Preschool Teachers’ Work with Curriculum Content Areas in Relation to Their Professional Competence and Group Size in Preschool: A Mixed-methods Analysis

ABSTRACT

This study explores preschool teachers’ considerations regarding their work with curriculum content areas and examines possible relationships with their professional competence and group size. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and mixed-methods analytical procedure, this study analyzes 698 preschool teachers’ considerations on a set of 12 curriculum content areas. The results revealed reading and writing as the two least emphasized content areas. No significant relationship was found among preschool teachers’ ratings of these content areas, their professional background, and group size. Prominent in preschool teachers’ reasoning for rating reading and writing as least emphasized, is a child-directed approach implying that these content areas are not involved in their professional assignment and therefore included merely as a response to children’s specific displayed interest. Implications for the content of early education programs and continuing professional development models are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Preschool teachers
• professional competence
• group size
• reading and writing
• mixed-methods analysis

In a rapidly changing world, preparing children for a successful life and addressing the development of the “whole child” – that is, thinking about the well-being, learning, and development of a child in a range of interconnected areas (such as socioemotional, personal, and cognitive) – is a fundamental objective of preschool (Sylva et al., 2015). Research supports that high-quality preschool experiences are critical for children’s short- and long-term well-being, learning, and development (Burchinal, 2018; Slot, 2018; Sylva et al., 2010, 2015). In Sweden, it has been a policy priority to design a preschool curriculum that ensures high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC), which provides the most favorable holistic outcomes for all children (Taguma et al., 2013). Guiding and ensuring the quality of preschool, the curriculum encompasses fundamental values, tasks, goals, and guidelines for preschool activities. These goals are formulated as interlinked and mutually dependent content areas, and it is the professional responsibility of preschool teachers to conduct their work according to these goals that encompass the entire curriculum (Vallberg Roth, 2014).

Extant research indicates that the official curriculum’s successful implementation is closely connected to preschool teachers’ professional competence and supportive working conditions, including staff-child ratio and group size in preschool (Bennett, 2005; Sylva et al., 2015). The competence of preschool teachers in terms of theoretical knowledge, pedagogical approaches, didactic competence, and methodological tools shape their practices and, thereby, the opportunities provided to children to fulfill their potential (Sheridan et al., 2011). However, recent Swedish research has indicated tension between the curriculums’ increased demands on preschool teachers’ professional responsibility and competence and the prerequisites for fulfilling their assignments (Williams et al., 2019). This research has indicated that the intensified learning orientation of the preschool curriculum over the last decade, combined with a lack of knowledge and didactic skills in specific content areas, affect preschool teachers’ work with curriculum content areas, particularly when there is an increase in the number of children in the group (Williams et al., 2019). When there is an increase in the number of children in a group, specific content such as science and technology are excluded and also activities that require more staff and smaller groupings such as aesthetics and book-reading activities and excursions. Thus, the group size is an important aspect of the quality of both preschool teachers’ working conditions and children’s conditions for socio-emotional and cognitive learning and development (cf. Swedish National Agency for Education, 2011; Swedish School Inspectorate, 2018; Williams et al., 2019). Between 2009 and 2015, the average group size in preschool was between 16.7 and 16.9 children per group. Guidelines for preschools were presented by the National Agency of Education in 2016 (Williams & Sheridan, 2016), with recommended benchmarks of 6–12 children for groups with children under the age of 3 and 9–15 for groups of older children. However, the Swedish National Agency for Education (2019) statistics indicate that group sizes vary greatly among municipalities. Approximately 9% of preschools have 22 or more children, which is far above the recommended benchmark.

Based on these premises, we assume that preschool teachers who are not confident in their content knowledge and/or perceive group size as an obstacle in their daily work may avoid certain content areas in their daily teaching activities. Several studies examine classroom quality measures – such as preschool teachers’ pre- and in-service training, child–staff ratio, and group size in preschool – concerning children’s developmental and learning outcomes (for a review, see Burchinal, 2018). However, few studies link the group size in preschool and preschool teachers’ competence when exploring preschool teachers’ considerations regarding their work with curriculum content areas.

The aim of the current study is twofold: (i) to analyze preschool teachers’ considerations of their work with curriculum content areas, with a specific focus on the content areas that they involve the least in their daily work, and (ii) to examine whether or not and, if so, how their professional competence and group size in preschool affect their work with these content areas. The research questions are formulated in the following manner:

1. What curriculum content areas do preschool teachers state that they least emphasized in their daily work?

2. What is the argumentation of preschool teachers for their least-emphasized curriculum content areas?

3. How do their arguments interplay with their professional competence and group size in preschool?

By identifying the curriculum content areas that preschool teachers least emphasized in their practices and their reasons for doing so, the current study endeavors to contribute knowledge to preschool teachers’ education and professional development efforts in enhancing preschool quality improvements. The current study builds on data from an extensive Swedish survey exploring certified preschool teachers’ views on children’s learning and development in relation to group size (Williams et al., 2019).

The Swedish Preschool Curriculum: Guiding Quality in Preschool

The ECEC system in Sweden is a unitary system under one national framework (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018), encompassing education and care for all children up to school age. The National Agency for Education and the National School Inspectorate are responsible for supporting and monitoring the quality of all ECEC services. The ECEC in Sweden has undergone dynamic policy reforms over the last few decades. The preschool curriculum was introduced in 1998, when preschools’ responsibility was transferred from the social to the education sector, and when preschool was integrated into the national educational system. By guiding and ensuring preschool quality, the curriculum encompasses fundamental values, tasks, goals, and guidelines regarding the performance of preschool activities. The goals specify the direction of preschools’ work, whereas the guidelines indicate the responsibilities of preschool staff as a team to ensure that the work is conducted in accordance with the curriculum goals and the desired quality targets (Sheridan et al., 2011; Vallberg Roth, 2014). All preschool activities are to be conducted on the basis that the children’s well-being and socioemotional and cognitive development forms a coherent whole, in which play, learning, and care should be integrated as the foundation for all preschool activities.

Over the last few decades, the preschool curriculum in Sweden has been revised on four occasions (2006, 2010, 2016, and 2019) to enhance preschool quality. During the first two revisions, content areas, including language, mathematics, science, and technology, were clarified and extended. Although children’s care, learning, and development remain integrated into preschool activities, these curriculum revisions indicate an intensified learning orientation, thereby reflecting the influences of international approaches that focus on improving academic learning (Vallberg Roth, 2014). This is also evident in changes in the preschool teachers’ education programs, including an increased emphasis on a strong scientific foundation. Since 2011, a new preschool teacher education program has been introduced. Apart from theoretical knowledge of children’s learning and development, preschool teachers are now expected to have the content knowledge and didactic skills to meet children’s learning needs (Sheridan et al., 2011). In the latest revisions of the curriculum, the focus shifted to the preschool’s role in facilitating children’s transition to school, the clarification of preschool teachers’ teaching tasks, and preschool principals’ responsibilities to ensure that the conditions required for preschool quality are met.

In its 2018 evaluation report, the Swedish School Inspectorate highlighted variation in quality across preschools with regard to how both preschool staff and preschool principals interpret and, in turn, realize the intentions and goals of the curriculum in everyday practice. Although there is a high commitment to preschool's educational mission and curriculum goals, preschool teachers experience uncertainty regarding their work in certain content areas – such as science, technology, mathematics, and language development for multilingual children. These conclusions indicate that despite the investments in professional development, preschool teachers’ complete content knowledge and competence remains lacking, which, in turn, influences the quality and equality of the provision of preschool. Indeed, the report strongly emphasized that a central aspect for an equitable preschool providing high-quality education is teachers’ content knowledge and professional awareness of what is important for children to learn and how they as teachers relate this to their pedagogical practices, thereby providing all children with the opportunity to develop their potential. Additionally, the preschool's compensatory contribution is linked to the distribution of structural resources that can support or constrain preschool teachers’ everyday interactions with children.

Preschool Quality in Relation to Preschool Teachers’ Competence and Group Size

In recent years, policymakers worldwide have prioritized raising preschool teachers’ qualifications and competence through regulated, high-quality education (European Commission, 2014). Several studies have found that teachers’ high level of formal education is associated with high-quality preschool environments, thereby providing better emotional, educational, and developmental support for children (Barnett, 2003; Sylva et al., 2010). However, other research has indicated that policies focusing solely on raising preschool teachers’ formal educational requirements are insufficient to improve preschool quality (Early et al., 2007). Research focusing on ECEC quality in relation to preschool teachers’ competence has also discussed a developmental perspective according to which the integral role of continuing professional development (CPD) in enhancing ECEC quality has been given greater attention (Litjens & Taguma, 2010; Siraj et al., 2019; Urban et al., 2011). This stream of research emphasizes the potential of CPD to provide scientifically based methods and curriculum subjects that preschool teachers may require to be updated on because of changes in a subject’s knowledge base (Litjens & Taguma, 2010; Siraj et al., 2019). Furthermore, the research has suggested that effective CPD programs that support change and improvements should acknowledge the complex interplay among the participants’ individual differences, the content of the target knowledge, and the organizational support of such programs (Buysse et al., 2009; Sheridan et al., 2009; Siraj et al., 2019).

In this regard, a growing body of research has advocated in favor of expanding the traditional approach of professional competence from the individual acquisition of knowledge and skills through formalized learning to a holistic and systemic approach in which professional competence is conceptualized as a relational and ongoing learning process (Miller et al., 2012; Urban & Dalli, 2012; Urban et al., 2011). According to these studies, professional competence unfolds in the dimensions of knowledge, practices, and values, which are derived from within ECEC practice, and it develops in a reciprocal interaction among all levels embedded in the ECEC system: the individual, the institutional, the interinstitutional, and the level of governance (Urban et al., 2011). Swedish research has also addressed this multidimensionality. For example, in a study by Sheridan et al. (2011), which investigated the meaning Swedish preschool teachers ascribed to competence, the authors identified three mutually interdependent dimensions: (a) the competence of knowing what and why, including content knowledge and willingness to be updated with current research; (b) the competence of know-how, including preschool teachers’ democratic leadership among children and colleagues; and (c) interactive and transactional competence, including caring, communicative, and didactic competence. In another study, Lillvist et al. (2014) examined the perspectives of students in Swedish early childhood education programs and found similar dimensions. The students in the study gave low ratings on specific content knowledge in literacy, mathematics, science, and technology acquired throughout their education. According to the authors, these low ratings suggest a concern among students about the quality of specific courses in early childhood education programs in relation to the shortage of lecturers with a degree in ECEC.

Other studies have focused on group size in preschool as an important quality dimension. Sylva et al. (2015) explored the official curriculum of 11 European countries along with the enabling or constraining factors for its implementation. Despite numerous shared pedagogical principles across countries, the study found large variations in quality pedagogical practices; indeed, the study indicated that regardless of how committed the workforce is with regard to meeting the curriculum goals, successful implementation demands expertise and staff time. High-quality pedagogical practices require that the workforce has continuing access to professional development and supportive working conditions, including low child-teacher ratios and optimal group sizes (Sylva et al., 2015). In Sweden, studies have examined preschool teachers’ perspectives on group size in preschool (Sheridan et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2016, 2019). The results indicate that how preschool teachers experience group size depends on three interacting dimensions: (a) the preschool teacher’s qualifications and competence, (b) the physical environment, and (c) the group composition. If these dimensions do not interact constructively, the number of children was considered as important for selecting several content areas, the type of activities provided to the children, and the children’s organization in groups (Williams et al., 2019).

Theoretical Framework

The current article is based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979, 1986), as extended by Miller et al. (2012), who advocated for a critical ecology of the early childhood profession. By emphasizing the central role of an individual’s agency, the ecological framework provides a foundation for understanding how a preschool teacher thinks and acts in reciprocal interaction with multiple interrelated systems: the micro-, exo-, meso-, macro-, and chronosystems. Bronfenbrenner defined the microsystem as the most proximal setting, in which the individual is physically present and interacts directly with others; this encompasses the activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person within this setting with specific physical and material characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986). The mesosystem refers to the interrelation between microsystems/settings in which the developing individual participates. The exosystem is related to the settings in which the developing individual is not involved but is influenced indirectly by what happens in these settings. Thus, although it is within the microsystem that preschool teachers actualize their professional competence and conduct their pedagogical practices, they are affected by developments and decisions beyond the boundaries of this system (Miller et al., 2012). This implies that the decisions made in the exosystem and mesosystem – for example, municipalities’ resource allocation, which affects preschool organizational conditions, like the group size – have immediate implications for preschool teachers’ everyday praxis and, in turn, the kind of pedagogical practices providing for children. The macrosystem denotes the wider ideological and societal intentions; it indicates policy decisions regarding the overall goals of preschool, the curriculum revisions toward an intensified learning orientation and expectations of preschool teachers’ professional responsibility, the formal requirements to be a teacher, and the content of the education programs from which preschool teachers acquire their professional knowledge. The chronosystem refers to individuals’ development as shaped by the conditions and socio-historical changes occurring throughout the individual’s life course.

Thus, the overall ecological framework contributes to the understanding of preschool teachers’ work with curriculum content areas as constituted by the mutual influence of policy intentions and guidelines (which change over time), preschool teachers’ professional competence and their pedagogical approaches toward children’s learning and development, and the organizational conditions of the preschool.

Methods

As mentioned earlier, the current study draws on data from an extensive Swedish survey that examines preschool teachers’ considerations regarding children’s learning and development in relation to group size (Williams et al., 2019). The survey data were collected between 2012 and 2013. Two of the present study’s authors have been part of the research team during the process of data collection. A total of 698 preschool teachers from preschools in 46 municipalities in Sweden were administered a web-based questionnaire. One preschool teacher from each preschool in the respective municipality answered the questionnaire. The municipalities differed with respect to their geographical and sociodemographic characteristics and the number of preschools and children in each municipality (for detailed descriptive information on the sample, see Nasiopoulou, 2019; Nasiopoulou et al., 2019). In the survey, the preschool teachers were asked to answer questions regarding their demographical profile (e.g., educational background, experience, number of children in their groups), their grouping practices, and conditions for children’s learning and development in relation to group size. For the purpose of the present study, one question from the questionnaire was analyzed. The question is formulated in the following manner: “Which of the following curriculum content areas do you involve in your work with the children’s learning in preschool? Mark with a figure (1–5) which is closest to your way of working.” This question consists of 12 variables related to preschool curriculum content areas. The Swedish curriculum is characterized by being input-oriented and institution-focused, with broadly described goals to strive toward and content areas constructed as objects and thematic orientations (Vallberg Roth, 2014). On account of this, in the survey, the curriculum content areas were undefined, and respondents are expected to ascribe their own meaning to curriculum areas. A five-point Likert-type rating scale was used to measure the degree of emphasis that preschool teachers placed on each of the 12 content areas (1 = least emphasized, 5 = highest emphasized). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency of the variables was 0.83, which indicates a relatively high consistency. The variables are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Percentage of preschool teachers’ responses to all variables*, (N = 698).

Variables	Low (1,2) (%)	Medium (3) (%)	High (4,5) (%)
Language	1.1	4.6	94.2
Reading	37.7	37.4	24.9
Writing	28.6	40.3	31.1
Mathematics	1.3	11.7	87.1
Science	2.6	19.1	78.3
Technology	7.4	32.4	60.1
Aesthetics	5.7	31.2	63.1
Music	6.6	20.2	73.2
Art	2.3	14.8	82.8
Rhythm	7.4	31	61.7
Play	0.7	2.7	96.5
Motor Skills	1.6	6.2	92.2

*Likert scale variables (Rating from 1: least emphasis to 5: highest emphasis).

The abovementioned question also includes two open-ended sub-questions asking those respondents who gave a low score (1, 2) for specific content areas if their lack of competence or the group size could explain these low ratings. The open-ended sub-questions are formulated in the following manner:

If you answered the question by giving a low score (1,2), was this dependent on

1. that you do not have competence in the field? If so, describe in what way.

2. that the group size is an obstacle? If so, describe in what way.

The open-ended sub-questions had no word count. Some answers included just a few words; others were more extensive, ranging from 1 to 111 words, with an average of 21words. Open-ended sub-question 1 included 143 responses, and open-ended sub-question 2 included 92 responses related to preschool teachers’ explanation for their least emphasis on any of the curriculum content areas (N: 235 responses in both sub-questions).

As part of the research project mentioned above, the current study follows the Swedish Research Council’s (2017) ethical regulations for humanities and social sciences. The survey participants were informed on the project’s purpose, their voluntary participation, and their right to withdraw from the research at any time. Participants’ right to privacy by ensuring anonymity and confidentiality for data protection was also explicitly highlighted.

Analytical Procedure

The study, drawing on a mixed-methods analytical procedure, applies a descriptive statistical analysis and a qualitative thematic analysis. This analytical procedure is employed to provide an in-depth understanding of preschool teachers’ reasoning of involving certain content areas more seldom than others – a question that would not have been accessible by using only a single analytical approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The procedures for a mixed-methods analysis vary; for the present study, we applied what Creswell (2003) conceptualized as concurrent procedures, wherein the researcher “converges quantitative and qualitative data to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem” (Creswell, 2003, p. 16). This implies that in our study, qualitative data were used to support and explain the quantitative findings (Greene et al., 1989).

Consequently, the analysis was conducted in a stepwise manner. First, a descriptive statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistics software for Windows (Version 21.0). Subsequently, the dispersion of the variables and distribution of frequency responses were examined to identify which content area was the most or least emphasized. Based on these results, the least emphasized content areas were then examined using a cross-tabulation analysis to identify a possible relationship among these content areas and preschool teachers’ professional background and group size. The professional background of preschool teachers was measured by three variables/indicators: preschool teachers’ graduation year from early childhood education programs, CPD, and years of working experience in preschool (for descriptive information of these variables, see Nasiopoulou, 2019; Nasiopoulou et al., 2019). These three variables were dummy-coded into two categories. For the indicator graduation year, the year 1998 was the intersection point for categorization into two categories (category 1 graduated after 1998, category 2 graduated before 1998). The rationale underlying this categorization was that in 1998, preschool was incorporated into the national educational system, and the first curriculum came into force, thereby clarifying its pedagogical role. After the introduction of the preschool curriculum, preschool teacher education programs have undergone a transformation, which may have affected preschool teachers’ considerations concerning their work with curriculum goals. Further, the two categories for the indicator years of working experience in preschool correspond to nine years or fewer and ten years or more, and the CPD variable in the categories corresponds to “yes” or “no” answers. The group size was measured by a single variable and included three categories: a small group (max 12 children in the group), a medium-sized group (13–28 children), and a large group (more than 28 children). As in Sweden, there is no steering document specifying the size of a preschool group, the three categories of small, medium-sized, and large preschool groups in the current study were outlined according to previous research (Williams et al., 2015).

Second, the two open-ended sub-questions were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017) to capture a more comprehensive account of the possible relationship between the least emphasized content areas and preschool teachers’ competence and group size. The thematic analysis involved identifying, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting patterns of meaning – which are referred to as themes – capturing “something important about the data in relation to the research question” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 82). A thematic analysis provides a step-by-step procedure, which can be useful for exploring views on unknown topics. This implies that a thematic analysis enables an inductive, data-driven approach in which the identified themes are linked to the data themselves and may provide new insights with no strong relationship with the specific research question (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thus, based on the inductive coding of the data, the second and third authors created individual protocols with suggested patterns derived from the data, without attempting to fit the empirical statements into a preexisting coding framework. From this process, and through repeated reading of the data, several themes were initially suggested by the individual researchers, which could be described as “analytic outputs developed through and from the creative labor of our coding” (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 594). Thereafter, the themes were validated in reflective discussions with the first author, elucidating each researcher’s theoretical assumptions. Subsequently, the themes were synthesized and refined throughout the continuing process by emphasizing the creation of a solid consensus and ensuring the trustworthiness of the themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019; Clarke & Braun, 2017; Nowell et al., 2017). This implies that analyzing the data and generating the themes has been the product of a collaborative and reflexive approach seeking to develop a nuanced reading of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Throughout the review process, we checked that each theme was coherent and substantial, with clear boundaries and a distinct central organizing concept. Thus, the analysis followed a five-phase procedure: (1) familiarizing ourselves with the preschool teachers’ answers, which involved identifying and documenting the potentially interesting features of their formulations; (2) the systematic coding of the data to generate initial patterns; (3) searching for themes, in which the analysis shifted to broader focus patterns across the data set; (4) reviewing each researcher’ potential themes and deciding on a final set of themes; and (5) defining and naming the themes, which involved defining in detail each theme. The procedure of navigating these five phases was not merely a linear process – it involved moving back and forth between the phases as required.

Results

Descriptive Analysis

The results reveal that reading and writing are the two least emphasized content areas by the surveyed preschool teachers. The most emphasized content areas are language, mathematics, art, play, and motor skills. A further examination of these results reveals that preschool teachers’ responses for reading and writing are distributed across all rating scales. Table 1 presents preschool teachers’ response frequency for all the content areas in low, medium, and high rating values.

Based on these findings, our next step was to examine the possible relationship between the ratings in reading and writing and the preschool teachers’ graduation year, experience, CPD, and group size. The cross-tabulation analysis (Table 2) reveals that most preschool teachers who answered both content areas had graduated before 1998, had not attended any CPD activity, were more experienced, and worked with groups of 13–28 children. However, concerning whether each of these variables accounts for the differences in the preschool teachers’ ratings, the chi-square value in the cross-tabulation analysis is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). This implies that the low, medium and high ratings in reading and writing are independent of preschool teachers’ professional background indicators and the number of children in a group.

Table 2. Cross-tabulation analysis of the relationship# among preschool teachers’ ratings* (low, medium, high) in reading and writing and professional background indicators and group size.

Reading
	Graduation year		Continuing Professional Development		Experience (years in preschool)		Group size
	After 1998 (%)	Before 1998 (%)	Yes (%)	No (%)	0–9 (%)	≥10 (%)	<12 (%)	13–28 (%)	>28 (%)
Low (1,2)	44.1	55.9	39.5	60.5	33.3	66.7	6.1	80.8	13
Medium (3)	43.4	56.6	40.2	59.8	28.6	71.4	6.9	78.8	14.3
High (4,5)	45.6	54.4	43.6	56.4	31.4	68.6	5.8	83.1	11
Writing
	Graduation year		Continuing Professional Development		Experience (years in preschool)		Group size
	After 1998 (%)	Before 1998 (%)	Yes (%)	No (%)	0–9 (%)	≥10 (%)	<12 (%)	13–28 (%)	>28 (%)
Low (1,2)	41.9	58.1	39.4	60.6	32.8	67.2	6.6	79.8	13.6
Medium (3)	46.8	53.2	37.6	62.4	32.3	67.7	6.8	80.6	12.5
High (4,5)	43	57	45.6	54.4	27.9	72.1	5.6	81.4	13

# p > 0.05; * Rating from 1: least emphasis to 5: highest emphasis; (N: 698).

Thematic Analysis

The thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017) reveals that the patterns of meaning in the preschool teachers’ answers could be categorized into five different themes. These themes illustrate the preschool teachers’ rationale in the two open-ended sub-questions regarding why the two curriculum content areas of reading and writing are less emphasized than other content areas. The analysis is based on the set of responses related to low ratings in reading and writing for both open-ended sub-questions. A total of 128 preschool teachers provided a rationale for their low ratings in reading and writing, which corresponds to over 50% of the total sample who rated either reading or writing low. Table 3 summarizes the five themes and provides an indication of their strength.

Table 3. Five themes emerging from the thematic analysis of the preschool teachers’ explanations of the least emphasized curriculum content areas – reading and writing (N = 128).

Themes	Definitions	Responses (%)
A child-directed approach	Arguments involving that it is not part of the preschool teachers’ professional assignment to teach children to read and write. Children’s interest is emphasized as guiding their work with reading and writing.	35.1
A cognitive developmental approach	Answers maintaining that the age and developmental level of the children guide if the preschool teachers involve reading and writing activities.	27.3
A structural approach	Structural aspects, such as group size and time, are expressed to hinder the preschool teachers from involving reading and writing activities.	21.9
An activity-oriented approach	Answers based on interpretations of the curriculum content areas as involving language-developing activities, but not concrete reading and writing activities.	9.4
A holistic approach	Explanations indicating interpretations of the assignment in the curriculum through a holistic approach, in which reading and writing are included in various activities; a comprehensive approach permeates their understanding of all curriculum content areas.	6.3

The excerpts included in each theme are illustrative examples of the preschool teachers’ written explanations for the two least emphasized curriculum content areas of reading and writing.

A Child-directed Approach

The Swedish preschool curriculum emphasizes that children should be offered a stimulating environment in preschool with various opportunities for language and literacy development. In most answers within this theme, the preschool teachers’ formulations are based on social sensitivity and responsiveness to children’s interest in reading and writing activities. However, although the respondents’ statements invoke awareness of the children’s desires and needs, teaching children reading and writing is emphasized as not included in the preschool's professional assignment. One preschool teacher wrote: “If a child shows interest in learning to read, you would obviously encourage it, but I do not consider it a goal in my practice.” In another excerpt, a preschool teacher noted: “Teaching children to read is not part of the preschool assignment unless you have a child who is especially interested in it.” The preschool teachers’ reasoning incorporated in this theme reflects an approach in which the content areas of reading and writing are considered as an acquisition of skills closely connected to school traditional instructional strategies. This reasoning is clearly covered in another statement in which the preschool teacher wrote that they “don’t teach children to read and write but rather work with preparing them by involving other things so they can learn to read in school.”

A Cognitive Developmental Approach

For this theme, the teachers mostly stated that preschool children are too young to learn how to read and write. This reasoning implies that the children's age and developmental level explain the proportionally lower involvement of the content areas of reading and writing in the preschool teachers’ daily work. For example, one preschool teacher wrote: “The children I work with are too young and should not be taught how to read or write!”. In another excerpt, a preschool teacher argued: “Don’t teach reading or writing to one- and two-year-olds. If they ask how to write their name, we will, of course, show them, but it is not something we teach”. Similarly, another preschool teacher marked that “the children are too young, and they often have no interest in writing or reading, other than if you are reading aloud for them as they grow older”.

The above excerpts illustrate that the preschool teachers’ considerations on their work and planning are based on what is characteristic for children of a certain age. This implies that age appears to be more important when preschool teachers reason about their work with specific curriculum content areas, rather than adapting teaching methods based on children’s knowledge, experience, and interests. The answers demonstrate a predominant cognitive view of children’s development.

A Structural Approach

With regard to the answers incorporated in this theme, the teachers often invoke structural factors, such as group size, as obstacles to include the curriculum content areas of reading and writing in their activities. One preschool teacher wrote: “It is difficult to concentrate on learning to read or write in a proper way when the group is too large and, therefore, requires your constant attention.” In most answers within this theme, the group size restriction is related to the lack of time to follow children’s activities. For example, it is stated by one preschool teacher: “If the group is too large, I do not have the time even to realize when they are playing as if they were writing and reading every time.” In a similar way, another preschool teacher argued for limiting opportunities to work constructively with reading and writing in small groups of children:

It is difficult to have sufficient time for all children. It is only very rarely that we can with good conscience sit down with a few children and play games, read a book, or practice with letters or other things.

The above statements imply that the municipalities’ resources are pivotal for alleviating the structural factors that affect the organization of the preschool environment, like the group size, which are crucial for the preschool teachers’ ability to involve reading and writing activities in their teaching.

An Activity-oriented Approach

This theme indicates that preschool teachers’ considerations involve elaborations on their work with activities related to reading and writing in different ways. The teachers provide numerous examples of how they use materials and other resources – including themselves – to direct children’s interest towards reading and writing. For example, one preschool teacher wrote:

Play, creativity, fantasy, and collaboration give so much jointly, and if reading and writing are part of this and children learn, it is the best bonus they can get. Of course, the children should encounter this in preschool, but that they must learn sounds so hard.

However, the responses included in this theme reflect an approach in which the activities appear to be in the foreground, and the learning aspect less prominent. The following examples illustrate two preschool teachers’ description of working with these two content areas:

I do not think you need to work with reading in preschool, but with language, letters, sounds, jingles, songs, communication, dialogues, and expressing linguistically. Sometimes you write texts together with the children in connection with, for example, pictures from the forest, but I do not consider that you should specifically train preschool children to read. The most important thing is that it is done in a playful and joyful way.

We read a lot for the children in different situations; storytelling, fact books, if they want help with reading or understanding a text, what things are called, and so on. Nevertheless, we do not really have the opportunity to teach every individual child to read. Often, they end up in an initial stage of reading, which involves reading a few words. But this is far from all children being able to do that.

Activities, positions, and relationships are important aspects of learning within the microsystems. Describing activities also involve the positions and relationships created together with the activity. The excerpts in this theme indicate that there is a gap between doing the activities and the intention of doing, where the doing is not linked to developing children’s learning and understanding within this specific content area.

A Holistic Approach

In this theme, the preschool teachers indicate a holistic approach in their considerations regarding how they undertake reading and writing in preschool by providing conditions for children to gain varying experiences. One preschool teacher wrote: “My way of working with reading and writing implies rhymes, jingles, language play, communication and fine motor ability play, such as cutting/clay, paste, paint, etc. Preparing for reading and writing in a preschool way.” Intending to develop children’s knowledge and meaning-making, the teachers include language-developing activities – such as reading, talking, drawing, playing with words, listening, singing, and communicating texts – in both planned and spontaneous activities throughout the day. This is clearly illustrated in the following excerpt.

I gave reading and writing a low score because I do not know what that concept involves, according to you. We work a lot with how words sound, which letter is heard first, last. With finding things that begin with ‘s’ etc. We also encourage them to write names for their drawings. When we use the Internet, we collaborate in trying to make the sounds of the words we are going to Google, and so on. However, we do not have as a goal that the children should be able to read; but just as in mathematics, etc., we should give them the basic skills and offer them a joyful framing of playing with sounds and words.

This theme articulates how teachers engage in responsive, sustained, and shared interactions with children to encourage their reading and writing competencies from different perspectives and in various ways to extend their knowledge and understanding over time. In a rather extensive way, the teachers exemplify how they interpret the intentions of the curriculum and how they put it into practice together with the children.

Discussion

The current study investigated the curriculum content areas that preschool teachers stated to be the least emphasized in their daily work and their considerations on that. In this investigation, the aim was further to examine whether or not and, if so, how their professional competence and group size in preschool affect their work with these content areas.

The descriptive analysis reveals that reading and writing are the two least emphasized content areas, whereas language, mathematics, art, play, and motor skills are the most emphasized. A further examination of reading and writing reveals a variation in preschool teachers’ responses for all three levels of emphasis (low, medium, and high). The results also indicate that the level of emphasis on reading and writing has no significant relationship with preschool teachers’ professional background variables and the number of children in the group. Within the preschool teachers’ answers in the open-ended sub-questions, none of the preschool teachers articulated a need for professional development as a reason for their least stated emphasis on reading and writing. Regarding the group size, more than 20% of respondents invoked structural factors such as group size and lack of time as obstacles to involve reading and writing in their daily work.

The thematic analysis highlights various interpretations of curriculum intentions with the content areas of reading and writing. Within the five themes, almost 35% of the preschool teachers’ responses comprise the theme “child-directed approach”, entailing that children’s interest guides the choice of the curriculum content areas they work. What is clearly emphasized in this approach is the consideration that reading and writing are not included as part of preschool teachers’ professional assignment. Together with the theme “cognitive-developmental approach,” in which the preschool teachers argue that the children are too young to be taught reading and writing, these themes amount to almost 62% of preschool teachers’ responses.

Seen together, the responses incorporated in these two prominent themes, appear to reflect a broad principle of a child-centered education explicitly emphasized in the preschool curriculum throughout the years. This principle implies that education and care practices should be responsive to each child’s needs, abilities, and interests (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2011, 2018). However, teaching based solely on children’s displayed interests and developmental needs may embrace a risk of a rather spur-of-the-moment pedagogical approach. Embracing such an approach can be problematic concerning quality and equivalence aspects, since children might not be challenged by encountering knowledge they have no previous experience. This implies a dilemma of whether all children's interests can be consistently sought when the teacher needs to initiate curriculum content areas that are unfamiliar for some children, for instance, if they come from living environments where reading and writing are sparse (Vallberg Roth, 2020). Research indicates that combining the children’s perspectives with intentional teaching strategies sensitive to children’s diverse needs and interests is necessary to create the best learning opportunities across a broad spectrum of content areas (Jonsson, 2013; Sylva et al., 2015). Such approach was also emphasized in the Swedish preschool curriculum valid at the time of the present study’s conduction, stating that “the preschool should put great emphasis on stimulating each child’s language development, and encourage and take advantage of the child’s curiosity and interest in the written language” (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2011, p. 4).

Additionally, preschool teachers’ considerations incorporated in these two prominent themes elaborate on reading and writing as objectives involving individual performance, not included in their professional assignment. This result is consistent with other research findings indicating that the goal-oriented activities related to reading and writing were considered less critical learning situations in preschool, because such activities involve increased instruction and formal structure (Broström et al., 2015; OECD, 2019). This view reflects a social pedagogic approach (Bennett, 2005) with a long tradition in Swedish preschools. In this approach, social values are emphasized, and children’s ability to create meaning in reciprocal interactions with shared experiences is given prominence as a life-long learning process. Based on preschool teachers’ arguments included in the two prominent themes, this approach appears to be opposed to the view of preschool as a place for school readiness and preparation embedded in teaching children reading and writing. Thus, from this standpoint, preschool teachers’ reasoning for ascribing reading and writing as the least emphasized two content areas can be considered as hesitancy in meeting the demands for a more learning-oriented preschool. These demands require adjustment of taken-for-granted beliefs, which may inhibit the development of clear goals for evolved teaching practices.

The preschool teachers’ responses included in the structural approach theme relate the subordinated position of reading and writing in their daily work to the restricting structural conditions due to the number of children in a group. This finding is consistent with previous studies suggesting that preschool teachers who work with large groups struggle to find opportunities for reading aloud and adequate time to respond when children spontaneously initiate shared book-reading (Norling, 2014; Pramling Samuelsson et al., 2015). This implies that the organizational setting, which is encompassed by decisions in the exo- and mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986), directly affects which activities children have access to and thereby their opportunities for learning.

Within the last two themes, shown to be less prominent, preschool teachers appear to work in various ways together with children to support and expand the children’s exploration of a literate word; thus, it is unexpected that reading and writing were least emphasized. One possible explanation for their ratings could be the broad description of these content areas in the curriculum. Research indicates uncertainty regarding the nature of the Swedish preschool curriculum goals, which makes it more likely that these may, at the local levels, be interpreted as goals that must be achieved (Vallberg Roth, 2014). Extant research findings indicate insufficient training of Swedish preschool teachers in the area of early literacy, which makes the literacy work in preschool complicated (Alatalo & Westlund, 2019; Alatalo et al., 2017; Lillvist et al., 2014). Nevertheless, another plausible explanation could be that the concept of “teaching” was not clarified during the period in which the present study was conducted. Teaching in preschool can be conceptualized as communicative, interactive, and relational, and understood in a social and cultural context (Williams & Sheridan, 2018). Such an approach indicates that teaching about reading and writing is not explicitly about practicing skills, but challenging children to understand the communicative function of reading, written language and the usage of symbols (Hofslundsengen et al., 2020). Indeed, how preschool teachers conceptualize literacy and their level of theoretical knowledge regarding literacy has an important impact on their considerations of teaching reading and writing in preschool either as cognitive skills or as creative, emotional, and aesthetic dimensions of literacy (Kennedy, 2013).

Limitations

Although the current study provides insights into the plurality of preschool teachers’ interpretations of curriculum intentions in the two content areas of reading and writing, several limitations must be noted. First, one concern is related to the variable CPD which is a dummy-coded variable (yes/no) and does not capture broad information on the content of continuing professional development attended by the preschool teachers. Second, the data were produced between 2012 and 2013; subsequently, the Swedish preschool curriculum was revised twice (2016, 2018), and the content area of reading and the concept of teaching in preschool were clarified and strengthened. This implies that preschool teachers’ considerations of reading and writing involved in their daily work might have changed over the past few years, which could not be captured in the present study. These considerations call for caution in interpreting and generalizing the results and, thus, further research in this area is necessary. Nevertheless, preschool teachers’ uncertainties and shortage of knowledge in these content areas remain evident, as seen in the Swedish School Inspectorate’s most recent evaluation report (2018) and research findings (Lillvist et al., 2014; Pramling Samuelsson et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2019) indicating long-lasting challenges. Third, while the analysis of the open-ended responses provided an opportunity to explore teachers’ rationales for their responses, the number of respondents was relatively limited. An additional and more profound investigation with preschool teachers is needed for an enhanced understanding of their viewpoints regarding these curriculum content areas, what they believe as potential barriers, and the support they require for curriculum implementation.

Conclusions

The main contribution of our study is the identification of preschool teachers’ various pedagogical approaches guiding their work with the curriculum content areas. Our study suggests that when viewed from a macrosystem perspective, focusing on preschool teachers’ considerations regarding how they interpret and implement curriculum goals is vital, primarily because it highlights the content areas that they least emphasized in daily practices, such as reading and writing. Drawing on a concurrent mixed-methods analytical procedure, in this study the quantitative and qualitative data sets were analyzed separately and integrated at the stage of our interpretation in the discussion (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). This approach enabled us to find areas of challenging discoveries. It also increased the likelihood of uncovering areas of divergence, such as preschool teachers’ interpretations of the content areas of reading and writing and the impact of group size on their daily work with these content areas revealed in the qualitative data that were not captured by the analysis of the quantitative measurements. This implies that the complementary use of qualitative data allowed possibilities for further insights into preschool teachers’ conceptualizations of reading and writing, which could inform professional development initiatives. Our result elucidated that the preschool teachers’ different approaches entail different conditions for children’s learning and development, which may have implications for quality variations in preschools. This is of vital importance since international research and national evaluation reports indicate large variations of the quality of literacy environments provided for children, which in turn relates to children’s equal opportunities for literacy development during their early years (Swedish School Inspectorate, 2018; Sylva et al., 2010).

It is noteworthy that the results of the descriptive analysis reveal that almost all preschool teachers in the survey have rated the content areas of language and mathematics high. This is an important finding given the investment made to enhance preschool teachers’ theoretical knowledge and didactic competence in language and mathematics in Swedish preschools in recent decades. Unfortunately, our survey does not cover information on how the preschool teachers view these content areas compared to reading and writing, as the open-ended sub-questions only addressed the least emphasized content areas. This can be an issue for further research.

Against the background that new knowledge is emerging on children’s development and learning, our study suggests the need of enhancing preschool teachers’ awareness of the importance of reading and writing as a means by which to expand children’s knowledge and meaning-making of the world around them (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). The teacher competence of knowing what and why (Sheridan et al., 2011) requires attention to the importance of self-education and a willingness to change and, hence, develop and improve pedagogical practices in line with rapidly societal changes and new scientific insights on children’s learning and development. The preschool teacher program’s learning objectives and assessment criteria in courses also need to take into account the preschool teacher's assignment, according to national goals for preschool to ensure that all children receive the education to which they are entitled. Furthermore, research on the effectiveness of preschool education programs and professional development initiatives has indicated the necessity to determine not only the content knowledge provided to preschool teachers but – more importantly – the values they place on such knowledge and the ways they can actualize their knowledge in practice (Cunningham et al., 2009; Siraj et al., 2019). In terms of the critical ecology of the preschool teaching profession, enhancing preschool teachers’ professional growth requires a systemic perspective of preschool teachers’ professional competence, thereby involving the entire ECEC system and its ability to transform teaching practices in relation to changing political and social realities and knowledge (Miller et al., 2012). From this perspective, the results of our study have implications for the design and content of preschool education programs and professional development models.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Swedish Research Council [grant number 721-2011-05535].