial and political drivers that shape stakeholder perspectives. International tools such as the Infant/ Toddler Environmental Rating Scale (ITERS-R), CLASS Infant and CLASS Toddler offer some research-informed measures, though may not be readily accessible for practitioners. In New Zealand there has traditionally been little adoption of formalized practice tools and concerns over universal measures of quality (McLachlan et al., 2018). Te Whāriki as a curriculum framework prioritizes socio-cultural principles, and there has been concern about quality improvement or assessment approaches seen to have a ‘schoolification’ focus (Alcock & Haggerty, 2013) or that may not be culturally, or contextually, appropriate. Yet as noted above, He taonga te tamaiti—Every Child a Taonga: Early Learning Action Plan 2019–2029 establishes the need to co-construct a range of valid, reliable, culturally and linguistically appropriate tools to support formative assessment and teaching practice for ECE. Evidence-based practice, at the intersection of research, practitioner knowledge and context, offers a robust model to inform quality practice, acknowledging the importance of multiple lenses and stakeholder perspectives (Farley et  al., 2018). Viewing pedagogy and curriculum as being socially constructed by key participants lends emphasis to the need for collaborative and shared understandings of what quality practice looks like across local settings (Lawrence et  al., 2015). The Education Review Office (2019) further establishes that effective professional learning to support quality improvement must involve leaders and teachers collectively developing and demonstrating shared understandings of curriculum, pedagogy and practice. Furthermore, they argue that ongoing monitoring and evaluation is critical to determining the impact of professional learning on improving teaching practice and promoting children’s learning and development across progress measures. The following section describes a New Zealand–based project that adopted a collaborative and evidence-based approach to collect insight into effective teaching practices for infants and toddlers and to support teacher reflection in relation to practice enhancement.

Introducing the Teaching Practices Project The Teaching Practices Project (see McLaughlin et  al., 2015a, 2015b) began in 2013 for the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of the pedagogical approaches adopted by New Zealand teachers to support

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

9

both learning and social-emotional competence in early childhood settings. The project sought to address the need for curriculum and implementation guidance to support teaching practice and to offer a locally developed reflective evaluation tool that might be utilized by early childhood teachers and settings as a means to enhance quality improvement. The first iteration of the project worked with teachers and stakeholders in state-funded kindergarten services, predominantly with children aged three to five years of age. Using observation and interview data, as well as stakeholder feedback and existing practice frameworks, this original project culminated in the development of the Teaching Practices List 3–5 Years (2014), which articulated a list of valued pedagogical practices for young children. The second iteration of the project was then to replicate the model of the initial project, but with a cohort of infant and toddler teachers working with children aged birth to three years. In doing so, we sought to discover the ways in which curriculum and pedagogical approaches were specifically targeted for this younger age group and to gain insight into the specialization of pedagogical practices to enhance quality. The infant/toddler project began with direct observation of teacher practice followed by semi-structured interviews with 20 teachers working with children aged birth to three years, across five early childhood services located in two regions in New Zealand. Each setting had a unique local curriculum, informed by Te Whāriki, the early childhood curriculum framework. Settings employed a range of caregiving models, from attachment-­ based pedagogy which prioritized primary-caregiving, through to collective care arrangements with an emphasis on multiple positive relationships. The purpose of the observations and interviews was to describe, in detail, the observable and reported practices of teachers, which through multiple iterations of review and stakeholder feedback were then collated and refined into a cohesive list of valued practices. Each of the identified practices is written as an action statement that describes the actions of teachers as they interacted with infants/toddlers and the adults of the setting (see example extract in Table 1.1). Of note, the final space is left blank on purpose to encourage teaching teams to identify and articulate their own valued local practices. As with the original project, a dual focus on both learning and social-­ emotional competence is maintained, affirming the importance of both key dimensions in teachers’ work. (NB: A full version of the Practice List is available at https://eyrl.nz/teaching-­practice-­list-­infant-­toddler/)

10 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

Table 1.1  Teachers’ actions as to develop relationships Relationships Team The teaching team works together to support infants and toddlers, families and each other.

Teachers maintain high levels of communication and teamwork to ensure the multiple needs of infants and toddlers are met throughout the day. Teachers establish a shared philosophy of practice that is written and regularly reviewed. Teachers are flexible with roles and rosters in order to support infants and toddlers in responsive ways. Teachers acknowledge and monitor their own feelings, seek support from colleagues for challenging situations and are responsive when other team members need support. Teachers brainstorm ideas and openly discuss their decision-making and practices related to teaching and learning for infants and toddlers. Teachers value and respect the contribution of each team member while acknowledging individual strengths and areas for development. Teachers take part in ongoing professional learning, development and review related to infant and toddler practice, engaging in shared dialogue around up to date research.

Extract from the Teaching Practices - Infant/Toddler List Teaching practices and study procedure reprinted with permission from the Teaching Practices Project: Infant and Toddler (Aspden & McLaughlin, 2017)

The Teaching Practice List—Infant/Toddler (Aspden & McLaughlin, 2017) is structured within seven overarching global areas—Relationships, Environment, Social-Emotional Teaching, Intentional Teaching, Competent and Confident Learners, Responsive Caregiving and Transitions—and comprises over 200 actionable practices that articulate the nature of teachers’ work with infants and toddlers. The headings of the first five of these global areas mirror those of the Teaching Practice List for children aged three to five years (McLaughlin et  al., 2015a, 2015b), reflecting the importance of these domains across early childhood education. However, it is important to note that the specific practices within these domains are expressed in different ways that affirm that specialized practices of infant/ toddler pedagogy. In collating the practices for infants and toddlers, two additional global domains became evident, that had not emerged as a priority in the kindergarten project, namely: Responsive Caregiving and

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

11

Transitions. These new areas attend specifically to the nature of caregiving routines, as well as the significance of transitions both on entry to and movement within age groups in the early childhood setting. Not unexpectedly, the primary practices identified by teachers were encompassed in the Relationships domain, affirming the prioritization of the relational world of the infant or toddler (Degotardi & Pearson, 2014). This domain describes the practices that teachers utilized to build connections within their teaching team, with infants/toddlers and their families, as well as between infants and toddlers. This area also attends to practices that support the language, identity and culture of each infant, toddler and family as the foundation for both well-being and belonging, as well as reaching out in meaningful ways to local community and cultural networks. In the Aotearoa/New Zealand context, this is expressly manifest in fostering relationships with and honouring the rights of Māori, as the indigenous people of the nation, and countering the pervasive influences of colonization (Rameka et al., 2016). The practices identified reflect the deep levels of trust that must be established between teachers, children, families and communities in order to provide a quality ECE experience (Ebbeck & Yim, 2009). Next, teachers recognized the significance of their role in establishing the physical, social and temporal environment within which infants and toddlers engage with their world (Wittmer & Petersen, 2014). Practices in the Environment domain address the teachers’ actions in setting up the physical environment in intentional ways to foster learning and allow for safe-risk-taking, as well as planning for meaningful and responsive activities that recognize the individual interests and preferences of each child and enhance active engagement. Teachers also described valued practices in relation to establishing anticipated, yet flexible, schedules, routines and transitions, to support a sense of continuity and security throughout the day, alongside clearly agreed upon and communicated behaviour expectations (MoE, 2019). Te Wha ̄riki establishes that “safe, stable and responsive environments support the development of self-worth, identity, confidence and enjoyment, together with emotional regulation and self-control” (MoE, 2017, p. 26). Growing social emotional competence is one of the core tasks of the early childhood years, as infants and toddlers develop an increasing sense of self, and their place in the world. Teachers play a central role, not only in caring for infants and toddlers but in actively fostering infants’ and toddlers’ social and emotional skills, knowledge and capacity (McLaughlin

12 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

et al., 2017; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). The practices identified by teachers in the Social-Emotional Teaching domain reflected the ways in which they introduce and support emotional literacy, social problem solving, calming down (co-regulation), social skills and friendships, as well as appropriate strategies to prevent or address challenging behaviour. Central to this area was the role of the teacher in providing appropriate support for infants and toddlers as they grow in their capacity to manage the heightened feelings and emotions so often typical of this age (Clarke et al., 2019). Intentional Teaching is a relatively new concept for early childhood education in New Zealand. McLaughlin and Cherrington (2018, p. 35) explain that intentional teaching includes “teachers’ planful, thoughtful, and purposeful use of knowledge, judgment, and expertise to organise learning experiences for children” both in play and in routine experiences of the day. Though play-based learning has been a long-established feature of New Zealand’s early childhood practice, the role of the teacher within such play has been contested over time. Te Wha ̄riki positions teachers as the “key resource in any ECE service … their primary responsibility is to facilitate children’s learning and development through thoughtful and intentional pedagogy” (MoE, 2017, p.  59). In articulating intentional teaching approaches, the practices identified by teachers included the importance of active teaching that draws on a range of pedagogically appropriate strategies (e.g. scaffolding, physical and verbal prompts, commentary and narration, individualization and differentiation). Effective assessment and evaluation for infants and toddlers is seen to be embedded in the meaningful context of play, cultural responsiveness and for the purpose of deepening children’s learning and making learning visible (Chazan-­ Cohen et al., 2017; McLaughlin & Cherrington, 2018). A significant shift in pedagogy in infant toddler practice was the recognition of the importance of the child in the moment, not just the child or adult they are becoming. Many rationalizations for quality early childhood education centre upon the evidence of positive long-term outcomes, whether social or economic (Melhuish et  al., 2015; OECD, 2016; UNICEF, 2017). Yet this future view must be contested in affirming the capacity, capability and competence of infants and toddlers in the moment of who they are at any given point in time—who they are, rather than who they are becoming (ERO, 2015; Lally, 2000; Te One, 2010). The Competent and Confident Learners area of the practice list affirms the rich capacity that infants and toddlers bring to each interaction and engagement, and prioritizes responsive teaching practices that are personalized

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

13

and highly responsive, and which serve to empower identity and agency in learning through respectful interactions that foster choice and increasing independence (Cooper et al., 2015; Dalli, 2018; Recchia & Shin, 2012). In doing so, teachers also recognize the importance of allowing safe risk-­ taking and freedom for exploration that fosters the emergence of resilience. A central tenet of this area is teachers’ recognition of the need to nurture a sense of community in learning—fostering rich opportunities for infants and toddlers to learn with and alongside others in enjoyable ways (MoE, 2017). The section Responsive Caregiving captured teachers’ practices related to developing an overall culture of care, focused on individualized, responsive and attuned interactions between teacher and child. In comparison to settings with older children, a more significant part of an infant/toddler teacher’s day is spent in supporting children in routines and rituals, related to feeding, sleeping and toileting (Lally, 2000). Teachers affirmed that such caregiving routines were not simply tasks to be completed, but rather key times of relationship, interaction and support, for learning and social-­ emotional competence (Dalli, 2018), confirming the interdependence of care and education. It is within these routines that teachers support children’s growing sense of identity and autonomy, through ensuring practices that engage children actively in the routine and respect their preferences. The term responsive caregiving was chosen to reflect that the caregiving practices were not enacted as assembly line tasks, but rather in an unhurried and sensitive manner, individualized to the needs and preferences of each child and whānau, and highly responsive to the cues of the child (Wittmer & Petersen, 2014). The section Transitions acknowledges that, for many infants and toddlers, attendance at an early childhood setting is likely to represent the first significant separation from parents or familial caregivers (MoE, 2017). Joining an ECE service is a highly significant transition that needs intentional planning and supports in order to foster the well-being of both child and family, including their sense of trust and security, and with a focus on the establishment of ongoing reciprocal relationships. In particular, entry into an ECE setting is a major, and potentially stressful, transition (Recchia & Dvorakova, 2012), requiring children to navigate a new physical environment, relational interactions and routines and rituals, all without the presence of their known primary attachment figure. Secure attachments, built through sensitive, attuned and responsive relationships with consistent primary caregivers, support healthy social-emotional

14 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

development and the foundation for later resilience (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2015; Ebbeck & Yim, 2009; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). The practices identified in the practice list prioritize the development of continuity of care and the importance of secure attachments with recognized key teachers, in order to serve a protective function as a buffer to stress and support the child’s growing emotional regulation and social-emotional competence (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2015). Teachers affirmed their responsibility to develop secure, responsive relationships with infants and toddlers in their care, and in times of transition, to skilfully support the child and whānau, who may be feeling both anxious and insecure. The Practice List highlights the need for intentional, planned transition strategies to support the infant/toddler across an extended transition time through opportunities for increasing familiarization and comfort.

Conclusion The purpose of this chapter has been to establish the importance of identifying, articulating and implementing effective teaching practices for infants and toddlers in education and care settings as a means to enhance quality provision. The Teaching Practices Project (Infants and Toddlers) affirms the specialized nature of teachers’ work with infants and toddlers and the importance of identifying and articulating key practices to support quality provision for all children. Though emerging from research in New Zealand, we contend that the practices identified offer insight to all who work with infants and toddlers in out of home care. The practices cross cultural and structural boundaries in their focus on the teacher’s actions in enhancing quality experiences for all infants and toddlers. Persisting tensions regarding professionalization, specialization, quality provision and the potential for poor outcomes for young children in less than exemplary services are of international concern. Deprivatizing teaching practice and making visible the informed, principled and intentional ways in which infant and toddler teachers can support learning and social-emotional competence serves to support quality improvement and the enhanced professionalization of this key workforce. In the 2015 ERO report Infants and Toddlers: Competent and Confident Communicators and Explorers it was noted that how well each service promoted positive learning outcomes for infants and toddlers was influenced by “a highly reflective culture where teachers inquired into and regularly reflected on their teaching

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

15

practice” (ERO,  2015, p.  13). Practice and progress tools, such as the Teaching Practices List (Infants and Toddlers), provide one way of engaging teachers in rich collaborative discussions designed to support both individual and team development in response to evidence-based knowledge. Such frameworks offer teachers, whether novice or experienced, a lens through which to examine the effectiveness of their current pedagogical practice, as well as guidance for potential areas of improvement. Drawing upon locally constructed tools also provides a platform to discuss both shared and contested practices, as well as to contextualize practice in meaningful ways within each local curriculum and wider ecology, thereby enhancing continuity within teaching teams and the implementation of cohesive experiences for children. There is an international mandate to enhance quality provision for infants and toddlers attending out of home education and care settings. The imperative established by the dual factors of increasing attendance and heightened vulnerability to poor practice drives the call for enhanced quality across all settings and for all children (OECD, 2016; UNICEF, 2017). This chapter has argued the critical importance of specialized teaching practices and pedagogy in supporting quality improvement, framed within the context of a professionalized infant/toddler teaching workforce, upheld by funding and policy decision-making at government level. A brief description of current policy in Aotearoa New Zealand has been offered in supporting the call for both specialization and professionalization, and the use of locally framed practice and progress tools. We stand at the door of exciting times in Aotearoa New Zealand as we await the implementation of He taonga te tamaiti—Every Child a Taonga: Early Learning Action Plan 2019–2029 over the coming years. The action plan holds great promise for the experiences of infants and toddlers in early childhood education and for enhancing positive learning experiences and outcomes for all children. In affirming both specialization and professionalization for infant toddler teachers, it can only be hoped that the vision and commitment established in this core policy document will not become a victim of political change in upcoming elections and possible future change in government, in which early years policy is too often a political volleyball. Significant change must be initiated and sustained at the policy level, with sufficient structural and financial supports to effect change in teaching practice at setting level. Furthermore, locally constructed and evidence-based practice tools are important in advancing further understanding of quality practice and quality improvement measures, as well as

16 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

facilitating meaningful change for children at the nexus of their experiences and relationships in out of home care settings.

References Alcock, S., & Haggerty, M. (2013). Recent policy developments and the “schoolification” of early childhood care and education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Early Childhood Folio, 17(2), 21–26. Angus, J., & Carroll-Lind, J. (2011). Through their lens: An inquiry into non-­ parental education and care of infants and toddlers. Wellington: Office of the Children’s Commissioner. https://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/ Reports/Education/Through-­their-­lens-­summary-­report.pdf. Aspden, K., & McLaughlin, T. (2016). Voices from the field research update: Teaching practices to promote infants’ and toddlers’ learning and social emotional competence. The First Years: New Zealand Journal of Infant and Toddler Education, 18, 29–30. Aspden, K., & McLaughlin, T. (2017). Teaching practices to promote children’s learning and social–emotional competence: Infants and Toddler (Unpublished practice list, available from https://eyrl.nz/resources-­for-­teachers/). Institute of Education, Massey University, New Zealand. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2015). Supportive relationships and active skill-building strengthen the foundations of resilience: Working Paper No. 13. http://www.developingchild.net Chazan-Cohen, R., Zaslow, M., Raikes, H. H., Elicker, J., Paulsell, D., Dean, A., & Kriener-Althen, K. (February 2017). Working toward a definition of infant/ toddler curricula: Intentionally furthering the development of individual children within responsive relationships. Brief prepared for the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families; or the U.S., Department of Health and Human Services. Clarke, L., McLaughlin, T. W., & Aspden, K. (2019). Promoting learning during toddlers’ peer conflicts: Teachers’ perspectives. Early Years, 39(4), 426–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2017.1384919. Cooper, M., Lovatt, D., & Hedges, H. (2015). Curriculum for very young children: Challenging perceptions. The First Years: Ngā Tau Tuatahi New Zealand Journal of Infant and Toddler Education, 17(10), 28–32. Dalli, C. (2018). Refreshing our work with infants and toddlers: Mantras from theory and research into practice. Early Childhood Folio, 22(1), 15–20. https:// doi.org/10.18296/ecf.0047. Dalli, C., White, J., Rockel, J., & Duhn, I, with Buchanan, E., Davidson, S., Kus, L., Ganly, S., & Wang, B. (2011). Quality early childhood education for under-­ two-­year olds: What should it look like: A literature review. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

17

Degotardi, S., & Pearson, E. (2014). The relationship worlds of infants and toddlers: Multiple perspectives from early years theory and practice. Open University Press. Ebbeck, M., & Yim, H. (2009). Rethinking attachment: Fostering positive relationships between infants, toddlers and their primary caregivers. Early Child Development and Care, 179, 889–909. Education Review Office. (2013). He pou tātaki: How ERO reviews early childhood centres. https://www.ero.govt.nz/publications/he-­pou-­tataki-­how-­ero-­ reviews-­e arly-­c hildhood-­s ervices/part-­2 -­o utcomes-­f or-­c hildren-­i n-­e arly-­ childhood-­education/ Education Review Office. (2015). Infants and toddlers: Competent and confident communicators and explorers. https://www.ero.govt.nz/publications/infants-­ and-­toddlers-­competent-­and-­confident-­communicators-­and-­explorers/ Education Review Office. (2019). Professional Learning and Development in schools. https://ero.govt.nz/our-research/professional-learning-anddevelopment-in-schools Farley, K. S., Brock, M. E., & Winterbottom, C. (2018). Evidence-based practices: Providing guidance for early childhood practitioners. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0256854 3.2017.1387205. Garvis, S., & Lemon, N. (2015). Enhancing the Australian early childhood teacher education curriculum about very young children. Early Child Development and Care, 185(4), 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.939652. Lally, J. R. (2000). Infants have their own curriculum: A responsive approach to curriculum planning for infants and toddlers. Head Start Bulletin, 67, 6–7. Lawrence, P., Gallagher, T., & the Pen Green Team. (2015). ‘Pedagogic strategies’: A conceptual framework for effective parent and practitioner strategies when working with children under five. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1978–1994. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015. 1028390. McLaughlin, T., & Cherrington, S. (2018). Creating a rich curriculum through intentional teaching. Early Childhood Folio, 22(1), 33. https://doi.org/ 10.18296/ecf.0050. McLaughlin, T., Aspden, K., & Clarke, L. (2017). How do teachers support children’s social–emotional competence? Strategies for teachers. Early Childhood Folio, 21(2), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.18296/ecf.0041. McLachlan, C., Cherrington, S., Aspden, K., & McLaughlin, T. (2018). Defining quality in a divided sector: A review of policy and practice in early childhood settings in New Zealand. Annual Review of Education, 23, 111–125. McLaughlin, T., Aspden, K., & McLachlan, C. (2015a). Teaching practices to promote children’s learning and social-emotional competence (Unpublished practice

18 

K. ASPDEN ET AL.

list, available from https://eyrl.nz/resources-­for-­teachers/). Institute of Education, Massey University, New Zealand. McLaughlin, T., Aspden, K., & McLachlan, C. (2015b). How do teachers build strong relationships? A study of teaching practices to support child learning and social emotional competence. New Zealand Council for Educational Research: Early Childhood Folio, 19, 31–38. Melhuish, E., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K., Tawell, A., Slot, P., Broekhuizen, M., & Leseman, P. (2015). A review of research on the effects of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) upon child development. CARE project; Curriculum Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). http://ecec-­care.org/resources/publications/ Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whar̄ iki: He Whāriki mātauranga mo ̄ nga ̄ mokopuna o Aotearoa. Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2017). Te wha ̄riki: He whar̄ iki mātauranga mō nga ̄ mokopuna o Aotearoa. https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Early-­ Childhood/Te-­Whariki-­Early-­Childhood-­Curriculum-­ENG-­Web.pdf Ministry of Education. (2019). He māpuna te tamaiti: Supporting social and emotional competence in early learning. https://tewhariki.tki.org.nz/assets/ Uploads/files/He-­Mapuna-­te-­Tamaiti-­complete-­book.pdf National Council on the Developing Child. (2004). Children’s emotional development is built into the architecture of their brain: Working paper no. 2. Retrieved from http://www.developingchild.net/ OECD. (2016). What are the benefits from early childhood education? Education Indicators in Focus, No. 42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwqvr76dbq-­en. Rameka, L., Glasgow, A., & Fitzgerald, M. (2016). Our voices: Culturally responsive, contextually located infant and toddler caregiving. Early Childhood Folio, 20(2), 3–9. Recchia, S.  L., & Dvorakova, K. (2012). How three young toddlers transition from an infant to a toddler child care classroom: Exploring the influence of peer relationships, teacher expectations, and changing social contexts. Early Education & Development, 23(2), 181–201. Recchia, S. L., & Shin, M. (2012). In and out of synch: Infant childcare teachers’ adaptations to infants’ developmental changes. Early Child Development and Care, 182(12), 1545–1562. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.630075. Rockel, J. (2014). Critical professional issues in labour force development for teachers with children up to two years of age: A New Zealand perspective. Early Child Development and Care, 184(2), 161–176. Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods. National Academy Press. Statistics New Zealand. (2017). More toddlers in formal early childhood care. https:// www.stats.govt.nz/news/more-­toddlers-­in-­formal-­early-­childhood-­care

1  SPECIALIZED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE QUALITY… 

19

Te One, S. (2010). Advocating for infants’ rights in early childhood education. Early Childhood Folio, 14(1), 13–17. Te Whāriki Online. (2019). Infants and Toddlers. https://tewhariki.tki.org.nz/ en/weaving-­te-­whariki/infants-­and-­toddlers/ United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF]. (2017). Early moments matter for every child. https://www.unicef.org/media/files/UNICEF_Early_Moments_ Matter_for_Every_Child_report.pdf White, E. J., Peter, M., & Redder, B. (2015). Infant and toddler dialogue in education and care: A pedagogical imperative. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.10.008. White, E. J., Peter, M., Sims, M., Rockel, J., & Kumeroa, M. (2016). First-year practicum experiences for preservice early childhood education teachers working with birth-to-3-year-olds: An Australasian experience. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 37(4), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10901027.2016.1245221. Wittmer, D.  S., & Petersen, S.  H. (2014). Infant and toddler development and responsive program planning: A relationship-based approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

CHAPTER 2

Evaluating Quality in Finnish Early Childhood Education Johanna Heikka, Elina Fonsén, Marjo Mäntyjärvi, Laura Kiuru, Katja Suhonen, and Lauri Heikonen

Conceptions and Theories of Early Childhood Education Quality Despite increased research on quality in early childhood education (ECE), solid conceptualizations of quality in ECE are scarce and the views of quality in ECE research vary (Alila, 2013; Puroila & Kinnunen, 2017; Rentzou & Sakellariou, 2011). Instead of theorizing quality, studies have emphasized the empirical aspects and evaluation of quality (Alila, 2013; Puroila & Kinnunen, 2017). Quality has been viewed through different paradigms and methods, aiming at diverse but common subjects in reaching better

J. Heikka (*) • K. Suhonen University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland e-mail: [email protected] E. Fonsén • L. Kiuru • L. Heikonen University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland M. Mäntyjärvi University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Garvis, H. L. Taguchi (eds.), Quality Improvement in Early Childhood Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73182-3_2

21

22 

J. HEIKKA ET AL.

ECE services. Starting from years 1990–2000, the emphasis has been strongly on children’s individual learning outcomes and skills in research and policies and on the ECE contents and practices, but the control systems are rarely recognized (Puroila & Kinnunen, 2017). Definitions and assessments of quality are connected and related to different theories and approaches from modern to postmodern and post-­ structural thinking. Fenech (2011) pointed out the dominance of positivistic discourse and quantitative measuring in research on ECE quality and argued this dominance as limiting perspectives on quality. Also, a Finnish review on ECE quality research (Puroila & Kinnunen, 2017) has brought up the dominance of positivistic, or post-positivistic and constructivistic paradigms, which overlap in research. Leaning on modernism, the criteria of quality is constructed from children’s skills and learning outcomes (Puroila & Kinnunen, 2017), which could narrow the potential of evaluation of ECE from educational and learning viewpoints (Ritchie, 2016). Dahlberg et al. (1999) came up with a postmodern approach, attempting to problematize the theoretical underpinnings of modernist work that preceded them. The modernist view was seen as instrumentalizing children and childhood (Dahlberg et al., 2007; Moss et al., 2000). Ritchie (2016) critiques genericized and homogenized understandings of quality, arguing for a need for a more post-humanist understanding and indigenous theorizing. Ritchie argues for witnessing a re-orientation of the qualities in ECE, from humanistic, individualistic modes, to a postmodern recognition of human inter/ dependence within the world. In post-structuralistic writings, quality is not seen as measurable, and it is seen as conceptualized in moments, in situations, since there is no absolute truth about quality (Puroila & Kinnunen, 2017). Pence and Moss (1994), for example, argued that quality in ECE is a constructed concept, subjective in nature and based on values, beliefs and interest, rather than an objective and universal reality. Quality is an ethical and political issue. Diverse ways of regulating and measuring ECE quality is based on different ways to refer to ECE as an economic investment for the future benefits in societies. The impacts of neoliberalist have been pointed out in several studies carried out in different societies, not only in societies where ECE has been historically produced and controlled nationally, but also in private services (Penn, 2011; Mäntyjärvi & Puroila, 2019). According to Moss (2013), quality discussions are connected to seeing ECE as an investment. These discussions are also supported by research carried out in fields other than ECE, such as

2  EVALUATING QUALITY IN FINNISH EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 

23

Heckman (2012) in the field of economics, who considered ECE as an investment for future that results in good outcomes and long-term benefits for society. However, Moss (2013, p. 371) instead notes that ECE’s investment arguments narrow the rationale for why societies need ECE because “the investment argument calls for ever stronger management of children (and also adults) in order to ensure promised returns” and narrows the reasoning behind why societies need ECE. Several nations have standardized models and regulations on quality, despite lacking consensus on what quality is about. Quality standards are strongly proposed to support high-quality ECE, as supporting children’s well-being, development and learning (e.g.  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2012). Hooper et al. (2019) remind how it seems unlikely to move away from the efforts of reaching for objectively measuring quality with standardized tools. New paradigms to study quality ECE are needed to extend the understanding of quality, reaching the diversity of it and providing an opportunity to have stronger and more nuanced policy and practice (Fenech, 2011). Dahlberg  et  al. (1999), and later Moss (2013), prefer to see the meaning-making of ECE. Also, Duhn and Grieshaber (2016) critically discuss standards and an ethical and a collective responsibility for meaning-making of ECE, releasing oneself from the ideals of standardized quality. They explored the use of a qualitative tool, ‘thick description’, aiming to ‘describe in detail so that nuances and affects can become visible and thus available for reinterpretation’ (Duhn & Grieshaber, 2016, p. 56). Katz (1999) identified different perspectives in ECE quality. The larger society perceives quality from the outside perspective as the ECE professionals and practitioners have the inside perspective on quality. Families, instead, have the outside-inside perspective on quality. ECE researchers underline the importance of a discussion of quality between all beholders, emphasizing different perspectives. The parents’ perspective is crucial in quality evaluation. However, parents’ views have been traditionally collected only through different customer satisfaction questionnaires. Parents’ abilities in quality evaluation have also been sometimes questioned; however, research shows that parents are capable of making informed evaluations on quality (Scopelliti & Musatti, 2012). Parents and the ECE staff provide diverse perspectives on ECE quality evaluation. In addition, despite that children’s perspectives on quality is recognized as important, children have seldom participated in evaluation (Pihlainen et  al., 2019). In Finland, Pihlainen  et  al. (2019) stated that children’s

24 

J. HEIKKA ET AL.

evaluations are a valuable part of the multi-method quality evaluation of ECE. They carried out a study in which children aged 1–8 years made an assessment by telling about the pleasant things in their ECE. Results can be used to develop ECE practices by paying attention to children’s participation and positive aspects that children mention about ECE.

Quality Evaluation and Management in Finnish Early Childhood Education Quality management is part of the ECE leadership system and structures. The quality management systems in the Finnish municipalities are therefore highly influenced by and dependent on the perceptions of the ECE leaders on quality, quality evaluation and the purposes of the evaluation. The concepts and perceptions of quality and quality management are time-changing and culture dependent. In inclusive conceptualization of quality, the views of all key groups, children, parents, teachers, staff and managers, among others, are taken into account. This kind of quality management is based on fundamental values of Finnish society and national regulations (Vlasov et al., 2019). Quality evaluation is also seen as a tool for developing ECE, with a transformational aspect. Earlier reviews indicated that support for continuous quality improvement is critical for the success of ECE programmes in children’s learning and development (Baker-Henningham & López Bóo, 2010; Engle et al., 2011; Pianta et al., 2009; Douglass, 2019; Tauriainen, 2000). The establishment of a solid quality management system within municipalities starts with mutual discussion among ECE stakeholders about the perceptions of quality, quality management and the purposes of evaluation. The key statements to discuss at this point are, for example, what is quality in ECE? Who is involved in evaluation of quality and quality management? Why do we need quality management? Based on this discussion, it is possible to establish a quality management system that is congruent and accountable. The perceptions of quality influence the selection of the focus of evaluation. Selected areas can relate to locally set goals and development priorities as well as socially relevant and critical themes. It is also important to consider how the different quality factors interplay and are interconnected. Quality indicators are non-standalone, but form a mutually supportive network. For example, leadership, communication and collaboration among staff, as well as the atmosphere of the centre, contribute

2  EVALUATING QUALITY IN FINNISH EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 

25

to the adult-child relations. It is also critical to consider the focus of the evaluation from the perspective of pedagogical development (Atjonen, 2015; Fonsén & Vlasov, 2017; Douglass, 2019; Vlasov et al., 2019). To be able to improve pedagogy based on the evaluation, the focus of evaluation should be directed to the factors related to pedagogical processes, such as educators’ pedagogical actions and pedagogical interaction with children, as well as experiences of children. The enhancement-led evaluation in Finland is based on four principles: participation, a multi-method approach, adaptability and transparency (Atjonen, 2015; Vlasov et  al., 2019). These principles should be taken into account in different parts of the quality management process and development. It is, for example, significant to consider how the involvement of all key groups in the evaluation is reached. How, for example, children’s perspectives can be included in the quality evaluation. Investigation of the child’s experiences is only possible through variable and participatory methods integrated as part of the daily pedagogical activities. This demands informed pedagogical planning, pedagogical documentation and assessment by ECE teachers together with their teams. In this way, the educators collect and document information about children’s experiences, learning and development as part of the quality management systems. When reaching out the parents’ perspectives, it is important to acknowledge the expectations of the parents towards ECE and their influence on the perceptions of the quality. When gathering information from the ECE staff, it is important to pay attention to the reliability and coverage of self-assessment. This means supporting reflective discussion among staff. This increases the common awareness of the state of the practices. Also, conceptual frameworks and knowledge about the phenomena to be evaluated assist staff in making informed evaluations. In addition, ongoing pedagogical documentation is an essential base for realistic evaluation. The evaluation of the activities in the child groups is based on long-term observation and continuous documentation. It is also relevant that the quality criteria used are concrete and precise (Vlasov et al., 2019). Quality management means lining up quality work at all levels of the ECE organization. This means well-developed structures for evaluation and development as well as a shared responsibility for quality. Quality management also means scheduling evaluation and development processes so that information gathered is timely and relevant. Communicating tasks and schedules, as well as clear instructions for the staff, well in advance is

26 

J. HEIKKA ET AL.

also relevant. It is also important to plan how the information will be analysed, in what units and how the information will be forwarded and utilized for those responsible for ECE locally (Atjonen, 2015; Vannebo & Gotvassli, 2018; Vlasov et al., 2019). In the analysis of the evaluation of information, conclusions are made regarding the strengths and the areas for improvement (Vlasov et al., 2019). This includes also identification of factors affecting the circumstances and the people’s actions related to the identified development areas. Identification is based on knowledge about the organization and staff, which influences the realization of specific quality factors as well as research knowledge in the area. Based on this analysis, leaders can select and implement the means to achieve the desired quality level. In the utilization of the evaluation data, it is important to take care of the timely and clear communication of results to all stakeholders (Vlasov et al., 2019). It is important to make sure that all prerequisites for utilizing results of the evaluation in local decision-making and resource allocation are possible. It is also essential to constantly monitor and improve usability of the results (Vlasov et al., 2019). Quality improvement demands the implementation of distributed pedagogical leadership as a strategy for development. This includes the idea that the whole staff is responsible for the development of quality. Also, the responsibility of the decision-makers is important. Interconnection of quality work on different levels of the organization and among actors is crucial (Heikka et al., 2019; Hujala et al., 2012; Douglass, 2019; Vannebo & Gotvassli, 2018). The key to quality management is staff teams. It is therefore relevant to consider what abilities the staff have to reflect and promote their own professional skills and knowledge and how the teams can be supported as learning communities (Fonsén & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2019; Heikka et  al., 2019; Hujala et  al., 2012; Douglass, 2019). Furthermore, new research-based evidence indicates the crucial role of centre directors for the high quality of ECE.  The staffs’ evaluation of implemented leadership was in connection with observed children’s activities including involved learning, positive emotions, physical activity and participation (Fonsén et  al.,  2020). However, it is also recognized that centre directors also need support in their work (e.g. Mäntyjärvi & Puroila, 2019). This study aimed at evaluating quality in Finnish ECE and comparing ECE staff and parent evaluations of ECE quality. The study is part of the three-university research project ‘Leadership and Quality in ECE’ led by the University of Eastern Finland. The project objectives focused on

2  EVALUATING QUALITY IN FINNISH EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 

27

developing quality evaluation tools based on new national quality indicators. This study presents results from quality evaluations in two Finnish municipalities in which the tool was piloted. Here we focus firstly on examining results based on five quality factors included in the evaluation tool to see if there were differences between them, and secondly, we were interested to see if there were differences between staff and parents in how quality was evaluated. In Finland, there have been some theoretical ECE quality models, for example, Hujala-Huttunen (1995), Parrila (2002), Hujala and Fonsén (2010a, 2010b) and Karvonen (2011); however, these models are not well-known among ECE practitioners (Alila, 2013). Finnish researchers have pointed out a need for an updated national model for assessing quality in ECE (Hujala et  al., 2012; Alila, 2013). In 2019, the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) gave the guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of ECE (Vlasov et al., 2019, p. 13). The national steering system offers the municipalities broad autonomy and responsibility for providing access to high-quality services for residents (Vlasov et al., 2019). The Finnish ECE quality is guided and evaluated from the national level, but the emphasis is on the service providers’ assessments in municipalities and the private sector. This chapter provides results from the quality evaluation completed in two Finnish municipalities based on the FINEEC (Vlasov et  al., 2019) guidelines and previous Finnish research and the quality evaluation model of ECE (Hujala-Huttunen, 1995; Hujala et al., 1999; Hujala & Fonsén, 2010b). The original instrument (Hujala-Huttunen, 1995) was developed by the ‘Quality Evaluation of Child Care’ project in 1997–2000 (Hujala et al., 1999). The theoretical foundation of the evaluation model is in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological psychology, in the constructivist concept of learning, and the contextual growth theory by Hujala et  al. (1999). According to contextual growth theory (Hujala, 1996), quality is being reviewed from the point of view of different actors and factors. Based on the analysis of international quality research, Hujala-Huttunen (1995) has constructed the quality evaluation model, which is based on four quality factors: structural, intermediate, process and effect factors. The quality factors of ECE are defined as the central elements of ECE quality for which certain quality requirements and objectives are set.

28 

J. HEIKKA ET AL.

Methods Participants The participants of the study were the groups of ECE staff (N = 376) and the parents (N = 410) in two Finnish municipalities. These two municipalities participated in the ECE development project of the University of Eastern Finland in 2019 with an aim to develop distributed pedagogical leadership in ECE. Most of the participants in the group of ECE staff were ECE teachers and child care nurses. Usually, in Finland ECE centres have ECE teams, which include ECE teachers, who are university qualified, together with the child care nurses. One participant group among the staff was ECE centre directors, who lead either one or a cluster of ECE centres. In addition, in municipalities, ECE centres get support for its functioning from different professionals, including personal needs assistants, ECE special education teachers, psychologists and speech therapists, who overall were a small part of the study participants. In addition, the ECE leaders, who lead municipality’s operations and functioning of ECE, participated in the study as respondents. The other respondent group comprised parents, whose child, or children, were in ECE services in the studied municipalities at the time of the data gathering, regardless of the child’s age. Quality Evaluation Instrument The data collection was conducted by using a quality evaluation instrument, which is based on the quality evaluation model of ECE (Fig. 2.1). The instrument was updated according to National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood and Care in Finland (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2019) and the FINEEC guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of ECE (Vlasov et al. 2019). The instrument was basically the same for the ECE staff and the parents, but some of the statements were addressed just to the ECE staff or to the parents. The quality evaluation instrument was turned into electronic form: parents and ECE staff had their own questionnaires. The link to these electronic questionnaires were distributed to all parents and ECE staff members. Apart from Fig.  2.1, in this study, the items concerning educational plans were separated from the intermediate factor due to the diverse items on the intermediate factor. In the results of the study, we reported the

2  EVALUATING QUALITY IN FINNISH EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 

29

Fig. 2.1  The quality evaluation model of ECE. (Adaptation from Hujala-­ Huttunen, 1995; Hujala et al. 1999; Hujala & Fonsén, 2010a, 2010b)

evaluation of ECE using five factors: structural, intermediate, educational plans, process and effect factor. Structural factors, containing eight statements (where six were taken into analysis), represent both physical and psychological preconditions and prerequisites for the high quality of ECE. Intermediate factors include 14 statements (from which 11 were shared with both respondent groups) and regulate the functional quality of ECE and indirectly control the quality of ECE. They measure items that include guiding the educational process and ensuring the staff’s competence. From these 14 intermediate factors’ statements, the educational plans’ factor was separated with 6 items (from which 4 were analysed). Process factors, containing 36 statements (25 shared with both respondent groups), are linked with the educational process and describe the educational process itself and the quality of interaction in ECE. The effect factors, which include four statements, measure what a child’s experience is being in ECE. Parents were instructed to evaluate these statements primarily based on the information from the child or their own findings.

30 

J. HEIKKA ET AL.

In addition, the parents responded to five statements concerning learning from the perspective of whether their child learning has been progressing in the presented areas of ECE.  Of these five statements, ECE staff responded to four questions as to whether these pedagogical contents were offered for children as part of an ECE activity. Lastly, parents were asked which creative activities (five statements) the child had enjoyed and gladly participated in. Due to the questionnaires not being exactly similar, we compared only the evaluations both groups have answered. The questionnaire of the staff included 66 statements, whereas parents answered 57 statements. Overall, the questionnaire contained 72 different statements. The statements can be seen in the results’ tables. Data Analysis Response options were based on a five-point Likert scale, where option 1 stands for the lowest quality level and 5 stands for the highest quality level. The items evaluated by both parents and ECE staff were summed according to the different factors. The difference between the means of the sum scores were compared between ECE staff (N = 376) and parents (N = 410) with T-tests. The sum scores were mostly normally distributed, with only small deviations, which afforded the use of parametric tests (e.g. Norman, 2010). Since statistical comparisons between ECE staff’s and parents’ evaluations were made concerning the five sum scores, a Bonferroni correction was utilized to minimize the risk of Type 1 error. Thus, the generally agreed lower limit of p-value indicating statistical significance (p