New FINAL EVALUATION REPORT · 2019. 3. 7. · STRENGTHENING FOUNDATIONS OF LEARNING FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Strengthening Foundations of Learning Process Eight

Northside Partnership NS_Partnership Northside Partnership

N Ó I R Í N H A Y E S E M M A B Y R N E - M A C N A M E E T R I O N A R O O N E Y J U D Y I R W I N

F I N A L E VA L U AT I O N R E P O R T

How to cite the report:Hayes, N., MacNamee, E.,; Rooney, T. and Irwin, J. (2019) Strengthening Foundations of Learning: Final Report. Dublin: Northside Partnership/Preparing for Life

Details of publication:ISBN Number 978-1-5272-3724-7

Nóirín Hayes is Visiting Professor at the School of Education, Trinity College Dublin and Professor Emerita, Technological University, Dublin. She was the lead evaluator of Strengthening Foundations of Learning programme.

Emma Byrne-MacNamee developed and coordinated the Strengthening Foundations of Learning programme, as Early Years Programme Manager in Preparing for Life, from 2013 to 2017.

Tríona Rooney is a Senior Speech and Language Therapist with Preparing for Life [on Secondment from the Health Services Executive] and a member of the Strengthening Foundations of Learning team.

Judy Irwin was the researcher working with the Strengthening Foundations of Learning evaluation.

S T R E N G T H E N I N G F O U N D AT I O N S O F L E A R N I N G | F I N A L E VA L U AT I O N R E P O R T 3

C O N T E N T S

Acknowledgements 04

List of tables 05

List of figures 06

Executive Summary 09

Chapter 1 19

Chapter 2 29

Chapter 3 47

Chapter 4 53

Chapter 5 107

Chapter 6 115

References 120

Appendix A 125

Appendix B : Data Log 129

Appendix C 132

S T R E N G T H E N I N G F O U N D AT I O N S O F L E A R N I N G | F I N A L E VA L U AT I O N R E P O R T4

The Authors wish to note the contributions of two former SFL team members, Sandra O’Neill, Early Years Quality Mentor in Preparing for Life (2013-2016) and Vicki Monkhouse PFL Early Years and Schools Programme Officer (2016-2018), each of whose expertise and energy positively influenced the work of the SFL team, which is set out within this Report.

Noel Kelly, former Manager of PFL (2007-2016) deserves thanks for encouraging the Early Years Team in PFL to design an innovative project, which broke new ground within the Early Childhood Care and Education sector in Ireland. His vision drew vital partners to collaborate with the Programme, in particular, from the local HSE SLT team, led by Speech and Language Therapy Manager, Grace Cathcart and including Alison Armour. Both Noel and Grace gave the SFL team vital space and support to develop and deliver a meaningful programme, which would have the potential to enhance the early learning and development of young children in the Community within which Preparing for Life and HSE North Dublin are based.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

A great debt of gratitude is owed to the many individual Educators, Managers and colleagues across the eight settings which were involved in the Strengthening Foundations of Learning Programme. Without their participation, their courage, their contribution, their patience and forbearance, both the valuable work which was undertaken through SFL and the evaluation processes which have informed this Report would have been impossible.

This project was made possible through the generous support of Atlantic Philanthropies, The Health Service Executive and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Thank you to Intertrust for their corporate sponsorship which provided much needed funding to make positive changes to the environments and provide resources within the services, enhancing opportunities for learning, development and fun! The Strengthening Foundations of Learning programme developed from Preparing for Life, an evidence based, Prevention and Early Intervention Programme in North Dublin. SFL and PFL are now supported through the Area Based Childhood Programme funded by DCYA and Tusla.


L I S T O F T A B L E S

Table One: Profiles of Local ECEC Settings 32

Table Two: Participant Experiences of Training (in the Induction Phase) 54

Table Three: Aggregate Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales Results in SFL Settings 61

Table Four: Setting and teacher demographic information 77

Table Five: Changes to the learning environment by category 77

Table Six: Summary of Participant Numbers per Phase of Engagement 84

Table Seven: Participants in LLLI by Setting 89

Table Eight: Numbers of Participants in LLLI Programmes 91

Table Nine: Qualifications of Participants 91

Table Ten: Participant gender by age distribution 95

Table Eleven: Participant rating of the usefulness of the ABC and Beyond strategies 103

Table Twelve: Participant rating of the usefulness of the teaching activities 103


L I S T O F F I G U R E S

A C R O N Y M S

Figure One: Strengthening Foundations of Learning Model 20

Figure Two: Flow and Focus of the SFL Model 34

Figure Three: Aistear Strands (NCCA, 2009) 36

Figure Four: SFL Mind Map Template 39

Figure Five: Cycle 1. The process of planning and implementation of Play on Words 43

Figure Six: Team assessment of Rating of Engagement by Settings 83

Figure Seven: Attendance rates of Participants in LLLI per Setting 90

Figure Eight: Child Oriented Strategies 92

Figure Nine: Language Modelling Strategies 93

Figure Ten: Interaction Promotion Strategies 94

Figure Eleven: Gains in Language Skills over six months 96

Figure Twelve: Turns book reading into a conversation. 99

Figure Thirteen: Fostering Print Awareness 100

Figure Fourteen: Phonological Awareness 101

Figure Fifteen: Frequency of Use of Strategies 102

ABC Area Based Childhood

EYE Early Years Educator

ECEC Early Childhood Education and Care

ECI Early Childhood Ireland

ECERS Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale

NCCA National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

LLLI Learning Language and Loving it™, the Hanen® Programme for Early Years Educators.

NEYAI National Early Years Access Initiative

PEII Prevention and Early Intervention Initiative

PFL Preparing for Life

SFL Strengthening Foundations of Learning

SLT Speech and Language Therapist/Therapy



“…my job was just as important as any other

teacher’s i.e. I am an early years professional,

not just a glorified babysitter.”


Introduction:The Strengthening Foundations of Learning [SFL] project was originally conceptualised as a quality improvement programme, building on previous work undertaken by the Preparing for Life Initiative, in which early childhood services were supported through a mentoring programme, to meet quality standards. To create an identity for this new programme it was agreed to name it Strengthening Foundations of Learning [SFL]. This name captures the dual ambitions of the initiative to build the capacity and confidence of the early childhood educators [ECEs] and, through this, to create a solid base for enhancing the learning of the young children attending the early childhood settings.

The SFL Model:SFL was a collaborative, community level programme led by a dedicated team comprising a project manager, a quality mentor and a HSE seconded speech and language therapist. The programme was designed to impact on the ‘quality’ of early childhood education and care [ECEC] practices, in order to positively enhance pedagogy and the learning environment towards the broader ambition of influencing the early educational experiences of children, within the targeted communities. Located within the national curriculum framework Aistear (NCCA, 2009), this programme aimed to address and encompass both local realities and national priorities.

The team developed a pre-programme strategy to engage collaboratively with the local community and key stakeholders in order to design an implementation strategy that would fit with needs, expectations and capacity. This strategy was underpinned by six key principles:

+ Sustained Planning and Exploring

+ Iterative and Cumulative

+ Data Driven

+ Working with local resources/services

+ Informed by Policy Initiatives

+ Strengths-Based

The SFL model involved a sustained engagement with ECEC settings over a period of three years. At an early stage of planning a process of extensive consultation with potential participants was undertaken and the team set about designing an innovative, iterative Continuing Professional Development [CPD] programme. It comprises four primary components with a number of sub-elements [see Figure One]: Curriculum Foundations; Animating Aistear; Speech, Language and Communication and Effective Pedagogical Leadership [See Figure One]. The model was designed to be responsive to local capacity, building on existing strengths within the community determined by a pre-programme consultation.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Strengthening Foundations of Learning Model

The SFL Process:The quality of everyday experiences in early childhood environments has a profound influence on children’s early learning and development. Adults who are attuned, who are ‘watchfully attentive’ and who are mindful in their day-to-day practices with children can make an important and positive contribution to their learning and development. A central feature of effective ECEC relates to the quality of communication, which influences the quality of children’s communications skills, thinking and overall learning and development.

Effective professional development enhances quality practices and yield favourable outcomes particularly when CPD experiences are targeted to the needs of staff in a meaningful context. Key features common to effective programmes include:

+ The active involvement of early years practitioners

+ Locating the programme within practice

+ Availability of mentoring support during non-contact time

+ Situating the programme within a coherent curriculum framework (Peeters et al, 2014)

In keeping with international evidence the SFL model evolved from a recognised need in the community and so the evaluation had to occur in the context of programmes already underway.

StrengtheningFoundationsofLearning

Pre-ProgrammePlanning

SustainabilityPlanning

CurriculumFoundations

Speech,Language

and

CommunicationAnimatingAistear

ConsultationandDataCollection

CommunicationFriendlyEnvironm

ent

LearningEnvironment

LearningLanguage

andLovingIt(Hanen)

PlayonWords

ABCandBeyond(Hanen)

Planningand

Assessing

PedagogicalLeadership

CPD

Induction


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Strengthening Foundations of Learning Process

Eight early childhood settings were selected to participate in the programme. All were based in areas classified as ‘Disadvantaged’ or ‘Very Disadvantaged’ on the Deprivation Index (Haase and Pratschke, 2012). A decision was made to narrow the criteria for participation in the programme to staff working with children eligible for the Free Pre School Year (age 3-4 years).

The total number of individual participants who took part in one or more element of the SFL initiative was 97. Designed to run over the 3-year period of its existence January 2014 – December 2016 all elements of the programme were explicitly linked to the Aistear curriculum framework (NCCA, 2009).

9

• Locating the programme within practice

• Availability of mentoring support during non-contact time

• Situating the programme within a coherent curriculum framework (Peeters et al,

2014)

In keeping with international evidence the SFL model evolved from a recognised need in

the community and so the evaluation had to occur in the context of programmes already

underway.

Figure Two: Strengthening Foundations of Learning Process

Eight early childhood settings were selected to participate in the programme. All were based

in areas classified as ‘Disadvantaged’ or ‘Very Disadvantaged’ on the Deprivation Index

(Haase and Pratschke, 2012). A decision was made to narrow the criteria for participation

in the programme to staff working with children eligible for the Free Pre School Year (age


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Method:Evaluation Approach:

The evaluation used a blend of the formative and outcome/effectiveness approaches. It is a formative evaluation because it was conducted as this new SFL model of early childhood education CPD was being developed. In this context, formative evaluations can show whether the programme components are acceptable to the population. This is useful as it allows for modifications to be made as the process of the programme is still underway. The evaluation is also an outcome/effectiveness evaluation because it is measuring the extent to which it has impacted on the pedagogical practices and language of the participants. Such an evaluation can show the degree to which a programme is having an effect on a particular population – in this instance the early years educators. The combination of evaluation approaches allows for a deep consideration of the context within which a programme has been implemented and can provide rich explanation for impacts achieved or not.

Evaluation Instruments:

To capture the impact of all elements of the SFL programme on the eight settings the environmental quality of each setting was examined at three points [beginning, midpoint, endpoint] using the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales – Revised Edition [ECERS-R] (Harmes et al, 1998) and the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales – Extension [ECERS-E] (Sylva et al. revised edition, 2006). This was regarded as one method, which could offer an independent measure of service quality over time.

The impact of the Curriculum Foundations and Animating Aistear components on the quality of pedagogical practice was assessed through a variety of qualitative methods drawing on the data collected over the course of the SFL programme. Feedback from the participants was gathered in a variety of ways including interviews, questionnaires, evaluation sheets and team field notes.

A pre and post initiative interview was carried out with a setting participant in each of the eight settings. The interview schedule used was an adaptation of that used by Siraj-Blatchford et al (2002) in the Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years [REPEY] project.

The impact of the Speech, Language and Communication component was assessed using the Teacher Interaction and Language Scale [Girolametto et al. 2000]. This instrument provides a rating scale of 11 items relevant to appropriate language use in early years settings. The Pre-school Language Scales Fifth Edition UK (Zimmerman, Steiner & Pond (2014) was also used.

Key Findings:Several important findings emerged from the evaluation of the SFL programme. It is clear that educators’ learning went beyond amending the learning environments, or enhancing their practice and pedagogical language towards achieving, and articulating, an enhanced sense of professional identity. During the variety of training workshops, coaching and mentoring sessions, educators were enabled to consider and reflect on their role in creating, maintaining and designing the learning environment and enhancing the language and learning of the young children attending the setting. Quotes from various written sources collected over lifetime of the project demonstrate an increased awareness of personal pedagogy, professional practice and oral language development and explicitly make references to the role of planning and assessment within the context of the Aistear framework. Respondents also acknowledged the importance of realising the rights of the children, the value of consultation (within staff teams and with children), the power of reflection, individually and in groups and of reviewing and evaluating setting-wide practices. In addition, the critical role of the ECE in the oral language development of children was acknowledged and development in their communication skills and knowledge led to enhanced language practices in settings.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the purposes of this report the sources analysed comprised both quantitative and qualitative data. The findings presented below draw mainly on the quantitative data with some reference to the rich qualitative evidence available in the main body of this report.

Setting Quality:Three waves of assessment were carried out in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The scale used was the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales [ECERS] where scores are interpreted according to the following -1 (Inadequate); 2; 3 (Minimal); 4; 5 (Good); 6; 7 (Excellent). The intention was to monitor changes in

Setting Quality

the quality of the early learning environments. The aggregate score for each setting across each of the three waves is outlined in Table One below:

Two settings (Setting D and Setting E) showed consistent improvement in their mean quality rating over time. Settings A, C and H showed a decline in their overall rating score with Setting A moving from an above Minimal rating at Wave1 to below Minimal at wave 3. Settings B and G declined slightly in Wave 2 and an overall (if slight) improvement by Wave 3. Setting C showed quality rating improvement at Wave 2, which declined at Wave 3, while Setting H showed a decline in Wave 2 and disengaged from the project around this time also.

12

according to the following -1 (Inadequate); 2; 3 (Minimal); 4; 5 (Good); 6; 7 (Excellent).

The intention was to monitor changes in the quality of the early learning environments. The

aggregate score for each setting across each of the three waves is outlined in Table One

below:

Table One: Setting Quality

Mean Wave 1 Mean Wave 2 Mean Wave 3

Setting A 3.9 2.9 2.8

Setting B

3.3 3.1 4.4

Setting C 3.7 3.5 3.3

Setting D

2.6 3.1 3.6

Setting E

3.9 5.2 5.3

Setting F

3.2 2.9 3.3

Setting G

3.8 3.4 4.1

Setting H

3.6 3.1 Disengaged

Two settings (Setting D and Setting E) showed consistent improvement in their mean

quality rating over time. Settings A, C and H showed a decline in their overall rating score

with Setting A moving from an above Minimal rating at Wave1 to below Minimal at wave

3. Settings B and G declined slightly in Wave 2 and an overall (if slight) improvement by

Wave 3. Setting C showed quality rating improvement at Wave 2, which declined at Wave

3, while Setting H showed a decline in Wave 2 and disengaged from the project around this

time also.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Curriculum Foundations:In the final stages of the Curriculum Foundations element, participants were asked to work in their setting groups to combine a visual representation of their agreed ideals and objectives and, using their own words, to describe the key elements of their setting curriculum and the outcomes they foresee for children. The work from each setting was then combined to produce a setting-specific ‘Curriculum Statement’.

Towards the end of the overall SFL initiative, project participants were invited to review their first Curriculum Statements and, in the light of the learning over the course of the project to make any alterations they felt necessary. Examples of before and after Curriculum Statements show evidence of enhanced understanding of the importance of Aistear and explicitly locate these more complex understandings within the second statement. Some also include a celebration of the children and developed more welcoming and inclusive Curriculum Statements than the original ones.

Animating Aistear:Learning Environment:

Drawing on feedback questionnaires on this element of Animating Aistear component respondents identified that the most useful knowledge/experience gained was their enhanced understanding and implementation of Aistear and its themes (n=30) followed by changes to the setting (n=6), sharing ideas with other early years groups (n=3) as well as the presentations, meetings, and cluster groups (n=6). Many of the answers given overlapped or intersected. Two settings in particular spent time discussing the children’s role in the change process and how they could be involved in decisions that would affect them. At a three-month review of this element findings indicated that the changes to settings had led to increased learning opportunities for the children especially in relation to imaginary play, both indoors and outdoors.

Planning and Assessment:

Over the course of the implementation period the SFL Team classified the level of engagement by individual settings at yearly intervals, according to the quality of involvement experienced by the team during the relevant timeframe. Level 1 indicates superficial engagement; Level 2, some meaningful engagement and Level 3 indicates full engagement.

The majority of settings (six out of eight) were somewhat meaningfully engaged in the first phase of the project (at Level 2), with two settings struggling in the earliest phase. By the following year (2014), one setting had reached full engagement, while five others had improved or maintained their level of engagement and two had decreased their level from 2 to 1. By 2015, all remaining settings (7 out of the original 8) were engaging well. 2016 emerged as the most engaged year for the majority of settings, with two settings (A and F) showing limited engagement.

The eight settings were interviewed at pre-programme stage [T1], however only seven were usable in the thematic analysis. Six post-programme completed interviews were analysed with room leader [T2]. In aggregate the T2 interview data indicated a notable shift in the complexity and focus of the answers reflecting a growing familiarity with the pedagogical language of early childhood practice. At T2 the impact of the SFL programme was evident in the reflective answers gathered as exemplified by the quote below in response to the question on using scrapbooks/learning portfolios as a form of documenting learning:

“Yes, we do. The kids take them home, they don’t tell us, but they take them home, they just own them, they are in shreds some of them, but they absolutely love them. Mammy’s and Daddy’s love them and they see what we do with them and say, “oh you do that with them, I didn’t realise you did that … So, the old observations they didn’t, they were very boring, but the picture tells a story …… the great thing about the book is that you can go back to it and even for dates because you are working fast on them at the time, so we do go back. We just went back on it at a staff meeting on Friday, so the staff went back and done their links.”


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Respondents were also aware of the challenges in applying their learning and utilising the possibilities of the Aistear framework to full effect. There was particular concern expressed about the absence of any non-contact time within their contract for reflection and review.

(i) Speech, language and communication:

To assess the impact of Learning Language and Loving It the Teacher Interaction and Language Rating Scale (TILRS) (Girolametto, Weitzman, & Greenberg, 2000) was used. Data was collected at 4 different time points and compared to a baseline [Time 1] of how consistently the participants were using the interaction and language-prompting strategies prior to the programme. Data was collected under a number of headings and statistical analysis was carried out to measure change over time.

Under the Child Oriented Strategies analysis showed that, for all 38 participants, each item was statistically different from the Time 1 measure at all the other 3 Time Points.

The Language Modelling Strategies analysis found some variation across strategies with some, such as Extend, improving significantly while others, such as Use a Variety of Labels or Expand, showed positive trends over time. For Interaction Promoting Strategies analysis found an increase over time with a slight decrease in use over time in evidence of Variety of Questions and Scan strategies.

The ABC and Beyond™ element of the Hanen Programme was assessed under three sections - Turns book reading into a conversation; Fosters print knowledge and Builds phonological awareness. Completed data analysis was available for 12 of the original 22 participants at the conclusion of the evaluation and findings show that there was an improvement in the frequency of use of all strategies assessed.

A small pilot study, Play on Words, was developed by the SFL speech and language therapist and carried out with a small number of staff and settings towards the end of the programme. 24 children were assessed using the Pre-school Language Scales (Zimmerman, Steiner & Pond (2014). Initial assessments indicated small gains in language skills over the period of six months with significantly more children achieving language skills in the average range. In addition, the Early Childhood Educators were trained to use the Early Communication and Language Rating Scale from the National Strategies in the UK to rate language skills in children. Feedback from ECEs was that the rating scale was easy to administer, did not take very long and was useful for them to recognise children at risk of delay.

(ii) Effective pedagogical leadership:

Participant feedback on completion of the final element of the Animating Aistear component indicated that participants found the Workshops very valuable and reported feeling “empowered” and “supported” as well as “challenged”.

Their feedback on the individual visits was universally positive, with all participants articulating the benefits of having a “safe space” to be “solution focused” as well as expressing their belief that connecting to the Workshop content through follow up mentoring visits enhanced the “effectiveness of the input”. All participants expressed the need for “further follow-up” and an interest in being part of a “Leadership Network”. Further feedback, which was sought from participants in mid-2018 has emphasised the importance of the CPD. Over 80% of respondents found the opportunity for reflection and self-assessment to be the most beneficial aspect of this element, followed by the opportunity to meet other managers (67%) and engage with relevant research and content related to current policy and practice (50%). Most respondents indicated that the positive impact had been sustained and sometimes improved. Where the positive impact has not been sustained, this was described as “due to a lot of issues arising beyond our control”.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conclusion and Key Recommendations:The SFL model was designed to take account of the current evidence relating to the most effective CPD approaches in ECEC professional development. It was collaborative from the beginning, facilitating the active engagement of the early childhood educators throughout; the programme was located locally at both community and individual setting level, the project facilitated the participants in the timing of the workshops and the mentoring visits and all components of the SFL programme were located within the national curriculum framework – Aistear. In addition, the programme was designed to balance both the theoretical and practical elements of each component, guide participants through the links between the underpinning concepts of Aistear and their daily practices and identifying key leadership figures to assist in sustaining the gains made.

The key recommendations emerging from the evaluation are presented under the broad headings of Professional Development; Networking; Collaborative Practice; Policy; Research and Mainstreaming.

Professional Development:

In this study we found a positive relationship between management engagement, maintained uptake of the components of the SFL programme and improvements in pedagogical practice and language. In order to gain the maximum benefit from an intensive, integrated and community linked CPD programme such as SFL it is recommended that:

(i) Setting managers make a firm commitment to supporting staff in their ongoing engagement with the programme over its lifetime.

The extensive attention given to strengthening the language skills and strategies of the early childhood educators proved a very valuable component of the SFL model. Linking the emphasis on oral language development to the Aistear framework and the Animating Aistear component was particularly useful

as it reinforced learning from one component through the other. Including the whole team in the workshops across both components was also a crucial aspect of the programme. It is recommended that:

(ii) The whole team should be included in the planning, design and implementation of the workshops across all components of the SFL programme to give the project a clear and coherent identity.

Networking

A significant and recurring theme in feedback from participants at all stages, relates to the positive experiences they derive from interaction between settings, which appears to take place on a limited basis, if at all, in normal circumstances. For community level CPDs such as the SFL model it is recommended that:

(iii) Networking opportunities, visits and exchanges are facilitated, in order to maintain relationships between early years settings. Such a network, in addition to supporting local ECEs in their practice, would also act as a locus for building on and strengthening connections across the community.

Collaborative Practice:The SFL programme offers a valuable demonstration of the potential for collaboration between community [SFL and settings] and statutory agencies [the HSE] to improve both effectiveness and impact of work with children and families, within particular communities. Providing practitioner training and on-site coaching through the speech, language and communication component enabled more parental involvement and room-based intervention, leading to further improvements in the interaction skills of practitioners and enhanced oral language development in children. It is recommended that:


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(iv) HSE Speech and Language Therapy teams and management should receive information and presentations on the SFL project, to promote awareness of the effectiveness of directly resourcing the promotion of speech, language and communication skills and strategies among practitioners in early years settings within the context of the Aistear framework.

Policy Issues:

The experience of delivering the SFL model has highlighted a broader need which has been consistently identified within the ECEC sector in Ireland, for there to be increased opportunities for non-contact time to enable reflection and review within settings, in order for implementation of new learning across and within teams to impact on practice at all levels. The SFL model was designed and delivered during a period of intense policy activity, arising mainly from changing legislative, funding and qualification requirements. Such ‘competing priorities’ illustrate a substantial risk that the national quality agenda may actually displace beneficial interventions at local level. It is recommended that:

(v) Strategies be put in place to limit the impact of ECEC policy changes during the academic year to allow sustained CPD programmes to run their course:

(vi) Separate hours to be allocated to continuing professional development activities, such as SFL within funded working hours of Early Childhood Educators as a central quality enhancement initiative.

Research:

There has been a growth in attention at both policy and local level to the potential and development of CPD initiatives with a view to enhancing quality practice in early childhood settings. It is recommended that:

(vii) Specific research be supported, to explore if and how current national and local mentoring and support initiatives are addressing the professional development of staff in community ECEC services.

Mainstreaming:

In light of the promising findings from the evaluation of the SFL model and its potential for continued impact in the locality it is recommends that:

(viii) All the relevant materials and resources developed by the SFL team should be comprehensively collated and edited, in order to allow for and inform the design and development of SFL Programme Manuals.

To sustain the impact of the speech, language and communication component of the SFL model it is recommended that:

(ix) Sustainability be addressed by identifying and supporting volunteer practitioners who have completed the SFL programme, to continue to promote speech, language and communication within their setting, acting as Communication Champions.

In conclusion, the findings from this evaluation of the SFL model of CPD indicate that a collaborative community level programme, designed to link theory and practice through workshops and mentoring, sustained across an extended period of time, located within a clear curriculum framework and led by a small but expert team can have a visible and measurable impact on the pedagogical practice and language skills of early childhood educators and the early learning environments of the children with whom they work.

Making us more aware of how we interact with

the children on a daily basis and implementing

Aistear. Aistear is no longer just a word!


IntroductionThe Strengthening Foundations of Learning [SFL] project was originally conceptualised as a quality improvement programme, which was intended to build on previous work undertaken by the Preparing for Life Initiative, in which Early Childhood services were supported through a mentoring programme, to meet quality standards. At an early stage of planning for the new phase of engagement, through a process of extensive consultation with potential participants, the team set about designing an innovative, iterative Continuing Professional Development [CPD] programme. Located within the national curriculum framework Aistear (NCCA, 2009), this programme aimed to address and encompass both local realities and national priorities. The SFL project was delivered in key stages from early 2014 for a period of over three years, involving over 90 individual Early Childhood Educators [ECEs] across eight Community settings, with the central aim of improving practice in the critical areas of curriculum, communication and continuity, to enhance the early experiences of children in one of the most socio-economically disadvantaged communities in Ireland.

Some of the methodologies employed were framed around approaches based on the tenets of Implementation Science, which were already being utilised in PFL’s work, whereas additional elements drew on learning from other programmes including others funded through the National Early Years Access Initiative (NEYAI). The team was able to utilise an existing positive relationship with the local HSE Speech and Language team, which had already developed a vision for a collaborative arrangement, allowing for the secondment of a Senior HSE Speech and Language Therapist to work within the SFL team, to co-deliver training and mentoring for Early Childhood Educators, to improve and enhance oral language development among children, across the Community.

In line with international research into effective CPD programmes in early childhood education and care the SFL model involved a sustained engagement with ECEC settings over a period of three years. It comprises four primary components with a number of sub- elements [see Figure One below] and is responsive to local capacity, building on existing strengths within the community determined by apre-programme consultation.

CHAPTER 1


Figure One: Strengthening Foundations of Learning Model

The starting point for the programme itself is the Curriculum Foundations stage, which consolidates a shared understanding of the principles of Aistear, which aims to enrich and enhance early childhood pedagogy in Ireland. This component is followed by the Animating Aistear component, a carefully designed progression from a concrete and structural focus on early learning environments towards more abstract and conceptual attention to dimensions of pedagogy grounded in the four strands of Aistear – Wellbeing, Identity and Belonging, Communicating and Exploring and Thinking. This element foregrounds the important role of the adult and highlights the importance of play and assessment in guiding ECEC planning and practice. The third component of the SFL model, which is provided in parallel and linked to Animating Aistear is Speech, Language and Communication. Drawing on the Hanen Learning Language and Loving It programme

this component has been designed to progress from concrete skill development in early childhood educators towards a more abstract, pedagogical understanding of oral language development. The final component of SFL which is central to supporting and sustaining the improvements in pedagogical practice and language accrued over the course of the programme, is a specific CPD module focusing on Effective Pedagogical Leadership, which was designed by the SFL team for managers and senior early childhood educators and certified by the School of Education, Trinity College Dublin.

The SFL programme was delivered by a small team of three specialists in early education all of whom developed a deep understanding of the Aistear framework and an understanding of local realities and national policy expectations. The team worked together as a unit reflecting on and adapting to feedback from participants and their

CHAPTER 1

StrengtheningFoundationsofLearning

Pre-ProgrammePlanning

SustainabilityPlanning

CurriculumFoundations

Speech,Language

and

CommunicationAnimatingAistear

ConsultationandDataCollection

CommunicationFriendlyEnvironm

ent

LearningEnvironment

LearningLanguage

andLovingIt(Hanen)

PlayonWords

ABCandBeyond(Hanen)

Planningand

Assessing

PedagogicalLeadership

CPD

Induction


own observations. Members of the team contributed their own unique expertise in management and leadership, quality early childhood pedagogy and speech, language and communication. Working together as a unit each member contributed to differing degrees, to each of the SFL components. This small but robust team gave an identity and stability to the SFL programme, which contributed to its visibility and impact within the local early childhood community of practice.1

While it proved challenging to design and carry out an evaluation of how such an iterative and dynamic CPD programme impacted on the pedagogical practice and language of participants, the evidence suggests that the SFL model is both effective and cost-effective. Furthermore, data which has been generated through the various stages of the project offers unique insights into wider processes and experiences which impact indirectly on early childhood settings and staff, providing a useful overview of the challenges and barriers to achieving ‘quality improvement’ within early childhood services, in a real-world setting.

Early Childhood Education and CareThere is a significant body of international research which associates the quality of Early Childhood Education and Care [ECEC]2 and its effectiveness with the quality of the early years educators (Woodhead, 1996; Melhuish et al, 1999; Sylva, Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., et al., 2004; Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., et al., 2012; OECD 2014). High quality early learning opportunities result in positive effects for children (DES, 1999, p.43; Blau et al., 2000; NICHD, 2000; Burchinal et al., 2010) and children in low income families appear to benefit most (Burchinal et al., 2000; Duncan et al., 2003; Gormley, 2007; Dearing et al., 2009).

In contrast, negative effects or no positive effects have been shown for children living in poverty, whose only access is to poor, or low-quality centre-based ECEC (Vortruba-Drzal et al., 2004; Loeb et al., 2004; Vandell et al., 1990; NICHD, 1997). Therefore, it appears to be a logical first step in the development of an intervention aimed at creating better outcomes for children, to seek to ensure the quality of Early Childhood Care and Education, which is available to such children. Nationally the publication of Síolta, the national quality framework (CECDE, 2006) and Aistear, the early childhood curriculum framework (NCCA, 2009) provides a clear policy focus for such interventions. This was further strengthened by the introduction, in 2010, of the Free Pre School Year.

Drawing on the highly respected UK longitudinal study Effective Preschool and Primary Education [EPPE] (Sylva et al) and Melhuish (2010 - Ghent and Dublin presentations) identified five features of effective preschools:

+ Quality of the adult-child verbal interactions

+ Knowledge and understanding of the curriculum

+ Knowledge of how young children learn

+ Adult skill in supporting children resolving conflicts

+ Helping parents to support children’s learning at home.

Research evidence highlights the key role played by the adults in early childhood settings and their impact on the quality of the provision, the learning experiences of the children and later child outcomes. The EPPE project has shown that in terms of long-term academic and social impact, all young children from age 2 benefit from high quality preschool3. Furthermore, Sylva and colleagues (2004) have shown that those children coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from quality preschool. A key finding on the impact of preschool on a child’s life chances is that teaching

2 The term ECEC is used throughout this report and follows to OECD definition where ECEC applies to those early years services for children under the compulsory school age of six years. It incorporates early years settings including childminding, crèche/nursery settings, preschool and the infant classes of the primary school.

3 Where the term ‘preschool’ is used it reflects the language of the research referred to.

CHAPTER 1


quality particularly matters. High quality, pre-school education for children at age three and four has a positive effect on a child’s skills, especially on enhancing the abilities of the poorest children. We also know that the higher the quality of this provision, the longer its impact can be seen on a poor child’s education trajectory (Sylva et al., 2012:71). Furthermore, the time spent in preschool also matters and the benefits of high quality preschool can protect children from the consequences of attending a low effective school.

The provision of ECEC is evolving nationally and internationally with the consequent need for the professional development of the sector. The quality of everyday experiences in early childhood environments has a profound influence on children’s early learning and development. Young children are neither mere recipients of knowledge nor consumers of a service. They are active and agentic learners deeply influenced, individually and collectively, by their early years experiences. Adults4 who are attuned, who are ‘watchfully attentive’ and who are mindful in their day-to-day practices with children can make an important and positive contribute to their learning and development.

Early years practice is a process that is happening in early years settings every day; it is the curriculum made visible – even where the curriculum may not be readily definable. Early years settings are complex learning environments with many overlapping interactions between children, adults, materials and ideas. Children are influenced by these interactions and also by the beliefs others have about how and what they should learn. Based on their beliefs about development and their expectations, adults select and provide experiences they believe are important for children and will prepare children for their future and so are particularly influential to the development and learning of young children.

Adults also play a key role in providing a language rich environment where young children’s oral language skills have the opportunity to develop and expand. Creating such environments depends on the training of their educators (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 2002). Empirical studies have shown positive short- and long-term outcomes from children’s participation in high quality child care and early education settings, in which children experience responsive and cognitively stimulating interactions with adults (Weitzman et al, 2006). Studies suggest that, in early childhood settings the educators often talk to children in a directive and unresponsive way (Girolametto, Hoaken, van Lieshout & Weitzman, 2000; Girolametto, Weitzman & van Lieshout, 2000) and that they spend little or no time working closely in small group activities, which provide opportunities for increased adult-child interaction (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Smith, 2001).

Where there may be concerns about the language development of young children setting- based Speech, Language and Communication support can contribute to ensuring that children’s speech and language needs were treated early and intensively. This has been shown in international research studies to be a protective factor in children’s lives in both the immediate and long term (Adams and Lloyd, 2007; Gray, 2004; Jones et al, 2005). Locke et al (2002) found that over half of the disadvantaged pre-school children in their study had a language delay compared with the UK prevalence rates of 5% (Law et al, 2002). Research also indicates that early speech and language difficulties have a long-term negative impact on children’s literacy and learning (Conti-Ramsden et al, 2001; Leitao and Fletcher, 2004). In addition, speech and language difficulties can have negative social ramifications in the short and long term (Clegg et al, 1999; Gallagher et al, 2000; Knox, 2002; Snowling et al, 2001). Moreover, the long-term effects of speech and language difficulties are much greater when difficulties are not resolved by the time a child attends primary school (Bishop and Adams, 1990).

4 In this report the term early years educator is used to refer to those adults working directly with young children in early childhood settings. The term educator is used in preference to the more widely used term practitioner as it foregrounds the educational and pedagogical nature of early childhood practice (Gambetti, 2010; French, 2013)

CHAPTER 1


In her review of research and practice, Rafferty (2014), describes universal services as ‘services for all children that are provided by lots of people in the child’s life and are aimed at increasing exposure to language learning opportunities which are a good ‘fit’ for the child’ [p. 18]. The Broomfield model (Broomfield, 2013) defined Speech and Language intervention in three tiers based on the needs of children, namely universal, targeted and specialist. While traditional interventions took place in a clinic (Rafferty, 2014), out of the child’s natural environment, a universal approach recognises the communication environment of home and early years and builds on the capacity of the important people in a young child’s life, empowering them to interact with children in a positive and language stimulating way.

There is a tradition of Speech and Language Therapists working in education settings in the UK for many years. Policy changes within the educational system (Every Child a Talker, 2008) resulted in a range of programmes designed to encourage language development in children. Results from a study of such a programme by Dockerell, Stuart and King (2010) show regular evidence-based oral language interactions can make significant improvements in children’s oral language. Speech and Language Therapy provision in Ireland traditionally takes place in a clinic setting and is aligned with statutory health services (Smith and McNally, 2013; Rafferty, 2014)).

In recent years, programmes led by Speech and Language Therapists, which provide training, mentoring or coaching in areas of disadvantage have shown gains in terms of skills developed by ECEs and gains in terms of children’s language. These include coaching and language enrichment groups such as National Early Years Access Initiative (NEYAI) projects including “let them talk” (French, 2014) and Happy Talk (2014) and programmes with funding under the Prevention and Early Intervention Network in Dublin including the Child Development Initiative (Hayes, et al., 2013). Fahey and Rockett (2013) also documented their use of LLLI in Waterford. By January 2016 there were 14 speech and language therapists working in seven community sites around the country reflecting the recognition of the need for Speech and Language Therapists [SLT] to work directly in educational settings

in areas of disadvantage. The role of early childhood educators is also recognised as important to young children’s oral language development and the Aistear framework provides a useful guide to encouraging language development in young children through quality pedagogical practices in early learning environments that encourage and support conversation, questioning and dialogue (Shiel, et al., 2012; Hayes, 2013; Hayes et al., 2016).

Researchers tell us that the quality of a child’s early years experiences are crucial for overall learning and development and can have a profound impact on later life success. The quality of experiences depends on a number of factors and one of the central influencing factors is the style and content of the day-to-day practice of the early years educators (Hayes, 2013). We also know that if practice is to be effective in supporting learning and development it must be informed by theory; that is educators must know what they do and why they do it. The most effective practices are those, which are guided by clearly understood principles and informed by a solid understanding of learning and development. It is, therefore, important that early years educators feel confident in discussing and reflecting on the principles of their practice, their pedagogy. However, international research suggests that adults working in the early years are not confident in talking about their practice or about analysing and critically evaluating the impact of their practice on the young children they work with. In a study of pedagogical effectiveness in early learning Moyles and her colleagues (2002) noted that early years educators were reluctant to engage in pedagogical discussions and found it difficult to articulate or describe in any detail the specifics of their practice that were important to them or the values, beliefs and principles underpinning their practice.

They also found that ‘[W]hilst principles [beliefs and values] underpinning practice were evident in ... documentation ... they appear to be the least well-developed area of practitioners’ knowledge and understanding. Provision of materials tends to dominate activities’ [p.131]. It seems that doing early years practice is often easier than describing or discussing practice.

CHAPTER 1


While the Moyles study found that the ability to articulate and reflect on practice was related to the level of training it also found that this ability was linked to the ‘ethos within settings, which positively promotes self-evaluation and reflection and adopts strategies for developing these’ [p.130]. This suggests that leadership and teamwork are important to sustaining and enhancing the quality of practice in early years settings. We know from research that purposeful teaching and learning occurs when practitioners’ own understanding and knowledge informs their practice. Siraj-Blatchford et al (2002) emphasise the need for early years educators to have not only the knowledge, but also the confidence, to encourage and build on children’s learning in specific content areas. The OECD (2004), in reviewing a number of effective models of ECEC observed that ‘… higher level skills in the early childhood workforce can lead to deeper confidence in using creative approaches in the setting, which are fundamental to children’s well-being and learning (p:28).

A central feature of effective ECEC relates to the quality of communication, which influences the quality of children’s communications skills, thinking and overall learning and development. For instance, in activities where both the child and the adult are jointly attending to the activity, where joint attention is ‘an encounter between two individuals in which the participants pay joint attention to, and jointly act on some external topic’ [Schaffer, 1992:101] children’s language development is enhanced. Joint activity of this sort is recognised as a valuable site for learning in the early years. Siraj-Blatchford and her colleagues, in studying quality joint activity between early years practitioners and children identified ‘sustained, shared thinking’ as having a particularly powerful impact on children’s development and learning. The term ‘sustained shared thinking’ captures the idea of time being important to the process, time being given to engage meaningfully in the joint activity. It is characterised as ‘an effective pedagogic interaction where two or more individuals ‘work together’ in an intellectual way to solve a problem, clarify a concept, evaluate activities or extend a narrative [Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2006: 7].

Therefore, communication that takes place to facilitate sustained shared thinking, the questioning, the adapting, the negotiation, enhance the development of the executive functions which form the basis for positive learning and enhance the dispositions to learn within children. Clear and attuned communication that is respectful in both directions thus offers a fertile space for the development and refinement of vital executive functions.

Continuing Professional Development:

Developing effective professional development support for ECEs has been recognised as an effective strategy for enhancing early years practice, enriching quality and enhancing child outcomes (ECI conference, April 2018). Research supports the effectiveness of iterative approaches in the design of professional development initiative, as they are most likely to succeed when perceived as responsive to the needs of the early childhood educators and realistically doable (Diamond and Powell, 2011). Oberhuemer (2013), reflecting on the value of sustained professional development in ECEC calls for national investment in meeting the entitlement of those working with young children to on-going professional development. She argues that such initiatives should encourage critical reflective practice towards an enhanced pedagogy, which would contribute to stable, quality early learning environments to the benefit of children, families, the profession and society at large.

Research identifies teachers’ professional qualifications as one of the core issues in quality ECEC (OECD, 2006, 2012) and evidences the need for ongoing in-service professional development as a key strategy to promote quality ECEC (Peeters et al, 2014; Vandenbroeck et al, 2016). Effective professional development has been found to yield favourable outcomes more frequently when Continuing Professional Development [CPD] experiences are targeted to the needs of staff in a meaningful context (Mitchell & Cubey 2003).

CHAPTER 1


A recent systematic review of CPD in ECEC (Peeters et al. 2014) identified key features common to effective programmes including:

+ Actively involving early years practitioners

+ Locating the programme within practice

+ Availability of mentoring support in non-contact time

+ Situating the programme within a coherent curriculum framework

In addition, the study found that the creation of reflection groups or networks from those attending CPD helped sustain the learning and ensured that changes in practice were maintained.

Similarly, Bove et al. (2018) characterised successful CPD in terms of four interacting and integrated elements:

+ The social dimension of CPD is a strengthening component;

+ Dynamic learning processes enhance the integration of theory and practice;

+ Key leadership figures help sustain the quality of CPD

+ Different measurements of CPD impact, outcomes and sustainability assist in understanding what is most valuable to local situations.

Research consistently finds that implementing high quality CPD promotes learning that augments the qualifications of those working in ECEC and is an essential component of structural quality which enhances overall quality, (Slot, Leseman, Verhagen, & Mulder, 2015) and supports further evidence of the correlation between teacher qualification levels and rich learning environments that provide pedagogical stimulation for children. However, qualifications alone are not enough: the content, form and characteristics of CPD also matter (Fukkink & Lont, 2007).

Three necessary elements for successful CPD derive from a Eurofound report (2015) -

First, the CPD intervention must be embedded in a coherent pedagogical framework or curriculum that builds upon research and addresses local needs. Second, practitioners must be actively involved in the process of improving educational practice in ECEC settings. And third, CPD needs to focus on practitioners learning in practice, in dialogue with colleagues and parents: therefore, a mentor or coach must be available during the non‐contact hours of ECEC staff’ (Molinuevo & Ahrendt, 2015:59).

Also important is relevance to the perceived professional needs, with CPD rooted in context to encourage changes in practice and enhance professional learning with ongoing support through mentoring and coaching within a respectful collegial manner. Bove et al (2018) also noted the value to effective CPD, of preschool-university partnerships and research-based initiatives.

A review of an intensive two-year CPD programme for publicly-funded preschools in Chile identified the importance of collaborating with early years educators and found that combining didactic and coaching supports on a weekly basis across two years resulted in a positive impact on ECEC practice and the organisation of the learning environment, but only limited impact on later child outcomes (Yoshikawa et al, 2015). These findings support research findings from Ireland (Hayes et al, 2013) and the more general findings of Burchinal and colleagues (2010) that the association between classroom quality and child outcomes is generally small in magnitude.

Features of promising approaches to CPD include collaboration between ECEs and mentoring in communities of practice (Gersten et al., 2010; Diamond and Powell, 2011), individualised supports to settings and staff groups through coaching or mentoring sessions to implement specific curricular frameworks (Justice et al., 2008; Lieber et al., 2009) or pedagogical approaches (NCCA, 2009). These findings support the observation made by Fleer that ‘…meaning in communities of practice is possible

CHAPTER 1


only when ideas are jointly understood and enacted within a particular community. Meaning does not reside in an individual or even in printed matter, but, rather, meaning exists through a dynamic process of living in the world. Early childhood curriculum cannot exist unless a community gives it meaning and brings it into existence (2003:76). The Strengthening Foundations of Learning [SFL] project that is the subject of this report drew on these themes and findings, in both programme design and development of delivery mechanisms.

In their article on iterative professional development in early childhood Diamond and Powell (2011) note that early educators ‘often reminded us that we were asking them to do “one more thing” … adhering to multiple components of a PD intervention was … challenging’ (p.90). They also quote Chien et al (2010) who, commenting on the situation in the US note that ‘as pressure from federal and state mandates

increase, and school districts increase demands for school-ready children, pre-kindergarten teachers are asked to do increasingly more’ (p. 1547).

The current Irish situation reflects these international findings. The period of time during which the SFL initiative was implemented was one of multiple developments and changes within the ECEC sector and this impacted directly on the capacity and availability of ECEC settings to engage with mentoring and training components.

National initiatives placed increased demands on staff to achieve certification to meet the terms of funding and regulatory requirements. This reminds us of the importance of engaging openly and respectfully with ECEs to recognise the challenges they face in balancing their time commitments to CPD with the realities of their day-to-day practice and the other external demands on their time and helps us appreciate what is realistically achievable and what may be unrealistic. It also provides a useful context for consideration of key issues such as how to sustain quality improvement over time.

CHAPTER 1


CHAPTER 1


In terms of Aistear, I think the best learning we had was actually the sessions where we went in and sat down and actually learned as a group and as a team and mixed with others”


Strengthening Foundations of Learning [SFL]: a community-based model of CPDThe Strengthening Foundations of Learning CPD initiative is part of the larger Preparing for Life (PFL) programme, which is a Prevention and Early Intervention project, located on the North side of Dublin City. The Prevention and Early Intervention Initiative [PEII] was originally established in 2007, as a partnership between the Irish Government and the Atlantic Philanthropies, to support projects in three areas of socio-economic disadvantage in Dublin, which included a specific area within the broader Northside Partnership catchment. The Prevention and Early Intervention Initiative (PEII) has supported a diverse range of approaches addressing a number of areas relevant to child development, including parenting initiatives, childhood learning and development, health and behaviour, drawing on evidence from a variety of intervention strategies shown to offer the most benefits to children growing up in disadvantaged communities (Heckman, 2011) and designed to harness the emergent principles of implementation science. The three main projects, which were originally funded under the PEII have all been subjected to evaluation to determine the effectiveness of their approaches on improving outcomes for children (McAvoy et al, 2013: v). These have encompassed both outcome and process evaluations, and include randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and qualitative approaches. The final results of the five-year evaluation of the PFL Home Visiting programme, which were published in 2016, provide a sound rationale for the continuation and extension of this

parenting support model. Since 2013, Preparing for Life has operated with funding from the Area Based Childhood Initiative (2013-2017) and it is within this context that the SFL programme was designed and delivered, to enrich early learning experiences for children within the communities of the PFL Initiative.

As well as the original home visiting programme PFL now comprises a number of interrelated elements, including antenatal care and education for parents; training and mentoring for early childhood educators and primary school teachers. The core focus is on improving children’s lives and supporting their educational attainment in an urban community, where the life trajectories of young people may be constrained by issues such as economic hardship and educational attainment5. The overall PFL initiative is being evaluated to monitor the impact of the various components on the participating children and families. However, the SFL programme as a unit is not included in this evaluation.

Research in PFL’s geographical area, which was conducted among children at school-entry to provide the rationale for the original Home Visiting programme, demonstrated significant gaps in social competence, language and cognitive development (UCD Geary Institute, 2013 p 80-81). This provides further justification for striving to enrich pedagogical practice among early childhood educators, so that children attending community settings will have opportunities to participate in valuable, formative experiences, facilitated by skilled, responsive educators, developing positive dispositions (Carr, 2009), through which further learning is fostered. The overarching vision of the original SFL team was that increasing staff effectiveness to communicate

CHAPTER 2

5 12% of children born in the researched area reach third-level education, which is less than a quarter of the national average; over two-fifths of children leave school at or before age 15, compared with less than one-fifth nationwide.


and interact with young children in a shared and sustainable manner (Sheridan et al., 2009), would impact positively on their early development and lead to better outcomes in later life.

Context:In the PFL programme area there are a number of early years settings attended by children participating in the universal Free Preschool Year [FPSY]. To complement the Home Visiting programme (from 2009), it was decided to employ a coordinator who engaged with eleven early childhood settings to support their participation in the Síolta Quality Assurance process [QAP] (CECDE, 2006), with some success. However, when ABC funding later became available in 2013, a decision was made to design a new early years component as a CPD initiative, to seek to more directly impact on the quality of practice of Early Childhood Educators [ECEs] so that staff would:

+ Engage with children as active, unique and competent participants in their early education;

+ Improve their curriculum by using Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, to create enriching experiences for children

+ Develop reflective quality practice

+ Actively promote language development among children

+ Make children’s learning visible to parents

+ Facilitate a smooth transition to school

The expectation was that through offering support mechanisms such as training workshops and on-site mentoring, the quality of the learning environment within local settings would improve, the pedagogical practice and understanding of the staff would be enhanced and, as a result, children’s early learning experiences would: enrich their oral language; develop their social skills and increase their potential for further learning.

The SFL initiative:In keeping with international evidence (Peeters et al, 2014; Yoshikawa et al, 2015; Vandenbroeck et al, 2016; Bove et al, 2018) the CPD programme evolved from a recognised need in the community and so the evaluation had to occur in the context of programmes already underway. To create an identity for the CPD programme it was agreed to name it Strengthening Foundations of Learning [SFL]. This name captures the dual ambitions of the initiative to build the capacity and confidence of the ECEs and, through this, to create a solid base for enhancing the learning of the young children attending the early childhood settings. The programme was designed to impact on the ‘quality’ of early childhood education and care [ECEC] practices, in order to positively enhance pedagogy and the learning environment towards the broader ambition of influencing the early educational experiences of children, within the targeted communities. It comprised a series of components, which were refined and expanded over the lifetime of the initiative in response to engagement and feedback from participants. In considering how best to implement the CPD programme it was agreed that it should be provided through a combination of coaching and mentoring. Coaching facilitates a confidential, learning conversation, in which participants are enabled to identify goals and to generate and consider options and action plans. The coach acts as an impartial “thinking partner”, using effective questioning and listening skills, and both encouraging and challenging the participant in order to develop understanding and commitment to action.

Research among UK employers found coaching to be one of the top three most effective learning and development practices (CIPD Learning and Development Report 2015). Mentoring, on the other hand, aims to provide confidential, non-judgemental and constructive support to enable the mentee to develop themselves in whatever way is most appropriate.

A mentor may be a sounding board, someone to help the mentee work through their ideas, and someone to throw light on their path. A mentor is usually, but not always, someone who has faced

CHAPTER 2


similar challenges in the past, or who is working at a more senior role in your profession and who should be outside any current hierarchical relationship.

The SFL project commenced in 2013 with the support of the wider PFL programme. Initially a team of two was appointed comprising a Manager who was already in a senior role within the broader organisation, providing supports to local Early Childhood settings and a Quality mentor, who had previously coordinated the Síolta QAP. In late 2014, a Speech and Language Therapist was seconded to the project from the Health Services Executive with the overall objective of developing relationships with local early childhood settings in order to enhance the impact and effectiveness of the local Speech and Language Therapy team. In the autumn of 2014 an evaluator was appointed, and it was agreed that the evaluator would become an embedded member of the Early Years team working with them in the implementation and formative evaluation of the programme through to 2017.

Principles guiding SFL :In line with best practice in designing and implementing effective and sustainable CPD programmes (Yoshikawa et al., 2015; Bove et al, 2018) and based on the knowledge acquired from the experience of the Síolta QAP, the team developed a pre-programme strategy to engage collaboratively with the local community and key stakeholders in order to design an implementation strategy that would fit with needs, expectations and capacity. This strategy was underpinned by six key principles:

+ Planning and Exploring: once the broad outline of the CPD initiative was agreed the team explored ideas for the programme design and implementation with local early years educators, centre managers and other stakeholders at community level.

+ Iterative and Cumulative: from its inception the initiative incorporated feedback mechanisms into the process, so that the team could respond to the realities of practice and possibilities.

+ Data Driven: in line with the philosophy of the overall PFL initiative the design of the CPD programme took account of evidence on what research had found to be most effective CPD strategies and design in impacting on the quality of early childhood education and care pedagogy.

+ Working with local resources/services: where possible the team worked directly with local resources and services and linked the CPD programme to the day to day experiences of the participating early years settings.

+ Informed by Policy Initiatives: in a climate of dynamic change within the early childhood education and care policy landscape the project team chose to locate the project firmly within the Aistear curriculum framework – the curriculum framework recognised as the national context within which early childhood practice should be located. It also committed to enhancing quality as understood under the National Quality Framework – Síolta.

+ Strengths-Based: the initiative was designed to build on the existing pedagogical strengths of the early years educators while at the same time strengthen their pedagogical understandings and practice within the increasingly familiar contexts of Aistear and Síolta.

To initiate the process, the team embarked on a pre-programme planning and exploring phase (Blase & Fixen, 2013), which involved consulting with managers and staff in local settings, over approximately three months, to discuss their needs, issues and concerns, in order to determine the key components of an effective quality improvement programme. Eleven settings had previously engaged with Preparing for Life and these were profiled to capture data on measures of quality, staffing structures and availability for participation in professional development. Setting profiles were analysed, to take account of issues such as need, ‘readiness’ and ‘fit’ and to inform central matters such as structure and timing of proposed interventions. This approach to engaging in pre-programme consultation is mainly derived from research into the effectiveness of professional development, which indicates that favourable outcomes occur more

CHAPTER 2


frequently ‘when learning experiences are targeted to the needs of staff and represent true learning experiences’ (Mitchell & Cubey, 2003).

Eight out of the eleven settings were selected to participate in the new programme. The remaining three were not included on the basis that they had

already attained a high level of quality assurance validation in line with the Síolta, the National Qualification Framework (CECDE, 2006) and/or they were already able to access opportunities for professional development among their teams as a result of funding and staffing structures which facilitated this.

Table One: Profiles of Local ECEC Settings

CHAPTER 2

37

Eight out of the eleven settings were selected to participate in the new programme. The

remaining three were not included on the basis that they had already attained a high level of

quality assurance validation in line with the Síolta, the National Qualification Framework

(CECDE, 2006) and/or they were already able to access opportunities for professional

development among their teams as a result of funding and staffing structures which facilitated

this.

Table One: Profiles of Local ECEC Settings

Service Completed Síolta QAP/ Level Awarded

Total Number of staff

Number of Staff working with Pre- School Age Group

Number of staff employed

through Labour Market

Initiatives

Current time allocated for Professional Development

1. No 8 N/ A 5 Last Friday of each month

2. No 9 5 4 None

3. No 16 5 7 None

4. No 18 18 15 None

5. No 5 5 2 None

6. Level 3 86 23 0 IHA being delivered at present

7. Level 3 4 4 0 Mid-term breaks

8. Level 3 17 7 0 First Monday evening of each month

9. Level 4 4 4 0 School planning days

10. Level 4 2 2 0 School planning days

11. Level 4 8 8 0 Planning days/ Monthly team meetings

8 Community Based Services Selected for SFL 3 Services Excluded from SFL


A central element of the SFL initiative was the approach of the team together with the interactive nature of the process of implementing the initiative. This collaborative and relational aspect of programme delivery, a commitment to sustained mentoring across all components and responsiveness to feedback became core features of the design and delivery of the programme.

Over the timeframe of the project, the SFL team maintained close engagement with all of the settings and participating staff members [and often, incidentally, with other staff members] and used a combination of CPD training seminars/workshops, mentoring [group and individual] and interactive sessions, to work with the early years educators in developing their familiarity and understanding of Aistear, the National Early Childhood Curriculum Framework (NCCA, 2009) and its use in their setting.

This intensive model of theory, discussion, demonstration, feedback and mentoring was informed by evidence from implementation science which has highlighted the power of the combining multiple approaches within a cohesive CPD framework (Joyce and Showers, 2002; Diamond and Powell, 2011). The workshops and cluster groups, within and across settings, were designed as safe spaces within which to encourage and foster discussion. Over the period of the project it was envisaged that these would become sites for robust interrogation of ideas as the early years educators became more confident in speaking about their practice, the possibilities of Aistear and the difficulties in meeting their ambitions for practice. The one to one mentoring sessions were designed to allow for further discussion on specific points of relevance and – at all times – the staff were free to contact the SFL team directly should a specific issue need addressing or clarification.

6 A majority of participants have been trained-up in the setting where they are currently employed

Of the eight settings selected, three had previously engaged in working towards quality validation to some extent, whereas five had not completed the process at all. All are based in areas, which are classified as ‘Disadvantaged’ or ‘Very Disadvantaged’ on the Deprivation Index, including an area, which has been deemed among the most deprived nationally (Haase and Pratschke, 2012). A decision was made to narrow the criteria for participation in the programme to staff working with children eligible for the Free Pre School Year (age 3-4 years) whose position ensured their participation for the duration of the project, up to June 2016. When these criteria were applied, 60 ECE’s were identified as potential participants. This included some staff in a supervisory or management role within each setting, as the programme team felt strongly that there was a need for clear leadership to enable and build on the learning from the process, to enhance sustainability and effectiveness.

There were some concerns about participant engagement with the content of the full programme, given the variety of qualifications. The predominant level of training among the early year’s educators was at Level 5 on the National Framework of Qualifications, which equates to a post- Leaving certificate or A-level award while three participants had obtained a graduate level qualification. This created a probability that more complex, conceptual ideas could be more challenging for some participants, or alternatively, that training might not provide sufficient content to address the need for improving pedagogical knowledge, in the absence of a more formal grounding in relevant theories and lack of previous professional experience6. However, research has shown that staff who do not have a degree, but who attend relevant professional workshops provide higher quality care than colleagues who do not attend (Burchinal et al., 2002). The team recognised at this stage, that those who expressed an interest in the SFL programme were more likely to be receptive and committed to the learning process and that the process itself would need to recognise and respond to their needs and priorities.

CHAPTER 2


Figure Two: Flow and Focus of the SFL Model

CHAPTER 2

40

(a) Introduction: Learning Language and Loving It™ - the Hanen Program® for Early Childhood Educators January 2015 – December 2015 (b) Play on Words

Oral Language Programme (Group one) January –Dec 2016

Oral Language programme (Group two) January – June

2017

(c) ABC and Beyond™ The Hanen Program® for Building Emergent Literacy in Early

Childhood settings. January – April 2017

Sustainability [communication champions] September 2017 –

(4) Effective Pedagogical Leadership CPD September 2015 –December 2016

Figure Two: Flow and Focus of the SFL Model

Components of the SFL CPD initiative:The focus of the SFL initiative was mainly on curriculum development with each component of practice seen as a potential site for enhancing professional understandings. With this mind, the whole programme was explicitly linked to the Aistear curriculum framework (NCCA, 2009). It comprised identifiable, integrated but discrete components, which commenced with pre-programme planning in late 2013, followed by a number of phases of focus:

1. Curriculum Foundations (Induction Workshops and Visits). January – June 2014

2. Animating Aistear [Workshops/Mentoring]:

a. Learning Environment September 2014 – January 2015

b. Planning and Assessment September 2015 –September 2016

3. Speech, Language and Communication [Coaching and mentoring]:

a. Introduction: Learning Language and Loving It™ - the Hanen Program® for Early Childhood Educators January 2015 – December 2015

b. Play on Words Oral Language Programme (Group one) January –Dec 2016 Oral Language programme (Group two) January – June 2017

c. ABC and Beyond™ The Hanen Program® for Building Emergent Literacy in Early Childhood settings. January – April 2017 Sustainability [communication champions] September 2017 –

4. Effective Pedagogical Leadership CPD September 2015 – December 2016


Implementing the SFL components

(i) Curriculum Foundations:

The first phase of direct work with services, which became known as the Induction Programme, can be regarded as the determining element in both the design and delivery of the SFL programme, as much of what was planned afterwards was based on the experiences of implementing this phase, from the perspectives of both Practitioners and the project team. Key decisions relating to what became further elements of the SFL Programme were made and subsequent phases were shaped similarly, framed in response to emergent needs.

The process of delivering the ‘Induction’, reflecting the approach of the overall SFL initiative itself, was intended to to be iterative in nature, based on feedback from participants, using an Action Research approach, to promote collective self- reflective enquiry. Hopkins (1993) suggests that this type of action research framework is most appropriate when limitations in educational endeavours are recognised and it may be helpful to take an initial stance on the problem, formulate a plan, carry out an intervention, evaluate the outcomes and develop further strategies. This ‘common sense’ view (McNiff, 2002) which follows in the tradition of Stenhouse (1975) and others, in this case involved reviewing current practice; identifying aspects for improvement, imagining a way forward; trying it out; taking stock of what happened; modifying plans in the light of what was found; monitoring and evaluating the modified action (McNiff, 2002, p. 7). This created what could be described as a ‘multi-centred action research project’ which can offer scope to pilot or test projects aimed at delivering policy changes on national or regional level, while engaging with differences across organisational contexts. However, it is important to note that given the situation-based and context specific approach employed by the SFL team, whose main objective was creating improvements in practice within a particular sample of settings, the findings that emerged as actions developed must be treated with caution and cannot be directly generalised to other community settings (Koshy, 2010).

The primary objective of the Induction phase was to enable ECE’s from a range of training and educational backgrounds, to develop a shared understanding and working knowledge of the Aistear Curriculum Framework. It was felt that this ‘lead-in’ would also allow participants an opportunity to adapt to the demands of attending evening training sessions and adjust to the experience of receiving on-site mentoring, before a full implementation phase.

The focus of the induction programme was to introduce the principles and themes Aistear and assess the general level of understanding and engagement with the Aistear framework in the day-to-day practice within settings. Although initially intended as a short induction programme it became clear to the SFL team early in the process that the ECEs found value in taking the issue slowly to ensure that the principles and themes of Aistear and their implications for practice were well understood and assimilated.

Sixty participants were divided into two groups to attend workshops, one evening per month, for sessions of two and a half hours duration. Topics were developed to focus participants’ attention on the concept of curriculum, to ensure an understanding of Aistear’s four themes, aims and learning goals, to initiate a cycle of planning and reflection, based on children’s interests and to support ECE’s to share their knowledge and approaches, with each other and with parents. Each participant was given a folder containing an outline of each session, handouts of Power Point slides; worksheets and action planning templates. In addition to the group sessions, a schedule was agreed with partner services, through which mentoring visits [thirty minutes one-to-one sessions] were made in the second and fourth week following training and a check-in was done over the phone or by email, during the third week of each monthly cycle. The ECEs were encouraged to make their learning visible in their settings and their practice through documenting their work and recording their reflections.

CHAPTER 2


(ii) Animating Aistear

The second phase of the SLT initiative focused on curriculum in practice. Realising the curriculum for the early years in practice requires deliberate action by adults to establish an early learning environment in which children are provided with rich learning opportunities, where questions and curiosity are valued, and conversation and dialogue is encouraged. Quality early years settings provide sufficient challenge and risk in an enabling environment to encourage young children to develop a learning orientation or disposition rather than the more limiting performing orientation (Smiley & Dweck, 1994; Hayes, 2013).

There is an international trend towards reconsidering early years curriculum and practice to ensure that it takes account of child development, contextual variables and the dynamic interactions that are the essence of early education. Early years setting in Ireland vary greatly in curriculum approaches and have developed rapidly over the last twenty years, often from very different beginnings.

With the expansion on settings and the growing attention to early childhood as a key period of learning and development there has been a lot of attention drawn to the needs and rights of young children and to what constitutes effective high-quality early years practice. To support this the Aistear curriculum framework and the Aistear/Síolta Practice Guide (NCCA, 2009; 2015) have been developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Aistear is informed by an understanding of early childhood which considers children to be competent and confident learners and through four interconnected themes it provides a ‘a key resource in ensuring children in early childhood settings are given rich and varied experiences to support and progress their learning and development’ [Daly and Forster, 2012, p.103). Each of the four [4] themes has four aims, giving sixteen [16] aims in all; each of the 16 aims has 6 learning goals giving ninety-six [96] learning goals with associated points for reflection and questions for practice. Aistear describes children’s early learning and development in terms

of four interconnected themes. The first theme, well-being, considers how children develop to be happy, healthy and confident; identity and belong is the second theme and this explores how children form a positive identity of themselves in the world and how they evolve a strong and healthy sense of belonging to that world; the third theme is that of communication. This theme is concerned with understanding how children share their experiences, feeling, fears, ideas and thoughts to others and how this extends and expands over time. The final theme is exploring and thinking and considers how children make sense of their world and the objects and people in it. It is concerned with how children play, interact, investigate, question and test out their ideas.

Figure Three: Aistear Strands (NCCA, 2009)

CHAPTER 2

43

With the expansion on settings and the growing attention to early childhood as a key period

of learning and development there has been a lot of attention drawn to the needs and rights of

young children and to what constitutes effective high-quality early years practice. To support

this the Aistear curriculum framework and the Aistear/Síolta Practice Guide (NCCA, 2009;

2015) have been developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Aistear is informed by an understanding of early childhood which considers children to be

competent and confident learners and through four interconnected themes it provides a ‘a key

resource in ensuring children in early childhood settings are given rich and varied experiences

to support and progress their learning and development’ [Daly and Forster, 2012, p.103).

Each of the four [4] themes has four aims, giving sixteen [16] aims in all; each of the 16 aims

has 6 learning goals giving ninety-six [96] learning goals with associated points for reflection

and questions for practice. Aistear describes children’s early learning and development in

terms of four interconnected themes. The first theme, well-being, considers how children

develop to be happy, healthy and confident; identity and belong is the second theme and this

explores how children form a positive identity of themselves in the world and how they

evolve a strong and healthy sense of belonging to that world; the third theme is that of

communication. This theme is concerned with understanding how children share their

experiences, feeling, fears, ideas and thoughts to others and how this extends and expands

over time. The final theme is exploring and thinking and considers how children make sense

of their world and the objects and people in it. It is concerned with how children play,

interact, investigate, question and test out their ideas.

Figure Three: Aistear Strands (NCCA, 2009)


Realising Aistear in practice is guided by four central themes, which are seen as the overarching areas around which positive early learning experiences are framed. The ‘how’ and the ‘what’ of early years practice are contained in Guidelines for Good Practice, which describe the specific aims ad learning goals of each of the themes. These guidelines are provided under the headings of:

Building partnerships between parents and practitioners Learning and developing through interactions

Learning and developing through play

Supporting learning and development through assessment (Hayes, 2013).

The Animating Aistear component of the SFL initiative comprised three specific elements, which are detailed below.

(a) Learning Environment

Using the Aistear Framework as a guide, the SFL team agreed to commence the Animating Aistear phase by focusing on play and the learning environment. With this in mind the SFL team identified the Learning and Developing through Play guideline as the natural starting point for engagement with practitioners. There are a number of good reasons to start with play. Firstly, play is one practice area that underpins early years practice and strongly connects with all other guidelines and each of Aistear’s four themes. Secondly, the changes to the learning environment are relatively simple to carry out and have an immediate and significant impact on the variety and quality of play opportunities. SFL was in a position to offer a small grant to settings to improve a specific aspect of the learning environment. Thirdly, changes to the learning environment do not directly relate to practitioners’ personal performance, skills or knowledge, but rather to external objects and processes that could be discussed, for the most part, without attaching emotions to the assessments. Finally, the SFL team felt it was important to highlight the concept and impact of pedagogical framing or behind-the-scenes work (Siraj Blatchford et al., 2002) that practitioners do in choosing and arranging resources and organising the space and how this influences children’s learning and development.

Participants were asked to apply to take part in the programme and forty-five participants were selected from fifty-seven applications. The manager of each setting was offered and accepted a place on the programme and then priority was given to those who had attended the induction programme.

The early years quality mentor employed a strengths-based, partnership approach during a 3- month intervention. Key concepts and information from Aistear’s Learning and Developing through Play guideline were shared during a series of cluster group training sessions, which took place every 4-6 weeks. These groups were closely followed by one-on-one mentoring sessions to support each educator apply new knowledge in their setting.

Mentoring visits took place on a monthly basis. The early years quality mentor spent on average 6.5 hours in each setting over a 3-month period. This time was used in a number of ways; to observe and gather evidence of strengths and needs (anecdotes, video and photo); to support individuals to critically examine their practice, to engage in reflective conversations with participants and to discuss with managers how changes could be implemented and sustained over time. Information gathered during the mentoring visits was used to inform and tailor content of subsequent cluster group meetings.

Cluster groups were used as an opportunity to foster and support a learning community, bringing together a number of practitioners to share learning, reflect on and discuss quality practice. Where possible the cluster groups took place as part of normal working hours, ideally, within a physical space where the educators engage with children. These sessions were designed to address the principles of best practice as outlined by Aistear as follows:

1. Support the idea of the child as a competent and confident learner, using a rights- based approach

2. Use the Principles of Aistear to underpin each training session, particularly those that relate to how children learn and develop

3. Support individual and group reflective practice and professional dialogue (within teams and across settings)

CHAPTER 2


4. Use research and best practice knowledge to inform decisions about classroom layout, resources and so on (NCCA, 2009).

During training and mentoring, practitioners were enabled to consider and reflect on their role in creating, maintaining and designing the learning environment by being asked to consider the learning opportunities and choice the environment provided; how the indoor and outdoor space facilitated various types of play; how the layout of the learning environment could support meaningful, sustained conversations and interactions; whether the surroundings experienced by children were attractive, warm and inviting and whether children’s interests, needs and linguistic, cultural, social and familial backgrounds were reflected in the space. Each setting was supported to identify an area or number of areas where they could improve or enhance their learning environment. Visual slides, galleries of photos and the Aistear Environment Audit (NCCA, 2013) aided discussion and creation of ideas. Each participating room drew up detailed action plans, which listed proposed changes, assigned responsibility for each change to a team member and outlined deadlines for completion of the tasks. Settings were encouraged to include layout adjustments or to source free open-ended or recycled resources that would support children’s continued learning and development.

To encourage participation at this early stage of the SFL programme each setting was awarded a small grant as an incentive to complete the tasks outlined in the action plan and to pay for more expensive materials or changes to the learning environment. Each setting completed a grant application form listing proposed changes and a report form detailing actual changes, three months later. The report form recorded links between environment changes and the implementation of Aistear’s four themes, and the perceived impact of the changes from staff, child and parent perspectives. The forms were examined and compared to establish the level of pedagogical language used and the reported links between Aistear’s themes and the changes to their learning environment. A post-intervention questionnaire

was developed and distributed to participants immediately after the last cluster groups, asking for their personal feedback about their experience of the environment strand of the programme. All settings had a follow-up visit in March 2015 to review the impact of environmental changes on practice and on children’s behaviour.

(b) Planning and Assessment

Following on from the focus on the learning environment the next component of the Animating Aistear strand of SFL was intended to initiate and implement a cycle of planning and reflection in early childhood settings, which would be further sustained through mentoring within settings. Four cohorts of fifty-eight Practitioners participated. These were drawn from forty rooms across six settings.

The Planning and Assessment component comprised training sessions and Cluster Groups to provide a space for practitioners to:

+ Share learning

+ Compare floor books and learning portfolios

+ Ask questions

+ Request information

+ Practice more complex planning and assessment techniques

In order to explore how this element would work, a ‘pilot’ took place from September 2015 to Jan 2016, involving twenty participants, which was facilitated by the SFL Quality Mentor. As a distinctive and new feature which was intended to support and sustain the learning from the process, it was decided to train three ‘leaders’ from within settings, who would co-deliver training with the SFL mentor and also facilitate Cluster Groups. Following the pilot study, a series of workshops were then co-delivered from January to March 2016; from February 2016 to May 2016, April 2016 to May 2016, which involved a further thirty-eight staff from the six settings which had participated in the pilot.

CHAPTER 2


CHAPTER 2

The content for Workshops and Cluster Groups was based in part on ideas from the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide the purpose of which ‘is to support practitioners in using Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework (2009) and Síolta, The National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education (2006) together to develop the quality of their curriculum and in doing so, to better support children’s learning and development’ (NCCA, 2015). Workshops focused on how to assess and extend children’s learning using themes, aims and learning goals from the Aistear Curriculum Framework. As not all of the staff had taken part in the Induction it was necessary to introduce Aistear itself.

The topic of emergent and inquiry-based curricula was discussed and the concept of Assessment of learning (rather than ‘for’ learning) was a key theme. Participants were introduced to ways in which to document children’s learning, such as Child Portfolios and Floor Books and encouraged to use new approaches to enrich learning opportunities.

The idea of using a mind map (Buzan and Buzan, 1993) to document and extend a topic of interest for children was introduced and practitioners were supported to utilise this as a regular tool for reflecting on ways to expand on children’s ideas, using a multi-systemic approach. Mind maps are a visual learning tool, like a web, which can be used to generate and capture ideas about a particular theme or concept.

Figure Four: SFL Mind Map Template

2

Emergentinterest/idea

LanguageOutings/Com

munity


This intense element of the project ran from September 2015 to September 2016 and was followed by continued mentoring and engagement across 2017. From the planning perspective settings and staff were encouraged to develop plans and reviewed them at regular intervals with the support of the mentors. In relation to assessment staff were encouraged to use the mind maps, individual child portfolios of learning and the room floor books.

(iii) Speech, Language and Communication [SLC]:

The third component of the SFL initiative focused on identifying for the early childhood educators’ strategies and activities that would encourage the development of oral language in the young children. The quality of everyday experiences in early years environments - wherever children are - has a profound influence on them. Young children are not merely recipients or consumers of a service but are deeply influenced, individually and collectively, by their early years experiences. Adults who are attuned, who are ‘watchfully attentive’ and who are mindful in their day-to-day practices with children can make an important and positive contribution to their learning and development. Contemporary policy identifies the important role of early education in children’s overall development and learning (DES, 2011; Ireland 2014, 2015). The National Strategy to improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People, 2011-2020 (DES, 2011) calls on ECEs to provide young children with the experiences necessary to support children’s communication skills and acknowledges the link between these early learning experiences and children’s acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills.

Expanding on the theme of Communicating, the Aistear framework emphasises the importance of oral language and notes that communicating ‘is about children sharing their experiences, thoughts, ideas, and feelings with others with growing confidence and competence in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes’ (NCCA, 2009, p. 34). Furthermore, Aistear values play as the context within which oral language and emergent literacy develops noting that through ‘play and hands-on

experience … children see and interact with print as they build an awareness of its functions and conventions’ (NCCA, 2009, p. 54). In their report Oral Language in Early Childhood and Primary Education (3-8) Sheil, Cregan, McGough and Archer (2012) point to the importance of adults understanding how language develops and applying appropriate strategies with young children to enhance their oral language skills. Linking two models of practice, the social-interactive and the behavioural approach they note the importance of being attuned to the child, moving from simple to more complex language as appropriate. In her overview of approaches to oral language development Rafferty (2014) noted that evidence suggests positive impact, particularly for disadvantaged children, from the provision of 15 hours per week of early education over 2 years in ‘good and outstanding setting’ (Rafferty, p. 23/24).

(a) Introduction: Learning Language and loving it™ - the Hanen Program® for Early Childhood Educators.

Drawing on evidence from international research on effective speech and language programmes the Hanen - Learning Language and Loving It™ [www.hanen.org] was identified as the most appropriate introduction to oral language development for the SFL population. The SFL speech and language therapist developed a staged CPD programme comprising coaching and mentoring. This programme provided educators with practical strategies to support and stimulate language, literacy and social skills in children. The three key strategies are:

+ Child oriented strategies - encourage children to initiate and engage in conversational interactions so that educators can respond in ways that encourage the child’s continued engagement in the interaction. These strategies included OWL – Observe, Wait and Listen, and Follow the child’s lead.

+ Interaction-promoting strategies –encourage extended individual and group conversations between adults and children. These strategies focused on questions and turn-taking in interaction as a source of linguistic development

CHAPTER 2


+ Language-modelling strategies –expand the child’s oral language skills and facilitate the development of decontextualized (or abstract) language. These strategies equipped the ECEs with skills to expand and extend the language of the children.

The programme was offered to staff of participating SFL settings and 8 groups sessions of 2.5 hrs were held over the period January 2015 to December 2015. Each participant received the Hanen guidebook and at all stages the links back to Aistear were emphasised so that staff would have a shared context for their work. In addition, there were four on-site coaching sessions per participant. During these sessions participants had opportunities to practise the strategies in their settings and receive coaching from the speech and language therapist. The interactions were video-recorded, and participants watched the video to reflect on their interaction and to receive feedback. A pre-programme video of the participants was taken to establish baselines in use of the interaction and language promoting strategies. Consistent with the literature, evidence was found of use of directive language and directive questions and use of phatic language which do not usually extend a conversation with children.

The on-site video feedback sessions focus on promoting every child’s language development, following children’s leads, adjusting the way ECEs talk, promoting interaction among children, facilitating language-learning opportunities in pretend play, and fostering emergent literacy skills. During each session each participant completed an Action Plan outlining what strategies they would practice and how they would practice them. This was reviewed during the video feedback session. At the end of each video-feedback session the participant completed a Video Feedback form describing what they were happy with, what they would like to change, and things to practice during the week.

The focus of the CPD was to enhance the skills of the ECEs in applying these strategies in their everyday work. It expanded on the Aistear theme of Communicating which emphasises the importance of oral language noting that communication ‘is about

children sharing their experiences, thoughts, ideas, and feelings with others with growing confidence and competence in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes’ (NCCA, 2009:34).

While remaining faithful to the LLLI programme the speech and language therapist was responsive to local opportunities and used such opportunities in her coaching and mentoring. For instance, in response to a specific observation on questioning style she determined to give extra emphasis to questioning and build on the familiar to bring about change. Early in the LLLI site visits the SLT observed that questions, which turn a declarative statement into an interrogative were frequently used and, in some cases, dominated. For example, one ECE was observed responding to a child’s statement by repeating it and adding a question: “Yes, that is a long snake, isn’t it?” While this type of questioning is mentioned in the LLLI™, it is not given particular emphasis in the programme or in the (Canadian) video examples. However, it was prevalent in this study perhaps due to the strong cultural use of phatic language in Ireland. Indeed, one participant commented that she became aware of the questioning phatic language in others as well as herself, suggesting it was something natural in everyday language:

I do it all the time! My mam does it. (EH)

This use of phatic language may have the intention of building a rapport with children and attempting to include children and show interest. However, as this participant herself commented it is not conducive to actively listening to children.

Through the programme she became aware of this in others around her:

It just made me so aware of like properly listening to children, taking one child at a time. I’m just so aware (like), of where I used to be like ‘yea? alright, okay?’ and now hearing other people say it, like, I’m just totally aware of it – of pretending that you are half-listening. (EH)

CHAPTER 2


In the group it became clear to each participant that others also used phatic communication, and this was expressed in feedback after the first session. Furthermore, the strength of the cultural, habitual use of phatic statement questions required a high-degree of self-awareness to allow for change on the part of the participants. As a common occurrence, it could be dealt with collectively.

The recognition by participants themselves of their use of phatic questioning was identified as a means of developing self-awareness of communication style – a catalyst to strengthening their communication style towards using strategies for supporting and stimulating language and learning. To this end, a no-questions week was introduced. The no-questions week was, of course, proposing the impossible. It functioned, however, as a meaningful catalyst for a response rather than a literal task. It aimed to develop reflection and self-awareness. It was an opportunity for participants to explore the outcome when they waited and let children take the lead. It was an opportunity that arose out of the group discussions and came from the participants themselves.

It’s impossible not to ask questions when a child walks through the door. That’s what you do. (CG)

This responsiveness to the local context and to an issue particular to the group was a feature of the underlying design and ethos of the SFL project as a whole.

(b) Play on Words

Responding to the impact of the previous SLC components it was decided to develop a more focused, localised language intervention. In their systematic review, El Choueifati et al (2012) found that there are four key skills areas in training of ECEs that are documented to change child language and literacy outcomes, which they categorise into:

+ Developing high-quality adult-child interactions,

+ Explicit literacy instruction,

+ Developing story-telling skills

+ Supporting peer-to-peer interactions.

Results from a study of an oral language development programme in the UK by Dockerall, Stuart and King (2010) show that regular evidence-based oral language interactions can make significant improvements in children’s oral language. They summarise studies on oral language intervention by highlighting the importance of children being exposed to the target language in sufficiently large amounts to develop later language skills.

In their report Oral Language in Early Childhood and Primary Education (3-8) Sheil, Cregan, McGough and Archer (2012) point to the importance of adults understanding how language develops and applying appropriate strategies with young children to enhance their oral language skills while also following ‘… tightly structured strategy use for prompting and practice’ (2012, p. 23).

Located within the Aistear curriculum framework and emphasising the links to the thematic strand Communicating the rationale for devising the Play on Words oral language programme was that:

+ It builds on the skills developed in Learning Language and Loving It. Educators can continue to be coached by the SLT on the skills that influence child language and literacy outcomes.

+ Language delay at school entry in this area is associated with socio-economic disadvantage.

+ It allows for frequency of exposure to the target language for children.

+ It has a mixture of play and structured activities with extension activities broadening the learning.

+ It is aligned with Aistear’s key themes and principles. ECEs take the lead planning around children’s interests and needs as part of their emergent and inquiry-based curriculum.

+ It is universal in approach.

While targeted intervention allows for the right level of intensity of exposure and production of language at a particular child’s or children’s level, separating children from their peers can stigmatize them and reduces the exposure to quality peer-to-peer support and interaction.

CHAPTER 2


Following the team’s consultation with ECEs in settings the universal approach was considered a better fit with Aistear, with the settings ethos and with the collaborative and universal approach of the Strengthening Foundations of Learning model of CPD. Both the local settings and the SFL team placed a strong value on child-lead learning reflecting the focus of Aistear’s, emergent and inquiry-based curriculum. For this reason, an oral-language development programme that was based on children’s interests rather than prescribed topics was deemed the best fit. The aims and session goals remain the same each week, but the content was planned around children’s short and medium-term interests in their room.

The aims of Play on Words for children were: + To develop listening skills.

+ To develop vocabulary (receptive and expressive).

+ To develop use of sentences and storytelling.

+ To develop rhyming skills.

Role for Early Childhood Educators: + To choose topics and plan using Mind Maps the

activities, materials and language targets

+ To use strategies from language and interaction promoting strategies during the activities.

+ Following modelling, to introduce and lead the group in place of the SLT.

Role of the Speech and Language Therapist: + To help with planning. To develop session plans

based on mind-maps and introduce listening and phonological awareness game.

+ To coach on the spot and reflect after with ECEs.

The aim of the pilot was to assess the outcomes for children, for ECEs and to see if this would be possible to maintain in settings in the absence of the SLT or with reduced support from the SLT.

Figure Five: Cycle 1. The process of planning and implementation of Play on Words

The Programme took place at small group-time which is a scheduled time for small, usually table- based, activities. The SLT attended three days a week. Friday and Monday were flexible for repeating some activities or extending the activity. The Length of time was 20 – 30 minutes depending on children’s level of interest. Children were grouped around small tables with 3-5 children on each table with one ECE.

One setting piloted implementing the programme with reduced support with on average 1 SLT visit per week. The planning process was conducted via email as well as a little face-to- face review. All practitioners commented that they were able to implement it and found it easier second time round. They found using the puppet effective and that the children responded in the same way they had to the SLT. The reused some plans when topics overlapped and commented that as time goes on planning becomes easier.

Through Mind Maps, the ECEs planned ways to extend the children’s learning. These included looking at the play environment and books available about different topics, art activities, trips outside the setting and invited guests to talk around a topic. This provided many opportunities for richer learning and developing a sense of belonging in their immediate community.

CHAPTER 2

55

Figure Five: Cycle 1. The process of planning and implementation of Play on Words

The Programme took place at small group-time which is a scheduled time for small, usually

table- based, activities. The SLT attended three days a week. Friday and Monday were

flexible for repeating some activities or extending the activity. The Length of time was 20 –

30 minutes depending on children’s level of interest. Children were grouped around small

tables with 3-5 children on each table with one ECE.

One setting piloted implementing the programme with reduced support with on average 1

SLT visit per week. The planning process was conducted via email as well as a little face-to-

face review. All practitioners commented that they were able to implement it and found it

easier second time round. They found using the puppet effective and that the children

responded in the same way they had to the SLT. The reused some plans when topics

overlapped and commented that as time goes on planning becomes easier.

Through Mind Maps, the ECEs planned ways to extend the children’s learning. These

included looking at the play environment and books available about different topics, art

activities, trips outside the setting and invited guests to talk around a topic. This provided

many opportunities for richer learning and developing a sense of belonging in their

immediate community.

PlanningatopicEYE

andSLT

MindMapEYE

SessionPlanformatandtargets

SLT

PlayonWordsSessionSLT/ECE

Children’sinterests

andresponses

EYE


For example, while learning about fish in one setting, children were curious about which fish you can eat. In response, the ECEs took the children to a local fish and chip shop where they we shown how fish is prepared and cooked and then had an opportunity to sample it. Another group went to a local café, ordered their own food and paid for it and on return role played a café scene and did baking activities. They also went to library and watched builders in a local building site along the way.

(c) ABC and Beyond™ The Hanen Program® for Building Emergent Literacy in Early Childhood settings.

In 2017, following on from the introductory LLLI programme, the SLT introduced coaching on the ABC and Beyond programme. This programme is designed to help early childhood educators working with children from 3 years promote the emergent literacy skills that all children need to develop in order to learn to read and write successfully. Participants learn the most effective ways to promote the following six building block of literacy:

1. Oral language

2. Vocabulary

3. Story comprehension

4. Language of learning

5. Print knowledge

6. Phonological awareness

The SFL programme consisted of two modules comprising of 3 sessions of 3 hours and two individual video-feedback coaching session. A total of 22 participants signed up to the programme and 17 participants completed both modules. Participants were video-recorded for 5 minutes reading a book to a small group of children. They were also video-recorded for 3-5 minutes doing an activity with paper and crayons/pencils. At time of writing recordings have been completed for 12 participants out of a total of 22. This is due to unavailability of a pre-programme video or non-completion of the full programme by a small number of participants. The

recordings were analysed using the ‘Observation of Strategies’ checklist from the Hanen ABC and Beyond programme. This was used a baseline measure of skills. Inter-rater reliability was confirmed between the two raters.

As only two modules of the ABC and Beyond Programme were completed, the following three of the six sections in the checklist are relevant:

1. Turns book reading into a conversation,

2. Fosters print knowledge and

3. Builds phonological awareness.

Each section has 4 or 5 measures, which are given a rating of use of rarely, sometimes or frequently on the observation checklist.

(iv) Effective Pedagogical Leadership CPD

Visionary and dynamic leadership is regarded as a key element for improving quality in early childhood settings (Rodd, 2006; 2013) and for enhancing the effectiveness of Early Childhood Care and Education. Effective practice with young children has been more frequently observed and sustained within settings where strong Pedagogical Leadership is evident (Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2006; Taggart, 2007). The Inspectorate of the Department of Education has identified the need for professional education in Early Years to build capacity to “take on leadership for learning” (Duignan, 2017). However, existing training and education opportunities do not currently provide sufficient support to attain this important goal, from initial or continuing professional development, within the Irish context.

What emerged as a significant factor for consideration from the initial two-year implementation phase of Strengthening Foundations of Learning was the extent to which the impact of specific elements could be sustained or undermined, depending on the capacity for providing effective leadership, within staff teams. Discussions were held with Managers and senior staff in late 2015, to establish whether there was an interest among

CHAPTER 2


SFL participants for more extended training and mentoring, in order to develop capacity for pedagogical leadership. A pilot was then delivered, the feedback from which confirmed that the nature and quality of the leadership of staff was both an identifiable concern and an evident need among both managers and senior staff.

A specific module was developed in consultation with the School of Education, in Trinity College Dublin, with the aim of increasing capacity among managers and/or senior staff to provide Pedagogical Leadership.

The content and context for the CPD draws on both the Aistear/Síolta Practice Guide (NCCA, 2015) and the Early Years Education-focused Inspections for Early-years Settings (DES, 2016) and is firmly rooted in evidence, such as the work of Blatchford and Manni (2006), among others. The module was designed to:

+ Create awareness of personal leadership styles and approaches

+ Foster understanding of the importance and effectiveness of leadership in early childhood education and care.

+ Equip participants with effective strategies for leading and sustaining quality practice in early years settings.

Ten participants were involved in the Effective Pedagogical leadership CPD [SFL/TCD] which was delivered in 2016 comprising six senior staff from four settings within the PFL catchment area and four from community settings within three other Area Based Childhood programmes. Six workshops were delivered over an eight-month period with mentoring visits made to each participant at two points within that timeframe.

Workshops comprised lectures, discussions and presentations with regular opportunities for critical reflection, to challenge assumptions, share experiences and enhance understandings among participants (Mitchell and Cuby, 2003; Diamond and Powel, 2011). The mentoring visits were framed around an action planning template, which prompted coaching conversations to enable individual

participants to identify and set goals according to their specific priorities, in order to enrich their approach to and impact of pedagogical leadership in their settings. This also served to address the need to provide evidence of improved pedagogical practices within settings, to meet national funding, regulatory and inspection requirements, which were evolving at this time.

Given the time-tied nature of the SFL initiative, it was regarded as crucial to build in a sustainability measure. One of the intentions behind this targeted leadership programme was to create a small leadership network within the community who, with continued but less intensive support, could work towards consolidating the learning within settings, supporting each other in this task.

The Effective Pedagogical Leadership CPD provided a mechanism, through which those in management roles within settings were facilitated to reflect on relevant theory underpinning effective leadership approaches, connecting this to their own practice in the context of identifying and addressing specific challenges, which resulted in evident changes being implemented.

Leadership emerged as a significant driver of change within services, from the overall implementation of SFL, which is consistent with studies that have identified the importance of effective pedagogical leadership in determining and sustaining quality Early Childhood Care and Education. While developed within the context of the SFL Initiative, the Leadership module came after the main inputs and was intended to sustain and embed learning within settings; there is also a strong rationale for providing this at an introductory stage. For instance, where pedagogical leadership capacity already exists within the local early childhood community of practice, the module could be provided at the inception of the SFL model and to build and sustain on-going support for the programme within early childhood settings.

CHAPTER 2


I was happy that… I now understand what I am doing. (It was) an eye opener.


CHAPTER 3METHODOLOGY

In advance of designing the evaluation study, account was taken of the stated aims of the existing programme. Drawing on the international research evidence this was to be achieved through working directly with the staff to influence quality of their pedagogical practice and enhance their pedagogical understanding in the context of Aistear. Evidence of the impact of the SFL programme would be seen through measurable changes in the early childhood settings, their practice and their language interactions with young children so that they would:

+ Engage with children as active, unique and competent participants in their early education

+ Improve their curriculum by using Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, to create enriching experiences for children

+ Develop reflective quality practice

+ Actively promote language development among children

+ Make children’s learning visible to parents

+ Facilitate a smooth transition to school

The expectation was that through this support mechanism the quality of the learning environment will improve, the pedagogical practice and understanding of the staff will be enhanced and, as a result, children’s early learning experiences will:

+ Enrich their oral language Develop their social skills

+ Increase their potential for further learning

The Evaluation Approach:At its inception, the Early Years Programme did not select a particular evaluation method, mainly because PFL (as an Area Based Childhood [ABC] site) was anticipating that an external evaluation process would be applied across all ABC sites, subject to which individual areas would be required to utilise particular evaluation instruments. However, the external evaluation did not commence until well into the implementation of the SFL Project and was not framed to capture outcomes or effects from programmes, which were intended to impact on professional development, such as SFL.

In September 2014 an evaluator was appointed by PFL to the SFL project and, by agreement, the evaluator became an embedded member of the SFL team. There are several types of evaluation that can be undertaken in study such as this including:

+ formative evaluation – ensures that a programme or programme activity is feasible, appropriate and acceptable before it is fully implemented. It is usually conducted when a new programme or activity is being developed or when an existing one is being adapted or modified

+ process evaluation – determines whether programme activities have been implemented as intended

+ outcome/effectiveness evaluation – measures programme effects in the target population by assessing the progress in the outcomes or outcome objectives that the programme is designed to achieve

+ impact evaluation – assesses programme effectiveness in achieving its ultimate goals. (CDC, Nd)


This evaluation is a blend of the formative and outcome/effectiveness types. It is a formative evaluation because it was conducted as this new SFL model of early childhood education CPD was being developed. In this context formative evaluations can show whether the programme components are acceptable to the population and is useful as it allows for modifications to be made as the process of the programme is still underway. In light of this the evaluator became an embedded member of the SFL team. The evaluation is also an outcome/effectiveness evaluation because it is measuring the extent to which it has impacted on the pedagogical practices and language of the participants. Such an evaluation can show the degree to which a programme is having an effect on a particular population – in this instance the early years educators. The combination of evaluation approaches allows for a deep consideration of the context within which a programme has been implemented and can provide rich explanation for impacts achieved or not.

Evaluation Instruments:With this in mind, the evaluation was designed to focus mainly on the adults and the learning environment. The evaluation was primarily qualitative, with a quantitative dimension. Taking account of the research into effective ECEC, which indicates that it is the quality of the ECEC practice that matters most in enhancing child outcomes, the evaluation was designed to assess the quality of the (i) Learning Environment and (ii) Pedagogical Practice and Language within the eight early years settings taking account of the series of workshops, continuous on-site training and Speech, Language and Communication supports.

(i) The early learning environment and curricular practices:

To seek to capture the impact of all elements of the SFL programme, it was decided that the environmental quality of each setting should be examined at three points [beginning, midpoint,

endpoint] in each setting using the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales – Revised Edition [ECERS-R] (Harmes et al, 1998) and the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales – Extension [ECERS-E] (Sylva et al. revised edition, 2006). This was regarded as one method, which could offer an independent measure of service quality over time.

The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised [ECERS-R] (Harms, Clifford & Cryer, 1998) provides an overall picture of the surroundings that have been created for the children and adults who share an early childhood setting. The ECERS-R consists of 43 items that assess the quality of the early childhood environment including use of space, materials and experiences to enhance children’s development, daily schedule, and supervision. This 43- item scale covers seven categories: Personal Care Routines; Space and Furnishings; Language-Reasoning; Activities; Interactions; Program Structure; Parents and Staff. Each item is ranked from 1 to 7 [details in Appendix A]. A ranking of 1 describes inadequate conditions while a ranking of 7 describes excellent conditions. The ECERS-R is reliable at the indicator and item level, and at the level of total score. The internal consistency at the subscale level ranges from .71 to .88 with an internal consistency of .92 for the total scale.

The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Extension [ECERS-E] (Sylva, Siraj- Blatchford & Taggart, 2006) was developed by the EPPE [Effective Preschool and Primary Education] research team in the UK to supplement the ECERS-R. It was an extension of the original in that it was more explicitly ‘cognitive’ in its assessment of play-based learning environments.

It was designed to measure the processes that lead to children’s cognitive and social development in the context of an early childhood curriculum and allowed for the assessment of early childhood practice that was aimed at cultural and intellectual diversity (Sylva, et al., 2006). The 18-item scale is split into 4 subscales: Literacy; Mathematics; Science/Environment and Diversity. The items are scored with reference to curriculum, pedagogy, resources and the setting’s organisation. Each item is ranked from 1 to 7. A ranking of 1 describes inadequate quality while

CHAPTER 3


a ranking of 7 describes excellent quality. Items are scored 3 if the pedagogy seems accidental or lacks coherence, while a score of 5 applies if the setting shows evidence of adult instruction balanced with child play and/or exploration. A score of 7 is applied in cases where the pedagogy leads to adults and children contributing to the construction of shared meanings, knowledge and skills (Sylva et al., 2006). The ECERS-E has been used extensively in research such as England’s EPPE project (1999- 2003). For the purpose of this study only the Literacy sub scale of the ECERS-E was used.

These Environment Rating Scales were designed as a measure of the global quality of an environment for children. The authors do not recommend using individual subscales as indicators of quality because there have not been systematic studies to confirm whether the individual subscales in isolation are indicative of quality. While ECERS-R is intended to assess process quality, some research has shown that over half of the indicators of the ECERS-R are in fact measuring structural quality rather than process quality (Cassidy et al, 2005). The question also arises as to whether such a measure can capture all children’s experiences, or just the “average” teacher quality, for the “average” child, during a “substantial portion of the day” (Gordon, 2016).

(ii) Pedagogical Practice and language:

The quality of pedagogical practice was assessed through a variety of qualitative methods drawing on the data collected over the course of the SFL programme. Participants attended a number of cluster groups over the period of the project, during which they were facilitated in their discussion to reflect on their practice in the context of both Aistear and Síolta. Feedback from the participants was gathered in a variety of ways including interviews, questionnaires, evaluation sheets and team field notes. A pre and post initiative interview was carried out with a setting participant in each of the eight settings. The interview schedule used was an adaptation of that used by Siraj-Blatchford et al (2002) in the Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years [REPEY] project.

Participants were also asked to keep a reflective journal [for which a template was provided]. It was hoped that this template would provide the basis for evaluating any changes over time in the language of the staff, changes in the focus of their reflections and evidence of levels of pedagogical content knowledge [PCK]. However, the burden on the participants was such that the maintenance of these journals became too onerous and they were discontinued. Changes in pedagogical language and pedagogical content knowledge were evaluated through thematic analysis of interviews taken over time.

Participants were also encouraged to gather documentation of learning, according to the Aistear assessment guidelines, for a sample of children in their settings. Pedagogical documentation helps to make children’s learning visible and where adults are engaged in such documentation with children, they collaborate more meaningfully in their learning. When analysed this documentation will provide evidence of the extent to which there has been a development in quality of practice over time.

The quality of language used by adults in the settings was assessed using the Teacher Interaction and Language Scale [Girolametto et al. 2000]. This instrument provides a rating scale of 11 items relevant to appropriate language use in early years settings including: Wait and Listen; Follow the Lead; Join in and Play; Face to Face; Use a Variety of Questions; Encourage turn taking; Scan; Imitate; Use a Variety of Labels; Expand; Extend [French, 2014]. The scale was developed for use by both Speech and Language therapists and early years educators and in conjunction with the language enrichment programme used by the SFL team.

The rating scale is designed to evaluate teachers’ interaction prior to and following participation in a training program. This is a 7-point scale. A rating of “1” indicates that the teacher almost never uses the technique, whereas a rating of “7” indicates that the teacher consistently uses the technique. Ratings of 1-3 indicate that the teacher’s use of the technique needs improvement and would definitely be a program goal for future interactions. A rating of “4”

CHAPTER 3


indicates that fine tuning of the technique is required to achieve a rating of “5” or “Frequently.” A rating of 5-7 indicates that the teacher’s use of a technique achieves expectation.

Originally it was intended to evaluate adult- child interactions using the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale [CIS] (Arnett, 1989), which has been associated with child outcomes in the EPPE study. However, it proved too onerous for settings and so the data from the ECERS and the Teacher Interaction and Language Scale was used to comment on the quality of adult - child interactions.

The ability of the participants to foster emergent literacy development was evaluated using the Observation of Strategies checklist from the ABC and Beyond™ programme with pre- and post-programme video-recordings analysed. Inter-rater reliability was confirmed between two raters. Outcomes from Play on Words™ were evaluated using a small sample of children whose language was assessed using the Pre-school Language Scale™- 5th edition [PLS-5] (Zimmerman 2011).

From the early stages of the initiative, and prior to the appointment of an evaluator, the SFL team had opted to collect and collate relevant data on an on-going basis and this has been utilised to inform this evaluation report, where possible and pertinent. Data, which has informed on-going implementation and has been reviewed as part of the overall SFL evaluation, is outlined in the Data Log in Appendix B.

Challenges:There are challenges to implementing and evaluating applied community-based research, which involves ‘the successful management … of the wide array of relationships, multiple perspectives and expectations that arise when … planning, designing, conducting and disseminating research’ (Hayes et al., 2018:62). Nonetheless, the reality of community-based service evaluation is that it is open to external influences that cannot always be managed. During the lifetime of the SFL project there were a significant number new ECEC initiatives introduced by government, which made additional, and occasionally onerous demands on participating ECEC services and staff. Responding to these demands stretched the capacity of a number of settings and limited the time and resources they could commit to participating fully across all the components of the SFL initiative. This undoubtedly influenced the reach and overall impact of the initiative.

CHAPTER 3


CHAPTER 3


A better understanding of Aistear. When changing the room, discuss the changes with the children.


At the pre-programme phase of the project, the SLT team profiled local ECEC settings to gather details, which informed the final selection of eight participating settings. As this was a quality enhancing CPD it was agreed that any setting, which had already achieved a Level 4 on the National Quality Framework [Síolta] would be excluded to maximise the capacity of the SFL team to engage with settings where a sufficient level of quality had not yet been attained (See Table One for details). To inform the design of the new initiative, originally six local services were consulted during October 2013 to assess the type and level of need the proposed project. The settings generally welcomed the idea with all six identifying a need for support to apply Aistear, the curriculum framework within their service. Five of the settings also identified the need for Speech and Language support to enrich children’s communication skills, but also to equip staff in engaging with parents where there may be concerns about language delay.

Curriculum Foundations:In order to encourage educators to organise and present their ideas and develop confidence to adapt these in response to the diverse interests and abilities of children, in the context of Aistear, they were invited to participate in tasks and exercises during Induction workshops, which required on-going, active reflection on their practice. This proved to be a very worthwhile process, which became a central feature of later work undertaken in settings, to evaluate and improve the learning environment and implement new approaches and tools, to inform planning and

assessment. It also proved to be an effective way of sharing knowledge and creating understanding among Early Years Educators about ‘educational goals’ (Jensen et al, 2010, cited in EU, 2014:49), which emerged from discussions about their aspirations for children in their care.

Although, prior to commencement of the induction, early years’ staff had been consulted about the most suitable time and day for the delivery of training sessions and attempts were made to accommodate as many views as possible, a small number of participants indicated at the end of the six-month programme, that they had issues attending training, with finding babysitters, scheduling other training commitments and feeling tired after a full working day. The value of obtaining individual “buy-in” was reflected in some feedback, which indicated that the programme did not always meet with participants’ expectations. For instance, it appears that the term “no homework” which was used by the Programme team, was interpreted by some to mean that they would not be expected to apply learning within their services or document changes to their practice, in any way. See Table Two for details of the feedback:

CHAPTER 4F INDINGS


Table Two: Participant Experiences of Training (in the Induction Phase):

9 These Curriculum Statements are not anonymised as they are on public display in the settings.

67

the end of the six-month programme, that they had issues attending training, with finding

babysitters, scheduling other training commitments and feeling tired after a full working day.

The value of obtaining individual “buy-in” was reflected in some feedback, which indicated

that the programme did not always meet with participants’ expectations. For instance, it

appears that the term “no homework” which was used by the Programme team, was

interpreted by some to mean that they would not be expected to apply learning within their

services or document changes to their practice, in any way. See Table Two for details of the

feedback:

Table Two: Participant Experiences of Training (in the Induction Phase):

yes no

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Was the timing of the training suitable? 30

15

Was the day of the training suitable? 41

Was the location suitable? 43

Was the room size and layout comfortable and conducive to learning?

41

Was the training delivered too frequently? 39

Did the size of the training groups support learning?

45

Did exposure to other teams support/ extend learning?

45

CHAPTER 4


In the final stages of the Induction phase, participants were asked to work in their setting groups, to combine a visual representation of their agreed ideals and objectives, using the words they had selected, to describe the key elements of their Curriculum and the outcomes they foresee for children. The work from each setting was then combined to produce a setting-specific ‘Curriculum Statement’.

These statements were professionally printed as posters, individual to each setting, which provide a tangible, physical outcome of the Induction phase and which documented the approach to Curriculum within each setting, according to their own vision of children and of their role as ECEs. This tangible visual representation of the setting’s ethos and curriculum approach could also be shared with colleagues, parents and visitors to their services.

To assess the impact of the Animating Aistear component of the SFL towards the end of the initiative, project participants were invited to review their first Curriculum Statements and, in the light of the learning over the course of the project to make any alterations they felt necessary. Two examples of before and after Curriculum Statements are provided below.9

In line with the objectives of the SLT initiative the second Curriculum Statement from the Moatview setting shows evidence of understanding of the importance of Aistear and is more explicitly locating this reference within the statement. The second also includes the ‘handprint’ motif showing a celebration of the children and is a more welcoming and inclusive Curriculum Statement than the original one.

In the Curriculum Statements for the Bunratty setting, we see a change in design coupled with a significantly more explicit link to the Aistear framework and the four thematic strands. The second Curriculum Statement is also more engaging in its language, speaking directly to the parents.

CHAPTER 4


Moatview Curriculum Statement 1:

a pa

rtner

ship

of c

omm

uniti

es, s

tate

, em

ploy

ers,

trade

uni

ons

and

elec

ted

repr

esen

tativ

es

Mo

atv

iew

Ea

rlyEd

uca

tion

Ce

ntre

At M

oa

tvie

w E

arly

Ed

uca

tion

Ce

ntre

we

ha

ve a

pla

y b

ase

d c

urric

ulum

influ

enc

ed

by

Ais

tea

r the

Na

tiona

l Iris

h C

urric

ulum

fra

me

wo

rk

Why

?W

e b

elie

ve t

his

cu

rric

ulu

m p

rom

ote

s in

de

pe

nd

en

ce

, so

cia

l ski

lls,

co

nfid

en

ce

, se

lf-h

elp

ski

lls a

nd

pro

ble

m s

olv

ing

am

on

g c

hild

ren

wh

ich

are

vita

l ski

lls t

ha

t sh

ap

e t

he

m t

hro

ug

h li

fe a

nd

th

eir

futu

re. T

he

y h

elp

th

em

be

lieve

in t

he

mse

lve

s a

nd

th

eir

ab

ilitie

s.

Bene

fits

and

out

co

me

s fo

r chi

ldre

n:Pr

om

ote

s so

cia

l, e

mo

tion

al,

ph

ysic

al,

inte

llec

tua

l, w

ellb

ein

g a

nd

sp

iritu

al

de

velo

pm

en

t

Wha

t?A

ll c

hild

ren

lea

rn t

hro

ug

h v

ario

us

pla

y a

nd

ed

uc

atio

na

l ac

tiviti

es

wh

ich

giv

es

the

m t

he

op

po

rtu

nity

to

exp

lore

th

e w

orld

aro

un

d t

he

m a

nd

exp

an

dth

eir

ima

gin

atio

n.

Ch

ildre

n le

arn

to

inte

rac

t w

ith o

the

rs p

osit

ive

ly a

nd

un

de

rsta

nd

wh

at

isp

osit

ive

ly a

cc

ep

ted

in s

oc

iety

. Th

ey

lea

rn a

bo

ut

the

ir e

nvi

ron

me

nt

an

d t

he

irc

om

mu

nity

an

d re

spe

ctin

g o

the

r ch

ildre

n a

nd

ad

ults

.

Ad

ults

ac

t a

s a

po

sitiv

e ro

le m

od

el f

or c

hild

ren

resu

ltin

g in

ch

ildre

n im

itatio

nth

is b

eh

avi

ou

r.

Ho

w?

Ad

ults

tea

ch

chi

ldre

n c

ons

iste

ntly

enc

our

ag

ing

the

m a

nd re

info

rcin

gp

osit

ive

be

havi

our

s th

roug

hout

the

da

yth

roug

h p

raise

and

role

mo

de

lling

.

Som

e a

ctiv

itie

s a

re a

dul

t le

d a

nd s

om

ec

hild

ren

lea

d fo

llow

ing

thro

ugh

on

chi

ld’s

req

uest

s.

Da

ily R

out

ine

- V

isua

l Disp

lay

Circ

le ti

me

- D

iscus

sions

, num

era

cy,

lite

rac

y, p

rob

lem

so

lvin

gN

ew

s tim

e -

pro

mo

tes

lang

uag

e s

kills

and

se

lf e

ste

em

Out

do

or p

lay

- Sp

ort

s d

ay-

phy

sica

l we

llbe

ing

- m

usic

a

nd m

ove

me

nts

Chi

ld le

d a

ctiv

itie

s -F

ree

pla

y a

nd o

utd

oo

r. Pr

om

ote

sin

de

pe

nde

nce

Turn

taki

ng -

Resp

ec

t fo

r oth

er a

nd e

nco

ura

ge

s so

cia

l ski

lls.

Co

nfid

enc

e.

Tra

in fo

r tra

nsiti

on

of

cla

ssro

om

- la

ngua

ge

, co

nfid

enc

eTa

king

ho

me

Te

dd

y fo

r a n

ight

- In

de

pe

nde

nce

,c

onf

ide

nce

, la

ngua

ge

, nur

trin

g, c

arin

g, e

mp

ath

yA

ssist

anc

e in

co

mp

letin

g ta

sks

- Enc

our

ag

em

ent

,c

onf

ide

nce

, re

ass

ura

nce

, gui

da

nce

He

lpin

g a

t lun

ch

time

- C

onf

ide

nce

, la

ngua

ge

, so

cia

lin

tera

ctio

n,

Equi

pm

ent

lab

elle

d w

ith p

ictu

res

in c

hild

’s re

ac

h.

CHAPTER 4


Moatview Curriculum Statement 2:

57

Moa

tvie

w C

urric

ulum

Sta

tem

ent 2

:

Moa

tvie

w E

arly

Ed

ucat

ion

Cen

tre A

t Moa

tvie

w E

arly

Ed

uca

tion

Cen

tre w

e ha

ve a

p

lay-

ba

sed

cur

ricul

um in

fluen

ced

by Aistear

, th

e Ea

rly C

hild

hood

Cur

ricul

um F

ram

ewor

k

W

e be

lieve

our

cur

riculu

m p

rom

otes

inde

pend

ence

, so

cial s

kills,

conf

idenc

e, se

lf-he

lp sk

ills a

nd p

roble

m-

solvi

ng a

mon

g ch

ildre

n. T

hese

are

vita

l skil

ls th

at s

uppo

rt ch

ildre

n th

roug

h th

eir l

ife a

nd in

to th

eir f

utur

e. T

hese

skills

he

lp th

em to

be

com

pete

nt a

nd co

nfid

ent

lear

ners

.

Al

l chil

dren

lear

n th

roug

h va

rious

pla

y an

d ed

ucat

iona

l exp

erie

nce

which

give

s th

em th

e op

portu

nity

to e

xplo

re, e

xpan

d th

eir

imag

inat

ion

and

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

world

aro

und

them

.

Bene

fits

and

outc

omes

for c

hild

ren:

Pr

omot

es le

arni

ng a

nd d

evelo

pmen

t und

er A

istea

r’s fo

ur

them

es

W

ell-b

eing

: chi

ldre

n ar

e co

nfid

ent,

happ

y and

he

alth

y

Iden

tity

and

Belo

ngin

g: ch

ildre

n ha

ve a

pos

itive

sens

e of

who

they

are

, dev

elop

a se

nse

of th

eir

cultu

re a

nd h

erita

ge a

nd fe

el va

lued

and

resp

ecte

d as

par

t of a

fam

ily a

nd c

omm

unity

Com

mun

icat

ing:

Chi

ldre

n sh

are

thei

r exp

erie

nces

, th

ough

ts a

nd id

eas

and

feeli

ngs

with

gro

wing

co

nfid

ence

and

com

pete

nce

in a

varie

ty of

diffe

rent

wa

ys a

nd fo

r diff

eren

t pur

pose

s

Expl

orin

g an

d Th

inki

ng: C

hild

ren

mak

e se

nse

of

the

thin

gs, p

laces

and

peo

ple in

thei

r wo

rld

Aist

ear S

íolta

Pra

ctice

Gui

de In

trodu

ction

, 201

5

Child

ren

learn

to in

tera

ct w

ith o

ther

s po

sitive

ly an

d un

ders

tand

wha

t is

posit

ively

acce

pted

in so

ciety.

The

y lea

rn a

bout

their

env

ironm

ent

and

thei

r com

mun

ity a

nd re

spec

ting

othe

r chil

dren

and

adu

lts. W

e sp

eak

basic

Irish

lang

uage

to th

e ch

ildre

n on

a d

aily

basis

and

ex

plain

the

mea

ning

s of

the

word

s, s

ongs

and

poe

ms c

onsis

tent

ly an

d al

so e

xpla

in th

ese

new

word

s an

d ph

rase

s on

our

mon

thly

news

lette

r for

par

ents.

Ad

ults

cons

isten

tly e

ncou

rage

and

rein

forc

e po

sitive

beh

avio

urs

thro

ugho

ut th

e da

y th

roug

h pr

aise

and

role

mod

elling

.

Som

e ex

perie

nces

are

adu

lt-le

d an

d so

me

are

child

-lead

follo

wing

th

roug

h on

chil

dren

’s ide

as, r

eque

sts a

nd in

tere

sts.

Child

ren

learn

thes

e sk

ills th

roug

h pl

ay w

hich

is fu

n, a

ge

appr

opria

te a

nd m

eanin

gful

to th

em in

a w

ay th

at th

ey

unde

rsta

nd

We

belie

ve in

the

posit

ive e

ffects

of o

utdo

or p

lay fo

r chil

dren

’s we

ll-

bein

g an

d ph

ysica

l hea

lth. O

utdo

or p

lay c

reat

es o

ppor

tunit

ies fo

r ch

ildre

n to

com

mun

icate

and

inte

ract

with

the

peer

s in

a m

ore

rela

xed

envir

onm

ent.

We

offe

r rea

l life

exp

erie

nces

inclu

ding

natu

re w

alks,

trips

to th

e lo

cal s

hop,

par

k an

d lib

rary

with

in th

e loc

al co

mm

unity

to s

uppo

rt ch

ildre

n’s i

dent

ity a

nd b

elon

ging

, sen

se o

f cul

ture

and

enc

oura

ge

resp

ect f

or n

atur

e an

d pr

ide

in th

eir c

omm

unity

.

CHAPTER 4


Bunratty Curriculum Statement 1:

a pa

rtner

ship

of c

omm

unitie

s, s

tate

, em

ploy

ers,

trade

uni

ons

and

elec

ted

repr

esen

tativ

es

Bunr

atty

Com

mun

ity

Chi

ldca

re C

entr

eus

es a

Hig

h Sc

ope

base

d cu

rric

ulum

sup

port

ed b

y A

iste

ar t

he n

atio

nal E

arly

Year

s C

urri

culu

m F

ram

ewor

k

Hig

h Sc

ope

prog

ram

mes

get

resu

lts. F

indi

ngs

from

the

orig

inal

Hig

h Sc

ope

stud

y fou

nd t

hat

that

usin

g th

e H

igh

Scop

e cu

rric

ulum

has

pos

itive

eff

ects

fro

m t

he t

ime

the

child

att

ende

dth

e H

igh

Scop

e se

ttin

g up

unt

il ad

ulth

ood,

incl

udin

g be

tter

sch

ool a

chie

vem

ent

and

liter

acy,

high

er a

dult

earn

ings

, hom

e ow

ners

hip

and

low

er li

fetim

e ar

rest

rate

s (E

ssen

tials

of A

ctiv

eLe

arni

ng in

Pre

scho

ol, H

igh

Scop

e Ed

ucat

iona

l Res

earc

h Fo

unda

tion.

)

• Chi

ldre

n de

velo

p se

lf c

onfi

denc

e, in

itiat

ive,

cre

ativ

ity a

nd p

robl

em s

olvi

ng s

kills

• Chi

ldre

n le

arn

abou

t so

cial

rela

tions

hips

, the

wor

ld a

roun

d th

em, m

aths

, sci

ence

and

tech

nolo

gy, r

easo

ning

and

lang

uage

• Chi

ldre

n de

velo

p po

sitiv

e at

titud

es t

o se

lf, o

ther

s an

d to

fut

ure

lear

ning

We

supp

ort

mea

ning

ful a

dult

child

inte

ract

ions

whi

ch e

nabl

es t

he c

hild

as

an in

divi

dual

to

deve

lop

in m

any a

reas

Sens

e of

sel

f•

Solvi

ng p

robl

ems

•Se

lf he

lp sk

ills•

Expr

essin

g in

itiat

ive

Soci

al R

elat

ions

•Fo

rmin

g re

latio

nshi

pswi

th a

dults

, car

ers a

ndch

ildre

n•

Expr

essin

g em

otio

ns

Cre

ativ

e re

pres

enta

tion

•Ex

plor

ing

art m

ater

ials

•Pr

eten

d pl

ay

Mov

emen

t

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Lang

uage

Mus

ic

Expl

orin

g sp

ace

and

time

Todd

lers

/ Inf

ants

(12

mon

ths

– 2.

5 ye

ars)

Lan

guag

e

Prob

lem

sol

ving

Mak

ing

choi

ces

and

deci

sion

s

Soci

al a

nd e

mot

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t

Phys

ical

dev

elop

men

t,H

ealt

h &

wel

lbei

ng

Cre

ativ

ity,

Art

and

Mus

ic

Scie

nce

and

Mat

hs

Pre-

scho

ol C

hild

ren

(2.5

– 5

yea

rs)

CHAPTER 4


Bunratty Curriculum Statement 2:

59

Bunr

atty

Cur

ricul

um S

tate

men

t 2:

CHAPTER 4


Among the overall participant feedback on the induction phase, some of the most striking responses related to the area of ‘professional identity’, where participants asserted, to a degree not evident initially, the importance of their role, finding ‘new self-meaning connected with their work’ (Olesen, 2000 in Ulhmann et al., 2010:463). Quotes such as those below illustrate this:

….to not just think of ourselves as childcare workers.

…that my job was just as important as any other teacher’s i.e. I am an early years professional, not just a glorified babysitter.

The findings from the Curriculum Foundations component of the SFL Programme highlight the value of engaging in careful planning, in partnership with participants in community- based initiatives, in order to support and improve the quality of community based ECEC settings.

It proved effective to focus on fostering participants’ professional development, by incorporating the following training and mentoring strategies:

+ Building an understanding of curriculum and pedagogy, using meaningful opportunities for dialogue and discourse, within teams and between settings;

+ Clarifying concepts which underpin pedagogical theories;

+ Using language which is easily understood, to explain more academic terminology;

+ Connecting the themes of Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, to examples from direct practice experience;

+ Allowing teams and individuals space and time, to absorb and apply knowledge, at their own pace;

+ Revisiting knowledge and checking understanding on a regular basis;

+ Enhancing Professional Identity by emphasising the vital importance of the role of Early Years Educators and the impact of their work on the lives of young children.

Measuring Quality Across Settings:This component of the SFL project aims to provide an integrated focus on the learning environment, planning and assessment and pedagogical leadership within the Aistear framework across the duration of the SFL initiative [2014-2017]. To measure the cumulative impact of the interacting elements of this component a measure of environmental quality was taken in three waves over the lifetime of the project. The three waves of assessment were carried out in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The scale used was the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales [ECERS] where scores are interpreted according to the following -1 (Inadequate); 2; 3 (Minimal); 4; 5 (Good); 6; 7 (Excellent)10. The intention was to monitor changes in the quality of the early learning environments.

10 Line Graphs illustrating the trajectory of change for each setting can be found in Appendix C.

CHAPTER 4


Table Three: Aggregate Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales Results in SFL Settings

61

Measuring Quality Across Settings:

This component of the SFL project aims to provide an integrated focus on the learning

environment, planning and assessment and pedagogical leadership within the Aistear

framework across the duration of the SFL initiative [2014-2017]. To measure the cumulative

impact of the interacting elements of this component a measure of environmental quality was

taken in three waves over the lifetime of the project. The three waves of assessment were

carried out in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The scale used was the Early Childhood Environmental

Rating Scales [ECERS] where scores are interpreted according to the following -1

(Inadequate); 2; 3 (Minimal); 4; 5 (Good); 6; 7 (Excellent)10. The intention was to monitor

changes in the quality of the early learning environments. The aggregate score for each

setting across each of the three waves is outlined in Table Three below:

Table Three: Aggregate Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales Results in SFL Settings

Mean Wave 1 Mean Wave 2 Mean Wave 3 Setting A 3.9 2.9 2.8

Setting B 3.3 3.1 4.4

Setting C 3.7 3.5 3.3

Setting D 2.6 3.1 3.6

Setting E 3.9 5.2 5.3

Setting F 3.2 2.9 3.3

Setting G 3.8 3.4 4.1

Setting H 3.6 3.1 Disengaged

From the above table we can see that only two settings (Setting D and Setting E) showed

consistent improvement in their mean quality rating over time. Settings A, C and H showed a

decline in their overall rating score with Setting A moving from an above Minimal rating at

Wave1 to below Minimal at wave 3.

10Line Graphs illustrating the trajectory of change for each setting can be found in Appendix C

From the above table we can see that only two settings (Setting D and Setting E) showed consistent improvement in their mean quality rating over time. Settings A, C and H showed a decline in their overall rating score with Setting A moving from an above Minimal rating at Wave1 to below Minimal at wave 3.

Settings B and G declined slightly in Wave 2 and an overall (if slight) improvement by Wave

3. Setting C showed quality rating improvement at Wave 2 which declined at Wave 3, while Setting H showed a decline in Wave 2 and disengaged from the project around this time also.11

Findings for each individual setting detailing scores across all sub-scales which were assessed, are presented in chart format:

The aggregate score for each setting across each of the three waves is outlined in Table Three below:

11 No setting had quality rating feedback until the close of the project and so Setting H’s disengagement from SFL was not a response to this decline in rating.

CHAPTER 4


Also of concern is that the highest score (4) places this setting only just above the level of minimally acceptable (3) and at less than a ‘good’ standard of quality (5), while all categories in Wave 3 are assessed as between unacceptable and minimally acceptable quality.

Setting A12

SettingA(Thereisafootnotetoaccompanythischartitisfootnote12)Page58

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3Space&Furnishings 3 3 3.5PersonalCareRoutines 3 3 3Language-Reasoning 3 2.5 3Activities 2 2 3Interaction 4 3 3ProgrammeStructure 4 4 3ECERSE(LITERACY) 3 3 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

There were some challenges within Setting A, in the context of staff qualifications and leadership in particular, both of which factors are shown to impact on the level of quality.

Although positive trends can be observed in the categories of ‘space and furnishings’ and ‘activities’ both of which relate to the Learning Environment, the overall downward trend is concerning.

12 As this setting actually caters mainly for a younger age group, there was some debate about whether the ECERS tool was appropriate to use.

CHAPTER 4


Setting B

SettingBPage59

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3Space&Furnishings 3 4 4PersonalCareRoutines 3 4 6Language-Reasoning 4 3 4.5Activities 2 2 3Interaction 4 3.5 7ProgrammeStructure 3 3 3ECERSE(LITERACY) 4 2 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

The comparatively low scores for ‘space and furnishings in Setting B may be related to the confined nature of the available space in the current building, which is a structural issue beyond the control of the setting, but which could be addressed with capital funding to allow for an extension to be built. Levels of quality within this setting across categories were either maintained or increased.

The increase in quality of ‘Interaction’ to 7 [Good] at Wave 3 in Setting B is particularly significant and a very positive finding for the work of the SFL initiative where the primary aim was to enhance the quality of pedagogical practice in settings. This setting participated in all aspects of the SFL programme.

CHAPTER 4


Setting C

In Setting C, the staff were enthusiastic to engage with the SFL initiative however, there were some challenges in the context of the quality and continuity of leadership. The SFL team were particularly concerned about the morale of staff in the later phases of engagement, as their capacity to implement and sustain change became increasingly curtailed. While there were some gains evident at

Wave 2 data collection, the quality of practice in the setting had deteriorated by Wave 313. This downward trend in quality of Interaction is particularly worrying and although the Literacy subscale shows some improvement, the impact of the oral language development work within this setting was still not sufficient to increase the threshold of quality above minimal.

13 This can be seen in the subscale on Interaction where the Wave 1 score of 5.6 raised to a Good [6] at Wave 2 but fell away to Minimal of 3.75 at Wave 3.

SettingCPage60

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3Space&Furnishings 5 4 4PersonalCareRoutines 3 2 4Language-Reasoning 3 3 3Activities 3 3 3Interaction 6 6 4ProgrammeStructure 4 4 4ECERSE(LITERACY) 2.5 3 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


Setting D

Setting D had some disruption within staff teams during the course of the SFL programme, however the increase in the quality of ‘programme structure’ is significant, as it indicates more variety and flexibility within learning experiences, which allowed for more emergent learning experiences. With the exception of the subscale of Space and Furnishings, Setting D ratings scores increased over the period of the SFL programme showing an upward trend in quality

of practice. There was a notable increase in three subscales: (i) Programme Structure: The rating rises from 3 at Wave 1 to rise to 5 at Wave 3 reflecting a shift from a Minimal quality rating to close to a Good quality rating, (ii) Interactions: On this subscale Setting D move from a Minimal [3] to a Good] rating over the period of the SFL programme, (iii) Activities: Rising from a Wave 1 Inadequate quality rating to a Minimal rating of 3 the setting did show progress14.

14 It is worth noting that this score was unexpected and disappointing and reflects a specific problem with the setting on the day the data was collected.

SettingDPage61

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3Space&Furnishings 3 4 3.5PersonalCareRoutines 3 2 3Language-Reasoning 3 3 3Activities 1.5 3 3Interaction 3 5 5ProgrammeStructure 3 3 5ECERSE(LITERACY) 2.5 2.5 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


Setting E

Setting E continued to participate in the SFL programme throughout, although they experienced some serious challenges including staff changes, with a particularly significant loss of an experienced staff member who acted in a leadership role. The findings show a consistent gain in overall rating from Wave 1 through to Wave 3. On three of the subscales, Personal Care Routines, Interactions and programme Structure, Setting E scored above 6 [Good] with a score of 7 (excellent) for the latter two subscales.

There was a drop in the Activities subscale to below Minimal15 but all other ratings were trending in the right direction. Despite challenges from key staff moving on during the timeframe of the SFL Initiative quality was maintained or improved across most categories and reached significant levels of ‘excellence’ in both ‘Interaction’ and ‘Programme Structure’, which has positive implications for the impact of the SFL initiative.

15 It should be noted that in the ‘Activities’ category, one source of play materials had been removed during the Wave three assessment (for extraneous reasons), which impacted negatively on the overall score and may not represent an accurate reflection of the standard of quality in this subscale.

SettingEPage62

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3Space&Furnishings 4 5 5PersonalCareRoutines 5 6 7Language-Reasoning 3 3 3Activities 3 4 2Interaction 6 6 7ProgrammeStructure 5 6 7ECERSE(LITERACY) 2 3.5 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


Setting F

The premises for this setting are quite a constraint on practice, as there is very limited space for creating clearly separate areas for activities. Over the period of the SFL programme this setting had a varied level of engagement, which weakened over time. Three of the subscales show modest improvement over time – (i) Space and Furnishings: This rating improvement reflects the impact of the small grant provided to the setting at the commencement of the SFL programme, (ii) Personal care routine: This area did show a slight

improvement over time but, at a maximum rating score of 3 just falls within the minimal level and (iii) Literacy: Although there is a gain on this subscale of the ECERS E the final score of 2.5 falls below the minimum acceptable score of 3. Leadership within this setting was a recurring challenge and although staff were sometimes highly engaged with SFL, their freedom to initiate quality improvement was often curtailed.

SettingFPage63

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3Space&Furnishings 4 3 4PersonalCareRoutines 3 2 3Language-Reasoning 3 3 3Activities 2 3 3Interaction 5 4 4ProgrammeStructure 3 3 3ECERSE(LITERACY) 2 2 2.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


Setting G

Setting G engaged well with the SFL programme in all aspects, over the entire duration of theproject. The Wave 1 scores for this setting show a Good rating of 5 for both the Programme Structure and Interactions subscales with the Programme Structure rating rising to 6 at wave 3. In fact, on all but two subscales the setting showed modest gains across Wave 1 to Wave 3.

However, given the high level of engagement of the setting staff in the SFL programme some of the gains were disappointing with the decline in the Literacy particularly notable16.

16 This could be a feature of the specific practice on the day and activities which were observed at Wave 3 assessment.

SettingGPage64

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3Space&Furnishings 5 4 5PersonalCareRoutines 2 2 4Language-Reasoning 3.5 3 4Activities 3 3 3Interaction 5 5 5ProgrammeStructure 5 4 6ECERSE(LITERACY) 3 3 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


Setting H

Staff qualifications and leadership were both a concern within setting H and while a number of staff engaged well with the SFL programme in the early stages, the setting eventually disengaged with the project so that there are only scores available for Wave 1 and Wave 2 data collection 17.

While the findings show a modest improvement in the rating for Programme Structure from 3 to 4, in general the scores tended to deteriorate. For instance, under Interactions the Wave 1 score of 5 dropped to 4 at Wave 2. This setting achieved scores below the Minimal rating in three of the seven subscales.

17 The setting ceased to engage as a direct result of the unavailability of staff, due to a contractual requirement to complete external certified training; many staff in the setting had not previously obtained the recently required minimum level of training.

SettingHPage65

Wave1 Wave2Space&Furnishings 4 3PersonalCareRoutines 4 4Language-Reasoning 4 2.5Activities 2 2Interaction 5 4ProgrammeStructure 3 4ECERSE(LITERACY) 3.5 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2

CHAPTER 4


Sub-scale Scores for SettingsThe following charts offer a more detailed comparative analysis of the assessment of quality within each of the ECERS subscales (categories), across the individual settings, in all three waves. It is important to note that these individualised sub-scale scores cannot be taken in isolation, as a measure of setting quality.

(i) Space and Furnishings

This category examines the quality of aspects of the environment including: indoor space; furniture for routine care, play and learning; furnishings for relaxation and comfort; room arrangement for play; space for privacy; child-related display; space for gross motor play and gross motor equipment. Overall quality was either maintained or improved in this area for most settings, although the highest threshold remains ‘good’ at best. The main issues, which emerged through the assessment of quality in this

category, were the lack of dedicated areas within pre-school rooms where children can play or rest without interruption.

This is considered a feature of high quality early childhood environments, which is not always possible in settings where space is limited or has not been specifically designed to include provision for this. It is interesting to note therefore, that the two settings where quality is maintained or improved at the level of ‘good’, are both located in purpose-built premises.

(i)SpaceandFurnishingsPage66

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3A 3 3 3.5B 3 4 4C 5 4 4D 3 4 3.5E 4 5 5F 4 3 4G 5 4 4.5H 4 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


(ii) Personal Care Routines

Personal Care routines include a range of daily practices, including: greeting/departing; meals/snacks; nap/rest; toileting/diapering; health practices; safety practices. It needs to be noted that one of the features which received a minimal score in this category, for most of the settings, relates to a requirement that tables are sanitised prior to and after meal times, which did not appear to be a common procedure within this cohort of settings. Equally staff hand-washing does not appear to take place with the requisite frequency, although child hand-washing is a regular practice in most settings.

Another component with which some settings were not compliant was the practice of inviting parents and carers into the pre-school room at both arrival and collection time, such that in settings where parents are kept outside the room, this item cannot be scored. Where the threshold of excellence has been reached, it suggests that the setting is engaging in hygiene, safety and information sharing practices and procedures which contribute to a higher quality of practice.

(ii)PersonalCareRoutinesPage67

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3A 3 3 3.5B 3 4 6C 3 2 4D 3 2 3E 5 6 7F 3 2 3G 2 2 4H 4 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


(iii) Language – Reasoning

This category examines presence and quality of books and pictures; practices encouraging children to communicate; using language to develop reasoning skills and the informal use of language. Given that most settings had participated in the oral language component of the SFL Initiative, the measures of quality in this category could be construed as disappointingly low. However, it should also be noted that this assessment was made during the course of one day within a setting and therefore does not provide a sufficiently in-depth analysis of change

or impacts, which may be evident from the more specific language-oriented evaluation tools and scales, which have been used to examine the impact of the SLT component of SFL.

For most settings, informal language is a feature which staff are generally good at expressing and supporting. However, a good ability to use language to develop children’s reasoning skills was only observed among staff in one of the participating settings.

(iii)Language-ReasoningPage68

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3A 3 2.5 3B 4 3 4.5C 3.5 3.5 3D 3 3 3E 3.5 5 5.5F 3 3 3G 3.5 3 4H 4 2.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


(iv) Activities

This is a broad category which includes the main activities, resources and learning opportunities within a pre-school curriculum, including: fine motor, art activities, music/movement, blocks, sand/water, dramatic play, nature/science, math/number, use of TV, video and/or computers and promoting acceptance of diversity.

The level of quality is disappointingly low across the board in this category and there is limited evidence of positive impact from the assessments that were made18.

The main issues within this cohort of settings relate to a lack (or absence) of materials and activities relating to maths and science, limited evidence that diversity is being promoted in a proactive or inclusive way and inadequate range or quality of opportunities to engage in music-making and creative activities.

18 It should be noted that the apparent decrease in quality within setting G in Wave 3, relates to an entire component not being observable on the day of the assessment as specific materials had been removed for extraneous reasons.

(iv)ActivitiesPage69

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3A 2 2 2.5B 2 2 3C 3 3 3D 1.5 3 3E 3 4 2F 2 3 3G 3 3 3H 2 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


(v) Interaction

This category includes: supervision of gross motor activities; general supervision of children (other than gross motor); discipline; staff-child interactions and interactions among children. It is very positive that that the threshold of excellence was reached, within two settings in this category by Wave 3, as a wide body of evidence suggests that the nature and quality of interaction has a determining effect on child development and outcomes.

It should be noted that where there was a decrease in the level of quality in this category in two settings in Wave 3, this was directly related to the assessor observing a negative interaction style on the part of one adult in each setting on the day of the assessment, neither of whom was a permanent member of the team, but whose communication style with children had to be included in the assessment.

18 It should be noted that the apparent decrease in quality within setting G in Wave 3, relates to an entire component not being observable on the day of the assessment as specific materials had been removed for extraneous reasons.

(v)InteractionPage70

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3A 4 3 3B 4 3.5 7C 6 6 4D 3 5 5E 6 6 7F 5 4 4G 5 5 5H 5 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


(vi) Program Structure

This category includes the daily schedule; the amount of time allocated for free play, and group time as well as what, if any provisions are made for children with disabilities. It is positive that there is a general upward trend in this category and where the standard of quality has increased into the ‘very good’

to ‘excellent’ range, this suggests that practitioners are becoming more responsive to children’s emergent interests and framing the daily schedule to reflect a more child-led rather than adult-controlled curriculum, in-keeping with the Aistear framework.

(vi)ProgramStructurePage71

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3A 4 4 3B 3 3 3C 4 4 4D 3 3 5E 5 6 7F 3 3 3G 5 4 6H 3 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


(vii) ECERS E (LITERACY)

The ECERS-E scale provides an opportunity to assess Literacy elements in greater depth. The items which are assessed are: print in the environment; book and literacy areas; adults reading with children; sounds in words; emergent writing/mark making; talking and listening. While it is very positive that the general trend in this category is upward, settings still seem to struggle with creating sufficiently print-rich environments and there is an issue with the range, quality and age-appropriateness of the books provided, as well as the availability of areas which are suitable and welcoming for children to engage in reading activities.

There was limited evidence that adults are aware of the importance of drawing children’s attention to the sounds in words although most settings engage children in mark-making activities, recording their words on pictures and writing their input into documentation.

(vii)ECERSE(LITERACY)Page70

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3A 3 3 2B 4 2 4C 2.5 3 3D 2.5 2.5 3E 2 3.5 4F 2 2 2.5G 3 3 2H 3.5 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Wave1 Wave2 Wave3

CHAPTER 4


Table Four: Setting and teacher demographic information

Table Five: Changes to the learning environment by category

Animating Aistear:(a) Learning Environments

The findings below relate to the eight settings, which were provided with a small grant by the

SFL team, to make adjustments to enhance their setting environment. A profile of the eight settings participating in this element of the SFL programme is provided in Table Four below:

Number of settings participating 8

Sessional 4

Full day care 4

Number of classrooms participating 13

Number of children in participating classrooms 251

Children in free preschool year 197

Total number of classrooms 13

Indoor equipment

Role play (including two-story indoor play house, open ended play structures, prop boxes) 5

Book /quiet areas 3

Outdoor equipment

Large sit-in sandpit 3

Outdoor play house 2

Outdoor equipment (rain gear, hula hoops, bikes, ride-ons, rackets, bucket and spade, digging trucks and so on)

1

Free or additional changes

change to indoor layout, defining areas 12

changes to outdoor area (added a sound/sensory wall, created magnetic blackboard, added a sand pit)

3

shortening or moving high shelving 3

labelled shelving / boxes 3

added a sofa and reading area 2

adding display areas and/or family wall 4

sourced free /recycled resources 7

CHAPTER 4


One setting chose to purchase a two-storey play-house for their large indoor communal area. It was strongly felt by the team that this structure could be used for many open-ended activities and accessed by all preschool-aged children, rather than dividing the grant between a number of rooms. The structure made use of an underutilised play space, expanding play opportunities unavailable due to space restrictions in the children’s classrooms. Additional changes included room layout alterations, updated and clear labelling, and reorganisation of play areas to provide privacy and protection from main walkways/thoroughfares through the room.

Another setting expanded and moved the book area in the preschool room adding a cosy, quiet space previously unavailable to children. Full-length, see-through curtains created a psychological divide between the noisy play space and the calmness of the book corner. Small table lamps provided soft lighting, whilst cushions, blankets, pot plants and a new goldfish bowl made it a warm, inviting and interesting space for children to spend time in. Additional resources including a large wooden train set and three-storey dolls house were purchased, the room layout was altered extensively to define play areas and expand spaces that were most popular amongst children and the family wall display was moved to the new book area.

New Cosy Corner Changes to Book Area

One of the smaller settings in the sample, made changes to their outdoor space to provide natural materials in a garden with a safety surface. A large outdoor sand pit with benches was installed in one corner of the garden. This freed up space in the children’s indoor playroom (by removing the indoor sand tray) where a cosy book area was created. Additional changes indoors included definition of play areas, updated décor, removal of large shelving and the sourcing of junk and open-ended materials. Additional changes outdoors include the expansion of the children’s play area into a large alleyway ensuring that square footage of the garden remained the same. See before and after photos of the garden.

CHAPTER 4


Before and After Photos of Outdoor Play Area

The setting changed their outdoor play space by installing a low-level sand pit big enough for children to sit in and replacing an old plastic playhouse with a sturdy wooden version. Additional changes outdoors included the fitting of a marble run using recycled guttering, development of a sound/sensory wall using old toys, wind chimes and pots and pans, and painting a magnetic blackboard in a sheltered area of the garden. Indoor changes included re- labelling of shelving, reorganisation of art materials to make these more accessible to children and the relocation and resizing of play areas in the room.

Self-reported outcomes – Questionnaire:On completion of this element of SFL participants (n = 31) were asked to complete an open- ended evaluation form rating their personal experience on the environment strand of the programme. When asked to rate the overall experience on a scale from one to five (where 1 is not positive and 5 is very positive), a total of 20 participants rated it at level 5, 7 rated it at a level 4 and 1 participant at level 3.

Respondents identified the most useful knowledge/experience gained from taking part in the programme as the understanding and implementation of Aistear and its themes (n=30) followed by changes to the setting (n=6), sharing ideas with other early years groups (n=3) as well as the presentations, meetings, and cluster groups (n=6). Many of the answers given overlapped or intersected. For example, in a number of rooms children were consulted about the changes and equipment purchased and their views considered before a final decision was made. Two settings in particular spent time discussing the children’s role in the change process and how they could be involved in decisions that would affect them. Both settings implement the High-Scope curriculum and give a large portion of their cluster groups time to reflecting on how the children could be involved in the planning and decision-making processes.

CHAPTER 4


Educators from these two settings reflecting on their learning commented that:

“The linking of the Aistear Framework with the High Scope curriculum and how important it is to encourage the development of the whole child” [ECE]

“A better understanding of Aistear. When changing the room discuss the change with children” [Manager]

“About all the different themes in Aistear and aims to reach with the children. Talking with the children about our new changes” [ECE]

When asked to describe key changes to practice as a result of taking part in the programme, predictably the most frequently cited change related to the indoor/outdoor environment and layout (n=17). Practitioners also referenced changes to how they display children’s work and photographs (n=3) and adjustments to the daily schedule (n=1).

“We changed the layout to the room and found it to be very successful” [Manager]

“We have changed our outdoor play… before we only had bikes and scooters, now we (have) outdoor clothing for children and many (sic) more equipment” [ECE]

While many responses related to the learning environment they also referenced impacts on observation and planning (n=4), interaction and communication (n=4), and recognition of the daily use of Aistear’s themes (n=4) in the questionnaires, suggesting that the play/ environment topic provided the opportunity to discuss other aspects of practice.

“Makes me think more about our curriculum and how it supports children” [ECE]

“Makes me evaluate things on a more regular basis” [ECE]

“Planning and recording the aims and using as an aid to plan the curriculum” [Manager]

“Making us more aware of how we interact with the children on a daily basis and implementing Aistear in the playgroup” [ECE]

In light of the specific objectives of the SFL programme, one of the more interesting quotes from the questionnaires simply stated

“Aistear in no longer just a word!” [Manager]

Self-reported outcomes - Three-month review:All eight settings had a follow-up visit from the early years mentor in March 2015 to review the impact of environmental changes on practice and on children’s behaviour. Six of the eight settings provided a written report during this visit.

Participants reported impact in a number of different areas including increased use of the outdoor environment.

“All eight children (in each group) are in the sand pit everyday”. [ECE]

“35 children in the service are now using the outdoors non-stop. They love it- climbing, creating tents, one boy was out there this morning and wouldn’t come in and his mam was trying to go to work but he wouldn’t get off it. It’s improved outdoor play by 100%” [ECE]

Settings reported that changes led to an increase in learning opportunities for the children especially in relation to imaginary play, both indoors and outdoors, and the use of open-ended structures seemed to magnify this effect.

“The garden area was bleak with just large motor materials – bikes, climbing frame and donated materials. Now the house is used as a swimming pool, ship, house and garage” [ECE]

“It (the play house) has been used as a house, a hospital, fire station and a cubby to relax. We want to remove the windows downstairs to make it easier for children to use the area as a shop or post office” [ECE]

“The children are outside more every day. They play games, build have circle time and sing songs outside and use their imagination sitting on the benches of the sand pit.” [ECE]

CHAPTER 4


One educator observed how the newly developed indoor space offered play opportunities previously unavailable in the room.

“The impact has been great as the children are really enjoying the new area and it is so relaxing for the children… it is a totally new and different area”. [ECE]

Educators also noted how changes to the learning environment provided further opportunities for children to interact and converse.

“The house is great for them too, they love playing there and there is a lot of language, communication, all of that in the house and on the benches” [ECE]

“I love the way the children play together out there. It has extended our room- provides a soft secure and quiet area for children to be alone or interact with peers, for the 9 children who attend preschool rooms but also for any other child who attends the setting” [ECE]

The children now have daily access to an area that is warm, calm and inviting.

“All the children are enjoying the new area and use it at various times of the day. When playing board games or reading books. Other adults have said how lovely the areas are and how cosy and safe it is for all the children” [ECE]

In some cases (n=4) the children’s and/or parents’ reactions to the new equipment or play spaces were included on the setting report form. Unsurprisingly, all of the parent’s responses that were recorded by managers were positive.

“My child loved it today. She was so excited telling me about her adventure” [Parent]

“A great addition to the room” [Parent]

“I think it (playhouse) is great really, it’s so versatile and will help them to use their imaginations” [ECE]

The children’s responses give a glimpse into how the equipment and spaces are being used, and what the children really think of the changes. The children have embraced the furniture and are using them to inspire role-play in many different ways.

“I’m going up the stairs to go to bed” [Child] “Look at my shop I have lots to sell” [Child] “I am a Fireman here” [Child]

The children gave their opinion about the changes.

“I love playing games… I love the fairy lights” [Child]

“It’s good. I like sitting on the new sofa reading books” [Child]

The open-ended nature of the play structures mean that children can see their own community and family background reflected in the environment.

“We could turn that into a trailer!” [Child]

Self-reported outcomes - Links to Aistear’s Themes:The aim of SFL programme was to help educators go beyond a basic recognition of Aistear’s themes and enable them to identify and give examples of them in their own practice. Consequently, educators were asked to reference the themes when completing actions plans, grant application and report forms. The most common theme referenced on both the application form [November] and the report form [March] was Well-being. The Well-being theme is about children being confident, happy and healthy and has two main elements; psychological and physical well-being (NCCA, 2009). As the environment changes undertaken focused on providing more varied and engaging play opportunities outdoors and creating calm, relaxing book/cosy areas indoors, it’s understandable that this theme was r eferenced heavily.

CHAPTER 4


Educators were asked to predict how the new equipment, resources or development of play areas might support a particular Aistear theme and most appeared confident in making these connections. One manager planned to purchase additional play equipment and all-weather gear for the setting’s outdoor area to explicitly reflect two of the Aistear themes.

“Exploring and Thinking- Sand and messy play, outside creatures, exploring the world in all weathers, experiencing, digging, thinking about what will happen in different seasons; Identity and Belonging - each child will have their own coat and wellies, feel part of a group and join outside activities” [Manager]

Some of the responses were more general in referencing how Aistear themes would be supported.

The playhouse is open-ended and can be linked to all four of the Aistear themes. However primarily we see it linking to well-being in that children will be creative, spiritual and express themselves through a variety of play – be it by role playing doctors, fireman, vets etc.; by creating a cosy cubby to relax, or by climbing or exploring the equipment [Manager]

(b) Planning and AssessmentThe impact of the Planning and Assessment component of the SFL initiative was measured in a variety of ways. The aim of this component was to enhance the quality of the pedagogical practice and understandings of the ECEs participating in the cluster groups and coaching settings, which focused on the implementation of Aistear in the settings. One measure of the effectiveness of this element of the Animating Aistear component was the engagement of participants across the SFL initiative.

Review of Engagement:Over the course of the implementation period of the Programme (2013-2017), the SFL Team endeavoured to review and classify the level of engagement by individual settings at yearly intervals, according to the quality of involvement experienced by the team during the relevant timeframe, from their work with settings.

Level 1 is taken to refer to superficial engagement; Level 2 indicates some meaningful engagement, whereas Level 3 indicates full engagement with SFL by the whole setting.

CHAPTER 4


Figure Six: Team assessment of Rating of Engagement by Settings

A B C D E F G H2013 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 12014 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 22015 2 2 0 0 3 3 3 02016 0.5 3 2 3 3 0 2.5 02017 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

A B C D E F G H

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Note: figures for 2013 refer to the pre-programme consultation and those from 2017 to post programme engagement with elements of the SFL programme.

CHAPTER 4


The majority of settings (six out of eight) were somewhat meaningfully engaged in the first phase of the project (at Level 2), with two settings struggling in the earliest phase. By the following year (2014), one setting had reached full engagement, while five others had improved or maintained their level of engagement and two had decreased their level from 2 to 1.

By 2015, all setting remaining involved (7 out of the original 8) were engaging well. Some were not engaging with the specific components of SFL, which were being delivered at that time, which were not involving all settings to the same extent. 2016 emerged as the most engaged year for the majority of settings, with settings A and F showing limited engagement, due mainly to what can be described as internal issues.

The regular SFL Team reflections would also include discussion of what current issues and key factors were influencing settings capacity to engage, both positive and negative. These included:

+ The impact of management and leadership, in the context of dispositions and attitudes towards professional development for staff;

+ Ability to release practitioners, due mainly to Staffing changes and shortages;

+ Challenges to sustaining planning and documentation strategies, in the context of time and resources;

+ Issues with ability to integrate learning across the team in settings and with the capacity of some individual participants to engage fully with the Programme, due to gaps within their own training and education;

+ Competing priorities, which included crises in funding, changes in policy and governance issues

The total number of individual participants who took part in one or more element of the SFL initiative was 97. A table detailing the participation of staff in in each of the elements of the SFL programme is presented below:

Table Six: Summary of Participant Numbers per Phase of Engagement (n=97)

Phase of Engagement Induction Planning & AssessingPedagogical Leadership

Seminars

Time frame Jan – June 2014 Sept – Dec 2014 Sept 2015-Sept 2016 March – Dec 16

No. of Participants 57 47 23 6

Phase of Engagement TransitionsLearning Language

and Loving ItPlay on words ABC and Beyond

Time frame May 2016 - May 2017 Jan – Dec 2015 Jan 2016–June 2017 Jan - April 2017

No. of Participants 21 39 26 20

CHAPTER 4


Thematic analysis of pre and post-programme interviews:The eight settings were interviewed at pre-programme stage, however only seven were usable in the thematic analysis. Six post-programme completed interviews were analysed with room leader. Using an interview schedule adapted from Siraj-Blatchford et al (2002) and used in the Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years (REPEY) project it was intended to analyse the data at Time 1 and Time 2 to find evidence of change in the language reflecting improved pedagogical understanding.

While it proved difficult to directly match interviewees across time due to staff availability and staff movement within settings the analysis did find a number of examples for direct comparison. In aggregate the T2 interview data indicated a notable shift in the complexity and focus of the answers reflecting a growing familiarity with the pedagogical language of early childhood practice within an Irish context among the interviewees.

Question: Are there any one of the principles of Aistear of the elements or the strands or themes that you find you don’t use as much?

Time 1:Answer: Em, identity and belonging… it’s not that we don’t use it, but I don’t think all staff understand the importance of the principle of it … simple things like names being spelt properly and things like that…

Time 2Answer: “Well I think I said to you the last time that there is not enough emphasis on identity and belonging in childcare. I did it at Level 5 and I never understood it until I did it again [during SFL] and listened to it and I really loved it…I brought that back and it really makes you understand the importance of that and respecting people”

In the example below the interviewee, on both occasions mentions the use the ‘book’. This is a reference to using learning portfolios/floor books as a way of documenting learning proposed in the Aistear curriculum framework.

The T2 response shows evidence of expanded pedagogical understanding since T1:

Time 1:Q: Has the Aistear curriculum influenced the setting?

A: Definitely.

Q: And how would you characterise that.

A: I just think, I think it overlaps very much with Highscope, it complements it, but I just think with going forward with the template and the photographic evidence it’s very positive. It looks as if there’s a lot more work in it but it’s not really. The photograph work has started already loads of them and the children are going to be part of that as well so it’s not just adults everyone is going to be a part of it, children and parents as well so I think it’s going to be a good way to get parental involvement, it can be quite difficult to keep parents involved so I think by showing them that at the first meeting it’s lovely and we’ve had time with the children to tell them about the book. We’ve had a similar book before that we’ve used ourselves but not with the Aistear link.

Time 2:Q: And do you have scrapbooks for each child?

A: Yes, we do. The kids take them home, they don’t tell us, but they take them home, they just own them, they are in shreds some of them, but they absolutely love them. Mammy’s and Daddy’s love them and they see what we do with them and say, “oh you do that with them, I didn’t realise you did that”.

“So, the old observations they didn’t, they were very boring, but the picture tells a story …… the great thing about the book is that you can go back to it and even for dates because you are working fast on them at the time, so we do go back. We just went back on it at a staff meeting on Friday, so the staff went back and done their links. You know you are confident saying what you are saying because it is written down. So, you are saying this is identity and belonging here we are at the Hilton hotel and what we got to see. What’s around them and the roles of other people as well. It was a discussion

CHAPTER 4


we had between staff and one said well if I was a parent I would go and look it up and I said well I wouldn’t. The visual they will look at not everyone will look at what’s written”.

Post-programme interview dataThe managers of each setting were also invited to participate in a post programme interview to gather feedback on their perception of impact of SFL on the pedagogical practice and understandings of the programme participants. In some instance the managers invited participants to contribute also. Seven settings participated in this short overview of the programme and the context within which it happened.

In summarising their views on the impact of the SFL initiative in general respondents were positive as captured in the following quotes

SFL has built up our confidence as professionals

It is great to have a pair of outside eyes because I think that we quite often need it

Our mentor is extremely knowledgeable and works with our staff team. She recognises their strengths ad skills

One respondent in particular compared the SFL model of CPD to other approaches noting

When I did the level 6 I was obviously working with different women from different centres from all over Dublin. When we did our literacy and numeracy module we looked at the national strategy for literacy and numeracy in the Early Years and in Primary Schools and I actually didn’t realise how much we had learnt through working with Preparing for Life [SFL]. Because we were hitting markers that were totally idealistic … When they looked at the strategy they said that there was no hope of this happening and it didn’t happen in pre-school and we were hitting the markers. And it kind of made me think my goodness we are so lucky to have this kind of training”

In terms of the design of the initiative respondents commented that:

In terms of Aistear I think the best learning we had was actually the sessions where we went in and sat down and actually learned as a group and as a team and mixed with other centres.

Because we got practical advice and experience and were then able to go back and put into practice … You can see in the staff team the ones who attended those sessions and miles ahead of the ones who haven’t attended… even though we have gone back and explained … You learn by doing things.

The reality is that we have been fortunate with the support of SFL to actually have hands on training for our staff.

In response to the demands of the SFL model to document children’s learning the respondent noted that:

Documentation can take the enjoyment away and can cause stress.

… I also recognize the fact that sometimes we haven’t been able to provide to the best of our abilities because we don’t have the staffing, we don’t have the knowledge to cater for particular children that have attended.

However, it is also seen as valuable as outlined in the quotes below:

Helpful when I can see what they did last week through the documentation

If we weren’t writing things down and taking pictures, it’s hard to pass on…

I can have a quick read through, so I think it’s really useful

Respondents were also aware of the challenges in applying their learning and utilising the possibilities of the Aistear framework to full effect. There was particular concern expressed about the absence of any non-contact time within their contract for reflection and review.

CHAPTER 4


I find that you’re looking at the whole child and building on their interests and you can go back to all the aims and goals and see what you’re not tipping on and you can bring it into your setting. It’s very hard to do it though as there’s so many children in the room

Because we have 22 children in the setting and staff who are in training19 the paperwork and recording is overwhelming…

I understand that we need to record observations, I just don’t understand where we’re supposed to fit it in…

While the respondents were not unaware of the impact of external demands on their staff and settings:

We have a good curriculum going on in the centre and then you have Aistear coming on board and then you have Síolta coming on board and everything comes in at the same time and you are trying to catch up with all these. And you have more things coming on board on top of them, so I think it’s hard to keep up to speed on everything and to try and make sure that you are doing the best that you can do

I think there are some really wonderful things happening in Early Years at the moment. I think it’s exciting. There are new programmes coming on board and you can see that and I think it’s an exciting time to be in Early Years. I think it is sometimes difficult to keep up to speed with everything that’s happening because a lot of things get thrown at you at the same time.

… they also noted that:

“We are so lucky to have this kind of training.”

Through working with PFL [SFL] we were able to hit markers that other people weren’t hitting, that was just incredible

We’re very lucky to have the training we have…

(iii) Speech, Language and Communication:

Introduction: Learning Language and loving it™ - the Hanen Program® for Early Childhood Educators:

Learning and change was examined primarily from the perspective of the educators through discussion, observation and feedback. Purposeful teaching and learning occur when practitioners’ own understanding and knowledge informs their practice. The value of video reflection in giving Early Years Educators the time and space to reflect has been widely documented (Harford, MacRuairc and McCartan, 2009) and is a central element of the LLLI programme. This added element of feedback and coaching increases the chances of learning and change in educator behaviour and the use of the new skills in the early years setting (Joyce and Showers, 2002).

For instance, following the ‘no-question’ week, the SLT met with each participant for an individual session. This involved video recording a 5-7-minute activity with one child or a small group of children based on their Action Plan. Prior to the video some expressed how difficult it was to reduce questions and that they found they asked a question without thinking and then immediately reflected on it. Some services took it more literally than others and monitored each other by raising their hand if they heard a question. By collectively reflecting and using meta-cognitive strategies, they demonstrated the desire to change and a willingness to learn.

As these two participants express, the video review was an opportunity to build their self- awareness and reflect on the effect on the children.

I was happy that … I now understand what I am doing. (It was) an eye-opener.

The children enjoyed the book. I sometimes waited for the children to answer. I wish that I had not asked so many questions. I will now remember to let the children lead and then comment.”

19 3 Community Employment staff who aren’t always present in the ECEC setting

CHAPTER 4


Nearly all participants commented that they had been reflecting on themselves all week, but many reported that the effort of this often led to unnatural conversation or that they had to think too much about what they were doing. For example, one participant noted that she “couldn’t think of what to say on the spot” (TE). This is typical of someone really learning a new skill and in the process of changing their behaviour.

Some use of commenting instead of questioning led to extended purposive conversations as in the following example where by commenting, the educator modeled language and ideas to extend the children’s thinking and talk beyond the here-and-now:

Following coaching, she (the practitioner) commented more and managed an extended conversation over a number of turns. While the activity was sand-play, the conversation was decontextualized and focused on what their mothers (practitioners included) do while they are at playgroup. It also touched on feelings and the future. (SLT reflective journal)

Others employed the meta-cognitive strategy of counting to ten to wait for a child to initiate verbally or non-verbally:

I waited for the children to speak. I also thought about counting to ten.

Experimenting with no-questions had surprising results for some, resulting in an enjoyable interaction for participants and children, with all children including quieter children interacting. This was empowering for participants as the positive results in children based on the change in their own interaction behaviour was visible.

I waited for the children to answer. The children enjoyed the activity and they were all participating.

I added vocabulary to the children’s sentences. I used a lot of out of context language.

I was on the right track with the children and enjoying following their lead and expanding on their ideas”.

I allowed myself to wait and didn’t ask any questions. I extended the conversation using materials of interest to the children.

The children spoke more, and the interaction went on for longer.

It was not just the number of questions that was important but also the type of question posed. The time given to children to respond to questions before another question was posed was also altered as noted below:

I will try not to respond to my own questions. I will now remember to ask one question at a time. I will be conscious of not asking another question immediately. (I will use) open-ended questions and balance between questions and comments.”

Participant LM found that reflecting on the purpose of the question was the key as to whether a question is appropriate.

If I genuinely want to know the answer it is appropriate to ask the question. One child loved going to the zoo and was playing with an animal and I wasn’t sure what it was, so I asked, ‘What is that?’ and he said it was a silver back gorilla.

Evidence of further reflection and awareness of how to use questions and other strategies developed as participants gained experience. They showed evidence of developing use of Child-Orienting Strategies such as being face-to-face with children and making eye contact. They also noticed the positive effect on individual children that were staying in the interaction longer.

I was happy that my comments led to the children using new words.

I was happy that I made eye-contact, sat at the children’s level, set up the activity well.

I involved him by responding to everything he said using his name. My questions were at his level. I managed to involve all children. I will remember to expand more.

CHAPTER 4


One participant reflected in the feedback form that she had reduced the number of questions she asked but recognised that she needed to pause more to allow children time to respond.

I was happy that I didn’t ask too many questions. I made lots of positive relative comments, great eye-contact, great interaction, got to look at all the children and take turns. I wish that I had paused more and waited and not imitated back. I will now remember to Pause and count to ten; listen more and not afraid [sic] to be silent.

Another benefited from on-the-spot coaching and found that a change from questions to comments had a remarkable effect on the child:

I remember when I was doing a jig-saw and you (the programme leader) were saying to me“ don’t only talk about the jig-saw – talk about the

pictures” and I didn’t think it was going to work, but as soon as I talked about the pictures that was for each piece, he had something to say about each (one).

As the programme continued, participants found that practice of their new strategies was necessary to make their communication seem natural while following children’s interests, adapting to each child’s needs and using language enhancing strategies.

The following analysis shows the results for 38 participants from the SFL data set. Descriptive detail on gender, education level, setting and programme were analysed. Further analysis includes the results across all participants and gives outcomes from Time 1 to some or all of the other 4 time points.

Table Seven: Participants in LLLI by Setting

Number of Participants PercentSetting A 2 5.3

Setting B 3 7.9

Setting C 6 15.8

Setting D 8 21.1

Setting E 6 15.8

Setting F 3 7.9

Setting G 10 26.3

Total 38 100.0

Data was collected at 4 different time points. Prior to commencing the programme, a 5- minute video was made of each educator interacting with a group of children in their own early years setting. This was analysed using the Teacher Interaction and Language Rating Scale (TILRS) (Girolametto, Weitzman, & Greenberg, 2000), providing a baseline [Time 1] of how consistently the participants were using the interaction and language-prompting strategies prior to the programme.

Participants attended from 7 early years settings, offering both sessional and full days services to children aged 0-4 years. The 7 settings had children attending with a combined number of 215 children. There were 46 participants in the overall study comprising of managers (n=5) and staff (n=41). 8 participants were withdrawn from the overall study due to the fact that they only had one time point where 2, 3 and 4 were not recorded. Some had left employment or disengaged from the study. The settings are located in an area of social and economic disadvantage with low levels of school readiness (UCD Geary Institute, 2009).

CHAPTER 4


Figure Seven: Attendance rates of Participants per Setting

98

Figure Seven: Attendance rates of Participants per Setting

Setting G showed the highest attendance at 26.3% (n=10), with Setting D showing an

overall percentage of 21.1% (n = 8). Settings E and C both had an attendance of 15.8% (n

= 6), Setting A shows attendance of 5.3% (n = 2) and the remaining settings F and B both

had a percentage of 7.9% (n=3).

The Hanen LLLI programme was offered to SFL participants and linked to Aistear, the

Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, with input from an Early Years programme

manager in each session. The number of participants attending Programme A, B and C are

outlined below:

Table Eight: Number of Participants attending each LLLI Programme

Number of Participants Percent

Programme A 14 36.8

Programme B 13 34.2

Programme C 11 28.9

Total 38 100.0

12

10

8

6

4

2

0SettingA SettingB SettingC SettingD SettingE SettingF SettingG

Setting G showed the highest attendance at 26.3% (n=10), with Setting D showing an overall percentage of 21.1% (n = 8). Settings E and C both had an attendance of 15.8% (n= 6), Setting A shows attendance of 5.3% (n = 2) and the remaining settings F and B both had a percentage of 7.9% (n=3).

CHAPTER 4


The Hanen LLLI programme was offered to SFL participants and linked to Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, with input from an Early Years programme manager in each session. The number of participants attending Programme A, B and C are outlined below:

Table Eight: Number of Participants attending each LLLI Programme

Table Nine: Qualifications of Participants


Programme A 14 36.8

Programme B 13 34.2

Programme C 11 28.9

Total 38 100.0


Level 5 13 34.2

Level 6 21 55.3

Level 8 3 7.9

No Training 1 2.6

Total 38

Total 38 100.0

Strategy Outcomes:Data gathered across the Learning Language and Loving It initiative was submitted for descriptive analysis in SPSS to examine if there were any significant changes over time from the initial assessment at Time Point 1 (Baseline) to Time 2, 3 and 4 (at 6-month intervals). The analysis is based on the number of participants at each time point.

Out of the 38 participants 55.3% (n=21) had Level 6 training, 34.2% (n=13) showing Level 5 training and 7.9% (n=3) with Level 8 training. Only one attendee did not have any training as outlined in the table below.

Child Oriented Strategies:

Figure Eight displays the outcome for the Child Oriented Strategies for 38 participants out of the original number in the sample (n = 46) at time point 1 [baseline], 2 [immediately post programme], 3 [6 months post programme] and 4 [12 months post programme]. The strategies are Wait and Listen [WAL], Follow the Children’s Lead [FCL], Join in and Play [JAP] and Be Face to Face BF2F]. 8 participants were removed for this analysis as they had either left employment or disengaged from the program.

CHAPTER 4


Figure Eight: Child Oriented Strategies

T1 T2 T3 T4WAL 3.35 5.59 5.63 5.88FCL 3.36 5.66 5.70 6.00JAP 3.40 5.65 5.97 5.84BF2F 4.65 6.10 5.76 6.08

T1 T2 T3 T4WAL 3.35 5.59 5.63 5.88

FCL 3.36 5.66 5.70 6.00

JAP 3.40 5.65 5.97 5.84

BF2F 4.65 6.10 5.76 6.08

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

AxisTitle

ChartTitle

Statistical Analysis was carried out on all of the above, which showed that each item was statistically different at Time 1 to the other 3 Time Points. Figures Eight, Nine and Ten indicate an overall increase in means of strategies showing an overall upward trend. All the child-oriented strategies show an increase from Time 1 [Baseline] to the other 3 Time points. There is a slight decrease in Join in and Play from Time 3 [6 months post programme] to Time 4 [12 months post programme] and in Be Face to Face at Time 2 [Immediately post programme] to Time 3 but not significantly so.

Wait and Listen refers to the rating of waiting for initiations. It is not waiting for responses to questions/signals or prompts (this is rated under Turn-Taking). Slow pace is referred to which is pausing between utterances, so the child has an opportunity to initiate. The strategy also refers to “waiting expectedly” which refers to conveyance of expectation through eye contact and body language. Statistical Analysis for Wait and Listen shows that Time 1 (m=3.35; SD =1.03) was statistically different to Time 2 (m= 5.59:

SD=1.00), Time 3 (m=5.63:SD=0.98) and Time 4 (m=5.88; SD=0.89). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant, and there is an increase in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

Follow the Children’s Lead looks at what the teacher does after the child initiates, for example imitate, comment or ask a question. It only refers to responses to children’s initiations which have communicative intent. Frequency of following the lead is judged relative to the child’s total number of initiations rather than the absolute number of times the child’s lead is followed. Statistical analysis for Follow the Children’s Lead showed that Time 1 (m=3.38; SD=1.01) was statistically different to Time 2 (m = 5.66; SD=1.00), Time 3 (m = 5.7; SD=0.94) and Time 4 (m= 6.00; SD=0.89). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant and there is an increase in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

CHAPTER 4


Figure Nine: Language Modelling Strategies

In Join in and Play the teacher must build on the children’s focus, i.e. do something that is the same or supplemental to what the children are doing with the same kind of materials and the teacher is expected to participate in a child-like manner. This strategy involves looking at what the child is doing and then determining if the teacher is building on it.

Statistical analysis for Join in and Play showed Time 1 (m=3.62; SD=1.25) was statistically different to Time 2 (m = 5.65; SD=1.06); Time 3 (m=5.97; SD=0.90) and Time 4 (m=5.84; SD=0.97). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant and there is a decrease in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

The strategy Be Face 2 Face expects that the teacher should make some effort to lean towards the children. For instance, it is not sufficient to simply sit in a child-sized chair.

Analysis of the Be Face 2 Face strategy showed that Time 1 (m = 4.87; SD=1.35) was statistically different to Time 2 (m = 6.1, SD=1.09), Time 3 (m = 5.76; SD=1.01) and Time 4 (m= 6.08; SD=1.00). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant, however, there is a slight decrease in the rating between Time 2 and Time 3 and a further increase again between Time 3 and Time 4.

102

Language Modelling Strategies 7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

Figure Nine: Language Modelling Strategies

0.00 T1 T2 T3 T4IMITATE 3.00 5.00 5.75 4.00UVOL 2.10 4.17 4.66 4.83EXPAND 2.55 5.23 5.66 5.79EXTEND 2.00 4.43 4.86 5.22

Strategies including Use a Variety of Labels, Expand and Extend show an overall increase in

scores across time and a positive upward trend. The strategy of Extend, which received the

lowest rating of ‘Almost Never Being Used’ improved significantly to 5-7 by Time 4

indicating that it is maintained over time. Use a Variety of Labels scores are only slightly

lower than the last 2 strategies but show significance.

The strategy Imitate was not a focus of the program given the age-profile and language level

of the children. As such a rating of n/a is used frequently as the children are beyond the age

at which this particular technique is helpful (e.g. (e.g. imitation is mainly used for children in

the early stages of communication)). Beyond this stage, “Expand’ is considered the strategy

of choice. Imitate Time 1 (m=3.00; SD =0.00) was statistically different to Time 2

(m=5.00; SD=0.00), Time 3 (m=5.75; SD=0.43) and Time 4 (m=4.00; SD=2.45). The

difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant, and there is an increase

in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

CHAPTER 4


Strategies including Use a Variety of Labels, Expand and Extend show an overall increase in scores across time and a positive upward trend. The strategy of Extend, which received the lowest rating of ‘Almost Never Being Used’ improved significantly to 5-7 by Time 4 indicating that it is maintained over time. Use a Variety of Labels scores are only slightly lower than the last 2 strategies but show significance.

The strategy Imitate was not a focus of the program given the age-profile and language level of the children. As such a rating of n/a is used frequently as the children are beyond the age at which this particular technique is helpful (e.g. (e.g. imitation is mainly used for children in the early stages of communication)). Beyond this stage, “Expand’ is considered the strategy of choice. Imitate Time 1 (m=3.00; SD =0.00) was statistically different to Time 2 (m=5.00; SD=0.00), Time 3 (m=5.75; SD=0.43) and Time 4 (m=4.00; SD=2.45). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant, and there is an increase in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

The Use a Variety of Labels strategy considers how early educators use a variety of labels including nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions. Use a

Variety of Labels at Time 1 (m=2.10; SD=0.66) was statistically different to Time 2 (m=4.17; SD=1.07), Time 3 (m=4.66; SD=1.19) and Time 4 (m=4.83; SD=0.99). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant and there is an increase in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

Expand refers to adding grammar or ideas while repeating one of more of the child’s words. Frequency of expansions is judged relative to the child’s total number of initiations rather than the absolute number of expansions. Expand Time 1 (m=2.55; SD=0.97) was statistically different to Time 2 (m=5.23; SD=1.02), Time 3 (m=5.66; SD=0.87) and Time 4(m=5.79; SD=1.04). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant, however, there is a decrease in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

Extend refers to adding ideas with comments or questions. An example is that an ECE will get credit for saying, “I think the astronaut would be scared if he/she went up in a space ship for the first time” or “how do you think the astronaut would feel if he…”. Extend Time 1 (m=2.00; SD=1.07) was statistically different to Time 2 (m=4.43; SD=1.10), Time 3 (m=4.86; SD=1.03) and Time 4 (m=5.22; SD=0.88).

Figure Ten: Interaction Promotion Strategies

103

Interaction Promoting Strategies 7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

The Use a Variety of Labels strategy considers how early educators use a variety of labels

including nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions. Use a Variety of Labels at Time

1 (m=2.10; SD=0.66) was statistically different to Time 2 (m=4.17; SD=1.07), Time 3

(m=4.66; SD=1.19) and Time 4 (m=4.83; SD=0.99). The difference between Time 1 and the

other 3 time points is significant and there is an increase in the rating between Time 2 and

Times 3 and 4.

Expand refers to adding grammar or ideas while repeating one of more of the child’s words.

Frequency of expansions is judged relative to the child’s total number of initiations rather

than the absolute number of expansions. Expand Time 1 (m=2.55; SD=0.97) was

statistically different to Time 2 (m=5.23; SD=1.02), Time 3 (m=5.66; SD=0.87) and Time 4

(m=5.79; SD=1.04). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant,

however, there is a decrease in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

Extend refers to adding ideas with comments or questions. An example is that an ECE will

get credit for saying, “I think the astronaut would be scared if he/she went up in a space ship

for the first time” or “how do you think the astronaut would feel if he…”. Extend Time 1

(m=2.00; SD=1.07) was statistically different to Time 2 (m=4.43; SD=1.10), Time 3

(m=4.86; SD=1.03) and Time 4 (m=5.22; SD=0.88).

Figure Ten: Interaction Promotion Strategies

0.00 T1 T2 T3 T4UVOQ 2.19 4.57 4.52 4.92ETT 3.32 5.27 5.79 5.96SCAN 3.21 5.59 5.37 5.41

CHAPTER 4


The strategies show an increase from Time 1 to the other 3 time points. There is a slight decrease in Use a Variety of Questions from Time 2 to Time 3 and again in Scan from Time 2 to Time 3, but not significantly in either.

Use a Variety of Questions is rated on the presence of a variety of “wh” questions, appropriate use of yes/no questions, expectant waiting and an avoidance of test and rhetorical questions. Use a Variety of Questions Time 1 (m=2.19; SD=0.89) was statistically different to Time 2 (m= 4.57: SD=1.15), Time 3 (m=4.52; SD=0.88) and Time 4 (m=4.92; SD=1.08).

The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant, however, there is a decrease in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4. A rating of 4, at the final measure, Time 4, indicates that the use of the strategy requires fine-tuning.

The strategy Encourage Turn Taking is rated for use of responding with animation, comments combined with questions and expectant waiting to encourage a child to take another turn. In Encourage Turn Taking Time 1 (m=3.32; SD=1.32) was statistically different to Time 2 (m= 5.27: SD=0.82), Time 3 (m=5.79; SD=1.08) and Time 4 (m=5.96; SD=0.84). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant. There is an increase in the rating between Time 2 and Time 3 and 4.

The strategy Scan is only rated based on interaction between the ECE and the non- involved child. In Scan Time 1 (m=3.21; SD=1.47) was statistically different to

Time 2 (m=5.59: SD=0.93), Time 3 (m=5.37; SD=1.26) and Time 4 (m=5.41; SD=1.47). The difference between Time 1 and the other 3 time points is significant, however, there is a decrease in the rating between Time 2 and Times 3 and 4.

Play on Words:The Play on Words pilot programme was developed by the SFL speech and language therapist in response to observations about the pedagogical language and practice of the participants in the Learning Language and Loving It element. The pilot involved a small number of staff and settings and as a result, the findings can only be discussed at a qualitative level to indicate a general trend in relation to developments over Time 1 and Time 2. It is intended that the programme will be provided to a wider sample of settings and staff and carefully evaluated in the future.

Assessment 1: Baseline24 children were assessed using the Pre-school Language Scales Fifth Edition UK (Zimmerman, Steiner & Pond (2014). Initial assessments indicated small gains in language skills over the period of six months with significantly more children achieving language skills in the average range. However, further testing is required with a control group to attribute gains to Language for Life.

Table Ten: Participant gender by age distribution

Gender Pre-test Post-test

Boys 13 10

Girls 9 8

Average Age 44 months 50 months

CHAPTER 4


Figure Eleven: Gains in Language Skills over six months

Assessment Time 1 (n=24) and Time 2 (n=20) Percentile Ranks. (Note some missing data.)

105

Assessment 1: Baseline

24 children were assessed using the Pre-school Language Scales Fifth Edition UK

(Zimmerman, Steiner & Pond (2014). Initial assessments indicated small gains in language

skills over the period of six months with significantly more children achieving language skills

in the average range. However, further testing is required with a control group to attribute

gains to Language for Life.

Table Ten: Participant gender by age distribution

Gender Pre-test Post-test Boys 13 10 Girls 9 8

Average Age 44 months 50 months

Figure Eleven: Gains in Language Skills over six months

Assessment Time 1 (n=24) and Time 2 (n=20) Percentile Ranks. (Note some missing data.)

60

50

40

30

20

T1PLS5

T2PLS5

10

Auditory Expressive

Communication CommunicationTotalLanguage

ScorePRPR PR

Assessment 2: Practitioner Rating of Language SkillsThe ECEs used the Early Communication and Language Rating Scale from the National Strategies in the UK. Judgements of a child’s stage of development are made through a process of on-going observational assessment. The assessment is a ‘best fit’ match to a stage and is considered separately for each strand of communication, which are: Listening and Attention, Understanding (Receptive Language) Talking (Expressive Language) and Social Communication. Within each band, a judgement is made in two levels – either ‘Emerging’ when a child shows some development at that level or ‘Secure’ when most of

the statements reflect the child’s current development. Children can be considered ‘at risk of delay’, ‘as expected’ or ‘ahead’ in their development.

Feedback from ECEs was that the rating scale was easy to administer, did not take very long and was useful for them to recognise children at risk of delay. A recommendation would be to make it part of the understanding with services to administer this observation on all children involved in programme as part of a service agreement. In this way, data could be captured on the progress of children overall in a service and consequently the impact of oral language interventions measured on an on-going basis across time.

CHAPTER 4


Feedback from Early Childhood Educators:The feedback from ECEs on using mind-maps for planning was positive:

Mind Maps are a handy way of doing it. One starts and the others (staff) add in some things. We can do it in the room. You don’t have to have non-contact.

Working well. Coming from their interests and as a team we are having input.

I think they (Mind Maps) are easy enough and helpful – great for planning. You just pick a theme and fill it in. You can keep it and use it again. It makes extending their learning easier.

On questioning about how the processes fit in with setting Curriculum, ECEs considered that it worked well.

Working well. Coming from their (the children’s) interests and as a team we are having input.

Very well – you are going off each session (plan).

Great – I find Aistear and High/Scope and Play on Words are very alike.

When asked about the response of children to Play on Words, the ECEs showed a sensitivity to the different needs of children in their settings as outlined in the responses below.

For some it’s harder to do it but most of the kids did enjoy it. I do think it’s better in smaller groups – in a bigger group it only takes one to distract.

They were actually very interested. At first, they were using you (SLT) out and then they started to look forward to it. They loved Coco and the listening and the listening and the talking to them and the explaining. I’ve been taking on board some of your strategies.

Some struggling with listening but it’s something they need so it’s worthwhile.

Children are engaged, and the play and learning extend to free play time.

ECEs were asked how they found working with the SLT in the setting. In general, they found the experience a positive one.

Great, the children looked forward to it …

You have brought us up to a higher level in confidence and knowing ‘why’ – understanding an emergent and enquiry-based curriculum. It’s the questions – you are aware of meaningless questions.

When asked how they felt they would cope with less input from the SLT the ECEs had some concern about their capacity and they identified the need for some continued level of support.

We would need some direction and guidance but hopefully we could continue it.

I think maybe it wouldn’t be done as much – time to plan, ratios/ some (Staff) out (on leave).

I (kind of) could do with more ideas from you on thinking of different words to extend on their language. I take out the pages you gave me, and I look at the pages you gave me and use them. I’m trying to wait and not jump in with an answer quick e.g. with D yesterday.

In the pilot setting where Play on Words was implemented for the second time with a different group of children and reduced SLT one of the ECEs noted that:

I was worried that the children weren’t going to be as engaged without the novelty (of SLT) but they were. One asked Why are you standing up? because I don’t usually. ‘Monkey’ was a great symbol for Play on Words”.

CHAPTER 4


Feedback from Children:Children focused on ‘monkey’ in their feedback and associated him with the rules of listening.

They also remembered visitors and trips e.g. to the café and the library.

I like when we were listening … I like the monkey and I like the songs and I like when we were singing songs.

You were talking to us about the doctors and then the nurse came in.

It was my birthday and she (the nurse) was seeing how tall I was.

We talked about ‘you look with your eyes and then you listen with your ears and stand still and put your hands ... and put your legs down. We talked about all the jobs people did. (I liked) playing with toys and stamping my feet on the ground.

CHAPTER 4


ABC and Beyond™ The Hanen Program® for Building Emergent Literacy in Early Childhood settings:As only two modules of the Hanen ABC and Beyond Programme were completed, the following 3 of the 6 sections in the checklist are relevant:

1. Turns book reading into a conversation,

2. Fosters print knowledge and

3. Builds phonological awareness.

Each section has 4 or 5 measures, which are given a rating of use of rarely, sometimes or frequently on the observation checklist.

Figure Twelve: Turns book reading into a conversation.

109

• SSCANs the group to include all the children and

• Strive for 5 with comments and questions

Analysis shows that there was an improvement in the frequency of use of all five strategies in

this section. The combined totals are displayed in Figure eleven. Analysis of each individual

strategy showed that Observe Wait and Listen and Follow the Child’s Lead were most

frequently used by the early childhood educators. The ‘Strive for 5 with comments and

questions’ measure was the least frequently used.

Figure Twelve: Turns book reading into a conversation.

Fostering Print Awareness

There are four observation measures in this section:

• Points out print (POP),

• Tracks print,

• Comments about print and

• Asks questions about print. There was an improvement in the frequency of use of all four strategies by the early

childhood educators. The combined totals of all four measures are displayed in figure twelve.

Further analysis shows that ‘Point out print’ and ‘Tracks print’ were most frequently used

with ‘Comments about print’ and ‘Asks questions about print’ less frequently observed.

60

50

40 30 20 10

TurnsBookReadingintoaConversationPre-Programme

TurnsBookReadingintoaConversationPost-Programme

Rarely sometimes Often

Turns Book Reading into Conversation:

There are 5 observation measures in this section:

+ Observes Waits and Listens (OWLs),

+ Follows children’s lead by repeating what the child said,

+ Follow child’s lead with a comment or question on the child’s topic,

+ SSCANs the group to include all the children and

+ Strive for 5 with comments and questions

Analysis shows that there was an improvement in the frequency of use of all five strategies in this section. The combined totals are displayed in Figure eleven. Analysis of each individual strategy showed that Observe Wait and Listen and Follow the Child’s Lead were most frequently used by the early childhood educators. The ‘Strive for 5 with comments and questions’ measure was the least frequently used.

CHAPTER 4


Figure Thirteen: Fostering Print Awareness

110

Figure Thirteen: Fostering Print Awareness

Builds Phonological Awareness:

There are five observation measures in this section:

• Focuses children’s attention on syllables,

• Focuses children’s attention on rhyming,

• Focuses children’s attention on initial phonemes,

• Names letters of the alphabet and

• Matches sounds of letter names. There was an improvement in observation of use of these strategies, with very little occurring

in the pre-programme observation. The combined totals of the five measures are displayed in

figure thirteen. Further analysis indicated that the last three strategies pertaining to initial

phonemes and letters were most frequently observed while the early childhood educators

rarely focused children’s attention on syllables and rhyming.

504540353025201510

FostersPrintawarenssPre-Porgramme

FostersPrintawarenessPost-Programme

Rarely Sometimes Often

Fostering Print Awareness

There are four observation measures in this section:

+ Points out print (POP),

+ Tracks print,

+ Comments about print and

+ Asks questions about print.

There was an improvement in the frequency of use of all four strategies by the early childhood educators. The combined totals of all four measures are displayed in figure twelve. Further analysis shows that ‘Point out print’ and ‘Tracks print’ were most frequently used with ‘Comments about print’ and ‘Asks questions about print’ less frequently observed.

CHAPTER 4


Figure Fourteen: Phonological Awareness

Builds Phonological Awareness:There are five observation measures in this section:

+ Focuses children’s attention on syllables,

+ Focuses children’s attention on rhyming,

+ Focuses children’s attention on initial phonemes,

+ Names letters of the alphabet and

+ Matches sounds of letter names.

111


The combined totals for all three sections are displayed in Figure Fourteen. It shows an

overall increase in the frequency of the use of the strategies.

Figure Fifteen: Frequency of Use of Strategies

60

50 48

4040

30

20

BuildPhonologicalAwarenessPre-Programm

BuildsPhonologicalAwarenessPost-Programme

10


140

120

100

80 60 40

Observationofuseofallstrategiespre-programme

Observarionofuseofallstrategiespost-programee

20

RarelySometimes Often

There was an improvement in observation of use of these strategies, with very little occurring in the pre-programme observation. The combined totals of the five measures are displayed in figure thirteen. Further analysis indicated that the last three strategies pertaining to initial phonemes and letters were most frequently observed while the early childhood educators rarely focused children’s attention on syllables and rhyming.

CHAPTER 4



111


The combined totals for all three sections are displayed in Figure Fourteen. It shows an

overall increase in the frequency of the use of the strategies.


60

50 48

4040

30

20

BuildPhonologicalAwarenessPre-Programm

BuildsPhonologicalAwarenessPost-Programme

10


140

120

100

80 60 40

Observationofuseofallstrategiespre-programme

Observarionofuseofallstrategiespost-programee

20

RarelySometimes Often

The combined totals for all three sections are displayed in Figure Fourteen. It shows an overall increase in the frequency of the use of the strategies.

CHAPTER 4


Drawing on information gathered from a small sample of feedback forms [N=7] a number of helpful points emerged. In response to a question on the most important information gained respondents replied:

POP [Point Out Print] was very useful

Children are not too young to be introduced to sounds of letters.

Everything; mostly how to read to the children, ask questions, keep them involved To ask the children more questions to get them involved.

On what they learnt that was completely new replies included:

Sounds and print are different

All was new to me.

Phonics – letter sounds.

Participants were asked what strategies they would always remember and responded:

The 4 ‘S’s (Say, Show, Sound, Stress) and rhyming child’s names.

Include the quiet ones (children)

Table Eleven: Participant rating of the usefulness of the ABC and Beyond strategies

Table Twelve: Participant rating of the usefulness of the teaching activities:

Strategy 1. Not very useful 2. 3. useful 4. 5. Very

useful

OWL (Observe Wait and Listen) 3333333

Follow the children’s lead 3333333

SSCAN 333 3333

Strive for 5 3 333333

POP (point out print) 3333333

Listen... and Find one like it (syllables, rhymes, sounds) 333 3333

Use the Four S’s (Say, Show, Stress, Show) 3 333333

Teaching activity 1. Not very useful 2. 3. useful 4. 5. Very

useful

Group sessions 3 333333

Group discussions 3 333333

Role plays 3 333 333

Handouts 3333333

Videotaping 3 333333

CHAPTER 4


(iv) Effective Pedagogical Leadership CPD

Initial feedback from the participants from the full implementation of the Leadership CPD is very encouraging. All participants found the Workshops very valuable and reported feeling “empowered” and “supported” as well as “challenged”. Their feedback on the individual visits was universally positive, with all participants articulating the benefits of having a “safe space” to be “solution focused” as well as expressing their belief that connecting to the Workshop content through follow up mentoring visits enhanced the “effectiveness of the input”. All participants expressed the need for “further follow-up” and an interest in being part of a “Leadership Network”.

Further feedback, which was sought from participants in mid-2018 has emphasised the importance of the CPD. Over 80% of respondents found the opportunity for reflection and self-assessment to be the most beneficial aspect of the CPD, followed by the opportunity to meet other managers (67%) and engage with relevant research and content related to current policy and practice (50%).

The most beneficial aspect of the Leadership visits was regarded as the opportunity to develop a leadership plan (83%), followed by the opportunity to access one-to-one support (67%) and the opportunity to identify goals for improving staffing issues (50%). Professional Development was ranked as the most important feature of the CPD, followed by content and interaction, documentation and templates and Accreditation.

A sample of comments relating to changes in participants’ own behaviour regarding the use of books and developing pre-literacy skills in young children is presented below:

It’s more than just reading the story To read more frequently

It’s not always about finishing the book – it’s engaging and having conversations with children.

It makes me think about the book I choose

Not rushing storytime. Allowing time to answer questions and have conversations. Reading in smaller groups; more aware of books as a tool for conversation

POP and showing children where the writing starts

I think that by doing it all the time it will benefit the children more

Not repeat everything the children say

There are a few things I can improve on like asking more questions

In relation to observed changes in children’s behaviour participants noted:

They have become more interested in books and are recognising the letters for their name

Smaller groups are better for the children as they have their say and ask questions. They are asking more questions

They are more aware of the print in labels/posters and are talking to each other about it.

CHAPTER 4


All participants described the impact of the CPD in very affirmative terms, as providing a valuable opportunity “to identify my own strengths and weaknesses as a manager and the differences between leading and managing”; “time to stand back and look at the service realistically”; “an opportunity to assess my relationship with staff and management”, as well as “to receive “practical strategies in leadership, supported by theoretical evidence”. Participants from a larger service found that it “helped the management team reflect on decisions and move forward with a stronger plan in place”.

Most respondents indicated that the positive impact had been sustained and sometimes improved. One manager has “gained and maintained my confidence in my ability to deal with management issues” and another is now “more aware of changes that can be made and how to solve some issues in relation to staff and parents,” while another found it “fantastic to become aware of my own skills and strengths as a manager/leader and have improved on these skills”.

One participant indicated that she had improved things even further after the training, by taking… An opportunity to restructure the service and create a staff mentor position.

This new person is responsible for support and supervision, continued implementation of Aistear, individual access and inclusion plans for children with needs, meeting compliance requirements such as DES, Tusla inspections, policies and procedures, staff training.

Where the positive impact has not been sustained, this was described as “due to a lot of issues arising beyond our control”.

CHAPTER 4


I was happy that I made eye-contact, sat at the children’s level, set up the activity well. I involved him by responding to everything he said, using his name. My questions were at his level. I manage to involve all children. I will remember to expand more.


Quality early learning experiences have a profound effect on young children with implications for their language development, wellbeing, social/emotional development and learning. Drawing on international evidence emphasising both the importance of quality ECEC practice to the progress of young children’s development and learning and the role of effective CPD in sustaining such quality, the SFL initiative was designed to enhance pedagogical practice and pedagogical language in a sample of educators from local early childhood settings. Through collaborative engagement with the participating settings and the Early Childhood Educators the SFL team designed, developed and provided an integrated suite of CPD workshops supported by on-site coaching and mentoring over the period 2014 - 2017.

The purpose of the evaluation was to capture any evidence of change through gathering and analysing a variety of data across the period of the project (See Appendix B). For the purposes of this report the sources analysed comprised both quantitative and qualitative data. Several important findings have emerged from the evaluation of the SFL programme. It is clear that educators’ learning went beyond amending the learning environments, or enhancing their practice and pedagogical language towards achieving, and articulating, an enhanced sense of professional identity. During the variety of training workshops, coaching and mentoring sessions, educators were enabled to consider and reflect on their role in creating, maintaining and designing the learning environment and enhancing the language and learning of the young children attending the setting. Quotes from various written sources collected over lifetime of the project demonstrate an increased awareness of personal pedagogy, professional

practice and oral language development and explicitly make references to the role of planning and assessment, the importance of realising the rights of the children, the value of consultation (within staff teams and with children), the power of reviewing and evaluating setting-wide practices and the critical role of the ECE in the oral language development of children.

The SFL team located the content of all elements of the initiative firmly within Aistear the national early childhood curriculum framework (NCCA, 2009), leveraging the four themes of the framework – Well-being; Identity and belonging; Communicating and Exploring and Thinking – to encourage the ECEs to reflect on their curricular approaches, improve the quality of their early childhood settings both structurally and in terms of the broader educational, or pedagogical process. To this end the project identified two specific measures of success (i) changes in the pedagogical practice of participants and (ii) improved use of pedagogical language by participants with the children. Individual respondent feedback across the components reflects a growing awareness of the possibilities for enhanced practice provided by the Aistear curriculum framework. Much of the various data collected over time shows evidence of the personal impact of the SFL programme on educators’ own knowledge and reflective practice, as well as on their pedagogical knowledge, language and practice. To varying degrees all participants showed better understanding of how the quality of the learning environment can influence children’s learning and language development and an increased awareness of the importance of their role within these processes.

CHAPTER 5DISCUSSION


(i) Changes in the pedagogical practice of participants:

The findings from the Curriculum Foundations component of the SFL model highlight the value of engaging in careful planning, in partnership with participants in community-based initiatives, in order to support and improve the quality of community based ECEC settings.

It proved the effectiveness of focussing on fostering participants’ professional development, by incorporating a number of important training and mentoring strategies:

+ Building an understanding of curriculum and pedagogy, using meaningful opportunities for dialogue and discourse, within teams and between settings;

+ Clarifying concepts which underpin pedagogical theories;

+ Using language which is easily understood, to explain more academic terminology;

+ Connecting the themes of the Aistear curriculum framework to examples from direct practice experience;

+ Allowing teams and individuals the space and time to absorb and apply knowledge, at their own pace;

+ Revisiting knowledge and checking understanding on a regular basis;

+ Enhancing Professional Identity by emphasising the vital importance of the role of Early Childhood Educators and the impact of their work on the lives of young children.

The Curriculum Foundations component was devised and delivered as an innovative, collaborative engagement with frontline early childhood educators. This approach created a safe learning space within which staff from within and across settings could share their practice ideas and acquire new knowledge within the nationally recognised curriculum framework, Aistear. Underpinning this process was a commitment to create a context where ECEs were afforded meaningful opportunities to reflect, individually and with others on ECEC

practice and what it means for them as well as for the children in their care. The contributions made by participants through their participation in this process helped to make the concept of ‘curriculum’ visible and accessible. The tangible development of ‘curriculum statements’ served as a visible outcome for each setting, leading to some practitioners ‘repositioning themselves” “as educators, teachers and professionals” (Ortlipp et al, 2011).

Quality of the early learning environment:

It should be noted that while the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scales [ECERS] were chosen to provide an extrinsic measure of quality within participating settings and to reveal any trends which occurred over the period of the SFL Initiative, the core elements of the programme were not correlated to or intended to impact on any of the specific categories contained in the ECERS tool.

It is clear that the overall quality of the provision in early year’s settings is low, but this needs to be seen in the context of the compromised nature of a number of settings which face both historical and on-going issues relating to the constraints of space, limited training and experience of staff, diminished resources and the impact of external demands (which often includes external training that is not sufficiently tailored to the needs or capacity of individual, local settings). To enhance and maintain quality through CPD provision the research evidence reveals the importance of collaborating locally with early childhood educators, embedding the CPD within a clear curriculum framework, drawing from local experience to realise this in practice. In line with international findings, this study found that the issue of leadership emerged strongly as fundamental to building and sustaining quality practice, to support and embed the outcomes from engagement in professional development by staff.

CHAPTER 5


The data collected from the three waves of ECERS has shown some overall improvement in quality within settings. At an individual setting level, the varying capacity of settings to continue engaging with the project meant that initial progress was often not maintained. The complex and changing ECEC policy climate also had an impact on settings. Of particular significance to the smooth running of the SFL programme was the change in grant allocation in 2016 where settings received enhanced funding if staff members held a Level 6 qualification. Given the fragile financial status of some of the community settings, a significant number of staff with Level 5 certification were facilitated to avail of training in order to gain a Level 6 certificate. Although maintaining engagement with the SFL project given that Level 6 training [and the SFL CPD] was undertaken in their own time, usually in the evenings, attendance at SFL workshops in particular declined and the SFL team observed an evident reduction in the openness and energy of practitioners to avail of the additional training input or mentoring support, during this time

In considering the findings emerging from the ECERS data on the quality of the setting environments it can be stated that the SFL intervention did have an impact within settings and findings show that quality can be enhanced where staff are given time to discuss and reflect on their own pedagogical practice and are coached in skills of particular relevance and importance to the quality of children’s early learning experiences. The opportunity to reflect on practice and discuss the importance and impact of ECEC can also be said to benefit settings in way which may not be easily measured in the short term, but which, research indicates, are likely to contribute to a culture of reflective enquiry and professional practice, which will continue to enhance practitioner engagement with children. Such quality ECEC practice provides a respectful, rich, enabling learning environment within which young children can find the space, time, materials and encouragement to develop and learn at their own pace.

In reviewing the Animating Aistear component, findings show that educators engaged with the opportunities given to critically analyse the learning

opportunities and choices the ECEC environment provided to children and reflected on the type of play experiences provided and the extent of meaningful choice available to children. In creating cycles of discussion, reflection, planning and action which are essential to CPD programmes attempting to enhance pedagogy and learning in early childhood settings (Mitchell and Cubey, 2003) the SFL programme has proved to be effective. Through collaborative professional dialogue with colleagues, settings identified gaps in the type of activities or experiences offered to children. Many settings identified limitations in the learning opportunities provided in their ECEC environments and set about making changes. In relation to the indoor environment, settings identified the need for a cosy, quiet and comfortable space for children to relax in, to spend time reading or simply be alone. This awareness arose directly from staff being guided, encouraged and supported to take particular note of this important component, and, through discussion and reflection become aware of the limitations and possibilities of all their setting spaces. Typically, community settings are not housed in purpose-built facilities and have been adapted from other uses over time and so careful planning was necessary to effect meaningful and sustained changes. A number of settings changed the colours on their walls, added plants, soft lighting, soft furnishings, rugs, cushions and blankets to make them more attractive, warm and inviting for young children.

SFL participants acknowledged that in order to allow time for children’s play to become complex and meaningful they needed to plan and provide a variety of play spaces that, for instance, provided privacy for children to work on projects/activities uninterrupted and sheltered while also providing for more boisterous play in other areas of a room. Taking account of their discussion and referring to the guidance from Aistear, participants made changes and additions. Unnecessary thoroughfares or wide-open spaces were reconfigured to allow free movement within rooms and small and intimate spaces were created, which foster meaningful, sustained conversations and interactions (Weitzman and Greenburg, 2002). Outdoor play spaces were

CHAPTER 5


modified in some settings through the addition of outdoor structures with built-in benches, or features that had a specific social element, for example, playhouses, jungle gyms with sheltered spaces beneath and large low sand trays where children can sit and converse. Educators further considered how the indoor and outdoor space facilitated an expanded range of play. Findings show that, over the period of the SFL initiative participants in a number of settings, particularly those able to maintain engagement for the full duration of the programme, expanded their curricular planning to include greater use of both the internal spaces available and the outdoor play areas.

An essential factor in professionalisation is the ability of early years educators to analyse their own practice, identify what has been effective and, as a team, develop new approaches based on evidence. CPD that explores and extends early childhood educators’ pedagogical understanding and beliefs, such as SFL, helps them to appreciate the strong role they play as educators within the learning environment (Peeters et al, 2014; Vandenbroeck et al, 2016). Analysis of the various sources of feedback gathered across the project (2014 – 2017) illustrate that individual participants, teams and settings increasingly recognised the impact of the early learning environment on children’s language, learning and development. They also became more aware of their role in planning this, both for and with the children. The changes the SFL team began to observe in early 2015 appeared to have had an on-going impact on practice. At a six month follow up, 6 of the 8 settings continued to cite environment planning and arrangement as major practice changes suggesting that practitioners now appreciate the importance of ‘pedagogical framing’ (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002) as the context for their own professional practice. Furthermore, on their evaluation sheets, the ECEs made links between the changes made in the environment and the Speech, Language and Communication component of SFL’s training, which aimed to enhance opportunities for children to interact and develop their oral language skills.

… (we have) changed room’s layout and now the flow has created a more positive, challenging environment for all the children to interact [Manager]

The evidence of sustained changes to pedagogical practice and settings may be attributed to the collaborative approach underpinning the overall SFL programme. In participant settings a number of educators from each room were involved in completing actions plans, which were written collaboratively with manager input and sign-off. On-going reflection was built into the programme and individual ideas were brought to the cluster group or team discussions. In relation to the small grant for materials, for instance, these discussions informed the action plans, which in turn became the basis of the grant applications. Managers were also asked to evaluate the impact 3 months later and record this in report forms. These discussions and written documents helped the teams to refine their ideas over time, bed down concepts from Aistear (the themes, principles and so forth) and reflect on the impact of the changes made.

Although there appears to be a clear recognition of themes through the written feedback gathered during the course of the SFL initiative and at review, it is unclear to what extent this recognition translated to a deep understanding and the application of themes in practice. In some instance settings named individual themes rather than describe the pedagogical practices that relates to them in their day-to-day engagement with children. This highlights the struggle some ECEs faced with assimilating some of the concepts outlined in the Aistear framework into their daily practice.

However, the evidence of the extensive qualitative data gathered over the lifetime of the SFL programme concurs, in large part, with findings from a comprehensive one-to-one pre- and post-programme interviews undertaken with a small number of setting staff [N=8, one from each setting]. Findings from the interview, adapted from Siraj Blatchford et al. (2002), show a significant progression in pedagogical understanding and

CHAPTER 5


awareness of the significant role of Aistear as a guide to practice and of the powerful role the ECE plays in ECEC quality. For instance, in the Time 1 interview data participants were unclear about what exactly Aistear was, at times confusing it with Síolta, the national quality framework. There was also confusion about the Aistear framework itself and limited understanding of the significance of the Aistear theme for practice. However, there were more instances in Time 2 transcripts where the participant spoke specifically about Aistear exhibiting a clearer understanding of its role in informing their practice. This progression of awareness and understanding is reflected in SFL team observations and analysis of feedback across the SFL components and in the positive trends found across some settings captured in the ECERS quality assessments.

Participants were also better able to explain free play and the importance of play to children’s learning and development at Time 2 and a number of the respondents mentioned that they now experience greater job satisfaction. Furthermore, they referred specifically to the use of stickers and post-it’s as records of practice and children’s learning linked to Aistear themes and were able to give explanations of concepts behind the ideas of these notes and how to explain the relevance and importance to parents. In fact, the engagement with parents was far more evident towards the end of the SFL initiative and parental involvement was enhanced with, for example, children taking greater ownership of their floor-books/learning portfolios by taking them home and relaying stories about what is going on at home back into the setting.

Participants also presented themselves as professionals in the Time 2 interviews and explained what they did every day, how and why they extended the children’s learning and emphasised the importance of their role in supporting the children’s language and learning through careful planning and assessment. This is an important finding in light of other studies which have found that early childhood educators were reluctant to engage in pedagogical discussions and found it difficult to articulate or describe in any detail the specifics of their practice that were important to them or the values, beliefs

and principles underpinning their practice (Moyles et al., 2002; Stephen, 2010). This professional confidence and use of pedagogical language to describe their practice and, more importantly, why they do it is evidence of the positive impact of the SFL programme design and implementation approach. It supports the decision of the SFL team to provide the CPD programme through a combination of interconnected workshops and on-site mentoring supports and to create a clear link to Aistear through the Animating Aistear and the Speech, Language and Communication components. It reinforces the value of the varied and multiple opportunities given participants for collective and individual reflection on the skills, knowledge and practices that contribute to quality ECEC practice.

(ii) Improved use of pedagogical language by participants with the children:

In addition to aiming to enhance the pedagogical understandings and knowledge of participants, the SFL programme also chose to give particular attention to integrating a significant Speech, Language and Communication [SLC] component into its design in recognition of the significance of oral language development to young children’s early thinking and learning. The SLC component was designed to equip participants with the skills and confidence to be proactive in their verbal communication with young children and language sensitive in their planning and implementation of the daily curriculum in practice. As the work on this component progressed it became clear that the process of learning about the skills and strategies necessary to encourage oral language development in children was itself having an impact on the verbal confidence and skills of the participants themselves. Although not directly assessed it is possible that this in turn impacted on participant understanding and engagement with the more conceptual aspects of the Animating Aistear component.

CHAPTER 5


The ratings for all the Learning Language and Loving It strategies, which encourage adults to allow children to take the lead improved. Findings show that participants reduced the number of closed questions, and questions in general, in favour of child-oriented strategies such as observe, wait and listen and follow the child’s lead. Findings showed significant improvement in the use of extension strategies, an improvement which was maintained over time. In this measure the educator encourages extended verbal interaction in verbal turn taking by linking comments and questions. This invites children to take turns while balancing the number and length of adult-to-child turns.

The experiment of letting children lead was an access point for reflection leading adults to increased awareness of their interaction with children and the positive effect of child-oriented strategies on children. The introduction of a no-questions week for instance, caused a significant rise in self-awareness and contributed to the participants’ readiness for taking part and practising new strategies. It opened the gate to enable them to adapt interaction style to promote new language learning strategies.

Prior to the use of video feedback some participants expressed how difficult it was to reduce questions indicating that they found they asked a question without thinking. The video feedback allowed them to reflect on and alter their practice. Some services took the idea of of ‘no-questions’ more literally than others and monitored each other by raising their hand if they heard a question. By collectively reflecting and using meta-cognitive strategies, they demonstrated the desire to change and a willingness to learn. As these two participants express, the video review was an opportunity to build their self-awareness and reflect on the effect on the children.

The children enjoyed the book. I sometimes waited for the children to answer. I wish that I had not asked so many questions. I will now remember to let the children lead and then comment.

… I couldn’t think of what to say on the spot.

This latter comment is typical of someone really learning a new skill and in the process of changing their behaviour. On the Variety of Question measure participants focused on the type of question they use and are rated on use a variety of the Why, What and When questions. Siraj-Blatchford and Manni (2006) in their study they found that only 5.5% of questions were open-ended questions, but it is these open-ended questions which provide the pedagogical space for adult engagement for children and the potential for sustained shared thinking/talking. The fact that this study found an improving trend on these strategies indicates that the SFL participants are moving towards a situation where they will engage in sustained-shared thinking with young children, a recognised critical strategy for quality, effective early childhood pedagogy.

While the improvement in use of the Use of a Variety of Labels strategy is notable and was maintained over time, it fell into the range of needing ‘fine tuning’. The limited improvement in this strategy is difficult to explain but may reflect the general level of varied vocabulary used by the participants in their communication with children and in general interactions.

In relation to the Play on Words initiative, while the content of which is evidence- informed, with the educators reflecting on changes they have made and positive impact on the children, the programme has not been robustly tested. Initial assessments indicate small gains in language skills over the period of this element of the SLC with significantly more children achieving language skills in the average range. However, further testing is required with a control group to attribute the gains to Play on Words.

The ECEs displayed increasing ability to plan and use Mind Maps in their day-to-day practice, expand their own research into new areas and include language targets. They reported recognising the value of this research to enhancing their pedagogical practice and the importance of using more complex language, which matches the level of the children’s ability. Some felt empowered by hearing the children learn the new words introduced through this approach and to use

CHAPTER 5


them appropriately in different situations. It is hoped that ECEs will continue to use these plans and richer language with children, so the children will benefit in contexts beyond the initiative and with groups of different children.

With systemic change a major goal of the intervention, the process of planning around children’s interests aligns with the curriculum framework of Aistear and the planning process being implemented by the settings, as well as the overall approach to pedagogical documentation which has been established through SFL, drawing on Aistear.

This reduces the amount of the change the programme requires. ECEs reported feeling confident about implementing Play on Words with some support of a SLT. Some felt confident implementing it without SLT support. Furthermore, the universal approach and the similar format ‘small group’ which takes place daily in setting minimised change in the daily routine.

However, given the competing demands in early childhood settings and the changeover of staff between rooms and settings, it is likely that some level of support would be required to monitor planning and implementation. This was recognised by some ECEs in feedback. In this case, most of the ECE’s had completed the Learning Language and Loving It [LLLI] programme so they had a strong understanding the importance of quality interactions and used strategies to promote language development. They did not require training in this though benefited from continued coaching in some cases. The findings from this small-scale element of the overall Speech, Language and Communication component opens the possibility of achieving the critically important sustained-shared thinking (Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2004) with children where adults and children problem-solve, clarify a concept, evaluate an activity and extend a narrative through language. The findings from Siraj-Blatchford indicate that children make most progress in later schooling when they have attended early childhood settings where sustained shared thinking occurs and showed that the most highly qualified staff were the most effective in their interaction the children.

It was the issue of sustainability, which gave rise to the SFL team developing the Effective Pedagogical Leadership CPD programme, aimed at enhancing the knowledge and skills of senior ECEC staff to lead and build on effective practice. The workshops were seen as providing a useful context for acquiring new knowledge and guidance for further reading but also an important networking opportunity for participants. A nascent Pedagogical Leader Network emerged from the CPD and it is hoped to build on this into future. The mentoring visits were identified in feedback as a critical component of the CPD as they consolidated the learning and provided an opportunity for more focused and individual guidance on specific issues of local concern around aspects of pedagogical leadership in practice.

CHAPTER 5


You have brought us up to a higher level in confidence and knowing ‘why’ – understanding and emergent and enquiry based curriculum.


The findings from this Evaluation offer a very encouraging indication of the potential for the Strengthening Foundations of Learning model to impact positively on the professional identity, curriculum awareness, pedagogical practice and language of participating ECEs. They provide constructive guidance on how to ensure the effectiveness of CPD in ECEC, in particular by demonstrating how community practitioners whose initial training may be at a very basic level, can be enabled to engage with approaches, such as those that were designed to impact positively on children’s oral language development, by situating their learning in real-life situations, allowing for contextual reflection, in partnership with supportive professionals, acting in mentoring role. The outcomes illustrate the benefits of meaningful engagement with Educators at all levels, particularly within communities of socio-economic disadvantage, in collaboration with statutory services.

The SFL model was designed to take account of the current evidence relating to the most effective CPD approaches in ECEC professional development. It was collaborative from the beginning, facilitating the active engagement of the early childhood educators throughout; the programme was located locally at both community and individual setting level, the project facilitated the participants in the timing of the workshops and the mentoring visits and al components of the SFL programme were located within the national curriculum framework – Aistear (Peeters et al., 2014).

In addition, the programme was designed to balance both the theoretical and practical elements of each component, guide participants through the links between the underpinning concepts of Aistear and

their daily practices and identify key leadership figures to assist in sustaining the gains made (Bove et al., 2018).

Key RecommendationsProfessional Development

The primary aim of the SFL CPD programme was to enhance quality practice through developing the pedagogical practice and language of a sample of ECEs from eight community-based early childhood settings. In this regard the findings support the success of the programme in large measure. However, the full impact of the programme was compromised by a number of external pressures on staff, which led to a number of participants exiting the programme earlier than anticipated. In order to gain the maximum benefit from an intensive, integrated and community linked CPD programme such as SFL it is important that setting managers are committed to supporting staff in their ongoing engagement with the programme over its lifetime. In this study we found a positive relationship between management engagement, maintained uptake of the components of the SFL programme and improvements in pedagogical practice and language. In order to gain the maximum benefit from an intensive, integrated and community linked CPD programme such as SFL it is recommended that:

(i) Setting managers make a firm commitment to supporting staff in their ongoing engagement with the programme over its lifetime.

CHAPTER 6CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS


Placing a focus on the visual impact of changed early learning environments – the first element of the SFL Animating Aistear component – provided participants with a concrete basis from which to engage participants in considering the themes of Aistear and the value of play in learning. It provided a reasonably stress-free introduction to thinking and talking about play as part of the learning process. The small investment that allowed for the purchase of new materials was an investment well spent and leveraged to good effect in the interests of enhancing pedagogical understanding and language among early childhood educators.

The extensive attention given to strengthening the language skills and strategies of the early childhood educators proved a very valuable component of the SFL module. Linking the emphasis on oral language development to the Aistear framework and the Animating Aistear component was particularly useful as it reinforced learning from one component through the other. Including the whole team in the workshops across both components was also a crucial aspect of the programme. It is recommended that:

(ii) The whole team should be included in the planning, design and implementation of the workshops across all components of the SFL progamme to give the project a clear and coherent identity.

Sustaining the gains made in the professional development of staff following the SFL programme will require a variety of activities. In larger settings the components of the programme need to be made available to those members of staff unable to participate in the first round of delivery and the Effective Pedagogical Leadership CPD could be offered to senior ECEs. In addition, findings from the ECERS assessments of quality could be used with individual settings to mentor staff in planning for further quality enhancing activities, particularly in terms of the learning environment.

NetworkingIn addition to the reported learning gained from the workshop elements of SFL and the positive feedback from being mentored, a significant and recurring theme in feedback from participants at all stages, relates to the positive experiences they derive from interaction between settings, which appears to take place on a limited basis, if at all, in normal circumstances. To capitalise on this PFL should continue to maintain and facilitate a Learning Community of ECEC practitioners, to allow for networking opportunities, visits and exchanges, in order to maintain relationships between early years settings. Such a network, in addition to supporting local ECEs in their practice, would also act as a locus for building on connections initiated through SFL with the arts education community20, the Library and local Primary schools21. For community level CPDs such as the SFL model it is recommended that

(iii) Networking opportunities, visits and exchanges are facilitated, in order to maintain relationships between early years settings. Such a network, in addition to supporting local ECEs in their practice, would also act as a locus for building on and strengthening connections across the community.

Collaborative PracticeThe SFL programme offers a valuable demonstration of the potential for collaboration between community and statutory agencies to improve both effectiveness and impact of work with children and families, within particular communities. It has been shown that multifaceted interventions (Law et al. 2017), such as the SFL approach to providing practitioner training and on-site coaching on a variety of speech, language and communication aspects, enabling more parental involvement and room-based intervention, lead to improvements in the interaction skills of practitioners and enhanced oral language development in children. It is important that such findings are disseminated at both local and national

20 The SFL programme supported the development of an arts education project for ECEC settings and this aspect of the programme is currently being evaluated. 21 The SFL team initiated ECEC to Primary school transition activities, which brought ECEs and primary teachers together at the end of the academic year.

CHAPTER 6


level to influence and shape future innovations. In this regard, valuable contacts have been made with other similar sites, to inform a collective agenda, which can be further harnessed to influence both policy makers and practitioners. It is recommended that:

(iv) HSE Speech and Language Therapy teams and management should receive information and presentations on the SFL project, to promote awareness of the effectiveness of directly resourcing the promotion of speech, language and communication skills and strategies among practitioners in early years settings within the context of the Aistear framework.

It is therefore recommended that HSE Speech and Language Therapy teams and management should receive information and presentations on the SFL project, in order to promote awareness of the effectiveness of directly resourcing the promotion of speech, language and communication skills and strategies among practitioners in early years settings.

Policy IssuesThe experience of delivering the SFL initiative has highlighted a broader need which has been consistently identified within the ECEC sector in Ireland, for there to be to be increased opportunities for non-contact time to enable reflection and review within settings, in order for implementation of new learning across and within teams to impact on practice at all levels.

The SFL programme was designed and delivered during a period of intense and often fragmented activity, arising mainly from changing legislative and funding requirements. There is no doubt that these external factors had a disruptive effect on settings and proved too challenging for some, particularly in relation their capacity to engage with continuing professional development during this phase. This represents what the programme implementers and evaluators regard as ‘competing priorities’ at policy level with a substantial risk that the national quality

agenda may displace beneficial interventions at local level. This is a significant issue, which needs to be highlighted to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs [DCYA], who oversee the Area Based Childhood Initiative. It is recommended that:

(v) Strategies be put in place to limit the impact of ECEC policy changes during the academic year to allow sustained CPD programmes to run their course

(vi) Separate hours to be allocated to continuing professional development activities, such as SFL within funded working hours of Early Childhood Educators as a central quality enhancement initiative.

Further ResearchWhile some significant work with early childhood settings in disadvantaged communities has been undertaken within Prevention and Early Intervention Projects and Area Based Childhood sites to date, it is hoped in light of commitments made within First Five (Government of Ireland, 2018), that the DCYA is considering the potential for specific measures to be supported to enhance the national quality agenda within particular localities, where young children and their families may experience increased challenges relating to educational outcomes.

It is recommended that:

(vii) Specific research be supported, to explore if and how current national and local mentoring and support initiatives are addressing the professional development of staff in community ECEC

CHAPTER 6


Mainstreaming and Next StepsKey aspects of the SFL Curriculum Foundation element have been incorporated by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment into the design of an online resource, the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide, (NCCA, 2015). For instance, element one, of the Curriculum Foundations Pillar (Curriculum Foundations, pg. 2) includes strategies developed as part of the SFL programme, which have been described in this report and which were shared with NCCA, when the first phase of the SFL programme was evaluated in mid-2014. While the online nature of the Guide limits the collaborative and social dimension of the SFL model, the approach to delivering training in the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide has now been designed to take place over a longer period of time to include a mentoring element, which is further validation of the effectiveness of the approaches employed by the SFL team and creates the possibility that these can now be ‘mainstreamed’ as part of other initiatives, to allow for more effective implementation of professional development, based on the Aistear and Síolta Frameworks, across the ECEC sector.

The approaches employed by the SFL team within each phase of the project have been well documented within this report and the evaluator recommends that, with further funding relevant materials and resources should now be comprehensively collated and edited, in order to allow for and inform the design and development of SFL Programme Manuals. These could be utilised to engage in a similar manner with additional ECEC services both within the Northside Partnership/PFL catchment in the immediate future and more broadly disseminated to inform ECEC projects across other geographical areas.

The findings strongly suggest that the quality of the interaction between adults and children in settings remains a concern. Given the vital importance of this dimension of pedagogical practice to the wellbeing and development of young children, it is recommended that this area could provide a specific focus for future professional development, should further funding be available. This would represent a natural next step from the first phase of SFL, building on both the Animating Aistear and Speech, Language and Communication components, to embed effective, reflexive practice in settings.

It is recommended that:

(vii) Specific research be supported, to explore if and how current national and local mentoring and support initiatives are addressing the professional development of staff in community ECEC services.

The sustainability of the Speech, Language and Communication component could be addressed by identifying volunteer practitioners who have completed the SFL programme, to continue to promote speech, language and communication within their setting, acting as Communication Champions. This role would involve taking responsibility for keeping colleagues informed and aware about the importance of interaction and oral language skills development in addition to informing parents about the importance of using quality speech and language at home. Such designated staff could also facilitate discussions among ECEs in their settings about which children may be at risk of speech and language delay and support them to make an appropriate referral to Speech and Language Therapy services. By empowering practitioners with the knowledge and skills necessary to have informed conversations with parents about their child’s speech and language skills, children can be supported at home and may, if necessary be referred on for speech and language therapy at an earlier stage.

CHAPTER 6


It is recommended that

(ix) Sustainability be addressed by identifying and supporting volunteer practitioners who have completed the SFL programme, to continue to promote speech, language and communication within their setting, acting as Communication Champions.

In conclusion, the findings from this evaluation of the SFL model of CPD indicate that a collaborative community level programme, designed to link theory and practice through workshops and mentoring, sustained across an extended period of time, located within a clear curriculum framework and led by a small but expert team can have a visible and measurable impact on the pedagogical practice and language skills of early childhood educators and the early learning environments of the children with whom they work.

CHAPTER 6


Alexander K (2014) The Long Shadow: Family Background, Disadvantaged Urban Youth, and the Transition to Adulthood. Sage U.S.A. 2014

Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments (2009). Belonging, Being and Becoming. The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/250298/early-years-learning-framework.pdf

Bennet, J (2012) ECEC for children from disadvantaged backgrounds: findings from a European literature review and two case studies: Final Report. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school/doc/ecec-report_en.pdf

Blase K., Van Dyke M. and Fixsen D. (2013) Stages of Implementation Analysis: Where Are We? National Implementation Research Network, 2013 https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/sites/implementation.fpg.unc.edu/files/NIRN-StagesOfImplementationAnalysisWhereAreWe.pdf

Blase, K., Kiser, L. and Van Dyke, M. (2013). The Hexagon Tool: Exploring Context. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network, FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bleach, J (2011) Developing ECCE practitioners’ sense of professionalism through reflective practice and on-going professional development. Paper presented at EECERA 21st Annual Conference. http://trap.ncirl.ie/1136/

Bowman, B., Donovan, S., & Burns, S. (Eds.) (2001) Eager to Learn: Educating our pre-schoolers. Report of Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, Commission on Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education National Research Council, Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Bove, C., Jensen, B., Wyslowska, O., Iannone, R.L., Mantovani. S. and Karwowska-Struczyk, M. (2018). How does innovative continuous professional development (CPD) operate in the ECEC sector? Insights from a cross-analysis of cases in Denmark, Italy and Poland. European Journal of Education 53:1

REFERENCES

Burchinal, M.R., Roberts, J.E., Riggins, Jr., R., Zeisel, E.N. & Bryant, D. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, 71(2), 339-357.

Burchinal, M., D. Cryer, and R. Clifford (2002), “Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 2-11.

Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between childcare quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 166-176.

Carr, M. (1999) Being a learner: Five learning dispositions for early childhood. Early Childhood Practice, 1, 82-99

Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (2006) Síolta: The National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education. Dublin: CECDE.

Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (2007) Síolta, Research Digests. Dublin: CECDE.

Corrigan, C. (2004) OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care: Background Report – IRELAND. DES, Dublin. http://www.oecd.org/ireland/34431749.pdf

Curtis, D., Carter M. 2011. Reflecting Children’s Lives: A Handbook for Planning Your Child-Centered Curriculum. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.

Dahlberg, G. Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education. Falmer Press, London.

Dalli, C (2008) Pedagogy, knowledge and collaboration: towards a ground-up perspective on professionalis., European Early Childhood Research Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2008, 171-185

Daly, M., Grogan-Ryan ,P., Corbett, M., Connolly, L. (2014) The Aistear in Action Initiative 2011-2013. An Leanbh Óg, 8:169-200.

Department of Education and Science (1999). White Paper on Early Childhood Education, Ready to Learn Government Publications, Dublin


Department of Education and Skills (2011) The National Strategy to improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People, 2011 -2020. Department of Education and Skills. Government Publications, Dublin

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2013a). Right from the Start: Report of the Expert Advisory Group on the Early Years Strategy. Government Publications, Dublin.

Department of Education and Skills [DES] (2013b). Final Report on the Development and Implementation of the Síolta Quality Assurance Programme Early Years Education Policy Unit. DES, Dublin.

Department of Education and Skills [DES] (2015). Early Years Education-focused Inspections in Early Years Settings Participating in the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Scheme: Briefing Paper. DES, Dublin. http://www.childcareonline.ie/index.php/documents/doc_download/206-eyei-consultation-briefing-paper

Department of Education and Skills [DES] (2016a). Survey of Early years Practitioners: Consultation for the Review of Education and Training Programmes in Early years. DES, Dublin. http://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Early-Childhood/Early-Years-Practitioner-Survey-Findings-2016.pdf

Department of Education and Skills [DES] (2016b). A Guide to Early-years Education-focused Inspections (EYEI) in Early-years Settings Participating in the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Programme. DES, Dublin. https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Inspection-Reports-Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/A-Guide-to-Early-years-Education-focused-Inspection-EYEI-in-Early-years-Settings-Participating-ECCE-Programme.pdf

Dockrell, J.E., Stuart, M. & King, D. (2010) Supporting early oral language skills for English language learners in inner city preschool provision. British Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 497 -515.

Donegal County Childcare Committee [DCCC] (2014) A Reflection of Learning: Donegal’s participation in the National Early Years Access Initiative . DCCC Publishing, Donegal.

Doyle, O., & McNamara, K. (2011). Report on children’s profile at school entry 2008-2011: Evaluation of the Preparing for Life early childhood intervention programme. UCD Geary Institute, Dublin Working Paper Series. http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201108.pdf

Duignan, M., 2007: Practical Professionalism. Dublin. CECDE Vision into Practice conference: CECDE publishing.

Dunphy, E. (2008) Supporting children’s early learning and development through formative assessment. (Research paper) Dublin: Commissioned by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

El-Choueifati, N., Purcell, A., McCabe, P. & Munro, N. (2012) Evidence-Based practice in speech language pathologist training of early childhood professionals. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6:3 150-165

Eurofound (2014). Early childhood education and care; working conditions and training opportunities: Working Paper, Dublin. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef13101en.pdf

European Commission (2014). Proposal for key principles of a Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Report of the Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care under the auspices of European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/archive/documents/ecec-quality-framework_en.pdf

Fahey., L. & Rockett, S. (2013) Training Early Childhood Care and Education Practitioners in language stimulation techniques..is there and enduring impact? A joint initiative of Waterford’s Speech and Language Therapy Department of the HSE and Waterford City and Childcare Committees: 2

Fleer, M. (2003). Early Childhood Education as an Evolving ‘Community of Practice’ or as Lived ‘Social Reproduction’: researching the ‘taken-for-granted’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4,1 :64-79 013.

French, G. (2007), Children’s Early Learning and Development, Research paper. Dublin: Commissioned by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)

French G (2014) Let them talk: Evaluation of the language enrichment of the Ballyfermot Early Years Language and learning initiative. Ballyfermot Chapelizod Partnership. Pobal, Dublin

Gandini, L. (1998). Education and Caring Spaces in Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. The Hundred Languages of Children. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Ghassempur, S. (2009) “Tha’ Sounds Like Me Arse!”: A Comparison of the Translation of Expletives in Two German Translations of Roddy Doyle’s The Commitments. A thesis submitted for doctorate of philosophy.

Girolametto, L. Weitzman, E., & van Lieshout, R. (2000) Directiveness in Teachers’ Language Input to Toddlers and Preschool in Day Care. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43: 1101 -1114

Gleeson J., (2008) The Case of the Leaving Certificate Applied. Irish Educational Studies Volume 15, Issue 1, 1996 (Published online, 2008)

Government of Ireland (2018). First 5: A Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families 2019-2028. Dublin: Government Publications

REFERENCES


Granville G., (2010) Curriculum Development as a Subversive Activity? Discourse and Ideology in the Evolution of Curriculum Policy in Ireland 1980-2005. Thesis submitted for Doctorate in Education, NUI, Maynooth, May 2010.

Hanen Centre (Undated) Research Summary: Learning Language and Loving It-The Hanen Program for early childhood educators/teachers. Available at www.hanen.org.

Happy Talk, National Early Years Access Initiative Consortium Evaluation Final Report (2014). Dublin: Pobal

Harford, J., MacRuairc, G. & McCartan, D. (2009) Summary of article titled ‘Lights, Camera, Reflection: Using Peer Video to Promote Reflective dialogue among Student Teachers’ sent to international peer reviewed journal on 19 March 2009.

Hayes, N. (2007), Perspectives on the Relationship Between Education and Care in Early Childhood, Research paper. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, www.ncca.ie/earlylearning

Hayes, N. (2012). Children at the Centre of Practice. In (Eds.) Máire Mhic Mhathúna and Mark Taylor, Early Childhood Education and Care. An Introduction for Students in Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

Hayes, N., Keegan, S. & Goulding, E. (2012) Evaluation of the Speech and Language Therapy Service of Tallaght West Childhood Development Initiative. Dublin: Childhood Development Initiative (CDI)

Hayes, N (2013). Early Years Practice: Getting it Right from the Start. Gill and Macmillan, Dublin.

Jakobson R. (1960) “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics,” in Style in Language (ed. Thomas Sebeok), Cambridge MA:MIT pp.305-77

Jensen, A. S., Broström, S., & Hansen, O. H. (2010) Critical perspectives on Danish early childhood education and care: between the technical and the political. Early Years, 30(3), 243-254.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002) Student Achievement through Staff Development (3rd ed.) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Katz, L. (1996) ‘Child development knowledge and teacher preparation: confronting assumptions’ Early Childhood Research Quarterly 11, p. 135-146

Katz, L. (1999a) ‘Another look at what young children should be learning’ (ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC/ECCE: ERIC Doc. No. ED430735)

Katz, L. (1999b) ‘Curriculum Disputes in early childhood education’ (ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC/ECCE: ERIC Doc no. ED436298)

Kernan, M. (2007), Play as a Context for Early Learning and Development, Research paper. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment; Commissioned by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, (NCCA)

Kernan, M (2015). Learning Environments that work: softening the Boundaries. A paper prepared for the symposium, Early Educational Alignment: reflecting on Context, Curriculum and Pedagogy, 15 October 2015, Trinity College Dublin. http://ecalignment.ie/RECEC-learning%20environments%20that%20work_Kernan_FINAL%20NH[2].pdf

Kulkarina, D. (2014) Exploring Jakobson’s ‘phatic function’ in instant messaging interactions Discourse & Communication 8, pp.117-136

Lave, J. (1991) ‘Situated learning in communities of practice’ in L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasel (eds.) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association)

Law, J., Charlton, J., Dockrell, J., Gascoinge, M., McKean, C., Theakson, A. (2017) Early Language Development: Needs, provision and intervention for pre-school children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. London: Education Endowment Foundation

Litjiens I., Taguma M. (2010) Revised Literature Overview for the 7th Meeting of the Network of Early Childhood and Care. Paris: OECD

Loeb, S., Fuller, B., Kagan, S.L. & Carrol, B. (2004). Child care in poor communities: Early learning effects of type, quality, and stability. Child Development, 75(1), 47-65.

Longford County Childcare Committee [LCCC] (2014) Evaluation of the Tus Nua Project. LCCC, Longford. https://www.pobal.ie/Publications/Documents/Tus%20Nua%20Final%20Report.pdf

Mac Mathúna, S. (2006) Remarks on standardisation in Irish English, Irish and Welsh. Celtic Englishes 4, pp. 114–129

Malaguzzi, L. (1996) The Right to Environment, in T. Filippini and V. Vecchi (eds) The Hundred Languages of Children: The Exhibit. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.

McCray, J. S. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge for preschool mathematics: Relationships to teaching practices and child outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Loyola University Chicago Erikson Institute.

REFERENCES


McKeown, K., Hasse, T. and Pratschke, J (2014) Evaluation of the National Early Years Access initiative and Siolta Quality Assurance Programme. Pobal, Dublin.

Melhuish, E. C., Quinn, L., McSherry, K. Sylva, K., Sammons, P., & Siraj-Blatchford, I., (2000). The Effective Pre-school Provision in Northern Ireland Project, Technical Paper 1: Characteristics of the centres in the EPPNI sample: Observational profiles. Belfast: Stranmillis University College Press.

Minervino J. (2014) Lessons from Research and the Classroom: Implementing High-Quality Pre-K that Makes a Difference for Young Children in Ready On Day One: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation www.gatesfoundation.org

Mitchell L. and Cubey, P. (2003) Characteristics of effective professional development linked to enhanced pedagogy and children’s learning in early childhood settings: Best Evidence Synthesis. Report prepared for the New Zealand Ministry of Education https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/7703/bes-professional-development.pdf

Molnar, A. (1992) Contemporary Curriculum Discourse: Too Much Ado about Too Much Nothing Theory into Practice Vol. 31, No. 3, Grounding Contemporary Curriculum Thought (Summer, 1992), pp. 198-203

Moloney M., (2011) Locating Quality in Early Childhood Care and Education Discourse in Ireland: Pre-school and Infant Classrooms as a Crucible for Learning and Development. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of PhD in Education. University of Limerick, 2011 (Supervised by: Professor Jim Deegan)

Moloney, M., (2015) Untangling the knots – [k]not easy: professional identity in the Early Childhood Care and Education Sector. A paper prepared for the symposium, Early Educational Alignment: reflecting on Context, Curriculum and Pedagogy, 15 October 2015, Trinity College Dublin. http://ecalignment.ie/Untangling%20the%20knots%206%2010%2015.pdf

Motiejunaite A., Delhaxhe A., Balcon M., and Borodankova O. (2014) Eurydice Policy Brief; Early Childhood Education and Care European Commission: Brussells. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/Eurydice_Policy_Brief_ECEC_EN.pdf

Moyles, J., Adams, S. & Musgrove, A. (2002) SPEEL: Study of pedagogical effectiveness in early learning. London: DfES, Research Report No. 363.

Murphy, C., Kiernan, G., Curry, P., Greene, S., Axford, N., & Bujia Couso, P. (2004). Preparing for Life: A report on school readiness in a disadvantaged community. Report commissioned by the Preparing for Life Group, Northside Partnership, Dublin.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009). Aistear the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework. NCCA, Dublin. Accessed at http://www.ncca.biz/Aistear/.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2013). Aistear in Action initiative: Final report - A collaboration between NCCA and Early Childhood Ireland. Dublin NCCA

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2015). Aistear Síolta Practice Guide. NCCA, Dublin. http://www.ncca.ie/en/Practice-Guide

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (2000). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4 (3), 116-135.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2004): OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Background Report. Ireland: OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006b): Starting Strong: Early Childhood Care and Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012), Quality Matters in Early Childhood Education Care: Finland 2012, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264173569-en

Ortlipp M. , Arthur L., Woodrow C., (2011) Discourses of the Early Years Learning Framework: constructing the early childhood professional. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Vol. 12 No.1

Rafferty, M. (2014) A brief review of approaches to oral language development to inform the Area Based Childhood Programme. Dublin: The Centre for Effective Services.

Ramey, C. T., S. L. Ramey, & B. R. Stokes. Research evidence about program dosage and student achievement: Effective public prekindergarten programs in Maryland and Louisiana. The promise of Pre-K (2009): 79-105.

Rojas, R. L. M. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge in early childhood: A study of teachers’ knowledge. Loyola University Chicago

Sammons, P. (2010) The EPPE Research Design: An Educational Effectiveness Focus In: Sylva et al eds. Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-School and Primary Education Project. London/New York: Routledge.

Sheil, G., Cregan, Á., McGough, A. & Archer, P. (2012) Oral Language in Early Childhood and Primary Education. Research Report no. 14. Dublin: NCCA

Sheridan, S. (2009), “Discerning pedagogical quality in preschool”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 245-261.

REFERENCES


Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14.

Shulman, L. (2005) Foreword In:. Huber, M. and Hutchings, P. (2005) The advancement of learning: building the teaching commons, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R. & Bell, D. (2002) Researching effective pedagogy in the early years (REPEY): DFES Research Report 356. London: DFES, HMSO.

Siraj-Blatchford I., Manni L., (2007) Effective Leadership in the Early Years Sector: The ELEYS Study London Institute of Education Press

Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Manni, L. (2008) ‘Would you like to tidy up now?’ An analysis of adult questioning in the English Foundation Stage. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 28:(1) 5-22.

Smith, G. & McNally, S. (2013) A three-pronged approach to early intervention speech and language delivery in the community. An Leanbh Óg: The OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood Studies, 7. pp. 119-128

Stacey, S. 2009. Emergent Curriculum in Early Childhood Settings: From Theory to Practice. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.

Stenhouse L., (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development New York Heinemann

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Taggart, B. (2004) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Findings from Pre-school to end of Key Stage 1. DFES Research Report. London: DFES, HMSO.

UCD Geary Institute (March 2012) Report on Children’s Profile at School Entry 2008-2012 Evaluation of The ‘Preparing For Life’ Early Childhood Intervention Programme Dublin, Geary Institute

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO] (2004) Early Childhood Workforce: Continuing Education and Professional Development . UNESCO, Paris.

United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund [UNICEF] (2012) A Framework and Tool Box for Monitoring and Improving Quality. UNICEF Office of Research, Innocenti. http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/ECD_Framework_PART_II_june3.pdf

Vandell, D. L., & Corasaniti, M. A. (1990). Variations in early child care: Do they predict subsequent social, emotional, and cognitive differences? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5(4), 555-572.

Votruba-Drzal, E., Coley, R.L. & Chase-Lansdale, L. (2004). Child care and low-income children’s development: Direct and moderated effects. Child Development, 75(1), 296-312.

Walsh, G., McMillan, D., and Doherty, A. (2013) Aistear in Action: Evaluation of the Ballyfermot Early Years Language and Learning Initiative Programme to Promote Quality Improvement in Early Years Settings through the use of Aistear. Ballyfermot Chapelizod Partnership, Dublin.

Weitzman, E., Greenberg, J. (2002) Learning Language and Loving It: A Guide to Promoting Children’s Social, Language and Literacy Development in Early Childhood Setting (2nd ed.), Transcontinental Interglobe Inc.

Weitzman, E. and Greenberg, J. (2010) ABC and Beyond ™: Building Emergent Literacy in Early Childhood settings. Toronto: Hanen

Weitzman. E, Girolametto, L. & Greenberg, J. (2006) Adult responsiveness as a critical intervention mechanism for emergent literacy: Strategies for preschool educators. In L.M. Justice (eds.) Clinical Approaches to Emergent Literacy Intervention (pp. 75-120). San Diego, Ca Plural Publications.

Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care. Proposal for key principles of a Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care. European Commission , October 2014

Zeynep, H. Examining Pre-School Education Teacher Candidates’ Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 10 (4) Autumn 2010:309-323

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. A. (2011). The Preschool Language Scale-5. San Antonio, TX: Pearson

REFERENCES


Overview of the Subscales and Items of the ECERS-R

Space and Furnishings1. Indoor space2. Furniture for routine care, play and learning3. Furnishings for relaxation and comfort4. Room arrangement for play5. Space for privacy6. Child-related display7. Space for gross motor play8. Gross motor equipment

Personal Care Routines9. Greeting/departing10. Meals/snacks11. Nap/rest12. Toileting/diapering13. Health practices14. Safety practices

Language-Reasoning15. Books and pictures16. Encouraging children to communicate17. Using language to develop reasoning skills18. Informal use of language

Activities19. Fine motor20. Art

APPENDIX A:

21. Music/movement22. Blocks23. Sand/water24. Dramatic play25. Nature/science26. Math/number27. Use of TV, video, and/or computers28. Promoting acceptance of diversity

Interaction29. Supervision of gross motor activities30. General supervision of children

(other than gross motor)31. Discipline32. Staff-child interactions33. Interactions among children

Programme Structure34. Schedule35. Free play36. Group time37. Provisions for children with disabilities

Parents and Staff 22

38. Provisions for parents39. Provisions for personal needs of staff40. Provisions for professional needs of staff41. Staff interaction and cooperation42. Supervision and evaluation of staff

43. Opportunities for professional growth

22 This subscale is measured mainly through questioning of the Manager by the Assessor.

As in this project the Assessor was known to Managers, it was felt that that this category could not be objectively assessed due to a potential risk of contamination of responses, given the probability that Managers would want to convey a positive representation of the service.


Key Elements of Quality

SPACE AND FURNISHINGS + Allow for several children to move and play freely

in main centres (i.e. dramatic play and block play)

+ Quiet centres and active centres are not next to each other.

+ At least 5 interest centres organised for children’s independent use (i.e. labelled shelves,

+ labelled containers, etc.)

+ Space for privacy; more than one area set aside for one or two children to play; set aside as a “getaway” area and protected from intrusion by others (i.e. children are aware of no interruption rule, rule enforced by staff).

+ Many child-related displays in room at child eye level.

+ Most displays done by children vs. commercial displays; work is mostly individualized. (60% or more of display by or related to children in the class.)

+ Most displays related to current theme and/or topics of interest within the last month.

+ Most displays relate directly to children in room (i.e. photos of children, self-portraits, stories dictated by children, writing samples, etc.)

PERSONAL CARE ROUTINES + Each child and each parent are greeted warmly

by name.

+ Pleasant social atmosphere and many conversations during meals. Food allergies/dietary restrictions posted in room. (Can be covered.)

+ Cots placed 3 feet apart or solid barrier; no bedding stored on stacked cots. No teacher coffee, soda, junk food visible or eaten in front of children.

+ Healthy foods served during meals and snacks Table sanitising process before snacks & lunch

+ Children and staff wash hands after toileting, after nose wiping, before meals, after outdoor play, after messy play, after animal handling, etc. (Also, before placing serving gloves on.) Cleaning items labelled and stored safely.

+ Safety covers on unused outlets including power strips.

LANGUAGE AND REASONING + Enough books accessible at one time (at least

20-30 out for use & in good repair!) Books out show variety from all categories (5 + per category); fantasy, fact, people, animals, science, literature, multicultural, etc. (Golden, Disney or similar books of low quality do not count)

+ Books read both formally to group and informally daily (must be seen reading to individuals (informally) during observation)

+ Many communication activities; staff-child, child-child; conversation is encouraged, songs, finger plays, stories, etc.

+ Staff talk with children about concepts, logical relationships, reasoning, problem solving during play and routines.

+ Staff add information and expand on ideas children have during children’s play through

+ conversations with children.

ACTIVITIES - ART & MUSIC + Labelled shelves and labelled containers of

materials. (Not all necessary but most should to promote independence.)

+ Many art materials accessible (open shelves) to children. Easel open and ready with paint, brushes and paper.

+ Much individual expression in art. (Children choose at least media or topic.) Opportunities provided for 3-D art activities; music/movement.

+ Music as free choice for 1 hour with enough musical instruments (for at least 8 students) and materials accessible for use (i.e. dance props, CD’s, instruments). Note that CDs & dance props only count if there is music children can use with it.

APPENDIX A


ACTIVITIES - BLOCKS + Enough space, blocks and block accessories

(i.e. people, vehicles, signs, tape measures, rulers, etc.) for 3 or more children to build sizable structures.

+ Organised, labelled block area for blocks and accessories.

+ Two to 3 types of blocks (do not count Legos or other fine motor builders; place these with manipulatives vs. block lab.)

ACTIVITIES - DRAMATIC PLAY + Many dramatic play materials accessible;

organised and labelled Props and clothes for career, home, leisure, fantasy, cultures.

+ Clothes and accessories for male gender role play as well as female gender role play.

ACTIVITIES - SCIENCE & NATURE + 4-5 collections of natural objects such as rocks,

shells, acorns, pinecones, leaves, etc. (organised and labelled).

+ Science centre materials accessible daily, varied and adequate from all categories. Live plants and/or fish (at least 3 living things) to care for.

+ Science/nature books displayed and rotated.

+ Evidence of science/nature activities: charts re: cooking, simple experiments, etc. Science and nature games and toys.

+ Unplanned, informal conversations occur connecting everyday events to science in addition to planned activities.

ACTIVITIES - MATH AND NUMBER + Many materials for math concepts and number

(counting, number, shapes, measurements). Daily routine activities that promote math concepts and link math and number play to daily classroom activities.

ACTIVITIES- USE OF TV, VIDEO & COMPUTERS + Computer use limited to 20 minutes per child for

the day. (Timer used for turns.) NOTE: Children watching and waiting for a turn are considered at the computer. Videos and computer games limited to those that support themes and are considered educational for children

ACTIVITIES - DIVERSITY + Props, books, pictures and materials that

show different ages, races, cultures, abilities in nonstereotypical roles. (3 per category)

ACTIVITIES - SAND AND WATER + Sand table and water table must contain at least

3-4 inches of depth

INTERACTIONS: + Staff interactions (physically and verbally) with

children are mostly positive. Most supervision is non-punitive.

+ Staff show enjoyment in being with children.

+ Staff use mostly non-punitive discipline methods (re-direction, attention to positive behaviour, problem solving and conflict resolution techniques).

+ Staff interact with children with warmth, respect, sympathy.

PROGRAM STRUCTURE: + Written schedule posted in room for parents.

+ Written and pictorial schedule posted for children. Written schedule is very close to what will actually be observed.

+ Schedule & actual observation shows 50 minutes – 1 hour of outdoor play daily Schedule (written and actually observed) shows 2 hours + 10 minutes of free choice play indoors.

+ Written schedules reflect transition minutes. Time does not begin counting until at least ½ of students are participating in choice.

+ Variety of daily groupings; short whole-group times (no more than 20 minutes at one time), small groups, self-selected groups and playmates

APPENDIX A


ECERS-EThe ECERS-E (extension) was designed by Professor Kathy Sylva, Professor Iram Siraj- Blatchford and Brenda Taggart as a companion scale to the ECERS-R. It provides greater depth and additional items in four educational aspects of provision: literacy, numeracy, science and diversity. (For the PFL assessments, only the Literacy sub-scale was used).

As with ECERS-E, items are rated on a 7-point scale from (1) Inadequate to (7) Excellent; Examples are provided at scoring points 1, 3, 5, and 7 for each item.

Average subscale scores can also be calculated.

Literacy Items: + Print in the environment

+ Book and literacy areas

+ Adults reading with children

+ Sounds in words

+ Emergent writing/mark making

+ Talking and listening

APPENDIX A


APPENDIX B: DATA LOG

Date/Focus Qualitative Data Quantitative Data

Planning and Exploring

Oct-Dec 2013

Feedback from Exploratory Meetings with managers Strengths and needs report for each setting

Service Profiles (Including number of staff, children etc.)

Induction

Jan-Jun 2014

Forms, Feedback sheets, Comments from facilitated session, to evaluate Induction

Curriculum questionnaire

Analysis of above in Documented Report

Curriculum Statements

List of names, roles and locations of participants Attendance Sheets Analysis of Attendance at Sessions (by service) Records of dates and duration of site visits (and number of interactions with staff per visit)

Learning Environment

Sept-Dec 2014

Audio Recordings of Group Sessions Flip chart records from training Setting Action Plans

Setting Report Forms (documenting impact of changes, includes input from children and parents) Application forms (for grant approval)

Mentor reflective journal (post-training and post- visit)

Pre-intervention floor plans from participating rooms Mentor observations

Photographs of improvements made in settings Feedback forms

Collated Evaluation Feedback Mentor session plans

Analysis of Attendance at Sessions, by service

Planning and Assessment

Sept-Dec 2015

January-Sept 2016

Child Portfolio’s

Floor Books

Participant Feedback

Pre- intervention questionnaire x 9

Post- intervention questionnaire x 20

Audio recording of final session

Flip chart records from training

Mind maps

Mentor visit records

Mentor reflective journal (post-training and post- visit)

Mentor session plans

Evaluation forms (from programme B and C)

Copy of all work completed in training and mentoring visits (from programme B and C)

Attendance Lists



Leadership

Pilot Workshop and Visit 2015

Full CPD – Six Workshops 2016

Copies of Individual Action Plans

Feedback Forms

Blob Trees

Copies of Leadership Action Plans

Flip Chart Feedback

Attendance Lists

Dates and Detail of Sessions and Individual Mentoring Visits

Speech Language

and Communication

Jan-March

March-June

Sept-Dec

2015

January – December 2016

January - June 2017

Pre-programme videos x 35 (approx.)

Post programme videos 42

Post programme videos- 6 months post x 28

Post programme videos 12 months

Reflective Journal (notes taken by SLT following each video feedback session.)

Action Plans (completed by approx. 28 Participants x 4 times each)

Feedback forms (from group sessions) – Prog A 15 x3 Prog B 13 x 3 Prog C 13 x 3

Audio Recordings of sessions Prog A, B and C

Observations of children completed by participants in week 1 of Language for Life - (approx. 35)

Observations of children completed by participants in final weeks (approx. 15) to be compared with initial observations.

Communication checklist (observation of children’s stage of communication) x 20

Communication checklist (observation of children’s stage of communication) x 20

Completed mind-maps and plans for oral language

development, completed in conjunction with staff in setting.

Reflective journal (SLT Facilitator) on sessions

Structured interviews with participants at mid-and end-points

Attendance sheets (42 x 3) Educational attainment level of participants at time of attendance

TILRS (rating of videos) completed for pre-programme

TILRS (rating of videos) not yet completed for Post- programme B and C

22 Pre-school Language Scale – 5 (standardized assessment of language) completed on children in the preschool room in one setting. Scoring completed.

Daily attendance of children and staff in oral language development groups.

APPENDIX B



Other Data

Collected

Transcript of audio recording of ‘Learning Circle’

(20/5/15)

Early Childhood

Environmental

Rating Scales [R and E] Assessments of Services:

1st Wave June - October 2014

2nd Wave September 2015

3rd Wave February - June 2017

Arnett Caregivers Interaction Scale [interviews only] in 8 Services – October 2015 (Repeated in 2016/17)

Record of Participants to Date indicating engagement with elements of SFL

Team’s Rating of Engagement with services 2013-2017

Samples from Floor Books (December 2016)

APPENDIX B


APPENDIX CGraphs showing the aggregate ECERS rating of quality across time, for each setting:

APPENDIX C Graphs showing the aggregate ECERS rating of quality across time, for each setting:

SETTINGA7

6

5

4

3

2

1

01 2 3

SETTINGB7

6

5

4

3

2

1

01 2 3

SETTINGC7

6

5

4

3

2

1

01 2 3


SETTINGD7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1 2 3

SETTINGE7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1 2 3

SETTINGF7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1 2 3

APPENDIX C


SETTINGG7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1 2 3

SETTINGH7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1 2 3

APPENDIX C


Northside Partnership NS_Partnership Northside Partnership