The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

2. ( RQ1)What kind of educational experiences are offered in early childhood and what evidence is there of their impact?

In our initial planning for this review we envisaged addressing Review Question 1 by first considering particular curricular approaches, followed by an account of the aims or expectations associated with each curriculum. However, as we explored the curricula discussed below we were struck by an emerging consensus about the principles that have influenced the development of the educational provision offered to children in their early years, and of shared theoretical underpinnings and expectations. For this reason we have chosen to begin by looking at the aims and expectations held for education in the early years in general and the common influences of these perspectives. We then move on to consider the ways in which these ideas have been developed into particular curricula and pedagogies.

2.1 What aims and expectations are there for early years education?

The kinds of educational experiences offered to children reflect the expectations held by society in general and practitioners and policy makers in particular about the appropriate outcomes and goals. Attention to children's physical development arises from aims for children's physical well-being. Provision designed to develop aesthetic and expressive competencies is the result of expectations that during their early years children can and should learn to use various media to explain and structure their thinking, communicate feelings and emotions and record events. Expectations about the shape of and outcomes from educational provision in the early years appear to be derived from two distinct sources:

• ideas about children, childhood and learning;
• socio-political perspectives on the purpose and outcomes of educational provision in the early years.

Children, childhood and learning

Generalised aims such as promoting the individual's development and 'fulfilling potential' abound in writing about early years and in the declared aims of national early years education programmes. However, in their review of a number of texts on childhood and early education Mitchell and Wild (2004) argue that there is a 'compelling case' that the ways in which children, childhood and learning are thought about influence the kind of provision that a society makes for its youngest members. For example, Lin-Yan and Feng-Xiaoxia (2005) describe the 'revolution' in ideas (rather than imposed curricular reform) that has occurred over two decades in China and is now influencing practice and discourse about early education there. Bertram and Pascal (2002) point to the tension present in early years provision in Hong Kong between western developmental and constructivist models of curriculum and pedagogy and traditional thinking that sees children as passive recipients and teachers as 'transmitters'.

Looking at Korean early educational practice with its emphasis on whole-class teaching and the authority of the teacher Kwon (2003) argues that the Confucian tradition is evident, despite the more recent influence of western thinking. Kwon contrasts this with practice in England, arguing that the focus there on independence and autonomy in early learning reflects the English liberal tradition valuing individual rights.

In Europe and North America there is potential for tension between the romantic perspective on childhood (seeing it as a time of innocence that should be protected) and the view that children are competent individuals able to make sense of and benefit from exposure to the world. This tension is perhaps most acutely seen in the debate over the appropriateness of the use of information and communication technologies (and computers in particular) in the playroom (Stephen & Plowman, 2003; Alliance for Childhood, 2004). Support for imaginative play and the use of resources specially designed for use by children is widely, although not universally, shared but some societies favour learning by engaging with real-world tasks and equipment. Woodhead (1998) gives examples of societies where playfulness and inquisitiveness are considered as negative characteristics and where obedience is valued and there is little place for play or children making autonomous choices. He argues that this evidence of variation in values and expectations means that prescriptive and decontextualised ideas about early childhood development and appropriate provision are unhelpful and suggests a more 'context-sensitive' approach to provision to promote children's growth.

In the west ideas about how children learn and develop have evolved over time leaving traces in current practice and expectations. Piaget's stage theory of development ( e.g. Piaget, 1952, Piaget and Inhelder, 1969, Flavell, 1963) has had a powerful influence on thinking and curriculum construction. His work has been subject to extensive modification and challenge by later work ( e.g. Donaldson, 1978) and the more general critique of developmental psychology ( e.g. James, Jenks and Prout, 1998). Nevertheless, the legacy of this linear, progressive construction of development through distinct stages remains in the ways in which children are grouped, the emphasis on children engaging in active exploration, and the importance attached to the environment and resources as stimulation for learning.

More recently socio-cultural theories of learning ( e.g. Vygotsky, 1978; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976; Rogoff, 1998) have focused attention on the influence of the contexts in which children learn and the crucial role of adults and peers as mediators of learning. Brooker (2002) has drawn attention to the cultural capital and social expectations that children bring to their early education settings and the ways in which this habitus shapes their interactions with the educational opportunities they are offered.

There has been considerable attention in popular accounts and through the promotion of specific learning programmes to the lessons that neuroscience might have to offer for education and the development of young learners in particular. Blakemore and Frith (2005) conclude that despite the interest in this area and the advances in understanding of the function of the brain there is still a considerable gap between brain research and findings that can be translated into educational practice. Bowman et al (2000), reporting to the Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy of the USA National Research Council, go further and conclude that there is 'no evidence of the effectiveness of particular educational programs, methods or techniques on brain development'.

While neuroscience may not yet be able to contribute directly to thinking about educational practice other issues and themes pervade writing about early years education and the development of practice and will be evident in the description of curricular approaches that follows (Davies, 2005; Mitchell and Wild, 2004, British Educational Research Association-Special Interest Group ( BERA- SIG), 2003). Common themes include:

• a focus on individual development
• an emphasis on child-initiated not adult-directed learning
• learning is co-constructed with adults and peers
• children are active agents not passive recipients
• a view of children as competent learners rather than immature adults
• listening to and respecting children and their choices
• learning is shaped by context and community.

Another consistent theme running through thinking about young children learning is the positive value of play and the need to create the conditions for learning through play in the playroom. However, the authors of the BERA- SIG review (2003) raise a number of difficulties with play as a principle condition for learning and comment on the lack of evidence for its efficacy as a medium for learning. The role of play is under-theorised and perhaps more asserted than evidenced. Little is understood about progression in play through the early years and not all children know how to play, are able to make choices or avoid episodes of stereotypical play. Sutton-Smith (1997) argues that play is progressive and can facilitate the development of knowledge and skills but acknowledges that it is not the only determinant of learning. Bennett et al (1997) have demonstrated the need to look at play not only as an opportunity for children to learn but also for adults to teach, or at least to pro-actively contribute to children's learning.

Socio-political perspectives

Policy, social, political or economic perspectives can give rise to expectations about the outcomes of education in the early years which will in turn influence decisions about the nature of provision and the kind of experiences that children have there. For some policy makers and economists early years education is thought of in terms of enhancing human capital. It is expected to contribute to society's future economic benefits and reduce social and economic burdens through specific intervention programmes and, more generally, by preparing children for school and preventing later academic failure (Heckman & Masterov, 2004; National Audit Office, 2004). When early education is associated with childcare that allows mothers to go to work it can be seen as offering opportunities to break cycles of deprivation and reduce poverty (Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, 2002; Ball and Vincent, 2005). While the benefits of intervention targeted at disadvantage are acknowledged ( e.g. Sylva, 2000), the view that education in the early years is justified on the grounds of preparation for another stage of education is firmly rejected by many practitioners, providers of educational provision and writers on early years (Moss and Petrie, 2002; Bertram and Pascal, 2002).

In some countries the formulation of the national curriculum includes goals and expectations concerned with promoting particular forms of social interaction or governance. For instance, the Swedish curriculum aims to help children understand and begin to participate in democratic government. Elsewhere the form of governance influences the way in which curriculum thinking develops and is implemented. The degree of decentralisation that exists within a country will influence the extent to which national guidance on early education is considered prescriptive or indicative. In Finland, for example, the curriculum review process aims to ensure equality of quality across the country but not homogeneous provision. Municipalities are encouraged to seek a curriculum that is meaningful in terms of local structures and culture (Välimäki and Lindberg, 2005).

More generally, the curricula developed for children in their early years are concerned with sharing and developing the society's values and morals (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005). The positive value attached to inclusive practice in the UK is evident the curriculum guidance for early years education in both England and Scotland. Elsewhere aims for early years education include support for social cohesion, national cultural identity, respect for diversity or promotion of bi- or multi-culturalism. Immersion in the French language, both as specific preparation for later educational experiences and as part of French cultural identity, is valued in the early years experience in France (David et al, 2001). In Japan national days are used to structure educational experiences and promote appreciation of the national culture. In contrast, the curriculum in New Zealand was developed across two cultures and is designed to allow culturally appropriate practice to emerge.

2.2 What pedagogical and curricular approaches are used in early years education?

In an international review of early years curricula Bertram and Pascal (2002) pointed to the contrast between the absence of curriculum guidelines for children up to three years old (and the strong resistance to such guidance in some countries) and the prevalence of national curricula for children over three but not yet in school education. All of the 20 countries included in their review had curriculum guidance for children over three. Across these mainly (but not exclusively) western developed countries there were variations in the degree to which each nation's early years curriculum was considered as guidance, a suggestion of desirable goals or prescribed practice but they did share common features.

• Most countries used areas of learning to structure the curriculum and argued for a holistic approach. No where were subjects/disciplines used in the context of early learning and only three emphasised early literacy and numeracy.
• There was general agreement on the areas of development to be addressed by the early years curriculum, that is, social and emotional; cultural, aesthetic and creative; physical; environmental; language and literacy and numeracy.
• An active play-based curriculum, with children encouraged to be independent learners was almost universal.
• In most of these countries the practitioner was seen as supporting and facilitating children's learning rather than directing or leading it.

In the 2003 BERA- SIG review of research on pedagogy, curriculum and the role of practitioners the almost ubiquitous organisation of the curriculum in the developed world in terms of topics, themes and areas of knowledge or experience (rather than subjects or disciplines) is ascribed to 'folklore and tradition'. They go on to argue that an understanding of child development is only one way to conceptualise the basis for curricula decisions and point to Frobel, Montessori, Steiner, Macmillan and Isaacs as pioneers who developed curricula from more ideological perspectives

Developmentally Appropriate Practice

Siraj-Blatchford (1999) describes Developmentally Appropriate Practice ( DAP) as the consensus view on early childhood pedagogy in the US and suggests that this consensus extends to the UK too. Dunn and Kontos (1997) suggest that while it may represent a consensus of espoused practice it is not necessarily to be observed in everyday practice. Nevertheless, as the practice promoted by the US National Association for the Education of Young Children ( NAEYC) it has had a formative influence on thinking across the USA and beyond and is frequently assumed as the default perspective in writing about practice in early or pre-school education ( e.g. Miller et al, 2002; Barratt-Pugh & Rohl, 2000). Developmentally Appropriate Practice is characterised by:

• a balance between children's self-initiated learning and practitioner guidance
• opportunities for children to make meaningful choices between activities offered
• scope to explore through active involvement
• a mix of small group, whole group and independent activities
• play as a primary (but not the exclusive) medium for learning
• adults who demonstrate, question, model, suggest alternatives and prompt reflection
• systematic observation of children's learning and behaviour.

These characteristics are at the core of the curriculum guidance for early years education in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, DAP is not without its challenges. Externally imposed strategies or programmes such as the National Literacy Strategy, designed to meet particular, more measurable and immediate targets, can run counter to practice based on an understanding of what is developmentally appropriate (Fisher, 2000; Hiebert, 2000).

Alternatives to Developmentally Appropriate Practice

In 2004 the Directorate for Education of OECD published a document outlining five alternative curricular approaches and reporting on the key issues raised during discussions on these curricula ( OECD, 2004). Four of the curricula discussed by the OECD where selected because they were well known and had received considerable attention from managers of provision, policy makers and educational researchers. In addition, the curriculum of Sweden (the host nation for the associated seminar) was presented and it is included here as a particular adaptation of DAP. These five curricula are reviewed briefly below as examples of the ways in which common themes in thinking about early years education have been translated into specific aims and practices.

Experiential Education

The Experiential Education approach was developed by Laevers and associates (Laevers, 1994; Laevers & Moons, 1997) and has become an influential model for early years education in Flanders and the Netherlands. It focuses on the educational process and the experiences of children in educational settings, arguing that two key dimensions are necessary for high quality:

• emotional well-being (indicated by being at ease, having self-confidence, acting spontaneously)
• involvement (measured by the Leuven Involvement Scale, ranging from no activity through involvement at a routine level to intense involvement with purpose and pleasure).

The dimension of emotional well-being requires adults to provide children with an environment where they feel confident, mentally healthy and have their physical needs met, as well as their needs for security, affection, social recognition and moral values. Laevers argues that involvement is essential for what he calls 'deep-level' learning and is characterised by: sustained concentration (the flow state described by Csikszentmihayli, 1979); intrinsic motivation derived from satisfaction of the exploratory drive; and working in the zone of proximal development (achieving with others what you cannot yet do alone, Vygotsky, 1978). In order to involve children at the highest level practitioners must stimulate and engage children through the activities they suggest, the resources they offer, the information they give and questioning they provoke.

Three dimensions are used to summarise the pedagogical actions that this understanding of early years education demands of practitioners: stimulation, sensitivity and giving autonomy to children. Ten action points for practice that builds well-being and involvement have been derived from the experience of teachers working with the experiential curriculum and systematised by Laevers and Moons (1997). The Experiential Education model has been adopted by Pascal and Bertram as the basis for the Effective Early Learning ( EEL) project used widely in England to support the evaluation and development of good quality practice ( e.g. Pascal et al, 1998).

The High/Scope Curriculum - active learning through key experiences

This curriculum originated in the USA where it was developed by Weikart and colleagues over 40 years ago as part of a targeted early intervention programme that aimed to help disadvantaged children succeed at school and in society. Weikart ( OECD, 2004) describes High/Scope as a set of guiding principles and practices that can be adapted across educational settings and age groups. The central tenet of the approach is that children learn best through active experiences and following their own interests, rather than through direct teaching. As children make choices and play in an environment arranged around specific interest areas they become 'naturally' engaged in what the curriculum developers call 'key experiences'. High/Scope has identified 58 key experiences for child development in the early years arranged in five groups:

• creative representation
• language and literacy
• initiative and social relations
• movement and music
• logical reasoning.

Implementing a High/Scope curriculum requires a particular pedagogy designed to promote engagement with these key experiences and give children the opportunity to play independently with the activity or resource they have chosen. Materials are arranged for independent use and there is a consistent routine in the playroom. Each child plans his or her activities for the day, has time to engage in the activity and is then helped by adults and peers to reflect on that activity. Practitioners are trained in strategies to promote positive interactions with children and engage in authentic dialogue as they prompt children to reflect.

A number of studies have demonstrated positive outcomes for children who experience High/Scope as opposed to more formal curricula ( e.g. Sylva and Nabuco, 1996) but the most well know and widely reported of such studies is the follow-up work by Schweinhart and Weikart (1996, 1997). Their evidence suggests that, when compared at age 27 to children from similar backgrounds, those who had been randomly allocated to the intervention programme of which High/Scope was a major part had higher earnings, less criminal behaviour, completed more years of education and were more likely to own their home. Heckman and Masterov (2004) suggest that this US evidence demonstrates the potential for success (in economic terms) of specific early intervention programmes.

The Reggio Emilia Approach

This curriculum approach originated in northern Italy but has received world-wide attention. It sets out to offer children the opportunity to build thinking relationships between people, ideas and the environment, drawing on expressive, communicative and cognitive languages. The focus is on each child constructing his/her own understanding through reciprocal interactions with others and resources, particularly creative resources. Developing learning competencies is at the heart of the approach and the aim is that through dialogue and communication (spoken language, drawing, constructing models, drama, music etc.) children will develop their capacity to think, build and test theories. Content knowledge is secondary to learning about how to learn, although specific contexts and bodies of knowledge may be the focus of the children's investigations.

The Reggio approach has developed a distinct pedagogy that places the emphasis on using multiple forms of expression to help children articulate their understanding and thinking, sustain their interest and research and give value to these activities as they are shared with others, particularly parents. Practitioners see themselves as guides who are learning with the children and adopt a listening role that seeks to encourage thinking, negotiation and the exploration of difference, particularly in collaborative group work. Documenting the process of exploration as children work through a project is a key pedagogical activity which offers children a record of their process and progress through the project, gives educators a detailed insight into children's activities and learning and makes the process visible to parents and the community.

Working in the US Katz and Chard (Katz & Chard, 2000; Chard, 1998) have also developed a project approach which they argue shares with the Reggio approach the benefits of integrating varied kinds of knowledge, being intrinsically motivating and allowing the child to become an expert. However, they argue for project work only as part of a wider educational programme.

Te Whariki

Te Whariki was developed by May and Carr along with a broadly representative development team (including the main Maori early childhood organisation) to become the first national early childhood curriculum in New Zealand (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 1996). This curriculum adopts a specifically sociocultural perspective on learning that recognises the different social contexts in which children in New Zealand live and the social and interactive nature of learning. It seeks to promote bi-culturalism and nurture learning dispositions, working from the Maori principle of 'empowering children to grow'. There are five strands to the curriculum:

• wellbeing
• belonging
• contribution
• communication
• exploration.

Within each strand developmental, cultural and learning goals have been articulated. For instance, in the contribution strand one of the goals is that children should have opportunities to learn with and alongside others, while in the communication strand experiencing cultures' stories and symbols is a goal. Te Whariki tasks practitioners with supporting children to achieve these goals through the environment and activities they provide and in ways that are culturally appropriate. Play is not given the same priority as in some other early years curricula but having opportunities for spontaneous play and play that supports meaningful learning is included as a curricular goal. For Carr and May (2000), the aim was the 'development of more complex and useful understanding, knowledge and skill attached to cultural and purposeful contexts'. The curriculum assumes that children will be in mixed age groups while recognising the differing needs and capacities of infants, toddlers and children from 2 years 6 months to five years old.

Te Whariki was widely welcomed by those concerned with early childhood in New Zealand and by the government and was adopted in its final form in 1996. The holistic nature of the goals of Te Whariki has raised difficult assessment challenges. Carr's (2001) learning story approach to the evaluation of children's experiences in early childhood centres offers an alternative to traditional assessment through a process which prompts practitioners to describe what children are doing, document it, discuss the evidence and make decisions about supporting each child's learning.

The Swedish Curriculum

Adopted in 1998 the first Swedish National Curriculum (Swedish Ministry of Education and Science, 1998) sets goals for early education but aims to maintain the play-based, kindergarten tradition. It avoids detailed curricular guidance in favour of local interpretations and decision making about how to achieve the goals set. Nevertheless, settings are responsible for supporting all aspects of child development (along with fostering values) where they may have previously given priority to particular areas. An understanding of children's learning as driven by play and meaning making has led to a focus on nurturing the child's search for knowledge through play, social interaction with adults and peers and exploration and creativity, as well as observation, discussion and reflection. Dialogue between adult and child and conscious, independent, purposeful action is at the core of the Swedish curriculum with practitioners expected to make local decisions about how to create the conditions that make this kind of engagement possible.

There are five groups of goals about:

• norms and values, including the promotion of democracy (as both a content to acquire and a process for decision making in the setting) and developing care and respect, justice and equity
• development and learning, covering dispositional goals (such as problem solving, responsibility, critical thinking), emotional goals (such as the development of identity and feelings of security) and content orientated goals (relating to culture, science, reading, writing and mathematics)
• influence of the child, through developing the ability to express thoughts and feelings and understand and act by democratic principles in co-operative activity and decision-making
• pre-school and home relationships
• co-operation between pre-school class, school and leisure-time centre.

Despite their differing conceptual and cultural origins the five curricula outlined here share some common features. They have a holistic view of learning and the learner, stress active or experiential learning, respect children's ability to be self-motivating and directing and value responsive interactions between children and adults as crucial for learning.

2.3 What evidence is there of the appropriateness of an approach or its impact on attainment?

With the exception of the work discussed above that examined the outcomes for individuals who had participated in the High/Scope Curriculum and the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education ( EPPE) study reported below there is little convincing evidence that examines the impact of experiencing a particular curriculum or pedagogical approach. The BERA- SIG (2003) review points to the paucity of evidence on the impact of alternative forms of curricula, including those of the early pioneers of specific provision for young children, and conclude that what emerges from a review of research on curriculum in the early years is 'how little hard evidence we have to guide policy and practice'. The reviewers conclude that the debate about the benefits of varying curricular approaches for under-fives is 'stronger on assertion than evidence' and fails to distinguish attendance at a particular type of provision from the impact of the educational provision experienced there.

Furthermore, what research evidence does exist about the impact of curricular experiences tends to be limited to outcomes for children in particular circumstances or for literacy and numeracy, with little evidence at all relating to other areas of knowledge and development in domains such as technology, arts, religion and morality. Added to the paucity of studies are the difficulties of assessing the holistic and dispositional goals that characterise much of early education. Assessment techniques like the Learning Stories approach (developed by Margaret Carr in response to the challenges of the new curriculum in New Zealand) are discursive and aim to capture the learning of individuals but are not amenable to quantification or cross-learner comparisons. The profiles of individual children built from careful observation by practitioners in Scotland give rich insights into what a child can do and how he/she goes about things but are difficult to generalise from and typically focus on an achievement noted rather than the activities and pedagogy that led to that learning.

Evaluating intervention programmes

The Schweinhart and Weikart (1997) study mentioned previously is quantitative and draws on a 'hard science' design that randomly allocated children to the 'treatment' group or a control group that did not receive the intervention programme. Even here there is a need for caution in any attempt to generalise from this work. The High/Scope curriculum was only one part of an intensive intervention programme that also involved weekly home visits, adult:child ratios of 1:6 and practitioners who all had masters level qualifications. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology ( POST) Report (2000) concluded that the studies evaluating the Head Start programme (compensatory provision for children from deprived backgrounds in the USA) and High/Scope offer a powerful justification for high quality pre-school education. The report pointed to the randomised trial design employed by many of these studies, the breadth of outcome measures examined and the longitudinal nature of the evidence as reasons for confidence about the outcomes of compensatory programmes for disadvantaged children.

Further evidence of the positive benefits of model intervention projects comes from a study following up 104 participants from the Abercedarian Project until age 21 (Campbell, 2001). In this case the evidence suggests the children exposed to the project's high quality education and childcare attained high scores on tests of cognitive and academic ability. Barnett (1998) suggested that while immediate growth in IQ scores may not be sustained these short-term improvements in cognitive functioning gave longer term benefits in terms of confidence and self-esteem that allowed the learner to continue to make educational progress.

Writing from an economic perspective Currie (2001) confirmed the value of compensatory programmes. She concluded that:

• The evidence suggests that model, intensive educational interventions make a positive difference in children's lives, although the findings are not universally positive and nonrandomised designs often find different effects.
• Evidence on the impact of large-scale, publicly funded intervention programmes is less clear about the benefits than the evidence from model programmes.
• There is evidence that higher quality provision is associated with more encouraging cognitive and social outcomes and that these effects are greatest for children whose mothers had the least education, were at risk of abuse or neglect or had limited proficiency in the mainstream language.

However, she points out that it is more difficult to carry out well-designed studies of the long-term effects of large-scale programmes and conduct randomised trials on the general population.

The relative absence of quasi-experimental studies and the lack of use of control groups and randomised allocation to provision types are highlighted in a review of the effectiveness of early childhood development programmes in the USA published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (Anderson et al, 2003). However, Anderson et al felt able to conclude that publicly-funded, centre-based early childhood programmes could promote children's well-being and that there was clear evidence of cognitive benefit in terms of grade retention and preventing developmental delay that requires special educational provision. But they found less evidence available from which to draw conclusions on social outcomes.

More ambiguous evidence about the impact of early education programmes has recently been published. In the initial National Institute of Child Health and Development ( NICHD, 2002) study of the effects of child care from birth to 4 years 6 months (just before entry to school in USA) distinct benefits and risks were found to be associated with the quality, quantity and type of early care and education children had experienced. Higher quality provision predicted better pre-academic skills and language, attending an out-of-home setting was related to improved language and memory performance but the quantity of time from birth in non-maternal early care and education was associated with behavioural problems. ³ A longitudinal follow-up of this study found that these advantages and disadvantages lasted through out the primary grades ( NICHD, 2005). Merrell and Tymms (2005) have presented evidence (from children attending provision available to the general population rather than model programmes) that suggests that the gap between children in affluent and deprived neighbourhood in England on measures of mathematics and language is not reduced by early years education. However, they stress that their evidence relates to changes in the relative positions of children from different neighbourhoods and point out that their evidence (and that of others) demonstrates that individual children do make developmental gains while attending early years settings.

The influence of quality on the outcome of early years education

As the large scale NICHD study and numerous other investigations suggest the impact of early education does depend on the quality of the provision and learning opportunities offered to children. For example, Peisner-Feinberg and Burchinal (1997) examined the relationship between attendance at child care centres of varying quality and the cognitive and socioemotional development of children from diverse family backgrounds. They concluded that their findings added to the literature suggesting that child-care quality (in terms of playroom environment factors such as, care routines, opportunities for learning and teacher responsiveness) is related to pre-school children's cognitive and socioemotional outcomes. In addition, they found that that while better quality care had an, albeit modest, positive influence on cognitive and socioemotional outcomes for all children their data suggested that in some cases higher quality care had a stronger positive influence on children from less advantaged backgrounds.

McCartney et al (1997) found inconsistent evidence in a study focused on social development. They argue that, while small effect sizes are typical in child-care research, their results may be reflecting the differential impact of quality of care on children from varying family backgrounds. In their study children from more advantaged backgrounds attended centres with higher ratings on factors associated with quality e.g. low staff turnover and higher staff wages. Teacher background and adult:child ratios have also been investigated as key features of provision quality. Howes (1997) concluded that both of these features made a difference to teacher behaviour and children's developmental progress but that teacher background (considering the level of education and the degree of specialised training) was the stronger effect. However, she went on to point out that there was no evidence that teachers with more advanced educational and training backgrounds could be as effective with less stringent adult:child ratios.

The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education ( EPPE) project (Sylva et al, 2004; Sammons et al, 2004) is a large-scale, longitudinal study that used multilevel analysis. This sophisticated statistical technique allows for the influence of particular variables, experiences or influences to be isolated without recourse to randomised/control group designs. It offers the best evidence to date of the effect of pre-school education in England and Wales. Among the extensive findings EPPE concluded that:

• Attending pre-school improves children's intellectual and social/behavioural development. Children who did not attend had poorer cognitive attainment, sociability and concentration when they began primary school. This finding of advantage associated with pre-school education is similar to some of the results of the NICHD study discussed above ( NICHD, 2002) and replicates an earlier study using Baseline Assessment data in England ( SCAA, 1996).
• Full-time attendance did not lead to better outcomes for children than part-time provision.
• Disadvantaged children benefited significantly from good quality pre-school experiences. While it does not remove the effects of social disadvantage pre-school education can reduce the impact and provide children with a better start to school.
• The beneficial effects of pre-school remained evident through the initial years of primary school (ages six to seven) although some effects became weaker over that time. Pre-school quality was significantly related to children's attainment on tests of reading and mathematics at age six, a relationship that was weaker but still evident at age seven.

In the context of this review the EPPE project findings about the influence of the ways in which practitioners worked with children are particularly pertinent. Although subject to the same or similar regulatory regimes and curriculum guidance pre-school educational settings varied in the value that they added to children's developmental trajectories. There was a significant relationship between higher quality provision and practice ⁴ and better intellectual and social/behavioural outcomes.

• Where practitioners were warm and responsive to children's individual needs the young learners' progress was enhanced.
• Practitioners with higher qualifications worked in settings that had higher quality ratings. Children's progress was greater in settings where staff had higher qualifications.
• In settings that received higher ratings on measures of provision and practice for literacy, maths, science/environment and catering for diversity children's outcomes were better on reading and maths at age six.

A more detailed examination of the kind of pedagogy, practice and curriculum that enhances intellectual and social/behavioural development was carried out in the Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years ( REPEY) project (Siraj-Blatchford, 2002). From their case studies of more effective settings identified by EPPE the REPEY team concluded that:

• Settings that saw cognitive and social development as complimentary achieved the best outcomes.
• A higher incidence of interactions where adults and children engaged in sustained shared thinking distinguished the more effective settings.
• To support learning effective practitioners need a good understanding of the content of curriculum areas.
• The most effective practitioners encourage children to engage with cognitive challenge and have a repertoire of pedagogical activity (including direct instruction) that they draw on as appropriate.
• Effective settings use formative assessment and differentiate the curriculum, matching activity and the level of challenge to children's needs.
• An equal balance between child initiated and adult initiate activities occurs in the most effective settings.
• Clear behaviour and discipline policies, supported by facilitating children to talk through conflicts, benefited social skills.
• Findings from the EPPE and REPEY projects support the general approach taken in the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage ( QCA, 2000) with its emergent approach to learning and attention to intellectual growth.

The picture of effective practice that emerges consists of well qualified practitioners:

• providing challenging but achievable experiences (working in what Vygotsky describes as the Zone of Proximal Development)
• modelling appropriate language and values in practice
• encouraging socio-dramatic play
• encouraging, praising, asking questions and interacting to encourage sustained, shared thinking.

Moyles et al (2002) found that these ideas were endorsed in practitioners' thinking, although not always evident in practice. The framework for practice Moyles et al devised from their empirical work reveals underlying principles for effective pedagogy that are similar to those arrived at in the EPPE project. However, their evidence suggested that effective practice needed not only pedagogical understanding about playroom actions but an appropriate climate of provision, assessment, management, staff development and engagement. In addition, they point to the need for a shared understanding of the underlying principles, values and the professional requirements demanded of practitioners.

Bowman et al (2000) argue that it is not surprising that attempts to identify any curriculum as superior to others fail given all the evidence for the importance in learning of adult-child relationships, children's temperament, social-economic factors and cultural traditions. Indeed, they suggest that the influence of a particular practitioner may be more important in a child's experience than a specific curriculum. Additionally, a curriculum may contribute more to some dimensions of learning in the early years than to others. However, they conclude that the evidence suggests that having a planned curriculum is better than not having one and that good quality provision builds on understandings about what children can learn and the ways in which they learn. In the light of this Bowman et al suggest that any curriculum should be evaluated on the extent to which it

• builds on and engages with children's existing understanding
• facilitates the development of concepts as well as acquiring information and skills
• enhances children's metacognition and learning strategies.

« Previous | Contents | Next »