There is a plethora of evidence about early childhood education, including research designed from diverse theoretical and disciplinary backgrounds. Never before has so much information been available to the global field. Empiricists, systems and policy analysts, practitioner researchers, child rights specialists, curriculum experts and historical commentators, among others are active contributors. The quest to understand and act from an evidence base reaches far and wide. Some researchers are motivated in order to promote improvements in the early life experiences of children from diverse backgrounds and locations. Some seek to expose the complexity and challenge faced by those working in early childhood settings. Some focus on approaches to researching young children, others on teaching practice and community engagement, or finding optimal ways forward in a particular context. Readers of the literature have plenty of information to guide decision-making and actions regarding the conditions and experiences that ensure high-quality early childhood education. However, critical reading is essential. Readers have to be open to the counter-intuitive, study findings and views that diverge from own beliefs and practices, and ask who will benefit most and least from the research, practice or policies under scrutiny.
As the public voice of the European Early Childhood Education Research Association, the EECERJ has long promoted and shared research in Early Childhood Education (ECE) throughout Europe and beyond, publishing articles that have clear application to early childhood education and care policy and practice. This is of special value to the research community. The EECERJ articles stem from countries representing diverse languages and cultures. As an Australian researcher in a place where English is the official language, and Australian culture is distinct from other English speaking nations, I am located in a part of the world about as far from Europe as it is possible to be. In this sense, the EECERJ also has a special function – disseminating research that may not otherwise be available, and this issue offers readers a rich array of material on ECE to extend or challenge ideas and practice.
The articles in this volume are sourced from seven countries – England, Greece, South Africa, Finland, Russia, Iceland and Estonia. Some also reach beyond those borders through participant recruitment or co-authors from other nations. This is a volume that will prompt readers to critically consider the ways in which particular ideas have been tested; the scope, and level of rigor imposed; and the similar and contrasting findings, including their potential relevance to ECE beyond the site of each study. I encourage readers to consider how your own understandings about young children and early childhood education are reinforced by the research, or whether reconsideration is provoked as a result of the work. How might the findings be scalable and/or relevant to policymakers who are wanting to improve their country’s ECE system? What content is a touchpoint for – or an anathema to – your own definition of ‘successful’ ECE. What, if anything, might be no more than a distraction from priorities that are more urgent? Not surprisingly, my own reading of these articles was influenced by issues within the contemporary Australian ECE system. In Australia, current problems include the potential of ECE to address social equity and ensure young children have access to programmes of sufficient sensitivity and quality that they will make a difference to children’s well-being, social and intellectual achievements. The Australian ECE system recently reformed to become a national system, with common legislation and governance mechanisms. In view of recent Australian research evidence, the system needs to keep adjusting if it is to serve children well and address issues of equity. Every child needs to experience an inviting place to learn, and the programmes are charged to produce at least a year’s learning and development growth each year for each child. This quest comes from increasing recognition that Australia has become a more unequal society, and addressing social inequities must occur long before the universal school education system provides education for all. Australia constructs its own distinct path, including reforming the education evidence base to include early childhood, display levels of ECE access, quality and system efficiency, and be transparent about how well or poorly children fare in different localities and communities. This path may be distinct from many of the countries represented in this volume.
Common research touchstones also exist across countries. Similar problems are pursued, and some findings are common. Perspectives on ways forward may align when ECE system values are similar. Individual readers will find merit in the articles according to their particular research and practice interests, and find clear touchstones. Is the purpose of a study addressing a problem that is also apparent in the reader’s own local context? If so, how is the problem manifest locally? Is there light on new ways of obtaining evidence in sites that are inhabited by young children? Sometimes, findings can surprise, cause concern, be disputed, and they may or may not be transferable or adaptable to the specific context in which each of us works. Always, newly published findings warrant scrutiny and can help to clarify one’s own preconceptions, bias or purpose.
Four articles focus on different ways in which teachers may support the development of children’s cognition during the five- to eight-year-old life phase. From Estonia, Säre, Luik and Fisher consider the assessment of children’s verbal reasoning, a capability that has been demonstrated to predict children’s later cognitive achievement. In this study the focus is practical: developing a reliable, valid verbal reasoning test that children find interesting and pleasurable, and can be used by teachers in early years’ classrooms. This article is illustrative of a rise in interest internationally in authentic ways of assessing children’s learning and understanding. Aligning children’s experiences within programmes with what they know and can do, while also ensuring new challenges that promote learning, requires skilled observation and assessment. Murris, in South Africa, addresses a crisis in early literacy achievement and the use of strategies beyond the teaching of phonics in order to promote the development of critical reasoning skills. Through approaches such as ‘philosophy with children’ attention moves to teacher use of questions, and texts that are linked to children’s own experience. These are argued better to address reading development and use. Veraksa and Veraksa, working in Russia, study children both in preschool and school settings, analysing children’s symbolic representation. This article acknowledges the ‘unity of the child’s cognitive and affective spheres’ and focuses on signs and symbols to help children master content. Direct experience and ‘space to imagine’ are argued to help children employ symbolic tools to solve cognitive tasks. The collision of a child’s current understanding with other forms and representations was found to be a strong catalyst for mastering content. In Finland, Aunio and Räsänen study the early skills that may best assure children’s development of mathematics knowledge. After a review of test items, the authors produce a working model that teachers may use for building young children’s numerical skills. All of these articles underscore the importance of having highly knowledgeable and ‘intentional’ teachers in children’s lives – teachers who build on children’s interests and stretch their learning.
Turning toward children’s own perspectives and behaviours, articles by Murray (England), Pálmadóttir and Einarsdóttir (Iceland), Penderi and Rekalidou (Greece) and Howe (England) investigate children’s perspectives using different approaches and points of interest. Murray challenges research practices which may construe ‘children as data’ by using the ‘young children as researchers’ project to illustrate the capacity of four- to eight-year-olds to make decisions based on evidence, and by presenting an approach that may assure the participation rights of children. Pálmadóttir and Einarsdóttir consider the relations between children and researcher through the use of video observations of free-play sessions in the lives of young one- to three-year-olds in preschool settings. The power of video to represent children’s perspectives, which become visible through their bodily expression, also reveals how a researcher interconnects with children and contributes to the construction of knowledge in the setting. On the other hand, Penderi and Rekalidou’s study uncovers children’s practices within the everyday scenario of cleaning up after play. The development of responsibility in children is found to be constructed differently among older and younger children according to children’s perception of rules and engagements during play. In a different but related way, Howe explores what play means to children in primary year one classrooms in England revealing among participants a keenness to have some control over their learning environment, and promoting levels of self-directed activity and play that allow for the development of ‘interests and enthusiasms’.
Addressing further topics, Adams, Bull and Maynes (England) provide a conceptual analysis of ‘distinctive features of young children’s spirituality’ highlighting the ‘ontological and epistemological ambiguities’. The authors call for more research in this area so that understandings might deepen around transcendence and the everyday in children’s free-flow play, and their ‘being’. In another domain, Soini et al. (Finland) study children’s physical activity, provoking questions as they compare the physical activity of three-year-old children in Finnish and Dutch childcare settings. The balance of sedentary behaviour and higher levels of physical activity differs within the two country settings, affected by levels of solitary play, child-initiated activity and the use of outdoor locations and prompts. This article begs questions about programme-balance, including consideration of the way in which practitioners engage with children across a day. In programmes where children attend for a long-day it is especially important to ensure children have ample physical activity time.
I commend all of these articles to you, the reader, and encourage you to test your assumptions of what ideal early learning and development experiences can be in your region, and why the round of topics included in this volume has come to the fore at this time.