Editorial

‘They constantly search and sometimes they find what they are looking for’: This quotation from a participant in Banu Uslu’s study on practitioners’ perception of academicians may serve as an introduction to this issue of EECER journal. It comprises a broad range of topics, theoretical orientations, cultural perspectives and research methodologies, demonstrating the diversity of current research in the field of international early childhood education and care. The employed research methods include very different approaches, ranging from ethnographic field studies to quantitative testing of results of defined programmes. The contributions take up perspectives of children, practitioners, principals, parents, and of course those of the authors, who position themselves not only as researchers but as well as advocates of high-quality ECEC provision.

The issue opens up with two contributions on science and mathematics as learning fields in ECEC. The relevance of these fields for early learning is widely acknowledged today (Fleer and Pramling 2015; Thiel and Perry 2018). The need for qualified workers and not at least debates on the low proportion of women in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields have resulted in programmes for STEM activities already in kindergarten and preschool. However, the predominantly female teachers still rarely offer science activities in preschool (Sundberg et al. 2018), and stereotypes like ‘Science is not for girls!’ or ‘Boys are better in math!’ prevail, despite international studies showing that in early age, gender differences in these fields are inconsistent and relatively small.

Against this backdrop, programmes intended to support professional development of ECEC teachers, encouraging them to provide science activities more frequently. Julia Barenthien, Elisa Oppermann, Mirjam Steffensky and Yvonne Anders report from an evaluation study of such courses in Germany. Not surprisingly, involvement of preschool teachers in science activities for preschool children was related to their amount of professional development in this field. However, the authors also highlight the role of professional exchange within teams for the frequency of science activities, which seems to activate even team members who had not participated in specific programmes.

Tone Salomonsen and Elin Reikerås examined gender differences in the early mathematical skills of children at risk of developing mathematical difficulties. Although no gender differences were found in the total scores, a detailed analysis showed that two-thirds of the low-performing toddlers were boys – contrary to stereotypes of ‘natural’ better abilities of boys and men in mathematics. This clarifies that a detailed analysis of gender differences, with regard to age and specific contexts, is necessary to avoid gender stereotypes. Based on their results, the authors argue for the use of assessment tools for difficulties in mathematical development already in toddler age.

The following three contributions deal with important aspects of peer relations in early and middle childhood: the understanding of emotions, friendship, and the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. At least in the field of ECEC, there is growing consensus that dialogic interactions are crucial for children's learning in general, that teachers play a central role for fostering dialogue, and that this is even more true for the understanding of complex social interactions.

In a qualitative study, Jo Lunn Brownlee, Sue Walker, Laura Scholes and Eva Johansson explored children’s perspective on inclusion and exclusion of aggressive peers. By focusing on children’s growing ability to adopt multiple perspectives on social situations, they highlight relations between epistemic cognition and children’s reasoning about inclusion. Based on the results of interviews with 1st and 3rd graders, they argue that teaching practices should involve dialogic interactions, in order to move children beyond stereotypical thinking about social interactions in the school context, and as well in society in general. With a very different approach, the results of Francisco Pons, Marta Giménez-Dasi, Marie-France Daniel, Emmanuèle Auriac-Slusarczyk, Nicoletta Businaro and Karine Viana point into a similar direction. Building up on a broad review of the existing knowledge of children's understanding of emotions, a detailed quantitative analysis from samples from two countries gives clear evidence for positive impacts of a simple intervention programme. The authors highlight that the programme is ‘easy-to-use’, ‘not time-consuming’ and could be implemented ‘without a significant reorganisation of curriculum’.

Both studies highlight the social nature of children's understanding of socio-emotional factors of everyday situations and the importance of dialogue both among peers and between children and teachers in fostering such development. However, the consequences of these studies leave room for discussion. Pons et al. conclude that it is possible to support children's socio-emotional learning by implementing ‘easy-to-use’ intervention programmes in short time, without rethinking existing ECEC curriculums. In contrast to this, recent research on continuous professional development suggests that it is necessary to invest in qualification and supervision of teachers and teams, to enable them to develop a deeper understanding of children's development and a dialogic approach to children's learning (Peleman, Jensen, and Peeters 2018). A crucial aspect might be the need to deal with individual differences, where standardised programmes come to their limit. More research is needed to clarify the role of qualification and of monitoring structures for the development of professional ECEC provision, and the possibilities of standardised programmes vs. individualised approaches to children's socio-emotional learning.

The contribution of Jooeun Oh and Kyunghwa Lee adds another important aspect to this issue by taking children's perspectives into account. The authors explored friendship between children by contrasting the views of East Asian immigrant children with those of their teachers in two US preschools. The researchers point out that ECEC teachers often do not adequately notice the important role non-verbal communication plays for the development of responsivity and mutual relations between children, especially those with linguistic-minority background. They conclude that teachers should be encouraged to appreciate and nurture diverse modes of communication, instead of only relying on verbal communication skills, and should recognise the relevance of a shared native language for the development of positive peer relations.

The issue continues with several contributions on parent's perspectives. In a recent EECERJ special issue, Ute Ward and Bob Perry have stated the need to listen to parents’ voices regarding their children's early learning and development. With respect to societal and economic changes, relationships between educators and parents ‘need to be re-examined, re-thought and re-visualised on an ongoing basis’ (Ward & Perry 2018, 158). Four contributions in this issue follow this suggestion. Mesut Saçkes, Kathy Cabe Trundle and Maria Shaheen report from a quantitative study on preferences of US parents regarding different areas of learning and development in kindergarten and preschool. Their results show that different attitudes of parents mirror controversial discourses on the role of play and academic learning among practitioners and researchers. Two qualitative studies from the United Kingdom give interesting insights in consequences of recent developments of national governmental policies for the early years. Building up on an overview of different conceptions of parents’ participation, Elaine Duddy asks how parents become involved in services. By summarising key issues of parent’s participation in early year’s settings in Northern Ireland, the author highlights regional and structural factors relevant for the development of early year’s provision. The analysis of parent’s motivations shows that this is a nuanced and complex process, with bad organisation of services leading to frustration and withdraws of parents. Helen Smith's critical analysis of neo-liberal governmental policies serves as a frame for an ethnographic research in different early years settings. It is disturbing to see that a twice-weekly story and rhyme session at a public library seemed to serve the needs of parents better, compared to the ‘universal service for families’ provided by children's centres in the frame of a National programme. As Smith demonstrates, hierarchical relationships between EY professionals and the people they wish to help position parents in a deficient role, leading to paradoxical pedagogies and ineffective services. Both studies show examples of impressive mismatches of governmental EY provision with parents’ needs and expectations. Following the authors, the policy that EY services should seek to invoke ‘parents as educators’ should be seriously reconsidered.

wIn contrast and addition to these three contributions, Marianne Fenech, Andi Salamon and Tina Stratigos analyse the perspective of centre directors towards parents’ involvement. The study shows how these practitioners struggle hard for developing a professional approach in the everyday collaboration with parents, in the words of one participant: ‘It is really hard and quite a fight to get recognised for being professional people who actually know what we’re doing’. Based on their results, the authors promote a need for intentional efforts to build parents’ understanding about quality ECEC, combined with a strength-based perspective. They conclude that educators have to ‘be empowered to change the conversation with families to include an intentional focus on early learning and development and quality ECEC’. This is crucial for shifting from a conceptualisation of parents as consumers towards a partnership between educators and parents based on joint ethical and political values.

Finally, the last paper in this issue analyses how practitioners and preschool principals perceive academicians. Banu Uslu takes on a phenomenological approach using metaphors to get an in-depth understanding of participants’ views. Interestingly, although the majority of metaphors was positive, the author shows that in many responses, a traditional understanding of education is preeminent, ‘contrary to the basic principles of a constructivist and student-centred approach’ as dominant discourse in today's ECEC. Similar to the study of Smith, who highlights power hierarchies between parents and practitioners, Uslu problematises power dynamics between practitioners and academicians, eventually resulting in a break of connections of teachers with academicians after graduation. This leads to the conclusion that self-reflection of academician researchers is crucial for building cooperative relations between the worlds of practice and academia.

I close this editorial with another quotation of a participant of Uslu's research: ‘They are open to innovation and change, they do not accept everything and they question a lot’. Yes, we do. Enjoy reading!

ORCID

Tim Rohrmann http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4745-1151