Report NotesVisit 040211 DEFexpertisecentrum.cego.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/... · Raising levels of well‐being and involvement in Milton Keynes Preschool Settings ... 1 SICS is

4/02/2011

FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCESDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTRE FOR EXPERIENTAL EDUCATION SCHAPENSTRAAT 34 – BUS 3776 B-3000 LEUVEN (BELGIUM)

1

Report: Raising levels of well‐being and involvement in Milton Keynes Preschool Settings

[School year 2009‐2010]

Analysis of Notes of Visits of baseline [November 2009], second [April 2010] and third measurement [July 2010]

January 2011

KATHOLIEKE

UNIVERSITEITLEUVEN

Project coordination: Prof. Dr. Ferre Laevers Researcher: Bart Declercq Statistical support: Dr. Evelien Buyse

Milton Keynes: Improving the quality of ECE through well‐being and involvement

Raising levels of well‐being and involvement in Milton Keynes Preschool Settings [November 2009 – April 2010 – July 2010] © Centre for Experiential Education

| 1

Factsheet: ‐ This report is based on data gathered

o between November 2009 and July 2010 o by 15 different observers of the Milton Keynes Early Years team o three measurements are executed (M1: November 2009, M2: March/April 2010, M3: July

2010). o In total, we received 142 Notes of Visit (M1: 49 Notes, M2: 48 Notes, M3: 45 Notes).

‐ The final data sample consists of o 1408 individual scores for involvement and 1413 individual scores for well‐being o gathered in 53 different groups (M1: 51 groups, M2: 50 groups, M3: 46 groups) o in 49 preschools.

Results: ‐ There is a significant improvement for both well‐being and involvement:

For WELL‐BEING the mean for the whole sample is 3.34 for the first measurement (n = 482), 3.58 for the 2nd measurement (n = 481) and 3.72 (n = 450) for the third measurement. For INVOLVEMENT the mean for the whole sample is 2.94 for the first measurement (n = 480), 3.30 for the 2nd measurement (n = 478) and 3.47 for the third measurement.

‐ There is no significant difference in mean well‐being nor involvement between morning and afternoon observations.

‐ WELL‐BEING is in 48% of the groups high (Mean WB > 3.50): at the first measurement 28% (n = 14 groups), at the 2nd measurement 52% (n = 26 groups) and at the third measurement 66% (= n 30 groups) have a group‐mean higher than 3.50.

‐ INVOLVEMENT is in 31% of the groups high (Mean Inv. > 3.50): at the first measurement 4% (n = 2 groups), at the 2nd measurement 28% (n = 14 groups) and at the third measurement 64% (n = 29 groups) have a group‐mean higher than 3.50.

‐ The five APPROACH DIMENSIONS together [offer, group climate, room for initiative, organization and style] have a big impact on well‐being and involvement. These dimensions are responsible for 28% of the differences in well‐being and 40 % of the differences in involvement at group level.

‐ Observers are very satisfied about GROUP CLIMATE. This is the case for all measurements (Mean M1= 2.61, Mean M2 = 2.77, Mean M3 = 2.93 on a four point scale).

‐ There is a significant improvement between the first measurement and third measurement for the dimensions ‘OFFER’ [going up from 2.41 to 2.78 on a four point scale], ‘CLIMATE’ [going up from 2.61 to 2.93 on a four point scale] and ‘the STYLE of practitioners’ [going up from 2.27 to 2.74 on a four point scale].

Contact details: Research Centre for Experiential Education Milton Keynes County Council Schapenstraat 34 – bus 3776 Fiona Thomas (Senior Education Officer) 3000 Leuven Galley Hill Education Centre Belgium Galley Hill Tel: ++ 32 16 32 57 40 Milton Keynes, Bucks MK11 1PA Fax: ++ 32 16 32 57 91 United Kingdom [email protected] Tel: ++44 01908 254525 www.cego.be Fiona.Thomas@Milton‐keynes.gov.uk

http://www.milton‐keynes.gov.uk



| 2

Table of content

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Conceptual framework .................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Context‐process‐outcome scheme .......................................................................................... 4

2.1 Quality at the level of the process: well‐being ........................................................................ 5

2.2 Quality at the level of the process: involvement .................................................................... 6

2.3 Quality at level of context: a set of five dimensions ............................................................... 6

3 Research design ............................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Implementation strategy ......................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Instruments and procedures ................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Purpose and research questions ........................................................................................... 10

4 Data Sample .................................................................................................................................. 11

5 Well‐being and involvement ......................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Child level .............................................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Group level ............................................................................................................................ 20

6 Context: five dimensions ............................................................................................................... 24

7 Qualitative data ............................................................................................................................. 26

7.1 Dimension 1: Offer ................................................................................................................ 26

7.2 Dimension 2: Climate ............................................................................................................ 27

7.3 Dimension 3: Room for initiative ........................................................................................... 28

7.4 Dimension 4: Organization .................................................................................................... 29

7.5 Dimension 5: Style ................................................................................................................. 30

7.6 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................ 31

8 Reflections & Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 32



| 3

Tables Table 1: Implementation strategy Project ‘Improving the quality of ECE through well‐being and involvement ....................... 9

Table 2: Overview of settings (N = 49), groups (N = 53) and N scores for baseline, 2nd and 3th measurement ....................... 12

Table 3: Overview of N Notes, N groups and N scores for M1, M2 and M3 ............................................................................. 13

Table 4: Overview of N groups with Class_ID per observer for M1, M2 and M3 ..................................................................... 13

Table 5: Overview of N settings and N registered children/setting.......................................................................................... 14

Table 6: Overview of N groups, N children, N adults and staff ratio (ratio = N adults/N children) for M1, M2, M3 and total . 14

Table 7: N, mean and standard deviation for well‐being and involvement [child level] .......................................................... 15

Table 8: Results on the independent samples t‐test between M1‐M2, M1‐M3 and M2‐M3 [child level] ............................... 15

Table 9: N, spreading and percentage for well‐being [child level] ........................................................................................... 16

Table 10: N, spreading and percentage for involvement [child level] ...................................................................................... 17

Table 11: N and spreading of well‐being and involvement ‐ all measurements together [child level] .................................... 18

Table 12: N, percentage and mean for well‐being and involvement – AM versus PM [child level] ......................................... 18

Table 13: N, mean and std.deviation for well‐being and involvement, linked to age groups [child level] ............................... 19

Table 14: Comparison of mean score for well‐being, involvement and age group [child level] ............................................... 19

Table 15: Mean for well‐being and involvement ‐ measurement 1, 2 and 3 [group level] ...................................................... 20

Table 16: Results on the independent samples t‐test between M1‐M2, M1‐M3 and M2‐M3 [group level] ........................... 21

Table 17: N, percentage and mean for well‐being and involvement [group level] ................................................................. 21

Table 18: N and spreading of well‐being and involvement ‐ all measurements together – n = 101 [group level] ................... 22

Table 19: Synthesis mean well‐being for measurement 1 (N = 51), 2 (N = 50) and 3 (N = 46) [group level] ............................ 23

Table 20: Synthesis mean involvement for measurement 1 (N = 51), 2 (N = 50) and 3 (N = 46) [group level] ........................ 23

Table 21: N scores on the five dimensions in the context for the 3 measurements [group level] ........................................... 24

Table 22: One way Anova on the 5 approach – dimensions for the 3 measurements (N = 144) ............................................. 24

Table 23: Comparison of mean score for ‘offer’, ‘climate’ and ‘style’ for the 3 measurements [group level] ......................... 24

Table 24: Correlation between mean score for involvement/ well‐being and approach‐dimensions (N= 145) ...................... 25

Table 25: Bivarate correlations between approach‐dimensions (N= 145) ............................................................................... 25

Table 26: Prediction of mean group score for involvement and well‐being based on the 5 dimensions in approach (N=145) 25

Table 27: Synthesis of N quotes for the 5 dimensions: areas of strength and areas for development .................................... 31

Figures Figure 1 : Histogram with normal curve for well‐being, M 1, M 2 and M 3 [child level] .......................................................... 16

Figure 2 : Histogram for total and measurement 1, 2 and 3 for well‐being [child level] .......................................................... 16

Figure 3 : Histogram with normal curve for involvement, M1, M2 and M3 [child level] ......................................................... 17

Figure 4 : Histogram for total and measurement 1, 2 and 3 for involvement [child level] ...................................................... 17

Figure 5 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development ‐ Offer ........................................................................... 27

Figure 6 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development ‐ Climate ....................................................................... 28

Figure 7 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development – Room for initiative ..................................................... 29

Figure 8 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development ‐ Organization ............................................................... 30

Figure 9 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development ‐ Style ............................................................................ 31



| 4

1 Introduction This report is part of the Milton Keynes project “Improving the quality of ECE through well‐being and involvement” that ran from 01 September 2009 until 31 December 2010. This project is set up as collaboration between the Early Years Service of Milton Keynes and the Centre for Experiential Education [Leuven University]. This report is the output of the SICS1‐module in the project plan: the analysis of the data and report of the empirical study. It synthesizes the information gained out of the Notes of Visit, filled in by the Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant Team in the period of November 2009 [baseline‐measurement], April 2010 [second measurement] and July 2010 [third measurement] and covers data of 49 Milton Keynes preschool Settings.

2 Conceptual framework

2.1 Context-process-outcome scheme The conceptual framework for this report and the observations is the process‐oriented approach developed by the Research Centre for Experiential Education [EXE]. This approach focuses on what happens within the participants, i.e. those who are learning, with regard to their ‘flow of experiencing’ in a certain context. The instruments and didactic principles developed within EXE are the result of a systematic implementation of ‘reconstructions of experiences’ as a methodology to open up reality. This implies 'reconstructing’ precisely what the learner experience, completely immersing in the other’s perspective and representing as accurately as possible the way in which the observed learner ‘construct’ the world. Hence, this approach is closely related to the phenomenographic method. The insights resulting from this approach are invaluable in order to (learn to) create a powerful learning environment in function of predetermined objectives.

An evident starting point for the assessment of the quality of any educational setting is to focus on two dimensions: the degree of ‘emotional well‐being’ and the level of ‘involvement’. When we want to know how each of the children is doing in a setting, we first have to explore the degree in which children feel at ease, act spontaneously, show vitality and self‐confidence. All this indicates that their emotional well‐being is okay and that their physical needs, the need for

1 SICS is the process‐oriented Self‐evaluation Instrument for Care Settings, developed at the Research Centre for Experiential Education. Free download at www.cego.be

PROCESS

OUTCOME objectives

output

CONTEXT approach principles

Well-being Involvement



| 5

tenderness and affection, the need for safety and clarity, the need for social recognition, the need to feel competent and the need for meaning in life and moral value are satisfied. The second criterion – involvement ‐ is linked to the cognitive developmental process and urges the adult to set up a challenging environment favouring concentrated, intrinsically motivated activity. Care settings and schools have to succeed on both tasks: only paying attention to emotional well‐being and a positive climate is not enough, while efforts to enhance involvement will only have an impact if children and students feel at home and are free from emotional constraints. In this report, we focus on both ‘process’ variables.

2.1 Quality at the level of the process: well-being The concept of well‐being refers to the dimension that ensures emotional health. It is best expressed as ‘feel like fish in water’. Children who do so express their feelings in various ways: The most obvious signal of well‐being is enjoyment, having fun, taking pleasure in interacting with others and in activities. Children who feel good give a relaxed impression. They do not feel threatened in any way. Their facial expression is open, there is no sign of tension or restlessness. They are relaxed and/or show good levels of energy, vitality (e.g. lively and expressive faces, radiating,…When well‐being is OK, children show an open attitude towards the world around. Whatever comes in, they are ready to experience it. They are happy with the attention they receive: a hug, a compliment, a word of comfort, an encouragement or help. There are more chances for well‐being to occur when one feels strong, self‐assurance. In essence, well‐being is about being in touch with oneself: when a child does not suppress feelings but remains in touch with its emotions, it is not only able to enjoy. It will also recover more easily from difficult experiences. The level of well‐being indicates who well one is doing emotionally or broader, it is about the ‘quality of life’. It refers to an optimal relation between the child and its environment. As concretization for well‐being, we use the following description:

The level of well‐being is measured by using is a five point scale2: Level 1: extremely low

Level 2: low Level 3: moderate Level 4: high Level 5: extremely high

All data is gathered with the SICS –instrument [Self‐evaluation Instrument for Care Settings]. The concrete procedure for working with this SICS‐instrument is explained under ‘3. Research design’. 2 Laevers, F. et. al. (2005). Well‐being and Involvement in Care Settings. A Process‐oriented Self‐evaluation Instrument. Brussel: Kind & Gezin.

When children and adults...

• feel at ease

• act spontaneously

• are open to the world

• express inner rest

• show vitality & self‐confidence

• are in touch with themselves

• enjoy life

…we know that their mental health is secured.



| 6

2.2 Quality at the level of the process: involvement The concept of involvement refers to a dimension of human activity. Involvement is not linked to specific types of behaviour nor to specific levels of development. Csikszentmihayli (1979) speaks of “the state of flow”. The 'state of flow' is sought actively by people. Young children find it most of the time in play. Involvement is not the state of arousal easily obtained by the entertainer. The crucial point is that the satisfaction stems from one source: the exploratory drive, the need to get a better grip on reality, the intrinsic interest in how things and people are, the urge to experience and figure out. Only when we succeed in activating the exploratory drive, we get the intrinsic type of involvement and not merely involvement of an emotional or functional kind. Involvement means that there is intense mental activity, that a person is functioning at the very limits of his or her capabilities, with an energy flow that comes from intrinsic sources. One couldn’t think of any condition more favorable for real cognitive development. If we want deep level learning, we cannot do without involvement. As concretization for involvement, we use the following description:

The level of involvement is measured by using a five point scale3 Level 1: no activity

Level 2: interrupted activity Level 3: activity without intensity Level 4: activity with intense moments Level 5: continuous intense activity

All data is gathered with the SICS‐instrument. The concrete procedure for working with this SICS‐instrument is explained under ‘3. Research design’.

2.3 Quality at level of context: a set of five dimensions After the observations, observers (i.c. the Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant Team) reflect on the approach. In this reflection they draw conclusions with regard to the levels assessed and make an analysis of the dimensions in the context and in the children that may explain the observed levels of involvement and well‐being. The reflection is guided by the following set of dimensions. These dimensions will help us answer the question ‘How can we enhance well‐being and involvement?' They constitute a solid frame of reference to which we can link the practical know‐how to enhance involvement. Each of these dimensions can lead to more or less concrete initiatives which can be considered by the practitioners.

3 Laevers, F. et. al. (2005). Well‐being and Involvement in Care Settings. A Process‐oriented Self‐evaluation Instrument. Brussel: Kind & Gezin.

Involvement is a quality of human activity That can be recognized by concentration and persistence and is characterized by…

motivation, interest and fascination openness to stimuli and intense mental activity deep satisfaction and a strong flow of energy

which are determined by: the exploratory drive the basic schemes reflecting the actual level of development

as a result of which deep level learning occurs



| 7

I. Offer How ‘rich’ is the environment in which the children find themselves? With this dimension we take a closer look at 1) the infrastructure: the arrangement and division of the different rooms or spaces, 2) the available (play)materials and 3) the activities that are offered in the course of the day. These activities should be adapted to children’s individual abilities. They should neither be too difficult nor too easy. No matter how self‐evident this may seem, there is a lot of room for improvement in the educational practice. It’s not only about compensating measures, but also about offering challenging assignments. Children enjoy themselves and develop most in an appealing and varied environment.

We must remain alert and seek opportunities to appeal to children’s interests and to what goes on

outside the setting. In the child’s perception, reality has a certain cohesion and unity. Gearing to

children's environment and experiences implies that we should start from this perceived reality.

Children are by nature interested in what goes on around them. They want to understand reality and

actively deal with it. The activities that originate from this urge to explore constitute the point of

departure. It is self‐evident that this is an ideal entry for high levels of involvement.

II. Group climate and relationships In what degree do children feel at home in the setting and in the group? A second element that determines the degree of well‐being and involvement is the atmosphere in the nursery or preschool. With this dimension we take a closer look at 1) the arrangement, the interior of the room, the overall impression of the space and 2) the efforts that are made to enhance positive relationships. Although this seems a rather intangible dimension, this aspect refers to something real, to a very concrete reality which is present in each and every group. It becomes visible in the attention for a pleasant room environment and arrangement, but also in systematically assessing of well‐being, special attention to children with social‐emotional problems, explicit time and room for individual positive support, the openness in communication, the possibility to express feelings and discuss interactions and the conscious stimulation of children to learn to play together. In short, the climate is peaceful, stress‐free, pleasant, little disturbance, not competitive, with room for humour and lots of positive interactions (touching and hugging each other, laughing, spontaneity,…).

III. Room for initiative How much freedom do the children have? With this dimension we take a closer look at 1) the organizational pattern: the opportunities you offer children to determine themselves with what they play, how long, how often and with whom, 2) the degree in which the children have a say in the plan of the day, kind of activities that take place and the order in which they are offered, 3) the degree in which they receive responsibility in the practical course of the day and 4) the degree in which rules are explained and set in consultation with the children ‘Room for initiative’ also means that you actively involve children in the plan of the day and that you offer them responsibilities they can handle. Action is a successful point of departure to increase the quality of care, since the opposite of involvement is boredom, passivity and inactivity. It is therefore important to offer motion. Avoid long periods of sitting still and too much ‘whole group activities’, knowing that listening, waiting,.., does not always result in the best learning profit. Involvement can be increased by ‘activating’ the children in group.

IV. Organisation

Organisation is a fourth dimension we focus on: a clear structure and points of recognition offer children something to hold on to. The content, duration and order of the different components of the day must be geared towards the child’s age and individual needs. If there are several supervisors, a good division of tasks results in a flexible course of the day so that transitions can take place fluently, ‘dead’ moments are limited and supervision is secured. With this dimension we ask ourselves the question if the day is organized efficiently, taking into account the needs of all children. Maybe, we should first realise how many dead moments there are in group every day. Then, we can



| 8

reduce these by introducing episodes of action. For this, we can focus on 1) the plan of the day or the time schedule (is there a a clear organization with the necessary flexibility?), 2) the division of tasks among practitioners, ensuring a maximal use of the available human resources and 3) the ways of grouping to provide continuity and make children feel secure and 4) the way the key‐person system is in use.

V. Style The creation of a rich environment doesn’t stop with the provision. A decisive element in the occurrence of well‐being and involvement is the way the adult supports the ongoing activities. How much empathy is there while interacting with the children? Effective interventions can be linked to three style dimensions: (a) sensitivity (adequate responses to feelings and emotions); (b) stimulation (impulses that provoke communication, action and thought); and (c) giving autonomy (supporting initiatives taken by the learner). The effective supervisor notices what goes on in the child. S/he is on the same wavelength as the children, can enter into their feelings, knows what they love to do. That is why she can give warmth and affection; she can stimulate children and give them space to act as an independent person. She can come up with appropriate interventions that match the children’s levels of development and take into account their interests.

3 Research design The data used in this report is gathered between November 2009 [baseline measurement], April 2010 [second measurement] and July 2010 [third measurement] by the Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant Team.

3.1 Implementation strategy To facilitate objective data collection with the SIC‐instrument by the Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant Team on the one hand and to support the implementation of the SICS‐instrument in Preschool Settings on the other hand the following implementation strategy is been used: Data collection ‐ The Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant team

Launch of the project: full day conference and half day seminar by Prof. F. Laevers & J. Moons

A one day training on SICS [delivered on 22 Sept. 2009]

A half day side by side coaching in a setting to discuss and reflect on SICS [delivered on 23‐24 Sept. 2009]

Strategy meetings on the progress of the program [27 November 2009, 05 March 2010, 01 September 2010]

A Half day seminar on the Process‐oriented Monitoring System, part A [delivered on 27 November 2009]

Implementation – [Lead] Practitioners of the Milton Keynes preschool Settings:

Launch of the project: full day conference and half day seminar by Prof. F. Laevers & J. Moons

A one day training on SICS [delivered on 22 Sept. 2009 and repeated on 25‐26 Nov 2009, 04‐05 March 2010]

A half day side by side coaching for lead practitioners, delivered by the Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant Team.

A one day training on POMS, part A, delivered by the Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant Team.



| 9

Table 1: Implementation strategy Project ‘Improving the quality of ECE through well‐being and involvement

Input by CEGO Timeline Input by Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant team

‐Training in SICS for consultant team

‐Half day side by side coaching for consultant team

‐Training in SICS for [lead] practitioners

September

2009

October

2009

Side by side coaching for lead practitioners on SICS in settings

‐Training in SICS for practitioners

‐Training in POMS (part A) for consultant team

November

2009

Baseline measurement in settings

December

2009

Customizing POMS (part A) towards local context

January

2010

Training of practitioners in POMS (part A)

February

2010

Training in SICS for practitioners March

2010

April

2010

Second measurement in settings

May

2010

June

2010

Repeated training of practitioners in POMS (part A)

‐Training in Box full of feelings for consultant team

‐Start analysis SICS data

July

2010

Third measurement in settings

August

2010

‐Training in Box full of feelings for practitioners September

2010

‐Training in SICS and Box for practitioners

‐Presentation first results of SICS data

October

2010

November

2010

‐Delivery final report on SICS data December

2010

3.2 Instruments and procedures As part of this project, the Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant Team provided a side by side coaching for all lead practitioners taking part in this project and they added three “scanning visits” in to their regular visits in order to gather the necessary data for this report. During a visit data are collected with the SICS‐Forms (Form A and B)(see Appendix). Data collected with these forms are afterwards transposed to a synthesis sheet which we call ‘Note of Visit’(see Appendix).



| 10

PROCEDURE ‘SICS FORM A’ This form is used to observe 10 children/group. One observation of 10 children with this form is called a ‘scanning.’ So, one scanning round contains information of 10 children. Beforehand some factual data is noted down: the date, number of children, number of adults and the start and end hour of the observation. Before starting the observation, the observer selects 10 children. To guarantee a random selection, he/she follows a procedure in which he gets to the next child in view at the right (clockwise); eventually he may systematically skip one child to get a better mix of activities. Every child is observed during 2 or 3 minutes before giving a score for involvement and well‐being on a five point scale with the scale developed in the SICS‐instrument. The activity is described in such a way that the level you assigned is motivated.

PROCEDURE ‘SICS FORM B’ Form B is printed on the back of Form A. Form B is a grid containing elements in the context (offer, climate, organization, room for initiative, style, child factors and exceptional circumstances). With form B the observer seeks for explanations for the low and high levels of observed well‐being and involvement. PROCEDURE ‘NOTE OF VISIT’ After the collection of data, the information of the different groups (one scanning round of 10 children/group) gathered with the ‘SICS‐forms’ (1 Form/group) is synthesized in a Note of Visit (see Appendix). Observations in several groups of the same setting are brought together on one sheet. This material is the basic data sample used in this report. In this Note of Visit, the observer also rates five dimensions in the context (offer, climate, initiative, organization and style) on a four‐point scale (4 = outstanding, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = inadequate) and makes qualitative notes on the approach and the actions discussed and agreed with the setting.

3.3 Purpose and research questions With this pilot sample of collected data we want to explore the level of well‐being and involvement in Milton Keynes preschools and the impact of training and support based on the experiential approach. This will be done by interpretation and coding of the qualitative data and processing of the quantitative data. This report focuses on the following research questions. Child level

What is the average score for well‐being/ involvement on child level and what is the spreading?

How many children in the sample have a moderate score (2+ to 3+) and how many are not doing well (less than 2+)?

Which age group of children shows highest/lowest levels of well‐being/ involvement on average?

Are well‐being and involvement correlating? Group level

What is the average score for well‐being/ involvement on group level and what is the spreading?

Is there a positive correlation between well‐being/ involvement in a group and the five approach dimensions (learning environment)?

Which of the five dimensions in the approach is graded highest/lowest?

Which dimension in the environment influences most well‐being/ involvement?

Which dimension is best developed? Which one should be improved most?



| 11

Setting level No analysis will be performed on setting level, since in all settings (except Set_13 and Set_46) only one group is observed, meaning that group and setting level will lead to more or less the same results.

4 Data Sample Mid April 2010 (16/04/2010) we received 49 ‘Notes of Visits’ [data for Set_1 to Set_49] made by the Early Years Consultant Team in November 2009. This is the baseline measurement. End May 2010 (26/05/2010) we received the data of the second measurement, performed by the Early Years Consultant Team in March and April 2010. This was another lot of 48 ‘Notes of Visit’. For one setting (Set_5) we only received data of the baseline measurement. This explains the different number of Notes for the baseline and second measurement. Half September (07/09/2010) we received the third lot of 45 Notes of Visit. For 4 settings4 no 3th measurement has been done. The data analysis in this report will be based on data of 142 Notes of visits (49 Notes of the baseline, 48 Notes of the 2nd measurement and 45 notes of the 3th measurement), representing 49 different settings and 53 different groups5. Forty‐four of these groups are observed three times. Four groups6 are observed twice and four groups are observed once7. In total we received both for the baseline and the second measurement about 480 individual scores on well‐being and involvement [Baseline: 482 scores for well‐being and 480 scores for involvement; Second measurement: 481 scores for well‐being and 478 for involvement]. The third measurement we received 450 scores for well‐being and for involvement. All measurements are executed in school year 2009‐2010 (same groups of children and adults). The baseline measurement is executed at the start of the project (Nov. 2009), the second measurement half a year later (March‐April 2010) and the third measurement at the end of the year (July 2010). We consider this as a pre‐ and post‐test design.

4 Set_5, Set_6, Set_36 and Set_42 5 In Set_13 and Set_46 two different groups are observed. In Set_29 the observed group of the 2nd and 3th measurement is different than the one of the baseline measurement. This brings the total number of observed groups to 53. 6 This is Group_6, Group_37, Group_43 and Group 48. 7 This is the case for Group_30, Group_52 and Group_53, all groups of Set_29 and Group_5, linked to Setting 5 (only observed once).



| 12

Table 2: Overview of settings (N = 49), groups (N = 53) and N scores for baseline, 2nd and 3th measurement

Baseline measurement [Nov. 2009]

Second measurement [March‐April 2010]

Third measurement [July 2010]

Date Group_ID

N scores (WB‐Inv) Date

Group_ID

N scores (WB‐Inv) Date

Group_ID

N scores (WB‐Inv)

Set_1 20/11/09 1 10‐10 26/03/10 1 10‐10 1/7/10 1 10‐10

Set_2 19/11/09 2 10‐10 23/03/10 2 10‐10 5/7/210 2 10‐10

Set_3 17/11/09 3 10‐10 23/03/10 3 10‐10 8/7/10 3 10‐10

Set_4 19/11/09 4 10‐10 26/03/10 4 10‐10 7/7/10 4 10‐10

Set_5 17/11/09 5 10‐10

Set_6 20/11/09 6 10‐10 24/03/10 6 10‐10

Set_7 18/11/09 7 10‐10 25/03/10 7 10‐10 7/7/10 7 10‐10

Set_8 26/11/09 8 10‐10 25/03/10 8 10‐10 8/7/10 8 10‐10

Set_9 19/11/09 9 10‐10 17/03/10 9 10‐10 2/7/10 9 10‐10

Set_10 16/11/09 10 10‐10 29/04/10 10 10‐10 9/7/10 10 10‐10

Set_11 17/11/09 11 10‐10 11/03/10 11 10‐10 9/7/10 11 10‐10

Set_12 23/11/09 12 10‐10 25/03/10 12 10‐10 1/7/10 12 10‐10

Set_13 20/11/09 13 5‐5 24/03/10 13 5‐5 5/7/10 13 5‐5

Set_13 20/11/09 14 5‐5 24/03/10 14 5‐5 5/7/10 14 5‐5

Set_14 18/11/09 15 10‐10 21/04/10 15 10‐10 5/7/10 15 10‐10

Set_15 20/11/09 16 10‐10 24/03/10 16 10‐10 5/7/10 16 10‐10

Set_16 16/11/09 17 10‐10 22/03/10 17 10‐10 12/7/10 17 10‐10

Set_17 18/11/09 18 10‐10 30/03/10 18 10‐10 19/7/10 18 10‐10

Set_18 12/11/09 19 10‐10 30/03/10 19 10‐10 7/7/10 19 10‐10

Set_19 17/11/09 20 10‐10 24/04/10 20 10‐10 16/7/10 20 10‐10

Set_20 20/11/09 21 10‐10 16/03/10 21 10‐10 5/7/10 21 10‐10

Set_21 20/11/09 22 10‐10 26/03/10 22 10‐10 7/7/10 22 10‐10

Set_22 19/11/09 23 10‐10 25/03/10 23 10‐10 8/7/10 23 10‐10

Set_23 16/11/09 24 10‐10 24/03/10 24 10‐10 9/7/10 24 10‐10

Set_24 19/11/09 25 10‐10 25/03/10 25 10‐10 5/7/10 25 10‐10

Set_25 16/11/09 26 10‐10 31/03/10 26 10‐10 9/7/10 26 10‐10

Set_26 19/11/09 27 10‐10 29/03/10 27 10‐10 9/7/10 27 10‐10

Set_27 19/11/09 28 10‐10 26/03/10 28 10‐10 7/7/10 28 10‐10

Set_28 18/11/09 29 10‐10 23/03/10 29 10‐10 7/7/10 29 10‐10

Set_29 23/11/09 30 9‐8

Set_29 19/04/10 52 10‐9

Set_29 13/5/10 53 10‐10

Set_30 20/11/09 31 10‐10 22/03/10 31 10‐10 5/7/10 31 10‐10

Set_31 23/11/09 32 9‐8 29/04/10 32 11‐9 16/7/10 32 10‐10

Set_32 23/11/09 33 4‐4 29/03/10 33 10‐10 12/7/10 33 10‐10

Set_33 18/11/09 34 10‐10 18/03/10 34 10‐10 6/7/10 34 10‐10

Set_34 20/11/09 35 10‐10 30/03/10 35 10‐10 5/7/10 35 10‐10

Set_35 24/11/09 36 10‐10 21/04/10 36 10‐10 24/4/10 36 10‐10

Set_36 20/11/09 37 10‐10 25/03/10 37 10‐10

Set_37 19/11/09 38 10‐10 16/03/10 38 10‐10 1/7/10 38 10‐10

Set_38 19/11/09 39 10‐10 11/05/10 39 10‐10 5/7/10 39 10‐10

Set_39 23/11/09 40 10‐10 01/04/10 40 10‐10 14/7/10 40 10‐10

Set_40 19/11/09 41 10‐10 26/03/10 41 10‐10 12/7/10 41 10‐10

Set_41 19/11/09 42 10‐10 01/04/10 42 10‐10 21/7/10 42 10‐10

Set_42 23/11/09 43 10‐10 24/03/10 43 10‐10

Set_43 20/11/09 44 10‐10 23/03/10 44 10‐10 19/7/10 44 10‐10

Set_44 19/11/09 45 10‐10 24/03/10 45 10‐10 14/7/10 45 10‐10

Set_45 23/11/09 46 10‐10 23/03/10 46 10‐10 8/7/10 46 10‐10

Set_46 19/11/09 47 5‐5 26/03/10 47 5‐5 5/7/10 47 10‐10

Set_46 19/11/09 48 5‐5 26/03/10 48 5‐5

Set_47 23/11/09 49 10‐10 24/03/10 49 10‐10 8/7/10 49 10‐10

Set_48 16/11/09 50 10‐10 23/03/10 50 10‐10 5/7/10 50 10‐10



| 13

Set_49 20/11/09 51 10‐10 09/03/10 51 10‐10 9/7/10 51 10‐10

TOTAL 482‐480 481‐478 450‐450

N observers In total, observations have been performed by 15 observers. We received 142 Notes of Visit, representing 53 groups in 49 settings and 1413 (for WB)/1408 (for inv.) individual child observations. The average number of observations per observer is 94 (1413/15 = 94) and between observers we don’t see big differences. Most observers have observed the same 2, 3 or 4 groups during the baseline, second and third measurement. One observer (Obs_10) was not able to perform a third measurement in his settings before the end of July. In general, 10 individual child observations (= one scanning round) represent the info of one group. Info of different groups of one setting can be put on one Note of Visit.

Table 3: Overview of N Notes, N groups and N scores for M1, M2 and M3

Baseline measurement Second measurement Third measurement

N Notes

N groups

N scores(WB‐Inv)

N Notes

N groups

N scores (WB‐Inv)

N Notes

N groups N scores (WB‐Inv)

Obs_1 3 3 30 3 3 30 3 3 30Obs_2 2 2 20 2 2 20 2 2 20Obs_3 3 3 30 2 2 20 2 2 20Obs_4 3 3 30 3 3 30 3 3 30Obs_5 3 3 30 3 3 30 3 3 30Obs_6 3 3 30 3 3 30 3 3 30Obs_7 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40Obs_8 3 3 30 3 3 30 3 3 30Obs_9 3 3 28‐26 3 3 31‐28 3 3 30Obs_10 3 3 30 3 3 30 Obs_11 4 6 40 4 6 40 4 5 40Obs_12 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40Obs_13 3 3 24 3 3 30 3 3 30Obs_14 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40Obs_15 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40

Total 49 51 482‐480 48 50 481‐478 45 46 450‐450

Table 4: Overview of N groups with Class_ID per observer for M1, M2 and M3

Obs. Classes M1 (Class_ID)

Obs. Classes M2(Class_ID)

Obs. Classes M3(Class_ID)

Obs_1 2‐21‐25 2‐21‐25 2‐21‐25Obs_2 46‐49 46‐49 46‐49Obs_3 10‐15‐5* 10‐15 10‐15Obs_4 18‐40‐42 18‐40‐42 18‐40‐42Obs_5 4‐8‐29 4‐8‐29 4‐8‐29Obs_6 3‐7‐16 3‐7‐16 3‐7‐16Obs_7 1‐9‐12‐38 1‐9‐12‐38 1‐9‐12‐38Obs_8 31‐35‐44 31‐35‐44 31‐35‐44Obs_9 30‐32‐36 32‐36‐52 32‐36‐53Obs_10 6‐37‐43 6‐37‐43Obs_11 13‐14‐22‐28‐47‐48 13‐14‐22‐28‐47‐48 13‐14‐22‐28‐47Obs_12 19‐24‐41‐51 19‐24‐41‐51 19‐24‐41‐51Obs_13 17‐23‐33 17‐23‐33 17‐23‐33Obs_14 20‐26‐27‐39 20‐26‐27‐39 20‐26‐27‐39Obs_15 11‐34‐45‐50 11‐34‐45‐50 11‐34‐45‐50*italic number = group where only one observation took place



| 14

N Children registered For half of the observed settings (25 of 49 Settings) we’ve got information of the number of registered children. The average setting is registered for 48.84 children (1221 children/25 settings). Table 5: Overview of N settings and N registered children/setting

N Chd. registered

[15‐20] [21‐30] [31‐40] [41‐50] [51‐60] [61‐70] [71‐80] [81‐90] [91‐100] >100

N settings 3 5 6 2 3 2 1 1 2

Nine settings [19%] deliver full day care, 12 settings [26%] deliver sessional day care and 26 settings [55%] have another kind of care. For 2 settings we don’t have any data on the type of care they deliver. N adults/group The observers always noted down the number of children and adults in the room during the scanning. The average pattern is a group of 32 children (4739/147 = 32) supervised by 4 to 5 adults (708/147 = 4.82). When looking at the table beneath, differences are seen across the age groups. As we could expect, the younger the children are, the higher the adult/child ratio is. For instance, in the groups of children between 0‐2 years almost 1 adult for every 2 children is available (ratio of .48). In the age group 3‐4 year, there is one adult for every 5 children (ratio of .18). For the oldest group (4‐5 years and the mixed group 3‐5 years), there is one adult for 10 children (ratio of .11).

Table 6: Overview of N groups, N children, N adults and staff ratio (ratio = N adults/N children) for M1, M2, M3 and total

Baseline measurement Second measurement Third measurement

N groups

N children

N adults Ratio

N groups

N children

N adults Ratio

N groups

N children

Nadults Ratio

2‐3 year 4 64 18 .28 3 64 14 .22 3 60 15 .25 3‐4 year 6 172 33 .19 7 186 33 .18 6 136 24 .18 4–5 year 16 458 58 .13 16 600 60 .10 16 608 70 .12 0‐2 year 1 4 3 .75 1 11 4 .36 1 6 3 .50 2‐4 year 13 259 78 .30 12 285 69 .24 9 218 52 .24 3‐5 year 11 545 55 .10 11 508 59 .12 11 555 60 .11

Total 51 1502 245 .16 50 1654 239 .14 46 1583 224 .14

All measurements together

N groups N children N adults Ratio

2‐3 year 10 188 47 0.25 3‐4 year 19 494 90 0.18 4–5 year 48 1666 188 0.11 0‐2 year 3 21 10 0.48 2‐4 year 34 762 199 0.26 3‐5 year 33 1608 174 0.11 Total 147 4739 708 0.15



| 15

5 Well-being and involvement For the baseline measurement observers gathered 480 individual scores for involvement and 482 scores for well‐being. For the second measurement, 481 scores for well‐being and 478 scores for involvement were gathered. The third measurement, 450 scores for both well‐being and involvement were gathered. This is the data sample we’ll analyse beneath.

5.1 Child level An at random sample of children is observed with the SICS‐forms. The average involvement over all children on the baseline measurement is 2.94. Well‐being is with 3.34 higher. The second measurement both well‐being (3.58) and involvement (3.30) are higher. The third measurement both means are increased again (well‐being: 3.72; involvement: 3.47). In all cases, the standard deviation (spreading) is relatively high, which indicates the substantial differences in scores between children.

Table 7: N, mean and standard deviation for well‐being and involvement [child level]

Well‐being Involvement Child level N Mean Std. Deviation N Mean Std. Deviation

Measurement 1 482 3.34 .74 480 2.94 .93 Measurement 2 481 3.58 .72 478 3.30 .91 Measurement 3 450 3.72 .78 450 3.47 1.03

All scores 1413 3.54 .76 1408 3.23 .98 When performing an ANOVA, we see for both well‐being and involvement significant differences between measurement occasions (involvement F(2, 1405) = 37.260, p <.001; well‐being F(2, 1410) = 31.447, p <.001). Moreover, the post hoc t‐tests reveal significant differences between all measurements. When performing independent samples t‐tests (between M1‐M2, M1‐M3 and M2‐M3, see table 8) we get confirmation. Both for well‐being and involvement, the observed increase is in all measurement occasions significant. We can firmly conclude that the observed increase, in mean score for well‐being and involvement in the different measurements, is significant.

Table 8: Results on the independent samples t‐test between M1‐M2, M1‐M3 and M2‐M3 [child level]

independent samples t‐test between Well‐being Involvement

M1 and M2 t(961) = ‐5.188, p < .001 t(956) = ‐5.948, p <.001 M1 and M3 t(930) = ‐7.660, p < .001 t(928) = ‐8.255, p < .001 M2 and M3 t(929) = ‐2.797, p < .01 t(926) = ‐2.754, p < .01



| 16

Well‐being For well‐being we can conclude that, for all the measurements (N = 1413), 5.9% of the children didn’t feel o.k. at the moment of the observation (scores 1 and 2). About half of the children (51%) feel rather neutral (scores 2+ to 3+). About 43% feel good to very good in the setting (scores 4 and 5). When we compare the first measurement with second and third measurement we see improvement: we see a decreased percentage of scores in the lowest segment (going down from 9% to 4.4% to 2.3%) and an increased percentage in the highest segment (going up from 33% to 44% to 54%).

Table 9: N, spreading and percentage for well‐being [child level]

Well‐being TOTAL M 1 M 2 M 3 N % N % N % N %

1 11 5 1 5 Low/very low 1+ 2 6% 9% 1 5% 1 3%

2 66 37 21 8

2+ 52 24 11 17 Moderate 3 440 51% 191 58% 142 50% 107 44%

3+ 229 65 94 70

4 422 126 148 148 High/very high 4+ 76 43% 12 33% 24 44% 40 54%

5 115 22 39 54

1413 100 482 100 481 100 450 100

Figure 1 : Histogram with normal curve for well‐being, M 1, M 2 and M 3 [child level]

Figure 2 : Histogram for total and measurement 1, 2 and 3 for well‐being [child level]



| 17

Involvement In Table 10 we see that, for the total sample, 21 % of the children is not engaged in any activity or only shows interrupted activity during the observation (scores 1 and 2), about half of the children (45%) is active, however without real investment of their possibilities (scores 2+ to 3+). A third of the children (35 %) is performing in top gear (level 4 or 5) when the observation took place. When we compare the first, second and third measurement we see improvement: a higher percentage of involvement scores in the highest segment (an increase from 23% to 35% to 48%) and a decrease in percentage scores in the lowest segment (a decrease from 28% to 16% to 15%).

Table 10: N, spreading and percentage for involvement [child level]

Involvement TOTAL M 1 M 2 M 3 N % N % N % N %

1 50 4 20 4 12 2 18 4Low/very low 1+ 44 3 25 5 9 2 10 2 2 191 14 92 19 58 12 41 9

2+ 91 6 37 8 31 6 23 5Moderate 3 321 23 130 27 109 23 82 18 3+ 220 16 65 13 94 20 61 14

4 318 23 85 18 110 23 123 27High/very high 4+ 88 6 17 3 28 6 43 10 5 85 6 9 2 27 6 49 11

1408 100 480 100 478 100 450 100

Figure 3 : Histogram with normal curve for involvement, M1, M2 and M3 [child level]

Figure 4 : Histogram for total and measurement 1, 2 and 3 for involvement [child level]



| 18

Table 11: N and spreading of well‐being and involvement ‐ all measurements together [child level]

Well‐being

Individual level

All measurements

N %

X – ≤ 2SD ≤ 2.02 79 6

X – 2 SD [2.02 ‐ 2.77] 52 4

[2.78 ‐ 3.16] 440 31

X +/‐ 1SD [3.17 ‐ 3.54] 229 16

[3.55 ‐ 3.92]

[3.93 ‐ 4.30] 422 30

X + 2 SD [4. 31 ‐ 5.00] 191 13

Involvement N %

X – ≤ 2SD ≤ 1.26 50 4

X – 2 SD [1.27 ‐ 2.24] 235 17

[2.25 ‐ 2.73] 91 6

X +/‐ 1SD [2.74 ‐ 3.23] 321 23

[3.24 – 3.73] 220 16

[3.74 – 4.21] 318 23

X + 2 SD [4.22 ‐ 5.00] 173 12

AM‐PM In total, 71% of the observations took place in the morning and 29% in the afternoon. For 5 scores we don’t know if observations took place in the morning or the afternoon. In the afternoon sessions, the average level of involvement is slightly less than in the morning (3.24 versus 3.20). For well‐being, there is almost no difference between morning and afternoon sessions (3.54 for AM versus 3.55 for PM). To see if the differences are meaningful, we have performed an independent samples t‐test. We can firmly conclude that the comparison of the scores in the morning and afternoon sessions doesn’t reveal any significant differences (for well‐being: t(1406)= ‐.356, ns; for involvement: t(1401) = .814, ns). This means that the small differences are not meaningful. The moment of the day does not have an impact on well‐being nor involvement.

Table 12: N, percentage and mean for well‐being and involvement – AM versus PM [child level]

Well‐being Involvement

AM PM Unknown AM PM Unknown N % N % N % N % N % N %

1 10 1 35 15 Low/very low 1+ 2 6.5% 3% 32 19.5% 12 22% 2 54 12 129 62

2+ 39 13 72 18 1 Moderate 3 294 50% 143 53% 3 80% 232 44.5% 89 46% 60 % 3+ 173 55 1 143 75 2

4 294 127 1 236 80 2 High/very high 4+ 60 43% 16 44% 20% 64 36% 24 32% 40 % 5 84 31 63 22

Total 1010 100% 398 100% 5 100% 1006 100% 397 100% 5 100% Mean 3.54 3.55 3.30 3.24 3.20 3.50Stand.Dev. .79 .71 .45 .98 .98 .61



| 19

Age groups The scannings are performed in different age groups. Half of the observations (N = 660 [47%]) have been done in mixed age groups. About 53% of the observations are done in single age groups.

Table 13: N, mean and std.deviation for well‐being and involvement, linked to age groups [child level]

Well‐being Involvement Child level N Mean Std. Deviation N Mean Std. Deviation

2‐3 year 99 3.92 .79 98 3.36 1.133‐4 year 165 3.24 .76 164 3.09 1.024–5 year 465 3.53 .70 465 3.36 .940‐2 year 24 4.27 .63 24 3.69 .622‐4 year 340 3.52 .77 340 3.09 .963‐5 year 320 3.56 .78 317 3.20 .97

Total 1413 3.54 .76 1408 3.23 .98

To know if well‐being and involvement is influenced by age, we have done an ANOVA on the data of single age groups. In total, 753 scores for well‐being and 751 scores for involvement are included in this analysis.8 Both for well‐being and involvement we get indications of significant differences, linked to age (well‐being: F(3,749) =27.156, p <.001; involvement: F(3, 747) = 4.458, p <.05). When looking closer however, for well‐being we see significant differences between every age group except between the two youngest groups ([0‐2 year] and [2‐3 year]), meaning that well‐being is highest in the youngest groups. For involvement, we only see significant differences between the 3‐4 years old children and the oldest group [4‐5 years] and between the 3‐4 years old children and the youngest group [0‐2 years], meaning that involvement of 3‐4 year olds is significantly lower than the younger and older children. Yet, the number of observations per age groups are quite different and sometimes limited (especially for the youngest group) and future analysis including more observations are to be awaited to draw any firm conclusions on this topic.

Table 14: Comparison of mean score for well‐being, involvement and age group [child level]

Well‐being N M SD Means with the same letter don’t differ significantly from each other

0‐2 year 24 4.27 .63 A 2‐3 year 99 3.92 .79 A 3‐4 year 165 3.24 .76 B 4–5 year 465 3.53 .70 C

Involvement N M SD Means with the same letter don’t differ significantly from each other

0‐2 year 24 3.69 .62 2‐3 year 98 3.36 1.13 A B 3‐4 year 164 3.09 1.02 A 4–5 year 465 3.36 .94 B

8 We have limited the database to the data of single age group groups going from zero to five year. Mixed groups are not included, since the exact age of those children is unknown. One exception is the mixed age group 0‐2 year, since there is no overleap possible with the other distinct age groups.



| 20

5.2 Group level In total, spread over the tree measurements, 53 groups are observed. Forty‐four of these groups are observed three times. Four groups are observed twice and four groups are observed once (details, see Table 2, page 12).

Table 15: Mean for well‐being and involvement ‐ measurement 1, 2 and 3 [group level]

Well‐being Involvement M 1 M 2 M3 M 1 M 2 M3

Group 1 3.95 3.55 4.00 3.45 3.45 3.90 Group 2 3.05 3.35 3.40 2.80 2.55 2.85 Group 3 3.70 3.60 3.90 2.95 2.45 3.30 Group 4 3.30 3.20 3.50 2.10 2.60 2.35 Group 5 3.50 3.35 Group 6 3.70 3.50 3.15 3.25 Group 7 3.25 4.20 3.90 2.80 3.10 3.25 Group 8 3.45 3.45 3.25 2.05 2.55 2.50 Group 9 3.95 3.60 4.30 3.80 3.65 4.20 Group 10 3.15 3.45 4.00 3.20 3.25 3.60 Group 11 3.20 3.15 3.95 2.65 3.25 4.00 Group 12 2.90 3.85 3.95 3.30 3.50 4.05 Group 13 3.10 3.30 3.30 2.40 3.10 3.20 Group 14 2.50 3.70 3.20 1.70 3.20 3.70 Group 15 3.25 3.35 3.55 3.00 2.95 3.55 Group 16 3.70 3.85 3.00 3.15 3.35 2.00 Group 17 2.70 3.20 3.30 2.60 2.40 2.20 Group 18 3.90 3.85 3.95 2.90 3.40 4.00 Group 19 3.30 3.65 4.10 2.70 4.40 4.25 Group 20 2.85 3.35 3.85 2.80 3.55 4.20 Group 21 2.95 3.85 3.80 2.45 3.15 2.95 Group 22 3.60 3.65 3.45 3.00 3.35 3.35 Group 23 3.70 3.45 4.50 3.40 2.75 4.00 Group 24 3.40 3.85 4.05 2.50 4.45 4.45 Group 25 3.05 4.00 3.95 2.80 3.55 4.00 Group 26 3.05 3.75 4.00 3.30 3.80 4.05 Group 27 3.45 3.70 4.25 3.40 3.50 4.35 Group 28 3.05 4.10 3.75 2.70 3.80 3.75 Group 29 3.35 3.35 3.35 2.75 2.55 2.20 Group 30 3.56 3.25 Group 31 3.20 3.90 4.50 2.65 3.60 4.20 Group 32 3.06 3.27 2.40 2.75 3.67 2.70 Group 33 4.00 4.15 4.50 3.63 3.55 3.85 Group 34 3.50 3.55 3.25 2.60 3.00 2.75 Group 35 3.75 4.50 4.50 3.25 3.80 4.30 Group 36 3.35 3.25 2.55 3.35 3.35 2.00 Group 37 3.10 3.45 4.00 3.30 3.30 3.90 Group 38 3.60 3.50 3.05 3.00 3.40 3.00 Group 39 3.10 3.10 3.85 3.00 2.80 3.60 Group 40 3.40 3.75 3.55 2.85 3.70 3.70 Group 41 3.00 3.75 3.85 2.80 4.00 3.70 Group 42 3.95 3.70 4.50 3.20 3.50 3.70 Group 43 3.25 3.20 3.15 3.35 Group 44 3.50 4.15 4.40 3.40 3.35 3.60 Group 45 2.80 3.50 3.75 2.75 2.90 3.85 Group 46 3.55 3.20 4.00 3.20 3.00 3.90 Group 47 3.20 3.30 3.75 2.80 3.50 3.85 Group 48 3.40 3.00 3.00 2.90 Group 49 3.10 3.40 3.20 2.95 3.35 2.65 Group 50 3.20 3.60 3.80 2.15 3.15 4.00 Group 51 3.35 3.65 3.35 3.45 3.95 3.55 Group 52 2.80 2.61 Group 53 2.80 2.40



| 21

Total Mean 3.33 3.58 3.70 2.93 3.29 3.47

When performing an ANOVA, we see significant differences between the group means for both well‐being and involvement over the three measurements (for well‐being: F(2, 144)= 11.686, p <.001; for involvement: F(2, 144) = 12.833, p <.001). When looking closer however, we see both for well‐being and involvement that only the differences in mean score between the first and second measurement and between the first and third measurement are significant. The difference in group means between 2nd and 3th measurement is not significant. When performing independent samples t‐tests (between M1‐M2, M1‐M3 and M2‐M3, see table 16) we get confirmation. Both for well‐being and involvement, the observed increase is significant between M1 and M2 and M1 and M3. We can firmly conclude that the observed increase, in mean score for well‐being and involvement in these measurements, is significant. The observed difference between M2 and M3 is not significant.

Table 16: Results on the independent samples t‐test between M1‐M2, M1‐M3 and M2‐M3 [group level]

independent samples t‐test between Well‐being Involvement

M1 and M2 t(99) = ‐4.040, p < .001 t(99) = ‐3.801, p <.001 M1 and M3 t(95) = ‐4.671, p < .001 t(95) = ‐4.359, p < .001 M2 and M3 t(94) = ‐1.512, ns t(94) = ‐1.482, ns

Table 17: N, percentage and mean for well‐being and involvement [group level]

Well‐being Means with the same letter don’t differ significantly from each other

Group level N Mean Std. Deviation Measurement 1 51 3.33 .34 Measurement 2 50 3.58 .32 A Measurement 3 46 3.70 .50 A

Total 147 3.53 .42

Involvement

Group level N Mean Std. Deviation Measurement 1 51 2.93 .42 Measurement 2 50 3.29 .47 A Measurement 3 46 3.47 .69 A

Total 147 3.22 .58

There is a significant correlation (r = .71, p <.001) between the two quality indicators – well‐being and involvement. When we compare the 3 different measurements we see a higher correlation (r = .79) in the third measurement. The correlation between well‐being and involvement is moderate in measurement 1 (r = .543, p <.001) and measurement 2 (r = .486, p <.001)9.

In the table beneath, we see that the well‐being and involvement scores are almost distributed according the Gauss curve. Therefore, based on the standard deviation, we can make up several categories. Based on this descriptive, we conclude that almost 1/6 of the groups (16% for Inv. and 14% for WB) has a high or very high group mean for involvement (= group mean of 3.81 or more) and well‐being (= group mean of 3.96 or more): most children feel good and will have learned a lot during

9 From other research we can see that both dimensions are interlinked with a moderate correlation of .50. In other words, we expect to see some correlation like in measurement 1 and 2. (see Laevers, F. et. Al. (2009). Werken aan kwaliteit vanuit het kindperspectief: welbevinden en betrokkenheid als richtsnoeren. Ziko II (eindverslag). Leuven: ECEGO.



| 22

those group observations. Further, we see a big middle group and about 16% of groups with low involvement (= group mean of 2.63 or less) and/or well‐being (= group mean of 3.10 or less).

Table 18: N and spreading of well‐being and involvement ‐ all measurements together – n = 101 [group level]

Involvement

Group level

All measurements N %

X – ≤ 2SD ≤ 2.06 4 [3%] 3%

X – 2 SD [2.06 – 2.63] 19 [13 %] 13%

[2.64 ‐ 2.93] 23 [16 %]

X +/‐ 1SD [ 2.94 – 3.22] 24 [16 %] 68%

[3.23 – 3.51 ] 32 [22 %]

[3.52 – 3.80] 21 [14 %]

X + 2 SD [3.81 – 4.38] 21 [14 %] 14%

X + > 2SD [4.39 – 5.00] 3 [2 %] 2%

Well‐being N %

X – ≤ 2SD ≤ 2.69 3 [2%] 2%

X – 2 SD [2.69 – 3.10] 20 [14%] 14%

[3.11‐3.31] 25 [17%]

X +/‐ 1SD [3.32– 3.53] 29 [20%] 70%

[3.54 –3.73] 21 [14%]

[3.74– 3.95] 28 [19%]

X + 2 SD [3.96 – 4.37] 15 [10 %] 10%

X + > 2SD [4.38 – 5.00] 6 [4 %] 4%

Categories Which mean level can we consider as sufficient or even excellent? The answer can’t be given by statistics only. A second approach is to imagine what kind of quality we want to receive at the level of experiences of children. Amongst trained users of the scales10 there is a consensus that 3.50 is a critical point and can be considered as a minimal acceptance. When taking this norm as a point of reference, we see for both well‐being and involvement a substantial progression. For WELL‐BEING (all measurements together) almost half (48%) of the observed groups have a group mean above this point. When looking closer to the different measurements and comparing the baseline (N = 51 groups) with the 2nd measurement (N = 50 groups) and 3th measurement (N = 46 groups), we see a substantial higher percentage (increase from 28% [M1] to 52% [M2] to 66% [M3]) group means in the highest segment and a substantial lower percentage (decrease from 72% [M1] to 48% [M2] to 34% [M3]) in the lowest segment. For INVOLVEMENT we note evolution in the same direction. In total, (all measurements together) 31% of the observed groups have a group mean above this point. If we compare the baseline (n = 51 groups) with the two other measurements, also for involvement we note progression from 4% [M1] to 28% [M2] to 64% [M3] of the groups having a group mean above 3.50.

10 Laevers, F. & et. al. (2009). Werken aan kwaliteit vanuit het kinderperspectief: welbevinden en betrokkenheid als richtsnoeren: Ziko II

(eindverslag). Leuven: CEGO. Laevers, F. et. al. (2009). Fundamenteel diepte‐onderzoek naar krachtige GOK‐leeromgevingen. Onderzoeksluik ‘Betrokkenheid en Welbevinden. Eindrapport. Leuven: Steunpunt GOK.



| 23

Table 19: Synthesis mean well‐being for measurement 1 (N = 51), 2 (N = 50) and 3 (N = 46) [group level]

Well‐being <2.76 [2.76‐3.00] [3.01‐3.25] [3.26‐3.50] [3.51‐3.75] [3.76‐4.00] [4.01‐4.25] [4.26‐4.50] >4.50

M1 2 [4%]

5 [10%]

17 [33%]

13 [25%]

9 [18%]

5 [10%]

M2 2 [4%]

7 [14%]

15 [30%]

14 [28%]

7 [14%]

4 [8%]

1 [2%]

M3 2 [4%]

2 [4%]

5 [11%]

7 [15%]

5 [11%]

16 [35%]

3 [7%]

6 [13%]

Table 20: Synthesis mean involvement for measurement 1 (N = 51), 2 (N = 50) and 3 (N = 46) [group level]

Involvement <2.50 [2.51‐2.75] [2.76‐3.00] [3.01‐3.25] [3.26‐3.50] [3.51‐3.75] [3.76‐4.00] >4.00

M1 7 [14%]

9 [18%]

15 [29%]

8 [16%]

10 [20%]

1 [2%]

1 [2%]

M2 2 [4%]

6 [12%]

6 [12%]

8 [16%]

14 [28%]

7 [14%]

5 [10%]

2 [4%]

M3 7 [15%]

3 [7%]

3 [7%]

2 [4%]

2 [4%]

9 [20%]

11 [24%]

9 [20%]

Table 19 (for well‐being) and table 20 (for involvement) are the synthesis of table 15.

Figure: Overview of N groups with mean well‐being higher or lower than 3.50 per measurement

Figure: Overview of N groups with mean involvement higher or lower than 3.50 per measurement



| 24

6 Context: five dimensions During the visit, observers also rated every group on five dimensions in the learning environment [offer, climate, initiative, organization and style] using a four point scale (1 = inadequate to 4 = outstanding). Most remarkable in the table beneath is that for all three measurements the dimension group climate is rated highest. In most visited groups, observers tend to be satisfied of it. Furthermore, we notice that score 4 (outstanding) is only rated 7 times [2.75%] during the baseline and 9 times [3.75%] during the second measurement. The last measurement the score 4 (outstanding) is given much more: 25 times [11%]. This indicates that in most settings and for all dimensions, improvement is still possible but also happens according to the judgments by the Early Years Consultant Team.

Table 21: N scores on the five dimensions in the context for the 3 measurements [group level] Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Measurement 3 Offer Climate Init. Organ. Style Offer Climate Init. Organ. Style Offer Climate Init. Organ. Style

Score 1: inadequate

3 [6%]

3 [6%]

3 [6%]

5 [10%]

2 [4%]

1 [2%]

2 [4%]

2 [4%]

3 [6%]

3 [6.5%]

4 [9%]

5 [11%]

1 [2%]

Score 2: satisfactory

25 [49%]

21 [41%]

24 [47%]

31 [61%]

29 [57%]

13 [27%]

10 [21%]

18 [37%]

23 [48%]

17 [35%]

10 [22%]

8 [17%]

15 [33%]

16 [35%]

14 [30%]

Score 3: good

22 [43%]

29 [57%]

22 [43%]

16 [31%]

15 [29%]

30 [63%]

36 [75%]

27 [56%]

22 [46%]

25 [52%]

27 [59%]

33 [72%]

19 [41%]

23 [50%]

27 [59%]

Score 4: outstanding

1 [2%]

1 [2%]

2 [4%]

1 [2%]

2 [4%]

3 [6%]

1 [2%]

1 [2%]

1 [2%]

3 [6%]

6 [13%]

5 [11%]

8 [17%]

2 [4%]

4 [9%]

No answer 2 2 2 2 2

Mean score 2.41 2.61 2.45 2.29 2.27 2.71 2.77 2.56 2.46 2.58 2.78 2.93 2.67 2.48 2.74 Std.dev .64 .53 .67 .61 .70 .65 .52 .62 .62 .71 .76 .53 .87 .75 .65

When performing an ANOVA, we see that only the observed differences in the dimensions ‘offer’, ‘climate’ and ‘style’ are significant (see table 22). For the dimensions ‘room for initiative’ and ‘organization’ differences between the measurements are not significant. When looking closer however (table 23), we only see significant differences between measurement 1 and measurement 3 for those 3 dimensions. This result is even more impressive, since this is collected by comparing rather small statistical groups (N = +/‐ 50 scores). There is no observer effect, since in all cases the scores over the 3 measurements are given by the same observer. Table 22: One way Anova on the 5 approach – dimensions for the 3 measurements (N = 144) Offer F (2, 142) = 4.075, p < .05 Climate F (2, 142) = 4.657, p < .05 Room for initiative F (2, 142) = 1.146, p = ns Organization F (2, 142) = 1.157, p = ns Style F (2, 142) = 5.826, p < .01

Table 23: Comparison of mean score for ‘offer’, ‘climate’ and ‘style’ for the 3 measurements [group level] Offer N M SD Means with the same letter don’t

differ significantly from each other

Measurement 1 51 2.41 .64 A Measurement 2 48 2.71 .65 A B Measurement 3 46 2.78 .76 B

Climate N M SD Means with the same letter don’t differ significantly from each other


Style N M SD Means with the same letter don’t differ significantly from each other




| 25

Another interesting question is if there is any correlation between the average score for the process indicators (involvement and well‐being) and the scores on the five dimensions. In the table beneath, we get strong evidence that there is a positive association. The correlations are significant for all dimensions (p < .01). In other words, the higher the mean score for involvement or well‐being, the higher the score on a dimension in the approach. The strongest correlations are noted for the relation between involvement and the offer and involvement and organization.

Table 24: Correlation between mean score for involvement/ well‐being and approach‐dimensions (N= 145)

Correlation Involvement Well‐being

Offer .569* .448* Climate .414* .427* Initiative .569* .437* Organization .517* .321* Style .506* .471* All 5 dimensions together .640* .519* *p < .01

We also checked if all approach dimensions [offer, climate, initiative, organization and style] influence the score for involvement and well‐being. Therefore we performed a multiple regression analysis with all five variables included simultaneously. About 40% of the differences in mean involvement on group level are explained by the five approach dimensions (adjusted R² = .403, p < .001). For well‐being, about 28% of the differences are explained by the approach dimensions (adjusted R² = .281, p < .001).This is significant. Yet, as all approach dimensions correlate significantly positive (see Table 25), when looking at individual predictors offer (β = .270, p < .01) and organization (β = .226, p < .05) significantly predict involvement at group level. For well‐being, we see offer (β = .221, p < .05) and style (β = .243, p < .05) as most significant predictors. Table 25: Bivarate correlations between approach‐dimensions (N= 145)

Offer Climate Initiative Organization Style

Offer 1.00 .486* .634* .587* .539* Climate 1.00 .532* .502* .596* Initiative 1.00 .638* .602* Organization 1.00 .594* Style 1.00 *p < .01

Table 26: Prediction of mean group score for involvement and well‐being based on the 5 dimensions in approach (N=145)

Approach Involvement β

Well‐being β

Offer .270** .221* Climate .018 .162 Room for initiative .226* .146 Organization .121 ‐.128 Style .141 .243* *p<.05 **p<.01



| 26

7 Qualitative data The approach was not only rated, also qualitative notes were made. The observers noted down the areas of strength and the agreed areas for development to improve the quality on the five dimensions. In the paragraphs beneath, we’ll look more closely at the reflections made by the observers. In total we received qualitative data for 76 Notes (M1: 26 Notes, M2: 22 Notes, M3: 28 Notes), meaning that in half of the Notes (76 of 142 Notes), observers noted down qualitative data. We have also made word clouds11 including all qualitative data to create a visual image of the most mentioned words.

7.1 Dimension 1: Offer Areas of strength [1st M: 21 quotes, 2nd M: 16 quotes, 3 th M: 20 quotes] As strong elements different advisers note that children have access to a variety of materials, activities and resources indoors and outdoors (M1: 14 quotes, M2: 9 quotes, M3: 15 quotes). Interested materials are open ended, provoke imagination and investigation (2 quotes). Being outside seem to have a positive impact on involvement, especially when the outdoor is challenging or reflecting the inside activities (3 quotes). The see‐saw, hoops and bean bags on the hill seem to provide excellent challenges for children. Also real materials in the home corner (like phones, pen, paper,..), mark making activities, real problems, challenging ICT, a well‐resourced book area and a specific story are mentioned as having a positive impact. Also highly engaged role play and the fact that children can transport resources to suit their play is mentioned. Areas for development [1st M: 13 quotes, 2nd M: 10 quotes, 3 th M: 8 quotes] When involvement was low, observers mention 11 times a poor choice of activities and resources available to the children (indoors and outdoors) (eg. only paper and pencils in mark making area, very basic mark making, materials need to be added to support younger children’s play, the hospital corner needs writing materials and a telephone much waiting and watching at the computer,…). But also the opposite is mentioned: too much dressing up clothes scattered around, limit the involvement. Another point of attention is the lack of outdoor play or free flow in and out. This is mentioned 4 times. A third element has to do with the organization of the offer: long waiting times (eg computer, outdoors that is initially not set up), the placement of certain activities, a computer table that is too high for the chair (in Set_42 and Set_6), resources that were too heavy (eg. a kite), paint that run out, resources only available to the children for a short period of time (eg. the digging area) and activities that were not well displayed (Set_47). Also the type of materials is quoted as element to improve: it’s a plea for outside materials to promote sustained play and deeper challenges for younger children, materials with potential to extend imagination and role play. The offered resources should challenge or extend children’s thinking. One adviser notes that the bikes are used in a very routine. Another person notes down several flittering children (butterflies). Some suggestions are to add some provocations to the continuous provision (Set_21), to consider introducing new things over a period of time not all on one day (Set_27) and to provide alternatives to allow children to opt out of structured activity (Set_28).

11 See www. Wordle.net. Wordle is a tool for generating “word clouds” from text that is provided. The clouds give greater prominence to

words that appear more frequently in the source text.



| 27

Figure 5 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development ‐ Offer Offer: areas of strength: Offer: areas for development:

7.2 Dimension 2: Climate Areas of strength [1st M: 22 quotes, 2nd M: 19 quotes, 3 th M: 18 quotes] The qualitative data reflects quite well the high score the advisers give for this dimension. In total 59 times qualitative notes were made. Most mentioned is the positive, calm atmosphere (mentioned 35 times). In 59 quotes the most used word to describe the climate is ‘calm’ (used 18 times), sometimes in combination with ‘busy’ and/or ‘relaxed’. Another aspect of a positive climate are the positive interactions between children and relations between children and adults (mentioned 21 times), especially in the qualitative notes of measurement 2 and 3: adults engaging only when appropriate, adults interacting at the children's level, supportive, friendly, animated and well placed adults, children are respective of each other and staff did good interventions when needed. Also mentioned a lot (10 times) is the high well‐being of children: children feel at ease, confident, settled, chatty, happy and negotiate and work co operatively together. Other elements mentioned impacting positively on climate are the good use of music, singing children, a well equipped outdoor, observation during an outside session and a room decorated with resources for children. Areas for development [1st M: 7 quotes, 2nd M: 7 quotes, 3 th M: 5 quotes] The few elements to improve are focusing on staff engagement (8 quotes): staff busy with paper work instead of children, outside staff not interacting, a relief adult not responding,… On the other hand an adviser also advises staff first to watch before ‘interfering’. Interaction that needs to be more child empathetic and less directional. Four times an agency problem is mentioned: behavior management strategies to use, adults competing with children’s volume, anxious staff because the responsible teacher is not present, an organization with too many dead moments and a member of staff that is particularly loud impacting negatively on the climate.



| 28

Figure 6 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development ‐ Climate Climate: areas of strength: Climate: areas for development:

7.3 Dimension 3: Room for initiative Areas of strength [1st M: 18 quotes, 2nd M: 17 quotes, 3 th M: 16 quotes] For this dimension, the strongest element impacting positively is the fact that children are free to move around and can choose themselves out of a variety of activities/materials without dead moments and with a lot of possibilities to follow own interests. This is mentioned 32 times: exploration opportunities for children, confident choosing, child initiated activities, being able to select own resources, children making their own puppet show or are aloud to take the shopping area outside,… Snack with choices is mentioned twice as impacting positively. Another element (mentioned 7 times) is the fact that children can work independently: adults don’t take over, children choose and pursue own interests and can become involved without interference. A specific child is mentioned enjoying the own activity of cleaning away. When there is an adult involved, self choice of children is beneficial. Also SEN children are supported to make own choices (Set_9). Areas for development [1st M: 10 quotes, 2nd M: 11 quotes, 3 th M: 10 quotes] An important element that limits the room for initiative of children is the limitation of choices (mentioned 11 times): too many closed areas, no options during circle time, little choices, children who are not allowed to move things from one area to another, limited choices, limited free exploration. A second element are activities that are too directed by the staff (mentioned 7 times): less engagement during adult focus, a climbing frame that is too closely monitored, to rigid expected outcomes, missed opportunities in a child’s interest in paint, adult directed choices interrupting children, too little own initiatives of children during group times, … Several times (5 times) the suggestion is made to let children self select and resource: let children access a timer themselves, give them the opportunity to take the paint, let them be active during snack time. Being able to choose to go outdoors is mentioned 2 times. Transition time is mentioned once (transition between story and snack limits the involvement) and adding or changing equipment is mentioned twice (add different kind of paper and create a larger drawing area). A third element limiting children has to do with organization: too long registration, lining up for toilet, choices that cause distraction,..



| 29

Figure 7 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development – Room for initiative Initiative: areas of strength: Initiative: areas for development:

7.4 Dimension 4: Organization Areas of strength [1st M: 10 quotes, 2nd M: 9 quotes, 3 th M: 11 quotes] The fact that settings work with a clear routine: planned activities, well defined areas, well designated staff roles and a daily schedule is mentioned most (7 times) as impacting positively on the organization. A smooth organization is also flexible (10 quotes): no dead moments, no lining up, responses of adults to reorganize the playground, time to chat for children during adult led activity, free flow opportunities,…A last element mentioned (4 times) are the kind of activities: open ended, a wide range and free flow (eg. a rolling snack), free available resources,… Areas for development [1st M: 16 quotes, 2nd M: 12 quotes, 3 th M: 11 quotes] Most mentioned as an area for development is reducing the dead moments (20 times): flittering children, dead moment during adult initiated activity, register time, snack time or specific procedures (eg. use of numbered bottles during snack, turn taking in order round a circle,…) are impacting negatively on involvement. Suggestions are made towards providing a turn taking system for limited equipment like computers, involve children (eg. in finding resources,…), make sure children don’t have to line up, the suggestion to offer a wider variety of resources,… Also more adult support and guidance is sometimes needed to re‐engage children (9 quotes). Other elements mentioned are providing free flow between inside and outside (2 quotes), rearrange some areas (3 quotes) like a book area near the doorway or badly placed tables outside and to relook at the daily planning (3 quotes).



| 30

Figure 8 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development ‐ Organization Organization: areas of strength: Organization: areas for development:

7.5 Dimension 5: Style Areas of strength [1st M: 16 quotes, 2nd M: 12 quotes, 3 th M: 17 quotes] About the style some observers note in general (9 quotes) that adults interact well with children, that they stay calm during snack time, that there are good adult‐child relationships, full involvement at a one to one story time. More specific, when the style is strong, it has to do with the sensitivity of the adult (13 quotes): a gentle supportive, encouraging warm approach, sensitive towards feelings of children, responsive, praising, checking if a specific child was Ok, a good understanding of children, … A second element impacting positively is the adult stimulation (16 quotes): respond with resources to children’s needs, a good use of open questions, adding challenge to play dough activity, constant talking, age appropriate, modeling, engaged in activities, interested adults that prompt thinking,… One observer notes: “One adult engaged with a child very well at the climbing frame asking lots of open ended questions, this kept the childs game going as it prompted and challenged their thinking (Set_7)”. Thirdly, respect for the autonomy of children (4 quotes) is mentioned: following children’s interest, allowing a boy to spin on car and a girl to cut own tape and encourage sharing/turn taking by using a sand timer. Areas for development [1st M: 14 quotes, 2nd M: 11 quotes, 3 th M: 16 quotes] Elements to improve all focus on the type of interaction. It’s often searching for the balance between when and when not to interfere. In 15 quotes observers give the advice to step back before entering play: intervening too early, at the wrong moments or with too complex questions interrupts children’s involvement. On the other hand too little or no interaction is not good enough neither. Adults need to engage and challenge children (13 quotes). Sometimes children seeking for attention, looking for praise,…or not really playing are ignored. Four times, negative interaction is mentioned (eg. staff shouting instructions, adult calling across the hall, adults instructing children instead of asking,… For one setting, staff explicitly want to discuss how they can support play. Some advisers suggest to challenge some children more (3 quotes) and to develop empathy skills to recognize when children need support to extend play (2 quotes). Once, the suggestion is made to set clearer boundaries for children.



| 31

Figure 9 : Word cloud areas of strength and areas for development ‐ Style Style: areas of strength: Style: areas for development:

7.6 Synthesis To conclude we have made an overview of the number of quotes per dimension. The fact that observers are most satisfied about group climate is also reflected in this overview. This dimension has the most quotes in the area of strength (N = 59) and the least quotes in the area for development (N = 19). In four of the five dimensions [offer, climate, room for initiative and style] we get a similar picture: around 50 quotes in the area of strength and about 30 quotes in the area for development. The dimension ‘organization’ is the exception. This dimension is rated lowest (see table 21) which explains the fact that there are not as many quotes in the area of strength and more quotes in the area for development. Table 27: Synthesis of N quotes for the 5 dimensions: areas of strength and areas for development

Areas of strength Offer Climate Room for initiative Organization Style

M1 21 22 18 10 16 M2 16 19 17 9 12 M3 20 18 16 11 17

TOTAL 57 59 51 30 45

Areas for development Offer Climate Room for initiative Organization Style M1 13 7 10 16 14 M2 10 7 11 12 11 M3 8 5 10 11 16

TOTAL 31 19 31 39 41



| 32

8 Reflections & Conclusion From the analysis of the data of the 49 visited preschools in Milton Keynes, we conclude: 1. Although scanning results with SICS provide objective data, reality is often far too complex to

simply make up a ranking and base our judgments on quality on it. To be fair to the early years reality, we can only compare preschools with a similar reality: what is, for instance, the kind of population attending the setting? Preschools with a privileged public might give a better result on the scores of involvement because the exploratory drive of the children is stimulated more outside the setting as well. It might also be that the range of ‘out‐of‐school’ experiences is much broader in these homes, so that children bring in more clues for practitioners to respond too and to enrich the environment. This suggests to include some factual data in later analyses. On the other hand we cannot minimalize the scanning results neither. These data are easy to collect and at the same time provide a firm basis to compare and register progression within the setting and within similar settings and can offer objective data for improvement. This is clearly illustrated in Table 15.

2. For quite some groups we see an impressive improvement in mean scores for well‐being and involvement. Between the baseline and third measurement we see an increase from 28% (N = 14 groups) to 66% (N = 30 groups) of groups with a group mean higher than 3.50. Involvement however stays a reason for concern. For involvement we see progression as well. There is a spectacular increase in group means. Between the baseline and third measurement we see a spectacular increase from 4% (N = 2 groups) to 64% (N = 29 groups) of groups with a mean higher than 3.50.

3. Preschool days are not less or more interesting and boring in mornings than in afternoons. No significant difference is observed. This is interesting, since a remark often heard is that “afternoon children seem to be more excited or busy, compared to the morning group”. This is not reflected in the scores.

4. Also qualitative remarks illustrate the significant improvement in settings. A concrete example: For group 10, the observer notes: “Final baseline visit ‐ wellbeing and involvement scores have increased. The atmosphere during the session was very relaxed with lots of laughter. New areas have been set up outside including clipboards for mark making and a den area which the children have been using for a puppet show. A group of children performed the show working together to decide and sing the songs (Set. 10).” At the same time we see for both well‐being and involvement an improvement in mean scores (well‐being; M1:3.15, M2:3.45, M3:4.00; involvement; M1:3.20, M2:3.25, M3:3.60).

5. The levels for involvement and well‐being on group level are associated with the five quality

dimensions in the approach [= a powerful learning environment]. These dimensions together explain 40% of the differences in mean involvement and 28% of mean well‐being on group level. It suggests that the approach makes a difference. Especially the dimension ‘offer’ and ‘organization’ (for involvement) and ‘offer’ and ‘style’ (for well‐being) impacts on the process

6. Furthermore, the impact of the approach dimensions is not yet completely used. The observers

see for all approach dimensions still a potential for improvement possible. At the same time we observe improvement between the different measurements. The score 4 (outstanding) is used much more during the third measurement (there is an evolution from 3% towards 11%)



| 33

7. Observers are most satisfied about the dimension ‘climate’, with almost only positive qualitative comments. At the same time there is a significant improvement during the school year for this dimension [M1: 2.61; M3: 2.93 on a four point scale]. Also for the dimensions ‘offer’ [M1: 2.41; M2: 2.78] and ‘style’ [M1: 2.27; M2:2.74] there has been a significant progression between the baseline and the third measurement.

8. As a critical note with regard to the research design, the following points have to be taken into

account. o Positive is the research design is the equal spreading amongst observers (all observers

executed more or less the same numbers of observations, meaning that the impact of individual observers is moderated) and an at random division between observers and the preschool settings they would observe (meaning that individual observers are not biased because they observe and evaluate the settings, they are linked up with as an Adviser or Consultant). In this design there was no direct link between the observers and the settings.

o There is not been a moderation or reliability check at the level of the observers. This is however moderated by the intensive training and side‐by‐side coaching. In a future research design, more rigor can be built in by further training and the design of a module whereby observers anonymously test their own reliability in rating involvement and well‐being before starting data collection.

o The high correlation (R= .71) between the judgements of well‐being and involvement also indicates that this is useful. However, this remark only last for the third measurement (where we see a strong correlation of r= .79, p <.001). In measurement 1 (correlation of r = .543, p <.001) and measurement 2 (correlation of r = .486, p <.001) observers were able to rate well‐being and involvement independently from each other12.

o As a possible explanation for the higher correlation between well‐being and involvement in measurement 3, we have explored the relation between high and low levels of involvement and high and low levels of well‐being. It might be that, when involvement is higher also the correlation with well‐being is higher. For this we have not found any significant correlation. This means that this hypothesis doesn’t last.

9. An interesting hypothesis for future research is to link the scanning results on well‐being and

involvement with independent outcome measurements. Interesting research questions might be if groups with higher levels of well‐being and involvement also gain better results on the Early Years Foundation Stage profile in a pre‐ and posttestdesign (reports evolution). Is there a link between well‐being, involvement and the Ofsted results? Is there a link between high levels of well‐being and involvement and outcome measurements on literacy and numeracy? Future research should include data of this kind.

Conclusion When looking at the harvest of this training‐ and research project one can only be impressed by the many insights that were generated in the different settings and the reflection process. The overall conclusion of the Notes of Visit is that the process‐oriented approach and the related concepts and instruments work. They offer a useful and inspiring framework to understand what happens in practice and to take initiatives that visibly improve the quality of the work. Furthermore the concepts and instruments are easily accessed by the practitioners. The process‐oriented

12 From other research we can see that both dimensions are interlinked, but with a moderate correlation of .50 (see Laevers, F. et. Al. (2009). Werken aan kwaliteit vanuit het kindperspectief: welbevinden en betrokkenheid als richtsnoeren. Ziko II (eindverslag). Leuven: ECEGO.



| 34

approach can help them to see how much they can do for the benefit of children just by giving the best of themselves and the optimal use of the space and equipment available – even before getting at the point where material conditions limit the possible impact of their work. The overall conclusion is positive: making efforts to get higher levels of well‐being and involvement is at the reach of any preschool or nursery. Observing involvement and well‐being and using the scheme of the five dimensions to create a powerful learning environment offers great means to make fundamental changes towards more quality for children. Also as a county the conclusion is positive. The project has a substantial impact. When we compare the baseline‐assessment with the results of third measurement, the impact is strong and visible, not in the least due to all efforts of the Milton Keynes Early Years Consultant team, the (lead) practitioners and settings managers. Both for well‐being and involvement we notice a significant improvement: children feel better in the Milton Keynes preschools and they tend to experience their lives in the setting as more exciting: a promising pathway to follow.



| 35

Appendix

Name child observationwell-being

involvement name child observation well-being/involvement

1 6

2 7

3 8

4 9

5 10

group: number of children: number of supervisors: date:…..…to…..… from…..…to…..…

8

SiCs Form A

wb bt

wb bt

wb bt

wb bt

wb bt

wb bt

wb bt

wb bt

wb bt

wb bt

Step 1: Observation schedule (scanning of well-being and involvement)

Research Centre forExperiential Education

Leuven University

• invul horiz ENG.indd 1 21-12-2005 14:43:35

The high scores for well-being and involvement are linked with: The low scores for well-being and involvement are linked with:

1. A rich environment (well equipped infrastructure, a variety of play materials and activities, etc.)

2. A positive atmosphere and group climate (pleasant atmosphere, positive interactions, sense of belonging, etc.)

3. Room for initiative (children are often free to choose their own activities, they are involved as much as possible in practical matters, rules and agreements)

4. An effi cient organisation (clear plan of the day geared to the children, no dead moments, optimal use of guidance, appropriate grouping, etc.)

5. An empathic adult style (taking into account children’s feelings and needs, intervening in a stimulating way and at the same time offering room for initiative)

1. An insuffi cient offer (poor infrastructure, little or old play material, hardly any activities on offer, etc.)

2. A negative atmosphere and group climate (negative interactions, shouting or uncomfortable silences, children and carers do not connect)

3. Too little room for initiative (predominantly compulsory activities, limited fl exibility in the day schedule, rules and agreements, limited input of children, etc.)

4. An insuffi cient organisation (the day schedule is not geared to the children, many dead moments esp. during transitions, guidance is not used in an optimal way, etc.)

5. An inappropriate adult style (not taking feelings into account, no or few stimulating impulses, discouraging of children who take initiative, etc.)

Child Factors Exceptional Circumstances Child Factors Exceptional Circumstances (birthday, new-born sister, etc.) (only a few children present, (ill, family crisis, etc.) (new interim carer, absent carer, etc.)

fi rst time sunny weather, etc.)

SiCs Form B

9

Step 2: Analysis of the observations

Research Centre forExperiential Education

Leuven University

• invul horiz ENG.indd 2 21-12-2005 14:43:36


URN NUMBER Click here to enter text. DATE Click here to enter a date.

SETTING Click here to enter text. STAFF VISITED Click here to enter text.

DISTRICT Click here to enter text. NAME CONSULTANT Click here to enter text.

N CHILDREN REGISTERED Click here to enter text. FULL DAY CARE SESSIONAL DAY CARE OTHER

APPROACH ROOM

AGE

NUMBER OF CHILDREN

NUMBER OF ADULTS

START

TIME SCANNING

OFFER CLIMATE ROOM FOR INITIATIVE

ORGANIZATION STYLE

1 Choose an item. Choose an item. Choose an item. Choose an item. Choose an item. Choose an item. Choose an item.





Total

PROCESS

WELLBEING ROOM 1 1+ 2 2+ 3 3+ 4 4+ 5 Average

1

2

3

4

5

Total

INVOLVEMENT

ROOM 1 1+ 2 2+ 3 3+ 4 4+ 5 Average

1

2

3

4

5

Total


GENERAL REMARKS CONCERNING WB, INV AND APPROACH:

AREAS OF STRENGTH AGREED AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT OFFER

CLIMATE

ROOM FOR INIT.

ORGANIZATION

STYLE

REMARKS, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: Impact of work on learning and development – progression since last visit/on previous actions

at child level at level of staff at level of setting Next visit: Click here to enter a date.


Qualitative data of the 3 measurements Baseline: 26 of 51 Notes contain qualitative data Measurement 2: 22 of 50 Notes contain qualitative data Measurement 3: 28 of 41 Notes contain qualitative data

General remarks Measurement 1 ‐Pre school just moved to new environment and still settling in. Areas within the venue defined and well resourced. Children seemed very busy ‐ a lot of movement/rather than learning. Setting missed training in November ‐ only completed initial baseline visit (5) ‐Pre school has a small indoor area compared to its large outdoor area. Activities inside are also reflected outside eg two home corners, 2 painting area ‐ outside extended on inside (painting with green paint inside, extended to mixing green paint outside).General climate of the group was very positive with moments of children becoming distressed. Strategies for behaviour management may help. A range of levels of well‐being and involvement (10) ‐Pre school in a community hall which is set up daily. Displays/pictures are put up (daily). This adds to the atmosphere of the group as well as makes it more stimulating for the children. The staff value the outside area (14) Measurement 2 ‐The range of activities in and out are good. Recent changes to the book corner and space inside makes areas much more stimulating and inviting to use. Some dead moments when the children are waiting for resources from the sheds. Talked about having the digging area open all session and adding resources to it to support CLL and PSRN. Well being is generally ok children seem relaxed and confident during play. Involvement at activities could be extended by adding further challenge to activities(10) ‐The pre school has completed their own SICs and POMs for the children. The children with low scores have had action plans put in place. Stickers are used to reward the children for good behaviour at group time however later in the session when asked the children didn't seem to know what they are for. One of the staff sat watching (not observing) the children rather than interacting ‐ we discussed about providing extra support to the member of staff (14) Measurement 3 ‐ Final baseline visit ‐ wellbeing and involvement scores have increased. The atmosphere during the session was very relaxed with lots of laughter. New areas have been set up outside including clipboards for mark making (previously advised) and a den area which the children have been using for a puppet show. A group of children performed the show working together to decide and sing the songs. The setting still has to complete their own SICs and POMs which they hope to implement from September when the new intake starts.(10) ‐ Final baseline visit, scores for wellbeing and involvement are higher than last visit. The pre school has a god ariety of activities both inside and outside. However today there seemed too much outside which made it hard for the 2 staff in that area to fully support the children in order to sustain their involvement. The layout of activities is going to be reviewed in order to make staff deployment easier. Registration will be the focus for the preschool leaders next September. The younger children seem to lose interest once the names had been called. We discussed ways the group could be split eg key groups (14)


1. Areas of strength 1.1 Offer Measurement 1 ‐Variety of materials/activities (1) ‐Hoops on the hill provided an excellent challenge& met children's interests. Phones, pens, paper in home corner provided a child opporutnity to get involved. Variety of open ended resources in creative area.(3) ‐Well resources inside and out(5) ‐ Good range of activities spaced out well (6) ‐ Good variety of activities (7) ‐variety of opportunities(9) ‐ Good variety, outside reflects inside activities (10) ‐ Variety of materials/activities (12) ‐in room 1 there was a variety of equipment (13) ‐ Lots of activities inside and out well resourced (14) ‐ Pasta ‐ posed a problem, children really concentrating. Mark making lots of vareity ‐ scissors, pens, glue, paper. (15) ‐good solid all round offer (26) ‐ A wide variety of activities were provided (27) ‐good (31) ‐outstanding, a large number of tasks with a good range( 35) ‐ Well equipped, quiet book area (36) ‐ Many resources/activities on offer (37) ‐ Cosy and good book resources ‐ popular (39) ‐ Creative work indoors, challenging outside (41) ‐ Well equipped, varied selection for snack (42) ‐the nursery was a very rich environment (46) Measurement 2 ‐ Children enjoyed see‐saw, hoops and bean bags (3) ‐ Good range of equipment/activites (6) ‐ Variety of resource/opportunities open ended resources outside (7) ‐ Range of activities in and out (10) ‐ Both rooms better presented than before (13) ‐ Well equipped and divided into areas (14) ‐ Huge variety of resources, something for everyone (15) ‐ The environment has had extra "stimulating" corners added (21) ‐ A rich inspiring environment (27) ‐ Well resourced, spacious layout (28) ‐ Large quiet book area (36) ‐ Use of "wow" factor (39) ‐ Resources outside open ended, lots of imaginative play and investigative (41) ‐ Various well equipped activities (42) ‐ There were a variety of activities for nursery children. The story appealed to Year R (46) ‐ All children enjoying being outside on a nice day (47) Measurement 3 ‐Small working areas/spaces (1) ‐ Plenty of resources for each child (3) ‐ Use all areas, both in and outdoors, open/free access to all areas/choice (4) ‐ Variety of resources (7)


‐ Use of outdoor area (8) ‐ Area indoors and outdoors encourage exploration (9) ‐ Outside resources developed further ‐ den for puppet show (10) ‐ Freeflow in and out (12) ‐ For the nursery both the garden area and outside area were well set up (13) ‐Good variety of activities to support all areas (14) ‐ Wide range of independent choice (23) ‐ The wide variety of activities appealed to all (27) ‐ Needs more outside resources (29) ‐ Good range of materials/resources inside and out (31) ‐suitability of resources(34) ‐ Freeflow in and out (37) ‐ New area and furniture ‐ varied, challenging ICT (39) ‐ Children use/transport resources to suit play (41) ‐ The role play appealed to all children and involved them (46) ‐Space and wide range of resources on offer (49)


1.2 Climate Measurement 1 ‐Positive interactions (1) ‐Well being good, children calm, confident, settled(3) ‐good atmosphere with positive relationships between children(5) ‐ Calm, busy sound, staff all busy (6) ‐ Well being of the children good. Children confident, chatty, calm, happy. (7) ‐ Positive atmosphere/ interactions (9) ‐ Good atmsphere ‐ displays reflect families and work (10) ‐ Children feel at ease (12) ‐ Children were confident (13) ‐ Calm atmosphere (14) ‐ Hive of activity in the room ‐ positive energy. Unsettled moments are short lived. Nott too loud. (15) ‐very welcoming, calm (17) ‐ The room was calm and inviting (21) ‐Children were confiden (27) ‐Good (29) ‐very good adult/child interaction (31) ‐busy, all children were quickly included by staff ‐ good( 35) ‐ Calm, busy (36) ‐ Positive atmosphere (37) ‐ Calm, very welcoming, good use of music, children sing (41) ‐ Calm, friendly (42) ‐ Children were settled and confident (46) Measurement 2 ‐ The outside contributed to well being (3) ‐ Relaxed atmosphere (4) ‐calm(6) ‐ Calm, confident, happy child ‐ secure children (7) ‐ Some evidence of adults engaging only when appropriate(8) ‐ Calm atmosphere ‐ positive relationships (10) ‐ Adults were interacting with children at the children's level (13) ‐ Calm atmosphere, room decorated with resources for children (14) ‐ Very welcoming and calm (17) ‐calm well prepared climate, adults supportive (19) ‐the climate was positive ‐ staff moved to the children to talk to them (21) ‐ The atmosphere was very calm (27) ‐ Positive language and animated adults (28) ‐ Calm and relaxed (39) ‐ Good placement of adults, very relaxed and calm (41) ‐busy(42) ‐ Happy friendly adults (45) ‐ Positive in nursery (46) ‐ Staff are happy and interacting well (47) Measurement 3 ‐relaxed, busy environment (1) ‐ Outside the whole session (3) ‐ Animated staff, staff banter with children (4) ‐ Adults support positive interactions (9)


‐Very relaxed atmosphere/lots of lkaughte r(10) ‐ Relationships staff ‐ children were good (13) ‐ Positive interactions between children (14) ‐ Extremely relaxed. No ob. adult voices ‐ all children's (17) ‐ Children negotiative and working co‐operatively with adults as resource (23) ‐ The children were very respective of each other (27) ‐ Enthusiastic, animated lead practitioner ‐ some open ended questions (28) ‐Good atmosphere (29) ‐ Good ‐ good intervention of staff when needed (31) ‐quiet and purposeful (35) ‐ Very positive atmosphere (37) ‐ Staff and children very relaxed and love new furniture. (39) ‐ Very good atmosphere, only baby voices heard (41) ‐ Relaxed/links with day nursery shared outdoor area (49)


1.3 Room for initiative Measurement 1 ‐Children making own choices(1) ‐ Lots of choice, children are independent, adults don't take over. (3) ‐ Snack time ‐ very independent for children(5) ‐ Free choice cupboard, snack with choices, free play (6) ‐ Children are free to move around activities making their own choices. (7) ‐ Choice and exploration opportunities for children (10) ‐Children confidently make choic e(12) ‐ Most children had free choice of activities (13) ‐ Children can move freely inside/outside (when open) (14) ‐ Children have freedom to choose, there are child intiated activities. (15) ‐ Free flow within rooms (17) ‐ There was free choice both inside and out (21) ‐All activities were free choic e(27) ‐good( 35) ‐ Free access to outside (36) ‐ Children make own choices (37) ‐ Free access to activities and outside (42) ‐very good nursery (46) Measurement 2 ‐ Evidence of children being allowed to become involved with interference (4) ‐ Free access to various activities in and outside (6) ‐ Ability to choose activity and pursue as they wish (7) ‐ Free to choose from activities set out (10) ‐ Free choice from a range of activities (14) ‐ Children able to make choices and pursue own interests (15) ‐ Free flow inside and outside (17) ‐ There was a lot of free choice for children both inside and out (21) ‐ Whole organisation gave room for initiative (27) ‐ Scope to select own resources (28) ‐Improvement on previous visit (29) ‐ Free access to activities including outside (36) ‐1 child showed clear enjoyment of own act ‐ cleaning away! (39) ‐ Self choice with one adult initiated activity inside (41) ‐ Inside/outside free access (42) ‐ Opportunity for child initiated activities (45) ‐ Free choice in nursery (46) Measurement 3 ‐ Children select activities that interest them (1) ‐ Able to make choices, transpose, resources and pursue interests (3) ‐ Activities offers, choice encouraged, 90% activities child initiated (4) ‐ Freedom to pursue on interests (7) ‐ Free exploration of resources available (8) ‐ all children (including SEN) are supported to make choices (9) ‐ Children made up their own puppet show (10) ‐ Children show confidence in making choicces (12) ‐ Children able to move freely between areas and activities (14) ‐ Rule ‐ turn taking gently reminded. Free flow children adapted act (17)


‐ Lots of choice (27) ‐ Greater range of materials needed (29) ‐satisfactory (31) ‐ Children took shopping area outside (39) ‐interuptions to CI by adults (40) ‐2 children using resources imaginatively (41) Children could choose between indoors and outdoors (47)


1.4 Organization Measurement 1 ‐ Planned activities, sstaff roles (6) ‐flexible routines(9) ‐ Children know the routine (14) ‐ No dead moments, no lining up. (15) ‐ A short input was provided (21) ‐good (31) ‐good( 35) ‐Defined areas (36) ‐ Open ended activities included (41) ‐ Planned activities (42) Measurement 2 ‐ Snack didn't produce dead time (3) ‐ Well planned activities/staff designated roles (6) ‐ Staff were ready for the children which cut waiting time (13) ‐ Adults responded for need to reorganise and run freely on playgroud (15) ‐ Children had time to "chat" in the reading room and were relaxed even though it was an adult led activity (21) ‐ Free flow to outside worked well and a new rolling snack (27) ‐ Staff had designated roles/areas (36) ‐ Staff defined roles and planned activities (42) ‐ Wide range of activities on offer (47) Measurement 3 ‐ Free choice ‐ rolling snack = no child need to stop in activities for this (4) ‐ Resources available and move from one area to another in/outside (9) ‐ No dead moment (10) ‐ Outside now offered much earlier and for longer (17) ‐ Good use of time (27) ‐ Staff need to tidy more (29) ‐ Good ‐ well organised and tidy areas out and in (31) ‐buzy (35) ‐ Free flow in both rooms (39) ‐initial session children sent to activities (40) ‐ Free flow, no dead moments (41)


1.5 Style Measurement 1 ‐Adults are gentle,encouarging, supportive, warm(3) ‐ Responded with resources at craft table to children's needs for more(5) ‐ Good communication, use of open questions (6) ‐ One adult engaged with a child very well at the climbing frame asking lots of opene ended questions, this kept the childs game going as it prompted and challenged their thinking. (7) ‐intervened in a stimulating way adding challenge to playdough activity (10) ‐ Adults in room 2 interacted well with the children (13) ‐ Adults are supportive, encouraging, there is some questioning. (15) ‐ Adults constantly talking to children. Lots of praise, asking opinions (17) ‐adults interact well with children (27) ‐more formal than some settings (31) ‐good( 35) ‐ Boy allowed to spin on car, girl allowed to cut own tape (36) ‐ Adults sensitive to children feelings (37) ‐ One adult v popular and became "Pied Piper" (39) ‐ Good use of sand timer to encourage sharing/turn taking (42) ‐very good in nursery (46) Measurement 2 ‐ Remained clam even under pressure at snack table (6) ‐ Flexible, suppportive, interested adults who prompt thinking and question well (7) ‐ Responsive to children (10) ‐ Adult checked in with a child to make sure she was okay (14) ‐ Adult attention and involvement of children's play ‐ hopscotch and in den (17) ‐ Adults moved freely to where children were (27) ‐ Sound and comfortable adult:child relationships (28) ‐1:1 story ‐ full involvement (39) ‐1 adult added stimulation with open‐ended questions (41) ‐ Children are relaxed and happy (45) ‐ Staff in Year R involved children in the activities with familiar songs (46) ‐ Responsive adults (47) Measurement 3 ‐adult supportive (1) ‐ Sensitive, genuine, age appropriate, supported and extended play (3) ‐ Good interaction and empathy to offer support indoors (4) ‐ Adults respond well to children (7) ‐ Adults encourage/support and challenge (9) ‐ The support staff engagement (12) ‐ Staff (outside) reacted quickly to support children's needs and modelling play (14) ‐ Lots of adult into action and talking through children's work (17) ‐ Encouraging, animated style (28) ‐ Good understanding of children (29) ‐Good(31) ‐modelling/encouragement(34) ‐good staff intervention with required(35) ‐ Adults very supportive (37) ‐ All engaged with activities and children (39) ‐ Staff in baby room, inviting all 4 babies. Questions, modelling, encouragement and praise (41)


‐ Mainly there were positive relationships between staff and children (46)


2. Areas for development 2.1 Offer Measurement 1 ‐Resources need to be added to outside play house to support the younger children's play. More thought about the how the offer of resources outside for younger children promotes sustained play & provides deeper challenge. (3) ‐ Hospital home corner needed writing material, telephone (6) ‐ Paint had run out impacting on a child's involvement. Kite activity hindered involvement as the resources were too heavy for the kite to fly so the child gave up. (7) ‐ Initially outside not set up = children had to wait (14) Large group of children around the computer waiting and watching with very low involvement.. Dressing up resources limited involvement as there was a large pile of clothes on the floor.(15) ‐ Not a lot on offer ‐ mark making ‐ paper and pencils (17) ‐ Some activities need to be placed in different situations (21) ‐individual child provision (25) ‐more variety needed (29) ‐ Limited outside, home corner and craft equipment (36) ‐minimal (38) ‐ Mark making very basic, use of resources routine (39) ‐ Use of bikes ‐ very routine (41) ‐ Computer table too high for chair (42) Measurement 2 ‐ Limited resources (3) ‐ No outdoor area offered today (4) ‐ Computer table too high ‐ new one on order (6) ‐ Resources had limited scope to extend imagination (8) ‐ Access digging area all the time (10) ‐ Role play set up with children's interests in mind (14) ‐ To ensure new equipment is introduced so children not frustrated (27) ‐ Lack of equipment to extend area eg writing/clock in home corner (36) ‐3 childrens butterflies ‐ flitters (39) ‐ No opportunities to go outdoors (45) Measurement 3 ‐this was compulsory, no free choice, limited resource (8) ‐ YR did not have access to the outside and choosing was undirected after work (13) ‐ Too much in outside area for adults to support (14) ‐ Offer needs to improve (15) ‐ To add some provocations to the continuous provision (21) ‐ Consider introducing new things over a period of time not all on one day (27) ‐ Provide alternatives to allow children to opt out of structured activity (28) ‐activities not well displayed (47)


2.2 Climate Measurement 1 ‐ Behaviour management strategies for adults and children to use (10) ‐the 10 children were selected for parental reasons (25) ‐3 staff busy with paperwork (36) ‐minimal (38) ‐ Outside staff not interacting (39) ‐ Relief adult needed prompting to interact (41) ‐1 member of staff particularly loud (42) Measurement 2 ‐ Too little engagement of adults with children at times (4) ‐ Adults competing with children's volume (8) ‐ Very excitable which led to arguments, it felt too busy in the end (15) ‐ Adults to watch first before "interferring" (28) ‐Inadequate (29) ‐1 member of staff very loud all of the time (42) ‐ Staff a little anxious and strained with children in Year R (no teacher present) (46) Measurement 3 ‐ Balance of banter ‐ sometimes excludes children (4) ‐interaction needs to be more child empathetic and less directional (8) ‐ Children had a lot of adult direction to support any problems (13) ‐ Avoid turn taking round the circle ‐ avoids dead moment (28) ‐ One child drifting when friends excluded him (39)


2.3 Room for initiative Measurement 1 ‐ Children to access timer themselves (5) ‐ Climbing frame too closely monitored (6) ‐less engagement during adult focus(9) ‐ There was not any room for initiative at this time in room 2 (13) ‐ Children given the opportunity to access paint themsleves (14) ‐ Too many closed activities, little choices ie biscuit decorating (17) ‐ Limited choices within activities (36) ‐some but need expanding (38) ‐ Rigid expected outcomes on art table (42) ‐ Adults interrupted children in reception ‐ directed choices (46) Measurement 2 ‐ Limited free flow between in and out (3) ‐ Plain/lined paper next to colouring sheets (6) ‐ Very limited free exploration resources ‐ no paints or dough etc (8) ‐ Children to pour from milk bottle (10) ‐ Children to be more aware of where they can self resource (14) ‐ Snack time ‐ taking not eating, just sitting (17) ‐ Group activities ‐ children taking initiative limited (28) ‐ Stopped for story and snack times ‐ consider ongoing snack (36) ‐ More free choice discussed (42) ‐ Create opportunity to choose outdoors (45) ‐ Larger drawing area required (47) Measurement 3 ‐ Develop adult skills to respond to initions children to extend play (4) ‐ These were limited and lacked vriety (8) ‐ Children should be able to bring things from one area to another (13) ‐ Registration too long ‐ younger children had minimal input (14) ‐ A better offer will improve initiative (15) ‐ Missed opportunity to explore child's interest with paint (17) ‐ Some of the choice also caused distractions (27) ‐ No room during compulsory circle time activity ‐ provide alternatives (28) ‐ Routine play with bikes (41) ‐ Routines, interuption to child initiated learning, lining up for toilet (49)


2.4 Organization Measurement 1 ‐More guidance to support/engage children(1) ‐There are times when children are flitting around the environment ‐ dead moments(3) ‐ More access to outdoor environment (5) ‐ Turn taking system for limited equipment ie computer (6) ‐ Rather than waiting children could help find resources (10) ‐ Guidance not always used to good effect (12) ‐ In room 2 children were waiting on the carpet (13) ‐ Children don't have to wait in line to go outside (14) ‐ No outside ‐ until observations finished (17) ‐ It was very busy for children (27) ‐ Too many staff not working directly with children (36) ‐Some children require more adult support to engage appropriately (37) ‐weak organization/planning (38) ‐ Book area by outside doorway (39) ‐"dead" moment between pizzas and write dance (41) ‐ More adult support on computer (42) Measurement 2 ‐ Dead moments especially "waiting" during adult initiated activity (4) ‐ Staff to follow procedures such as numbered bottle (numbered bottle tops in snack area) (6) ‐ Group register ‐ low involvement, took children a while to become involved afterwards. Try not having this group time(7) ‐ Dead moments frequent especially during adult initiated activity (8) ‐ Limit limte waiting at shed (10) ‐ In one outside area the 2 structured activities did not interest the children and some things too activity led(13) ‐ Use of stickers for children (14) ‐ Tables outside by wall, children couldn't get near adult (17) ‐ Dead moments ‐ waiting for "a turn" (28) ‐staff need to be involved with children at all time (29) ‐2 dead moments for children after adult led activity (41) ‐ Waiting time for children in Year R (46) Measurement 3 ‐ Snack time (3) ‐ Develop staff skills to recognise when children are involved and not to distract with snack offer etc (4) ‐ Consider registration and waiting at activities (7) ‐ Need wider variety and more of some resources to reduce those dead moments where children waiting for a turn (8) ‐ Children are in groups and assigned to areas, there should be more flexibility (13) ‐registration ‐ younger children lost interest (14) ‐ Sessions need to be planned (15) ‐ Avoid taking turns in order round a circle ‐ zig zage or give alternatives to opt out (28) ‐ Organise resources to support independence (37) ‐ Staff needed, directing just before asked (41) ‐arrange better outdoor access (45)


2.5 Style Measurement 1 ‐Adults to challenge learners(1) ‐ Step back before entering play (5) ‐ Intervened too early on climbing frame fear of H&S (6) ‐ Practitioner could have engaged boy with kite to think about why it wouldn't fly and try to solve the problem. (7) ‐adults to support/challenge engagements(9) ‐ Not always engaging children in activities (12) ‐ Staff to take a moment before entering play (14) ‐ Child ignored at playdough table. Children with cold no tissues! (17) ‐ Some adults interrupted childrens involvement (21) ‐ Staff shouting instructions to child instead of going over to child (36) ‐Some children require more adult support to engage appropriately (37) ‐ Adults not aware all children, especially those seeking attending (39) ‐ Adult ignored child looking for praise (42) ‐ Adults interrupted in reception with directions (46) Measurement 2 ‐ One staff member interferred and too complex questionning. (3) ‐ Adult calling across hall disturbed child's involvement ‐ suggested going over whenever possible (6) ‐ Instructions given rather than open ended questions to prompt thinking (8) ‐ Staff to discuss how they support play (14) ‐ Voice level of 1 staff distracting. Opportunities missed by adults. (17) ‐ For children with low involvement adults need to engage with them at their self chosen activities (21) ‐ Occasionally adults intervened due to a time rule not empathetic to children (27) ‐ Adults at times too eager to engage at wrong moments (28) ‐ Adults non‐participating outside. (39) ‐2 instances of adults intervention that distracted involvement. (1 adult was relief worker) (41) ‐ Student needed more direction/support (42) Measurement 3 ‐Encouraging independence/challenge (1) ‐ Develop skills to recognise when children need support to extend play = positive involveement scores when outdoors (4) ‐ Develop empathy skills to play/choices = positive wellbeing and encourage children are valued (8) ‐ set boundaries for activities so that children know what they can and can't do ie not putting foam on their face. (10) ‐Challenge for some children(12) ‐ Adults need to be more tuned into children (15) ‐1 adult "policing" cars/bikes ‐ no obvious interaction (17) ‐ For staff to consider how to focus on the children they are with (21) ‐ Adults must stand back and observe before (27) ‐ Avoid being too instructional ‐ allow children time to come to own conclusions (28) ‐ Need for challenge (37) ‐ No staff involved in bikes/cars so very routine (39) ‐ One relief staff sitting at sand. Not follow children. (41) ‐ For staff to observe first before interupting children's activities (46) ‐staff need to talk during activities (47) ‐ Adult style when intervening/behaviour (49)


Remarks Measurement 1 ‐1 adult student only on 3rd week, 1 new child who only does 1 session a week (17) ‐Water logged gras (36) ‐1 child new to setting, Interim leader and deputy(39) ‐ Child scoring 1's for WB and I only just left baby room, 2 relief staff (41) Measurement 2 ‐Due to building work in the back garden there was limited free flow to outside and restrictions on access to variety of resources (3) ‐Previous higher levels good involvement were achieved outdoors ‐ this area was not made available during this observation period (4) ‐Change of staff has had negative impact on style (8) ‐ Children and adults very excited by first warm and sunny day (15) ‐c hild with lowest w/b and inv not well, parent called to take home just after observation. (17) ‐ The two children with low involvement had special circumstances, one had special needs (21) ‐ Low WB score for a child with SEN (27) ‐ Just before I visited an Energiser Rabbit visited with free eggs for the children! Outside the staff were relief. All staff except 3 were relief. However some of these are regular (39) ‐1 new child, first week of full hours (41) ‐ The teacher had PPA time in Yeaar R and children following adult led activities with the TA (46) ‐ High results due to being outdoors ‐ activities were well organised compared to other days (47) Measurement 3 ‐One child was new to the setting(21) ‐ This was the first day of all the new equipment being out ‐ the children had been sitting a long while (27) ‐ In baby room adult involved in observation, so play very routine, 1 student adult (39)

Presentation SICS results Bart Declercq

19 October 2010

©Centre for Experiential EducationSchapenstraat 34 – bus 37763000 Leuven (Belgium)[email protected] 1

Well‐being

Involvement

FIRST RESULTS: MK NOTES OF VISIT WITH SICS

Tuesday 19/10/2010

Bart Declercq – Els Herbots

Centre for Experiential Education

[email protected]

CEGO: Results SICS‐ [email protected]

Implementation design

Launch of project by Prof. Laevers (date?)

One day training for advisory team and practitioners (sept – nov 2009)practitioners (sept nov 2009)

Half day side by side coaching of EYAT by EXE‐team

Half day side by side coaching (sept. – okt. 2009) by EYAT team


Theoretical frameworkTheoretical framework

PROCESS EFFECTAPPROACH

INVOLVEMENT

PROCESS EFFECTAPPROACH

WELL ‐ BEING


APPROACH

Well‐beingI l t

Climate & relationships

Adult style

Monitoring

Offer Organisation & Room for initiative

Involvement

Exceptional circumstances

The Child itself


19 October 2010


SynthesisSynthesis

..\Sjabloon\SjabloonMiltonKeynes120909.docx

Quantitative data

‐ Synthesis WB & INV

‐ Score on fourpointscale for 5 approach factorsScore on fourpointscale for 5 approach factors

Qualtitative data

‐ Areas of strenght

‐ Agreed areas for development


Reseach questions

Child level

What is the average score for involvement/well‐being on child level and what is the spreading?

Which age group of children show highest/lowest levels of involvement/well‐being on average?

Is well‐being and involvement correlating?

Group level

What is the average score for involvement/well‐being on group level and what is the spreading? What is the average score for involvement/well being on group level and what is the spreading?

Is there a positive correlation between involvement/well‐being in a group and the context?

Which of the 5 factors (on average) are graded highest/lowest?

Witch factor in the environment influences the most the involvement/well‐being?

Which factor should be mostly improved? Which one is best developed?

School level

No school level because group = school


Data collection

Timing:

Nov. 2009: Baseline‐ assessment [start schoolyear]

March 2010: 2nd measurement [mid schoolyear]

July 2010: 3th measurement [end schoolyear]y [ y ]

Who

15 different observers [2 to 4 groups/observer]

49 + 48 + 45 Notes of Visit (total: 142 Notes)


Data sample

49 settings

53 different groups

Age range: preschool and nursery [0‐5y]

1410 individual scores for WB and INV 1410 individual scores for WB and INV Baseline: 480

2nd measurement: 480

3th measurement: 450


Results [1] how much well‐being (all M)?

Mean score

3.54 SCORE Number of children

%%

L M H

Low 11+

112

.8

.1 5.9


2 66 5

Moderate 2+3

3+

52440229

43116

51

High 44+5

42276115

3058

43

Results [2] how much involvement (all M)?

Mean score

3.23 SCORE Number of children

%%

L M H

Low 11+2

5044191

4314

21


2 191 14

Moderate 2+3

3+

91321220

62316

45

High 44+5

3188885

2366

35


19 October 2010


Positive evolution

Significant difference for WB and INV between all measurements!

TOTAL M1 M2 M3


TOTAL M1 M2 M3

Well-being 3.54 3.34 3.58 3.72

Involvement 3.23 2.94 3.30 3.47

Well-being TOTAL M1 M2 M3

Low [1, 1+, 2] 6% 9% 4.5% 3%

High [4, 4+, 5] 43% 33% 44% 54%

Positive evolution

Involvement TOTAL M1 M2 M3

Low [1, 1+, 2] 21% 28% 16% 15%

High [4, 4+, 5] 35% 23% 35% 48%CEGO: Results SICS‐ [email protected]

Other effects on child/group level

No effect of AM – PM on well‐being/involvement 70% of observations in morning

30% of observations in afternoon

Age groups effect for age for INV: 3‐4 year olds have lowest inv

WB of youngest children (0‐2y and 2‐3y) is sign. higher

→ more data needed for firm conclusion (esp. For 0‐2y)!

Correlation R. 71 correlation (group level) between WB and INV

Correlation is highest in M3 (M1:.54, M2: 49, M3: .79)

Why?CEGO: Results SICS‐ [email protected]

What is the norm?

Descriptive norm:WB INV

Child 3.54 + .76 3.23 + .98

Group 3.53 + .42 3.22 + .58


‘common sense’ norm, based on definition of WB and involvement:

50 % of the children

50 % of the children


children children

Score 3

Score 4

Mean score =3.5

Effects on setting level: common sense norm

variation in well‐being

<2.76 2.76 -3,25

3,26 -3,50

3,51 –4.00

4,0 -4,50

4.50 + more

Mean score for well-being at the level of the setting [totaal: 147]


M 1 4% 43% 25% 28%

M 2 18% 30% 42% 10%M 3 4% 15% 15% 46% 20%Lowversus

High 34% 66%


19 October 2010


Effects on setting level: common sense norm

variation in involvement

2,50 to 2,99

3.00 –3.25

3,26 –3.49

3,5 -3,75

3.76 –3.99

4.00 + more

Mean score for involvement at the level of the setting [N: 147]


2,99 3.25 3.49 3,75 3.99 more

M 1 61% 16% 20% 2% 2%M 2 28% 16% 28% 14% 10% 4%

M 3 29% 4% 4% 20% 24% 20%

Low vs High

37 % 64 %

Group level: elements in approach


Score 1:Inadequate

8[5%]

1[1%]

9[6%]

10[7%]

9[6%]

Score 2Satisfactory

48[33%]

39[27%]

57[39%]

70[48%]

60[41%]


Score 3:Good

79[54%]

98[68%]

68[47%]

61[42%]

67[46%]

Score 4Outstanding

10[7%]

7[5%]

11[8%]

4[3%]

9[6%]

Mean 2.63 2.77 2.56 2.41 2.52

Std. dev .70 .54 .72 .66 .71

Remarquable: approach quantitative

Improvement is possible for all approach categories

the max. score (4: outstanding) is not often given (M1&2: 3 to 4%; M3: 11%)

Most satisfied about climate (all 3 measurements)

Organisation needs most improvement

Sign. Improvement between M1 and M3 for offer (2.41 to 2.78), climate (2.61 to 2.93) and style (2.27 to 2.74)

Moderate to good corr. Between all approach categories


Most influencial (multiple regression)

For WB → Offer and Style

For INV → Offer & Organization

Five categories together explain

40 % of differences in INV

28 % of differences in WB

Conclusion: setting has big impact!

Remarquable: approach qualitative

N quotes - strenghts N quotes - improve

Offer 57 [65%] 31 [35%]

Climate 59 [76%] 19 [24%]


Room for initiative 51 [62%] 31 [38%]

Organization 30 [43%] 39 [57%]

Style 45 [52%] 41 [48%]

Mean 2.63 2.77 2.56 2.41 2.52


Offer: strenghts


19 October 2010


Climate: strenghts Room for initiative: improve

Style: strenghts

Conclusion

Well‐being

A good starting point: positive image. At the end of the year 2/3 has a mean of < 3.50

Involvement

( ) A reason for concern (> 3.50)

Possible to improve it Indiv settings prove it!

As a borough it’s proved! (from 4% to 64% in one year)

Future analysis?

Link scores on WB and Inv to independent output measurements (EYFS‐profile, ofsted, literacy/numeracy tests,….)

Make several categories of settings, based on factual data


Interesting questions to discuss:

Spectacular improvement impact of EY‐ team How are settings guided?

What were main action points in settings?

How did EYAT register effects?

How is EXE received by practitioners?

What did you do (differently) in the settings?

What were the main action points and interventions?

What was impact of this EXE approach on EYAT?

Is this impact substainable?

Thanks!

More info:

Centre for Experiential Education

Schapenstraat 34 – bus 3776Schapenstraat 34 bus 3776

3000 Leuven

016/ 32 57 40

[email protected]

www.cego.be


Documents

Report NotesVisit 040211 DEFexpertisecentrum.cego.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/... · Raising levels of well‐being and involvement in Milton Keynes Preschool Settings ... 1 SICS is