Contribution to the 19 TH EECERA ANNUAL CONFERENCE Strasbourg, France 26th- 29 th August 2009

Contribution to the 19TH EECERA ANNUAL CONFERENCE Strasbourg, France 26th- 29th August 2009

Thomas Moser, Bente Jensen & Inge Johansson

Katrin Hjort, Sven Erik Nordenbo, Niels Ploug & Michael Søgaard Larsen

Mapping and appraisal of Scandinavian research in early childhood institutions in 2006/2007

PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

1. Background and purpose of the project

2. Method and procedure

3. Selected results

4. Conclusions and future perspectives




3. Selected results

4. Future perspectives

Founding:

The Danish Evaluation Institute

Conducted by:

Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research

The Danish School of Education

University of Aarhus, Copenhagen

in 2007-2008

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

Research based knowledge for future (Danish) policy development (EVA)

Lack of knowledge: Systematic mapping and appraisal of Scandinavian research projects and -results in early childhood education institutions is demanded

Establish a free accessible research database

Make Scandinavian research accessible for non Scandinavian researchers, practitioners, policy providers and public (English language)

In general Practice -, research – and policy development

Systematical mapping*)

characterizing main tendencies

Re-description

Descriptionof main

themes/topics

Implicationsfor pratice, policy and research

THE PROCESS IN GENERAL

Searching literature

”Qualifying” the hits

*) Following the EPPI-Centre data extraction and coding tool for education studies Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI) Centre, Institute of Education, London University

Professor Sven Erik Nordenbo, Danish School of Education

Professor Katrin Hjort, University of Southern Denmark

Senior lecturer Bente Jensen, Danish School of Education

Professor Inge Johansson, University of Stockholm, Sweden

Professor Jan Kampmann, Roskilde University, Denmark (2006)

Senior lecturer Michael Søgaard Larsen, Danish School of Education

Professor Thomas Moser, Vestfold University College, Norway

Research Director Niels Ploug, Statistics Denmark

RESEARCHER GROUP

SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES 19 million inhabitants

Approx. 90 % of the 1-5/6 years old are enrolled in ECE-institutions

5,5 mill.

4,6 mill.

9,0 mill.

Nordic:

Scandi-navian:




3. Selected main findings


PROCEDURE SEARCH IN DATABASE

RESSOURCE HITSDanish pedagogical base 141

Researchdatabase (Denmark, betaversion) 22

NORBOK 69

Bibsys Forskdok (Norway) 394

Libris (Sweden, betaversion) 238

Forskning.se (Sweden) 2

www.skolporten.com (Sweden) 7

Hand search of

Scand. Journal of Educational Research 0

ERIC 3

References from Review Group 2

References from other researchers 7

1114 references identified

Reference screening Screening of titles and abstracts

879 references excludedCriteria: wrong institution or document type

171 documents included1st phaseIncluded documents

Reference doublets 64 doublets identified1095 unique references identified

1 document Not provided documents

Full texts screeningScreening på baggrund af dokumentets tekst

Provided documents 170 documents

64 documents excludedCriteria: wrong institution or document type

2nd phaseIncluded documents

106 documents included 2006: n=52; 2007:5 n=54;

Search hits

PROCEDURESEARCHING AND IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS

Systematical mapping*)

characterizing main tendencies of 106

studies

Re-description of 106 studies

Descriptionof six specific themes/topics

Implicationsfor pratice, policy

and research

52 Swedish 27 Danish

27 Norwegian

PROCEDURE MAPPING AND APPRAISAL




3. Selected results Purpose, research design and –

methods

Specific themes and issues


FOUR PUBLICATIONS SO FARhttp://www.dpu.dk; http://www.eva.dk

Purpose, research design and –methods

N=106 scientific publications2006: n=522007: n=54

RESULTS

MAIN TOPICS OR FOCUS AREAS

N= 106 (52/54) NUMBER OF STUDIES

TOTAL 2007 2006

Teaching and learning 23 12 11

Assessment 16 8 8Equal opportunities 13 5 8Curriculum 11 5 6Organisation & Leadership 10 5 5Policy 10 3 7Classroom management 5 1 4Teaching as a career 4 1 3Methodology 4 1 3Other 41 25 16


TOTAL 2006 2007

Content in ECE-institutions 35 13 22

Basic values and ethics 32 16 16

Assessment, evaluation, quality assurance and -development 31 23 8

Methods and practices 17 10 7

Purpose, aims and goals of ECE 17 4 13

Work with/based upon governmental/public documents (act; law; curriculum)

10 5 5

RESEARCH ISSUES AND TOPICS – DIDACTIC PERSPECTIVE

N= 106 (52/54) NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS

TOTAL 2006 2007

Description

57 32 25

Exploration of relationships

54 23 31

What works? 21 14 7

Methods development 8 5 3

Reviewing/synthesising research

6 4 2

THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH IN THE STUDIES

RESEARCH APPROACHESN= 106 (52/54)

TOTAL 2006 2007

Ethnography* 42 20 22Case study 21 11 10Cross-sectional study 18 11 7

Document study 18 9 9Views study 16 5 11

Action research* 9 5 4

One group post-test only* 5 2 3One group pre-post test* 5 1 4Systematic review 4 2 2Case-control study* 3 1 2Secondary data analysis 3 2 1 Other review (non systematic) 2 2 0Cohort study* 2 1 1Experiment with non-random allocation to groups* 1 0 1

Experiment with random allocation to groups* 0 0 0


TOTAL 2006 2007

Staff 1 working in ECE-institutions

79 39 40

Children 52* 21* 31*

Parents 19 11 8

Staff 2: “around” institutions (administration, local, regional or national municipalities, union-representatives, politicians, connsultants, etc.)

14 9 5

Not specified or ”others” 5 3 2

SAMPLES - MAIN FOCUS ON ...

*Only three studies 2006 and nine 2007 address exclusively children

N= 106 (52/54) 2007 2006TOTAL N % N %

The position of the institution in

society31 16

30 %

15

28 %

Political or economic

background and context

14 2 4 % 12

23 %

Historical or cultural

background and context

9 611 %

3 6 %

Category not applicable

57 3259 %

25

48 %

THE PRE-SCHOOL INSTITUTIONS IN A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

SIX SPECIFIC THEMES AND TOPICS

RESULTS

SIX SPECIFIC THEMES AND TOPICS (2006/2007)

1. Play, learning and care- curricula: 44 studies (26/18)

2. Vulnerability, social inequality, in-/exclusion in institutions: 16 studies (9/7)

3. Professionals, teachers: 79 studies (39/40)

4. Parents and institutions: 19 studies (11/8)

5. Implementation of legislation and curricula: 6 studies (2/4)

6. Health: 4 studies (1/3)

Research of Vulnerability, Social Inequality, Inclusion/exclusion

Questions to be reviewed in the studies: 1. Who are the socially endangered

children, or better how is the issue of diversity defined?

2. Can the results from the studies bring us further in order to adress new ways to handle diversity in the ECE in the Nordic contries

3. What are the main conclusion in a research-perspective?

Vulnerability, social inequality, inclusion exclusion: 16 Studies (in 2006 and 2007)

Three categories of studies have been identified both years:

1. Socially endangered children are seen as a societal problem

2. Socially endangered children are seen in an individualized and psychological perspective and

3. Studies on in/exclusion

SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE SEEN AS A SOCIETAL PROBLEM/2006

A representative study of 2700 Danish pre-school teachers showed a lack of knowledge about how Danish day care centres can improve socially endangered children’s life chances (Jensen, 2006)

Other Nordic studies confirm that working with at-risk children requires certain professional qualifications that are not always present (Björk-Willén, 2006; Lunneblad, 2006)

If the pre-school teachers do not feel competent to handle endangered children, then pragmatic solutions may be chosen, the problem may even be silenced and discrimination may occur instead of an adequate pedagogical strategy (Lunneblad, 2006)

SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE SEEN AS A SOCIETAL PROBLEM/2007

A Swedish study (Bartholdsson, 2007) showed by an ethnography approach how socialisation takes place, i.e how ‘normality’ is learned. Normality is a complex phenoma and it’s difficult for children to learn to balance the various relationships they meet

A Danish repræsentative study (N=2722 teachers(1000 institutions) demonstrate, that 1) the institutions did not work systematically and focused adressing social inequality 2) The professionals did not believe in longterm-effects of their work with vulnerable children and 3) there was a lack of knowledge, time and ressources to improve the current efforts and work with intervention (Jensen, 2007)

No studies were found in 2007 adressing ethnicity as a specific theme in the inequality discussion (Nordenbo et al. 2009, 36)

SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE SEEN IN AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE/2006

An interventions supporting at-risk children’s chances for participating in communities of learning are successful if there is a focus on both children’s actions, their thought and language (Wetso, 2006)

In a learning perspective outdoor activities seem to be more inclusive than others for children up to 4 years of age. Socially endangered children (individual disabilities) are accepted by the other children despite their physical difficulties and special needs (Brodin, 2006)

SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE SEEN IN AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE/2007

A swedish critical study of effects of an intervention on children with extensive behavioural problems os related to childrens social relationships with teachers. The authors suggest that intervention ougth to be directed to creating positive and supportive relationships between the teacher and the child instead of submitting the child alone to a therapeutic regime (Drugli et al, 2007)

A danish study – a research-based evaluation of rehabilitation and training course for children with autism – Apa (Applied Behaviour Analysis concluded that APA as practised in the intervention does not improve the children’s development in the chosen area more that the ordinary programmes on offer for children with autism (Høgsbro, 2007)

STUDIES ON IN- AND EXCLUSION/2006

A study shows that ‘bullying’ takes place from very early on in children’s lives and that it is an expression of power exertion among small children (Helgesen, 2006)

In a discourse analytical study it could be shown that the ‘discourse on deviation’ in itself is at risk of becoming an exclusion mechanism (Lutz, 2006).

Researchers suggest two scenarios aiming at settling with the deviation paradigm: 1) redefining diagnosis techniques and/or 2) bringing an end to giving extra resources to socially endangered children and instead use the resources on improving the general day care conditions.

STUDIES ON IN- AND EXCLUSION/2007

A study using a survey and an observation methods to focus strongly on exclusion mechanisms. The results showed that most children (89% of N=353) achieve a sense of belonging or other types of social relationships (friendliness, coexistence, friendship) – but the main point with regard to vulnerability is that 50 children, 14 % of the total, do not experience the feeling of belonging. The author’s conclusion is that preschool has not succeeded as reguired of the Swedish Legislation (1998) in creating an environment in which all children are included and have the sense of belonging (Jonsdottir, 2007)

Another study (Löfdahl & Hägglund, 2007) found that social differences brought into the preschool institutions by children themselves as a result of differences in conditions at home being maintained or even strengthened the differences witt the resulting risk of them being handed on – and again - despite the fact that legislation requires them to improve the opportunities for all children

Research of Vulnerability, Social Inequality, Inclusion/exclusion

The Review-questions were: 1. Who are the socially endangered

children, or better how is the issue of diversity defined?

2. Can the results from the studies bring us further in order to adress new ways to handle diversity in the ECE in the Nordic contries

3. What are the main conclusion in a research-perspective?

MAIN CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING RESEARCH OF SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN

A broad variation of concepts and perspectives BUT On one hand, the Nordic ECE-systems

(Legislations and the holistic, democratic approach) seem to provide unique opportunities for supporting all children through learning AND care.

On the other hand, there is a risk of maintaining or even strengthening the reproduction of socio-cultural differences.

More research is needed: about interventions based on ECE adressing the question about the effects of different educational approaches, taking theories of organisational learning ínto account and a comparative perspective

See for example the Danish intervention study (ASP project), as presented in the paper “A Nordic approach to ECE systems and social inequality - a Danish trial” (Jensen, 2009a, b).




3. Selected results


MAIN CONCLUSIONSOF THE 2006 & 2007 MAPPING

Ethnography and case oriented studies focused on micro-processes, learning and professional work are predominating.

Little focus on political, social cultural and economical frames and their implications for the practical work.

Surprisingly little focus on children.

Inquiries aiming at the family’s social background, economical situation and its implications for the work in preschool institutions are rather rare.

The caring dimension of the pedagogical work is only examined in a few studies (few studies of the youngest children).

Comparative studies are missing.

The researchers’ craftsmanship. What is in the research process?

Few intervention studies.

CHALLENGES FOR PRACTICE

Research and practice are significant related (R&D)

Rather many evaluations

The institutional frames for inclusion- as well as exclusion-processes

A widened view of learning and the dynamics of learning

The importance of the interaction with parents and the relations between the professionals and parents

What are the relationships between the political level and the practitioners, for example to secure and develop quality?

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES – KEY QUESTIONES CONCERNING RESEARCH

What are the criteria for good research?

What is evidence? Is evidence a homogenous or heterogeneous

concept?

The Danish School of EducationUniversity of AarhusTuborgvej 164DK-2400 København NVtel: (+45) 8888 9969fax: (+45) 8888 9922http://www.dpu.dk/site.aspx?p=9882

Documents

Contribution to the 19 TH EECERA ANNUAL CONFERENCE Strasbourg, France 26th- 29 th August 2009