An Leanbh Og, the Journal of Early Childhood Studies

Full text

AN LEANBH ÓG
Journal of Early Childhood Studies
OMEP Ireland
Vol. 13 (Issue 1.) 2020
Edited by
Frances Clerkin, Vanessa Murphy, & Judith E. Butler
Published by OMEP Ireland 2020
OMEP Ireland is the National Committee for Ireland of OMEP

2
OMEP
L’Organisation Mondiale pour l’Education Préscolaire
World Organisation for Early Childhood Education and Care
Organización Mundial para la Educación Preescolar
An t-Eagraíocht Dhomhanda um Oideachas agus Chúram Luath-Óige
OMEP Ireland/ OMEP Éireann: An t-Eagraíocht um Oideachas agus Chúram
Luath-Óige
Copyright © 2020 OMEP Ireland 2020 The Authors.
Copyright resides with the authors.
OMEP Ireland has asserted their moral rights to be identified as the authors All
rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the
written permission of the publisher.
Editors 2020
Dr Frances Clerkin, Cork Institute of Technology
Dr Vanessa Murphy, Cork Institute of Technology
Dr Judith E. Butler, Cork Institute of Technology (President, OMEP Ireland)
Patrons
Prof Emeritus Francis Douglas
Prof Noirín Hayes
Dr Mary Horgan
Published by OMEP Ireland, c/o Dr Judith E. Butler, Department of Sport,
Leisure and Childhood Studies, Cork Institute of Technology, Bishopstown,
Cork, Ireland.
Website: www.omepireland.ie
Email: info@omepireland.ie
ISSN 2009-5910 (Online)
ISBN 2009-5902 (Print) 978-1-912606-71-9
Printed by Lettertec Ireland Limited Springhill House, Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork
www.lettertec.com
2020

3
All papers included in this volume have been subjected to a double-blind peer
review process, where both the reviewer & the author remain anonymous to
each other. The editors of An Leanbh Óg would like to express thanks to all the
reviewers for lending their expertise, time, & effort.
Editorial Associates
1. Dr Carmel Brennan, Early Childhood Ireland.
2. Dr Judith E. Butler, Cork Institute of Technology (CIT)/ OMEP Ireland.
3. Dr Fiona Chambers, Director of Sports Studies & Physical Education,
University College Cork (UCC).
4. Prof Alastair Christie, Dept. of Applied Social Studies, University College
Cork (UCC).
5. Dr Frances Clerkin, Cork Institute of Technology (CIT)/OMEP Ireland.
6. Dr Susan, Crawford, Sports Studies & PE, University College Cork (UCC).
7. Dr Annie Cummins OMEP Ireland/ (UCC).
8. Dr Mary Daly, National Council for Curriculum & Assessment (NCCA).
9. Dr Josephine Deguara, Early Childhood and Primary Education, University
of Malta.
10. Prof Emeritus Aline-Wendy Dunlop, University of Strathclyde, Scotland.
11. Dr Elizabeth Dunphy, Early Childhood, St. Patrick’s College, Drumcondra,
Dublin.
12. Dr Jacqueline Fallon, Church of Ireland College of Education.
13. Arlene Forster, Deputy CEO National Council for Curriculum & Assessment
(NCCA).
14. Dr Sheila Garrity, National University of Ireland (NUI) Galway.
15. Prof Kathy Hall, School of Education, University College Cork (UCC).
16. Dr Deirdre Horgan, Dept. of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork
(UCC).
17. Prof Mary Kellet, Acting Vice Chancellor, Education and Childhood, Open
University (OU).
18. Dr Margaret Kernan, International Child Development Initiatives (ICDI),
Netherlands.
19. Dr Jonna Larsson, Early Childhood Education, University of Gothenburg,
Sweden.
20. Prof Margaret Linehan, School of Humanities, Cork Institute of Technology

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
4
(CIT).
21. Dr Kate McCarthy, Pedagogic Theory, Waterford Institute of Technology
(WIT).
22. Dr Marlene McCormack, Early Childhood Education Dublin City University
(DCU).
23. Asst. Prof Sinéad McNally, Early Child Development, Dublin City University
(DCU).
24. Dr Máire Mhic Mhathúna, Curriculum Theory, Dublin Institute of Technology
(DIT).
25. Dr Mary Moloney, Early Childhood, Mary Immaculate College, University
Limerick.
26. Dr Catherine Molyneaux, Cork Institute of Technology (CIT).
27. Dr Maura O’ Connor, Education, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra.
28. Dr Mary O’ Kane, Psychology and Early Childhood Education, Open
University (OU).
29. Dr Wendy Oke, Teachkloud
30. Dr Jacqui O’ Riordan, Dept. of Applied Social Studies, University College
Cork (UCC).
31. Dr Jools Page, University of Brighton.
32. Dr Jennifer Pope, Early Childhood, Mary Immaculate College, University
Limerick.
33. Prof Valerie Sollars, Faculty of Education, University of Malta.
34. Patsy Stafford, School of Education, Froebel & ECEC Maynooth University.
OMEP Ireland National Committee 2020
Dr Judith E. Butler: President Evelyn Egan: Vice President
Dr Annie Cummins: Secretary Denise Baker: Treasurer
Patricia O’Donovan: Membership Secretary Dr Wendy Oke: PRO/ Social Media
Dr Frances Clerkin: ALO Editor Representative John Joyce: Committee Member

5
Acknowledgements
OMEP Ireland would like to thank its patrons, Professor Francis Douglas, Professor
Nóirín Hayes, and Dr Mary Horgan for their support and encouragement over
the years.
OMEP Ireland gratefully acknowledges the generous help, encouragement,
and support received from Cork Institute of Technology. In addition, OMEP
Ireland would particularly acknowledge and thank Dr Rosaleen Murphy and Dr
Mary Daly for their assistance and support throughout the year.
Finally, OMEP Ireland would like to thank the Editorial Committee and the
Editorial Associates, without whom this publication would not be possible. We
would particularly like to thank our reviewers, and all those who made volume
13 possible.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
6
About OMEP & OMEP Ireland World OMEP
OMEP is an international, non-governmental, and non-profit organisation
concerned with all aspects of Early Childhood Education and Care. OMEP
defends and promotes the rights of the child to education and care worldwide
and supports activities which improve accessibility to high quality education
and care. OMEP is currently established in over 60 countries and is represented
at meetings of UNESCO, UNICEF, and other international organisations with
similar aims. For further details on OMEP’s history and its activities worldwide,
see the World OMEP organisation website http://www.worldomep.org/
OMEP Ireland
OMEP is represented in Ireland by OMEP Ireland, a registered charity dedicated
to Early Education and Care (Charity No. 14213). The objective of OMEP
Ireland is to use every possible means to promote the optimum conditions for
the wellbeing of all children, their development, and happiness within their
families, institutions, and society. OMEP assists any undertaking to improve
Early Childhood Education and supports scientific research that can influence
these conditions.
Mission Statement
The mission of OMEP Ireland is to raise awareness of the importance of early
childhood experiences, both because every child has a right to a high-quality
childhood and because of the effect on children’s future life chances. To further
this mission, OMEP Ireland holds an annual research conference and publishes
its journal, An Leanbh Óg, with the aim of supporting early childhood research
and bringing it to a wider public. Its publications can also be accessed through
the OMEP Ireland website https://omepireland.ie/

7
Contents
Editorial Associates ........................................................................................ 3
Acknowledgements........................................................................................ 5
About OMEP & OMEP Ireland World OMEP .............................................. 6
OMEP Ireland ................................................................................................. 6
Mission Statement .......................................................................................... 6
Editorial ........................................................................................................... 9
Student Paper Section ................................................................................. 13
Screen Time in Early Childhood: A Review of Prevalence, Evidence, and
Guidelines
Chloé Beatty & Suzanne M. Egan ..................................................... 17
Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
Máire Corbett, Thomas Grey, Teresa Heeney, Lisha O’ Sullivan, &
Emer Ring ............................................................................................ 33
Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International and National
Baby Book Gifting Schemes
Suzanne M. Egan, Clara Hoyne, Mary Moloney, Deirdre Breatnach, &
Jennifer Pope ...................................................................................... 49
Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing Spatial
Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
Córa Gillic ............................................................................................ 65
Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services: Practitioner’s
Perspectives and Approaches
Anne Egan, Sarah Hodkinson, & Sheila Garrity ......................................... 87
Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in
ECEC Maria Lotty ............................................................................. 105
Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth: Interrogating the
Implications of the International Early Learning Study
Mary Maloney ................................................................................... 123
The Potential of Play: to Support the Development of Relationships
among Young Children on the Autism Spectrum
Christina O’ Keeffe & Sinéad McNally ............................................ 137
A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with
Environmental Sustainability
Jane Spiteri ....................................................................................... 149
Choosing Relationships in Times of Challenge & Change: Exploring the
Experiences of Families of Young Children on the Autism Spectrum as

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
8
they Navigate the Irish Early Years’ Education System Together
Sarah O’ Leary & Mary Moloney ..................................................... 171
Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early
Childhood Educator
Margaret R. Clark .............................................................................. 187
Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our Time: Retrospective
Insights on Design & Delivery of a Blended Early Childhood Degree
Programme
Deirdre Breatnach............................................................................. 199
Student Paper 1: Promoting Inclusion in Early Years Care and Education
Fionnuala O’ Malley ......................................................................... 215
Student Paper 2: A Smiling Face Transcends All Language Barriers.
Supporting Transitions for Children + Families with English as an
Additional Language into An Irish Preschool: Educators’ Perspectives.
Irena Chlumecka ............................................................................... 225
Appendices ................................................................................................. 234
Submitting A Paper .................................................................................... 234
An Leanbh Óg Email .................................................................................. 234
Address for Correspondence .................................................................... 234
An Leanbh Óg Editors ............................................................................... 234
Submission Form ........................................................................................ 234
ALO Peer Review Process .......................................................................... 235
Papers Submitted Should Meet the Following Criteria .......................... 236
Format ......................................................................................................... 236
Referencing ................................................................................................. 237
Format of Quotes ....................................................................................... 238
Plagiarism Policy ......................................................................................... 239
Publishing Ethics and Academic Norms................................................... 239
For Authors ................................................................................................. 240
For Editors and Reviewers ......................................................................... 241
OMEP Ireland Student of the Year Award ................................................ 241
Contact OMEP ............................................................................................ 242

Editorial
9
Editorial
Dr. Judith Butler,
President OMEP Ireland & Co-Editor of An Leanbh Óg
On behalf of OMEP Ireland, I am delighted to introduce Volume 13, Issue 1., An
Leanbh Óg, the OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood Studies.
In November 2019, OMEP Ireland held its annual conference at Cork Institute
of Technology. The conference offered high quality research sessions, review
sessions, workshops, and symposia and many of the papers included in this
volume emerged from the conference. The conference theme ‘Relationship
Matters & What Matters in Early Years Relationships’ was of significance as
OMEP Ireland deems relationships to be important on so many levels across the
life course. Creating environments for children that promote a culture of care, a
sense of belonging, and positive relationships are at the heart and soul of our
professional practice and indeed, OMEP Ireland’s mission.
Dr Maeve Hurley, PhD, MB, MRCGP, founder of Ag Éisteacht, acted as
our esteemed keynote speaker. Maeve’s powerful presentation, ‘Building
relationships in early years settings at key moments’, explored how transitions
can present opportunities to build relationships with and support parents in
early years settings. Maeve clearly informed the captive audience “that young
children experience their world as an environment of relationships, and these
relationships affect virtually all aspects of their development. Early years
practitioners work to provide nurturing, stimulating and reliable relationships
in their settings”. Lorraine Farrell presented the second Keynote address.
Lorraine is the National Aistear Coordinator at NCCA and provided us with a
superb interactive address while reminding us that the ‘family wall’ is significant.
We were delighted to welcome members from PLÉ, the National Association of

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
10
Higher Education Institutions offering Degree Level Training in ECEC. Dr Mary
Moloney, the chair of PLÉ, officially launched PLÉ’s Best Practice Guidelines for
Professional Practice Placement Experience in Initial Early Childhood Education
and Care Professional Development. OMEP Ireland welcomes these guidelines
and applaud PLÉ for their tremendous work in this domain.
Furthermore, following a vigorous review, the 2019 OMEP Ireland Student of
the Year Award was presented to Fionnuala O’ Malley, who was nominated
by Dr Shelia Garrity, NUI Galway. In addition, the worthy runner up, Irena
Chlumecka, was nominated by Sinéad McNally of St. Patrick’s Campus, Dublin
University. Both papers are published in this volume of An Leanbh Óg.
Chloé Beatty and Suzanne M. Egan’s paper highlights that a considerable
amount of research has explored the effects of TV on the development of
children. However, research investigating interactive screen technologies, such
as touchscreen devices and smartphones, and how exposure to these affect
young children’s development, is still relatively scarce. The aim of this paper is to
examine the prevalence and impact of screen use in early childhood, including
a critique of the quality of research evidence available. Definitions of screen
time, and guidelines regarding healthy screen use in early childhood, are also
discussed, and may have implications for policymakers, educators, parents, and
caregivers.
In their most interesting and timely paper, Máire Corbett, Thomas Grey, Teresa
Heeney, Lisha O’ Sullivan, and Emer Ring explain that in 2017, the Department
of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA) asked the Centre of Excellence for Universal
Design (CEUD), at the National Disability Authority (NDA), to co-ordinate the
development of Universal Design (UD) Guidelines for Early Learning and Care
Settings. A consortium led by Early Childhood Ireland and including TrinityHaus,
Trinity College Dublin, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, and Nathan Somers
Design was formed to develop the guidelines in collaboration with DCYA/
NDA. These UD Guidelines form part of the suite of supports provided under
the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM). The Guidelines were launched in June
2019. This paper outlines the process by which the Guidelines were developed,
including the consultation element undertaken, and summarises the content of
the Guidelines.
Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International and National Baby
Book Gifting Schemes is a most interesting paper written by Suzanne M. Egan,
Clara Hoyne, Mary Moloney, Deirdre Breatnach and Jennifer Pope. The
authors review how reading books with infants has many positive associations

Editorial
11
with child development. However, the age at which parents begin reading with
their infants, and the frequency that they read with them, is affected by many
factors. This paper considers some of those factors and examines the role that
baby book gifting programmes may play in supporting early shared reading
practices in families. Drawing on evidence from international and local schemes
in Ireland, it provides insights into the benefits and challenges of running a
book gifting programme. The factors that support or hinder the success of any
such initiative may therefore be useful to policy makers, local organisations, and
communities in establishing, implementing, and monitoring such a scheme.
Córa Gillic in her article explores the use of a progression continua approach in
developing practitioner pedagogical and subject content knowledge in relation
to the development of spatial awareness in preschool aged children. The policy
and research literature shows a focus on preschool mathematics and that spatial
awareness is often overlooked in preschool mathematical provision. Findings
demonstrate the potential of a learning trajectory approach as a continuing
professional development tool in relation to a preschool mathematics provision.
Anne Egan, Sarah Hodkinson, and Sheila Garrity present a thought-provoking
article on how imaginative play is beneficial to young children’s development,
their well-being, and allows creativity to flourish. Opportunities to engage in
imaginative play at home are being reduced due to the changing nature of
childhood, including increasing amounts of time in early years services. This
article shares research that examined the perspectives of ten early years
practitioners on the benefits of imaginative play, the adult’s role in supporting this
play, considering both their indoor and outdoor environments. The qualitative
research design includes interviews with practitioners from services in West
Cork, Ireland, and the collection of photographic data reflecting their indoor
and outdoor environments. Results reveal practitioners appreciate the benefits
of imaginative play, that it is well promoted in early years settings, though
complex skills and knowledge are required for effective practice. However,
outdoor environments were found to be underutilised for this purpose and the
participating Montessori environments were less supportive of imaginative play.
Maria Lotty’s insightful paper on Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating
Trauma-informed Care into Early Childhood Education and Care informs that
early childhood experience of trauma is highly prevalent and has far-reaching
consequences. Young children are particularly vulnerable to experiencing
trauma and children who enter foster care often have complex trauma related
difficulties. In Ireland, many young children enter foster care each year and

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
12
services to support their recovery are chronically under resourced. Early
Childhood Education and Care Professionals are located in a unique position
to provide children with crucial supports that may support children’s recovery
and healing from trauma. This paper describes the impact of childhood trauma
and how this may affect Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). It further
describes trauma-informed care, an approach that may support children’s
recovery from trauma and how it could be integrated into ECEC practices in the
Irish context. The paper concludes that there is a need for trauma-informed care
professional development for Early Childhood Professionals to support this.
Following on, the next paper is presented by Mary Moloney and relates
to Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth: Interrogating the
Implications of the International Early Learning Study. Dr Moloney posits that
scientific research over the past 30 years strongly suggests that the most critical
period of human development is from birth to eight years old. During this
period of early childhood, learning occurs at a pace that is unrivalled at any
other time in a child’s development, resulting in sound physical and mental
health, social and emotional competence, and cognitive skills that lay the
foundations for success well into adult hood. To master these skills, children
need environments that support and promote play and provide opportunities
for exploration, hands-on, relevant and meaningful learning experiences (e.g.,
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA, 2009); Centre for Early
Childhood Development and Education, (CECDE, 2006); Ministry of Education
NZ, 2017; UNICEF, 2018). Early Childhood Education and Care services are
considered appropriate sites that facilitate and support children’s learning and
development through playful learning experiences and opportunities. However,
the days of learning through play may be numbered, as the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) pilots a cross-national
assessment of early learning outcomes involving the testing of 5-year-old
children in three participating countries –England, Estonia, and the USA. This
paper explores the implications of this International Early Learning and Well-
being Study (OECD, 2016), arguing that it will result in a mini PISA (International
Student Assessment academic), where young children’s academic achievements
will take centre stage, leading to international rankings and pressure for early
childhood settings to prioritise targets and outcomes, and thus become more
school-like.
Christina O’ Keeffe and Sinéad McNally’s review paper on the Potential of
Play: to Support the Development of Relationships among Young Children on
the Autism Spectrum informs that play is an integral aspect of early childhood,

Editorial
13
and the vehicle through which young children develop lifelong social interaction
skills (Barnett, 2018). For pupils on the Autism Spectrum (AS), differences in social
communication are compounded by challenges in accessing play opportunities
(Wolfberg, Bottema-Beutel & DeWitt, 2012). Such difficulties potentially further
exacerbate feelings of isolation (Hess, 2006) and may inhibit the development
of social interaction skills and formation of friendships (Kasari et al., 2016). This
paper argues for a renewed focus on how best to support play opportunities for
young children on the AS to promote social relationships and opportunities for
learning and development.
Jane Spiteri’s thought-provoking paper focuses on the participatory research
methods used in a study conducted in the field of early childhood education for
sustainability (ECEfS), with young children (age 3 – 7 years) in Malta. It explores
their perceptions of environmental sustainability and the influences upon these.
Built on the belief that young children are active agents in their own lives, who
hold perceptions worth exploring, this paper provides a critical reflection upon
conversational interviews with children, photograph interpretation, children’s
drawings, children’s interpretations of their drawings, the use of constructivist
tools, and methodological and ethical challenges experienced during the
research process.
Choosing Relationships in Times of Challenge and Change: Exploring the
Experiences of Families of Young Children on the Autism Spectrum as they
Navigate the Irish Early Years’ Education System Together is the title of a
most interesting paper by Sarah O’ Leary and Mary Moloney. This paper
draws upon a doctoral study and encompasses three main components: (1)
changes to national policy on inclusive education in recent years, (2) research
recommendations regarding inclusive practice, and (3) the primary author’s lived
experience of navigating the education system for her young child on the autism
spectrum. It is concerned with the lived experiences of six parents of young
children (aged from three to six years) on the autism spectrum as they navigate
the Irish Early Years’ Education system from pre-school to primary school. Recent
policy changes not only impact the choices that families and educators make in
relation to inclusive education, but also demand the development of positive
relationships between all stakeholders involved. However, these families’
experiences suggest the presence of conflicting and contradictory narratives at
macro-policy level that impede the development of such relationships, resulting
in the emergence of a significant gap between inclusive policy and practice.
These contradictions have been created and responded to through the choices,
roles and actions, of social actors within different social systems, including

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
14
families, educators. and the Government.
Margaret R. Clark’s paper entitled Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early
Childhood Educator identifies the role stories can play in the learning for all
children. It assesses how stories can help students to understand not only letters
and sounds, but also the world in which they live. This life history project focuses
on one veteran teacher, who, with over thirty years of teaching young children
in an urban school district, used the power of stories to teach her students
literacy skills and understand more about their world. This balanced approach
to literacy highlights the how one teacher uses both instruction and care to
teach her children in the current social and cultural contexts in America.
Deirdre Breatnach’s paper explains that several universities and colleges
throughout Ireland have adopted digital technologies through offering online
and blended degree programmes. This paper presents the findings of staff and
student evaluations regarding a blended Early Childhood degree programme,
which was designed and delivered by two higher education institutions in
Munster. This programme was established to allow early years educators gain a
degree qualification while continuing to work in the sector. This article outlines
retrospective insights on this degree, discusses the impact of this programme,
and offers some suggestions for future consideration in the development of
blended courses.
Student Paper Section:
Fionnuala O’ Malley, winner of the OMEP Student of the Year Award, presents
her paper entitled Promoting Inclusion in Early Years Care and Education.
Children notice differences between people very early in life (Derman-Sparks,
1989; Lindon, 2012; Hawkins, 2014), and can hold prejudices from the age of 3
(Connolly, 2007). Children are naturally curious about the world around them,
however, whether prejudice emerges is influenced by many factors, including
the attitudes and behaviours of the adults in their life. One such adult is the
early years practitioner, who plays a crucial role in addressing prejudice and
inequality during the formative stages of a child’s life (DCYA, 2016a; Derman-
Sparks, 2013; Murray & O’ Doherty, 2001). Left unattended, prejudice can result
in stereotyping, discrimination, and distress. This can negatively impact learning
opportunities, wellbeing, and outcomes for children. By applying an inclusive,
anti-bias practice approach, the practitioner can support every child to feel
equally respected, cherished, and able to participate fully in their learning. The

Editorial
15
anti-bias approach puts equality and diversity at the heart of the organisation
and is an integral part of quality practice. This article explores the role of the
practitioner in challenging prejudice and providing inclusive early education to
young children. It includes a critique on the theories of how prejudice develops
in children, as well as examination of best practice models, with a particular
focus on the anti-bias approach, and reference to underpinning guidelines and
frameworks.
In her paper, Irena Chlumecka clarifies that transitions in Early Childhood
Education (ECE) have been receiving attention among researchers globally,
however, the emphasis is stronger on the move from preschool to primary
school, while transitions from home to preschool have received less attention.
In recent decades, the world’s population has been far from stationary and, as
such, there is an increasing number of children being exposed to more than one
language. This case study explored the experiences of three early childhood
educators in one preschool in Ireland as they supported transitions for children
with English as an additional language (EAL) into the preschool. A qualitative
approach was used in gaining the educators’ perspectives through face-to-
face interviews and filling in a short questionnaire. The findings from this study
suggest that there is a need for a more centralised, research-informed approach
to children with EAL in Irish early childhood settings.
2020 has been an unprecedented year and unprecedented challenges await.
OMEP Ireland continues to be instrumental in promoting, publishing, and
disseminating research in relation to early childhood education and care and in
doing so, continues to raise the professional profile of those working in ECEC.
By continuing to publish papers, such as those included in this volume, it is
our mission to stimulate conversation, discussion, and debate in relation to our
work with, and on behalf of, children. We encourage all of our readers to submit
a paper to be considered for inclusion in future volumes of An Leanbh Óg. The
guidelines for authors are available in this issue and online on the OMEP Ireland
website http://www.omepireland.ie. We share regular updates on our social
media platforms and can be found on Twitter @OmepIreland and on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/OMEPIreland.
We encourage readers to present at our annual conference. The OMEP Ireland
conference is the premier forum to present and discuss progress in research,
development, standards, and applications of the topics related to early
childhood.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
16
Sincere thanks to my esteemed colleagues and co-editors, Dr Vanessa Murphy
and Dr Frances Clerkin, who not only made this publication possible, but also
made the editing process tremendously enjoyable.
Buíochas a ghabháil leat go léir go mór,
Dr Judith E. Butler
President OMEP Ireland & Co Editor of An Leanbh Óg, the OMEP Ireland
Journal of Early Childhood Studies.
June 2020.

17
Screen Time in Early Childhood: A Review of
Prevalence, Evidence, and Guidelines
Chloé Beatty & Suzanne M. Egan
Abstract
A considerable amount of research has explored the effects of TV
on the development of children. However, research investigating
interactive screen technologies, such as touchscreen devices and
smartphones, and how exposure to these affect young children’s
development, is still relatively scarce. The aim of this paper
is to examine the prevalence and impact of screen use in early
childhood, including a critique of the quality of research evidence
available. Definitions of screen time, and guidelines regarding
healthy screen use in early childhood, are also discussed and
may have implications for policymakers, educators, parents, and
caregivers.
Introduction
The advances in both new media and interactive screen technologies has allowed
for the rise of a digital generation living in a digital age – a generation defined
by their digital technology competence (Buckingham & Willett, 2013), and a
generation that has been under-researched in this field to date. Young children
and infants in this digital generation are exposed to more technologies than
in the previous decade, and have more devices readily available for their use,
increasing their screen time (Savina, Mills, Atwood, & Cha, 2017). This includes
the use of e-books, as opposed to paper books, and the presence of more
screen-based games, touchscreen devices such as iPads, and smartphones in
the average household in the last decade (Savina et al., 2017). ‘Screen time’ is
any time spent in front of a television or other screen device.
However, much of the research on screen time to date has focused on TV
watching; with researchers noting its correlation with childhood obesity,

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
18
aggression, and delays in language development (Sharif & Sargent, 2006;
Zimmerman, Christakis & Meltzoff, 2007; Barr, 2013). Yet, research investigating
interactive screen technologies, such as touchscreen devices and smartphones,
and how exposure to these affect young children’s development, is still
comparatively scarce (Strasburger et al., 2013). With this rise in technology
use at a younger age, the main concerns for parents, educators, researchers,
and policy makers alike, are: What impact are these devices having on young
children’s development; what is considered healthy screen use; and what screen
use guidelines should be in place for parents and caregivers to support healthy
development?
The Prevalence of Screen Time in Early Childhood
Since the 1970s, TV watching has been of interest to researchers, with it being
noted as a contributor to the rise in obesity, health risks, and inactivity in children
(Quisenberry & Klasek, 1977; Gioia & Brass, 1986; Gortmaker, et al., 1996;
Anderson, Economos, & Must, 2008; Peck, Scharf, Conaway, & DeBoer, 2015). As
a result, screen time has since been the focus for many researchers concerned
with such health risks in young children, and its potential risks to psychological
development (Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Zimmerman, Christakis, & Meltzoff,
2007; Barr, Lauricella, Zack, & Calvert, 2010). However, since the introduction
of the iPad and smartphones in households, the range of screen activities that
can be carried out by young children during screen time has expanded. The
possibility to engage in various activities (i.e. playing games, photo taking,
video calls) on a screen device has made new technology more attractive to
young children, with research noting children’s interest in these devices over
the last decade.
Screen time research has seen television and DVDs become increasingly rivalled
by household digital devices in relation to gaining young children’s interest. For
example, in 2011, Australian children under the age of 5 years were spending
less than 30 minutes a day on computers or touchscreen devices (Australian
Government: Department of Health and Ageing, 2011). However, by 2015 this
had increased to an average of 79 minutes per day on digital devices (Marsh
et al., 2015). Touchscreen use by American pre-schoolers also rose from 10%
daily usage to 38% between the years of 2011 to 2013 (Rideout 2011; 2013).
Daily TV viewing also dropped for these children over the same time span from
79% to 63%. Additionally, Kabali et al. (2015) noted that by four years of age,
75% of American children from low socio-economic backgrounds owned a
mobile phone, with most of these children using a touchscreen device before

19
12 months.
Similarly, in Britain, children under 5 years of age spent an average of 69
minutes on these devices (Lauricella, Wartella, & Rideout, 2015). Bedford, Saez
de Urabain, Cheung, Karmiloff-Smith, and Smith (2017) also found that 75%
of British children under three had daily use of a touchscreen device, and by
age 3 years only 10.5% of toddlers had no prior experience with these devices.
Ofcom’s ‘Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes’ report (2013) stated
that household tablet ownership had more than doubled, from 20% to 51% in
a year alone. It was also reported that while 22% of 3- to 4-year-old children in
the UK had a TV in their bedroom, 25% watched TV programmes on a device
other than a TV set, with 12% using these devices to go online. Watching TV on
other devices rose to 30% for this age group by 2018 (Ofcom, 2018), with 20%
of these children owning either a tablet or smartphone. For 5- to 7-year-olds,
44% watched TV on other devices, with ownership of these devices being 47%
(Ofcom, 2018).
Early Childhood Ireland (2016) reported that 85% of Irish children under 24
months were watching over 2 hours of TV daily, and that 38% of the same
children had used a mobile device. Conversely, Ipsos MRBI (2017) found Irish
children in this age bracket spent on average 1 hour 15 minutes every day on
screens. Drawing on the Growing Up in Ireland data, Egan and Murray (2014)
reported that 3-year-olds in Ireland spent an average of 112 minutes per day
watching television, with 27% watching more than 2 hours per day. They also
reported that 16% of 3-year-olds had a TV, computer, or games console in their
bedroom, and 85% of families had rules about screen time. By 5 years of age,
42% of Irish children in the Growing Up in Ireland study were engaging in more
than two hours of screen time per day on average (inclusive of computers
and touchscreen devices), with 55% engaged in less than 2 hours (Beatty &
Egan, 2018; Murray, McNamara, Williams, & Smyth, 2019). This screen time
mostly involved a mix of all screen activities, as opposed to solely watching TV
programmes, videos, or movies or playing games (Beatty & Egan, 2020).
These international and national figures highlight how screen exposure at an
early age is transitioning from watching TV to using digital devices. The reported
high prevalence of touchscreens in the home provides an insight on the rise
of young children’s engagement with these activities. Due to the more child-
friendly experience that tablets provide in comparison to traditional computers,
they are becoming an increasingly popular form of learning for young children,
in both the home and childcare settings (Marsh et al., 2015). With this rise in

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
20
technology use at a younger age, researchers are questioning what impact, if
any, this may have on children’s psychological development, and if this early
exposure to screen time has a similar effect to the findings on TV viewing during
early childhood.
The Effects of Screen Time on Early Psychological Development
Children’s psychological development takes place across multiple domains. For
example, cognitive development is concerned with the child’s ability to learn
and utilise new information (Piaget, 1936). Measures of cognitive development
include problem-solving and attentional ability, language acquisition, and
overall academic achievement (Lerner, Liben & Mueller, 2015). Socio-emotional
development is related to how well the child is socially and emotionally
adjusted. Measures include attachment to a caregiver, how well they can make
friends, and level of conflict or difficult behaviour at home or in school (Lamb
& Lerner, 2015). While child development occurs across multiple domains, it is
also influenced by multiple factors within a child’s environment (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). With screens now being ubiquitous in most children’s home lives, it is
essential that early childhood researchers examine the evidence base regarding
the impact of screen use on early cognitive and socio-emotional development.
Understanding the role that screen-based technologies can play in the various
aspects of children’s development has become an important question for
researchers, with a wide range of studies being conducted in the past few
decades. In order to make sense of this diversity of research, the complexity
of its findings, and use it to inform policy decisions, it is necessary to do three
things. The first is to recognise the range of different meanings that might be
encompassed by the idea of “screen time”. The second is to separate out the
kinds of activities in which children are engaged when they are partaking in
screen time. And the third is to understand the differential impact of engaging
in content through various screens, as well as through other media (for instance,
the differences in encountering material through a screen than via a book, or
face-to-face conversation). A brief review of some of the existing screen time
research illustrates the diversity of screen activities and uses, and whether there
are consistent conclusions that can be drawn from the findings.
Christakis, Zimmerman, DiGiuseppe and McCarty (2004) examined the
associations between early TV viewing and attentional disorders at age 7 years.
Time spent watching TV at age 1½ and 3½ years was assessed from parent
estimates, and symptoms of attention disorders were assessed at age 7 years
from parental report. After controlling for parent, child, and home factors,

21
Christakis et al. (2004) reported a small positive association between having
symptoms of attention disorders and infant television viewing, suggesting a
small negative association between TV viewing and this aspect of cognitive
development. Other studies have indicated that negative associations only
became apparent when children were watching more than 2 hours of television
a day (Özmert, Toyran & Yurdakök, 2002; Lingineni et al., 2012; Duch, Fisher,
Ensari & Harrington, 2013). However, these studies focused on the amount
of time spent watching TV and did not measure the content of what the
children were watching. Other research suggests that screen content may be
important. For example, it has been found that early exposure to adult-directed
programmes or violent content led to lower executive functioning, lower school
grades, and language delays (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Linebarger & Walker,
2005; Barr, Lauricella, Zack & Calvert, 2010). These findings were not present
when the children were exposed to high-quality educational cartoons, or child-
directed content. Therefore, both the amount of screen time, and the content,
were shown to impact on development.
Individual differences in the child or the home environment also influence the
impact of screen use on development, but these are not always taken into
account in screen time research. Kostyrka-Allchorne, Cooper, and Simpson
(2017) conducted a systematic literature review of television exposure and
its impact on children’s development and behaviour. Their review combined
cross-sectional, experimental, and longitudinal studies in the area from
1977 to 2015. Interestingly, negative associations between screen time and
cognitive development were mostly found in high-risk children, or children
from disadvantaged backgrounds, and for children under the age of 2 years.
For older children, in studies with a representative sample, there were an
equal amount of studies indicating no association or a positive association for
cognitive development, as there were studies suggesting television exposure
had a negative effect.
These studies highlight the complexity of interpreting screen time research
as screen time, screen content, and individual and environmental factors all
potentially play a role in child development. Another factor that also seems to
have an influence is the screen activity. For example, a meta-analysis of popular
types of computer games found that those who play action and adventure
games have higher spatial awareness, attention, multi-tasking, and perceptual
abilities, than those who play puzzle games, due to the bringing together of
sensory, perceptual, and cognitive functions needed to succeed in high-action
computer games (Spence & Feng, 2010). Neumann (2018) also noted higher

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
22
literacy outcomes during screen use when children used apps that encouraged
the child to interact physically with the material, in comparison to apps that did
not encourage physical interaction.
Furthermore, Beatty and Egan (2018) reported that in an Irish sample of 5-year-
olds (drawn from the Growing Up in Ireland study) that screen activity, but
not screen time, had an effect on language development. When comparing
computer games, educational games, and TV watching, they found that
computer games had more of a negative association with vocabulary
development for these 5-year-olds. However, the amount of screen time by
itself did not impact the children’s vocabulary scores. Yet, using the same
sample, Beatty and Egan (2020) found no association between computer games
and non-verbal reasoning. For non-verbal reasoning it seems that lower scores
were associated with educational games. Similarly, Hinkley, Brown, Carson, and
Teychenne (2018) explored the differing effects various screen activities had on
social skills. They found that poorer social skills were only associated with high
levels of TV watching, whereas video games and hand-held game use were not
associated with any of the social skills scales.
The studies described above provide only a brief snapshot of the some of the
many research studies that have investigated screen time. However, the mixed
findings from these studies illustrate how difficult it is to interpret screen time
research and to draw implications from it for policy or practice. It is also important
to note that the effect sizes in many screen time studies are small, and so
results should be interpreted with caution. The social and cognitive differences
between TV watching and other types of screen use have been noted by
previous researchers (e.g., Hinkley et al., 2018). For example, video chat allows
for social interactions and conversations to take place with family members, and
video games often prompt children to respond and interact with characters.
Interactions with others may also take place during multi-player games, which
encourage behaviours such as turn taking and prosocial behaviour (Hinkley et
al, 2018). Playing games, of any type, is also an essential part of childhood, and
video games as an example of this have been shown to be associated with more
positive outcomes than TV watching, such as positive behaviour towards peers,
problem-solving, and activity involvement (Durkin & Barber, 2002).
Nonetheless, video game research that promotes the various cognitive benefits
associated with playing these games may have flaws in their research design or
methodology. For example, Spence and Feng (2010) note that the individuals who
engage in action games may do so because of their previously existing superior

23
spatial, perceptual, and attentional abilities, making such games an attractive
pastime. Determining the causal links between screen use and development
can thus be challenging. This makes the inclusion of randomised testing, or pre-
and post-testing, imperative for drawing conclusions on contemporary screen
activities’ effect. However, studies that do include randomised pre- and post-
testing tend to have smaller sample sizes due to the complexity and longitudinal
nature of the study (e.g., Neumann, 2018). Therefore, studies with observed
associations between screen activities and improved cognitive skills should also
be interpreted with caution, due to these possible design or methodological
issues.
Screen time research has also been critiqued by some researchers who have
found conflicting results on the impact of screen time on early development
through replication studies. While the research on television watching has
outlined the negative impact it has on cognitive development, these findings
have not been replicated in all samples (Obel, Henriksen & Dalsgaard, 2004).
Additionally, many studies do not account for other factors that may have an
impact on child cognitive development such as poverty status or maternal skills
(Foster & Watkins, 2010). These concerns have also been mentioned in the socio-
emotional research that shows the negative impacts of screen use, with small
effect sizes and the lack of inclusion of environmental factors being outlined as
methodological issues in the literature (Elson & Ferguson, 2014; Bell, Bishop, &
Przybylski, 2015).
The findings described above, relating both to cognitive development and
socio-emotional development in early childhood, highlight the complexity of
interpreting the results of screen use research. Screen use in early childhood
varies considerably from child to child in a number of different ways, such as the
amount of time spent on a screen activity, the type of activity, and whether or not
a caregiver is engaged in the activity also. Further consideration of definitions of
‘screen time’ are therefore warranted.
Screen Time Definitions and Guidelines
In 2011, the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) defined media as “television
programs, pre-recorded videos, web-based programming, and DVDs viewed
on either traditional or new screen technologies” (Brown, 2011, pp. 1041). In this
same report, the AAP released strong recommendations against screen time for
children under 24 months as no cognitive benefits of screen time were found
in the literature for this age bracket. By 2013, the emphasis of television screen
time was removed and replaced with cell phones, iPads, and social media sites,

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
24
which the AAP referred to as ‘new media’.
In their 2016 statement, the AAP revised their recommendation for no screen
time for children under 24 months. The definition of screen time was further
expanded from TV and other types of screen devices, to also include e-books,
video calls, and co-operative educational e-games (McClure, Chentsova-
Dutton, Barr, Holochwost, & Parrott, 2015). The decision to discontinue the
recommendation of no screen time for children under the age of 2 years came
from the acknowledgement that screen time, via new media and technologies,
may have various learning and social outcome benefits in comparison to TV
watching. However, the AAP provided tips in 2018 to guide parents on the rise
in technology use by young children. Here, they emphasised the importance of
co-viewing and co-playing during screen use to create bonds and conversations
and moved away from strict time limitations.
Similar to the changing recommendations from the AAP, the Royal College of
Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) in the UK, have also recommended moving
away from setting strict time limits in their own guidelines. In the guide, ‘The
health impacts of screen time: a guide for clinicians and parents’ (RCPCH, 2019),
it is noted that “more and better research” is needed before conclusions are
drawn on screen time’s impact on early development. Due to the lack of a strong
evidence base in the current screen time research the guidelines recommend
that rather than setting limits on screen time, that screen time is discussed with
families. Inviting parents to think about their own screen use, whether there are
rules set on screen time and content, and whether they are protecting sleep and
face-to-face interactions, are all outlined in these recommendations.
Since the introduction of these technologies, further classifications of screen
time have been created to aid researchers in analysing the varying effects
different types of screen time exposure may have, as opposed to generalising
the findings of TV watching to all types of screen engagement. An example of
this is the characterisation of screen time as ‘Passive’ or ‘Active’, as suggested
by Sweetser, Johnson, Ozdowska and Wyeth (2012). This allows for more active
types of screen activities, such as playing educational games or doing homework
online, to be considered differently for early development than passive content
viewing. As developmental theorist Piaget (1936) suggested, children develop
cognitively by exploring and interacting with their world. Therefore, integrating
Sweetser et al.’s classification of active and passive screen time activities into
current research in the field may be useful.
A further model that has been put forward considers the ‘Content’, ‘Context’,

25
and ‘Connections’ of screen time (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2016). This model
places an emphasis on assessing whether the content is of high quality, and
whether connections are being made with either friends or family members
during screen time. It also encourages researchers to look at children’s screen
use in light of their environmental context (e.g., socio-economic background,
mother’s education, and whether siblings are present) before interpreting its
effect on early development. These classifications focus on the differentiations
of screen time, and the external factors that influence developmental outcomes
when children engage in screen-based activities. This is perhaps the most
important movement in this area of research to date, as it moves away from
the idea of measuring just the amount of time a child spends on a screen to
considering multiple variables involved in screen use to understand its impact
on child development.
‘Modelling’ and ‘Involving’ are two further recommended approaches by Blum-
Ross and Livingstone (2016) for parents to use with children during screen
time. While there is a wide range of ways for children to learn from digital
technology use, parents tend to underestimate their role in demonstration,
guided interaction, and family practices (Plowman, McPake & Stephen, 2008).
As noted by Blum-Ross and Livingstone (2016), involving children during screen
use creates more opportunity for talk time, and interactions between parent
and child. Co-viewing television programmes, for example, allows for shared
experiences and discussions, the stimulation of questions and curiosity, and the
development of imagination through character identification and role play.
The presence of an adult to scaffold the child’s learning makes parent-
child interaction an aspect of screen time engagement for young children’s
development. These ideas also relate to scaffolded learning, a term coined by
Cognitive Pyschologist Bruner (1996), based on the theories of developmental
theorist Vygotsky’s (1978), which suggests the importance of such learning for
early cognitive development. These models proposed by Sweetser et al. (2012)
and Blum-Ross and Livingstone (2016), therefore, provide useful expansions of
classification systems for screen time, to move beyond just considering how
much time is spent on a screen.
Screen Time Guidelines in Ireland
Currently, in Ireland, there are no official governmental guidelines on screen
time for young children. The Health Service Executive (HSE; 2018) currently
states that while excessive amounts of screen time can contribute to poorer
cognitive skills and sleep issues, more interactive screen activities may also have

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
26
possible benefits, providing parents follow the suggested recommendations.
These recommendations include monitoring the content the child is viewing
and getting involved during screen time by talking about programmes and
games and encouraging questions. Parents are also encouraged to model
good screen use habits and create screen-free zones in the home, for example,
at the dinner table.
In addition to the HSE guidelines, CyberSafe Ireland (2019), a charity organisation,
recommends assessing the quality of screen time rather than just the quantity.
It similarly encourages parental engagement during screen use to aid the
development of cognitive and socio-emotional skills through co-operative
play. These recommendations appear compatible with the suggestions of
Sweetser et al., (2012) and Blum-Ross, and Livingstone (2016), by highlighting
the importance of the quality of the screen time as opposed to just the amount
of screen time. The current screen time research also supports the advice put
forward by the HSE and CyberSafe Ireland, with researchers advising that screen
use should be engaged with by both an adult and the child, to facilitate the
best outcomes for social interactions and the learning process (Richert, Robb,
Fender, & Wartella, 2010; Brown, 2011). Parent-child interactions during screen
time are also important to promote positive screen use behaviours for children
(Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2016). Taken together, the literature creates a strong
argument for the necessity of measuring the screen content, context of play,
and adult engagement during screen time, while also considering the various
findings of recent screen time research. One of the priorities of the ‘Better
Outcomes, Brighter Futures’ National Policy Framework for Children and Young
People, 2014-2020 (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2014, p. xii) is
to promote positive influences for childhood. The policy framework notes that
‘rapidly evolving forms of digital media are featuring more and more in our
children’s lives’. To add to the current screen time advice available, the authors
suggest that parents, researchers, and policy makers consider the ten questions
below when comparing across research studies or deciding on healthy screen
use for an individual child, or family. These questions are drawn from current
guidelines and derived from existing research findings:
• How much screen time is the child engaged in?
• What type of screen activity is the child engaged in?
• Does the activity encourage child engagement (is it passive or active)?
• What type of content is the child engaged with?

27
• Is a caregiver present with the child during screen use?
• Is the caregiver modelling healthy screen use behaviour?
• Has previous research shown that the activity has an impact on child
development?
• If previous research has shown an impact, how big is that impact?
• Does the screen use have a noticeable negative impact on the child or
on family life?
• Does the screen use have a noticeable positive impact on the child or
on family life?
The Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures’ National Policy Framework
also; seeks to better understand and respond to the increasing
influences on childhood of new technologies, digital media…to
ensure that children, young people, parents and society in general
are best equipped to respond to these influences (p. xii).
Consideration of the various aspects of screen use which may impact on
child development (e.g., screen time, content, activity), as assessed through
the questions outlined, will support parents and policy makers in taking an
evidence based approach to decisions about screen time in early childhood.
We suggest that the final four questions about the impact of the screen use on
development are particularly important to consider (i.e., relating to the research
evidence base, the size of the effect and whether it has a noticeable impact on
an individual child or family).
Conclusion
Due to the high level of variation between screen activities in relation to
features, scaffolding opportunities, portability, and interactivity, it is no longer
possible to consider the singular effect of all screen types on the developing
child. Recent research in the field suggests that the quality of the content,
parental engagement and monitoring, and the inclusion of interactive elements
are all factors that influence the effect screen use has on early development,
in addition to the amount of time spent on the screen. This is in line with the
current HSE and CyberSafe Ireland guidelines, which both encourage parents to
use digital devices jointly with their children while modelling responsible media
use. Research findings suggesting positive or negative effects of screen time on

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
28
children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development are mixed, and often have
small effects or small sample sizes, and are dependent on the particular aspect
of development being investigated. This creates difficulties in interpreting the
research findings, and determining what effect screen use has on development,
if any. The issues with interpreting current screen time findings highlight the
necessity of a strong evidence base before creating policies relating to children’s
screen use. Ideally, the evidence base would include multiple types of screen
use, examined across multiple aspects of development, and also control for
external factors such as the child’s home learning environment, attachment
with a caregiver, and mother’s education level, and involve large sample
sizes. As research studies catch up with the recent advances in technology,
the impact of new technologies on child development will become clearer.
However, depending on the rate of technological change over the coming
decade, research findings may continue to lag behind the latest screen uses
for a number of years to come. The factors that influence the impact of screen
use on child development, and the quality of the evidence base investigating
these factors, should all be considered by parents, educators, researchers, and
policy makers before drawing conclusions regarding the impact of screen use
on development in early childhood.
References
Anderson, C. A., and Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior,
Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-
Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353–359.
Anderson, D. R., and Pempek, T. A. (2005). Television and very young children. American Behavioral
Scientist, 48(5), 505-522.
Anderson, S. E., Economos, C. D., and Must, A. (2008). Active play and screen time in US children
aged 4 to 11 years in relation to sociodemographic and weight status characteristics: a nationally
representative cross-sectional analysis. BioMed Central Public Health, 8(1), 366.
Australian Government: Department of Health and Ageing (2011). Get Up and Grow: Healthy Eating
and Physical Activity for Early Childhood. Australia: Family Book.
Barr, R. (2013). Memory constraints on infant learning from picture books, television, and touchscreens.
Child Development Perspectives, 7(4), 205-210.
Barr, R., Lauricella, A., Zack, E., and Calvert, S. L. (2010). Infant and early childhood exposure to adult-
directed and child-directed television programming: Relations with cognitive skills at age four. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 56(1), 21-48.
Beatty, C. and Egan, S. M. (2018). Screen-Time and Vocabulary Development: Evidence from the
Growing Up in Ireland Study. ChildLinks - Children and the Digital Environment, (3). Dublin: Barnardos
Ireland.
Beatty, C. and Egan, S.M. (2020). Screen-Time and Non-Verbal Reasoning in Early Childhood: Evidence
from the Growing Up in Ireland Study. Children’s Research Digest, 6(1), 32-39
Bedford, R., Saez de Urabain, I. R., Cheung, C. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., and Smith, T. J. (2017). Toddlers’
Fine Motor Milestone Achievement Is Associated with Early Touchscreen Scrolling. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 1108.

29
Bell, V., Bishop, D. V. M., and Przybylski, A. K. (2015). The debate over digital technology and young
people. British Medical Journal, 351, Article h3064. doi:10.1136/bmj.h3064
Blum-Ross, A. and S. Livingstone (2016) Families and screen time: Current advice and emerging
research. Media Policy Brief 17. London: Media Policy Project, London School of Economics and
Political Science.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brown, A. (2011). Council on Communications and Media. Media use by children younger than 2 years.
Pediatrics, 128(5), 1040-1045.
Bruner J. (1996) The Culture of Education. USA: Harvard
Buckingham, D., and Willett, R. (2013). Digital generations: Children, young people, and the new
media. London: Routledge.
Christakis, D. A. (2014). Interactive media use at younger than the age of 2 years: time to rethink the
American Academy of Pediatrics guideline? JAMA pediatrics, 168(5), 399-400.
Christakis, D. A., Zimmerman, F. J., DiGiuseppe, D. L., + McCarty, C. A. (2004). Early television exposure
+ subsequent attentional problems in children. Pediatrics, 113(4), 708-713.
CyberSafe Ireland (2019). Advice for parents on managing screen time as a family. Accessed 12
December 2019 at https://cybersafeireland.org/topics/healthy-use-of-tech/healthy-use-of-technology/
managing-screen-time-as-a-family/
Department of Children and Youth Affairs. (2014). Better outcomes, brighter futures: The national
policy framework for children and young people 2014–2020. Dublin: The Stationary Office.
Duch, H., Fisher, E. M., Ensari, I., and Harrington, A. (2013). Screen time use in children under 3
years old: a systematic review of correlates. International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical
activity, 10(1), 102.
Durkin, K., and Barber, B. (2002). Not so doomed: Computer game play and positive adolescent
development. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 23(4), 373-392.
Early Childhood Ireland (2016). Children’s Use of Technology. Early Childhood Ireland Annual Report.
Accessed 12 December 2019 at https://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/
AnnualReport2015.pdf
Egan, S. M., and Murray, A. (2014). Does time spent watching television in early childhood affect socio-
emotional development? Growing Up in Ireland Annual Conference. Dublin, Ireland. Accessed 12
December 2019 at https://dspace.mic.ul.ie/handle/10395/2543
Elson, M., and Ferguson, C. J. (2014). Twenty-five years of research on violence in digital games and
aggression. European Psychologist, 19, 33-46.
Foster, E. M., and Watkins, S. (2010). The value of reanalysis: TV viewing and attention problems. Child
Development, 81(1), 368-375.
Gortmaker, S. L., Must, A., Sobol, A. M., Peterson, K., Colditz, G. A., and Dietz, W. H. (1996). Television
viewing as a cause of increasing obesity among children in the United States, 1986-1990. Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 150(4), 356 362.
Gioia, D. A., and Brass, D. J. (1986). Teaching the TV generation: The case for observational
learning. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 10(2), 11-18.
Health Service Executive. (2018). Screen time and Young Children. Accessed 12 December 2019 at
https://www2.hse.ie/wellbeing/child-health/screen-time-and-young-children.html
Hinkley, T., Brown, H., Carson, V., and Teychenne, M. (2018). Cross sectional associations of screen time
and outdoor play with social skills in preschool children. PloS one, 13(4), e0193700.
Ipsos MRBI (2017). Face-to-face survey of 971 parents of children aged 6 months to 12 years on the
island of Ireland. Accessed 12 December 2019 at https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/
press-pause-on-screen-time-and- help-start-children-on-the-way-to-a-healthier-life.html
Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., and Bonner,
R. L. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics, 136(6), 1044-
1050.
Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., Cooper, N. R., and Simpson, A. (2017). The relationship between television
exposure and children’s cognition and behaviour: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 44,
19-58.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
30
Lamb, M. E., and Lerner, R. M. (2015). Handbook of child psychology and developmental science:
Socioemotional processes, Vol. 3. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., and Rideout, V. J. (2015). Young children’s screen time: The complex role
of parent and child factors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 36, 11-17.
Lerner, R. M., Liben, L. S., and Mueller, U. (2015). Handbook of child psychology and developmental
science, cognitive processes, Vol. 2. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Linebarger, D. L., and Walker, D. (2005). Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and language
outcomes. American behavioral scientist, 48(5), 624-645.
Lingineni, R. K., Biswas, S., Ahmad, N., Jackson, B. E., Bae, S., and Singh, K. P. (2012). Factors associated
with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder among US children: results from a national survey. BMC
pediatrics, 12(1), 50.
Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J.C., Lahmar, J., Scott, F., … and Thornhill, S. (2015).
Exploring Play and Creativity in Pre-Schoolers’ Use of Apps: Final Project Report. Technology and Play.
Accessed 12 December 2019 athttp://www.techandplay.org/Reports/TAP_Final_Report.pdf.
McClure, E. R., Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., Barr, R. F., Holochwost, S. J., and Parrott, W. G. (2015).
“Facetime doesn’t count”: Video chat as an exception to media restrictions for infants and toddlers.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 6, 1-6.
Murray, A., McNamara, E., Williams, J. and Smyth, E. (2019). Growing Up in Ireland: The Lives of Five-
Year Olds. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
Neumann, M. M. (2018). Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young
children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 239-246.
Obel, C., Henriksen, T. B., and Dalsgaard, S. (2004). Does children’s watching of television cause
attention problems? Retesting the hypothesis in a Danish cohort. Pediatrics, 114(5), 1372-1374.
Ofcom. (2013). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. London: Office of Communications.
Ofcom. (2018). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. London: Office of Communications.
Özmert, E., Toyran, M., and Yurdakök, K. (2002). Behavioral correlates of television viewing in primary
school children evaluated by the child behaviour checklist. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent
medicine, 156(9), 910-914.
Peck, T., Scharf, R. J., Conaway, M. R., and DeBoer, M. D. (2015). Viewing as little as 1hour of TV daily is
associated with higher change in BMI between kindergarten and first grade. Obesity, 23(8), 1680-1686.
Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., and Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up? Young children learning with
technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38, 303–319.
Quisenberry, N. I. and Klasek, C. B. (1977). Can watching tv be good for children? Audio-visual
Instruction, 22(3), 56-57.
Richert, R. A., Robb, M. B., Fender, J. G., and Wartella, E. (2010). Parent teaching focus and toddlers’
learning from an infant DVD. Infant and child development, 19(6), 613-627.
Rideout, V. J. (2011). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense
Media.
Rideout, V. J. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense
Media.
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. (2019). The health impacts of screen time: a guide for
clinicians and parents. Edinburgh: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Savina, E., Mills, J. L., Atwood, K., and Cha, J. (2017). Digital Media and Youth: a Primer for School
Psychologists. Contemporary School Psychology, 21, 80-91.
Sharif, I., and Sargent, J. D. (2006). Association between television, movie, and video game exposure
and school performance. Pediatrics, 118(4), 1061-1070.
Spence, I., and Feng, J. (2010). Video games and spatial cognition. Review of General Psychology,
14(2), 92-104.
Strasburger, V. C., Hogan, M. J., Mulligan, D. A., Ameenuddin, N., Christakis, D. A., Cross, C. and
Moreno, M. A. (2013). Children, adolescents, and the media. Pediatrics, 132(5), 958-961.
Sweetser, P., Johnson, D. M., Ozdowska, A., and Wyeth, P. (2012). Active versus passive screen time for
young children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(4), 94-98.

31
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Zimmerman, F. J., Christakis, D. A., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). Associations between media viewing and
language development in children under age 2 years. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151(4), 364-368.

Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
33
Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and
Care settings
Máire Corbett, Thomas Grey, Teresa Heeney, Lisha O’ Sullivan, &
Emer Ring
Abstract
In 2017, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA)
asked the Centre of Excellence for Universal Design (CEUD),
at the National Disability Authority (NDA), to co-ordinate the
development of Universal Design (UD) Guidelines for Early
Learning and Care Settings. A consortium led by Early Childhood
Ireland, and including TrinityHaus, Trinity College Dublin, Mary
Immaculate College, Limerick, and Nathan Somers Design, was
formed to develop the guidelines in collaboration with DCYA/
NDA. These UD Guidelines form part of the suite of supports
provided under the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM). The
Guidelines were launched in June 2019. This paper outlines the
process by which the Guidelines were developed, including the
consultation element undertaken, and summarises the content of
the Guidelines.
Background and Context
The launch of the ‘Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and Guidelines for
Early Childhood Care and Education’ by the Department of Children and Youth
Affairs (DCYA, 2016), saw a major step forward for inclusive early learning and
care in Ireland. According to the DCYA, the aim of the charter and guidelines is
“…to support and empower those working in the sector to explore, understand
and develop inclusive practices for the benefit of children, their families and
wider society” and to promote “…the values of diversity, equality and inclusion
for all children attending early childhood services”. The Access and Inclusion
Model (AIM) is a model of supports, introduced by the Department of Children
and Youth Affairs in 2016, to ensure that children with disabilities can access the
Universal Preschool provision known as the Early Childhood Care and Education

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
34
(ECCE) scheme. Its goal is to empower practitioners to deliver inclusive early-
years’ experiences, ensuring every eligible child can meaningfully participate in
the ECCE scheme and reap the benefits of quality early learning and care. It is a
child-centred model, with seven levels of progressive support, moving from the
universal to the targeted, based on the needs of the child and the pre-school
setting (see figure 1). For many children, the universal supports offered under
the model are sufficient. For others, more targeted support may be needed.
The model is designed to be responsive to the needs of each individual child
in the context of their pre-school setting. It offers tailored, practical supports
based on need and does not require a formal diagnosis of disability (DCYA,
2020).
Figure 1. A Model to Support Access to the ECCE scheme for children with
a disability (AIM 2020)
The Universal Design Guidelines were developed in support of Level 1 (An
inclusive Culture) and Level 5 (Equipment, Appliances and Minor Alterations
grant) as in Figure 1 (above). The purpose of the publication is to support the
Early Learning and Care (ELC) sector in creating universally designed spaces for
all stakeholders (including children, staff, and parents). It will also be useful for
built environment design professionals in private and public sectors working
on retrofitting existing settings as well as to the development of larger scale
projects.

Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
35
Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
Universal Design (UD) is defined as: the design and composition
of an environment so that it can be accessed, understood and
used to the greatest extent possible by all people, regardless of
their age, size, ability or disability. This includes public places in
the built environment such as buildings, streets or spaces that the
public have access to, products and services provided in those
places, and systems that are available including Information
Communications Technology (ICT). (Centre of excellence in
Universal Design/National Disability Authority 2018)
The Universal Design Guidelines were devised following a comprehensive
national and international literature review, the compiling of ten case studies of
ELC settings across the country, the development of a self-audit tool and two
workshops involving early childhood experts and other relevant stakeholders
such as built environment professionals (i.e. architects, landscape architects,
planners, engineers) and officials from Government Departments and local
authorities, among others. The overall objectives were to develop Universal
Design Guidelines and a self-audit tool for ELC settings to:
• Support the sector in creating inclusive ELC settings for all stakeholders,
particularly children with a disability;
• Enable better designs of newly-built ELC settings and give clear and
detailed information on the retro-fit of existing early years settings,
buildings and spaces; and
• Enable ELC practitioners to carry out self-audits of their settings, so
they can identify steps to be taken to ensure all stakeholders can
participate.
These guidelines and self-audit tool can be used by all Tusla-registered ELC
settings and home-based childminders (whether registered with Tusla or not)
in Ireland. Many ELC settings also provide services for school-aged children
and while there is reference to this specific age range, the main guidance
relates to settings for children under six years. The CEUD/NDA have previously
developed a guide for Universal Design Homes in Ireland and these also inform
the ELC guidelines. It should be noted that the Universal Design Guidelines are
not statutory requirements. The material in the Guidelines is mediated at five
levels of cost, ranging from minor alterations such as signage, painting, artwork
or planting to larger scale projects, involving assistive technology, right up to a

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
36
major retro fitting project or green field site new build.
Scoping the SUD Guidelines
An initial scoping exercise was undertaken to identify what aspects of the built
environment were relevant to the brief given. It was decided to use relevant
Síolta standards to inform the structure of the UD Guidelines. Síolta, the National
Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education, is underpinned by twelve
principles and sixteen standards which define quality practice. The breadth of
the Síolta principles and standards is very wide and for the purposes of the
development of the Universal Design Guidelines approach, it was agreed to
focus on seven standards, namely:
• Standard One: Rights of the Child
• Standard Two: Environments
• Standard Three: Parents and Families
• Standard Five: Interactions
• Standard Six: Play
• Standard Eleven: Professional Practice
• Standard Sixteen: Community Involvement.
Síolta acknowledges that the quality standards are inextricably linked, and the
framework is designed to encourage cross-referencing between individual
standards (CECDE, 2006). Consequently, while all standards are not explicitly
addressed, a review of Key Pedagogical and Care Issues for Early Years Settings
to inform the development of the UD Guidelines is aligned with the definition
of quality presented across all standards. The seven selected Standards reflect
the European Key Principles of a Quality Framework (2014). The European
Framework says: In all Member States the following transversal issues are
fundamental to the development and maintenance of high quality ECEC and
underpin each statement in this proposal: a clear image and voice of the child
and childhood should be valued, parents are the most important partners and
their participation is essential a shared understanding of quality.
The key elements in the European Framework that link to the Universal Design
Guidelines for ELC settings are:
• Provision that encourages participation, strengthens social inclusion
and embraces diversity.

Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
37
• Supportive working conditions including professional leadership which
creates opportunities for observation, reflection, planning, teamwork
and cooperation with parents.
• A curriculum based on pedagogic goals, values and approaches which
enable children to reach their full potential in a holistic way.
Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework (NCCA, 2009), similarly, has
twelve underpinning principles, presented in three groups. Of key relevance
to the development of the UD guidelines are the Principles of the child’s
uniqueness, equality and diversity, and children as citizens. These principles
intersect with Síolta and the European Principles in the areas of Environments,
Play, Equality and Diversity, and Parents Family and Community. The Aistear
Síolta Practice Guide (NCCA, 2015) links the Principles of Síolta and Aistear in the
Curriculum Foundations section (www.aistearsiolta.ie) to support practitioners to
use Aistear and Síolta together. First 5, The Whole of Government Strategy for
Babies, Young Children and Families (2018), further strengthens the recognition
that the quality of the ELC environment has a key influence on the overall quality
experience of the young children and families who use the setting.
Case Study Process
A key part of the development of the Guidelines was the case study visits. These
case studies provided data, which, along with the Literature Review, formed the
basis for the guidelines, ensuring their relevance for the ELC sector. The team
of Early Childhood Specialists in Early Childhood Ireland identified settings
with whom they had worked, on a variety of quality initiatives such as the Síolta
Quality Assurance Programme, Aistear in Action or the National Aistear Síolta
initiative. A typology was developed to aid selection, with the following criteria:
• Geographical location
• Setting type (Sessional/ Full Day Care/ Part-time)
• Local context (rural/ urban/ suburban)
• Setting size (fewer than 20 children, 20-60 children, over 60 children)
• Building type (purpose-built, converted, single storey, multi storey)
• Facilities for outdoor play.
• Other: for example, settings that are part of a chain/ workplace settings/
Naíonraí/ based in Primary School/ settings in modular buildings.
• The selection, to ensure balanced representation (e.g. of rural and

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
38
urban settings) was also informed by data from the Pobal Early Years
Sector Profile (2016/2017)
Following this process, the ten settings were identified. They were based all
over Ireland, represented sessional and full-day-care settings, community and
privately owned/operated, purpose built and converted, and also single/multi
storey. The settings numbers ranged in size from 14 children to 105 children. All
had outdoor areas.
Ethical Considerations
Each of the selected settings was invited to participate. Prior to agreeing to
be involved, a comprehensive selection of pre-visit materials was developed
to ensure informed consent (Mac Naughton et al., 2004:65) on the part of
all participants. The materials included briefing leaflets for the children, the
owners/managers, the practitioners in the settings, and the parents. These
briefing materials outline, in an accessible manner, the purpose of the visits and
what the researchers would be doing on each visit. Having read the materials,
and had the opportunity to ask questions, a range of consents were required to
be signed. These included consents for the visits to take place, for stakeholders
to complete a survey, to be interviewed, to be photographed, and for children
themselves to take photographs. On the visits, children’s assent was also sought.
This was to ensure that everyone taking part was fully briefed and happy with
the level of involvement to which they chose to commit. All requirements of
the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) were complied with, including
retention periods for the survey and interview material and the use of images.
The Process
Thomas Grey, Research Fellow from TrinityHaus, and Máire Corbett, Early
Childhood Specialist from Early Childhood Ireland, conducted the Case Study
visits in May/June 2018. Prior to each visit, surveys were sent to each setting for
a representative sample of practitioners and parents to complete. On each visit
the built environment was observed. Children, staff, and parents were spoken
with and interviews were carried out with a number of parents and practitioners.
Children were invited to take photos of the part of the environment that they
liked best. Following the visits, the surveys and interviews were analysed and
the findings used to inform the guidelines. The research examined the built
environment of the ELC setting across the following spatial scales:
• The approach and entrance to the setting (including key site design
features)

Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
39
• Internal built environment including horizontal and vertical circulation,
key internal spaces, and elements and systems (i.e. materials and
finishes, fit-out elements, internal environment, and technology, etc.)
• External play areas.
Key Case Study Findings:
While all ten settings were compliant with the 2016 Early Years Regulations,
all settings said that they would like more space, especially indoors: space for
children, staff, parents, and storage. In two settings parent rooms were no longer
being used for that purpose, due to pressure on space. In some cases, narrow
front doors made entering/exiting difficult for wider buggies or wheelchairs. All
settings had an outdoor area, but in some of the urban settings, it was quite
small and had few natural features. In some of the settings, the children had
little or no opportunity to be challenged physically, and to explore risk. This was
highlighted by parents as well as practitioners.
Signage (or the lack of) was commented on by some parents. This was especially
so in full-day-care settings and applied to grandparents or other people
collecting children, when it was not clear where the room they were looking for
was, or what a name meant. For example, a room called Bunnies does not make
it clear to what group of children it may relate.
Shelter and access were problematic in some cases. Some people found parking
limited and the challenges of making it through a doorway, with perhaps a baby
in a car seat, a toddler by the hand, and a few bags were also expressed. These
challenges were exacerbated if there was no shelter at the door.
Literature Review
The literature review was conducted by Mary Immaculate College and Trinity
Haus in tandem with the case study visits, and examined evidence-based
research regarding best practice in early childhood education and care and
Universal Design. It synthesised the findings and provided key recommendations
to underpin the guidelines and self-audit tool. The literature review focused on
two key areas related to a UD approach for ELC settings, which include firstly,
the key pedagogical and care issues for settings that inform the overall UD
approach, and secondly, the key built environment issues that underpin a UD
environment which is accessible, usable, and easily understood by children,
staff, and family members.
For both focus areas, the following methodology was adopted:

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
40
• A two-strand approach to the literature review that included an
empirical strand and an expert strand.
• Literature search criteria based on key search terms and exclusion
criteria.
• A synthesis of the literature organised as categories in two different
chapters: focusing on the key pedagogical and care issues and on
the key built environment issues. In the first case, these categories
are based on the Síolta standards, while in the second the key built
environment issues are categorised according to key spatial scales.
Consultation throughout the Development of the Guidelines
A number of advisory group meetings were held at key points in the process.
These meetings were attended by a multi-disciplinary group from the fields
of architecture, planning, and early childhood education and care, Early Years
Inspectors, Government Departments as well as parents. Two stakeholder
workshops were also held; one in Cork, with a group of ELC practitioners, to
give feedback on the Self-Audit tool, and one in Dublin, with a large group of
people, ranging from representatives from Local Authorities, Disability Groups,
Occupational Therapists, Architects, and the Early Childhood Education and
Care sector.
Design and spatial requirements framed by key Síolta standards
As mentioned earlier, the UD Guidelines are framed under relevant Síolta
standards, illustrated below.
Figure 2. Síolta Standards Guiding the Literature Review (Universal Design
Guidelines for Early Learning and Care Settings)

Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
41
Using these Síolta Standards, the literature review was conducted to investigate
and draw out the main implications for the ELC built environment. The following
sections present some of the main design considerations for each standard.
These considerations are discussed in line with each selected standard, but it
is acknowledged that there may be an overlap between many of these spaces.
The extent to which settings can provide for these aspects will depend on the
existing environment but with increased awareness, some changes may be
possible.
Standard 1: Rights of the Child
Children’s rights as citizens are enabled by ensuring settings are well connected
to the community so children are socially, culturally, and artistically engaged in
a meaningful way, have spaces, materials, and displays that are relevant to and
based on the child’s interests, and that all children’s voices are represented and
can be freely expressed through a range of media.
Standard 3: The Child and Parents and Families
Settings should be welcoming spaces for parents/families by providing
accessible, comfortable spaces where families can communicate and build
relationships. These should reflect the diversity of parents/families. Make
curriculum visible through the organisation of space and materials. Ideally,
the space can accommodate families including extended families for specific
occasions.
Standard 5: The Child and Interactions
Create spaces and position resources to maximise children’s exploration, talking,
listening, and engagement in play and learning. Provide quiet spaces (indoor
and outdoor) where adults can connect with children, children can connect with
each other, or simply be on their own. Place key learning provocations in central
spaces, at child level, so children can access and interact with materials and each
other, supporting inquiry-based learning. Modify or remove any environmental
stimuli that contribute to children’s anxiety (for example, some children are
sensitive to particular sounds, smells, or bright lights).
Standard 6: The Child and Play
Ensure there is adequate indoor and outdoor space for children to play. These
spaces must be accessible, usable, easily understood and create a seamless
transition between indoor and outdoor areas. Consider covered outdoor areas

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
42
that allow children play or just be outside during inclement weather. These
spaces also facilitate children, family members or staff with physical, sensory or
cognitive needs, who might need additional shelter outdoors. Provide a range of
spaces and materials to stimulate children’s interests, promote communication,
and encourage problem-solving and critical thinking along with materials that
support children’s identity and belonging. Ensure resources support physical,
object, symbolic, pretend play and games with rules both indoors and outdoors.
Provide an environment that supports children to easily transition between
activities. Consider the benefits of children engaging with the natural world
with sensory garden space. Construct spaces for exploring and investigating;
mystery and enchantment; imagination; movement and stillness; interacting
socially; moving freely and risk-taking within a safe context.
Standard 11: The Child and Professional Practice
Provide spaces that support the role of adult-child interactions in supporting
children’s learning and development. Encourage a culture of reflection by
allocating space for practitioners to discuss and reflect. Provide a flexible
environment in terms of space and materials that acknowledges the role of the
practitioner as environmental planner and evaluator.
Standard 16: The Child and Community Involvement
Settings should be well connected and integrated with the community. Promote
the visibility of the setting in the community through carefully designed
boundaries, transition spaces, and prominent signage. Shared spaces that
integrate with the locality, along with displays and materials that capture local
diversity enhance the visibility of the setting. Make children’s expression visible
through, for example, displays of children’s artwork at local community spaces.
Outline of the Guidelines
The following sections feature in the Guidelines and promote a welcoming,
inclusive environment that is accessible, understandable, and easy to use. The
built environment must be accessible, usable, and easily understood across the
full spectrum of spaces to ensure a continuous ‘travel chain’ for users of all ages,
sizes, abilities, and disabilities. The setting should be considered holistically
when taking account of the identified Síolta Standards and the need for positive
connection with the community. Most importantly, however the ELC setting is a
dedicated child-centred environment and this should be reflected in the setting.
While this will differ from one context to another, the setting must facilitate the

Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
43
primary needs of children including play; exploring, enchantment; imagination;
movement, stillness; interacting socially; moving freely and risk-taking within a
safe context.
Site Location, Approach, Entry, and Design:
The environment that surrounds the setting is critical to the UD approach. This
is important in terms of accessibility, usability, and ease of understanding, but
it also helps to create welcoming, inclusive settings that are well connected
and ensure children are socially, culturally, and artistically engaged with the
community. It influences how well settings are integrated and visible with the
community, and how well they enable and enhance community involvement. A
typical setting has diverse users of different ages, sizes, and abilities. These may
be arriving on foot, using a wheelchair, with buggies, on bicycles, or by private
car. The setting must provide appropriate pedestrian access and cycling facilities,
as well as parking and set-down points that are accessible, understandable, and
easy to use for all users. The site layout establishes the overall design quality
by determining the onsite location and spatial configuration of external and
internal spaces. The site layout underpins the quality of the various spaces as
identified in Síolta, including the dedicated child spaces, spaces for families and
staff to interact, or staff specific spaces.
Entering and Moving Around the Setting:
Enabling a diverse set of users to comfortably enter and easily circulate within
a setting is a basic requirement. This involves accessible horizontal (corridors
and hallways) and vertical (stairs and lifts) circulation routes for people of all
ages, sizes, and abilities. A setting must perform well as a welcoming, spacious
environment that is comfortable during peak drop-off or pick-up times, while
accommodating parents, grandparents, child-minders, younger siblings,
buggies, baby-bags, and the various accoutrements that are part of family life.
Key Internal and External Spaces:
The Síolta Standards identify the range and type of spaces required with a
successful setting. These include:
• Child-centred spaces to support play, movement, interaction and
dialogue with peers and adults, investigation, challenge, and variety of
group and individual experiences. The spaces should provide a range
of learning provocations and mirror home-like conditions that enable
socialisation, such as shared mealtimes.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
44
• Outdoor spaces that provide the conditions listed above, and provide
a connection with nature. There should be good connectivity between
indoor and outdoor spaces. Covered or sheltered outdoor spaces
provide both a transition space and shelter during inclement weather,
or for individuals who may require additional protection from the
elements.
Spaces for families or carers to interact with each other and with
staff.
Elements and Systems:
The fittings, fixtures, finishes, and furnishings that are in the spaces outlined
above should mirror the principles of a democratic pedagogy, and reflect the
identified interests and voice of the child, along with the diversity of the families
and wider community. Assistive technology can remove barriers within the setting.
Technology can also play an important role regarding sensory stimulation and
learning support. The internal environment is largely determined by natural and
artificial lighting conditions, thermal comfort and indoor air quality, and acoustic
conditions. The fittings, fixtures, finishes, and furnishings referred to above
impact on the quality of these environmental conditions and must be carefully
considered in a UD ELC setting. People will experience these conditions very
differently depending on their age, ability or disability, physical activity levels,
or health condition. Therefore, careful specification of building components is
required to ensure the setting is accessible, understandable and easily used by
a diverse set of users.
The Self-Audit Tool:
The purpose of the Self-Audit tool is to enable practitioners, architects, and
others to assess the ELC setting to evaluate how UD principles are being used
and plan for improvements. There are key aspects listed and those completing
it can leave out criteria not relevant to their setting (for example sleep spaces in
a sessional setting). The order of criteria in the self-audit tool mirrors that of the
Guidelines. It encourages reflection and promotes planning to ensure the ELC
environment is easy to access, use, and understand.

Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
45
Figure 3. Example from UD Self-audit tool
Conclusion
The Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and Guidelines for Early Childhood
Care and Education (DCYA, 2016) calls for settings to challenge and promote
the individual child’s abilities and development. In the discussion of the
Síolta Standards, the importance of diverse spaces, interactions and learning
provocations was highlighted. These issues challenge the built environment
to provide an appropriate level of challenge or difficulty for one set of needs
or abilities (e.g. a three- year-old who needs to climb and jump), while also
ensuring an inclusive approach for all children (a child who uses a wheelchair).
The UD approach offers an integrated understanding of design that includes
a UD philosophy, the UD principles, a UD process, and the concept of
personalisation. This UD philosophy proposes that people should be enabled

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
46
to participate in a society that takes account of human difference and should
be able to interact with their environment to the best of their ability. The UD
process promotes participatory and collaborative design that not only works
with users to understand and incorporate their needs and preferences, but also
involves them in the design process in a meaningful manner.
Through understanding user needs, and acknowledging the diversity of building
occupants that UD must cater for, a personalised approach can be facilitated
to support inclusive child development and the challenge and learning
provocations discussed above, as well as the specific needs of staff and family
members, and other visitors. Using the UD ELC Guidelines will enable settings
to progressively ensure that all ELC settings are easy to access, understand,
and use, as the UD philosophy outlines and will mean that an inclusive culture
(AIM level 1) permeates all ELC settings. The entire suite of Universal Design
Guidelines for Early Learning and Care Settings can be found at https://aim.
gov.ie/universal-design-guidelines-for-elc-settings/ and this consists of the
Literature Review, the Self-Audit Tool and the Guidelines.

Universal Design Guidelines for Early Learning and Care settings
47
References
Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE) (2006) Síolta, The national quality
framework for early childhood education, Dublin: CECDE, available: http://siolta.ie/media/pdfs/siolta-
manual-2017.pdf [accessed 12/12/19].
Centre of Excellence in Universal Design/ National Disability Authority (2018). About Us [Online].
Available: http://universaldesign.ie/About-Us/ [Accessed 12/12/19]
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2016) Access and Inclusion Model www.aim.gov.ie
[Accessed 12/12/19]
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2016) Childcare Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations
https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/pdf [Accessed 12/12/19]
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA) (2016) Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter
and Guidelines for Early Childhood Care and Education, Dublin: Department of Children and Youth
Affairs, available: http://www.preschoolaccess.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Diversity-Equality-and-
Inclusion-Charter-and-Guidelines-for-Early-Childhood-Care-Education.pdf [accessed 12/12/19].
Mac Naughton, G; Rolfe, S; Siraj-Blatchford, I (2001) 2004 edition Doing Early Childhood Research,
International Perspectives on Theory and Practice. Berkshire, Open University Press
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2009) Aistear: The early childhood curriculum
framework, Dublin: The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2015) Aistear Síolta Practice Guide, Dublin:
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, available at: www.aistearsiolta.ie
Tusla (2018) Quality and Regulatory Framework Full Day Care Service and Part Time day Care Services,
Dublin, Early Years Inspectorate, Tusla.
Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care under the auspices of the European
Commission (2014) Proposal for Key Principles of a Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education
and Care, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/policy/strategic-framework/archive/
documents/ecec-quality-framework_en.pdf

49
Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of
International and National Baby Book Gifting
Schemes
Suzanne M. Egan, Clara Hoyne, Mary Moloney, Deirdre
Breatnach, & Jennifer Pope
Abstract
Reading books with infants has many positive associations with
child development. However, the age at which parents begin
reading with their infants, and the frequency that they read
with them, is affected by many factors. This paper considers
some of those factors and examines the role baby book gifting
programmes may play in supporting early shared reading
practices in families. Drawing on evidence from international and
local schemes in Ireland, it provides insights into the benefits and
challenges of running a book gifting programme. The factors that
support or hinder the success of any such initiative may therefore
be useful to policy makers, local organisations, and communities
in establishing, implementing, and monitoring such a scheme.
Introduction
National and international research indicates that reading books with young
children has many positive associations with multiple aspects of cognitive and
socio-emotional development (see Hoyne & Egan, 2019, for a review). Moreover,
when parents read with their young child, there are positive outcomes for
language growth and reading achievement (Bus, van Ijzendoorn & Pellegrini,
1995), and children who are read to at an early age score higher on language
measures (Fletcher & Reese, 2005). Reading picture books to young children is
believed to support language and literacy skills and vocabulary development
in early childhood (Fletcher & Reese, 2005; Morgan & Meier, 2008), with the
vocabulary of 3- year- old children associated with the frequency of shared book

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
50
reading at home (Blewitt, Rump, Shealy & Cook, 2009).
In addition to supporting the development of language skills, reading with
young children supports other aspects of development, including cognitive
development (Kuo, Franke, Regalado, & Halfon, 2004), as well as long term
benefits that aid the transition to school, with benefits continuing through to
at least the age of 10 -11 (Kalb & van Ours, 2014). Early reading to infants has
potential not only for future cognitive development, but also for aspects of
current cognitive development, such as problem solving in an infant’s first year
(Murray & Egan, 2014), with regular reading supporting the development of
strong social and emotional skills in early childhood (Baker, 2013).
Furthermore, because reading is an interactive activity, it promotes overall socio-
emotional development (Kuo, Franke, Regalado & Halfon, 2004), including peer
relationships and self-esteem (Duursma, Augustyn & Zuckerman, 2008). While
Ninio & Bruner (1978) suggest that joint book reading by parent and child also
mimics the turn-taking structure of conversation, Dickinson, Griffith, Golinkoff,
and Hirsh-Pasek, (2012) indicate that shared reading in early childhood can
establish positive interaction patterns that foster language and emotional
bonds between child and adult.
Although reading with infants and young children results in improved early
reading success and long-term, positive effects across many domains of
development (Moore & Wade, 2003; Dickinson et al., 2012), the age at which
parents begin reading with their young child/ren, and the frequency that they
read with them, is affected by many factors. This paper considers some of those
factors and the role baby book gifting schemes may play in supporting early
shared reading practices in families.
Factors Influencing Reading with Infants
Previous research suggests that many factors influence reading practices with
infants and young children. For example, Yarosz and Barnett (2001) found that
frequency of reading to young children varied by ethnicity, the language spoken
at home, the child’s age, the number of siblings, and the mother’s educational
attainment. They also found that as a family increased in size there were
comparatively large decreases in reading time, and that establishing the habit
of reading in the early years is critical. Debaryshe (1993) indicates that the age at
which reading began at home was the strongest predictor of oral language skills,
whereas Dickinson, et al. (2012), for instance, points to the benefits of reading
regularly to infants from as early as 8 months, suggesting that the greatest

Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International
and National Baby Book Gifting Schemes
51
benefits are a regular reading routine combined with responsive interactions
with caregivers and enriching language.
As well as the age that reading begins being important, frequency and high-
quality reading interactions have been shown to increase language development
(Fletcher & Reese, 2005). A home environment with lots of parental involvement
in reading and literacy activities is recognised for literacy success (Hall, 2001;
Wray & Medwell, 2013), and is an important predictor of a child’s development,
even when parental education and occupation are considered (Sylva, Melhuish,
Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart, 2010). Exposure to books in the home
environment can also lead to increased reading achievement, listening, and
speaking ability (Isbell, Sobol, Lindauer, & Lowrance, 2004). While most studies
that examine reading in early childhood concentrate on mothers, some studies
have looked at fathers reading to their infants (Durrsma, Pan & Raikes, 2008;
Swain, Cara & Mallows, 2017), and research suggests that fathers contribute in a
unique way to their child’s language development (Malin, Cabrera & Rowe, 2014).
For instance, a study by Duursma (2014) that examined paternal and maternal
book reading frequency among 430 low-income families, found that paternal
book reading at child ages 24 and 36 months was a significant predictor of
child language and cognitive skills and book knowledge. Likewise, Baker (2014)
suggests that 3 to 5 year olds whose fathers read and talk to them regularly
behave and concentrate better at nursery, and do better in mathematics.
Parental literacy levels and the home learning environment also influence
reading practices with infants. In Ireland, the Department of Education and
Skills (DES, 2011) stresses the need to foster an enjoyment of reading and a
love of books among children, while also highlighting the critical role played
by parents in fostering children’s interest in books, in supporting their oral
language, literacy and writing skills within the home environment. Likewise, the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2012. p.
24) emphasises the home environment as ‘one of the most powerful influences
on child development’, with Han and Neuharth-Pritchet, (2014) highlighting its
critical impact on children’s early literacy skills.
With regard to the home literacy environment, studies have also focussed
on socioeconomic context (SES), indicating that social backgrounds matter,
particularly in terms of children’s early experiences with language and
literacy (Hart & Risley, 1995; Melhuish, 2010; Tarelli & Stubbe, 2010; Hartas,
2011; Duursma, 2014). In particular, it has been noted that ‘socio‐economic
disadvantage, lack of maternal educational qualifications…remained powerful

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
52
in influencing competencies in children aged three and at the start of primary
school’ (Hartas, 2011). Furthermore, a study by Hemmerechts, Agirdag and
Kavadias (2017) undertaken across ten European regions, noted that parental
involvement in literacy activities was influenced by socio-economic status (SES).
This study found that children from a family with a low SES experience late
involvement in literacy activities more than children from a family with high SES
(Hemmerechts et al., 2017).
A broad range of family literacy initiatives, including book gifting schemes,
have often been targeted in areas of social disadvantage within many countries.
Evaluation of these initiatives suggests that ‘family literacy programmes are
effective both in improving child literacy and in improving parental support
skills’ (Carpentieri, Fairfax-Cholmeley, Litster, & Vorhaus, 2011). It is widely
recognised that children from areas of socio-economic disadvantage often
enter schooling with a distinct language deficit, in comparison to their non-
disadvantaged peers (Mac Donald & Figueredo, 2010; Shiel, Cregan, McGough
& Archer, 2012), with the DES (2011. P.62) noting that children in areas of socio-
economic disadvantage are ‘significantly more likely to experience difficulties in
literacy and numeracy achievement than other children’.
While there are benefits for child development when reading commences in the
first year of life ( Murray & Egan, 2014; Dickinson et al., 2012), reading practices
in the home environment are influenced by many factors, some of which act as
barriers to family reading (Yarosz and Barnett, 2001). One intervention that aims
to encourage reading with infants in the home environment, and that can help
overcome some of these barriers, are infant book gifting schemes.
Infant Book Gifting Schemes
As the name suggests, book gifting programmes involve giving free books
to babies or children and their families. Programmes are often run as part of
family literacy programmes and have been used intermittently over the years
by many organisations and communities around the world. Some well-known
international book gifting programmes include Bookstart (www.booktrust.org.
uk), Reach Out and Read (ROR) (www.reachoutandread.org), and the Dolly
Parton Imagination Library (DPIL) (www.imaginationlibrary.com).
One of the earliest programmes, in the USA, Beginning with Books, distributed
books to children from low income families. This was the inspiration for Wendy
Cooling, founder of Bookstart in the UK. Wendy observed children across all

Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International
and National Baby Book Gifting Schemes
53
backgrounds who were not being read to by busy working parents (Booktrust,
2017); therefore she wanted to implement a universal gifting approach, rather
than just a scheme for low income or low literacy families. Bookstart began
in Birmingham in England in 1992 as a pilot project. It was supported by
Birmingham University School of Education, local libraries and health services,
and the independent charity Booktrust. Hardman & Jones (1999) report that by
the late 1990s, over 30 such initiatives were in place across the UK.
Bookstart has inspired similar schemes internationally including Bookstart in
Japan (2000), Korea (2003) and Thailand (2005), Buchstart in Germany (2007),
and Lesestart (2011). There are also many national and regional book gifting
schemes in operation such as Nati per Leggere, Italy (1999), Read to Me!
Nova Scotia, Canada (2002), Boekbabys in Flanders, Belgium (2005), Bogstart
in Denmark (2009), Boekenpret and BoekStart in the Netherlands (2009), with
Buchstart established in Austria in January 2015. Bookstart is generally delivered
by a health visitor (sometimes, a community nurse or registrar) at age birth -12
months. At the first stage parents may receive 2 board books, a rhyme sheet
and a booklet with tips and guidance for sharing books with their infants. There
are also other associated book gifting programmes for older children.
Reach Out and Read (ROR) in the USA is a health-care and evidence-based book
gifting programme that aims to prevent developmental and learning problems
in early childhood. It began in a clinic in Boston in 1989, and soon doctors in
over 4000 clinics were involved. Wray & Medwell (2013) report that by 2008, all
50 US states were participating, with 3.5 million children benefitting from the
distribution of 5.7 million books. ROR, which aims to include children from low
income communities, is delivered by the paediatrician in one of ten planned
well child visits between the ages of birth to 5 years. By the age of five, the
child should have their own library of 10 books. As well as delivering the book
to the child at each visit, the doctor talks to the parent about reading aloud,
and engaging with the child as they read. The scheme also includes volunteers
in the waiting room, who model reading aloud and book-sharing behaviour
(Canfield et al., 2018). The ROR programme encourages families to read aloud
together through early literacy guidance as doctors “prescribe” reading to
young children and families during visits (Wray & Medwell, 2013).
Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library (DPIL) is an international scheme which
originated in the US, when, in 1996, Dolly Parton initiated the scheme in Sevier
County, Tennessee, her home place. It expanded nationally before becoming
global. Parton’s vision was to foster a love of reading among Tennessee’s

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
54
pre-school children. Each month, from birth to five years old, participating
children receive a high quality and age appropriate book in the post, along
with a book sharing guide for parents. By the time the child enters school, they
have a 60-volume library of their own. A community needs to get behind the
programme as they register the children, promote the programme, and also
seek sponsorship and fundraise to support the programme. The success of the
programme is reflected in its rapid expansion to Canada in 2006, to Rotherham
City Council, and to children in care in Scotland in 2007, and to Australia in
2017. Ireland became the fifth international operator of the Imagination Library
in 2019. To date, there are 1,422,180 children registered, with over 125,030,397
books posted to children around the world (Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library,
2019).
Infant Book Gifting Schemes in Ireland
Currently in Ireland, there is no national baby book gifting scheme. However,
there have been a number of schemes at local or regional levels. For example,
Book4babies has been in operation in Wexford since 2012/3, and is currently
the only book gifting programme available to all new infants in any county in
Ireland. It was set up by teachers, healthcare professionals, and experts in literacy
with support from Bookstart Northern Ireland and the Institute for Community
Health Nursing. Since its inception, more than 10,000 babies, aged 7-9 months,
have benefited from the scheme. Moreover, 2,000 infants approximately receive
a book gift pack annually containing two books, guidance to parents on the
importance of reading and an invitation to join the local library and, information
about local services. Packs are distributed by Public Health Nurses at a baby’s
7–9 month developmental check.
The Preparing For Life (PFL) programme in North Dublin is a community based
home visiting project, offering a wide range of supports to participants from
pregnancy through to the age of 4 or 5 years, when the child begins school.
One aspect of the programme is that each participating family receive a book
pack (seven books and a tip sheet encouraging early reading with advice on
reading strategies and expectations) when their infant is approximately 3
months old. PFL has a total of 210 tip sheets on a range of parenting topics, and
in the first year, families receive 13 tip sheets focused specifically on reading. A
major component of this intervention involves home visits, where each family
is assigned a mentor who visits the family for the duration of the project. The
mentors hold college degrees in education, social care, and youth studies, and
they receive extensive training prior to programme implementation (Preparing

Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International
and National Baby Book Gifting Schemes
55
for Life, 2008: O’Farrelly, Doyle, Victory, & Palamaro-Munsell, 2018).
Other local book gifting schemes commenced in Ireland in early 2019, including
the Dolly Parton Imagination Library for instance, which is currently being piloted
in Dublin 24. In April 2019, Children’s Books Ireland (CBI) established a pilot book
gifting scheme for babies in areas of socio-economic disadvantage in Limerick
City and County. Funded through the JP McManus Benevolent Fund and the
Social Innovation Fund (SIF), the Bookseed scheme will operate for two years,
and involves the distribution of ‘bookseed packs’ to parents free of charge at
their baby’s 3 month check. The packs contain a board book by an Irish author,
parental guidance materials, and information about library services. A second
board book is given at the 7 to 9 month health check, with a third book available
for collection by parents at the local library when their baby is 1 year old. When
selecting the three books, CBI consulted with multiple community stakeholders
including the evaluation team from Mary Immaculate College Limerick, Public
Health Nurses, librarians, and Speech and Language Therapists. Consideration
was given to infant development over the first year of life, as well as the diversity
of language and literacy abilities in the families receiving the packs. The scheme
is supported by the Health Services Executive Public Health Nurses and by local
librarians to encourage parents to read with their babies, and to foster a positive
disposition towards reading in young children.
Evidence Regarding the Impact of Book Gifting Schemes
Many book gifting schemes have undergone evaluations to determine whether
they have an impact on family reading practices and child developmental
outcomes. For example, previous research on ROR, described by the researchers
as a modest literacy intervention, had a significant impact on a child’s home
literacy environment (Weitzman, Roy, Walls & Tomlin, 2004). Some studies have
shown that children who participated in ROR, are more likely to enjoy reading,
own more books and describe reading as a favourite activity. Children receiving
care at ROR clinics have also demonstrated greater language abilities than their
peers who did not participate in the programme (Wray & Medwell, 2013). Other
studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in improving children’s receptive
and expressive language development (Willis, Kabler-Babbitt, & Zuckerman,
2007). Canfield et al., (2018) evaluated an initiative that looked at literacy
recourse in low income families and found significant associations between
families that participated in ROR, using the library and book sharing.
In the UK, longitudinal research tracked the progress of infants in the Bookstart
programme in Birmingham, from when they were 7 months old through to 7

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
56
years old (Moore & Wade, 2003). They found that participants looked at books,
bought books, shared books, and visited the library more often than the control
group. The findings also suggest that children who participated in Bookstart
had improved language and literacy performance by the age of four when they
began school, and that they maintained the benefits in the first three years
of primary school. Other reported findings from research on Bookstart found
children had higher scores in Listening and Speaking (20%) and Reading and
Writing (19%) than non-participants (Moore & Wade, 2003; Wray & Medwell,
2013).
Research on Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library has reported short, medium, and
long term benefits. In the short term, they identify an enhanced home literacy
environment with caregiver reading earlier to infants, increased frequency and
duration of caregiver infant reading sessions, and an increased library of books
in participant’s homes. Due to the increased frequency of reading, DPIL (2018)
report positive attitudes about reading and increased interactions between
parent and child during reading. A recent study on the DPIL scheme found short
term benefits just a year on. In comparison to their baseline reports, parents
reported greater frequencies of shared reading, more involvement with their
children during shared reading, and a greater interest in reading among the
children themselves (Anderson, Atkinson, Swaggerty & O’Brien, 2019).
In the UK, a qualitative study of DPIL, observed that parents and children were
very enthusiastic about receiving the monthly book in the post. Having the books
meant that bedtime was special and story time became part of the daily routine,
and according to some parental reports, encouraged children to draw more.
It was not only the recipient that benefitted, but siblings did too. Hall & Jones
(2016) report that older siblings could encourage the child to read, and the
books were considered of a high quality and often better than the books from
school. They further report that grandparents too, or extended family members,
were likely to get involved in reading and book sharing with the children.
Research in the US found long term benefits of participating in the Imagination
Library, with Samiei, Bush, Sell, and Imig (2016) reporting that a significantly
higher percentage of those consistently participating in the Imagination Library
were considered better ready for kindergarten.
Evidence from the book gifting schemes in Ireland also indicate positive effects
on family reading practices. An evaluation of Books4babies (2017) found
that there were a number of short to medium term outcomes observed. The
evaluation consisted of a survey of parents (n=61), Public Health Nurses (n=13),

Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International
and National Baby Book Gifting Schemes
57
and early years practitioners (n=10) as well as focus groups with parents, PHNs,
and health workers in the Travelling community. Semi-structured interviews with
the steering committee were also undertaken. The evaluation found increased
awareness of beginning shared book reading with infants and involving the
wider family in book sharing. It also found that the programme was a means to
address adult literacy issues in a cost effective manner, and that it had effected
positive change in literacy levels in the county through interagency collaboration.
Parents believed that their infant was more interested in books, and that the
programme increased confidence in book sharing as well as reading a wider
range of books to the infant. For families that had not considered reading with
their child, Books4babies encouraged book sharing and encouraged use of the
library. A wider family impact was noted, with adults and siblings also reading to
the child (MacDonald & Kinlen, 2017). Preliminary findings from the BookSeed
evaluation in Limerick also indicated an initial positive response from parents to
the scheme (Moloney, Egan, Hoyne, Pope & Breatnach, 2020).
A recent evaluation of a book gifting programme used a randomised controlled
trial to assess the effectiveness of a Bookstart+ which gives families in Northern
Ireland a pack of books and reading materials at their two-year-old child’s
statutory health visit. It found evidence of a positive and significant effect
on parents’ attitudes to reading and books. However, although there was an
improvement in means scores of parents in the intervention group in their
attitudes to their child reading, it was not statistically significant. The effects
of the programme suggest that regardless of SES or educational background,
family size or previously receiving a Bookstart pack, parents with lower levels of
education enjoyed and used the packs more than their counterparts with higher
levels of education (O’Hare & Connolly, 2014).
The research evidence regarding book gifting schemes seems largely
positive, with findings across the various schemes suggesting they enhance
the home literacy environment, and support parent-child shared reading
practices (e.g., Moore & Wade, 2003; Wray & Medwell, 2013; Zuckerman, 2009;
Anderson, Atkinson, Swaggerty & O’Brien, 2019) However, not all schemes
have demonstrated a positive impact. For example, an Australian low intensity
literacy promotion programme, aimed at children aged birth - 4 years, found
no benefits to literacy and language in their literacy promotion and Let’s Read
book programme (Goldfeld, Quach, Nicholls, Reilly, Ukoumunne & Wake, 2012).
In the Let’s Read programme, families received four age appropriate books, in
addition to a book list and guidance messages, at 4, 12, and 18 months and at 3.5

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
58
years. However, the programme appeared to have no quantifiable result on the
literacy or language outcomes measured. One potential reason explored for the
lack of impact was that while the participating families were from disadvantaged
geographic areas, none of them were especially disadvantaged. It may be the
case that higher intensity programmes that target more disadvantaged families
specifically have greater success (Goldfeld, et al., 2012). Furthermore, although
no benefits for children and their families were observed, there appeared to
be no harm for the families participating in this book gifting programme either.
It may also be the case that there were benefits to the families, other than
language and literacy that were not measured, and therefore not apparent.
Findings from these various evaluations highlight the importance of a good
research evidence base in understanding what factors are important for book
gifting programmes to have a positive effect on family reading practices.
Developing and Maintaining Infant Book Gifting Schemes
Many different book gifting schemes operate around the world, besides those
briefly described above (i.e., Bookstart, Reach Out and Read, and the Dolly
Parton Imagination Library). While the various schemes share many similarities
such as gifting books, literacy information, and the ages when books are given
out, they vary hugely in a number of factors such as whom they target, who
funds them, who delivers the books, and the overall aim of the programme. For
example, some are stand-alone programmes, sponsored by local authorities
or communities, and aim to foster a love of reading, increase literacy for young
children or provide books to children who may not have access to books in their
home (e.g. Bookstart in the UK). Others are part of health check-ups for children
such as Reach out and Read in the US. Variation also exists across book gifting
programmes in terms of who delivers or distributes the books to the family or
child (e.g. the library, health or medical clinics), how schemes are organised (e.g.
whether it consists of a book pack or voucher system or is hand delivered versus
mail), whether training is ongoing (e.g. ROR) or not (e.g. Let’s Read in Australia),
and the duration of the book gifting programme.
While book gifting schemes have many positive benefits, implementing them
can be challenging (e.g., keeping people involved and interested), and they
can be difficult to maintain. Many local projects have operated sporadically or
ceased operating as critical funding has run out. For example, after 26 years of
operating in Pittsburgh, the pioneering programme Beginning with Books was
forced to cease operations in 2010 due to lack of funding. Similarly, in 2010, the
UK Government announced it was no longer providing a grant to the charity

Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International
and National Baby Book Gifting Schemes
59
Booktrust which operates the Bookstart programme (it has since adapted by
collaborating with multiple agencies to support initiatives). Even if funding is
available for the books themselves, it may be too costly to employ a project
worker to run the project. Balancing giving book gifts to the universal population
versus targeting children in disadvantaged areas is an important consideration,
particularly where funding is an issue.
At a practical and logistic level of operating book gifting schemes, professionals
involved in delivering books can experience certain difficulties. For many
reasons, professionals may not share details of a scheme operating in their
area and so children may miss out. Hall and Jones (2016) found this to be the
case in relation to the DPIL, where some professionals did not share details
of the scheme amongst professionals working with families who could benefit.
An air of pessimism was noted amongst some community workers, who did
not believe that one initiative, such as DPIL, could fix all the literacy problems
that families experienced. Added to this, was the stark difference between the
professionals’ and parents’ views on the book gifting programme. Parents and
families were very eager to receive the books, whereas community workers had
negative feelings towards the programme (Hall & Jones, 2016). Similarly, other
research observed that the focus of many book gifting programmes did not
extend to possible literacy needs and parents’ struggles (Fralick, 2006).
Professionals involved in Bookstart in the UK, which included health visitors and
library staff, were overwhelmingly positive toward the scheme and recognised
the value of giving books to babies and young children. Nursery nurses
observed how the benefits were not just for the children, but extended across
the family. Most families benefitted, and it created a positive attitude to books
and sharing books. However, health visitors reported there were some harder
to reach families, and an awareness that parents whose first language was not
English, may have different needs (Moore & Wade, 2003).
An evaluation of Books4babies in Wexford, Ireland, found that involving Public
Health Nurses was essential to its success (MacDonald & Kinlen, 2017). They
believed that having a number of different funding sources helped strengthen
the programme and its reliance on any one funding body. Critically, because it is
a universal book gifting model, it does not stigmatise families that have greater
literacy needs. The choice of books is also important, especially for anyone with
a literacy issue. Therefore, books must not be too wordy (MacDonald & Kinlen,
2017). Tips and advice on reading also need to be very clear and easy to review,
and information that the library is free and open to all. Again, the Books4babies

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
60
evaluation found many families were not aware of this. In conjunction with
local libraries, MacDonald & Kinlen (2017) suggest that a list of available and
recommended books could be included in the book gift pack. However, the
findings indicated that some parents choose to attend the GP for vaccinations
rather than the developmental check up with the Public Health Nurse, meaning
that many children potentially could miss out on books or guidance at critical
stages (MacDonald & Kinlen, 2017).
A National Book Gifting Scheme for Ireland?
International evidence demonstrates that reading to infants is associated with
many developmental benefits, and that baby book gifting schemes are a good
way to encourage and support parents to read with their infants. However, as
mentioned, there is no national book gifting scheme in Ireland at present. In
2018, the Irish Government launched ‘First 5’, a whole government strategy for
babies, young children, and their families. First 5 sets out proposals to establish
a system of integrated, cross- sectoral, and high-quality supports and services to
help all babies and young children in Ireland to have positive early experiences.
A book gifting programme incorporates many of these key points, by involving
the whole family and supporting development through book sharing. As with
Bookseed Limerick, book gifting can also integrate community supports such as
Public Health Nurses, who gift books and provide useful tips and information on
shared reading, while also introducing families to local services such as libraries
that are free and open to all.
Amongst a range of other proposals to support babies, young children, and
their families, First 5 proposes the piloting and testing of a ‘Book Bag’ initiative
over the lifetime of the strategy, which runs from 2019 to 2028. With a view to
a potential national programme, First 5 states that ‘Evaluation of impact and
cost-benefit analysis will determine if the initiatives are suitable for wider roll-
out’ (Govt. Ireland, 2018, p. 172). Drawing on findings from the existing research
evidence base in Ireland, and internationally, it is proposed that the below
questions should be carefully considered in the development of a national
book gifting scheme for Ireland. These questions focus on programme funding,
design, delivery, and evaluation:
• How will the scheme be funded to ensure sustainability in the longer
term?
• Who will be responsible for delivering the programme?
• Will those involved in delivering the scheme receive additional training

Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International
and National Baby Book Gifting Schemes
61
and support?
• How will this work be integrated into existing workloads?
• Will the scheme involve maternity hospitals, health centres, libraries,
ECEC settings, general practitioners, An Post or a combination of
services?
• How will stakeholders be consulted?
• Who will be responsible for designing the programme?
• What process will be used to select books?
• At what ages will babies and parents receive the books?
• How many books will families receive?
• Will all families with infants participate in the scheme or just those in
areas of low income or low literacy? (i.e., Will the scheme be universal
or targeted?)
• How will the needs of those requiring extra supports with literacy or the
English language be addressed?
• Will books be available for those with English as a second language
(e.g. ‘as Gaeilge’ or in other languages)?
• What information will accompany the books?
• How will the scheme be evaluated?
In addition to giving consideration to the above questions, it may also be
useful for those running a national book gifting scheme to integrate the
scheme with existing supports, practices, and policies available in Ireland.
For example, the Nurture Programme, delivered by the HSE, aims to support
infant health and well-being. Within Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum
Framework (NCCA, 2009), the Aistear-Síolta practice guide is an invaluable
source of support, providing three tip sheets on Enjoying Books with your Baby;
Toddler; and Young Children. The National Adult Literacy Association (www.
nala.ie) also provides advice and support to parents on reading with young
children. Critically, their website differentiates advice and support by age range,
beginning with children aged birth to 2 years, and progressing to ages 3 to 4,
5 – 7, culminating in advice for reading with older children aged 10 – 12 years.
The Equality and Diversity Charter may also be useful when selecting books for
inclusion in any new scheme (e.g., dual-language books (including Braille/non-
Braille) and books in the children’s home language (Department of Children and

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
62
Youth Affairs (DCYA) 2016).
Conclusion
A wealth of evidence supports the developmental benefits of reading with
infants and young children, and of the positive impact of baby book gifting
schemes on family reading practices. Through First 5, the Irish government
plans to introduce an initiative that has the potential to be of great benefit to
Irish families. Existing evidence from international schemes, and local schemes
in Ireland, provide an insight into both the benefits and challenges of running
a book gifting programme. It is evident that the organisation, running, and
maintenance of such a large national scheme requires considerable resources
and planning. Drawing upon the research evidence, the factors that support or
hinder the success of any such initiative as outlined in this paper may therefore
be useful to policy makers, local organisations, and communities in establishing,
implementing, monitoring, and evaluating such a scheme.
References
Anderson, K. L., Atkinson, T. S., Swaggerty, E. A., & O’Brien, K. (2019). Exploring the Short-Term Impacts
of a Community-Based Book Distribution Program. Literacy Research and Instruction, 58(2), 84-104.
Baker, C. E. (2013). Fathers’ and mothers’ home literacy involvement and children’s cognitive and social
emotional development: Implications for family literacy programs. Applied Developmental Science,
17(4), 184-197.
Baker, C.E. (2014). African American fathers’ contributions to children’s preschool reading and math
achievement: Evidence from two-parent families from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth
Cohort. Early Education and Development, 25(1), 19-35.
Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy, S. E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how
questions affect young children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 294-304.
Booktrust (2017) https://www.booktrust.org.uk/news-and-features/features/2017/october/bookstart-
is-the-thing-i-am-most-proud-of-founder-wendy-cooling-on-how-it-all-began-25-years-ago/
Bus, A. G., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in
learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of educational
research, 65(1), 1-21.
Canfield, C. F., Seery, A., Weisleder, A., Workman, C., Cates, C. B., Roby, E., ... & Mendelsohn, A.
(2018). Encouraging parent–child book sharing: Potential additive benefits of literacy promotion in
health care and the community. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50, 221-229.
Carpentieri, J., Fairfax-Cholmeley, K., Litster, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Family literacy in Europe:
Using parental support initiatives to enhance early literacy development. London: NRDC. Institute of
Education, University of London.
Debaryshe, B. D. (1993). Joint picture-book reading correlates of early oral language skill. Journal of
child language, 20(2), 455-46.
DES (2011) Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and for Life: The National Strategy to improve Literacy
and Numeracy among Children and Young People, 2011-2020. Dublin: Government Publications.
Available at: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy Reports/lit_num_strategy_full.pdf
DCYA (2016). Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and Guidelines for Early Childhood Care and

Shared Book Reading with Infants: A Review of International
and National Baby Book Gifting Schemes
63
Education. Available at: https://aim.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Diversity-Equality-and-
Inclusion-Charter-and-Guidelines-for-Early-Childhood-Care-Education.pdf
Dickinson, D. K., Griffith, J. A., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2012). How reading books fosters
language development around the world. Child development research, 2012, 1-15.
Duursma, E. Augustyn, M. & Zuckerman, B. (2008) Reading aloud to children: the evidence. Archives of
Disease in Childhood, 93 (7) 554-557.
Duursma, E. (2014). The effects of fathers’ and mothers’ reading to their children on language outcomes
of children participating in early head start in the United States. Fathering: a Journal of Theory and
Research about Men as Parents, 12,(3), 283-302.
Government of Ireland (2018) First 5, a Whole of Government Strategy, for babies, young children and
their families. Available at: https://assets.gov.ie/31184/62acc54f4bdf4405b74e53a4afb8e71b.pdf
Fletcher, K. L., & Reese, E. (2005). Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual framework.
Developmental review, 25(1), 64-103.
Fralick, C. (2006). Libraries, Early Literacy Outreach, and Book Gift Programming: A Review of the
Literature. http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca
Goldfeld, S., Quach, J., Nicholls, R., Reilly, S., Ukoumunne, O. C., & Wake, M. (2012). Four-year-old
outcomes of a universal infant-toddler shared reading intervention: the Let’s Read trial. Archives of
pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 166(11), 1045-1052.
Hall, C., & Jones, S. (2016). Making sense in the city: Dolly Parton, early reading and educational policy‐
making. Literacy, 50(1), 40-48.
Hall, E. (2001). Babies, books and ‘impact’: Problems and possibilities in the evaluation of a Bookstart
project. Educational Review, 53(1), 57-64.
Han, J., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2014). Parents’ interactions with preschoolers during shared book
reading: Three strategies for promoting quality interactions. Childhood Education, 90(1), 54-60.
Hardman, M., & Jones, L. (1999). Sharing books with babies: Evaluation of an early literacy intervention.
Educational Review 52(3): 221–229.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American
children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Hartas, D. (2011). Families’ social backgrounds matter: socio-economic factors, home learning and
young children’s language, literacy and social outcomes. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6),
893–914.
Hemmerechts, K., Agirdag, O. & Kavadias, D. (2017) The relationship between parental literacy
involvement, socio-economic status and reading literacy, Educational Review, 69:1, 85-101.
Hoyne, C., & Egan, S. M. (2019). Shared Book Reading in Early Childhood: A Review of Influential
Factors and Developmental Benefits. An Leanbh Og: The OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood
Studies, 12 (1), 77-92.
Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. (2004). The effects of storytelling and story reading on
the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early childhood education
journal, 32(3), 157-163.
Kalb, G. & van Ours, J.C. (2014). Reading to young children: A head-start in life? Economics of Education
Review. 40, 1-24.
Kuo, A. A., Franke, T. M., Regalado, M., & Halfon, N. (2004). Parent report of reading to young children.
Pediatrics, 113(6), 1944-1951.
MacDonald, C., & Figueredo, L. (2010). Closing the Gap Early: Implementing a Literacy Intervention for
At‐Risk Kindergartners in Urban Schools. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 404-419.
MacDonald, E. & Kinlen, L. (2017). Evaluation of Books4Babies (Ireland) Ltd. Kinlen Mac Donald
Research Consultancy.
Malin, J. L., Cabrera, N. J., & Rowe, M. L. (2014). Low-income minority mothers’ and fathers’ reading and
children’s interest: Longitudinal contributions to children’s receptive vocabulary skills. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 29(4), 425-432.
Melhuish, E. (2010). Impact of the home learning environment on child cognitive development:
secondary analysis of data from ‘Growing up in Scotland’. Retrieved from: http://www.nls.uk/

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
64
scotgov/2010/impactofthehomelearningenvironment.pdf
Moore, M., & Wade, B. (2003). Bookstart: a qualitative evaluation. Educational review, 55(1), 3-13.
Moloney, M., Egan, S.M., Hoyne, C., Pope, J. & Breatnach, D. (2020). Bookseed Evaluation Interim
Report. Mary Immaculate College.
Morgan, P. L., & Meier, C. R. (2008). Dialogic reading’s potential to improve children’s emergent literacy
skills and behavior. Preventing school failure: alternative education for children and youth, 52(4), 11-16.
Murray, A. & Egan, S. (2014). Does reading to infants benefit their cognitive development as 9-months-
old? An investigation using a large cohort survey. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(3) 303-315.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). (2009). Aistear: The early childhood
curriculum framework.
Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal of child language,
5(1), 1-15.
OECD (2012), Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools.
OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
O’Farrelly, C., Doyle, O., Victory, G., & Palamaro-Munsell, E. (2018). Shared reading in infancy and later
development: Evidence from an early intervention. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 54,
69-83.
O’Hare, L., & Connolly, P. (2014). A cluster randomised controlled trial of “bookstart+”: A book gifting
programme. Journal of Children’s Services, 9(1), 18-30.
Preparing for Life, & The Northside Partnership (2008). Preparing for Life Programme Manual. Dublin:
Preparing for Life and the Northside Partnership. Retrieved from http://geary.ucd.ie/preparingforlife/
Samiei, S., Bush, A. J., Sell, M., & Imig, D. (2016). Examining the association between the Imagination
Library early childhood literacy program and kindergarten readiness. Reading Psychology, 37(4), 601-
626.
Shiel, G. Cregan, Á., McGough, A., & Archer, (2012). Oral language in early childhood and primary
education (3-8 years): Commissioned research report. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and
Assessment.
Swain, J., Cara, O., & Mallows, D. (2017). ‘We occasionally miss a bath but we never miss stories’:
Fathers reading to their young children in the home setting. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(2),
176-202.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (Eds.). (2010). Early childhood
matters: Evidence from the effective pre-school and primary education project. Routledge.
Tarelli, I., & Stubbe, T.C. (2010). Home literacy environment and reading achievement: A model for
determining the relationship between socio- economic status, home literacy environment and reading
achievement. Paper presented at 4th International Research Congress of IEA. Retrieved from https://
www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2019-04/IRC2010_Tarelli_Stubbe.pdf
Weitzman, C. C., Roy, L., Walls, T., & Tomlin, R. (2004). More evidence for reach out and read: a home-
based study. Pediatrics, 113(5), 1248-1253.
Willis, E., Kabler-Babbitt, C., & Zuckerman, B. (2007). Early literacy interventions: reach out and read.
Pediatric Clinics of North America, 54(3), 625-642.
Wray, D., & Medwell, J. (Eds.). (2013). Teaching Primary English. London: Routledge.
Yarosz, D. J., & Barnett, W. S. (2001). Who reads to young children?: Identifying predictors of family
reading activities. Reading Psychology, 22(1), 67-81.
Zuckerman, B. (2009). Promoting early literacy in pediatric practice: twenty years of reach out and read.
Pediatrics, 124(6), 1660-1665.

65
Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to
Developing Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged
Children
Córa Gillic
Abstract
This paper is based on practice based research carried out
in partial fulfilment of a Master of Education degree at the
Institute of Education, Dublin City University. It explores the use
of a progression continua approach in developing practitioner
pedagogical and subject content knowledge in relation to the
development of spatial awareness in preschool aged children.
The policy and research literature shows a focus on preschool
mathematics and that spatial awareness is often overlooked
in preschool mathematical provision. Findings demonstrate
the potential of a learning trajectory approach as a continuing
professional development tool in relation to a preschool
mathematics provision.
Introduction
Interest in the educational provision of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) subjects has gained momentum both nationally and
internationally over the last decade (Benz, 2012: Thiel, 2010). In Ireland, there
has been a focus on literacy and mathematics provision from early childhood
to adulthood (Department of Education and Skills, 2011). More recently,
educational policy has targeted mathematics provision, with mathematics
provision in preschool a priority (DES, 2017).
Spatial awareness has been identified as a key mathematical concept for young
children to explore and master as it underpins learning in other STEM concepts
(Newcombe, 2017), areas of computer graphics, visual arts (Clements and
Sarama, 2011) as well as being a crucial skill humans need to navigate their

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
66
surroundings (Newcombe and Frick, 2010). This paper reports on practitioner
exploration of the pedagogical practices involved - noticing, interpreting,
planning, and documenting in developing spatial awareness in young children,
using a progression continua approach.
Policy Context
Ireland’s focus on mathematics education is detailed in Literacy and Numeracy
for Learning and for Life, The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and
Numeracy Among Children and Young People 2011 – 2020. This document laid
out targets and actions to address falling standards in literacy and numeracy
over a 10- year period. This strategy noted the importance of a well-trained
Early Learning and Care (ELC) workforce in delivering the aims of the strategy,
acknowledging that mathematics learning occurs in ELC settings (DES, 2011).
The interim report on the strategy’s performance, National Strategy: Literacy
and Numeracy for Learning and Life 2011-2020 Interim Review: 2011-2016 New
Targets: 2017-2020 (DES, 2017), laid out actions specific to the ELC sector. These
included the inclusion of early mathematics in early childhood settings. The
review also recommended that the Early Childhood Inspectorate support early
childhood practitioners in their delivery of early numeracy ideas in their curricula.
From a policy stance, it is clear that government documents call for the inclusion
of mathematics in preschool rooms (DES, 2017; DES, 2011). Research literature
supports the idea that mathematical concepts feature in young children’s
everyday lives, extending into their preschool play experiences (Worthington
and Van Oers, 2016). As a result, mathematical concepts are now being included
in both national and international early childhood curricula (Fosse et al., 2018;
Wager et al, 2015; Perry and Dockett, 2013; NCCA, 2009).
Curricular Context
In an Irish context there are three curricular documents relevant to the teaching
of early childhood mathematics – Aistear the Early Childhood Curriculum
Framework (NCCA, 2009), the current primary mathematics curriculum (NCCA,
1999), and a draft primary mathematics curriculum (NCCA, 2018). For the purpose
of this paper, only Aistear and the new draft primary mathematics curriculum will
be discussed, due to Aistear being the curriculum framework for ELC settings
and the draft primary curriculum being in a progression continua format.
Aistear (NCCA, 2009) presents a thematic approach to early childhood pedagogy,
with no reference to specific subject areas (Hayes, 2013). The inter-connected
themes are: Well-Being, Identity & Belonging, Communicating and Exploring,

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
67
and Thinking. Each theme has four aims, and each aim has six learning goals.
The latter two themes, Communicating and Exploring and Thinking detail
explicit, yet broad, mathematical learning goals, while Identity and Belonging
promotes learning dispositions, necessary for mathematics, such as persistence
and curiosity (NCCA, 2009). Aistear promotes a child-centred approach to early
childhood pedagogy, where children are viewed as being active, competent
learners, who learn best through an interactive playful pedagogy (NCCA, 2009).
Progression Continua
In 2018, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) published
a draft mathematics curriculum for junior infants to second class (4 to 8 year
olds). This new curriculum has been designed to align with the playful approach
to pedagogy, as advocated in Aistear (NCCA, 2009). It is proposed that the
new curriculum follow a progression continua approach, enabling children
to understand the ‘big ideas’ of mathematics. Progression continua broadly
describe the sequence of a child’s mathematical development (NCCA, 2018).
They represent the milestones to mathematical understanding. These continua
enable educators to formatively assess a child’s understanding of a mathematical
concept (NCCA, 2018; Sarama and Clements, 2009), and to reflect on
mathematics in children’s play (Perry and Dockett, 2013). Progression continua
also facilitate the planning of further mathematical experiences to develop a
child’s understanding (NCCA, 2018). Progression continua (also referred to in
the literature as learning trajectories (Clements and Sarama, 2014), learning
progressions, growth points, cognitively guided instruction (Sarama, Clements,
Wolfe and Spitler, 2016) and reflection continua (Perry and Dockett, 2013), have
been gaining prominence in mathematics education (Weber, Walkington and
MacGalliard, 2015; Dunphy et al. 2014) in recent years.
Learning Outcome: Through appropriately playful learning experiences,
children should be able to develop a sense of spatial awareness and reasoning.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
68
Elements a B c d
Understanding &
Connecting
Is at present,
exposed to and
experiences
a range of
appropriate
learning activities
involving
location/position
in familiar
environments.
Begins to
develop an
awareness of
the position of
their body in
space, through
multi-sensory
approaches.
Begins to explore
the movements
of different parts
of the body and/
or the ways in
which the body
can move, or be
moved in space,
relative to their
level of mobility.
Describes
the position
or location of
objects.
Explores and
discusses the
environment of
the classroom,
school, and
other familiar
settings.
Describes the
location and
relative proximity
of objects using
appropriate
language e.g.
far away, further
away, closest to.
Recognises
and describes
the position of
objects on simple
maps and plans.
Explores
different modes
of representing
spatial concepts
and relationships.

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
69
Communicate
Is at present,
exposed to and
experiences
situations where
movement and
positionality
are used and
highlighted
through varied
multi-modal
approaches.
Gives and
follows simple
instructions
related to
movement and
positioning.
Uses and
responds to
language that
describes
simple
movements.
Moves objects
around and
describes in
terms of spatial
relationships.
Communicates
position or
location through
a range of
modes such as
physical, written,
verbal, visual,
augmentative
e.g. makes
simple models
or drawings to
show position of
objects – teddy
between the car
and the book
Creates and
discusses
representations
of familiar or
imagined spaces
e.g. bedroom,
schoolyard or
story setting in a
variety of modes.
Recognises and
uses ‘left’ and
‘right’ in real
situations and
communicates
positions and
directions with
increasing
precision.
Reasoning
Is at present,
exposed to and
experiences
activities where
objects and/
or people
are placed in
familiar positions
or moved to
random positions
e.g. Where has
teddy gone?
Determines
the location
of an object
by listening to
descriptions
of position or
location.
Evaluates
statements
about position
or location in
the environment
e.g. determine
if it is correct to
say, ‘the teddy is
under the chair’.
Justifies
statements
about position
and location
of objects
with reference
to simple
representations
where
appropriate
Evaluates and
refines self-
created maps or
plans.
Explores spatial
relationships in
number lines
to conjecture
and predict
approximate
location of
numbers.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
70
Applying and
Problem-solving
Is at present,
exposed to and
experiences a
range of contexts
where movement
and positionality
are explored
e.g. a range of
physical activities,
transitions and
spatial games
such as blocks
and jigsaws
Solves problems
involving
location/
position in
familiar and new
environments
e.g. where is
the best place
to plant a tree/
store new toys
etc.
Describes
simple paths
through familiar
environments
and traces paths
on simple maps,
plans or grids.
Builds and
creates
structures using
a range of
strategies and
materials e.g.
blocks
Solves problems
involving simple
maps, plans or
grids e.g. barrier
games, including
maps and images
from various
angles and/or
perspectives /
vantage points.
Table 1 Early Progression Milestones from the Progression Continua for
Spatial Awareness and Location (NCCA, 2018, pp.62-63 – Draft specification
©).
In 2009, Sarama and Clements published a research-based learning trajectory
approach for the teaching of early childhood mathematics. This approach
detailed a learning trajectory for each of the ‘big ideas’ of mathematics [the ‘big
ideas’ will be discussed in a later section of this paper]. One of the key aims of
Sarama and Clements’ work was to promote high-quality mathematics activity
in early childhood settings in the United States (Sarama and Clements, 2009).
This approach comprises of three parts: a mathematical goal, a developmental
progression, and a set of suggested instructional tasks (Clements and Sarama,
2014). These steps were developed with the aim of helping early childhood
teachers identify the level of mathematical thinking observed in children’s
activity and planning developmentally - appropriate tasks to develop that
thinking at a higher level.
This study used the draft progression continua developed by the NCCA (2018).
This format was chosen for several reasons: it has been developed for the Irish
educational system and aligns with Aistear (NCCA, 2018); the learning outcomes
are clear and easy to follow; and the curriculum age-range (4-12) covers the age
range of the majority of participants attending the setting (3-5), where ten of the
participants were four years of age (NCCA, 2018).

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
71
The ‘Big Ideas’ of Mathematics
The research literature in mathematics education often refers to the necessity
of early childhood educators understanding the ‘big ideas’ of early childhood
mathematics (Dooley et al., 2014). However, what constitutes these ‘big ideas’
varies among researchers. An overview of the ‘big ideas’, as suggested by key
researchers in the field of early childhood mathematics and those found in
Irish curricular documents: Aistear the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework
(NCCA, 2009) and Primary Mathematics Curriculum Draft Specification Junior
Infants to Second Class (NCCA, 2018), is provided in this literature review (Table
2). In summary, the literature suggests that the following mathematical concepts
be included in early childhood mathematics curricula: number, data handling,
shape, space, and measure.
As stated earlier, this research focused on using a progression continua
approach to developing spatial awareness in preschool children. Spatial
awareness is considered to be a key mathematical concept for young children
to master (Dunphy, 2017; Hawes, Tepylo and Moss, 2015; Clements and
Sarama, 2014). The literature suggests that spatial reasoning underpins other
mathematical concepts such as geometry (National Research Council, 2009),
measurement and mapping (Kersh, Casey and Mercer Young, 2008), computer
graphics, engineering (Clements and Sarama, 2011) as well as being a crucial
navigational skill (Newcombe and Frick, 2010). However, spatial awareness is
often overlooked in early childhood curricula (Clements and Sarama, 2011) in
favour of number, counting, and shape Lee, 2017; Lee and Ginsburg, 2009).
Clements & Sarama
(2009)
Powerful
Mathematical Ideas
(USA)
Perry & Dockett
(2008)
Big Ideas of
Mathematics
(Australia)
Early Math
Collaborative
(2014)
Big Ideas
of Early
Mathematics
(USA)
NCCA (2018)
Draft Primary
Mathematics
Curriculum
(Ireland)
Aistear (NCCA
2009)
The early
childhood
curriculum
framework
(Ireland)
Counting Counting Numeration &
counting Counting skills
Quantity, number,
subitizing Number sense Number
Sense
Number
patterns,
sequences &
relationships
Numerals
(symbols)

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
72
Comparing,
ordering, estimating Data Sets (sorting)
Data Analysis Data
Comparing,
ordering, sorting,
matching
Early addition/
subtraction
strategies
Mental
computations
Number
operations operations
Composition of
number, place value
Place value,
fractions
Spatial thinking
Spatial &
geometric
thinking
Spatial
relationships
Spatial
Awareness Space, place
Composition &
decomposition of
shapes
Shape:
Developing
definitions
Shape,
transformation shape
length Measurement Measuring Length
size
weight
height
Measures
capacity
money
Time
Area, volume, angle Time
probability Money
Pattern & structure Pattern
Patterns,
Structures,
Rules
Mathematical
language
Mathematical Processes
Reasoning mathematization Understanding
& connecting Problem-solving
Problem Solving connections Communicating Predicting
Classification argumentation Reasoning analysing
Seriation
Applying &
Problem-
Solving
questioning
justifying
Table 2: Big ideas of early childhood mathematics – mathematical goals for
early childhood mathematics provision

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
73
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has been defined as “the ways of
representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible to
students” (Shulman, 1986). PCK is how teachers ‘teach’ a subject; it entails the
various teaching strategies that teachers use to communicate subject matter in
an understandable and meaningful way (Lee, 2010). In terms of PCK in relation
to early childhood mathematics, Lee (2017) contends that traditional definitions
of pedagogical content knowledge, based on primary education, are not
applicable to a play-based preschool context and suggests that preschool PCK,
in relation to mathematics education, should contain these three interrelated
activities or skills:
• Noticing mathematical situations in play
• Interpreting these mathematical episodes
• Developing the mathematical thinking therein (p.253)
Lee’s (2017) study of 30 Korean preschool teachers indicated that the teacher’s
ability to identify mathematics in play did not mean that they were able to
interpret the mathematics they had observed. However, the ability of participants
who could interpret the mathematics was positively connected to their ability
to develop mathematical concepts and thinking observed in play. Lee (2017)
concluded that a stronger subject content knowledge was required to interpret
and develop mathematical concepts observed.
In a study of 22 Head Start teachers in the United States, McCray and Chen
(2012) concluded that in order to be effective mathematics teachers, preschool
educators must not only be able to recognise the mathematics in children’s
play, but must also be willing to enable children to make connections between
mathematical experiences. This ‘willingness’ to engage young children in
mathematics is fuelled by mathematical subject knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge, and by a belief in the importance of mathematics in early
childhood education (Lee, 2017).
The purpose of this study was to explore the use of a progression continua
approach in developing practitioner subject knowledge in relation to spatial
awareness, and their pedagogical content knowledge in order to provide key
spatial experiences for preschool children in a playful and developmentally
appropriate way.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
74
Research Design
The study adopted a qualitative, case study methodological approach, as it
sought to understand the spatial awareness of participants during periods of
free play. In this study, the case investigated was the exploration of a progression
continua approach to document and plan for young children’s spatial awareness
in the researcher’s preschool setting. This study was conducted in a natural
setting – the participants’ preschool room.
Research Question
After a review of the literature, the following research question emerged:
What are an early childhood teacher’s experiences of using a progression
continua approach for developing spatial awareness in a preschool classroom?
To answer this question, two research sub-questions were formulated:
1. Can a progression continua approach capture aspects of participant
spatial awareness in their play, as observed by the researcher?
2. What are the researcher’s perceptions of the use of a progression
continua approach in an Irish preschool mathematics context?
Research Tools
This study used observation as the data collection method. Observation is a
systematic way to “record people, events, behaviours, settings, artefacts (and)
routines” (Cohen, Mannion and Morrison, 2011). Observation provides a way
of recording events as they occur, thereby collecting ‘live’ data. This real-life
data is authentic; it documents real life as it happens, and consequently, it is
“direct evidence” of what is actually happening in a setting (Denscombe, 2010).
Therefore, observation, provided a real record of participants’ spatial activity in
their play. Two types of observation, structured and participant, were used to
capture the spatial activity in participant free play.
During the structured observations, a pre-prepared observation schedule
was used to observe and document participant spatial language use. This
tool facilitated the recording of the type of spatial language used (positional,
directional, movement, distance), and the frequency at which each type
occurred. Participant observations, where the researcher actively participated
in participant play, enabled the recording of spatial actions as well as spatial
language.
Observations of participants are an integral part of the daily preschool routine.

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
75
Therefore, participants were familiar with the data collection methods before
the researcher began conducting formal observations.
Sampling procedure: Convenience and purposive sampling was chosen, as
the researcher’s aim was to examine the spatial reasoning of children in their
own classroom, and to explore the use of a learning trajectory approach to
improving their own pedagogical and assessment practice in relation to the
development of spatial awareness. Purposive sampling is not generalizable,
however, as Schutt (2006) notes, this is irrelevant in this case as the researcher
was documenting spatial knowledge and evaluating pedagogical practices/
tools for their own professional development and understanding.
Participants: The research sample consisted of eleven preschool participants
(five girls and six boys), aged three and four years, in a Montessori - based
preschool room. The class was funded by the Early Childhood Care and
Education payment, facilitated by the Irish Department of Children and Youth
Affairs. The children were Irish born, with two being dual language learners. Ten
of the participants in the sample were to attend a Junior Infant class in local
primary schools in September 2019.
Ethics
Ethical approval for this case study was obtained from the Research Ethics
Committee at Dublin City University. Informed consent was sought from the
gatekeepers (parents and setting manager) was sought. Informed assent was
sought from the participants through the use of verbal explanation and a
visual chart. The visual chart comprised of three pieces of card, each with a
corresponding emoji, in the following colours:
• Green (smiley face) – indicating a wish to participate
• orange – (unsure face) not sure
• red – (unhappy face) indicating not wishing to participate
• Participants indicated if they wished to participate in any given
observation session by locating their name on one of the emojis. All
participants had the option to join the observation group as they
pleased and could withdraw at any time.
• Pseudonyms were assigned to all participants to maintain confidentiality.
Findings and Discussion
As the main focus of this study is the observation and assessment of spatial

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
76
awareness in young children’s play, the discussion will consider the findings
against the definition of assessment as given in Aistear Guidelines for Good
Practice (NCCA, 2009b), which states that: “assessment is the ongoing process
for collecting, documenting, reflecting on, and using information to develop
rich portraits of children as learners in order to support and enhance their
future learning” (p.72). The links between the components of assessment,
as stated in Aistear (NCCA, 2009), and those found in Lee’s (2017) aspects of
preschool mathematics pedagogy (noticing, interpreting, enhancing), and to
the components of the learning trajectory proposed by Clements and Sarama
(2014), are clear. Each refers to collecting data (observation, in this case),
interpreting the data and using the information gathered to enhance learning.
From this stance, progression continua (learning trajectories) fit with current
Irish early childhood assessment practice.
Noticing Spatial Awareness in Children’s Free Play
This study found that by engaging with the progression continua (NCCA,
2018), the researcher, in time, became familiar with the components of spatial
awareness, and could identify spatial activity and spatial language use during
play. This suggests that, over time, familiarity with the progression continua for
spatial awareness led to the researcher being able to readily identify aspects of
spatial mathematics in play. The ability to recognise, document, analyse, and
plan for playful mathematics has been frequently noted in the literature (Lee,
2017; Opperman et al., 2016; Anders and Rossbach, 2015). The key capabilities
of observing and reflecting on mathematical play (Perry and Dockett, 2013) are
crucial to unlocking the mathematics that preschool children know (McCray and
Chen, 2012), and for future mathematical learning (Lee, 2017). Observation is
an adult-led assessment method, noted in Aistear (NCCA, 2009b). In this study,
observations of spatial (mathematical) language use and activity were guided
by the progression continua / learning trajectory approach for spatial awareness
and location devised by the NCCA (2018).
Observations showed that participants used basic spatial vocabulary in their
play: ‘in’, ‘on’, and ‘under’ were the most commonly observed.

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
77
Table 3: Positional language used by participants during week 1
Enda Killian Isobel Cara David John Ellie Mike Aimee Rosie Liam
on,
under,
over
bottom,
top,
under
in,
under,
on
On, in N/O N/O in, on beside on top
of N/O N/O
N/O – not observed
Observations also showed that socio-dramatic/imaginative play was an
important vehicle for spatial activity and language use, as children moved
objects from one place to another as they played. For example, in the sample
of the observation of Rosie (see below), the participant moved play equipment
and items of furniture to suit her play ideas. Examples of basic spatial/positional
language are evident also.
Rosie has set up four chairs; two at the front and two at the back, between two
tables
Rosie to Isobel: “I got all the baby stuff in my bag for my baby…you follow me
to the car”. Rosie sits in the back seat of the car.
Rosie: “I’m in a car that can drive itself”. She places a teddy beside her, “you
can sit here beside me”…to Isobel: “my baby is asleep already beside me…put
a seatbelt on your baby like me…she has to be safe”.
Observations also revealed children’s interest in and knowledge about their
local environment, as the observation below detailing Enda discussing his
route home shows. Enda’s knowledge and use of directional language is clearly
evident. A number of photographs depicting local buildings were on the wall.
During this observation, Enda was looking at the pictures and speaking to
Aimee.
Enda: “you see this here, pointing to Tesco…you go past that,
then turn this way (gestures left), then turn and go straight (hands
in front of him – indicating straight)…you need to turn at the
roundabout…you can see the vets there, do you know where the
vet is?... there’s my house”.
The focused nature of the observations, tailored to record aspects of spatial
language and activity, enabled the researcher to record these aspects of spatial
activity that may have ordinarily been missed (Hatch, 2002). The literature
suggests that the ability to observe and interpret mathematics in children’s
everyday lives is underpinned by educator mathematical subject knowledge

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
78
(Lee, 2017; Opperman, Anders and Hachfield, 2016; Perry and Dockett, 2016).
The use of the progression continua to focus observations enabled the researcher
to become more adept at recognising mathematics in a variety of children’s
play types, and also developed knowledge of what spatial awareness entails
and what it looks like in children’s play. Therefore, the use of the progression
continua contributed to practitioner subject content knowledge for the ‘big
idea’ of spatial awareness and location. This evidence suggests that there is
potential for the learning trajectory approach to form part of a professional
development tool in relation to mathematics for early childhood educators
(Cohrssen and Tayler, 2016; Sarama, Clements, Wolf and Spittler, 2016; Perry
and Dockett, 2013; Clements & Sarama, 2009).
Interpretation of Mathematics Observed in Play
Once the observations of spatial activity and language had been made,
the next stage was to interpret the data in the observations against the
progression milestones for spatial awareness and location, laid out in the draft
primary mathematics curriculum (NCCA, 2018). As noted above, the spatial
language used by participants was deemed basic in nature. This placed the
majority of participants on milestone b of the progression continua for the
element, communicating. There were no incidences of more complex spatial
vocabulary such as ‘far away’, ‘further away’, and ‘closest to’ as set out in
milestone C. Additionally, there were difficulties in placing individual children
on the continuum. For example, Enda refers to landmarks and uses directional
language and gestures when describing his journey home. However, there
was no reference to either the use of landmarks or gesture in the milestone
descriptors. After much debate, it was decided to place Enda on milestone C
of the continuum under the element, Applying and Problem-solving; ‘describes
simple paths through familiar environments’. It was felt that this did not reflect
the breadth of spatial knowledge and language that Enda used while describing
his route, and that perhaps the milestone descriptors should be more detailed
to adequately describe a child’s level of spatial awareness.
Developing the mathematics observed in play
In order to address the issue of basic spatial vocabulary use across the
participants, the researcher modelled precise positional vocabulary, through the
game of ‘Find my Object’ during circle time. Later, two boys, Mike and Enda,
played their own version, using the specific vocabulary that had been modelled
by the researcher. These findings are consistent with research undertaken by

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
79
Klibanoff et al. (2006) on the deep and positive effects of teacher ‘math talk’ on
mathematical knowledge and language used by pre-school aged children. A
study by Pruden, Levine and Huttenlocher (2011) also demonstrated a strong
link between adult use of spatial language and child use of such vocabulary.
The study also showed that after teacher modelling of mathematical language,
children used this language in their play. Modelling is identified in Aistear as a
pedagogical interaction strategy that can be used by early childhood teachers
to teach by example (NCCA, 2009b). Wood (2013) notes that modelling is a
pedagogical strategy that encourages imitation through “observational
learning” (p.113). In this study, modelling as observational learning was
extended to auxiliary staff, as the researcher observed the SNA also using
specific positional language during the daily transition, ‘Tidy Up’ time, after
being modelled by the researcher. Modelling specific spatial language during
set times of the daily routine, such as ‘Tidy Up’ time, embeds mathematics as
part of everyday, real-life contexts (Linder et al., 2011).
Wood (2013) advocates for direct instructive techniques, once they are used in
conjunction with children’s emerging interests. In this case, emerging interests
were used to develop mathematical concepts, such as movement and direction,
as was illustrated in the observations of Enda. A map of the local village, drawn
in conjunction with the participants, provided a prompt to use spatial language,
not only by Enda, but also by other children. The map provided a familiar and
meaningful context (the local village) for spatial exploration and language use.
This activity also drew on Enda’s ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll et al., 1992), as it
developed his personal knowledge gathered from walking from the setting to
home with his mother every day. Wager, Graue and Harrigan (2015) state that
information educators learn about the daily routines and actions of children’s
home life can influence the ways in which educators plan mathematical activities,
in ways that are meaningful for the children. The building of positive relationships
between setting and home is advocated both in Aistear (NCCA, 2009) and Síolta
(DES, 2017b), and it is seen as a bridge between what children know and learn
between home and preschool. Such information sharing enables both parties
to construct a holistic picture of a child’s learning (NCCA, 2009b), and in this
case, enabled the researcher to devise playful, developmentally appropriate,
and meaningful learning opportunities related to spatial awareness, built on this
daily routine from home.
Documenting the mathematical knowledge and learning
Aistear (NCCA, 2009b) notes that documenting children’s learning is part of the

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
80
assessment process. In this research study, children’s learning was recorded in
the researcher’s practitioner file. Individual participant record files, and some
of the observations were written up in a ‘Learning Story’ (Carr, 2001) format.
Aistear identifies all of the above forms of documentation as being suitable for
early years practice (NCCA, 2009b). A participant record sheet was devised to
document aspects of children’s spatial knowledge and language. This record
sheet enabled the researcher to note information gained from observations
in relation to individual participant spatial activity. This information was then
mapped onto components of the NCCA (2018) progression continua for spatial
awareness and location.
Figure 1: Example of Participant Record Sheet (Enda).
Child: Enda Progression Milestone C Evidence of Milestone
Applying and
Problem Solving
Describes simple paths through
familiar environments and traces
paths on simple maps, plans or
grids.
18.1.19
Enda described his
journey home from the
setting, referring to local
landmarks.
The learning story approach is the usual documentation method in the
researcher’s assessment practice. This narrative method of documenting
learning presents the learning from a positive, strengths-based approach (Carr
and Lee, 2012). The NCCA provide a learning record template for early childhood
settings, following this approach. The template has three sections: one for
practitioners to write a brief description of the observation, one to interpret
the observation (linking to the aims and learning goals of Aistear (NCCA, 2009),
and one to detail how the learning will be developed. The template clearly links
to the three components of the learning trajectory approach (Clements and
Sarama, 2014), and to the three aspects of preschool mathematics pedagogy as
proposed by Lee (2017). In this study, the observation of Mike and his ferryboat
was written as a learning story, using the NCCA template. The format lent itself
well to recording Mike’s activity and interpreting the mathematics therein. It
was noted that a deeper mathematical interpretation was given as a result of
interacting with the draft trajectory for spatial awareness and location (NCCA,
2018). Before engaging with the research project, the researcher would have
linked the learning solely to the aims and learning goals of Aistear (NCCA,
2009). Now, reference to the progression milestones were also made, thereby

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
81
applying a deeper mathematical lens not only to the observation process, but
to the observation interpretation process also. This suggests that engagement
with the progression continua led to a deeper understanding of mathematical
development in the researcher, and that this was demonstrated in the
documenting of Mike’s learning.
Figure 2: Mike’s Learning Story

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
82
Recommendations
At a policy level, a progression continua approach may match with current
Irish educational strategies. Literacy and numeracy for Learning and for Life
the National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy Among Children
and Young People (DES, 2011) identifies the need to “provide detailed
guidance and resources to teachers and ECCE practitioners in teaching and
assessment of (literacy) and numeracy through handbooks, online courses,
digital and other resources” (p.37). Findings from this research suggest that
a detailed progression continua approach, with sample activities to promote
mathematical concept development, may provide a way to equip ELC educators
with the mathematical and pedagogical content knowledge that they need to
provide enriching mathematical learning experiences for young children. If
one, considers this idea, against the following ‘key action’ identified in Interim
Review of the Strategy, “Support practitioners in ECCE settings and teachers
in early Start centres to gain a deeper understanding of numeracy concepts,
the sequence in which children learn early mathematical ideas and identifying
and providing materials and activities which further promote learning in this
area” (DES, 2017, p.21). It is clear that the three components of a learning
trajectory approach (Clements and Sarama, 2014) - noticing mathematics in
play, interpreting the mathematics observed against a progression continuum,
and using this information to provide playful, yet instructive activities, could
facilitate the enaction of the ‘key action’ stated above.
Findings from this study are suggestive of the potential for progression continua
to be used as a form of continuous professional development for preschool
educators. That said, it takes time to become familiar with the progression
continua. In this study, it took three weeks to become familiar with one ‘big idea’ –
spatial awareness and location. In light of this finding, this study also recommends
that while a guide would be a practical aid to developing mathematical
concepts (or the ‘big ideas’ in ELC rooms), this should be complemented by
the facilitation of training for in-service ELC practitioners in relation to early
childhood mathematics education. Such provision is currently unavailable, and
numeracy pedagogical support is delivered by the DES Early Years Focused
Inspectorate (DES, 2017). This is welcome. However, with few early childhood
inspectors currently employed by the DES (DES, 2018), it may be some time
before settings benefit from this expertise. On-site, on-line or blended training
may assist in the process of developing the necessary practitioner mathematical
subject content and pedagogical knowledge. The new Professional Award
Criteria and Guidelines for Initial Professional Education Degree Programmes

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
83
for the Early Learning and Care Sector in Ireland (DES, 2019) may address these
concerns at higher education (degree) level.
A third recommendation arising from this study is that further studies be carried
out to further evaluate the use of a progression continua approach in an Irish
preschool context. This study was conducted in a preschool room with one
teacher to eleven children. The researcher also had an interest in early childhood
mathematics education and had attended lectures on the subject at Masters
level. Another perspective would be beneficial in creating a true evaluation of a
progression continua, in the observation and interpretation of, as well as in the
planning for enriching mathematical activities at preschool level. It is suggested
that research be carried out in a preschool room, where the preschool educator
has a level 6 qualification (the mandatory level required to lead teaching in ELC
classrooms) and more children attend. This may give a better picture of the
effectiveness of the progression continua approach in Irish preschool practice.
Limitations of the Study
The conclusions drawn from this study are limited by its small sample size and
tight time frame of three to four weeks. However, Maxwell (2005) notes that
qualitative case studies can have an ‘internal generalisability’, whereby findings
can be generalised to the sample population (p.115), provide interesting cases
which may be of interest to a wider audience, and which form a basis for other
studies on the topic. That is, findings could be transferable to other case studies
or cases (Marshall and Rossman, 2011). Potential for researcher bias to influence
findings was controlled by having data and findings reviewed by a university
supervisor, reflective field notes kept, and observations were written up as soon
as possible to ensure clarity of events recorded.
Conclusion
This study explored the potential of using a progression continua approach to
developing spatial awareness in an Irish preschool room with children of three
and four years of age. Findings suggest that a progression continua approach
complements Irish early years formative assessment practice, as advocated
in Aistear (NCCA, 2009), where strategies such as “collecting, documenting,
reflecting on and using information” are stated (p. 73). Milestones outlined in the
progression continua (NCCA, 2018) provided a guide to both the observation
and interpretation of children’s spatial activity during play. A progression
continua format was found to be a useful tool in developing the researcher’s
subject knowledge of spatial awareness as they interacted with the milestones

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
84
for spatial awareness and location. Accordingly, the study puts forward the
potential of the progression continua as a continuing professional development
tool in relation to the ‘big ideas’ of mathematics for preschool educators in
conjunction with additional training in early childhood mathematics pedagogy.
With increasing Government policy emphasis on the necessity to provide a
broad early childhood mathematics foundation, the progression continua
developed by the NCCA (2018) could be adapted to address this need.
References
Anders, Y. and Rossbach, H. (2015). Play: The influence of math-related school experiences, emotional
attitudes, and pedagogical beliefs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29 (3), pp.305-322.
Benz, C. (2012). Maths is not dangerous – Attitudes of people working in German kindergarten about
mathematics in kindergarten. European Early Childhood Research Journal, 20(2), pp.249-261.
Carr, M. and Lee, W. (2012). Learning stories: Constructing learner identities in early education. London,
UK: Sage.
Clements, D.H. and Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: The case of geometry.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(2), pp.133-148.
Clements, D.H. and Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math The learning trajectory
approach. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, L., Mannion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. 7th ed. Oxon:
Routledge.
Cohrssen, C. and Tayler, C. (2016). Early childhood mathematics: A pilot study in preservice teacher
education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 37(1), pp.25-40.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale research projects. 4th ed. Berkshire,
UK: Open University Press.
Department of Education and Skills (2011). Literacy and numeracy for learning and life The national
strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people 2011-2020. Dublin: DES
Department of Education and Skills (2017). National strategy: Literacy and numeracy for learning and
life interim review: 2011-2016 New targets: 2017-2020. Dublin: DES.
Department of Education and Skills (2017). Síolta the national quality framework for early childhood
education. Dublin: DES.
Department of Education and Skills (2019). Professional award criteria and guidelines for initial
professional education degree programmes for the early learning and care sector in Ireland. Dublin:
DES.
Dooley, T., Dunphy, E., Shiel, G., Butler, D., Corcoran, D., Farrell, T., NicMhuirí, S., O’Connor, M. and
Travers, J. (2014). Mathematics in early childhood and primary education (3-8 years) Teaching and
learning research report No.18. Dublin: NCCA.
Dunphy, E. (2017). Transition from preschool to primary school Optimising opportunities for mathematics
learning, Education Matters Yearbook 2017-2018, pp.105-110.
Dunphy, E., Dooley, T., Shiel, G., Butler, D., Corcoran, D., Ryan, M, and Travers, J. (2014). Mathematics in
early childhood and primary education (3-8 years) Definitions, theories, development and progression
research report No.17. Dublin: NCCA.
Fosse, T., Lange, T., Lossius, M. & Meaney, T. (2018). Mathematics as the Trojan horse in Norwegian
early childhood policy? Research in mathematics education, 20 (2), pp.166 -182.
Hatch, A.J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: State of New York Press.
Hawes, Z. Tepylo, D. and Moss, J. (2015). Developing spatial thinking: Implications for early mathematics

Exploring a Progression Continua Approach to Developing
Spatial Awareness in Preschool Aged Children
85
education. In Davis, B. and Spatial Reasoning Study Group Spatial reasoning in the early years,
Principles, assertions and speculations. Oxon: Routledge. pp.29-44.
Hayes, N. (2013). Early years practice getting it right from the start. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan.
Kersh, J., Casey, B.M. and Mercer Young, J.M. (2008). Research on spatial skills and block building in
girls and boys. In Saracho, O.N. & Spodek, K. eds. Contemporary perspectives on mathematics in early
childhood education. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing. pp.233-252.
Klibanhoff, R.S., Levine, S.C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M. and Hedges, L.V. (2006). Preschool
children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher “math talk”. Developmental psychology, 42
(1), pp. 59-69.
Lee, J. (2010). Exploring kindergarten teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics.
International journal of early childhood, 42(1), pp.27-41.
Lee, J.E. (2017). Preschool teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics. International
journal of early childhood, 49, pp.229-243.
Linder, S.M., Powers-Costello, B. and Steglin, D.A. (2011). Mathematics in early childhood: Research-
based rationale and practical strategies. Early childhood education journal, 39(1), pp.29-37.
McCray, J. and Chen, J. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge for preschool mathematics: Construct
validity of a new teacher interview. Journal of research in childhood education, 26 (3), pp.291-307.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. (5th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into practice, 31 (2), pp.132-141.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009). Aistear the early childhood curriculum
framework. Dublin: NCCA. Available at: http://www.ncca.biz/Aistear/pdfs/PrinciplesThemes_ENG/
PrinciplesThemes_ENG.pdf
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009b). Aistear the early childhood curriculum
framework: Guidelines for good practice. Dublin: NCCA. Available at: http://www.ncca.biz/Aistear/
pdfs/PrinciplesThemes_ENG/PrinciplesThemes_ENG.pdf
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2018). Primary mathematics curriculum draft
specification junior infants to second class for consultation. Dublin: NCCA. Available at: https://ncca.ie/
media/3148/primary_mathsspec_en.pdf
National Research Council (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood paths towards excellence
and equity. Committee on early childhood mathematics. Cross, C.T., Woods, T.A. & Schweingruber, H.
(Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Newcombe, N. (2017). Harnessing spatial thinking to support STEM learning OECD education working
paper No. 161 [online]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/harnessing-spatial-
thinking-to-support-stem-learning_7d5dcae6-en [Accessed: 28th January 2019].
Newcombe, N. and Frick, A. (2010). Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what and how. Mind
brain and education, 4(3), pp.102-111.
Opperman, E., Anders, Y. and Hachfeld, A. (2016). The influence of preschool teachers’ content
knowledge and mathematical ability beliefs on their sensitivity to mathematics in children’s play.
Teaching and teacher education, 58, pp. 174-184.
Perry, B. and Dockett, S. (2013). Reflecting on young children’s mathematics learning. In English, L.D.
and Mulligan, J.T. eds., Reconceptualising early mathematics learning. Dordrecht: Springer. pp.149-
162.
Pruden, S.M., Levine, S.C. and Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about the
spatial world matter? Developmental science, 14 (6), 1417-1430.
Sarama, J. and Clements, D.H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning
trajectories for young children. London: Routledge.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
86
Sarama, J., Clements, D.H., Wolfe, C.B. and Spitler, E. (2016). Professional development in early
mathematics: Effects of an intervention based on learning trajectories on teachers’ practices. Nordic
studies in mathematics education, 21(4), pp.29-55.
Schulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher,
15 (2), pp.4-14.
Schutt, R.K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research. 5th ed. London:
Sage.
Thiel, O. (2010) Teacher’s attitudes towards mathematics in early childhood education, European early
childhood research journal, 18(1), pp. 105-115.
Wager, A.A., Graue, E. and Harrigan, K. (2015). Swimming upstream in a torrent of assessment. In
Perry, B., MacDonald, A. & Gervasconi, A. eds., Mathematics and transition to school international
perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 15-30.
Weber, E., Walkington, C. and McGalliard, W. (2015). Expanding notions of ‘learning trajectories’ in
mathematics education. Mathematical thinking and learning, 17(4), pp.253-272.
Wood, E. (2013). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Worthington, M. and van Oers (2016). Pretend play and the cultural foundations of mathematics.
European early childhood education research journal, 24(1), pp. 51-56.

87
Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early
Years Services: Practitioner’s Perspectives and
Approaches
Anne Egan, Sarah Hodkinson, & Sheila Garrity
Abstract
Imaginative play is beneficial to young children’s development,
their well-being, and allows creativity to flourish. Opportunities
to engage in imaginative play at home are being reduced due
to the changing nature of childhood, including increasing
amounts of time in early years services. This article shares
research that examined the perspectives of ten early years
practitioners on the benefits of imaginative play, the adult’s role
in supporting this play, considering both their indoor and outdoor
environments. The qualitative research design included interviews
with practitioners from services in West Cork, Ireland and the
collection of photographic data reflecting their indoor and
outdoor environments. Results reveal practitioners appreciate the
benefits of imaginative play, that it is well promoted in early years
settings, though complex skills and knowledge are required for
effective practice. However, outdoor environments were found to
be underutilised for this purpose and the participating Montessori
environments were less supportive of imaginative play.
Introduction
Imaginative, pretend or fantasy play is something in which young children
instinctively engage (Lewis, 2009; Lillard et al., 2011). It allows them to transform
reality, to create and become whatever they chose. It has been shown to be
extremely valuable to their holistic development and their well-being (Singer &
Singer, 1990; Jenkinson, 2001; Kernan, 2007). Traditionally, children would have
engaged in imaginative play with siblings and neighbours, and would have

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
88
been much freer to play and explore the outdoors (Elkind, 2007; Jenkinson,
2001). In contemporary society, children are spending an increasing amount of
time watching television, using computers, tablets and video games, and taking
part in organised activities (Vickerius and Sandberg, 2006; Elkind, 2007; Kernan,
2007), with a significant portion of their day spent in childcare settings (Pobal,
2019). Their opportunities to engage in imaginative play at home with their
peers have become much more limited. It is vital that early years practitioners
(EYPs) understand the importance of imaginative play and facilitate it in their
settings.
Literature reveals a rich body of research connecting imaginative play to the
acquisition of specific skills (Bergen, 2002; Lillard et al., 2011; Hoffman & Russ,
2012) however, there is little research based on practitioners’ perceptions of
imaginative play, particularly in the Irish context. The purpose of this research,
conducted in West Cork in the South West of Ireland, was to explore the
perspectives of EYPs on imaginative play and to examine how and to what
extent they promote it in their settings.
The Benefits of Imaginative Play
The benefits of imaginative play have been widely discussed. Piaget (1962)
believed that children learn about the world through a process of accommodating
and assimilating information. During imaginative play children draw on their
existing knowledge, take on new information and adapt themselves to it (Singer
& Singer, 1990). Vygotsky (1978) asserted that during imaginative play children
create their own ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ (ZPD), in which they can
achieve tasks previously unobtainable. Imaginative play is linked to important
cognitive skills such as symbolic understanding, problem solving, and divergent
thought (Bergen, 2002; Lillard et al., 2011; Hoffman & Russ, 2012) and inextricably
linked to creativity as children invent context, story and characters for their
games (Hoffmann & Russ, 2012). The time children spend in social pretend play
enhances their overall social skills (Li et al. 2016) as they express themselves,
listen to others, compromise, negotiate, solve problems, understand and follow
rules (Vickerius and Sandberg, 2006). Imaginative play is a safe place for children
to experiment with roles and scenarios and explore emotional responses to
them. They learn to understand and regulate their own emotions, gain insight
into other people’s, and develop empathy (Singer & Singer, 1990; Hoffmann &
Russ, 2012; Waite and Rees, 2014). It is important not to overlook the sense of
happiness and well-being that imaginative play gives to children. According to
Froebel (1887, p.55), play gives children ‘joy, freedom, contentment, inner and

Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services:
Practitioner’s Perspectives and Approaches
89
outer rest, peace with the world’.
Facilitating Imaginative Play in Early Years Settings
Creating the right environment is important for imaginative play to flourish
(Singer & Singer 1990; Vickerius & Sandberg, 2006). Waite and Rees (2014, p.
8) describe the ‘ordered and beautiful’ Steiner kindergarten, in which children
enjoy the freedom to play. An environment for imaginative play should include
a combination of open space and cosy corners, quiet and busy areas (Kernan,
2007; Bruce, 2011). Materials available to children have a significant effect on
the quality of their play. Simple, open-ended materials leave much more to the
imagination than detailed or fixed-task toys, which make it harder for children
to engage in truly imaginative play (Jenkinson, 2001; Elkind, 2007; Bruce et
al., 2008). The value of a rich outdoor environment, containing a balance of
open and enclosed spaces and plenty of props and open-ended materials for
imaginative play, should not be overlooked (Susa & Benedict, 1994; Jenkinson,
2001; Bruce et al, 2008; Li et. al., 2016).
The social environments in which children play are crucial; these include other
children and adults surrounding the child and the atmosphere created (Singer
& Singer, 1990; Vickerius & Sandberg, 2006). Adults should provide the freedom
and permission for children to play and convey messages of valuing and
respecting their play (Singer & Singer, 1990; Jenkinson, 2001; Waite & Rees,
2011). There is an ongoing debate regarding adult involvement with children’s
imaginative play. Steiner kindergarten teachers intervene as little as possible
so as not to awaken children from ‘the dreamy state of imaginative play’ (Waite
and Rees, 2014, p. 3). Some authors, however, suggest that by engaging with
children in their play, adults can access Vygotsky’s ZPD and scaffold children’s
learning (Kitson, 2010; Hakkarainen et al., 2013; Fleer, 2015).
The Irish Context
While the Irish early years sector was initially developed with minimum
government involvement, recent years have seen significant state attention,
largely in response to a rapid increase in female work force participants (Clerkin,
2016). The introduction of the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)
funded pre-school year in 2011, extended to two years in 2016, dramatically
increased the number of children attending pre-schools. In the 2017-2018 school
year, 206,301 young children availed of the funded ECCE Scheme (Pobal, 2019).
The number of children in full-time day care has also increased significantly and
subsidies have been introduced for parents on low incomes (DCYA, 2017; Pobal

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
90
2017). The need for quality in Irish early years settings is now widely recognised
and led to the publication of Síolta: The National Quality Framework for Early
Childhood Education (CECDE, 2006) and Aistear: The Early Years Curriculum
Framework (NCCA, 2009). Following the ratification of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989) by Ireland in 1992, children’s
rights to play and the importance of play for their well-being and development
has been increasingly recognised in Irish policy.
Síolta and Aistear both promote learning through self-directed play, including
‘pretend’ and ‘socio-dramatic’ play (CECDE, 2006; NCCA, 2009). There is,
however, very little research into practice facilitating play, and particularly
imaginative play, in Irish early years services. In a background paper to the
development of Aistear, Kernan (2007) emphasised the importance of pretend
play to enrich development. It was further suggested that there was a ‘mismatch
between vision of best practice in Irish ECCE in relation to play and current
realities’ (ibid, p. 15).
Methodology
This study sought to explore the views of practitioners concerning imaginative
play in Irish early years settings. The following research question guided the
study: How do Early Years Practitioners perceive and facilitate imaginative play?
Underpinning this were the following research objectives:
• To examine participants’ perspectives on what imaginative play is
and the benefits of imaginative play to children’s well-being and
development.
• To explore the ways in which the participants feel the indoor and
outdoor environments of their services, support imaginative play.
• To examine the extent to which free play is facilitated indoors and
outdoors, enabling imaginative play to develop.
• To examine how participants, view the role of the adult in supporting
children’s imaginative play.
As the study was interested in practitioners’ views and experiences, a qualitative
research design was developed (Wisker, 2001; Mukherji & Albon, 2015). This
included visits to services, the use of photographic data and open-ended
interviews with participants, within the context of their workplace.
Sampling: A purposive sampling process (Quinn Patton, 2002; Robert-Holmes,

Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services:
Practitioner’s Perspectives and Approaches
91
2014) was adapted to ensure participants would be representative of the variety
of early years services in West Cork. Ten EYPs were selected from eight services,
located in small towns and rural areas, which included sessional pre-schools for
three to six-year olds and full day care services for children from six months.
Services with various curriculum approaches including play-based, Steiner, and
Montessori were selected. All participants had at least three years’ experience
in the early years sector, were working directly with children, and had experience
of programme planning.
Data Collection and Analysis
Semi-structured interviews were carried out using prepared, open-ended
questions which gave participants the opportunity to express their views,
describe their experiences, and elaborate if they wished (Silverman, 2004;
Roberts-Holmes, 2014). Interviews were conducted between November
2016 and February 2017; nine occurred within participants’ workplaces so
the researcher could relate their responses to their environments, with one
participant preferring a neutral venue. The recorded and transcribed data
was analysed using labelling and coding to identify recurring themes and
information relevant to the research objectives (Bryman, 2012). As additional
data, photographs were taken of the indoor and outdoor environments of the
services which were analysed in conjunction with the interview data and linked
to identified themes.
Ethics
Ethical guidelines were followed which ensured informed consent, the right
to withdraw from the study, anonymity, and confidentiality for all participants
and services. Pseudonyms have been used in this article. The researcher has
endeavoured to represent participants’ comments and views accurately and to
give a fair and unbiased account of the findings of this study.
Results
This section presents a summary of the data collected, under headings based
on the research objectives and includes quotes from the participants.
What is Imaginative Play?
All the participants described imaginative play in similar ways. They spoke of
role play, pretending, make-believe, and creating things with available materials.
They described small world play with dolls, vehicles, and farms.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
92
They’re the mum someday or the dad, they’re chefs, they’re shopkeepers,
kings and queens (Méabh).
Benefits of Imaginative Play
All the participants felt that imaginative play is beneficial to children. Some felt
strongly that imaginative play promotes all areas of children’s development,
whereas others could only name one or two areas.
It’s massive, it’s complete holistic development with children. It touches on all
aspects really (Emma).
Benefits to children identified by the participants included: social and emotional
development, including self-confidence, empathy, and the ability to understand
feelings; problem solving and cognitive development; enhanced speech and
language, creativity and expression; an understanding of the world around
them; and greater body awareness and motor skill development.
They learn to listen to others, to take turns, to share, to initiate the game.
(Katie).
It gives them a better understanding as well, of different scenarios and
different ways of life (Linda).
If they’ve got concerns they can’t verbalise you’ll see them acting out
scenarios over the dolls (Katie).
It encourages them to think of different ways to do things (Miriam).
Participants also commented that children engaged in imaginative play are
relaxed, happy, and contented.
Indoor Environments
Most of the indoor environments of the services were well resourced for
imaginative play. Aspects of the environment which participants felt promoted
imaginative play and which were widely available in the services included:
enclosed areas; the ‘home corner’; dressing up clothes; dolls and doll’s houses;
vehicles; animals and farms; and blocks and lego.
Well, I think our best area is that little kitchen area, it’s just where it all happens
(Megan).
they love dressing up and becoming different characters (Méabh).
Some practitioners talked about the benefits of simple open-ended materials
including wooden blocks, coloured cloths, play frames for making dens, shells,

Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services:
Practitioner’s Perspectives and Approaches
93
stones, and pine cones.
they’ll create things from these basic materials, from their own imagination
(Lisa).
However, open-ended materials in some settings were limited. Miriam felt the
resources in the environment she worked in didn’t promote imaginative play
very well.
there’s just a lot of plastic toys and puzzles…. it might be better taking away
the toys that maybe influence them and giving them more natural materials
(Miriam).
There was a big contrast between the Montessori and Steiner environments.
Lisa, a Steiner kindergarten teacher, said:
it’s designed for it, all of the equipment is for imaginative play, it can be used
in many different ways.
While she did appreciate the value of imaginative play, Margaret, one of the
Montessori teachers, felt that:
its limited in a Montessori environment. I suppose the materials are meant to
be used in a certain way … as for dressing up things or anything like that … it
really wouldn’t be part of a Montessori environment
Although neither of the Montessori services had formal ‘home corners’, one of
the settings had dressing up clothes, animals, and vehicles, materials that are
often associated with imaginative play.
Outdoor Environments
The settings’ outdoor environments were varied in size and in use of natural
versus artificial materials. Some were well resourced and others quite plain. The
three participants who had more natural environments felt that they were very
supportive of imaginative play.
It’s an incredible place for imaginative play, lots of trees and cosy areas (Lisa).
However, several participants felt that their outdoor environments didn’t support
imaginative play very well.
our outdoor area at the moment doesn’t have a lot of materials out there
(Emma).
Resources that participants felt were beneficial for imaginative play outdoors
included: play-houses and natural willow houses; play-kitchens; sand pits;

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
94
climbing structures; and ride on vehicles. Some services had several of these
resources, but most only had one or two.
The willow house that we have, that’s used as an igloo or a tepee. (Katie).
there’s the climbing frames … that sometimes turn into a bus or a train or
whatever (Méabh).
the sandpit becomes this incredible, it’s almost like a landscape, there’ll be
castles and moats and rivers and they’ll get branches and stick them in to be
little trees. (Lisa).
Only one of the participants said that she brought out props and materials for
imaginative play from inside. None mentioned open-ended materials in relation
to imaginative play outdoors and they were only evident in the more natural
outdoor areas.
Time
Most participants felt that children needed plenty of time for in-depth
imaginative play to develop and some pointed out the need to be flexible with
time.
If children have too much of a short slot, they can never actually settle into
anything (Caitríona).
If they are really absorbed in a game, we might give them some extra time
before we tidy up (Lisa).
In most of the services, children were given plenty of free-play time indoors
during which they could engage in imaginative play. This ranged from 45
minutes to an hour-and-a-half in a three-hour session. However, this was a lot
more limited outdoors. Most participants from the sessional services said that
they would be outside for between 20 and 30 minutes, and even less in ‘bad
weather’. Only two participants said that they would be outside for 45 minutes
or longer, and only one said that children were free to go from inside to out.
we try to have staff indoors and outdoors, so the children are free to come and
go (Katie).
Several participants spoke about the need to balance time for free-play and
time outdoors with facilitating other aspects of the curriculum such as adult led
activities and circle time.
It’s very hard to fit everything into a session… (Margaret).

Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services:
Practitioner’s Perspectives and Approaches
95
Two participants said that they had reduced the length of their session from
three-and-a-half hours to three hours to comply with the ECCE scheme and that
this had impacted on the amount time spent outside.
The Practitioners’ Role
Most of the participants felt that the practitioners’ role was to facilitate
imaginative play, giving the children the freedom to play and follow their own
interests. Some spoke about managing play that was becoming too ‘wild’,
supporting children to resolve conflicts, and helping shyer children to join in.
it can be quite noisy and the strongest children can be the predominant play
leaders, so encouraging the children to listen to each other and to respect
each other (Katie).
If children are standing on the periphery that haven’t got the confidence to
take that step into the imaginary world. Then nurture them and lead them
(Katie).
Most participants felt that it is important not to overly interrupt or interfere with
children’s imaginative play.
They’ve got their own little world and you might be putting something that
would wreck it maybe (Caitríona).
If there is too much adult intervention, I think they won’t let their imagination
run away with them. (Méabh).
Several participants felt that it was sometimes appropriate to join in with play,
and that practitioners could extend children’s learning by introducing materials,
making suggestions, and asking open ended questions. However, some
emphasised the need for care and others felt that adults should only join in with
play when invited.
you have to be careful and constantly aware that what you see isn’t what they
see (Margaret).
One felt that:
finding the balance between when to engage with them and when to let them
be is fierce important (Ella).

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
96
Discussion
Benefits
Without exception, the participants in this study felt that imaginative play is
beneficial to children’s development and their well-being. Although the depth
of their knowledge was varied, their combined responses give a broad picture
of the benefits of imaginative play. They most commonly spoke about children’s
social skills and highlighted the way children learn to communicate, listen to
each other, co-operate, negotiate, and respect each other during pretend play,
reflecting the views of Vickerius and Sandberg (2006) on the social benefits
of imaginative play. Participants also referred to improvements in children’s
language development. Several authors highlight verbalisation and language
as an important part of imaginative play, as children describe their ideas to each
other (Singer & Singer 1990; Vickerius & Sandberg, 2006).
Some participants mentioned connections between imaginative play and
cognitive development. While none referred specifically to the use of symbolism
(Singer & Singer, 1990), several spoke of children using materials to represent
things in their games. Some referred to problem solving skills and others
suggested that children learn to ‘think of different ways to do things’ (Miriam),
often referred to as divergent thinking (Hoffman & Russ, 2012). Participants felt
that imaginative play gives children opportunities to express themselves and
develop their creativity and imagination; this is reflected in literature which
describes children creating stories, characters, scenes, and costumes for their
games (Jenkinson, 2001 (Hoffman & Russ, 2012;). Creative, divergent thinking
children are likely to become creative, divergent thinking adults (Singer &
Singer, 1990; Jenkinson, 2001; Waite & Rees, 2011). Practitioners also referred
to the sense of relaxation and happiness imaginative play gives to children,
described by Froebel in 1887, and highlighted by many authors since (Singer &
Singer, 1990; Vickerius & Sandberg, 2006).
Participants felt that imaginative play helps children to make sense of the world
as they try out different scenarios and roles in their play, often imitating things
that they have experienced. This is supported by the Piagetian view that during
play children accommodate and assimilate information, imaginative play is a
means to experiment with and understand new knowledge (Kitson, 2010).
Steiner also believed that children use every day experiences in imaginative play
to explore and make sense of them (Waite & Rees, 2011). Some participants felt
that children learn to understand and express feelings and develop empathy

Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services:
Practitioner’s Perspectives and Approaches
97
for others during imaginative play. Waite & Rees (2014) describe role play as
a safe way for children to explore emotional responses to different situations,
reflecting the Freudian view that children use play to work though anxieties or
difficult experiences (Bruce, 1996). Some participants spoke about this and gave
examples.
Environments
The study showed that imaginative play is well supported in the indoor
environments of most of the services, with a range of suitable props and materials,
and open and enclosed spaces, available to the children. Photographic data,
with the consent of service owners and managers, was used as tools to enhance
interviews. All but two of the settings had a home corner and participants
referred to it as ‘central’ to imaginative play. The benefits of simple, open-
ended materials to inspire imaginative play are highlighted by several authors
(Jenkinson, 2001; Bruce et al., 2008), with too many detailed or ‘fixed task’ toys
potentially inhibiting imaginative play (Jenkinson, 2001; Elkind, 2007; Trawick
et al., 2016). Two participants suggested that too many plastic toys and puzzles
deter children from using their own imaginations. Some participants emphasised
the value of materials such as wooden blocks, stones, shells, and coloured
cloths, stating that children use them for imaginative play in ‘many different
ways’, however, open-ended materials were not available in all participating
settings. As these materials are easy to acquire and inexpensive these findings
suggest a lack of awareness by some participants of their pedagogical value.
This research indicates a notable contrast between Steiner and Montessori
environments in relation to imaginative play. Waite & Rees (2011) state that Steiner
Kindergartens consider imaginative play central to children’s development in the
early years, whereas Montessori settings do not traditionally support imaginative
play (Soundy, 2008; Lillard, 2013;). Participants from the Steiner-based settings
felt that their environments were designed for imaginative play and emphasised
its importance. Both Montessori teacher-participants appreciated the value of
imaginative play; however, one of the services facilitated some imaginative play,
whereas the other had no home corner, dressing up clothes or other materials
intended for imaginative play. Matson (2015) suggests that Irish Montessori
settings need to evolve to incorporate open-ended play and fantasy which
is part of Aistear (NCCA, 2009). The findings of this study indicate that some
Montessori settings still do not promote or facilitate much imaginative play,
whereas others incorporate it to a limited extent.
There is significantly less research on imaginative play outdoors (Susa & Benedict,

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
98
1994; Li et. al., 2016;), with the findings of this study indicating that imaginative
play is promoted much less in the outdoor environments of early years services.
A few of the outdoor areas visited were well resourced, but most were quite
plain, and several participants felt that their outdoor environments could be
improved to support more imaginative play. Literature outlines the virtues of a
natural outdoor environment to inspire high quality imaginative play (Jenkinson,
2001; Bruce et al, 2008; Moser & Martinsen, 2010), as the three participants, who
had more natural outdoor areas, felt that they supported imaginative play very
well, referring to features such as trees and bushes creating natural enclosed
spaces and structures to climb on. Resources that participants felt encouraged
imaginative play included play houses, ride-on vehicles, sand pits, logs, and
climbing frames, but these were not all available in many of the services.
Neill (2013) discusses the value of ‘loose parts’ and open-ended materials
in outdoor environments, with Li et al. (2016) highlighting the importance of
providing costumes and pretend play props outside. Loose parts are found to
drive imagination and creativity, offering unbounded opportunities (Nicholson,
1972). Observations during the field work revealed little evidence of loose parts
in many of the outdoor sites, and no participants mentioned such materials;
only one discussed bringing props outside for imaginative play. Kernan (2007)
states that it is valuable for children to be able to move freely from indoors to
outdoors during play, but only one of the services facilitated this. These findings
can be contrasted to Moser & Martinsen’s (2010) work examining the outdoor
environments of Norwegian kindergartens; these were seen as pedagogical
spaces for play and learning and were well resourced with open-ended materials,
enclosed areas and climbing structures, both natural and manufactured. The
findings of this study indicate outdoor spaces are not used to extend young
children’s imaginative play, in most instances.
Time
Young children need plenty of time to settle into imaginative play, and for in
depth games to develop (Singer & Singer, 1990; Jenkinson, 2001; Bruce et al.
2008). Participants concurred with the literature, highlighting the importance
of enough time as well as the need to be flexible with time so as not to cut
short children’s play. While most participants allowed plenty of time for children
to engage in imaginative play indoors, there was a notable difference in the
amount of free play time given outdoors. Participants admitted the scheduled
20 to 30 minutes of outdoor free play time is not enough time for high quality
imaginative play to develop. Again, this can be contrasted to the Norwegian

Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services:
Practitioner’s Perspectives and Approaches
99
study, where children spend up to three-quarters of their day outdoors (Moser
& Martinsen, 2010). Elkind (2007) suggests that time for play is often cut short
to facilitate other aspects of the curriculum. The time challenge to imaginative
play was most acute in the sessional services, particularly in relation to the need
to accommodate aspects of the curriculum such as adult led activities and circle
time. Aistear (NCCA, 2009) refers to the need to balance adult and child led
activities ,but participants often find there are ‘not enough hours in the day’
(Margaret). The introduction of the ECCE scheme had reduced the length of
the session in two services by half-an-hour which had impacted the amount
of time children spend outside. All settings accommodated plenty of free-play
time indoors which suggests that facilitating adult led activities impacts on the
time available to children outdoors. A slightly longer session would perhaps
help resolve this issue.
The Role of the Adult
Participants stated the need for adults to facilitate and manage imaginative play,
giving children the freedom to follow their interests but stepping in if things get
too ‘wild’, helping children resolve conflicts, and ‘nurturing’ children who find it
harder to get involved. Waite and Rees (2011) describe the subtle way a Steiner
Kindergarten teacher briefly enters the children’s play to do this. The research
findings reflect the debate in the literature as to how much adults should or
should not get involved with children’s imaginative play. Several participants
felt that it was important not to interrupt or overly influence imaginative play,
as this would disrupt the flow of children’s games or impede their imagination.
Jenkinson (2001, p.138) suggests that ‘it is easy for us to shatter the fragile
dream of children’s play’. Some participants felt that adults could extend
children’s learning during imaginative play by introducing materials, making
suggestions, and asking open ended questions. Some authors assert that
adults should avail of opportunities to get involved with children’s role play
to access Vygotsky’s ZPD and extend their learning (Kitson 2010; Hakkarainen
et al., 2013). Still, others suggest harnessing these rich play opportunities to
support shared understandings through co-constructed meaning making (Fleet,
et al., 2017). Hakkarainen et al. (2013) warn that to do this successfully, adults
need to become genuine play partners, and suggest this is a skill that needs
to be learnt. Rogers & Evans (2006), however, suggest that imaginative play
gives children important space away from adult influence and Singer & Singer
(1990) point out that adults must know when to withdraw and leave children to
their play. This study revealed the reflective capacity of practitioners to consider

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
100
how and why they might intervene, if at all, in children’s imaginative play, with
some participants highlighting the need for care when joining children’s games
and pointing out that we do not always see things in the same way they do.
Ella, perhaps, summed this up when she suggested that ‘finding the balance
between when to engage with them or when to let them be is fierce important.’
Limitations
The intent of this research was to explore, in a small scale, EYPs’ views and
engagement in imaginative play and therefore, it is not possible to generalise
the findings or to apply them broadly to Irish early years services. As only two
Montessori services were visited, more research would be needed to determine
whether Montessori services promote imaginative play less than other
philosophies. This research was carried out in the winter; in the summertime, a
different picture of imaginative play outdoors may have emerged.
Recommendations
Recommendations arising from this research which could impact on Irish early
years provision include:
• The need to privilege simple, open-ended and natural materials in
early years environments to promote imaginative play.
• Greater consideration of imaginative play in the design of outdoor
environments; providing enclosed spaces, natural environments, and
loose parts.
• The need for children to spend more time outdoors to allow quality
imaginative play to develop there.
• An extension to the ECCE session of half-an-hour; allowing practitioners
to provide more time for imaginative play, especially outdoors, without
it impacting other aspects of the curriculum.
• The adaption of some Montessori environments and methods to
incorporate more imaginative play.
• The complex skills required to support quality imaginative play should
be incorporated into training for early years practitioners.
Further research on imaginative play, in other parts of Ireland, would be
valuable to examine these emerging findings. More research is also warranted

Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services:
Practitioner’s Perspectives and Approaches
101
to explore to what extent Montessori services are adapting their environments
and methods to incorporate imaginative and open-ended play, to align with
Aistear (NCCA, 2009). Research into the perspectives of parents on imaginative
play, and how it is facilitated in children’s homes, would add to this field of
study, as would research into how children play in different environments, both
physical and social.
Conclusion
Overall, this study shows a positive picture of provision for imaginative play in
West Cork early years services, and illustrates some inspiring practice in this
regard. Although some outdoor environments are supportive of imaginative
play, a combination of a lack of appropriate resources and a limited amount
of time spent outside indicates that others are underutilised. Considering the
value of a rich outdoor environment to inspire imaginative play, this is a wasted
opportunity in some services. The study also suggested that some Montessori
services facilitate imaginative play to a lesser extent than those from other
philosophical backgrounds. There is clearly a role for the adult in sanctioning,
facilitating, and managing imaginative play and while there are opportunities
for extending children’s learning, it is also important not to interrupt, interfere
with or overly influence the ‘sacred’ world of imaginative play. The reflective
capacities of practitioners are relied on to know when and how to get involved
and when to step back as this takes skill, understanding, care, and intuition.
This study demonstrates that early years practitioners have a wealth of
knowledge that should not be underestimated. The combined knowledge and
experiences of the participants gives a comprehensive picture of the benefits of
imaginative play and of ways to facilitate it in early years settings. For the most
part, the importance of imaginative play is evidenced by the practice found in
West Cork early years services. However, there is still room for improvement in
this area which is such an important part of young children’s lives.
It’s so beautiful seeing the room fill with all this imaginative play. It’s really
nurturing for them. It’s like food. (Lisa).

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
102
References
Bergen, D. (2002). The Role of Pretend Play in Children’s Cognitive Development, Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 4 (1). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4nl/Bergen.html.
Bruce, T. (1996). Helping Young Children to Play. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Bruce, T. (2011). Early Childhood Education. 4th ed. London: Hodder Education.
Bruce, T., McNair, L. and Siencyn, S.W. (2008). I Made a Unicorn! Open Ended Play with Blocks and
Simple Materials. Robertsbridge: Community Playthings. http://www.communityplaythings.co.uk/
resources/downloads/i-made-a-unicorn.pdf
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education. (2006). Síolta – Full and Part-time Day Care
User Manual. Dublin: CECDE.
Clerkin, F. (2016). Play Affordances in Early Childhood Education and Care. Children’s Research
Digest. 3 (2). http://www.childrensresearchnetwork.org/knowledge/resources/play-affordances-in-early-
childhood-education-and-care.
Department of Children and Youth Affairs. (2016). Affordable Childcare Scheme. https://www.dcya.gov.
ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/earlyyears/20161011SingleAffordableChildcareSchemeMainPage.htm.
Elkind, D. (2007). The Power of Play. Berkley: De Capo Press.
Fleer, M. (2015). Pedagogical Positioning in Play – Teachers Being Inside and Outside Children’s
Imaginary Play. Early Child Development and Care. 185 (11-12): 1801-1814.
Fleet, A., Patterson, C. & Robertson, J. (2017) Pedagogical documentation in early years practice:
seeing through multiple perspectives. London: Sage
Froebeal, F. (1887) 2005. The Education of Man. Reprint, Mineola: Dover Publications Inc.
Hakkarainen, P. Bredikyte, M. Jakkula, K. and Munter, H. (2013). Adult play guidance and children’s play
development in a narrative play-world. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 21 (2):
213-225.
Hoffmann, J. & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend Play, Creativity and Emotion Regulation in Children. Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts. 6 (2): 175-184.
Jenkinson, S. (2001) 2012. The Genius of Play: Celebrating the Spirit of Childhood. Stroud: Hawthorne
Press.
Kernan, M. (2007). Play as a Context for Early Learning and Development: A Research Paper. Dublin:
NCCA.
Kitson, N. (2010). “Children’s Fantasy Role Play – Why Adults Should Join In.” In The Excellence of Play,
edited by Moyles, J. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Lewis, R. (2009). “Imagination.” In The Wisdom of Play: How Children Learn to Make Sense of the
World. Ulster Park, New York: Community Playthings. http://cdn.communityplaythings.com/~/media/
files/cpus/library/training-resources/booklets/wisdom-of-play.pdf?vs=1&d=20130327T080522
Li, J., Hestenes, L. L., Wang, Y. C. (2016). Links Between Preschool Children’s Social Skills and Observed
Pretend Play in Outdoor Childcare Environments. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2016 (44): 61-68.
Lillard, A. S. (2013). Playful Learning and Montessori Education. American Journal of Play. 5 (2): 157-
186.
Lillard, A. S., Pinkham, A. M., and Smith, E. (2011). “Pretend Play and Cognitive Development.” In
The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, edited by Goswami, U. 2nd ed.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Matson, S. (2015). Historical and Cultural Evolution of the Montessori Method: Some Considerations
for Irish Early Years Practice. Children’s Research Digest. 2 (2). http://www.childrensresearchnetwork.
org/knowledge/resources/historical-and-cultural-evolution-of-the-montessori-method.
Moser, T. & Martinsen, M. T. (2010). The Outdoor Environment in Norwegian Kindergartens as
Pedagogical Space for Toddlers’ Play, Learning and Development. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal. 18 (4): 457-471.

Let’s Pretend! Imaginative Play in Irish Early Years Services:
Practitioner’s Perspectives and Approaches
103
Mukherji, P. and Albon, D. (2015). Research Methods in Early Childhood: An Introductory Guide.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2009). Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum
Framework. Dublin: NCCA.
Neill, P. (2013). Open-ended Materials Belong Outside Too! Highscope Extensions, 27 (2): 1-8.
Nicholson, S. (1972) ‘The Theory of Loose Parts, An important principle for design methodology’,
Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology, Vol. 4 (2), pp. 5-10. Available at: https://ojs.lboro.
ac.uk/SDEC/issue/view/116 Accessed on: March 23, 2020
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. New York: Norton.
Pobal (2019) Annual Early Years Sector Profile Report 2018-19, Pobal: Dublin. Accessed 23 March
2020 at https://www.pobal.ie/app/uploads/2019/12/Annual-Early-Years-Sector-Profile-Report-
AEYSPR-2018-19.pdf
Pobal. (2017). Early Years Sector Profile 2016/2017. Dublin: Pobal.
Quinn Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, (3rd edn). London: Sage
Publications
Robert-Holmes, G. (2014). Doing Your Early Years Research Project: A Step-by-step Guide. London:
Sage Publications, Ltd.
Rogers, S. and Evans, J. (2006). Playing the Game? Exploring Role Play from Children’s Perspectives.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 14 (1): 43-55.
Silverman, D. (2004) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, (2nd edn). London: Sage
Publications.
Singer, D. G. and Singer, J. L. (1990). The House of Make-Believe. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Soundy, C. S. (2009). Young Children’s Imaginative Play: Is it Valued in Montessori Classrooms? Early
Childhood Education Journal. 2009 (36): 381-383.
Susa, A. M. and Benedict, J. O. (1994). The Effects of Playground Design on Pretend Play and Divergent
Thinking. Environment and Behaviour. 26 (4): 560-578.
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations.
Vickerius, M. and Sandberg, A. (2006). The Significance of Play and the Environment Around Play. Early
Childhood Development and Care. 176 (2): 207-217.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Waite, S. and Rees, S. (2011). “Imagination in Steiner Kindergartens.” In Meeting the Child in Steiner
Kindergartens: An Exploration of Beliefs, Values and Practices, edited by Parker-Rees, R. London:
Routledge.
Waite, S. and Rees, S. (2014). Practising Empathy: Enacting Alternative Perspectives Through
Imaginative Play. Cambridge Journal of Education. 44 (1): 1-18.
Wisker, G. (2001) The Postgraduate research handbook: Succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD,
Basingstoke: Palgrave

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
104

105
Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-
informed Care in ECEC
Maria Lotty
Abstract
Early childhood experience of trauma is highly prevalent and
has far-reaching consequences. Young children are particularly
vulnerable to experiencing trauma and children who enter foster
care often have complex trauma related difficulties. In Ireland,
many young children enter foster care each year and services
to support their recovery are chronically under resourced. Early
Childhood Education and Care Professionals are located in a
unique position to provide children with crucial supports that
may aid children’s recovery and healing from trauma. This paper
describes the impact of childhood trauma and how this may impact
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Then, it describes
trauma-informed care, an approach that may support children’s
recovery from trauma and how it could be integrated into ECEC
practices in the Irish context. The paper concludes that there is a
need for trauma-informed care professional development for Early
Childhood Professionals to support this. It is also recognising that
the current research base to support this intervention is limited
and thus, the need for more research is warranted.
Introduction
Childhood trauma has been identified as a major public health problem
worldwide (Felitti et al., 2019). In particular, the experience of childhood trauma
of occurring in the context of the home has been identified as being extremely
common (D’Andrea et al., 2012). The risk factors for early childhood trauma are
also well established. These include child poverty, lone parenthood, parental
drug or alcohol dependency, domestic violence, and parental mental health
difficulties (Gilbert et al., 2012; Moullin et al., 2014). Research indicates that

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
106
young children are at particular risk to childhood trauma (Lieberman et al.,
2011, Fusco and Fantuzzo 2009). In the USA, children under age 3 were found
to have three times more the rate of children aged 16 and 17 (15 to 5 children
per 1,000, respectively) to have experienced childhood trauma (Child Trends,
2019). The development of child protection and welfare systems identification
and intervention of childhood trauma has led to increased rates of children
received into care. Children in care most often have experience of chronic forms
of abuse which include neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse,
and exposure to domestic violence (Pynoos et al., 2011). These experiences
of abuse are often not only chronic, but prolonged, repetitive, cumulative,
and overwhelming for these children and most importantly, are unrepaired
(Spinazzola et al., 2005, , Cook et al. ,2005, Gabowitz et al., 2008, Greeson
et al., 2011). The defining feature of this experience is that of occurring with
the context of the interpersonal relationship between the child and caregiver,
essentially a failure of caregiving attachment and attunement (Miller et al., 2000,
Tarren-Sweeney, 2008; McAuley and Davis, 2009; Forbes et al., 2011; Greeson
et al., 2011, Kinsey and Schlosser, 2013; Kelly and Salmon, 2014; Hambrick et
al., 2016). The link between the experience of adverse childhood experiences
(ACEs) trauma and mental health difficulties is well established. However, for
children in foster care, they are more likely to be exposed to ACEs than their
counterparts. They are up to seven times more likely to experience a parent
incarcerated or a household member abuse substances (Turney and Wildeman,
2017). As a result, the prevalence of mental health difficulties is higher (Ford et
al., 2007; Leslie et al., 2004).
Children in Care in Ireland
In Ireland, in 2018, about 50 children per 10,000 population aged 0-17 years
were in care, equating to 5974 children, not including children in respite
arrangements and separated children seeking asylum (Tusla, 2018). 878 of these
children were admitted to care in 2018; of these, over a quarter were repeated
admissions (26%: 226) and for the remaining children, it was their first time
admission (74%: 652) (Tusla, 2018). The majority of all children admitted were
placed in foster care (90%: 791); 73% (638) with general foster carers, 19% (153)
with relative foster carers, 6% (53) were placed in residential care and 4% (34)
in other type placements such as special care. 50% (442) of these children were
male and 50% (436) female. In 2018, for all children admitted, the most common
age at admission was for children 1 year or less, accounting for 31% (181/878)
of children. Pre-school children (aged 2- 4) accounted for 16% (143/878), young

Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in ECEC
107
children (aged 5-12) for 35% (310/878), and adolescents (aged 13-18) for 28%
(244/878). The primary reasons for children’s first time admission to care and
primary reason for being in care indicated was neglect (45%, 45 %), followed
by child welfare concerns (33%, 41 %). Physical abuse (10%, 6%), emotional (8%,
6%), and sexual abuse (3%, 2%) were also indicated (Tusla, 2018) (Table 1).
Primary Reason Admission to Foster Care n (%) Being in Foster Care n (%)
Neglect 296 (45) 2675 (45)
Child Welfare Concerns 216 (33) 2452 (41)
Physical Abuse 67 (10) 328 (6)
Emotional Abuse 55 (8) 346 (6)
Sexual Abuse 18 (3) 173 (2)
Total 652 (99) 5974 (100)
Table 1 Primary Reason for First Admission and Being in Foster Care
Note: From “Annual Review on the Adequacy of Child Care and Family Support
Services Available 2018,” by Tusla, Child and Family Agency, 2018, p. 37-65.
Copyright 2018 by Tusla.
The responsibility for meeting the complex needs of these children falls
between the services of the Tusla Child and Family Agency and CAMHS, Child
and Adolescent Mental Health Services in Ireland. However, the Independent
Child Death Review Group (Shannon and Gibbons, 2012) identified specific
failures in the Irish mental health services. These included weaknesses in sharing
information between agencies, children’s mental health needs not being clearly
identified, delay or failure in assessment, and lack of service coordination. It
highlighted the need for children in care to have comprehensive assessments.
However, it still remains the case that children in care are not screened for
mental health difficulties on entry to care which is routine practice in the UK
for children over 4 years (Baginsky et al., 2017). Screening and assessment has
been consistently highlighted as a prerequisite for children entering foster care
to ensure that their needs are accurately assessed at the earliest stage and
appropriate intervention put in place (Goemans et al., 2018, Griffin et al., 2011,
Greeson et al., 2011).

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
108
However, accessing services, such as CAMHS, has become very challenging in
practice, reflecting the chronically under resourced status of Irish mental health
services for children in care (McNicholas et al., 2011; McElvaney et al., 2013;
Lucey and Pol;2013). In Ireland, ECEC often play a critical role in the lives of
children who have experienced trauma. Despite the growing body of literature,
outside of Ireland, that supports the empirical understanding of early childhood
trauma impact and prevalence, a gap exists in realising the potential role ECEC
could play in meeting the needs of these children (Loomis, 2018; Bartlett and
Smith, 2019). Worryingly, in Ireland, the experiences of childhood trauma is
seldom acknowledged in early childhood education (Butler, 2019). Without
appropriate professional development for Early Childhood Professionals the
complex needs of these children may be misunderstood or not recognised in
a ECEC setting. This paper firstly, describes the impact of childhood trauma
and how this may impact ECEC. Then, it describes trauma-informed care, an
approach that may support children’s recovery from trauma and how it could be
integrated into ECEC practices in the Irish context.
The Impact of Childhood Trauma
Recent advances in neuroscience and attachment theory have led to a more
comprehensive understanding regarding the impact of interpersonal trauma
on child development (Teicher et al., 2010; De Bellis, 2010; Fisher et al., 2016;
Nemeroff, 2016). The integrated and multidisciplinary conceptualisation
of developmental trauma captures the extent of the impact of chronic
interpersonal experience of trauma that occurs within the caregiving context
(Van der Kolk, 2005; Cook et al., 2005; D’Andrea et al., 2012; Kisiel et al., 2014).
This conceptualisation offers professionals a comprehensive understanding
of trauma impact. It has been well received by professionals, it builds on
professional’s expertise, and provides a framework for understanding trauma
impact (Lotty, 2019). Depending on the severity and complexity of their
exposure to trauma, this can have a pervasive impact across a wide range
of a child’s functioning in the areas of attachment, biology, affect regulation,
cognition, behavioural control, dissociation, and selfconcept ( Cook et al.,
2003; V D’Andrea et al., 2012; D’Andrea et al., 2012; Van Der Kolk, 2015).
Therefore, this conceptualisation accounts for the extent of the impact on a
child’s development and functioning (D’Andrea et al., 2012; Cook et al., 2005).
The symptoms resulting from developmental trauma exposure in early life may
incorporate those of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but symptoms that
extend beyond these may also be present (Cook et al., 2003). Children in foster

Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in ECEC
109
care were found to be three to five times more likely than children not placed in
foster care to experience mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety,
behavioural or conduct problems, and Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Turney and Wildeman, 2017), and to have higher
rates of PTSD ( Greeson et al., 2011; Ai et al., 2013). However, the current lack
of a single diagnosis that captures these children’s symptomology (Van der Kolk
and d’Andrea, 2010; Kisiel et al. , 2014) poses a number of difficulties. These
include: multiple diagnoses (Van der Kolk and d’ Andrea, 2010), not meeting the
criteria for PTSD (Pynoos et al., 2008; van der Kolk et al., 2009), or not meeting
the criteria for any mental health disorders (Tarren-Sweeney, 2014), despite
their significant trauma and attachment related difficulties. Of note here is
that the criteria for PTSD are based on constructs that were originally framed
from rigid psychopathology states in adulthood (Bremness and Polzin, 2014;
Polzin, 2014). PTSD focuses on a single traumatic event not in the context of an
attachment relationships. Because of the lack of clear diagnostic criteria, child
welfare agencies are typically inclined to focus treatment on the presenting
behaviour of the child, and not on the underlying presentations associated with
developmental trauma (Cook et al., 2003; Greeson et al., 2011). Applying the
concept of developmental trauma into child education and care practices offers
an opportunity to increase understanding of the impact of chronic childhood
interpersonal trauma, the nature of the challenges these children face, and to
develop ways to intervene more effectively (Rittner et al., 2011; DeJong 2010;
Greeson et al., 2011; Kisiel et al., 2014). This would involve ECEC services to
become trauma-informed, developing a trauma-informed perspective to
practice in order to best support children and their families (Pynoos et al. ,2011).
The Impact of Trauma in an Early Childhood Education and Care
Settings
Removal of children from the source of maltreatment and trauma experience
and the placement with foster carers may suggest that children will adapt to a
new, safe environment. However, the impact of trauma, neurological changes
developed as survival strategies while living in a threatening environment
(Teicher et al., 2010), the process of adapting to an unfamiliar environment, can
be challenging and slow for children. While they have been provided with a
place of safety, the impact of previous experiences of trauma are on going and
can be long-lasting (Cook et al., 2005). Difficulties may increase on coming into
care such as externalized behaviours (Lawrence et al., 2006; Vanderfaeillie et al.,
2013) that may be frightening, unmanageable, and appear bizarre. Research

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
110
indicates that in ECEC settings, including pre-schools, such externalized
behaviours are associated with increased stress and emotional exhaustion for
pre-school teachers (Friedman-Krauss et al. ,2014; Jeon et al., 2018). This is
likely to have an impact on the Early Childhood Professional’s capacity to meet
these children’s needs and promote positive relationships with the children
(Whitaker et al., 2015). While these children have needs similar to other children
(universal needs), they also have traumagenic needs (Bath et al., 2018) that
need to be recognised and met by the Early Childhood Professional. Without
specific understanding and knowledge of trauma-impact and intervention,
children’s presenting emotional and behavioural expression of these needs may
be misunderstood; thus, leading to strategies that are inadvertently harmful
(compounding trauma impact), or at the very least ineffective.
Supporting Children’s Traumagenic Needs
Trauma-informed Care
Trauma-informed Care (TIC) has been influenced by the growing awareness of
implications of early childhood trauma and the need to respond in effective
ways (Yatchmenoff, 2015; Berliner and Kolko, 2016). This awareness was fuelled
by a number of developments, the understanding of traumatic stress through
research on the neurobiology of stress (Porges, 2011) and the impact of trauma
on brain development (Riem et al., 2015). The Adverse Childhood Study (ACE)
(Felitti et al., 1998) found strong associations between the impact of childhood
trauma and long lasting consequences for health from an epidemiological
perspective (Kelly-Irving and Delpierre, 2019). TIC subsequently emerged as an
approach based on the integrative multidisciplinary understanding of the impact
of childhood trauma to effectively respond to trauma. TIC as an approach can
be described as incorporating four important elements which recognised the
importance of;
(1) the widespread impact of trauma and understanding of potential paths for
recovery,
(2) the signs and symptoms of trauma in children, families, and staff,
(3) responding by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies,
procedures, and practices, and
(4) actively avoiding of re-traumatisation of children and the adults who care for
them (SAMHSA, 2014).

Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in ECEC
111
Initially, TIC focused on the identification and development of trauma-specific
evidence-based treatment (EBT) (Black et al., 2012; Fraser et al., 2013; Dorsey
et al., 2017). However, attention shifted to the implementation of TIC in child
welfare systems, as professionals and researchers were concerned that most
children who come into contact with child welfare services often have chronic
and complex trauma histories but do not receive mental health treatment (Strand
and Sprang, 2018). The movement also recognised that in order to meet the
complex needs of these children, a more systemic approach was needed. This
has traditionally not been taken in addressing the impact of trauma on children
and families (Ko et al., 2008; Beyerlein and Bloch, 2014). This has resulted in
a paradigm shift away from a traditionally deficit orientated understanding
of trauma that individualises the person’s difficulties and minimises the wider
contextual influences, towards a more compassionate and contextualised
standpoint (Knight, 2015). TIC is concerned with issues of social justice, power
relationships, and human rights (Tseris, 2018), placing the response to trauma
within a strengths-based framework that considers the person’s broader
ecological context. This is often captured in the literature as a shifting away from
the question ‘what is wrong with you?’ towards the more empathetic question
‘what has happened to you? (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014). By 2004,
the National Childhood Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), in the USA, was
applying the concepts of TIC to Trauma-informed child welfare systems (TICWS)
that led to a definition of a TICWS. TICWS is identified as a system:
In which all parties involved recognise and respond to the varying impact of
traumatic stress on children, caregivers and those who have contact with the
system. Programs and organizations within the system infuse this knowledge,
awareness and skills into their organizational cultures, policies, and practices.
They act in collaboration, using the best available science, to facilitate and
support resiliency and recovery (Chadwick Trauma-Informed Systems Project
2013: 11).
The definition focuses not only on children, but also their caregivers and the
child welfare workforce who seek to support them. It recognises that all of these
groups are affected by trauma, including primary traumatic experiences that they
may have experienced and the exposure to secondary trauma by caring for or
working with children and families that have experienced trauma. The definition
goes beyond the development of knowledge and awareness of trauma impact,
but emphasises the need for the system to apply that knowledge in daily
practices, in the culture of the organisation, and in interagency partnerships
such as ECEC. Further to this, six practice guiding principles were developed

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
112
by SAMHSA (2014) to underpin the approach: safety, trustworthiness and
transparency, peer support, collaboration and mutuality, empowerment and
humility, and responsiveness (recognition of cultural, diversity and historical
trauma issues). Thus, TIC is strongly aligned to the values of ECEC practice
(National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2009).
TIC interventions can be carried out by professionals and carers, outside a formal
clinical setting, by those working with, and caring for, children in roles such as
early childhood education and care settings. These types of interventions have
three main components (Bath, 2015) and were first identified by Van der Kolk
(2005), and later by Bath (2008). Namely:
1) developing the child’s sense of safety
2) promoting healing relationships between the child and caregiver and
3) teaching self-management and coping skills.
These three “pillars “lay the foundations for supporting the child in engaging
in a formal therapeutic relationship, if required (Bath, 2008; Bath, 2015).
Neuroscientific research provides evidence that children who are exposed
to developmental trauma have impairment of their self-regulation capacities
(Frewen and Lanius, 2006; Dale et al., 2009;Teicher et al., 2010, Schore, 2015,).
This impairment is linked to emotional and behavioural difficulties (Racusin et
al., 2005; Brendtro et al., 2009; Siegel, 2015). Thus, enhancing professionals’
and caregivers’ capacities to support the child to develop self-regulation has
become the overarching key component of these interventions ( Racusin et al.,
2005; Dozier et al., 2006; Gunnar and Fisher, 2006; Schore, 2009; D’Andrea et al.,
2012; Van Der Kolk, 2015).The phased approach seeks to ensure the foundations
are laid out and then built upon to support the child in his or her recovery.
The first phase:
focuses on building the child’s feeling of safety (pillar 1). The target of developing
“felt” safety aims to support the child in developing arousal and affect
regulation and reduce reactive fear based behaviours (Steele, 2008; Teicher
et al., 2010; Nolte et al., 2011; Nemeroff, 2016;Shonkoff 2016). Developmental
trauma involves prolonged and repeated exposure to trauma which serves to
impair the stress arousal system (Porges, 2011). This results in emotional and
behavioural difficulties that stem from pervasive biological and emotional
dysregulation. Owing to the plastic nature of the stress arousal system in the
brain (Roozendaal et al., 2009), it can be positively influenced by intervention

Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in ECEC
113
(Slopen et al., 2014). Addressing the child’s dysregulated arousal system is the
avenue to addressing attachment and cognitive based difficulties (Cook et al.,
2003; Bath, 2008; Courtois and Ford, 2009; Bath, 2015).
The second phase:
is focused on building a trusting relationship between the foster carer and the
child (pillar 2). This is built on the ongoing development of supporting the child
to experience a feeling of safety (biological, emotional and psychological). The
focus is to provide ongoing positive experiences of attunement communication
that build affect regulation and secure attachment ( Fonagy et al., 2007; Schore
and Schore, 2008; Ford and Courtois, 2009; Siegel, 2015) . Here, the focus is on
promoting organized attachment behaviour/addressing the child’s disrupted
attachment system. This relationship provides the scaffolding to support the
child’s socio-cognitive development.
The third phase:
The focus is on developing positive coping skills in the child (pillar 3), including
emotional and cognitive regulation (Bath, 2015). This involves further identifying
the child’s unmet developmental needs. These unmet needs have stemmed
from a lack of basic development skills resulting from interpersonal trauma
exposure in the child’s early development (Bosquet Enlow et al., 2012). This
may include the basic foundations of executive functions (working memory,
inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility). This stage focus is on addressing
the child’s needs by building coping skills, through trusting relationships with
the foster carers and others. Over time, the focus is to support the child build a
coherent sense of personal identity and competence.
Trauma-informed Care and Early Childhood Education and Care
Professionals
Early Childhood Professionals are located in a unique position where they can
provide crucial supports for children who have experienced trauma (Loomis,
2018). TIC, essentially a relational regulatory approach aligns well with ECEC
guidelines for good practice (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment
2009). Early Childhood Professionals are well placed to provide children with
TIC through supporting children’s experience of a feeling of safety, develop
trusting relationships with them, and supporting children to develop coping
skills. In ECEC settings such as pre-schools, professionals may support felt
safety through providing children with emotional containment (Douglas, 2007),

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
114
routine, predictability, and promoting a sense of control from a trauma-informed
perspective. This may involve the recognition of children’s trauma triggers and
supporting them when they are overwhelmed by emotions and behaviours.
ECEC may support children by using de-escalation techniques, desensitising
children, and developing children’s strategies to cope with trauma triggers. They
can also give attention to the ECEC environment, reducing sensory insensitivity
and promoting a sense of safety in the classroom/care setting.
Building trusting relationships with children being at the core of ECEC
practice is also a fundamental component of providing TIC. The Early Years
Professional is already placed to build healthy relationships with children in
their care (Gillespie and Hunter, 2011). Thus, the Early Years Professionals could
integrate their existing understanding of relational practice into the context of
understanding the impact of developmental trauma on the attachment system.
In the context of an understanding of attachment trauma, TIC seeks to create
positive experiences of intersubjectivity and attunement (Trevarthen, 2001)
for children as often as possible in the everyday interactions. The emphasis
on the importance of the role of play in ECEC practice (Gonzales-Mena and
Widmeyer Eyer, 2009) fits well here as play is viewed as an important vehicle
for children’s recovery from trauma (Terr, 2011). However, approaching play
with children who have experienced trauma requires consideration, given that
often these children may have little or no experience of healthy play (Gaskill and
Perry, 2014). Children may feel threatened by the close proximity of an adult
in a play-based context. Thus, using a trauma lens is likely to support a more
thoughtful reflective approach to interacting with children, using approaches
such as non-directive child led play. Non-directive child led play may support
the child’s experience of trust, security, and reduce stress (Solter, 2013), and
provide children the opportunity of positive relational experiences that support
child development from a trauma-informed perspective.
Developing coping skills also requires a trauma lens for children who have
experienced trauma. This involves approaching supporting children to
develop coping skills with a developmentally sensitive perspective. Children
who have experienced trauma often may be developmentally ‘younger’
than their chronological age owing to the prolonged and chronic nature of
developmentally traumatising experiences. ECEC has a central role in children’s
development (Davies, 2010). For example, ECEC emphasises emotional
and social development, both areas of child development that often has
been impacted by early childhood trauma (Burns et al., 2010). Research has
indicated that young children who have experienced trauma have difficulties

Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in ECEC
115
with the facial recognition of emotions (Pollak et al., 2000). Thus, ECEC could
provide meaningful supports to children’s social and emotional development
who have experienced such gaps in these areas of their development. ECEC
also could support children’s behaviour regulation, by recognising trauma
related behaviour and subsequently responding using trauma-informed care
behavioural strategies that support emotional regulation and the child-carer
relationship (Siegel and Bryson, 2016).
Language development is also a key area where ECEC support children. This
is also very relevant for children who have experienced trauma, as language
development is also an area often impacted by early childhood trauma (Bartlett
and Smith, 2019). These core coping skills, addressing gaps in children’s
development, are only developed in the context of trusting relationships and a
sense of safety. While the Early Childhood Professional has the opportunity to
provide children with TIC in their role, without specific training in TIC, they are
unlikely to have the knowledge and understanding of the impact of childhood
trauma. Thus, they may have difficulty in recognising trauma related behaviours
and, in turn, be unable to respond in effective ways using evidenced-based
practices. TIC is underpinned by the core component that professionals do
not retraumatise, however, without specific training, professionals are at risk of
inadvertently re-traumatising and further compounding children’s difficulties
(SAMHSA, 2014).
ECEC also have the unique position to support healthy relationships between
children and their caregivers (Gillespie and Hunter, 2011) as experts in early
childhood education and care. They are also key stakeholders in foster care as
they are often important members of the team around the child within the foster
care system (Lotty, forthcoming). In a recent doctoral study that developed
an effective TIC intervention for foster carers in Ireland (Lotty, Dunn-Galvin
and Bantry-White, 2020), one of the key recommendations of the study was
to develop trauma-informed care training for key stakeholders in the lives of
children in foster care, which include the Early Childhood Professionals. It is
likely that by increasing Early Childhood Professionals capacity to recognise
trauma related behaviours and provide trauma-informed care, this will also
support children’s foster families. It is more likely to promote collaborative
practices between Early Childhood Professionals and foster carers, aligning with
the principles of trauma-informed foster care (Lotty, 2019) and ECEC guidelines
for good practice (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2009).
The research base to support TIC in ECEC programmes is limited (Bartlett et al.,

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
116
2017; Loomis 2018). However, there are some examples of promising practices
in the USA (Bartlett and Smith, 2019). TIC training and mentoring provided
to ECEC professionals and evidenced based clinical treatment to children
through partnerships with mental health services resulting in improvement in
child behaviour (Holmes et al., 2015), academic achievement, socio-emotional
competence, and reduced symptoms of child PTSD (Jaycox, 2011). Kanine et
al., (2018) recently reported effectiveness of a TIC intervention that increased
pre-school teachers’ capacity to provide children with TIC in the classroom and
increased child socioemotional skills.
Conclusion
Early childhood trauma is prevalent and far-reaching. In Ireland, many young
children enter foster care each year who have endured developmentally
traumatising experiences. The resources that are needed to address early
childhood trauma are overstretched and chronically under resourced in Ireland.
Trauma-informed Care is an approach that may support children’s amelioration
from early childhood trauma that can be provided by the professionals and
carers such as Early Years Professionals. The core components of TIC align well
with ECEC practices and could be integrated into existing practices. While, the
research base to support TIC in ECEC settings is limited and there is an urgent
need for more research some promising interventions are emerging. These
interventions included the component of ECEC professional development in
understanding and application of TIC. To conclude, the ECEC professionals are
in a unique position to provide children with TIC and make a contribution to
children’s recovery and healing from trauma. Thus, developing the capacity for
Early Childhood Professionals to have both the knowledge and skills to provide
children with trauma-informed care should be an important consideration.
References
Ai, A. L., Jackson Foster, L. J., Pecora, P. J., Delaney, N. and Rodriguez, W. (2013) ‘Reshaping Child
Welfare’s Response to Trauma: Assessment, Evidence-Based Intervention, and New Research
Perspectives’, Research on Social Work Practice, 23(6), 651-668.
American Academy of Pediatrics. 2014. ‘Adverse childhood experiences and the lifelong consequences
of trauma’. American Academy of Pediatrics. Available at http:// https://www.aap.org/en-us/
Documents/ttb_aces_consequences.pdf
Baginsky, M., Gorin, S. and Sands, C. (2017) ‘The fostering system in England: Evidence’.
Bartlett, J. D. and Smith, S. (2019) ‘The role of early care and education in addressing early childhood
trauma’, American journal of community psychology, 64(3-4), 359-372.
Bartlett, J. D., Smith, S. and Bringewatt, E. (2017) ‘Helping young children who have experienced
trauma: Policies and strategies for early care and education’.

Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in ECEC
117
Bath, H. (2008) ‘The three pillars of trauma-informed care’, Reclaiming children and youth, 17(3), 17.
Bath, H. (2015) ‘The Three Pillars of TraumaWise Care: Healing in the Other 23 Hours1’, Reclaiming
Children and Youth, 23(4), 5.
Bath, H. I. (2008) ‘Calming together: The pathway to self-control’, Reclaiming Children and Youth, 16(4),
44.
Bath, H., Seita, J. and Brendtro, L. K. (2018) The three pillars of transforming care: Trauma and resilience
in the other 23 hours, UW Faculty of Education Publishing.
Berliner, L. and Kolko, D. J. (2016) ‘Trauma Informed Care: A Commentary and Critique’, 21(Generic),
168-172.
Beyerlein, B. A. and Bloch, E. (2014) ‘Need for Trauma-Informed Care Within the Foster Care System:
A Policy Issue’, Child Welfare, 93(3), 7-21.
Black, P. J., Woodworth, M., Tremblay, M. and Carpenter, T. (2012) ‘A Review of Trauma-Informed
Treatment for Adolescents’, Canadian Psychology, 53(3), 192-203.
Bosquet Enlow, M., Egeland, B., Blood, E. A., Wright, R. O. and Wright, R. J. (2012) ‘Interpersonal
trauma exposure and cognitive development in children to age 8 years: a longitudinal study’, Journal
of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66(11), 1005.
Bremness, A. and Polzin, W. (2014) ‘Commentary: Developmental trauma disorder: A missed opportunity
in DSM V’, Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(2), 142.
Brendtro, L. K., Mitchell, M. L. and McCall, H. (2009) Deep brain learning: Pathways to potential with
challenging youth, Circle of Courage Institute.
Burns, E. E., Jackson, J. L. and Harding, H. G. (2010) ‘Child maltreatment, emotion regulation, and
posttraumatic stress: The impact of emotional abuse’, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
19(8), 801-819.
Butler, J. 4th November 2019. “Trauma-informed Care in Early Childhood Services” [oral paper]
Trauma-informed Care in Practice Conference, The Richmond Centre, Dublin
Chadwick, Trauma-informed Systems and Project (2013). Creating trauma-informed child welfare
systems (2nd ed.). Chadwick Center for Children + Families.
Child Trends. (2019) ‘Child Maltreatment’ Avaiable from: https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/child-
maltreatment [Accessed February 6 2020]
Cook, A., Blaustein, M., Spinazzola, J. and Van der Kolk, B. (2003) ‘Complex trauma in children and
adolescents: White paper from the national child traumatic stress network complex trauma task force’,
Los Angeles: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.
Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., DeRosa, R., Hubbard, R.,
Kagan, R., Liautaud, J., Mallah, K., Olafson, E. and Van der Kolk, B. A. (2005) ‘Complex trauma in
children and adolescents’, Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390-398.
Courtois, C. A. and Ford, J. D. (2009) Treating complex traumatic stress disorders: An evidence-based
guide, Cambridge University Press.
D’Andrea, W., School, T. N., Ford, J., Connecticut, U. o., Stolbach, B., Hospital, L. R. C. s., Spinazzola,
J., Institute, T. T. C. a. J. R., van der Kolk, B. A. and Institute, T. T. C. a. J. R. (2012) ‘Understanding
Interpersonal Trauma in Children: Why We Need a Developmentally Appropriate Trauma Diagnosis’,
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(2), 187-200.
Dale, L. P., Carroll, L. E., Galen, G., Hayes, J. A., Webb, K. W. and Porges, S. W. (2009) ‘Abuse
History is related to Autonomic Regulation to Mild Exercise and Psychological Wellbeing’, Applied
Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34(4), 299-308.
D’Andrea, W., Ford, J., Stolbach, B., Spinazzola, J. and van der Kolk, B. A. (2012) ‘Understanding
interpersonal trauma in children: why we need a developmentally appropriate trauma diagnosis’,
American journal of orthopsychiatry, 82(2), 187-200.
Davies, D., 2010. Child development: A practitioner’s guide. Guilford Press.
De Bellis, M. D. (2010) The neurobiology of child neglect, The impact of early life trauma on health and
disease: The hidden epidemic.
DeJong, M. (2010) ‘Some reflections on the use of psychiatric diagnosis in the looked after or “in care”
child population’.
Dorsey, S., McLaughlin, K. A., Kerns, S. E. U., Harrison, J. P., Lambert, H. K., Briggs, E. C., Revillion Cox,

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
118
J. and Amaya-Jackson, L. (2017) ‘Evidence base update for psychosocial treatments for children and
adolescents exposed to traumatic events’, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(3),
303-330.
Douglas, H. (2007) Containment and reciprocity: Integrating psychoanalytic theory and child
development research for work with children, Routledge.
Dozier, M., Peloso, E., Lindhiem, O., Gordon, M. K., Manni, M., Sepulveda, S., Ackerman, J., Bernier,
A. and Levine, S. (2006) ‘Developing evidence‐based interventions for foster children: An example of a
randomized clinical trial with infants and toddlers’, Journal of Social Issues, 62(4), 767-785.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P. and
Marks, J. S. (1998) ‘Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading
causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study’, American journal of
preventive medicine, 14(4), 245-258.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P. and
Marks, J. S. (2019) ‘Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading
causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study’, American journal of
preventive medicine, 56(6), 774-786.
Fisher, P. A., Beauchamp, K. G., Roos, L. E., Noll, L. K., Flannery, J. and Delker, B. C. (2016) ‘The
Neurobiology of Intervention and Prevention in Early Adversity’, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
12(331-357.
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G. and Target, M. (2007) ‘The parent–infant dyad and the construction of the
subjective self’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(3‐4), 288-328.
Forbes, C., O’Neill, C., Humphreys, C., Tregeagle, S. and Cox, E. (2011) ‘Foster Care and Adoption:
Carer/Parent Hours Over and Above ‘Ordinary Parenting’’, Children Australia, 36(2), 56-65.
Ford, J. D. and Courtois, C. A. (2009) ‘Defining and understanding complex trauma and complex
traumatic stress disorders’ in Courtois, Christine A | Ford, Julian D (ed.), Treating complex traumatic
stress disorders: an evidence-based guide, Guilford Press, pp 13-30.
Ford, T., Vostanis, P., Meltzer, H. and Goodman, R. (2007) ‘Psychiatric disorder among British children
looked after by local authorities: comparison with children living in private households’, The British
Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 319-325.
Fraser, J. G., Lloyd, S., Murphy, R., Crowson, M., Zolotor, A. J., Coker-Schwimmer, E. and Viswanathan,
M. (2013) ‘A comparative effectiveness review of parenting and trauma-focused interventions for
children exposed to maltreatment’, Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 34(5), 353-
368.
Frewen, P. A. and Lanius, R. A. (2006) ‘Toward a psychobiology of posttraumatic self-dysregulation -
Reexperiencing, hyperarousal, dissociation, and emotional numbing’ in Yehuda, R., ed. Psychobiology
of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, 110-124.
Friedman-Krauss, A. H., Raver, C. C., Neuspiel, J. M. and Kinsel, J. (2014) ‘Child behavior problems,
teacher executive functions, and teacher stress in Head Start classrooms’, Early Education and
Development, 25(5), 681-702.
Fusco, R. A. and Fantuzzo, J. W. (2009) ‘Domestic violence crimes and children: A population-based
investigation of direct sensory exposure and the nature of involvement’, Children and Youth Services
Review, 31(2), 249-256.
Gabowitz, D., Zucker, M. and Cook, A. (2008) ‘Neuropsychological assessment in clinical evaluation of
children and adolescents with complex trauma’, Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 1(2), 163-178.
Gaskill, R.L. and Perry, B., 2014. The neurobiological power of play. Creative arts and play therapy for
attachment problems, pp.178-194.
Gilbert, R., Fluke, J., O’Donnell, M., Gonzalez-Izquierdo, A., Brownell, M., Gulliver, P., Janson, S. and
Sidebotham, P. (2012) ‘Child maltreatment: variation in trends and policies in six developed countries’,
The Lancet, 379(9817), 758-72.
Gillespie, L. and Hunter, A., 2011. Creating healthy attachments to the babies in your care. YC Young
Children, 66(5), p.62.
Goemans, A., van Geel, M. and Vedder, P. (2018) ‘Foster children’s behavioral development and foster
parent stress: testing a transactional model’, Journal of child and family studies, 27(3), 990-1001.
Gonzales-Mena, J. and Widmeyer Eyer, D., 2009. Infants, toddlers and caregivers: A curriculum of
respectful, responsive care and education.

Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in ECEC
119
Greeson, J. K., Briggs, E. C., Kisiel, C. L., Layne, C. M., Ake III, G. S., Ko, S. J., Gerrity, E. T., Steinberg,
A. M., Howard, M. L. and Pynoos, R. S. (2011) ‘Complex trauma and mental health in children and
adolescents placed in foster care: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network’, Child
Welfare, 90(6), 91.
Griffin, G., McClelland, G., Holzberg, M., Stolbach, B., Maj, N. and Kisiel, C. (2011) ‘Addressing the
impact of trauma before diagnosing mental illness in child welfare’, Child Welfare, 90(6), 69.
Gunnar, M. R. and Fisher, P. A. (2006) ‘Bringing basic research on early experience and stress
neurobiology to bear on preventive interventions for neglected and maltreated children’, Development
and Psychopathology, 18(3), 651-77.
Hambrick, E. P., Oppenheim-Weller, S., N’zi, A. M. and Taussig, H. N. (2016) ‘Mental health interventions
for children in foster care: A systematic review’, Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 65-77.
Holmes, C., Levy, M., Smith, A., Pinne, S. and Neese, P. (2015) ‘A model for creating a supportive
trauma-informed culture for children in preschool settings’, Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(6),
1650-1659.
Jaycox, L. H., Hickman, L. J., Schultz, D., Barnes-Proby, D., Setodji, C. M.,Kofner, Harris, R., Acosta,J.
D., and Francois, T., National Evaluation of Safe Start Promising Approaches: Assessing Program
Outcomes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2011. Available from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/
technical_reports/TR991-1.html.
Jeon, L., Buettner, C. K. and Grant, A. A. (2018) ‘Early childhood teachers’ psychological well-being:
Exploring potential predictors of depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion’, Early education and
development, 29(1), 53-69.
Kanine, R. M., Jackson, Y., Huffhines, L., Barnett, A. and Stone, K. J. (2018) ‘A Pilot Study of Universal
Teacher–Child Interaction Training at a Therapeutic Preschool for Young Maltreated Children’, Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 38(3), 146-161.
Kelly, W. and Salmon, K. (2014) ‘Helping foster parents understand the foster child’s perspective: A
relational learning framework for foster care’, Clinical child psychology and psychiatry, 19(4), 535-547.
Kelly-Irving, M. and Delpierre, C. (2019) ‘A Critique of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Framework
in Epidemiology and Public Health, Social Policy and Society, 1-12.
Kinsey, D. and Schlosser, A. (2013) ‘Interventions in foster and kinship care: A systematic review’,
Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 18(3), 429-463.
Kisiel, C. L., Fehrenbach, T., Torgersen, E., Stolbach, B., McClelland, G., Griffin, G. and Burkman,
K. (2014) ‘Constellations of interpersonal trauma and symptoms in child welfare: Implications for a
developmental trauma framework’, Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 1-14.
Knight, C. (2015) ‘Trauma-Informed Social Work Practice: Practice Considerations and Challenges’,
Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(1), 25-37.
Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C., Wong, M., Brymer, M. J. and
Layne, C. M. (2008) ‘Creating Trauma-Informed Systems: Child Welfare, Education, First Responders,
Health Care, Juvenile Justice’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 396-404.
Lawrence, C. R., Carlson, E. A. and Egeland, B. (2006) ‘The impact of foster care on development’,
Development and Psychopathology, 18(1), 57-76.
Leslie, L. K., Hurlburt, M. S., Landsverk, J., Barth, R. and Slymen, D. J. (2004) ‘Outpatient mental health
services for children in foster care: A national perspective’, Child abuse & neglect, 28(6), 697-712.
Lieberman, A. F., Chu, A., Van Horn, P. and Harris, W. W. (2011) ‘Trauma in early childhood: Empirical
evidence and clinical implications’, Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 397-410.
Loomis, A. M. (2018) ‘The role of preschool as a point of intervention and prevention for trauma-
exposed children: recommendations for practice, policy, and research’, Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 38(3), 134-145.
Lotty, M. (2019) ‘Fostering stability through Fostering Connections: the Trauma-informed Foster Care
Programme’. FOSTER, Issue 7, Ireland.
Lotty, M. (forthcoming) Enchancing Foster Carers’ Capacity to promote placement stability: Initial
development and early stage evaluation of Fostering Connections: The Trauma-informed Foster Care
Programme (Doctoral Dissertation Univeristy College Cork).
Lotty, M., Dunn-Galvin, A. and Bantry-White, E. (2020) ‘Effectiveness of a trauma-informed care
psychoeducational program for foster carers–Evaluation of the Fostering Connections Program’, Child

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
120
Abuse & Neglect, 102, p.104390.
Lucey, M. and Pol, H. D. S. (2013) ‘An exploration of Child Protection Social Workers’ experience
of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in addressing the mental health needs of
children in care’, Practice, 5.
McAuley, C. and Davis, T. (2009) ‘Emotional well‐being and mental health of looked after children in
England’, Child & Family Social Work, 14(2), 147-155.
McElvaney, R., Tatlow, M., Webb, R., Lawlor, E. and Merriman, B. (2013) ‘Someone to care: The mental
health needs of children and young people with experience of the care and youth justice systems’.
McNicholas, F., O’Connor, N. and Bandyopadhyay, G. (2011) ‘Looked after children in Dublin and their
mental health needs’, Irish medical journal.
Miller, P. M., Gorski, P. A., Borchers, D. A., Jenista, J. A., Johnson, C. D., Kaufman, N. D., Levitzky, S. E.,
Palmer, S. D., Poole, J. M. and Rezin, J. (2000) ‘Developmental issues for young children in foster care’,
Pediatrics, 106(5), 1145-1150.
Moullin, S., Waldfogel, J. and Washbrook, E. (2014) ‘Baby Bonds: Parenting, Attachment and a Secure
Base for Children’, Sutton Trust.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2009. Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum
Framework. https://curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/3bacf3f4-0d16-4f36-81d6-793b01201ca2/Aistear-
Guidelines-for-Good-Practice_EN.pdf
Nemeroff, C. B. (2016) ‘Paradise lost: the neurobiological and clinical consequences of child abuse and
neglect’, Neuron, 89(5), 892-909.
Nolte, T., Guiney, J., Fonagy, P., Mayes, L. C. and Luyten, P. (2011) ‘Interpersonal stress regulation and
the development of anxiety disorders: an attachment-based developmental framework’, Frontiers in
behavioral neuroscience, 5, 55.
Pollak, S. D., Cicchetti, D., Hornung, K. and Reed, A. (2000) ‘Recognizing emotion in faces’,
Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 679-688.
Porges, S. W. (2011) The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment,
communication, and self-regulation (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology), WW Norton &
Company.
Pynoos, R. S., Fairbank, J. A. and James-Brown, C. (2011) ‘Special Forward Effectively Addressing the
Impact of Child Traumatic Stress’, Child Welfare, 90(6), 11-7.
Pynoos, R. S., Fairbank, J. A., Steinberg, A. M., Amaya-Jackson, L., Gerrity, E., Mount, M. L. and
Maze, J. (2008) ‘The National Child Traumatic Stress Network’, Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 39(4), 389-395.
Racusin, R., Maerlender, A. C., Jr., Sengupta, A., Isquith, P. K. and Straus, M. B. (2005) ‘Psychosocial
Treatment of Children in Foster Care: A Review’, Community Mental Health Journal, 41(2), 199-221.
Riem, M. M. E., Alink, L. R. A., Out, D., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. and Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J.
(2015) ‘Beating the brain about abuse: Empirical and meta-analytic studies of the association between
maltreatment and hippocampal volume across childhood and adolescence’, Development and
Psychopathology, 27(2), 507-520.
Rittner, B., Affronti, M., Crofford, R., Coombes, M. and Schwam-Harris, M. (2011) ‘Understanding
Responses to Foster Care: Theoretical Approaches’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 21(4), 363-382.
Roozendaal, B., McEwen, B. S. and Chattarji, S. (2009) ‘Stress, memory and the amygdala’, Nature
Reviews. Neuroscience, 10(6), 423-33.
SAMHSA, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept
of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. Rockville, MD. Department of Health and
Human Services. Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884.
Schore, A. N. (2009) ‘Right-brain affect regulation’, The Healing Power of Emotion: Affective
Neuroscience, Development & Clinical Practice (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology), 112.
Schore, A. N. (2015) Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional
development, Routledge.
Schore, J. R. and Schore, A. N. (2008) ‘Modern Attachment Theory: The Central Role of Affect
Regulation in Development and Treatment’, Clinical Social Work Journal, 36(1), 9-20.
Shannon, G and Gibbons, N. (2012). Report of the Independent Child Death Review Group. Government
Publications, Dublin. Retrieved 2016, November 9, from http://www.dcya.gov.ie/ documents/

Childhood Trauma in Mind: Integrating Trauma-informed Care in ECEC
121
publications/Report_ICDRG.pdf
Shonkoff, J. P. M. D. (2016) ‘Capitalizing on Advances in Science to Reduce the Health Consequences
of Early Childhood Adversity’, JAMA Pediatrics, 170(10), 1003.
Siegel, D. J. (2015) The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we
are, Guilford Publications.
Siegel, D. J. and Bryson, T. P. (2016) No-drama Discipline: The Whole-brain Way to Calm the Chaos and
Nurture Your Child’s Developing Mind, Bantam.
Slopen, N. S., McLaughlin, K. A. P. and Shonkoff, J. P. M. D. (2014) ‘Interventions to Improve Cortisol
Regulation in Children: A Systematic Review’, Pediatrics, 133(2), 312.
Solter, A.J., 2013. Attachment Play: How to Solve Children’s Behavior Problems with Play, Laughter, and
Connection. Shining Star Press.
Spinazzola, J., Ford, J. D., Zucker, M., van der Kolk, B. A., Silva, S., Smith, S. F. and Blaustein, M.
(2005) ‘Survey Evaluates Complex Trauma Exposure, Outcome, and Intervention Among Children and
Adolescents’, Psychiatric Annals.
Steele, W. (2008) ‘Clinician or Witness?’, Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(3), 44-47.
Strand, V. and Sprang, G., eds. (2018) Trauma Responsive Child Welfare Systems, Switzerland: Springer.
Tarren-Sweeney, M. (2008) ‘The mental health of children in out-of-home care’, Current Opinion in
Psychiatry, 21(4), 345.
Tarren-Sweeney, M. (2014) ‘The clinical application of attachment theory and research: Introducing
a series of Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry special sections’, Clinical child psychology and
psychiatry, 19(3), 333-335.
Teicher, M. H., Rabi, K., Sheu, Y.-S., Seraphin, S. B., Andersen, S. L., Anderson, C., Tomoda, A., Lanius,
R., Vermettin, E. and Pain, C. (2010) ‘Neurobiology of childhood trauma and adversity’, The impact of
early life trauma on health and disease: The hidden epidemic, 112-122.
Terr, L. C. (2011) Working with children to heal interpersonal trauma: The power of play, Guilford Press.
Trevarthen, C. (2001) ‘Intrinsic motives for companionship in understanding: Their origin, development,
and significance for infant mental health’, Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The
World Association for Infant Mental Health, 22(1‐2), 95-131.
Tseris, E. (2018) ‘Social Work and Women’s Mental Health: Does Trauma Theory Provide a Useful
Framework?’, The British Journal of Social Work.
Turney, K. and Wildeman, C. (2017) ‘Adverse childhood experiences among children placed in and
adopted from foster care: Evidence from a nationally representative survey’, Child Abuse & Neglect,
64, 117-129.
Tusla, Child and Family Agency. (2018). Annual Review on the Adequacy of Child Care and Family
Support Services Available 2018. Available at: https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Review_of_
Adequacy_Report_2018_Final_for_Publication_V2.pdf
Van Der Kolk, B. (2015) The Body Keeps The Score, UK: Penguin Random House.
Van der Kolk, B. A. (2005) ‘Developmental trauma disorder: toward a rational diagnosis for children with
complex trauma histories’, Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 401-408.
Van der Kolk, B. A. and d Andrea, A. (2010) ‘Towards a developmental trauma disorder diagnosis for
childhood interpersonal trauma’, The impact of early life trauma on health and disease: The hidden
epidemic, 57-68.
van der Kolk, B. A., Pynoos, R. S., Cicchetti, D., Cloitre, M., D’Andrea, W., Ford, J. D., Lieberman, A. F.,
Putnam, F. W., Saxe, G. and Spinazzola, J. (2009) ‘Proposal to include a developmental trauma disorder
diagnosis for children and adolescents in DSM-V’, Unpublished manuscript. Verfügbar unter: http://
www. cathymalchiodi. com/dtd_nctsn. pdf (Zugriff: 20.5. 2011).
Vanderfaeillie, J., Van Holen, F., Vanschoonlandt, F., Robberechts, M. and Stroobants, T. (2013) ‘Children
placed in long-term family foster care: A longitudinal study into the development of problem behavior
and associated factors’, Children and Youth Services Review, 35(4), 587-593.
Whitaker, R. C., Dearth-Wesley, T. and Gooze, R. A. (2015) ‘Workplace stress and the quality of teacher–
children relationships in Head Start’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 57-69.
Yatchmenoff, D. K. (2015) ‘Creating the conditions for change: Emerging policies to promote and
support trauma-informed care’, Focal Point, 29, 28-31.

123
Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth:
Interrogating the Implications of the International
Early Learning Study
Mary Maloney
Abstract
Scientific research over the past 30 years strongly suggests that the
most critical period of human development is from birth through
to eight years old. During this period of early childhood, learning
occurs at a pace that is unrivalled at any other time in a child’s
development, resulting in sound physical and mental health,
social and emotional competence, and cognitive skills that lay
the foundations for success well into adulthood. To master these
skills, children need environments that support and promote play,
and provide opportunities for exploration, hands-on, relevant
and meaningful learning experiences (e.g., National Council
for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA, 2009); Centre for Early
Childhood Development and Education, (CECDE, 2006); Ministry
of Education NZ, 2017; UNICEF, 2018). Early Childhood Education
and Care services are considered appropriate sites that facilitate
and support children’s learning and development through playful
learning experiences and opportunities. However, the days of
learning through play may be numbered, as the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) pilots a cross-
national assessment of early learning outcomes, involving the
testing of 5 year old children in 3 participating countries –England,
Estonia, and the USA. This paper explores the implications of
this International Early Learning and Well-being Study (OECD,
2016), arguing that it will result in a mini PISA (International
Student Assessment academic) where young children’s academic
achievements will take centre stage, leading to international
rankings, and pressure for early childhood settings to prioritise
targets and outcomes, and, thus become more school-like.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
124
Introduction
In 1998, the OECD Education Committee launched a Thematic Review of Early
Childhood Education and Care, resulting in two reports: Starting Strong 1 (2001)
and Starting Strong 11 (2006). Both reports provided a comparative analysis
of ECEC across OECD countries, and focussed on improving the quality of,
and access to, provision, while being mindful of the diversity and complexity
of systems, curricula, and pedagogical approaches across countries. While
highlighting the need for strong and equal partnership with the education
system, they denounced systems that focused on cognitive development,
and the acquisition of knowledge, skills and dispositions in the early years,
which they considered ‘poorly suited to the psychology and natural learning
strategies of young children’ (OECD, 2006, p.13). Interestingly, as noted by Moss,
Dahlberg, Grieshaber et al. (2016. P.344), the focus and tone of subsequent
OECD reports represented a significant shift in their approach to ECCE towards
‘a discourse of outcomes and investments’. Consequently, Starting Strong 111
(2011) offered a ‘quality toolbox for ECEC’, with Starting Strong 1V: Monitoring
Quality in ECEC (2015), suggesting that governments should regularly monitor
and evaluate ECCE, staff performance, and children’s development in order
to boost standards. The concept of accountability, clearly linked to ‘return on
investment’, had moved centre stage. However, the purpose of ECCE is about
much more than preparing children for school. It must support children’s holistic
development in order to establish a solid and broad foundation for lifelong
learning and well-being. Moreover, ECCE offers the ‘possibility to nurture
caring, capable and responsible future citizens’ (UNESCO, 2020). All of this can
be achieved through play which is internationally recognised as supporting
children’s physical, emotional, social and intellectual wellbeing, and health
(Lester & Russell, 2008, 2010) Indeed, Article 31 of the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child upholds the right of all children to rest and leisure, and
to engage in play and recreational activities. Likewise, the European Early
Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA, 2013) identify play as
one of children’s basic rights, whereas the UNCRC General Comment No. 7
(2013) reinforces the view of children as rights’ holders, maintaining that the
early childhood period is critical to the realisation of these rights. Accordingly,
this paper argues that the International Early Learning and Well-being Study
(IELS, OECD, 2016), which involves standardised testing of young children, will
considerably undermine the child’s right to play. It suggests that the IELS will
lead to a ‘mini PISA’, with the associated risk that play will be replaced by test
preparation in early childhood settings as they strive to improve young children’s

Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth:
Interrogating the Implications of the International Early Learning Study
125
academic achievement.
International Early Learning Study
The OECD’s attempt to consolidate its paradigm shift towards outcomes
and investments is evident within the International Early Learning and Well-
Being Study (IELS), a cross-national assessment of early learning outcomes,
involving comparative testing of 5 year old children across countries. The
IELS, which was piloted with 1200 children in England, Estonia, and the USA
in 2017 (OECD, 2018), utilises tablet-based direct assessments of the children
and questionnaires to collect information from each sampled child’s parent(s)
or carer(s), and the teachers or staff members who know the child best (Dept.
for Education (DfE, 2018). The questionnaires also collect information on the
children’s individual characteristics, home environment and background, and
early education experiences (DfE, 2018). Figure 1 provides an overview of the
domains under which children are assessed.
Figure 1. Domains assessed by the IELS
According to the OECD, these domains ‘represent a balance of both cognitive
and social and emotional skills’ (2016, p. 18). On the face of it, they seem benign.
However, cognisant that the children involved are 5 years old, the finer detail
associated with these domains (Table 1) is disconcerting.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
126
Table 1. Detail associated with domains of assessment
Self-Regulation Self-control, grit, self-management and conscientiousness
Oral language including the:
Sounds produced while speaking (phonemes)
Rules a given language requires to construct sentences (syntax),
and
Understanding that concepts have meaning (semantics)
Emergent literacy children’s knowledge of print, letters and sounds, which will help
them to learn to decode and read for meaning, building upon oral
language skills
Numeracy ability to reason and apply simple numerical concepts. It
comprises the ability to identify and understand numbers as well
as computational skills, ie the ability to count and to perform
simple arithmetical operations such as addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division, and compare numerical magnitudes
Executive function Children’s ability to regulate attention, including controlling
reactions to new stimuli, working memory and planning, which are
also associated with later academic development
Self-Awareness/
Locus of control
children’s own beliefs about whether they possess the ability to
complete tasks, and encompasses aspects such as self-esteem,
self-confidence, self-efficacy and locus of control
Social Skills pro-social behaviour and sociability. Within this domain children
will be assessed on their ability to take the perspective of another,
to demonstrate prosocial behaviour (i.e. showing kindness,
sharing, co-operation, and respect for others), agreeableness and
empathy (OECD, 2016, P.18-20).
A closer examination of some of these domains highlights the unreasonable
expectations of children participating in the IELS. Take self-regulation, and use
of the term ‘grit’ and ‘conscientiousness’, for example. The psychologist, Angela
Duckworth, who studied grit as a personality trait, defined it as ‘perseverance
and passion for long-term goals’. Dictionary definitions invariably place grit
along five particular dimensions: courage, conscientiousness, endurance,
resilience, and excellence. The appropriateness of ‘testing’ 5-year-old children
in these dimensions is highly questionable.

Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth:
Interrogating the Implications of the International Early Learning Study
127
In relation to Numeracy, the OECD (2016) define it as the ability to reason and
apply simple numerical concepts. Again, although this definition appears quite
innocuous and indeed, reasonable, it underscores the associated complexity
which requires young children to have the ‘ability to identify and understand
numbers as well as computational skills, i.e., the ability to count and perform
simple arithmetical operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication,
division, and compare numerical magnitudes’ (OCED, 2016, p18-20). All of
this by age 5. Can such testing be construed as suited to young children’s
psychology and natural learning strategies? (OECD, 2006) It is inconceivable
that the OECD think so.
Let there be no misunderstanding that comparative education represents
a narrow reductionist interpretation of education, as well as a considerable
shift away from the concept of holistic child development, which recognises
that children are not divided up into separate domains, learning styles,
intelligences, attitudes, dispositions or creativities. The IELS is, in fact, at odds
with international early childhood curricula in Finland, Ireland, Scotland, and
New Zealand for instance, each of which emphasise the integrated nature of
children’s learning and development throughout early childhood, and purport
a playful pedagogy throughout the early years. Urban & Swadener (2016, p. 12)
argue that the approach suggested by the IELS actively contradicts the rights
of children, families, and communities to meaningful participation in all matters
concerning and affecting the upbringing and education of young children. They
conclude that the kind of standardised assessment and ranking proposed is
not going to provide a meaningful basis for achieving more just and equitable
outcomes for children, families, and the wider community. Resources will be
diverted from much needed local and national improvement processes to
creating a largely meaningless international league table instead (Urban and
Swadener, 2016 p. 10). Drawing upon Foucaultian theory, the IELS represents a
‘regime of truth’- one world view, as if it were the only absolute truth, generating
‘an authoritative consensus about what needs to be done…and how it should
be done (Cohen, 2008, p. 9) discounting other perspectives or world views. Is it,
as suggested by Morris (2016, p.2), a case of:
the west... Exporting its vision of schooling around the world
through the auspices of cross-national tests supported by the
modern missionaries and camp followers of our time: the think
tanks and multinational companies who specialize in identifying
and delivering ‘what works’.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
128
Teaching to the Test in Early Childhood
There is little doubt that ‘what works’ in early childhood is inextricably linked
with competent systems which unfold in relationships between individuals,
institutions, and governance, based on shared knowledge, practices, and values
(Urban, Vandenbroeck, Van Laere, et al., 2011). Such an approach is arguably
far removed from standardised testing of young children. Rather than testing
children, Aistear: the early childhood curriculum framework in Ireland, for
example, supports the notion of assessment: the ‘ongoing process of collecting,
reflecting on, and using information to develop rich portraits of children as
learners in order to support and enhance their future learning’ (NCCA, 2009,
p.72 ). Accordingly, the adult working with the young child ‘uses the assessment
information to give on-going feedback to children about how they are getting
on in their learning, to provide challenging and enjoyable experiences for them,
to choose appropriate supports for them, and to document, celebrate and plan
the next steps in their learning’ (ibid., p. 73).
Undertaken in this way, assessment is a natural and integral aspect of a systems
approach to ECCE. It benefits, involves, and makes sense for children; it includes
families, is multi-modal, happens over time, and celebrates the breadth and
depth of children’s learning and development (NCCA, 2009). Regrettably, with
its focus on rankings of ability across particular skills, the IELS will result in an
inevitable erosion of informal learning in early childhood, a move away from
play based pedagogy to a pedagogy of compliance, a re-emergence of rote,
and forced learning, and a push-down formalised curriculum, where children risk
being pitted against each other as governments scramble to increase rankings.
The IELS will result in standardised testing of children at all levels of education,
from early childhood through to third level. This intention is clearly signalled
by the OECD (2016), who state that: In time, the information [gathered] can
also provide information on the trajectory between early learning outcomes and
those at age 15, as measured by PISA (p. 103)…The second relationship with
PISA is to enable countries to link early learning outcomes to the capabilities
of the same cohort of students at age 15 (p.110) Commenting on England’s
participation in the IELS, the DfE (2018:5) also signify the intention to provide
valuable and internationally comparable statistical evidence on children’s
early learning and development, which we know is important for educational
attainment throughout childhood and later life.
Is this what academics, parents, educators, teachers want for our young
children? It behoves all of us to consider how the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) has altered the educational landscape for children

Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth:
Interrogating the Implications of the International Early Learning Study
129
in secondary education globally. Because of international rankings in math,
science, and reading, education systems around the world are now primed
for competition. School performance is rated, placing pressure on principals,
teachers, and children. Accordingly, there is a tendency to prioritise children’s
academic achievement. The concern is that the IELS will result in similar
downward pressure for children accessing ECEC services. The function of metrics
and measurements, as proposed through the IELS, is to provide competitive
comparisons’ or ‘comparison advocacy’ harnessed to the task of winning
imaginary contests and competitions, such as the global ‘war for talent’, the
‘education race’, and ‘skills race’ (Morris, 2016, p.3), but at what cost to children?
During a TED talk in February 2017, Ken Robinson argued that ‘kids don’t fail,
schools fail kids’, a claim that resonates with Malaguzzi’s assertion that although
children have one hundred languages (i.e., their endless potentials, their ability
to wonder and to inquire, and multiple ways of seeing and being), school and
culture rob them of ninety-nine. Although this may be an unjust critique of
the education system globally, the reality is that regardless of a teacher’s best
intentions, the IELS will result in teaching to the test, both inside and outside
the classroom at both pre-school and early primary level.
Exacerbating Educational Disadvantage and Inequality
• In justifying the IELS, the OECD (2016) assert that information on early
learning outcomes, could provide parents with reliable information on
a range of factors including:
• Practical activities they can undertake with their child to make a
significant difference to their learning and make the most from their
ECEC and schooling experiences;
• The age at which it would be beneficial to enrol their child in an ECEC
setting and what is likely to be best in terms of intensity, duration, and
continuity;
• The kinds of capabilities their child should be building, in social,
emotional and. cognitive domains (OECD, 2016, p.104).
Herein lies a conundrum. Is it not more likely that parents with greater social
capital, access to resources, and wherewithal to access appropriate support,
and quality ECEC for their child, will yet again have a ‘competitive advantage’
over parents and families living in poverty, or suffering from socio-economic
disadvantage? The IELS may well set children up for failure as early as 5 years.
Likewise, parents whose children do not ‘make the grade’ will feel equally

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
130
incompetent. The narrow definition of the context of children’s lives in the IELS
leaves little room for considering existing inequality as a factor that influences
measurement of the learner. This, in itself, is inequitable and points to a lack of
awareness of the social, cultural, economic, and political diversity of families
and contexts.
Schoolification of ECEC
Given the age cohort (5 year olds) identified for assessment by the OECD, the
potential expectation that these young children should be engaging in formal
academic activities within early childhood education and care settings, prior
to school entry, is worrying. Has the OECD forgotten or chosen to overlook its
critique and denouncement of ECEC programmes that were underpinned by
primary school academic activities in 2006? (see Starting Strong 11, 2006). From
a children’s rights stance, nation states must resist the “schoolification” of ECEC,
where programmes place an inordinate focus upon cognitive development, and
the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and where children spend much of their
time indoors, learning letters and numbers in preparation for primary school
(Pantazis and Potsi, 2012, Ring, Mhic Mhathúna, Moloney, et al. 2015), rather
than the development of social skills, independence, curiosity, and child-agency
(NCCA, 2009; PACEY, 2013).
While testing of children may appear attractive for governments as they
rationalise investment in ECEC, early introduction to academic learning is
unnecessary and can negatively impact children’s development (Claxton, 2008;
House, 2012). In fact, a recent report from England, Baseline Assessment: Why
It Doesn’t Add Up, indicates that the data provided by standardised testing
of young children has little or no statistical value (Bradbury, Jarvis and Cathy
Nutbrown, 2015). Furthermore, when programme expectations “focus primarily
on knowledge and skills acquisition, important dispositions are often ignored”
(Da Ros-Voseles and Fowler-Haughey, 2007, p.3). As observed by Palmer (2009.
p. 1),
It’s time we recognised that too much too soon isn’t working. To give our under-
sevens the best chance of growing up bright, balanced and literate we must
stop trying to fast-forward their education. .
Let Children Play
As previously discussed, a child’s right to play is upheld through Article 31
of UNCRC, the UNCRC General Comment No. 7 (2006) and EECERA (2013).
Nonetheless, this right is all too often ignored as governments scramble to

Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth:
Interrogating the Implications of the International Early Learning Study
131
increase international rankings. Any such ranking and competitive approach in
early childhood would be a travesty for children. Among a myriad of factors that
preclude the integration of play in ECEC programmes is a lack of understanding
of the value of play as a foundation for academic concepts. As noted by
UNICEF (2018, p.15), ‘education officials and staff, as well as administrators and
principals, may not realize the critical role of play in building young children’s
understanding of mathematical, scientific and literacy concepts’.
Could it be that the OECD no longer believes in play as the most appropriate
mechanism to support children’s learning, or is it too difficult a concept to
‘sell’ internationally in light of consistent underinvestment in ECEC worldwide?
Hence the paradigm shift towards a discourse of outcomes, investment, and
accountability. UNICEF calls for a coordinated systems approach to remove
obstacles and integrate play consistently into ECEC programmes. In doing so,
it has developed a conceptual framework that emphasises the complex nature
of ECEC, and outlines key enabling factors in the policy environment as well as
five action areas that contribute to an effective ECEC sector. Figure 2 presents
a visual summary of the framework, and highlights the guiding principles of
equity, efficiency, responsiveness, and the importance of co-ordination across
national, sub-national, and local levels of the ECEC sector.
With regards to policies and legislation, UNICEF indicates that polices that
are specific to ECEC are central to affirming a child’s right to play, and stating
that play-based learning is ‘a distinctive and essential feature of effective early
learning’ ( 2018, p.17).
In terms of public demand, awareness-raising must focus on children’s unique
learning needs in early childhood, the need to make meaning through playful
experiences with the support of knowledgeable teachers (NCCA, 2009; UNICEF,
2018). A key aspect of fostering public support and demand for learning through
play is to ensure that parents recognise their role in providing and supporting
play experiences in the home, and empowering them to do so (UNICEF,
2018). Similar sentiments permeate First 5, a whole of Government Strategy
for babies, young children and their families in Ireland (Govt. Ireland, 2018).
Garnering public support and demand for learning through play will enhance
the ECEC sector’s commitment to, and recognition of, the benefits of play for
young children (UNICEF, 2018).

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
132
Source: UNICEF, 2018
As shown in Figure 2, ministerial leadership that is aware of and/or committed
to the value of playful approaches to teaching and learning in early childhood
can give visibility to these issues and pressure, co-ordinate, and promote this
philosophical continuity across pre-primary and primary education. Naturally,
a well-resourced system is vital, and as stressed by UNICEF; public and private
investments should take account of essential financing for appropriate learning
materials, equipment, and professional supports that emphasise play where
possible. They further stress that, in the context of limited finances, funding
estimates for pre-primary education should be based on achieving pedagogical
goals. The underlying message, which is reflected in Ireland’s practice
frameworks, Síolta and Aistear, is clear; play is essential to children’s learning
and development. The voice of the child, which is embedded within Aistear,
stresses the critical importance of play for children’s learning and development:
When I play, I use my body, my mind, my feelings, and my senses.
Give me opportunities to develop my play. Watch how I play,

Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth:
Interrogating the Implications of the International Early Learning Study
133
and see how you can support me. When I play with them I learn
about co-operation, about how to deal with conflict, about how
others think and feel, and what different actions and things mean
(NCCA, 2009, p.11)
Contrary to testing children, leading to international metrics and comparisons, it
is imperative that governments refocus their attention towards playful pedagogy
which makes learning more relevant, meaningful, enjoyabl,e and positive for
children. Again, the voice of the child in Aistear asks educators and teachers to:
involve me in lots of meaningful, hands-on experiences in order
to learn, to develop, and to become independent. I use my
hands, my ears, my eyes, and my body to explore the objects,
places and people in my world. Allow me the freedom to explore
and to do things for myself (NCCA, 2009, p.11).
Conclusion
There is little doubt that the IELS represents a considerable shift in the OECD’s
approach to ECEC, from a focus on quality (1998 to 2006) towards a discourse
of outcomes, investment, and accountability (2011 to present). The IELS does
not take account of children’s natural learning styles and abilities in the early
years, focusing instead on international rankings of ability across particular
skillsets. Doubtless, it will lead to standardised testing of children, beginning
in early childhood. This is a regressive step in the history of the OECD’s overall
positive relationship with ECEC. The risk is that ECEC will become increasingly
schoolified, with the resultant erosion of play, and a re-emergence of rote
learning. Educators will engage in a pedagogy of compliance, teaching to the
test, rather than celebrating children’s exploration, discovery, mastery, fun, and
joyful learning, which is central to learning in early childhood. Equally, parents
will feel pressured to prepare children for standardised testing. While they
now read bedtime stories to their young children, will they, in the future, feel
compelled to introduce letters and numbers and test their child’s knowledge
and skills acquisition?
Not only will the IELS set young children up for failure from the youngest age,
parents whose children do not ‘make the grade’ will feel equally incompetent.
Rather than attempting to fast-forward children’s education (Palmer, 2009), it
is time to put play back into ECEC, and redirect attention towards competent
systems. In fact, the OECD must revisit its original concern for quality, and move
away from approaches that are poorly suited to the psychology and natural

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
134
learning strategies of young children (OECD, 2006), and which pose a threat
to the nature period and the very essence of early childhood itself, which is
premised on relevant and meaningful experiences.
References
Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education. 2006. Síolta: the National Quality Framework.
Available at: http://síolta.ie/
Claxton, G. 2008. What’s the Point of School: Rediscovering the Heart of Education? London: Oneworld
Publications
Cohen, L. 2008. Foucault and the early childhood classroom. Educational Studies, 44(1), 7-21. doi:
10.1080/00131940802224948
Da Ros-Voseles, D., & Fowler-Haughey, S. 2007. Why children’s dispositions should matter to all
teachers. Young Children: Beyond the Journal, September, 1-7
DfE. 2018. International early learning and child well-being study (IELS) in England. Introduction to the
research. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications
European Early Childhood Education Research Association. 2013. Rethinking play: A position paper
about the role of play in early childhood education and care. Retrieved from https://www.eecera.org/
positionpaper-the-role-of-play-in-ecec/#
Hatch, J. A. 2002. Accountability shovedown: Resisting the standards movement in Early Childhood
Education. Phi Delta Kappan (February): 457–62
House, R. 2012. Bright children should start school at six, says Academic. The Telegraph
(London). Available at: Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9266592/Bright-
childrenshouldstart- school-at-six-says-academic.html
Morris, P. 2016. Education Policy, Cross-National Tests of Pupil Achievement, and the Pursuit of World-
Class Schooling. London: UCL Institute of Education Press
Moss, P., Dahlberg, G., Grieshaber, S., Mantovani, S et al, 2016.The Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development’s International Early Learning Study: Opening for Debate and
Contestation. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 2016, Vol. 17 (3) 343 – 351
McCoy, S., Smyth, E., and Banks, J. 2012. The Primary Classroom: Insights from the Growing Up in
Ireland Study. Available at: http://www.ncca.ie/en/The_Primary_Classroom_ESRI_January_18_2012.pdf
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. 2009. Aistear: the Early Childhood
Curriculum Framework. Available at: http://www.ncca.biz/Aistear/
OECD. 2018. Early Learning Matters: Findings from the International Early Learning and Child Well-
being 2017 Field Trial. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/publicationsdocuments/brochure/IELS-
Field-Trial-Report.pdf
Palmer, S. (2009) Four Years Bad, Six Years Good, Seven Years Optimal: United Kingdom – Literacy
Today. Available at: http://www.suepalmer.co.uk/modern_childhood_articles_four_years.php
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Starting Strong I. Paris: OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2006. Starting Strong II. Paris: OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011. Starting Strong III. Paris: OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016. Call for tenders: International Early
Learning Study. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/callsfortenders/CfT%20100001420%20
Pantazis, S. and Potsi, A. 2012. Beliefs and Practices of Pre-Primary Teachers in Greece: Are they
capabilities or performance-based? Available at: http://www.academia.edu/8298376/Greek_
Preprimary_Teachers_Beliefs_and_Practices_Are_they_Capabilities-_or_Performance-based
PACEY. 2013. What Does ‘School Ready’ Really Mean. Bromley: Professional Association for Childcare
and Early Years. Available at: https://www.pacey.org.uk/Pacey/media/Website-files/school%20ready/

Standardised Testing of Young Children by Stealth:
Interrogating the Implications of the International Early Learning Study
135
School-ReadyReport.pdf
Ring, E., Mhic Mhathúna, M., Moloney, M., Hayes, N et al., 2015. An Examination of Concepts of School
Readiness among Parents and Educators in Ireland. Available at: http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1031&context=aaschsslrep
UNCRC. (2013). General comment No. 17 on the right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational
activities, cultural life and the arts (art. 3). Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/51ef9bcc4.html
UNICEF. 2018. Learning through play: Strengthening learning through play in early childhood
education programmes. Avaialble at: https://www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/2018-12/UNICEF-Lego-
Foundation-Learning-through-Play.pdf
Urban, M., M. Vandenbroeck, K. Van Laere, A. Lazzari, and Peeters, J. 2011. CoRe – Competence
Requirements in Early Childhood Education and Care. Final Report. London: European Commission,
Directorate-General for Education and Culture
Urban, M., and Swadener, B. B. 2016. Democratic accountability and contextualised systemic evaluation.
A comment on the OECD initiative to launch an International Early Learning Study (IELS). International
Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 5(1), 6-18.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
136

137
The Potential of Play: to Support the Development
of Relationships among Young Children on the
Autism Spectrum
Christina O’ Keeffe & Sinéad McNally
Abstract
Play is an integral aspect of early childhood and the vehicle through
which young children develop lifelong social interaction skills
(Barnett, 2018). For pupils on the Autism Spectrum (AS), differences
in social communication are compounded by challenges in
accessing play opportunities (Wolfberg, Bottema-Beutel &
DeWitt, 2012). Such difficulties potentially further exacerbate
feelings of isolation (Hess, 2006) and may inhibit the development
of social interaction skills and formation of friendships (Kasari et
al., 2016). This paper argues for a renewed focus on how best to
support play opportunities for young children on the AS in order
to promote social relationships and opportunities for learning and
development.
Understanding Play
Play has been identified as a fundamental feature of early childhood, dating
back to the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato. While play is
universally recognised across cultures (Smith & Vollstedt, 1985), developing an
operational definition of play proves challenging for researchers. Many formalised
definitions have been identified in the literature, yet these descriptions vary
considerably. Researchers attribute this contention to the paradoxical nature
of play (Dyson, 2008; Zosh et al., 2018), whereby it has been described as both
active and passive; solitary and social; free and structured (Eberle, 2013; Wood,
2013). In addition, theorists from wide ranging disciplines such as anthropology,
philosophy, sociology, psychology and education have attempted to define
play within their specialised field of research (Ferreira, 2015). This has resulted in

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
138
narrow perspectives of play, in stark contrast to its inherent complexity, diversity
and ambiguity (Sutton-Smith, 1997; Fisher et al., 2008).
In recent years, there has been a dramatic shift in research towards a broader
understanding of play as a continuum (Bergen, 1998; Broadhead, 2010; Wood,
2010). Many advocates of this approach view play as a spectrum, positioning
free play at one end and teacher-led direct instruction at another, with guided
play in the centre (Bergen, 1998; Miller & Almon, 2009; Wood, 2010). According
to recent research, this is the optimal means of describing play, and signifies an
important progression from previously restrictive and narrow definitions towards
a more comprehensive understanding of play (Weisberg et al., 2013; Zosh et al.,
2018). Viewing play as a spectrum encompasses these broad definitions under
one all-encompassing approach and, in turn, provides much needed cohesion to
the field, acknowledging the value of many types of play as opposed to seeking
the single most rewarding method (Jensen et al., 2019). While many continua
have been identified (Bergen, 1998; Broadhead, 2010; Wood, 2010; Zosh et al.,
2018; Jensen et al., 2019), the comprehensive framework designed by Zosh et
al. (2017) has been selected for the purpose of this paper. This model ranges
from free play, exclusively based on child autonomy, to the more balanced
child-adult approaches of guided play and games (See Figure 1). Overall,
this framework rejects a universal definition of play, and instead embraces its
multifaceted nature and the flexibility that the field demands (Howard-Jones,
Taylor & Sutton, 2002; Jenvey & Jenvey, 2002; Dyson, 2008).
Figure 1. Spectrum of Playful Learning (Zosh et al., 2017)
Role of Play in Early Childhood Social Development
Boucher (1999) describes play as the currency of early childhood, a naturally

A reflection on research methods that engage young children
with environmental sustainability
139
accessible medium of expression through which children engage and interact.
This paper will focus solely on the relationship between play and social
development, which has been the focus of multiple theorists including Piaget
(1962), Erikson (1950), and Vygotsky (1978). Researchers continue to highlight the
positive association between play and numerous aspects of social development
including: social interaction skills (Veiga et al., 2016; Liu, Yuen & Rao, 2017),
social understanding (Stagnitti & Cooper, 2009), and development of theory of
mind (Qu, Shen, Chee & Chen, 2015). In particular, examining the relationship
between play and the development of peer acceptance and friendships is
important for children on the AS, who often remain on the periphery of classroom
social networks (Francke & Geist, 2003), given their inherent differences in social
communication (APA, 2013) and play skills (Lam & Yeung, 2012; Memari et al.,
2015).
Peer acceptance has been described as the degree of social popularity
or acceptance by peers (Doll, 1996). This is an essential feature of social
development (Beazidou & Botsoglou, 2016), most often determined via peer
nominations or ratings (Sebanc, Kearns, Hernansez & Galvin, 2007). Several
research studies emphasise the relationship between play and peer acceptance,
whereby play has been identified as the means in which social hierarchical order
is organised within the classroom (Chang, Shih & Kasari, 2016). Ladd, Price, and
Hart (1988) highlight the relationship between frequency of playground peer
play and the degree of peer acceptance among twenty-eight pre-schoolers
across three six-week intervals throughout a school year. Higher levels of co-
operative and social play in the initial phases of the investigation predicted
gains in peer acceptance. Such findings are supported by Flannery and Watson
(1993), who identified a positive relationship between social pretend play and
peer acceptance among sixty-six children, aged four to eight years, across
various school contexts. However, such findings were based on self-reported
measures, and thus require further replication in order to establish the role of
play in contributing to social acceptance for children on the AS.
Levels of peer acceptance significantly impact the formation of friendships
(Sebanc et al., 2007). Gray (2011. p.457) describes play as children’s “natural
means of making friends”, a statement supported by several researchers in
the early years (Bigelow, 1977; Beazidou & Botsoglou, 2016). Coehlo, Torres,
Fernandes, and Santos (2017) examined the relationship between social play
interactions and reciprocal friendships among one hundred and twenty-eight
pre-schoolers across six preschool classes. Results revealed that positive play
interactions between peers were associated with an increased number of

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
140
reciprocal friendships. Scott and Panksepp (2003) also emphasise the positive
relationship between rough and tumble play and friendships in their investigation
of twenty peer dyads within laboratory sessions. However, this study lacks
sufficient data to support such claims. Overall, this research literature highlights
the role of play in offering a natural context to develop social relationships in
early childhood.
Play Characteristics of Children on the Autism Spectrum
Autism Spectrum Disorder is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised
by difficulties in social and communication skills as well as restrictive and
repetitive behaviours, interests or activities (American Psychiatric Association,
2013). This definition has evolved over the years, however, differences in social
and communication remain a core feature of ASD. One such aspect of social
and communication, documented since Kanner’s (1943) seminal observations,
involves the play characteristics of children on the AS. Many researchers have
examined these qualities in relation to social play, whereby the play of children
on the AS has been described as solitary (Jordan, 2013) and lacking in interactive
qualities (Kasari, Freeman & Paparella, 2006; Memari et al., 2015). Much of this
research has employed Parten’s (1933) criteria to examine these characteristics
of social play, positioning the play of children on the AS within the non-social
stages of solitary or parallel play (Boutot, Guenther & Crozier, 2005).
Holmes and Willoughby (2005) conducted one of the few investigations of
the social play of children on the AS within naturalistic school settings. They
recorded the free play of seventeen children, aged four to six years, within early
year’s classrooms across five visits. Such observations revealed widespread
parallel and solitary play behaviours among children on the AS. These results
are supported by Anderson, Moore, Godfrey, and Fletcher-Flinn (2004) in their
examination of the free play of ten children on the AS, ranging in ages from
three to seven years, during authentic playground sessions. Children pursued
activities that facilitated solitary play as opposed to socially interactive peer
engagement. These investigations highlight the non-social and solitary play
behaviours of children on the AS and lack of progression towards more social
levels of play within Parten’s (1932) framework.
Differences in play have also been identified based on cognitive dimensions,
derived from Piaget’s (1955) theory of play. One of the earliest instances of such
differences is reflected in object-oriented play (Chang, Shih, Landa, Kaiser &
Kasari, 2018). This is often conducted in a rigid and repetitive manner (Lifter,
Mason & Barton, 2011) including behaviours such as “banging or shaking

A reflection on research methods that engage young children
with environmental sustainability
141
objects to more complex acts such as stacking and lining up” (Wolfberg, 2009,
p.46). These repetitive and ritualistic play actions are indicative of the inflexible
and stereotypical nature of play of children on the AS (Boucher & Wolfberg,
2003), and have been associated with inherent behavioural characteristics of
ASD, including stereotypical and repetitive movements and fascination with
sensory qualities of objects, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-V, APA, 2013).
Furthermore, differences in pretend play have been identified as a core defining
characteristic of ASD for many years (DSM-V, APA 2013; DSM-IV-TR, APA 2000,
DSM-IV, APA, 1994). Much of this research has reported difficulties in symbolic
play in relation to Leslie’s (1987) criteria. Lam and Yeung (2012) conducted one
of the few investigations of differences in symbolic play between children on
the AS and appropriately matched neuro-typical peers across all categories
of Leslie’s (1987) criteria. Results reported significant differences in all levels of
symbolic play in comparison to peers, suggesting that children on the AS exhibit
significant difficulties in higher levels of pretend play. Such findings have been
corroborated by Thiemann-Bourque, Johnson, and Brady (2019), and Libby,
Powell, Messer, and Jordan (1998). In contrast, Charman and Baron-Cohen
(1997) offer competing findings based on their examination of the symbolic play
acts of children on the AS, in comparison to a group of appropriately matched
peers with developmental disabilities. They found no differences in the symbolic
play of children on the AS using measures of Leslie’s (1987) criteria. However,
these findings were solely based on the investigation of object substitution acts
and failed to examine higher order symbolic play which may account for such
discrepancies. It is evident children on the AS experience differences across all
aspects of play. However, the presence or degree of such differences may not
be universal to all children on the AS, as originally proposed by Wolfberg et al.
(2012), thus reflecting the diversity and heterogeneity of the AS.
Fostering a Culture of Play within Early Years Education for
Children on the Autism Spectrum
Play is a fundamental right of all children, as documented in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) which we, as educators,
are obliged to honour and uphold. This not only involves supporting children’s
access to play, but also adapting play content based on their developmental
level and individual interests (Carrero, Lewis, Zolkoski & Lusk, 2014; Papoudi
& Kossyvaki, 2018; Peters & Swadener, 2018). This is a matter of utmost
importance for children on the AS, whose play behaviours have been regarded

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
142
as “abnormal” (Jarrold, Boucher & Smith, 1993; p.295), “impoverished” (Riguet,
Taylor, Benaroya & Klein, 1981; p.440), and “inappropriate” (Sigman & Ruskin,
1999; p.75). While the majority of traditional research emphasised the importance
of ‘training’ children on the AS to play “more normally” (Boucher, 1999; p.2),
Jordan (2003) highlights the need to acknowledge children’s differences in
play. This involves remaining flexible and open in our perceptions of play as
opposed to the insistence of play behaviours that reflect traditional conventions
of play. Such an approach is emphasised in the general comment on Article 31
by the UNCRC (2013) which highlights the intrinsic value of play for all children,
regardless of its type. As a result, it is essential that the play of children on the
AS is valued as different, not less (Grandin, 2012).
Consequently, supporting the play of children on the AS requires extending
beyond the play of children on the AS, and involves adopting a culture of
inclusion and acceptance of difference within the classroom (Wolfberg, 2009;
Theodorou & Nind, 2010). Peers therefore assume a pivotal role in promoting
the play of children on the AS, something which is often underestimated in
previous research (Yang, Wolfberg, Wu & Hwu, 2003). Focusing on such
fundamental concepts proves essential, given the role of play in determining
social status and inclusion within the classroom (Terpstra, Higgins & Pierce,
2002). In this way, play demonstrates significant potential to act as a vehicle
for inclusion within the early years (Theodorou & Nind, 2010). This is of central
importance, given increasing emphasis on the inclusion of pupils on the AS
within mainstream classroom contexts (Department of Education and Skills,
2019) and the challenges that children on the AS continue to face (Rotheram-
Fuller, Kasari, Chamberlain & Locke, 2010). These challenges will be further
documented in the next section of this paper.
Unlocking the Potential of Play to Support the Development of
Social Relationships for Children on the Autism Spectrum
Gray (2011.p. 457) describes play as children’s “natural means of making
friends”. However, given differences in both play and social interaction skills, it
remains unclear as to whether play is an easily accessible medium for children
on the AS through which they can develop friendships. Whether or not it is easily
accessible, play may be a powerful tool to support the development of social
relationships for children on the AS. This was recently examined by Freeman,
Gulsrud, and Kasari (2015) in their longitudinal investigation of the relationship
between symbolic play and friendship development among forty pre-schoolers
on the AS. Significant positive correlations were reported between earlier

A reflection on research methods that engage young children
with environmental sustainability
143
symbolic play skills at age three years and friendship quality five years later.
However, such results were centred on parent and child reported measures
based on qualities of helpfulness, security, closeness, and conflict, and thus,
require further replication. Chang, Shih, and Kasari (2016) offer supporting
findings for this research in their investigation of the role of play in influencing
peer acceptance and friendships among thirty-one children on the AS within
a mainstream preschool class. Based on observational data, the researchers
reported twenty percent of children on the AS exhibited friendships with peers
in school. Chang et al., (2016) noted these children demonstrated greater
incidents of free play with peers, which may have resulted in the reported
greater levels of reciprocal friendships.
This paper previously outlined the role of play in contributing to peer acceptance
levels within early year’s classrooms, a universal language that proves essential
in the formation of classroom social hierarchies (Flannery & Watson, 1993;
Ladd et al., 1988).This may prove fundamental for children on the AS, who
often remain on the periphery of classroom social networks (Chamberlain,
Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller, 2007) and experience isolation and rejection which
can continue through to adulthood (Rotheram-Fuller et al., 2010). Given the
centrality of play in influencing peer acceptance levels, it is concerning that few
investigations have examined the use of play as a valuable tool in supporting
the development of peer acceptance. Santillian, Frederick, Gilmore, and Locke
(2019) did, however, attempt to explore the relationship between children’s
playground peer engagement (including play) and peer acceptance levels
among fifty-five children on the AS, aged five to twelve years. Peer acceptance
was measured using peer nominations and ratings across forty-two mainstream
classrooms and sixteen schools. Positive correlations were reported between
peer acceptance and social engagement in playground interactions. However,
play was one of several components of peer engagement measures, and so, it
proves difficult to isolate such positive findings in relation to play. Such research
contradicts findings reported by Kasari, Locke, Gulsrud, and Rotheram-
Fuller (2011), who found no correlation between classroom social status and
playground engagement among sixty children on the AS, aged six to eleven
years, across mainstream primary classrooms. However, this investigation was
based on observations and interventions less than a week in duration which may
account for such discrepancies in results.
Overall, few, if any studies, investigate the role of play as a suitable medium
for increasing peer acceptance among children on the AS. Given the positive
results obtained from the above investigations, it is evident play demonstrates

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
144
significant potential to support the development of social relationships for
children on the AS but requires more investigation.
Implications for Future Research and Practice
In Ireland, there has been a considerable move towards play-based pedagogies
to support the play of children in early year’s education (ECE). This paper
highlights the need to extend this positive practice for children on the AS
and emphasises the power of play in promoting access to social interaction
opportunities, given its unique role in the formation of social hierarchies (Terpstra
et al., 2002; Chang et al., 2016). This involves acknowledging the value of the
play of children on the AS, despite differences outlined by Boucher (1999), and
adopting a child-centred developmental approach in supporting their access
to play (Carrero et al. 2014; Papoudi & Kossyvaki, 2018; Peters & Swadener,
2018). This not only entails supporting the play behaviours of children on the
AS, but continuing to promote inclusion within the early year’s classroom
(Wolfberg, 2009). Fostering such an inclusive culture is a fundamental feature
of the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) (Department of Children and Youth
Affairs, 2016), ensuring participation and support for all children within ECE. In
this context, play demonstrates the potential to act as the central vehicle for
inclusion, promoting a culture of acceptance and inclusion, and enabling all
children to reach their full potential. This concept is further reiterated in UNCRC
(2013), whereby play is described as a “universal design to promote inclusion”
of children with additional needs.
This paper not only identifies practical implications for early childhood
educational contexts, but also highlights significant implications within the
research literature for new research agendas on play in ECE for children on
the AS. Several researchers highlight the value of play in promoting the social
development of children in the early years (Kossyvaki & Papoudi, 2016; Zosh
et al., 2018). However, the role of play in supporting the social development
of children on the AS remains largely unexplored within the literature. This is
surprising given the central role of play within the early years (Whitebread et al.,
2012). Overall, many questions remain unanswered within the literature in terms
of how best to support children on the AS to access play within early years’
education, and similarly, whether play can be used as an effective medium to
support children on the AS to gain access to key social interaction experiences
and friendships within early year’s classrooms. Future studies are needed to
investigate the empowering role of play in contributing to social interaction
and development of pupils on the AS. This paper draws on the literature to

A reflection on research methods that engage young children
with environmental sustainability
145
address this gap in ECE and inform future studies on how best to enhance
play opportunities for young children on the AS in order to support social
relationships and opportunities for learning and development.
References
Anderson, A., Moore, D. W., Godfrey, R., & Fletcher-Flinn, C. M. (2004). Social skills
assessment of children with autism in free-play situations. Autism, 8(4), 369-385.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders – V.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders – IV-TR.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders – IV.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Barnett, J. H. (2018). Three evidence-based strategies that support social skills and play among young
children with autism spectrum disorders. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(6), 665-672.
Beazidou, E., & Botsoglou, K. (2016). Peer acceptance and friendship in early childhood: the conceptual
distinctions between them. Early child development and care, 186(10), 1615-1631.
Bergen, D. (1998). Readings from play as a medium for learning and development. Maryland:
Association for Childhood Education International.
Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations: a cognitive-developmental study. Child
Development, 48, 246-25
Boucher, J. (1999) Editorial: Interventions with Children with Autism – Methods Based on Play. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy, 15, 1–5.
Boucher, J., & Wolfberg, P. (2003). Play. Autism: The international journal of research and practice, 7(4),
339.
Broadhead, P., Howard, J., & Wood, E. (2010). Play and learning in the early years: From research to
practice. London: Sage.
Boutot, E.A., Guenther, T., & Crozier, S. (2005). Let’s play: Teaching play skills to young children with
autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 285–292.
Carrero, K. M., Lewis, C. G., Zolkoski, S., & Lusk, M. E. (2014). Research based strategies for teaching
play skills to children with Autism. Beyond Behavior, 23(3), 17-25.
Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Involvement or isolation? The social networks
of children with autism in regular classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(2),
230-242.
Chang, Y. C., Shih, W., Landa, R., Kaiser, A., & Kasari, C. (2018). Symbolic play in school-aged minimally
verbal children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(5),
1436-1445.
Chang, Y. C., Shih, W., & Kasari, C. (2016). Friendships in preschool children with autism spectrum
disorder: What holds them back, child characteristics or teacher behavior? Autism, 20(1), 65-74.
Charman, T., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1997). Brief report: Prompted pretend play in autism. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27(3), 325-332.
Coelho, L., Torres, N., Fernandes, C., & Santos, A. J. (2017). Quality of play, social acceptance and
reciprocal friendship in preschool children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(6),
812-823.
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2016). Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) A new Model for
Supporting Access to Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Programme for Children with a
Disability. Baggot Street, Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
Department of Education and Skills (2019). Minister McHugh announces trial of a new school inclusion
model to provide the right supports at the right time to students with additional needs. Retrieved from

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
146
Department of Education and Skills website: https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/
Press-Releases/2019-press-releases/PR19-03-27-1.html
Doll, B. (1996). Children without friends: Implications for practice and policy. School Pyschology
Review, 25, 165–183.
Dyson, A. H. (2008). Staying in the (curricular) lines: Practice constraints and possibilities in childhood
writing. Written Communication, 25(1), 119-159.
Eberle, S.G. (2013). The elements of play: Toward a philosophy and a definition of play, Journal of Play,
6 (2), 214-233.
Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Gryfe, S. G. (2008). Conceptual split? Parents’ and
experts’ perceptions of play in the 21st century. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(4),
305-316.
Flannery, K. A., & Watson, M. W. (1993). Are individual differences in fantasy play related to peer
acceptance levels? The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(3), 407-416.
Freeman, S. F., Gulsrud, A., & Kasari, C. (2015). Brief report: Linking early joint attention and play
abilities to later reports of friendships for children with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 45(7), 2259-2266.
Grandin, T. (2012). Different not less. Arlington: Future Horizons.
Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. Journal
of Play, 3 (4), 443-463.
Hess, L. (2006). I would like to play but I don’t know how: A case study of pretend play in autism. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy, 22(1), 97-116.
Holmes, E., & Willoughby, T. (2005). Play behaviour of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal
of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 30(3), 156-164.
Howard-Jones, P., Taylor, J., & Sutton, L. (2002). The effect of play on the creativity of young children
during subsequent activity. Early Child Development and Care, 172(4), 323-328.
Jarrold, C., Boucher, J., & Smith, P. (1993). Symbolic play in autism: A review. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 23(2), 281-307.
Jensen, H., Pyle, A., Zosh, J. M., Ebrahim, H. B., Scherman, A. Z., Reunamo, J., & Hamre, B. K. (2019).
Play facilitation: the science behind the art of engaging young children (white paper). Billund: The
LEGO Foundation.
Jenvey, V. B., & Jenvey, H. L. (2002). Criteria used to categorize children’s play: Preliminary findings. Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 30(8), 733-740.
Jordan, R. (2013). Autistic spectrum disorders: An introductory handbook for practitioners. London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Jordan, R. (2003). Social play and autistic spectrum disorders: A perspective on theory, implications and
educational approaches. Autism, 7 (4), 347-360.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–253.
Kasari, C., Dean, M., Kretzmann, M., Shih, W., Orlich, F., Whitney, R., Landa, R., Lord, C. & King, B. (2016).
Children with autism spectrum disorder and social skills groups at school: A randomized trial comparing
intervention approach and peer composition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(2), 171-
179.
Kasari, C., Locke, J., Gulsrud, A. and Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2011). Social networks and friendships at
school: Comparing children with and without ASD, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
41, 533-544.
Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T. (2006). Joint attention and symbolic play in young children with
autism: A randomized controlled intervention study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(6),
611-620.
Ladd, G. W., Price, J. M., & Hart, C. H. (1988). Predicting preschoolers’ peer status from their playground
behaviors and peer contacts. Child Development, 59, 986–992.
Lam, Y. G., & Yeung, S. S. (2012). Cognitive deficits and symbolic play in preschoolers with
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(1), 560-564.

A reflection on research methods that engage young children
with environmental sustainability
147
Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of “theory of mind.” Psychological
Review, 4, 412-426.
Libby, S., Powell., S., Messer, D. & Jordan, R. (1998). Spontaneous play in children with autism: A
reappraisal. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 487-497.
Lifter, K., Mason, E. J., & Barton, E. E. (2011). Children’s play: Where we have been and where we could
go. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 281-297.
Liu, S., Yuen, M., & Rao, N. (2017). A play-based programme (Pillars of Society) to foster social
skills of high-ability and average ability Primary-one students in Hong Kong. Gifted Education
International, 33(3), 210-231.
Memari, A. H., Panahi, N., Ranjbar, E., Moshayedi, P., Shafiei, M., Kordi, R., & Ziaee, V. (2015). Children with
autism spectrum disorder and patterns of participation in daily physical and play activities. Neurology
research international, 1-7.
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. Maryland:
Alliance for Childhood.
Papoudi, D. & Kossyvaki, L. (2018). Play and children with autism: insights from research and implications
for practice, in P. Smith & J. L. Roopnarine (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Play: Developmental
and Disciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, pp.
563-579. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108131384.031
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 27, 243-26.
Piaget, J. (1962). The stages of the intellectual development of the child. Bulletin of the Menninger
clinic, 26(3), 120.
Piaget, J. (1955). The construction of reality in the child. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19(1), 77.
Qu, L., Shen, P., Chee, Y. Y., & Chen, L. (2015). Teachers’ theory‐of‐mind coaching and children’s
executive function predict the training effect of sociodramatic play on children’s theory of mind. Social
Development, 24(4), 716-733.
Riguet, C. B., Taylor, N. D., Benaroya, S., & Klein, L. S. (1982). Symbolic play in autistic, Down’s, and
normal children of equivalent mental age. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 11(4), 439-
448.
Rotheram‐Fuller, E., Kasari, C., Chamberlain, B., & Locke, J. (2010). Social involvement of children
with autism spectrum disorders in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 51(11), 1227-1234.
Santillan, L., Frederick, L., Gilmore, S., & Locke, J. (2019). Brief report: Examining the association
between classroom social network inclusion and playground peer engagement among children with
autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 34(2), 91-96.
Scott, E., & Panksepp, J. (2003). Rough‐and‐tumble play in human children. Aggressive Behavior:
Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 29(6), 539-551.
Sebanc, A. M., Kearns, K. T., Hernandez, M. D., & Galvin, K. B. (2007). Predicting having a best
friend in young children: Individual characteristics and friendship features. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 168(1), 81-96.
Sigman, M., & Ruskin, E. (1999). Continuity and change in the social competence of children with
autism, Down syndrome, and developmental delays. Monographs of the society for research in child
development, i-139.
Smith, P. K., & Vollstedt, R. (1985). On defining play: An empirical study of the relationship between
play and various play criteria. Child development, 1042-1050.
Stagnitti, K., & Cooper, R. (2009). Play as therapy: assessment and therapeutic interventions. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Sutton-Smith, A. (1997). The ambiguity of play: Rhetorics of fate, in H. Bial (Ed.), The Performance
Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.
Terpstra, J. E., Higgins, K., & Pierce, T. (2002). Can I play? Classroom-based interventions for teaching
play skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(2), 119-
127.
Theodorou, F., & Nind, M. (2010). Inclusion in play: a case study of a child with autism in an inclusive
nursery. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(2), 99-106.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
148
Thiemann-Bourque, K., Johnson, L. K., & Brady, N. C. (2019). Similarities in functional play and
differences in symbolic play of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. American Journal on Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, 124(1), 77-91.
United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Children (2013). General comment No. 17 on the
right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts. Geneva: United
Nations.
Veiga, G., Neto, C., & Rieffe, C. (2016). Preschoolers’ Free Play: Connections with Emotional and Social
Functioning. International Journal of Emotional Education, 8(1), 48-62.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of
Children, 23(3), 34-41.
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a
playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 104-112.
Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2012). The importance of play. Brussels: Toy
Industries of Europe.
Wolfberg, P., Bottema-Beutel, K., & DeWitt, M. (2012). Including Children with Autism in Social and
Imaginary Play with Typical Peers: Integrated Play Groups Model. American Journal of Play, 5(1), 55-80.
Wolfberg, P. J. (2009). Play and Imagination in Children with Autism. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wood, E. (2013).The play pedagogy interface in contemporary debates, in E. Brooker, S. Edwards, M.
Blaise (Eds) The Sage Handbook on Play and Learning. London: Sage.
Wood, E. (2010). Developing integrated pedagogical approaches to play and learning. Play and
Learning in the Early Years, 9-26.
Yang, T. R., Wolfberg, P. J., Wu, S. C., & Hwu, P. Y. (2003). Supporting children on the autism spectrum
in peer play at home and school: Piloting the integrated play groups model in Taiwan. Autism, 7(4),
437-453.
Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Solis, S. L. & Whitebread,
D. (2018). Accessing the inaccessible: Redefining play as a spectrum. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-12.
Zosh, J. M., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Solis, S. L., & Whitebread, D.
(2017). Learning through play: a review of the evidence (white paper). Billund: The LEGO Foundation.

149
A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage
Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
Jane Spiteri
Abstract
This paper focuses on the participatory research methods used
in a study conducted in the field of early childhood education for
sustainability (ECEfS), with young children (age 3–7 years) in Malta,
which explored their perceptions of environmental sustainability
and the influences upon these. Built on the belief that young
children are active agents in their own lives, who hold perceptions
worth exploring, this paper provides a critical reflection upon
conversational interviews with children, photograph interpretation,
children’s drawings, children’s interpretations of their drawings,
the use of constructivist tools, and methodological and ethical
challenges experienced during the research process.
Introduction
In recent decades, conceptualisations of children and childhood changed the way
research involving young children is conducted (Kellett, 2010). Moving towards
a sociocultural perspective, research approaches in the field started embracing
the use of visual and participatory research methods to explore young children’s
views (Dockett, Einarsdottir and Perry, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to
shed light on some of the participatory research methods used to explore young
children’s (aged 3–7 years) perceptions of environmental sustainability and the
influences upon these, in Malta. The global environmental crisis humanity is
experiencing is essentially due to the use and (mis)management of natural
resources by previous and current generations. A sustainable future cannot be
achieved without considerable modification of lifestyles and a rethinking of the
relationship between humans, all living species, and the natural environment.
This calls for an understanding of human behaviour and its adverse impact on
environmental protection and well-being.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
150
It also calls for urgent actions by everyone to achieve environmental sustainability.
In this paper, environmental sustainability is defined as an activity which calls
for a balance between the natural, social, cultural, and economic capital of
the planet, which will be utilised by current and future generations of living
creatures. Young children are the future - they will inherit the planet and the
current environmental problems. Should the current unsustainable practices
persist, young children will pay the consequences for years to come. Thus, the
current state of the environment calls for urgent action by adults and children.
To do this, children need to be equipped with the skills to face these challenges
in the future. They need to learn how to take an active role in mitigating some of
the negative impacts of environmental degradation and work together towards
a sustainable future. Evidence suggests that education is key to achieving a
sustainable future (UN, 2015a), including early childhood education and care
(ECEC). Researchers worldwide have noted the relevance of sustainability to
ECEC, and have called upon the need to include young children in research
related to sustainability issues (Pramling Samuelsson and Kaga, 2008; Davis,
2009). This paper is aimed at advancing the discussions around different methods
to engage young children as active participants in the research process within
the new and emerging field of early childhood education for sustainability
(ECEfS). Specifically, it aims to present and examine three participatory data
collection methods in a study exploring young children’s (aged 3–7) perceptions
of environmental sustainability: children’s drawings, children’s interpretations of
their drawings, and photograph interpretation. Included in this discussion is
the use of a constructivist tool (a puppet) to aid conversational interviews with
young children.
Listening to Children
Past research in environmental education (EE) was mostly dominated by a
developmental perspective, in which children were seen as objects of research,
rather than as active participants and valued contributors in research (Cutter-
Mackenzie, 2009; Barratt Hacking, Cutter-Mackenzie and Barratt, 2013). Three
decades ago, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC]
(United Nations [UN], 1989) afforded children worldwide the right to express
their views on matters that affect their lives and called for respect for their views.
Specifically, Article 12 of the UNCRC views children as capable of forming their
own views and gives them a right to a voice in matters affecting them, thus giving
them a right to a voice. Therefore, the act of listening gives young children
agency and voice in research. Agency is how children express their voices (Pufall

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
151
and Unsworth, 2004). In this paper, agency acknowledges children’s competence,
right, and capacity to understand and act upon the world in which they live
(Mayall, 2002; James, Jenks and Prout, 1998). In the literature concerning rights-
based perspectives, children’s voices are defined as “views of children that are
actively heard and valued as substantive contributions to decisions affecting the
children’s lives” (Brooks and Murray, 2016: 3). In this paper, voice refers to the
ideas, hopes, intentions, and dreams which children guard as their own. Voice
includes both verbal and non-verbal communication and recognises “the fact
that children are much more self-determining actors than we generally think”
(Pufall and Unsworth, 2004: 8). The act of listening to children and children’s
voices are still contested terms and indeed, listening is also problematic for
several reasons. For example, children’s voices are influenced by cultural
boundaries of childhood because “Voice is a social construct operating in a
cultural context where shared meaning is negotiated” (Kellett, 2010: 196). Given
the lack of consensus concerning the definition and vocabulary for listening
to children’s perspectives (Brooks and Murray, 2016; Murray, 2019), there is
confusion concerning research about children’s perspectives, a situation which
often results in children’s voices being ignored or partially addressed (Whitty and
Wisby, 2007). Frequently, children’s voices go unheard because of adults’ belief
that children lack competency and skills (Kellett, 2010; 2011), thus reflecting a
hierarchy where children are considered less powerful than adults. This concept
could have been propagated by the belief that the younger children are, the less
they tend to be regarded as capable of forming opinions and expressing their
views (Murray, 2016). Therefore, while many children want to make decisions
(Morrow, 2008), the diverse nature of their participation and decision-making
can confuse adults (Foley, 2011). Adult discourse around children’s participation
in research tends to focus on “adult-initiated processes” (Lansdown, 2010: 26).
Adults’ taxonomies of children’s participation highlight different ways in which
children are denied agency (Ackermann, Feeny and Newman, 2003). Disregard
for children’s voices subordinates young children (Levinas, 1980) and diminishes
their experiences of autonomy and self-regulation, and could possibly reduce
their motivation to learn (Murray, 2019).
Global organisations have become increasingly interested in early childhood
development (UN, 2015b ;G20, 2018; OECD, 2018), making listening to
children’s voices an important issue (Clark, 2018). Thus, promoting contexts
where children’s status and their place in society are reconsidered, and where
their worldviews and experiences have become prominent subjects of research
in the field of early childhood (Dockett et al., 2017). The UNCRC and the new

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
152
sociology of childhood, with its efforts to reflect critically on dominant views of
children and childhood, have influenced the re-conceptualisation of children
and childhood. Consequently, researchers have begun to use more participatory
methods, including visual research methods, when conducting research with
young children (Dockett et al., 2017), and listening to children’s voices became
an integral element of participatory research methods in ECEC (Murray, 2019).
Indeed, research over the past three decades has shifted towards conducting
research with and by children, positioning children as interpreters of their own
lives and experiences, rather than as informants of research (Barratt Hacking
et al., 2013). The move away from research on children toward research with
children and the changing perspectives of children have generated interest in
participatory research methods (Dockett et al., 2017), which are child-centred,
participatory and creative in the ways they elicit young children’s views about
an issue, including environmental sustainability. In seeking to understand
young children’s perspectives, researchers place emphasis on the strengths
of children as contributing members of society who are experts on their own
lives, and their competence as capable of holding and sharing their own views
and opinions. Thus, childhood is viewed as a social construction influenced
by culture, time, and context (James and Prout, 1997), and children’s views
deserve serious consideration in community decision-making (Lansdown, 2010;
Murray, 2016; Lyndon, Bertram, Brown and Pascal, 2019). In this paper, I draw
attention to listening to young children’s voices as a way of understanding and
acknowledging their needs and interests in environmental sustainability. By
positively responding to children’s voices, this research conveys to children, and
others, that children’s perspectives are valuable and meaningful and worthy of
attention. Thus, instilling in children a sense of belonging as recognised citizens
of a community.
Methodology
Influenced by the UNCRC (UN, 1989), postmodern views of children and
childhood, and the new sociology of childhood, this study is underpinned by an
ontological perspective that acknowledges children’s right to a voice in research.
Additionally, to obtain a holistic understanding of the child, this study adopts
two important perspectives which complement each other: a socio-cultural and
a sociological perspective of the child. While it recognises the social nature
of learning, it draws on Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), which
states that all interactions are mediated and so each person’s perceptions of
the world are unique to their experiences. From a socio-cultural perspective,

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
153
the child is considered a developing human being (Vygotsky, 1978). From a
sociological perspective, childhood is considered a social construct (Gray
and Macblain, 2012), where children are viewed as social actors in their own
lives, therefore worthy of sharing their views and opinions, and separate from
adults (such as parents and caregivers) (James and Prout, 1997; Christensen and
Prout, 2005; Clark and Moss, 2011). Thus, this paper acknowledges children as
competent and social beings, who have agency and can construct their own
knowledge and understanding in collaboration with each other. As a result, an
interpretive conceptual framework underpins this qualitative multiple case study
research (Stake, 2006). The methodological stance adopted in this research
influenced my choice of research methods. Participatory research methods,
including conversational interviews with children, photograph interpretation,
children’s drawings, and their interpretations of them, are used to collect data
in this study. Specifically, this paper focuses on the development of participatory
research methods used during a larger study which was undertaken as part of
my doctoral research aimed at exploring better ways of listening to children’s
perspectives on environmental sustainability, particularly the contexts of home
and school.
Study Context
The research took place in two early years’ settings (state schools) and one
household in Malta. Education in Malta is non-compulsory for children under
five years of age, where a provision of nurseries and kindergarten centres are
available, but it is compulsory for children aged five to 16 years (EURYDICE,
2019). While the Maltese curriculum framework recognises the unique child
and seeks to be guided by children’s interests (Ministry of Education and
Employment [MEDE], 2012), there is a prevailing discourse of readiness and a
political emphasis on the implementation of the direct teaching of mathematics
and literacy skills in the early years’ phase. Evidence of this has been provided
by local research (Sollars, Attard, Borg and Craus, 2006) which demonstrates
that children, as young as 2 and 3 years old, in early childhood contexts were
given “homework” to satisfy parental demand for academic achievements
later on in life. Therefore, this study, with its focus on giving children a voice in
matters which are relevant to them, sits in contrast to the increasing focus on
school readiness within the sector in Malta.
Participants: A group of 12 children (aged 3–7 years) participated in this
research, together with ten teachers, five parents, and one head teacher. While
adults’ perceptions of environmental sustainability were studied alongside the

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
154
children’s, adults’ responses only served to highlight children’s data and not
take priority over them. The study was conducted over a period of 12 weeks.
Ethical Considerations
Research with young children requires specific ethical considerations (European
Early Childhood Education Research Association [EECERA], 2014; Lyndon
et al., 2019; Murray, 2016). Engaging young children in research gives them
voice and agency and promotes their participation. Since my study explored
young children’s perceptions of environmental sustainability, its methodology
encouraged young children to collaborate actively in democratic research.
Consent was gained across all settings and outlined anonymity, confidentiality
of data, and participants’ rights to withdraw. This stance was to be in keeping
with participatory research methods used in the study and within the remit of
giving children a voice in matters of interest and relevance to them. A data
storage system (Stake, 1995) was used, which included number codes for tapes
and transcripts, storage of my electronic data in a password-protected memory
key, and PC with anti-viral protection and firewall. Additionally, this study was
framed by a value orientation committed to environmental justice. Therefore,
although ethical challenges presented in securing fair power relationships
between all participants in the research, access, consent, and data collection,
these were mitigated by the study’s value orientation and were shaped by the
principles of qualitative multiple case study research and the research methods
used. Reflexivity with participants was supported via collaborative constructions
and interpretations of data.
The role of the researcher is central in conducting qualitative research (Merriam,
1998). Furthermore, the researcher-child relationship is a relationship of power
(MacNaughton, 2005); agency and context influence interactions (Dockett et
al., 2017). Essentially, the relationship between myself, the participants, and the
research methods used shaped the interpretive methodology adopted in this
research process. The success of an interview often depends on the researcher’s
ability to develop:
a trusting personal relationship between the researcher and the
interviewee that encourages open, honest, and detailed replies,...
In building an open and trusting relationship, researcher and
interviewee work toward forming... a conversational partnership”
(Rubin and Rubin, 2012: 6 – 7).

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
155
For this reason, in this study, a conversational partnership was built on respect
and trust between children and I, where I valued each child’s contribution and
viewed it as reliable information. However, I was aware that this partnership
was not a balanced relationship because I was in control of the progress of the
interview session even if children somehow helped to shape the process of the
interview by exerting power, for example, by withholding information.
Thus, the major ethical principles which guided my interactions with the children
was that the children’s welfare was a priority over the research. This did not
remove the adult-child power relationship in research because it can never be
neither eliminated (Gallagher, 2009) nor ignored (Mayall, 2008). However, in this
research I took the least adult role (Mandell, 1991). I tried to empower children
by using child-friendly research methods and consider children as the experts in
their own lives. The context of the research, particularly the school, influenced
the child-researcher interactions, in the sense that in such context the adult (the
researcher) had a right to ask questions that children answered (Dockett et al.,
2017). This draws attention to the need to pay attention to how meanings are
constructed in different contexts. Data generated in this study proved to be
challenging because while confidentiality was ensured, anonymity was not. The
complexity of this decision was influenced by the context in which this study
was carried out, where the participants and I lived on a small island, which made
the identification of participants a lot easier, given the tight-knit communities in
Malta. To this end, confidential information about individual participants was
never shared to maintain sensitivity, and pseudonyms were used by participants.
Discussion of Methods and Strategies
Over the years, diverse qualitative research methods have been used to seek
young children’s perspectives (Clark and Moss, 2011; Veale, 2011), even in ECEfS
(Engdahl and Rabušicová, 2010; Kahriman-Ozturk, Olgan and Tuncer, 2012). Yet,
these provide very little understanding of how young children make sense of the
concept of environmental sustainability in different contexts, making this study
significant because it sheds light on the ways researchers can explore children’s
perceptions in the contexts of home and school. Since this paper is about child-
centred research methods, it focuses on conversational interviews conducted
with children using photograph interpretations, and children’s drawings, and
their interpretations of them.
To collect rich data for this study, the data collection process proceeded as
follows. First, I conducted conversational interviews with the children to explore
their understanding of environmental sustainability. Then, I asked them to

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
156
draw their ideas of the issue. This was followed by conversational interviews
with the children about their drawings. The next step was showing the children
photographs (see Fig. 9 – 15) of certain environmental issues and I asked
them to discuss these. Notably, the drawing activity was conducted before the
photograph interpretation activity as I did not want to influence children’s ideas
with any of the ideas portrayed in the photographs chosen for this study.
The Puppet
Initially, I thought that generating data about the abstract concept of
environmental sustainability can be difficult for some children to understand.
Indeed, challenges of generating data with young children are mostly created
by a gap between the social worlds of the researcher and that of the child (Kvale
and Brinkmann, 2009). Often, in research with young children, persona dolls or
life-sized dolls as tall as a 3- to 4-year-old child, are used to introduce difficult
and controversial topics to young children in early childhood settings (Brown,
2001), for example, to raise awareness of discriminatory behaviours amongst
children and adults. Usually the personality of the persona doll is developed by
the researcher and the researcher acts as both a voice and an interpreter (Brown,
2001). Since this study was not aimed at raising any awareness about an issue,
but rather to encourage children to talk about environmental sustainability, a
difficult concept for children to discuss, a hand-held puppet (called Ġanni) was
used instead (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 Ġanni, the puppet
The personality of the puppet was developed by the researcher (myself). I acted
as both his voice and interpreter. Ġanni was introduced to the children as:
Ġanni is a 5-year-old puppet from a small village in Comino (a
small island, part of the Maltese archipelago). He is my assistant
and he has come down to this school/home to meet you and to
help me. He has a baby brother at home. Ġanni likes toys and

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
157
his favourite toy is a bike and he also likes to read and to play
outside.
Initially, Ġanni was placed in a corner of the classroom where children usually
played. Although the children knew that Ġanni was not real, they were very
surprised and excited to meet him, play with him, and learn more about him.
As a constructivist tool, Ġanni served as a creative data collection technique
which drew on children’s imagination and aided conversations with the children.
It encouraged a deeper level of engagement and conversations between the
children and myself that was fun and enjoyable for children. For example, S (girl,
aged 3 year), told me:
May I speak to Ġanni today?, I will speak to you later.
F (boy, aged 7 years) explained that:
I enjoyed talking to Ġanni. He is fun to talk to. I wish you could let
him stay so that we play together sometimes.
Overall, the children enjoyed the element of make-belief created by the puppet.
Only one boy, L (aged 7 years), was not interested in the puppet and refused
to allow Ġanni to be present during his interview because he believed that
puppets were for children and he was not a child anymore.
Conversational Interviews
Observations were carried out in school and at home, but they did not generate
enough data to arrive at a holistic understanding of the issue under study.
Consequently, individual conversational interviews with the children provided
data which could not be observed (Stake, 1995). Each interview was an inter-
subjective process between the children and myself (Kvale and Brinkmann,
2009), and provided me with a lot of in-depth data about children’s perceptions
of environmental sustainability and the influences upon these ideas. For
example, J (girl, aged 3 years) described the environment as including natural
elements like,
A tree and the sea.
J described environmental sustainability as a way of people taking care of the
environment, which is a source of nutrition for people and stated:
Because I have trees at home and we take care of them … Because they make
grapes and we take grapes in a bag and we eat them when we go to the beach.
D (boy, aged 4 years) expressed his concerns with air pollution as environmental

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
158
sustainability issue which needs to be taken care of. He said,
Smoke and exhaust make the place dirty. That is not good. Smoke is not good
for us.
Later, he explained that
Mums and dads should take care of everything.
Y (girl, aged 6 years) described environment sustainability as nature which needs
to be taken care of,
Y: The environment for me is the trees, plants, the sea, and like that and the
people can enjoy nature and it helps people live.
Puppet: How does the environment help people live?
Y: The trees and the sea give us food... (pause) and we need to take care of them
to live well.
Most children’s interviews were conducted at school, except for the interview
with one boy, which was conducted at his family home. This choice was
based on the premise that interviews with children need to be conducted in
a place that they were used to and felt comfortable in. Consequently, prior to
conducting interviews I asked children where they wished to be interviewed and
I consented to their wishes.
Drawings
Art is closely related to children’s thinking (Vygotsky, 1971), especially if they
lack the linguistic capacity to adequately present their understandings of a
complex issue such as environmental sustainability. Children’s drawings have
been widely used in research tools with young children to offer insight into
the representation of children’s worldviews (Clark and Moss 2011; Veale, 2011),
even by environmental researchers (Barraza and Robottom, 2008; Sorin and
Gordon, 2013). In this study, each child was invited to draw something related to
environmental sustainability, using a blank A4 sheet of white paper and crayons,
which I provided. Children were free to stop drawing whenever they wanted.
Asking the children to draw provided almost no guidance for them and they
were free to express themselves in their illustrations, thus providing a snapshot
of their mental image of a concept in an unguided manner.
Interpretations of Drawings
Drawings provide visual data but they may not be enough to communicate the

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
159
full meaning that children have of a concept (Veale, 2011). Having explored a
variety of drawing methods (e.g. Anning and Ring, 2004), I decided to let the
children produce their own drawings and then they were given the opportunity
to interpret their own drawings as well. For this reason, storytelling by children
about their own drawings was used in this research to inform and enrich data
by providing a holistic interpretation of the young children’s ideas. Verbal
recording of children’s interpretations of their drawings provided useful data for
interpretation of their perceptions of environmental sustainability. Stories about
their drawings offered tools for them to organise and explain their complex and
abstract issues (Anning and Ring, 2004), which would otherwise be difficult to
explain in words alone. By asking children to tell the story of their drawing (see
Fig. 2 – 8), I did not impose my adult interpretation of their drawings, which could
have been far removed from children’s worldviews. As indicated in figures 2 – 8,
the children’s descriptions of the environment and environmental sustainability
provided insight into their geographical, social, cultural, and familial influences
of their perceptions of the issue under study.
Fig. 2 T’s (girl, aged 4 years) drawing of the environment as nature, which
she described as,
There is the sun, the trees, the animals and the worms.
Fig. 3 A’s (girl, aged 5 years) drawing of nature and environmental

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
160
sustainability, which she described as,
“This is the environment with the sun, the grass and a flower. They are good for
us.”
Figures 4 – 6 were provided by F (boy, aged 7 years) in his attempt to illustrate his
ideas about the environment, environmental sustainability and what influenced
his ideas about the issue.
Fig. 4 F’s (boy, aged 7 years) drawing of the ideal environment.
Fig. 5 F’s (boy, aged 7 years) drawing of the current state of the environment.

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
161
Fig. 6 F’s (boy, aged 7 years) drawing of air pollution caused by power
stations and how it impacts people’s health.
As research methods, children’s drawings and storytelling about their drawings
were successfully developed and were found to be good approaches to elicit
information about environmental sustainability from young children. These
research methods were enjoyed by all children except L (boy, aged 6 years). It
turned out that L was unable to draw and therefore he considered drawing to
be a childish (albeit naive) activity. Two girls (Y and JL) did not want to colour
their drawings (see Fig. 7–8).
Fig. 7 Y’s (girl, aged 6 years) drawing of the environment and environmental
sustainability.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
162
Fig. 8 JL’s (girl, aged 6 years) drawing of people taking care of the
environment by recycling waste.
Overall, children’s participation in this activity was influenced by their lived
experiences and their conception of environmental sustainability. Children’s
drawings were scanned by me and returned to the children immediately.
Photographs
Photographs, including those taken by children, have been used as useful
research tools with young children to support participatory elements and
children’s engagement in research, and assist the researcher to gain better
understanding of children’s perspectives (Dockett, Einarsdottir, and Perry,
2011; Dockett et al., 2017). Permission for me to ask children to take their own
photographs was refused by heads of schools and therefore, I prepared seven
photographs depicting various environmental issues (Fig. 9 – 15). In doing so, I
was aware that I was introducing my own influences on the children’s perceptions
of environmental sustainability by presenting the issue under study from my
point of view. This might have positioned me as a controller of the children’s
space and time, therefore reinforcing my role as a researcher. To minimise my
influence on the children’s responses, I opted for photographs portraying a
variety of local and global environmental sustainability issues.

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
163
Fig. 9 – 15 Photographs of environmental issues used during conversa-
tional interviews with children
Inspired by the mosaic approach (Clark and Moss, 2011) and the UNCRC (UN,
1989), and through discussion with educators and children, these photographs
were introduced to children during conversational interviews between the
children and myself. Photograph interpretation sessions were conducted
with each child individually. Each session consisted of showing each child the
photographs of different sustainability issues and children talked about them.
The children enjoyed the photos and associated them with their lived experience
in Malta. They were able to recall the pictures they had seen and were keen to
participate in a discussion based on these photographs. All children chose to
participate in the discussion of photographs.
Critical Analysis
With democracy at its core, child-centred and participatory research methods
are effective communication tools to assist children in expressing their world
views, while asserting their right to a voice about important aspects of their lives
(Clark and Moss, 2011; Barratt Hacking et al., 2013; Sorin and Gordon, 2013).
This raises arguments about the competence of young children to discuss

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
164
complex issues, such as environmental sustainability, and the value of these
perspectives. Therefore, these merit some consideration. This section provides
a critical reflection on how the research methods discussed above contributed
to my understanding of the children’s voices about environmental sustainability.
Overall, these participatory research methods adopted in this study served as
communicative tools, mostly by eliminating language barriers. They assisted
children in articulating some complex thoughts about a complex issue
(environmental sustainability), which would have been difficult to articulate
using linguistic methods alone (Clark and Moss, 2011). At the very least, these
methods demonstrate that children took ownership of these activities; their
participation was invited rather than required and all were keen to participate.
While the puppet in this study served as a useful constructive tool, one boy
(L) found the idea of using the puppet and drawing a picture to be very naive.
Rather than assuming that such method is necessarily limiting, it is important to
look to the context in which this study was carried out. L was an articulate boy
and the rationale for not using the puppet with him was that he felt that I was
treating him like a “child” by using the puppet, which he said he did not like.
However, this reaction was not directed towards me personally. It may be that
L’s confidence in his own abilities to talk to the puppet has been undermined to
the point that he was unwilling to engage in the activity.
Children’s drawings are often promoted as child-centred, interesting, and
meaningful ways to engage young children as active participants in the research
process. Indeed, evidence suggests that children’s drawings can offer insight
into the representation of children’s worldviews (Vygotsky, 1971; Clark and Moss,
2011). Similar findings have been supported even in environmental research
(Barraza and Robottom, 2008; Sorin and Gordon, 2013), particularly if children
lack the verbal capacity to adequately present their ideas during interviews.
When I asked the children to draw, I did not provide any guidance for them
and they were free to express ideas in their illustrations. This helped children
provide a snapshot of their mental image of environmental sustainability in an
unguided manner.
In this study, children’s stories about their own drawings were intended to
encourage them to share information about what is important for them in a way
that is fun and meaningful to them. Stated differently, children’s drawings are
considered to be empowering for young children, as they afford young children
some control over the research process. In this regard, children in this study had
control over what they drew and the meaning they attributed to their drawings

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
165
through the storytelling about their drawings. Consequently, children directed
this study towards a more nuanced understanding of what may seem to be
unremarkable children’s drawings.
Although children’s drawings provided sympathetic and respectful opportunities
for the children to represent themselves without adult support, they had some
limitations. For example, drawing as a data collection method was particularly
appealing and engaging to most, but not all, children. For example, two girls
did not want to colour their drawings. Moreover, some children had not yet
developed their drawing skills and it took them a long time to finish their
drawings. Possibly, the children could have been confused about whether it was
their drawing skills or the issue under study which were being explored. Indeed,
the children’s drawings and their interpretations indicate that these are often
constrained by the equipment to which they have access, guidelines provided,
the children’s worldview, and are influenced by their social and cultural contexts.
Furthermore, drawings alone may not communicate the children’s full meaning
of a concept and very often children like to draw pictures and tell a story about
their drawings too. In fact, free drawing provided visual data, however, it was
the verbal recording of children’s stories of their drawings that provided the
data for interpretation (Veale, 2011). The children’s stories about their drawings
offered tools for them to organise and explain their complex ideas about the
issue under study (Anning & Ring, 2004), which would otherwise be difficult to
explain only in words. In fact, conversations with children established that each
drawing was the result both of careful deliberation of the issue discussed and
the presence of myself as the researcher, and both contributed to the discussion
of the drawings produced by the children. Indeed, children’s storytelling about
their drawings was an effective interview technique which provided rich data
and a holistic interpretation of the children’s understandings, without providing
my adult interpretation of children’s drawings.
In participatory research with young children, photographs are useful tools which
assist researchers to explore young children’s perspectives, while supporting
children’s engagement in research (Dockett et al., 2011; Dockett et al., 2017).
Attention to visual methodology as a means of meaning-making is paramount
when employing photograph interpretation in research with young children and
highlights the complexity of the method. In line with the adage that a picture
is worth a thousand words, in this study, I used seven ready-made photographs
to research young children’s perceptions of environmental sustainability. The
photographs were presented as fixed images representing local and global

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
166
environmental issue and were not considered as data but rather as illustrations
aimed at gathering data with children. This, in turn, raises questions about
the role of the photographs used. For example, are the photographs a
representation of ‘reality,’ and, if so, whose ‘reality’ is it? Essentially, the original
intention attributed to these photographs can only be understood by talking to
the photographer.
I acknowledge that children’s responses to the photographs used in this
study might have been influenced by my choice of pictures of environmental
sustainability issues which concerned me the most and by their life experience
that led to certain interpretations, and not others. Perhaps, in doing so, I moved
away from the constructivist perspective toward an almost positivist perspective,
where I almost tried to “measure” children’s knowledge of the issue under
study, rather than explore it. In hindsight, looking at photographs as a research
method from a constructivist perspective, I realise that these photographs
represented one social milieu and just one subjective perspective of reality: the
photographer’s, while ignoring or possibly undermining others. The context of
photographs could also have been the result of a political process where certain
aspects have been highlighted while others were not for political reasons.
Consequently, photographs represented a negotiation process between what
was photographed and what was not. Furthermore, some children experienced
language barriers particularly when they lacked the vocabulary to describe a
photograph.
Clearly, the narrative component which resulted from the photograph
interpretations in research with young children cannot be discounted. Children’s
data indicate that the photographs might have captured some element of
reality, at least within the children’s local context. Epistemologically speaking,
the difference between the images and meanings rested in the way the children
interpreted the photographs. Upon reflection, I suggest that perhaps adopting
a more naturalistic, qualitative approach, and using methodologies that allow
children to freely follow their train of thoughts (such as children taking their own
photographs), could have produced different data and different results. This
is not an easy task, especially in studies involving very young children, but it
could enrich data in unexpected ways, even if this method is time-consuming,
expensive, more demanding than traditional interviews, and entails different
ethical, methodological and practical challenges. Essentially, I argue for the
potential of using visual methods when conducting research with young children.

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
167
Conclusion
Overall, data from this study suggest that children formed and expressed their
views in different ways, often by drawing on personal experiences, and their funds
of knowledge and cultural capital. In children’s responses, social experiences
were most influential in their descriptions of environmental sustainability, often
using their immediate surroundings to gauge response to their drawings and/
or photograph interpretations. Adopting a reflexive stance in this research to
examine the benefits and limitations of the research methods employed helped
me learn much about listening to children’s perspectives of environmental
sustainability through their drawings and interpretations. Reflection and critical
analysis of participatory research methods used in ECEfS research are important
for taking into consideration young children’s interests, ideas, culture, and
context to offer the best approach to improve the field further. In retrospect,
perhaps the research would have benefited from letting children choose a
research method they deem necessary for the issue under study, thus minimising
(but not eliminating) the issue of power in research concerning children’s lives.
Listening attends to children’s perspectives and conveys the message that
children’s perspectives are important. However, conducting research with young
children is not an easy task. Neither is it one which should be taken lightly.
Research conducted with young children requires researchers to take time and
care to understand young children’s agentic engagements about issues which
matter to them and not train young children to follow an adult research agenda
(Murray, 2019). Additionally, listening to children helps adults get to know and
understand children’s needs and interests and respond positively to them, if
they choose to do so, offering opportunities to improve child development and
provide children with meaningful learning opportunities. Finally, listening to
children is a process which requires constant adjustment of research methods
and awareness of all verbal and non-verbal communication between children
and researcher.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
168
References
Ackermann, L., Feeny, T., Hart, J. and Newman, J. (2003). Understanding and Evaluating Children’s
Participation. London: Plan International.
Anning, A. and Ring, K. (2004). Making Sense of Children’s Drawings. Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Barratt Hacking, E., Cutter-Mackenzie, A. and Barratt, R. (2013). ‘Children as active researchers. The
potential of environmental education research involving children.’ In R.B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J.
Dillon and A.E.J. Wals, (eds.), International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education (pp.
438–458) New York: Routledge.
Barraza, L. and Robottom, I. (2008). Gaining Representations of Children’s and Adults’ Perceptions
of Sustainability Issues. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 3(4), 179–191.
Brooks, E. and Murray, J. (2016). Ready, Steady, Learn: School Readiness and Children’s Voices in
English Early Childhood Settings. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and
Early Years Education. 46 (2), 143–156.
Brown, B. (2001). Combating Discrimination: Persona Dolls in Action. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham
Books.
Christensen, P. and Prout, A. (2005). ‘Anthropological and sociological perspectives on the study of
children.’ In: S. Greene and D. Hogan (eds.), Researching Children’s Experience. Approaches and
Methods (pp. 42–60) London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Clark, A. (2018). Picking up the Pieces: Where to Next in Terms of Listening to Young Children? Paper
presented at EECERA annual conference Budapest: Ped Talk Group 3, 31st August 2018.
Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2011). Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach (2nd ed.). London:
National Children’s Bureau Enterprises Ltd.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2009). Children as Researchers: Exploring the Possibilities and Challenges in
Environmental Education. Paper presented at the 5th World Environmental Education Congress,
Montreal, Canada, 10–14 May 2009.
Davis, J. (2009). Revealing the Research ‘Hole’ of Early Childhood Education for Sustainability: A
Preliminary Survey of the Literature. Environmental Education Research. 15 (2), 227-241.
Dockett, S., Einarsdottir, J. and Perry, B. (2011). ‘Balancing methodologies and methods in researching
with young children.’ In D. Harcourt, B. Perry and T. Waller (eds.), Researching Young Children’s
Perspectives. Debating the Ethics and Dilemmas of Educational Research with Children (pp. 68-81)
Oxon: Routledge.
Dockett, S., Einarsdottir, J. and Perry, B. (2017). Photo Elicitation: Reflecting on Multiple Sites of
Meaning. International Journal of Early Years Education. 25 (3), 225-240.
EECERA (2014). Ethical code for Early Childhood Researchers: 1.1. Accessed 15 November 2019 at
http://www.eecera.org/documents/pdf/organisation/EECERA-Ethical-Code.pdf
Engdahl, I. and Rabušicová, M. (2010). Children’s Voices about the State of the Earth and Sustainable
Development. A report for the OMEP world assembly and world congress on the OMEP world project
on education for sustainable development 2009–2010. World Organisation for Early Childhood
Education. Accessed 30 October 2019 at http://www.omep.org.gu.se/digitalAssets/1314/1314390_esd-
congress-report-child-interviews.pdf
EURYDICE. (2019). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe: Eurydice Report (2019
edition). Accessed 12 March 2020 at https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/
key-dataearly-childhood-education-and-care-europe-%E2%80%93-2019-edition_en
Foley, P. (2011). ‘Democratic Spaces.’ In P. Foley and S. Leverett (eds.), Children and Young People’s
Spaces (pp. 89–101) Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
G20 Argentina. (2018). G20 Leaders’ Declaration: Building Consensus for Fair and Sustainable
Development. Accessed 2 December 2019 at http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2018/buenos_aires_leaders_
declaration.pdf
Gallagher, M. (2009). ‘Ethics.’ In E.K.M. Tisdall, J. Davis and M. Gallegher (eds.), Researching with
Children and Young People. Research Design, Methods and Analysis (pp. 11–28) London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Gray, C. and Macblain, S. (2012). Learning Theories in Childhood. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
James, A. and Prout, A. (eds.) (1997). Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary

A Reflection on Research Methods that Engage Young Children with Environmental Sustainability
169
Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood (2nd ed.), London, Falmer Press.
James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998). Theorising Childhood. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Kahriman-Ozturk, D., Olgan, R. and Tuncer, G. (2012). A Qualitative Study on Turkish Preschool
Children’s Environmental Attitudes through Ecocentrism and Anthropocentrism. International Journal
of Science Education. 34 (4), 629–650.
Kellett, M. (2010). Small shoes, Big steps! Empowering children as active researchers. American Journal
of Community Psychology 46 (1-2), 195-203.
Kellett, N. (2011). Empowering children and young people as researchers: Overcoming barriers and
building capacity. Child Indicators Research. 4, 205-219.
Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Lansdown, G. (2010). ‘The Realisation of Children’s Participation Rights.’ In B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas
(eds.) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation (pp. 11–23) London: Routledge.
Levinas, E. (1980). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Lyndon, H., Bertram, T., Brown Z. and Pascal, C. (2019). Pedagogically Mediated Listening Practices: The
Development of Pedagogy through the Development of Trust. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal. 27 (3), 360-370.
MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies. London: Routledge.
Mandell, N. (1991). ‘The least-adult role in studying children.’ In F. C. Waksler (ed.), Studying the Social
Worlds of Children: Sociological Readings (pp. 38–59). London: Falmer Press.
Mayall, B. (2002). Towards Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from Children’s Lives. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Mayall, B. (2008). Conversations with children: Working with generational issues. In: Christensen, P. and
James, A. (eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed.) (pp. 109–124) London:
Routledge.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and
Expanded from Case study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Ministry of Education and Employment. (2012). A National Curriculum Framework for All. Floriana,
Malta: Ministry of Education & Employment.
Morrow, V. (2008). ‘Dilemmas in children’s participation in England.’ In A. Invernizzi and J. Williams
(eds.) Children and Citizenship (pp.120–130) London: Sage.
Murray, J. (2016). Young Children are Researchers: Children aged Four to Eight Years engage in
Important Research Behaviour when they Base Decisions on Evidence, European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal. 24 (5), 705-720.
Murray, J. (2019). Hearing Young Children’s Voices. International Journal of Early Years Education. 27
(1), 1-5.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2018). International Early Learning
and Child Well-being Study. Accessed 2 December 2019 at http://www.oecd.org/education/school/
international-early-learning-and-child-well-being-study.htm
Pramling Samuelsson. I. and Kaga, Y. (2008). The Contribution of Early Childhood Education to a
Sustainable Society. Paris: UNESCO.
Pufall, P.B. and Unsworth, R.P. (2004). ‘The imperative and process for rethinking childhood.’ In P. B.
Pufall and R. P. Unsworth (eds.), Rethinking Childhood (pp. 1-21). New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.
Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sollars, V., Attard, M., Borg, C., & Craus, B. (2006). Early childhood education and care. A national
policy 2006. Malta: Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment.
Sorin, R. and Gordon, I.J. (2013). Developing a Methodology to Assess Children’s Perceptions of the
Tropical Environment. International Education Studies. 6 (2), 96–109.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research: Perspectives on Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
170
Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: The Guildford Press.
UN. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989
entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49. Geneva: United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights. Accessed 19 October 2019 at http://www.ohchr.org/en/
professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
UN. (2015a). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (A/Res/70/1).
New York: UN General Assembly. Accessed 19 October at https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/
population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
UN. (2015b). Sustainable Development Goals. Accessed 1 December 2019 at https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/education/
Veale, A. (2011). ‘Creative methodologies in participatory research with children.’ In S. Greene and D.
Hogan (eds.), Researching children’s experiences: Methods and approaches (pp. 253–272) London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The Psychology of Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitty, G. and E. Wisby. (2007). Whose Voice? An Exploration of the Current Policy Interest in Pupil
Involvement in School Decision-Making. International Studies in Sociology of Education. 17 (3), 303–
319.

171
Choosing Relationships in Times of Challenge &
Change: Exploring the Experiences of Families of
Young Children on the Autism Spectrum as they
Navigate the Irish Early Years’ Education System
Together
Sarah O’ Leary & Mary Moloney
Abstract
This paper draws upon a doctoral study and encompasses three
main components: (1) changes to national policy on inclusive
education in recent years, (2) research recommendations regarding
inclusive practice, and (3) the primary author’s lived experience of
navigating the education system for her young child on the autism
spectrum. It is concerned with the lived experiences of six parents
of young children (aged from three to six years) on the autism
spectrum as they navigate the Irish Early Years’ Education system
from pre-school to primary school. Recent policy changes not only
impact the choices that families and educators make in relation to
inclusive education, but also demand the development of positive
relationships between all stakeholders involved. However, these
families’ experiences suggest the presence of conflicting and
contradictory narratives at macro-policy level that impede the
development of such relationships, resulting in the emergence
of a significant gap between inclusive policy and practice. These
contradictions have been created and responded to through the
choices, roles, and actions of social actors within different social
systems, including families, educators, and the Government.
Introduction
Recognition of the human rights of individuals with additional needs in Ireland
has been a recurring topic within the social justice discourse for the past number

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
172
of years. Consequently, there has been an emerging shift towards integrating
children with special educational needs into mainstream education settings.
National policy relating to children with additional needs has long emphasised
the benefits of integration (DES, 2004; National Disability Authority, 2011), with
enhanced outcomes for children on the autism spectrum in inclusive early
childhood settings reiterated throughout the literature (Allen and Cowdery,
2014; Lee et al., 2015; Moloney and McCarthy, 2018; Mozolic-Staunton et al.,
2017). The need to create a culture of inclusion dominates ECCE discourse,
and is core to the Access and Inclusion Model (DCYA, 2016) which stresses the
integral role that educators have in making inclusion a reality for children with
additional needs. To this end, as part of the AIM, The Leadership for Inclusion in
the Early Years programme (LINC), a Special Purpose Level 6 Award, has been
designed primarily to develop the knowledge, understanding, and skills of
participants to empower them to support inclusion in early years settings, and
adopt a leadership role that also enables them to support and supervise other
staff in the setting to design, implement, and evaluate inclusive practice (MIC/
ECI/MU, 2017).
Likewise, the role of individual teachers is widely referenced as being central to
the realisation of inclusive education in schools in Ireland (NCSE, 2011, Rose,
Shevlin, Winter and O’ Raw, 2015; DES, 2017; 2018; 2019). It follows that inclusive
practice relies on educators at all levels within the education system having
positive views of inclusion, while also showing knowledge, understanding, and
leadership in action (Moloney and McCarthy, 2018). However, in spite of the
child-centred ideology espoused in education policy across the ECCE and
primary school sectors, research into families’ experiences as they help their
child on the autism spectrum navigate their pre-school and primary school
settings emphasises the stresses and challenges involved in this process, while
also reiterating the critical role that educators can play in building bridges
between the child’s micro-level setting in early childhood and primary school
(Denkyirah and Agbeke, 2010; Quintero and McIntyre, 2011; Lilley, 2014; Starr
et al., 2016; Connolly and Gersch, 2016; Moloney and McCarthy, 2018). Many
researchers suggest that families who adopt a strengths-based approach in the
face of adversities that they endure as they navigate the world for and with their
child on the autism spectrum experience more positive outcomes (e.g., Sirota,
2010; Holder, 2013; Woodman et al., 2015; Potter, 2016).
Crucially, educators must be aware of their role in strengthening families as they
navigate their way through the education system for their young children on
the autism spectrum (Fontil, Quintero and McIntyre, 2010; Lilley, 2014; Petrakos,

Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early Childhood Educator
173
2015; Connolly and Gersch, 2016; Starr et al., 2016). However, educators must
also recognise the many conflicting factors that permeate both theirs and
parents’ positioning in relation to children on the autism spectrum. This paper,
which is based upon six parents’ experiences of navigating the Irish early years’
education system (both pre-school and primary school) for their child on the
autism spectrum, provides insight into these imbalanced power relations. It
points to the challenges and changes that parents experience as a direct result
of neoliberal ideologies espoused at a macro-government level in Ireland,
which limits the choices available to them regarding their child’s education.
Since the economic recession (2008-2018), successive Irish governments have
embraced a neoliberal ideology, promoting the development of the productive
and competitive citizen across education and social policy (Lynch, Grummell
and Devine 2012; Moloney, Rothe et al, 2019). However, such neoliberal
ideology inevitably leads to inequalities at multiple levels (social, economic,
political), where the more powerful and privileged identify the needs of the less
powerful in terms of the requirements of wider society, and distribute provisions
accordingly (Harvey, 2005; Kinsella, 2009; Mladenov, 2015). Within this context,
the ultimate goal of inclusive policy and practice is reduced to preparing
the future workforce. In Ireland, neoliberal ideology is evidenced within
educational policy, and in particular, inclusion policy. Accordingly, inclusion has
been redefined to combine conflicting socially just and economic ideals that
are presented as the provision of equal opportunities for all Irish people to
become productive and competitive citizens (DCYA, 2014; NCC, 2016). While
recent policies on inclusive education within the primary sector, including the
Revised Special Education Allocation Model/Circular 0013/2017 (DES, 2017)
and the Comprehensive Review of the Role of Special Needs Assistants (NCSE,
2018), espouse the importance of ensuring social justice for all children, they
are simultaneously concerned with increasing the economic efficiency of the
education system. Consequently, the needs of all children across the continuum
of special educational needs are now met through a general allocation of
supports (DES, 2017).
The study, on which this paper is based, draws upon an ecological theory of
human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which emphasises the interacting
systems present in each child’s social construction of their world. Within this
theory, the child’s development is greatly influenced by interactions within the
micro-system comprising their home and later, their educational setting. The
relationships that result from the child’s participation in different microsystems
constitute the mesosystem, and include, for example, the interactions between

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
174
a child’s home and preschool or school. As such, ecological theory is central
to understanding and evaluating the lived experiences of young children on
the autism spectrum and their parents. In order to identify the macro forces
that influence these micro-settings, a policy analysis was undertaken to explore
the dominant narratives within Irish education policy on inclusive education.
This revealed the many potentially conflicting narratives, identified as (1) Care V
Education, (2) Quality V Equality, and (3) Needs V Rights. Against the backdrop
of her own lived experience with her young son, the primary author believes that
navigating the education system is entirely relational, comprising of, and relying
upon a variety of contexts and relationships. The present study developed
from that place, and is complemented, and bolstered by Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Theory of Human Development (1979; 2005). A reflective journal
entry (11/02/17) notes that while the primary author’s son is positioned at the
centre of her relational matrix, her micro-experience as his parent “cannot be
removed from my experience as an educator who in my practice has to ensure
that the children on the spectrum within my care are included authentically”.
This relational positioning evolved into an immersed researcher role that proved
integral to the exploration of the microsystems of young children on the autism
spectrum. It also facilitated the inclusion of the mesosystem as an interpretive
lens, where interactions between the children’s microsystems, for example,
home and school, could be understood. Adopting the role of researcher allowed
these daily lived experiences to be located philosophically and critically, thus
revealing the ideologies that inform the dominant narratives within the micro
and mesosystems that impact the lives of children and their families.
The research is underpinned by critical narrative inquiry, whereby the importance
of narrative (families’ experiences) and grand narratives (wider social issues)
permeate the methodology and associated methodological tools (Hickson,
2016; Kim, 2016). A central aim of the study is therefore concerned with the
critical re-storying of parents’ lived experiences of navigating the Irish Early
Years’ Education system for their child on the autism spectrum. Participants were
selected using non-probability purposive sampling. All were parents/guardians
of young children (aged three to six years) on the autism spectrum who were,
or would be, attending pre-school settings in phase one (May-July, 2018), and
transitioning to primary school following phase two of data collection (May-July,
2019).
Six parents agreed to participate in multiple interviews over the course of
the study. Of the six participating parents, three engaged in an existing
parent network of which the primary author, is herself, a member. Having

Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early Childhood Educator
175
seen information relating to the study online through autism community
networks, the three remaining parents approached the researcher voicing their
interest in becoming involved. Five parents had more than one child on the
autism spectrum. Therefore, the six parent narratives indirectly represent the
experiences of nine children between three and six years old. Throughout the
study, parents were enabled to talk extensively about their lived experiences of
navigating the educational continuum from pre-school to the infant classes in
primary school, for their young child/children on the autism spectrum.
Informed consent was integral to this study and ensured that participants
could make an informed and voluntary decision about participation. By use of
an information letter, participants were advised of the nature and objectives
of the study, what their participation would involve, the researcher’s identity,
how the findings would be used (i.e., publications, presentations and doctoral
thesis), and how their anonymity and the confidentiality of information provided
would be assured. Because informed consent requires ongoing negotiation
of the terms of agreement as the study progresses (Bryman, 2008; Fisher and
Anushko, 2008), participants were asked and gave full commitment to this
continuous, co-operative process. In order to protect participant’s rights, well-
being, safety, anonymity. and confidentiality, codes were used instead of any
identifiable details on data transcripts etc. and every effort was made to ensure
that the ‘restructuring’ of participant stories did not breach confidentiality or
anonymity agreements (Cohen et al., 2000; Creswell, 2009). Due to the primary
author’s unique positioning and prior association with some of the participants,
the role of the second author was pivotal to increasing the trustworthiness of
the research. The second author’s role in interrogating the data, hypothesising,
de-constructing. and re-constructing the narratives, enhanced the rigour of the
research and credibility of the findings. Rather than reducing or eradicating
issues surrounding subjectivity, this systematic approach to understanding the
narratives increased the trustworthiness of the findings (Amankwaa, 2016; Gioia,
Corley and Hamilton, 2013; Stewart et al., 2017) by embracing the relationship
between subjectivity and trustworthiness.
From the outset, it was considered that access to young children’s voices and
experiences would be realised through engagement with the narratives of the
most significant people in their lives; their parents. The application of an I-Thou
and I-It framework of analysis allowed each of the child-centred narratives to be
understood in terms of the influences of important interactions and relationships
on their lives. The first interpretation of the lived experience is defined as an
‘I and It’ relationship between the individual and its immediate experience or

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
176
subjective experience of a phenomenon, for example, a family’s experience of
autism. The second way in which existence is interpreted is through the more
comprehensive ‘I and Thou’ association which focuses upon the wider world
of relational contexts, and the connections between the ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ in every
living relationship (Buber, 1970; Noddings, 1984; 1991 ). As parents provided
the main accounts of both their child’s and their own experience, the term I
typically referred to their immediate personal experience, whereas the use of
pronouns: he, she, and sometimes, them was typically used to denote particular
reference to their child. Nonetheless, the I-Thou analytic tool was applied to
all such references, ensuring the placement of the child at the centre of the
narratives collected. The child on the autism spectrum therefore became the
I within a complex, interconnected system of I-Thou and I-It interactions and
relationships.
Findings suggest that changes to national policy regarding the inclusion
of children with additional needs has deeply impacted the educational
experiences of young children on the autism spectrum. This has resulted
in significant changes in the choices available to their families. Parents were
acutely aware that their child’ inclusion in education relies not only on the
availability of supports, but also on the level of understanding of autism within
a particular preschool or school. In some instances, this has resulted in an
absence of parental choice. In spite of such challenges, participating families
still spoke about the positive aspects of their experiences. The importance of
developing positive relationships: the significance of interactions, relationships.
and values emerged the most dominant narrative. Parents also discussed
negative relationships that lacked respect, understanding. and trust which
they attributed primarily to relationships with professionals. The focus upon
relationships across the interviews was underpinned throughout by the choices,
roles, and actions of social actors within these relationships. An in-depth
deconstruction and ecological reconstruction of the narratives was carried out
to highlight the impact of relationships on families’ experiences. The findings
reported here focus upon the narrative of choice within the wider narrative of
equality in education, and comprises three elements: choices made by family,
choices made by educators, and choices made by government. Using an
ecological framework, these choices are located within the micro, meso, exo,
and macrosystem of these young children on the autism spectrum (Figure 1).

Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early Childhood Educator
177
Figure 1. An Ecological Overview of Choices Regarding Education
Undeniably, parents of young children on the autism spectrum are faced with a
multitude of choices that other families do not typically experience. The most
common choices made by the families in this study were between public and
private services, mainstream and special education, and finally, early years and
primary education.
A dominant theme across parent narratives was the contrasting roles adopted
by the public and private sector regarding service provision. On the surface, it
appears that each participating parent chose to pay privately for either their
children’s diagnosis or subsequent therapies and interventions. Deeper analysis
problematises this point, querying whether the element of choice was actually
present in their decision to pay privately for services. Alice articulates how she
did not ‘get any services from EIC’. She suggests that this is ‘because they know
people will go private rather than wait. …We don’t hear from them. We hear
nothing’. When faced with the absence of services or with silence, parental
choice is removed. Findings indicate that replacing public services with private
alternatives directly and adversely affects the development of relationships
within the child’s micro, meso, and exosystem. Long waiting lists and reduced
access to therapy sessions mean that multidisciplinary teams within the public
sector cannot develop adequate relationships with either children or parents.
Michael’s narrative highlights a contrast between the Department of Health and
the Department of Education’s capacity to build relationships with families:

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
178
They [HSE] let the private sector take it on and let us pay for it. It’s
the easiest way of dealing with the problem. Like it’s different with
schools and that I suppose because there isn’t a private option,
so it just is what it is. They have no choice but to deal with you…
However, a dominant grand narrative underlying the parents’ child-centred
stories was their access to education and typically, the many barriers encountered.
When access issues arose for their children, families were generally faced with
two binary choices: (1) mainstream or special education and (2) early years or
primary education. In fact, parent narratives were saturated with references
to the ‘best place’ for their young children. Brenda illustrates how having the
freedom to choose the best place for a child can be taken away from parents by
professionals, who have the power to make the ultimate choice and decision. In
her opinion, a diagnosis meant that ‘all of a sudden the unit is seen as the best
place for you’. Alice reinforces this point, stating ‘if they offer you a place in the
unit and you refuse it you get nothing… They decide where the best place is’.
The division between mainstream and special education, and the suitability of
either for their child, emerged as a recurring theme. From the outset, in the
months prior to enrolment in pre-school, parents voiced their concerns for their
child in relation to the pressures associated with attending mainstream school
and apprehension about whether their child would be deemed suitable. While
the benefits of inclusion that are cited in policy were discussed, some parents
questioned whether these aspirations were realistic in practice, given recent
cuts to special education and the nature of primary education in Ireland. Brenda
emphasises this point with regards her son’s denial of access to a special needs
assistant (SNA) in mainstream education and her consequent decision regarding
the ‘best place’ for him:
Technically, he doesn’t even really need to be in a unit, because
he’s fine but then he can’t go to mainstream without an SNA
because it’s so busy workwise and crowded in there. This is what
I’m up against…They have you backed into a corner…
In other instances, parents described specialised settings as a ‘better fit’ for
their children because they would have the opportunity to ‘be themselves’
[Hannah]. Prior to making her final decision regarding enrolment in primary
school, Hannah asked the Early Intervention Team to observe her son and
daughter within their ECCE setting, and make recommendations for their future
placement. Following this, Hannah chose a specialised educational setting for
them:

Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early Childhood Educator
179
…they both said to me afterwards…that they would benefit more
from the specialised setting. They gave examples like, for circle
time or story time or whatever, they didn’t like staying still, yes,
they were quite happy and they weren’t causing any trouble but
they [her children] had their backs turned…
However, three families emphasised the entirely positive impact that
professionals had on the choices they made regarding their children’s education.
In all instances, these professionals were early childhood educators.
Not only did the aforementioned parents choose their child’s pre-school based
on the individual qualities and capacity of the ECEC setting manager, they also
chose, where possible, to avail of the second ECCE year, sometimes applying
for an over age exemption to do so. Parents who opted to do this cited
school readiness as a deciding factor, and expressed a desire for their child
to stay where they were known, understood, and included. Michael’s narrative
incorporates the central importance of Jane, the preschool manager, in their
lives, while also revealing the impact that the concept of school readiness has
on their decision-making:
We would have been lost without Jane’s…I mean completely lost. We are just so
lucky to have it. Where they show the same love and attention to Sam as we do
as parents… Having her in our lives has made all the difference… Now we have
decided that he has only just turned four so he is going to go to Jane’s for this
full school year but chances are he will go to Jane’s the following year as well.
Sure he’s going to spend the rest of his life in school. So with the exemption he’ll
be nearly six. I think he’ll be ready for school then, hopefully…
While discussing the ways that preschools and primary schools differ, Brenda
also touches on the familiarity, care, and safety her son experiences within the
preschool setting, clearly distinguishing this from the concept of both school
readiness and schooling. Her ‘roots and wings’ analogy is depicted in the
following extract:
I mean, I often think of this plaque I gave my parents once
that said “parents give you two things, one is roots, the other,
wings”. That saying just doesn’t work when you have a child with
significant needs. The thoughts of the wings part can keep you
awake at night. You have to focus instead on the roots and that’s
inclusion. And his preschool is like that. It’s all about him and
helping him fit in.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
180
She described school as being ‘a different ball game’. In her opinion school
is ‘all about the wings of the students and the great heights they can reach’.
Signifying her worries for his future, she asks: ‘What if you have a broken wing,
what then?’. It seems that in such cases the role of lone educators becomes
even more significant.
The potential role that educators could adopt in making inclusion possible was
highlighted throughout the parent narratives. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, one
such narrative is saturated throughout with references to the ways that a lone
educational leader dramatically changed the lives of their child and themselves.
The importance of both the choices and perspectives of such educational
leaders are presented here.
The significant role of educational leaders in making inclusion possible was
regularly reiterated by parents who perceived these leaders as facilitators of,
or barriers to, inclusive education. The children’s experiences varied based on
the individual qualities of the leaders within their educational setting, and their
interpretation of inclusive policy and practice. Ellen, a pre-school manager,
herself, explains the anomalies associated with the Access and Inclusion Model:
I’ve heard of people being taken on and they’re not even in
the room. This would be in multiroom places, they’re shopped
around wherever they’re needed. A child might really need them
in one room and they’re gone off sorting the afterschool list.
Ideally, you’d nearly have people saying let’s take the child with
special needs because that means we’ll be getting an extra pair
of hands. But is it being used to give that child the best learning
experience in the preschool?
She concludes that this is her ‘problem with AIM’, stating that in the policy,
‘they are blatantly saying that…this is not for the child this is for the service’.
In general, the fact that government policy on inclusive education does not
outline mandatory protocol regarding the inclusion of children on the spectrum
was a source of frustration for parents. Their narratives contained references
to disbelief, confusion, and scepticism regarding this aspect of policy. Sandra
felt that this ambiguity within inclusive education policy resulted in a strained
relationship between her and pre-school staff:
I said ‘this isn’t your problem Stacey, I have no problems with you, I know
it’s management’. And the manager was right there. A guy with a business
background, come on…and I was like, ‘it’s management telling you what to do,
what he decides is important’… she was upset but I was explaining that it was a

Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early Childhood Educator
181
cop out by him. Because she can’t be everywhere, she can’t be doing the school
runs and be with my child at the same time and be sorting out all the bins!
In the next interview, Sandra again touched on the issue of policy implementation
in relation to enrolling her child in local mainstream primary schools. Where
various principals ‘used’ policy differently:
…there I was making these appointments to see if the school
would be suitable for our son and they were there to see if he
was suitable for their school… in the end I actually wrote out
the part of the constitution that said every child has the right to
education and as I was reading it out to them…
Her upset was evident, ‘I was crying’, but ambivalence towards her upset was
equally palpable, ‘one of them just said that on the ground policy didn’t make
much difference… she told me that her hands were completely tied that the
Board of Management were against a unit and wouldn’t budge on it’. Sandra
was totally dismayed that this attitude came from ‘other teachers, other parents,
respected people in the community, a priest for God’s sake…’. Evidently,
the prospect of their children attending an educational setting that did not
encourage or implement inclusive practice instilled fear and anguish in the
parents, all of whom placed their child’s right to be welcomed and included
over any other desire they had for them. Ellen emphasises this, while also
highlighting the role that positive relationships play in effective inclusion. She
references the AIM and Aistear, noting that in accordance with both “the only
way inclusion can happen is if you will gain an understanding of a child and
that can only be through their parents. It’s the relationships on the ground that
matter…’. Central to these relationships are the perspectives of educators on
both autism and inclusion.
Underlying every parent narrative was the perspectives held by parents, teachers,
and the public in relation to autism. All parents referenced educators’ perspectives
on autism as the key factor in realising their child’s inclusion in education. In fact,
as mentioned earlier, this was sometimes the deciding factor in parents’ choices
regarding their child’s educational placement. The significance of knowing that
pre-school staff had participated in the LINC training was mentioned by three of
the participating parents, who spoke about this positive approach to inclusion,
and compared it with their own choice to adopt a strengths-based approach to
autism to enhance the daily lived experience of their families. The significant
positive impact that educators who adopted a strengths-based approach to
autism and inclusion had on these families’ lived experiences was undeniable.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
182
Parents articulated how educators’ perspectives on autism were the keystone
of their child’s inclusion in, or exclusion from, education. Ellen focused on this
potential exclusionary aspect in particular:
There is a stigma about autism and I see now that I actually had
that stigma myself. And you have that whole thing, you know the
minute you tell a person that… in preschool or schools in places
like that, it can change everything…
The stigma surrounding autism in educational settings emerged as a significant
narrative thread. While some leaders of educational settings displayed an
implicit stigma in relation to autism, one such educator, a primary school
principal, explicitly voiced hers to Sandra:
She actually said like ‘oh aren’t you great to tell me straight out
about the autism, another one would be hiding it’. And I was
there saying ‘sure he is amazing…he would thrive here in the
school’. Sure no one knows how any child is going to get on in
the school when you’re at that stage.
Sandra describes being ‘so hurt, so angry’ and explains that ‘this is what I’m up
against after everything…’. She further elaborates that ‘the worst part was she
[the principal] was in charge of all the other teachers, all the staff, no wonder
they are like that as well, having an actual problem with including children
with autism’. Accordingly, parents expressed a need for the development of
positive perspectives towards autism and inclusion among all educators. They
referenced professional development as a means of fostering this strengths-
based approach that represents an education system that is more socially, and
less academically, driven. While Alice ‘get[s] the whole public not understanding
[autism]’, she felt that:
People who are working with autistic children every day need to
have autism specific training done and not just be there tirelessly
trying to make our children meet the same milestones or do the
same school work as everyone else in the same way as everyone
else.
She again prioritises the social over the academic, saying that school ‘has to
be about more than results, it has to be about life’. Brenda also considers the
role of expertise in inclusive education and critiques policy direction particularly
in relation to reduction in the numbers of SNA. While acknowledging that
‘having the courses done is so important and it does make a difference’, she

Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early Childhood Educator
183
highlights her concern that ‘teachers are on their own now… they will be the
scapegoats… if inclusion all goes pear shaped it’s in the news as being totally
their own fault for not having enough expertise’. This was not the only time
that government responsibility for inclusion and exclusion was referenced. In
fact, the contradictory social and economic choices of government, in both
policy and practice, emerged, not only as a recurring narrative pattern, but as a
significant factor in the daily lived experiences of these families.
Recent policy changes implemented at ECCE, primary, and post primary level
regarding the inclusion of children with additional needs were viewed sceptically
by parents, with particular emphasis placed on the absence of direct government
action in this area. Three parents specifically referenced a governmental passing
of ‘the book’. Michael describes the causes for, and his response to, the lack of
genuine government input in their child’s life, noting that:
The government don’t have the money to provide efficient,
quality services. And in Ireland, people don’t complain they just
jog along. They just throw temporary fixes at every problem and
take no responsibility… none of them must have children with
needs…
He spoke of his own fight for his child, stating that he would not have any
regrets, ‘at the end of the day when I’m on my death bed at least I can say I did
what I physically could for them, emotionally from a father perspective, from a
financial perspective, we were on our own but we did all we could’. But Michael
was not alone in this stance. Across the parent narratives it was suggested that
while the Government has retained absolute power with regards the allocation
of supports and resources for these children, responsibility for making inclusion
possible lies with the families and the staff of preschools and schools. Time and
time again, throughout the parent narratives, the experience of being ‘on your
own’ was portrayed. Nevertheless, all of the parents and children had developed
shared partnerships of responsibility with particular professionals. It is important
to note, however, that these alliances were typically forged in response to the
reality faced by each party in terms of their role in inclusion within education
and wider society.
While the inclusive educational landscape in Ireland is evolving and changing,
ambiguity surrounding the roles of all stakeholders in this process remains.
Primary responsibility for including children with additional needs in the
education system has been passed to educators. However, to successfully adopt
this challenging role, and ensure inclusive education for all, positive relationships

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
184
with young children on the autism spectrum and their families are paramount.
Developing these relationships is critical to the creation of inclusive learning
cultures, where leaders embrace and promote the values of inclusion rather than
manage the associated logistics. This research shows that alone and against the
odds, some educators successfully established relationships with children on the
autism spectrum and their families. Such relationships were built on shared trust,
shared understanding. and shared power, and were representative of authentic
inclusive leadership and practice. Moreover, they cast aside the neoliberal stance
within which educators are tasked with developing productive and competitive
citizens for the future, embracing instead the strengths of the children, their
families and their educational settings. In this way, these relationships enhanced
the lived experiences of the children and families involved in the study. It is
imperative that such relationships become a central feature of inclusive policy
across education settings, while also representing shared power relations across
micro and macro contexts. If inclusion is to become a reality for all children, then
all stakeholders must accept that together we are stronger.
References
Allen, E. K. and Cowdery, G.E. (2014) The Exceptional Child: Inclusion in Early Childhood Education.
Stanford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Amankwaa, L. (2016). Creating protocols for trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Cultural
Diversity, 23(3), 121-127.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Theory and Design.
Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005) Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human
Development. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Buber, M. (1923, 1970) I and Thou. New York: Touchstone.
Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education, 5th ed. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Connolly, M. and Gersch, I. (2016) Experiences of parents whose children with autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) are starting primary school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 32(3), 245-261.
Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approach, 3rd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Denkyirah, A.M. and Agbeke, W.K. (2010) Strategies for transitioning pre-schoolers with autism
spectrum disorders to kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(4), 265-270.
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2011) Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection
and Welfare of Children [online] available at: http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/Publications/
ChildrenFirst.pdf
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2014) Better Outcomes, Better Futures: A National Policy
Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020, Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning from an Early Childhood Educator
185
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2016) Better Start Access and Inclusion Model [online]
available at: https://betterstart.pobal.ie/Pages/Access-and-Inclusion-Model.aspx
Department of Education and Skills (2004) Education of Persons with Special Educational Needs Act
2004 [online] available at: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2003/34/
Department of Education and Skills (2017) Circular 0013/2017- Circular to the Management Authorities
of all Mainstream Primary Schools Special Education Teaching Allocation [online] available at: https://
www.education.ie/en/Advanced-Search/?q=0013/2017
Department of Finance, Department of Education and Skills (2011) The Special Needs Assistant
Scheme: A value for money review of expenditure on the special needs assistant scheme 2007/2008-
2010 [online] available at: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Value-For-Money-Reviews/pub_
sna_vfm_june_2011.pdf
Douglas, P. (2010) “Problematising” inclusion: education and the question of autism. Pedagogy, Culture
and Society, 18(2), 105-121.
Drudy, S. (2009) Education and the knowledge economy: A challenge for Ireland in changing times. In
S. Drudy (ed.) Education in Ireland: Challenge and Change. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 35-53.
Field, S. and Hoffman, A. (1999) The importance of family involvement for promoting self-determination
in adolescents with autism and other developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 14(1), 36-45.
Fisher, C.B. and Anushko, A.E. (2008) Research ethics in social science. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman
and J. Brannen (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc., 95-110.
Fontil, L. and Petrakos, H.H. (2015) Transition to school: The experiences of Canadian and immigrant
families of children with autism spectrum disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 52(8), 773-788.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31
Harvey, D. (2005) Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hickson, H. (2016) Becoming a critical narrativist: Using critical reflection and narrative inquiry as
research methodology. Qualitative Social Work, 15(3), 380-391.
Holder, D.E. (2013) Voices from the spectrum: the positive impact of autism on the family in three
societies. Caribbean Journal of Psychology, 5(1), 40-51.
Kim, J.H. (2016) Understanding Narrative Inquiry: The Crafting and Analysis of Stories as Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Kinsella, W. (2009) Are inclusive schools possible? Students with disabilities and special educational
needs in second-level schools. In Drudy, S. (ed.), Education in Ireland: Challenge and Change. Dublin:
Gill and Macmillan, 73-88.
Lee, F. L. M., Yeung, A. S., Tracey, D. and Barker, K. (2015) Inclusion of children with special needs
in early childhood education: What teacher characteristics matter. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 35(2), 79–88.
Lilley, R. (2014) Professional guidance: Maternal negotiation of primary school placement for children
diagnosed with autism. Discourse: Studies in The Cultural Politics of Education, 35, 513-526.
Lynch, K., Grummell, B. and Devine, D. (2012) New Managerialism in Education: Commercialization,
Carelessness and Gender. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
MIC/ECI/MU (2017) Leadership for INClusion in the Early Years (LINC) [online] available at: https://www.
mic.ul.ie/faculty-of-education/programme/leadership-for-inclusion-in-the-early-years-linc
Mladenov, T. (2015) Neoliberalism, post-socialism, disability, Disability and Society, 30(3), 445– 459.
Moloney, M. and McCarthy, E. (2018) Intentional Leadership for Effective Inclusion in Early Childhood
Education and Care: Exploring core themes and strategies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge
Moloney, M. and Pettersen, J. (2016) Early Childhood Education Management: Insights into business
practice and leadership. London: Routledge.
Moloney, M., Sims, M., Rothe, A., Buettner, C., Sonter, L., Waniganayake, M., Opazo, M.J., Calder, P.
and Girlich, S. (2019) Resisting neoliberalism: Professionalisation of Early Childhood Education and
Care. Education, 8(1), 1-10.
Mozolic-Staunton, B., Donelly, M., Yoxall, J. and Barbaro, J. (2017) Interrater reliability of early

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
186
childhood education professionals involved in developmental surveillance for autism spectrum disorder
and related conditions. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(2), 61-68.
National Competitiveness Council (2016) Ireland’s Competitiveness Challenge. Dublin: The Stationery
Office
National Council for Special Education (2011) NCSE Annual Report 2011 [online] available at: https://
ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Annual_Report_accessible_version.pdf
National Council for Special Education (2018) Comprehensive Review of the Special Needs Assistants
Scheme [online] available at: http://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NCSE-PAP6-Comprehensive-
Review-SNA-Scheme.pdf
National Council for Special Education (2019) Policy Advice on Special Schools and Classes: An inclusive
education for an inclusive society? [online] available at: https://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/
Progress-Report-Policy-Advice-on-Special-Classes-website-upload.pdf
National Disability Authority (2011) NDA: Annual Report for 2011 [online] available at: http://nda.ie/
Publications/Others/National-Disability-Authority-Annual-Reports/Annual-Report-2011.html
Noddings, N. (1984) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. 2nd ed., Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (1991) ‘Stories in dialogue: Caring and interpersonal reasoning’. In C. Witherell and N.
Noddings, eds. Stories Lives Tell: Narrative and Dialogue in Education. New York: Teachers College
Press, pp. 32-69.
Office of Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (2006) National Childcare Strategy: Diversity and
Equality Guidelines for Childcare Providers [online] available at: http://www.omc.gov.ie/documents/
childcare/diversity_and_equality.pdf.
Petalas, M. A., Hastings, R. P., Nash, S., Dowey, A. and Reilly, D. (2009) ‘I like that he always shows
who he is’: The perceptions and experiences of siblings with a brother with autism spectrum disorder.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 56(4), 381-399.
Potter, C. A. (2016) ‘I accept my son for who he is – he has incredible character and personality’: fathers’
positive experiences of parenting children with autism. Disability and Society, 31(7), 948-965.
Quintero, N. and McIntyre, L. (2010). Sibling adjustment and maternal well-being: an examination
of families with and without a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 25 (1), 37-46.
Rose, R., Shevlin, M., Winter, E. and O’ Raw, P. (2015) Project IRIS – Inclusive Research in Irish Schools:
A longitudinal study of the experiences of and outcomes for pupils with special educational needs
(SEN) in Irish Schools. NCSE Research Report No. 19 [online] available at: https://ncse.ie/wp-content/
uploads/2016/07/02383-NCSE-Research-Report-19-Project-IRIS.pdf
Sirota, K.G. (2010) Narratives of transformation: Family discourse, autism and trajectories of hope.
Discourse and Society, 21(5), 544-56
Starr, E.M., Martini, T.S. and Kuo, B.C. (2016). Transition to kindergarten for children with autism
spectrum disorder: A focus group study with ethnically diverse parents, teachers, and early intervention
service providers. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 31(2), 115-128.
Stewart, H., Gapp, R. and Harwood, I. (2017). Exploring the alchemy of qualitative management
research: Seeking trustworthiness, credibility and rigor through crystallization. The Qualitative Report,
22(1), 1-19.
Woodman, A., Smith, L., Greenberg, J. and Mailick, M. (2015) Change in autism symptoms and
maladaptive behaviors in adolescence and adulthood: the role of positive family processes. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(1), 111-126.

187
Our Small Moments: Stories of Literacy & Learning
from an Early Childhood Educator
Margaret R. Clark
Abstract:
What role can stories play in the learning for all children? How can
stories help students understand not only letters and sounds, but
also the world in which they live? This life history project focuses
on one veteran teacher, with over thirty years of teaching young
children in an urban school district, who used the power of stories
to teach her students literacy skills and understand more about
their world. This balanced approach to literacy highlights how one
teacher uses both instruction and care to teach her children in the
current social and cultural contexts in America.
My favorite part of teaching? Storytelling. – Lena
I met Lena during my first year teaching as an Assistant Professor in a teacher
preparation program in a small, private, four-year university in the Northeast
of the United States. Lena (a pseudonym) had reached out to find out how she
could become a mentor and coach to pre-service early childhood educators.
She was in the final year of teaching first grade at the local elementary school,
after a career spanning thirty-two years as an educator. We talked for close to
an hour in that first conversation and discussed a range of topics, including what
a lifetime of teaching had taught her, what it was like to teach young children
in today’s social and cultural contexts, and why she was finally ready to leave
the classroom. It was clear to me, from this initial conversation, that Lena was
a natural storyteller, as she easily wove one story into another, painting me a
picture of her life as a teacher and caregiver of young children. And it was these
stories, and Lena’s willingness to share them with me, which led us to many
more conversations about teaching young children, about the current context
of teaching in America, and our daily pedagogical practices.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
188
Over the course of three months, Lena and I audio-recorded a series of open-
ended interviews during which we talked about Lena’s childhood, her years as a
teacher, and her reflections on teaching as a profession. Our discussions became
purposefully grounded in our shared interest in literacy practices and how
stories – including the practices of storytelling and listening - can help children
become successful readers and writers in the early childhood classroom. The
following is a portrait of Lena’s childhood and her life as an educator, storyteller,
and caregiver of young children.
A Childhood of Stories
Lena was born in the early 1960s in the urban capital city of a small state in the
northeast of the United States. She was one of seven children in her family and
not surprisingly, Lena’s stories of growing up focus on the role that her siblings
and parents played in helping her learn. Lena tells stories in a way that happily
and naturally skip from one memory to another. Here she describes her family
and upbringing:
I was born in Highland Square, that’s one of the projects. My father was a garbage
man….And my mother was a maid. She cleaned all these homes around here
and I would go with her, sometimes. And I would also go with my dad at night
- he had four jobs. And he would clean offices and a matter of fact, he worked
at the local synagogue, too. And that was an experience for us kids, because we
got to go to all the parties and work - we would take the coats from the people,
and we even earned a little bit of tip money! You know, it’s funny because I’m
not embarrassed to say he would bring home all the food, all the leftovers. And
we would just have a big party in the neighborhood.
Our house was the cookout house. So every weekend we had a cookout…
people from the whole neighborhood just came because they knew that our
family was going to have the best cookout ever. My father would go shopping
and we would have fish and food and pickles, so many pickles! (laughing)…
we were even known as the Pickle Family!... We set up in our little backyard.
Those times were fun. And my dad’s friends would come from far away and
we did this party every weekend, every weekend! And you know, we had three
beautiful rose bushes in our yard and I would cut them and we put them in
a vase and sell them to people who came to the cookout. We also had two
beautiful peach trees in our yard. My mother “peached” us to death! She made
peach pie, peach cobbler, and even one time those peaches fermented, so she
made some peach wine!”

Choosing Relationships in Times of Challenge & Change
189
When Lena describes her childhood, one common theme emerges: the role of
stories and storytelling in her family:
You know, my father had a story for everything… you know, he told us stories…
“I remember when…” or “And I walked for miles…” (laughing). But you know,
that’s what it was with him. And then when his friends came, you just heard all
the stories. So that’s what those cookouts were all about, standing around and
telling stories…“You know, I just love to hear somebody tell a good story….
Until this day I just could sit and listen to somebody talk…I just like to hear
the fun stories. I’m also a fairytale person - I just think they’re so fascinating.
Of course my favorite story is Cinderella, and I’m still waiting for the knight in
the shining armor to come and save me and take me off! (laughing). But those
stories? They let me be in my own little corner, in my own little world, and I can
be what I want to be.
Lena remembers another storyteller in her life, a local woman named Ruby Stills
(a pseudonym), who held weekly storytelling circles at the city public library:
You know, that’s how it all started…. I love children. I love storytelling. And do
you remember Ruby? Ruby Stills? She was this famous storyteller at the Highland
Public Library. And she would tell these fabulous stories, she would have these
costumes on. And it wasn’t just one costume, she would have different ones,
multiple items of clothing, according to what character she was. She acted it all
out, and she changed her voices. And I was like, wow! I was mesmerized.
She was this great storyteller…You felt like you were right in the story. Like you
were part of the story - you know? Her characters, those stories, they were
written for me!
And you know what? Ruby Stills? I think I have a piece of her in me. Because
that’s who I am. My favorite part of teaching? Storytelling.
Lena was seven years old in 1967 when she started attending Unionville
Elementary School, located in a small suburban town about 15 miles outside
of the capital city where she lived. Lena was the first and only African-American
child to attend the school, as she was part of the newly organized “Project
Transport”, which involved busing young African-American children out of the
urban areas of the state to de-segregate the schools in the more suburban and
rural areas. Lena described how her parents, who had seven children and each
worked multiples jobs, reinforced the value of a good education and wanted
that for their children. Here, Lena describes her first experiences of schooling
at Unionville:

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
190
Project Transport was when they started the integration - where they started
busing the Black children into the White neighborhoods. And so I was bused to
Unionville. So yeah, so I got to know buses.... I was six or seven years old. So this
was first grade. And every morning, my father would bring me to Harper Street
and I would get on the bus. When I got to second grade, I had Mrs. O’Connor.
She looked like Mary Tyler Moore. And I’m still trying to find her to this day.
Because she’s one of the reasons why I’m a teacher. Because here you are this
chocolate person... You go into this school and no one else looks like you. And
she – I was standing outside the door on my first day and she peeked outside
and she said “Are you Lena?” and I nodded my head, yes, and she said “We’ve
been waiting for you!” and I was like “Really?!” (smiling). That gesture? That
welcome? That was everything for me.
I had good friends there… one little girl walked up to me and said, “You’re
chocolate!” and I said “You’re vanilla!” and we became the best of friends. You
know, I was the only Black girl, Black child, in that whole school and that was the
early 60s. There were a bunch of us that got on that bus, but we went to different
schools, and we got dropped off all over the state.
Lena’s memories of her early schooling are strong, with vivid images of what it
was like for her as the only African-American child to attend an all-white school
for children in the suburbs. While she doesn’t remember much of how she was
taught in those early years, she easily remembers the people and interactions
she had as a young girl. And it is these interactions, these stories, which also
strongly inform who she is today as an educator.
The Life History Methodology
This project used the life history method as a way to learn about one veteran
teacher’s experiences both in the classroom as a teacher, but also outside in the
world, as a learner. Life history, for this project, involved a series of extensive
interviews and a review of historical artefacts and news articles. Cole and
Knowles (2001) describe the three defining features of life history:
(1) It helps us understand how individuals interact with and within the institutional
and societal contexts in which they live,
(2) it aims to provide an exploration of the human condition which is both “just”
and “dignified”, and
(3) it uses the people’s stories in their own words, which can draw the reader into
the interpretative process (Coles & Knowles, 2001; Labaree, 2006: 123).

Choosing Relationships in Times of Challenge & Change
191
In Dollard’s (1949: 4) review of the method, he argued that “detailed studies of
the lives of individuals will reveal new perspectives on the culture as a whole
which are not accessible when one remains on the formal cross sectional plan
of observation.”
The process of storytelling and story-listening in the life history method is
a cyclical and simultaneous method of data gathering and analysis. This
intertwined process, argues Labaree (2006), allows and opens spaces for new
paths of discovery and emergence, as stories that are discussed in one interview
can then be followed up in subsequent interview.
As is evident in this chapter, the life history method is particularly well-suited for
interviewing veteran teachers about the field of early childhood education and
what they have learned, as they have moved outside of the institute in which they
spent a career (in this case, multiple decades) living and teaching. In Lena’s case,
I met her during her final year of teaching and our conversations for this project
occurred during the following year, the first year of her retirement. This distance
from the classroom and the school may have provided Lena an opportunity not
only to reflect on her experiences, but also critique the institutional and societal
contexts in which she was teaching. In our discussions, we spent time talking
about those critiques, especially the power and control that the institution of
schooling had over Lena and her teaching practices, limiting her freedom to
practice a pedagogy focused on care, community, and stories.
The Current Context of Literacy Instruction in the Early
Childhood Classroom in the US
In late 2017, the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES) released
the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) report, also known as
the “Nation’s Report Card.” The report found that reading scores on national
assessments of American youth have remained stagnant since 1998, with just a
third of students performing at the “proficient” level (NCES, 2017). Not only are
students not showing any significant growth in reading ability, the report also
noted that the lowest performing students across the country scored lower in
reading than any previous report released over the past decade (NCES, 2017).
A few months later, in April of 2018, a panel of educational researchers analysed
these results and concluded that “the current instructional approach (to reading)
is based on assumptions about how children learn that have been disproven
by research over the last several decades – research that the education world
has largely failed to heed” (Wexler, 2018). Finn and Petrilli (2014) outline how
reading instruction in the early school years is solely focused on the teaching of

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
192
reading skills, including the learning of letters and sounds and decoding skills.
Some argue that this skills-based method of instruction is the result of multiple
national legislative acts, including both the No Child Left Behind Legislation
(NCLB) from 2001 and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) from 2015, both
of which require annual and national reading and mathematics assessments for
all American children from the third grade to the eighth grade.
As federal funds and evaluations of schools and teachers were linked to these
assessments, educators and administrators from around the country felt the
increased pressure to focus on reading and math instruction in the early years
(Wexler, 2018). This focus led to a reduction in the instruction of other content
areas, including history, literature, science, and the arts. Reading instruction has
become focused solely on a set of skills and strategies, ignoring the important
role that background knowledge, cultural knowledge, and vocabulary play in
children comprehending the texts that they read (Wexler, 2018). Meanwhile,
multiple research studies have shown that background information and
vocabulary knowledge is both learned and necessary when reading texts from
the exact subject areas that are being left out of the curriculum (Recht & Leslie,
1988; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Lemov, Driggs, & Woolway, 1997; Hirsh,
2006; Willingham, 2012). So what does this mean for educators teaching and
caring for young children in the classroom? For Lena, it was a direct challenge
to her own holistic philosophy and pedagogy, using an embedded and
sociocultural approach to learning and teaching.
Reading Curriculum for Lena: A Climate of Control
When I asked Lena about the state of reading instruction in America, and
specifically what it looked like for her as a teacher, she noted that it was this
aspect of teaching which had become her greatest challenge towards the end
of her career. She described how her school district had continually changed
the literacy instruction curriculum, which was often very scripted and required
all teachers to follow the same pacing and guidelines. In the following excerpt,
Lena describes the ever-changing and controlled space of literacy instruction in
her school, much of which was controlled by literacy consultants:
The hardest part was not being able to use my expertise. It became - you had to
do what they (the administration) wanted you to do. We used to call them (the
curriculum consultants) “the police”. They would come into your classroom and
you would have to be on the same page as the curriculum book. If they opened
the door and you weren’t doing exactly what you were supposed to be doing,
according to that program, you got written up. It was scripted, everything, was

Choosing Relationships in Times of Challenge & Change
193
scripted.
When asked about the major shifts that she had seen in the curriculum over her
career, Lena described the lack of science in the curriculum and the structured
and rigid scripted programming for reading and writing:
Well a big shift recently was when they dropped science out of the curriculum
– science! When I first started teaching - that was one of the important things
in curriculum – science! In those days I had to do math, I had to do reading and
writing, arts and science, and all of a sudden, science is gone! No science.
There was also no time - no REAL time - for me to sit and do a story. I used to
stop and read a story after lunch every day. No story time. Why? It was all about
that script. They had us on this crazy schedule and it was all about those groups
– those guided reading groups. And they wanted you to change those reading
groups four times within an hour. It was just crazy. So it was boom, bang, okay.
10 minutes. Okay, go, you’re going now (hits her hand on table). 10 minutes,
you’re gone now. To where it was crazy. What are the kids going to learn in 10
minutes? And where’s the joy?” Later when I asked about how her students
responded to this structure, Lena describes the frustration and distress:
Our students? Some cried. Because they couldn’t do the work, you know? They
needed the basics of reading skills and the stories to help them understand but
this (program) wasn’t that. So both the kids were frustrated and the teachers
were frustrated.”
Lena’s frustration and concern was often palpable in our conversations; wringing
her hands and a deep look of concern on her face. In these discussions, we
often tried to pinpoint exactly what was challenging about this kind of reading
instruction, but also shifted our discussions to what did work, what was possible.
Lena and I regularly discussed how to frame early literacy as grounded in
stories and storytelling with young children which highlights the social, cultural,
dialogic, and holistic nature of learning. In these discussions, Lena described
how relating, caring for, and educating children is at the core of all good
teaching. In this excerpt, Lena described to me some of her goals in her career
of teaching:
I wanted to make a difference in the little ones’ lives. That’s what I wanted to
give them…I wanted to be that mother(figure) for them. And I wanted to teach
in the inner city. I didn’t want to teach anywhere else, because I figured they
needed me more and I could relate to them. Who that teacher is? It’s all about
how they can relate to the students that they are teaching. That’s important,

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
194
that’s a big one.”
That connectedness to her students, she went on to discuss, was about race and
ethnicity, but also about cultural and social understandings. Lena constructed
her curriculum and methods for teaching, especially the teaching of reading
and writing, with all of those understandings embedded in what the children
already knew, and also what they may need during a certain time of their lives
or depending on how they learned. Here, Lena described how she adapted her
storytelling and teaching for all kids:
I think that getting a story… like the way that some stories…you can get a story
related to maybe something that they’re going through, you know, like death
or a big change in their lives? We had a lot of talking pieces last year, as well. I
think that also helped the kids to bring in something that that was very special
to them, letting them bring a favorite story in. I would also look at the book
ahead of time and pick out words that I think they may not know, and have them
up (on the board) and I would break the words down, I started just chopping
the words out for them, helping them learn, and even drawing pictures next to
those words. And our stories were about everything – all aspects of life, even
and history and art and science.
Lena’s inclusive practices describe a holistic classroom curriculum and
environment, where the learning was grounded in the stories that were shared.
This holistic kind of classroom and instruction, while grounded in evidence-
based practices and current educational research, is often a rarity when looking
at the broader context of literacy instruction in America.
Our Small Moments: Snapshots of Lena’s Storytelling Classroom
Over the course of our time together, Lena would describe her classroom during
storytelling circles:
So there are pillows all over the floor. We’re on the carpet. I might have had a
little rocker in the corner (especially for when I was pregnant) and I like to use
a lot of puppets. So I had a lot of the puppets and even finger puppets – the
little characters that you put on your fingers as you act it out. And of course, lots
of books. And if they wanted to write their own stories afterwards, there was
paper, pencils, markers, and also bookmarks that they could make. Just if they
wanted to write. But yeah, lots of books and it was comfy, like your home. And I
might turn down the lights and bring in a little lamp so they can see. So I tried to
make my classroom like.. homey, you know, so they did wouldn’t want to leave.
(laughing) And they loved it.

Choosing Relationships in Times of Challenge & Change
195
One daily writing practice in Lena’s classroom was focused on what she called
“small moments”:
I would have the kids journal and then ask them – “now tell me about that.”
When they came in (to the classroom), I would say “jot down your small
moment” – we would call them “small moments” – you know, “just think about
anything and it could be something you did last night, it could be something
that you saw last night.” As soon as they walked in the door, I had a journal on
the table for them. And I said, “tell me something, just a small moment, just
like a little snapshot, if you want to draw it, go ahead and draw it” It was just
like a snapshot, take a picture and put it down on paper. And they would keep
writing in the same journal. It was fun. And I would check it, I would just write the
(correct) word over it, (if it was spelled wrong), but not tell them that was wrong.
I just put the correct word over and I would have them take it home and read it.
Every day I would read what they wrote and that, for them, was something they
were always so proud of.
A pedagogy of Care, Learning, and Listening
For Lena, educating children also meant caring for them, in multiple ways. Much
like her childhood, she describes how in her teaching practice she took the
extra effort to check-in, and focus her time and energy on the children who may
have needed extra support:
Last year, with the big hurricane, a lot of kids came to us from Puerto Rico. So
then you just go back to the basics…I would pull them aside and I will show
them pictures and then act those words out. I swear I missed my calling for
being on Broadway (laughing)!
I’m silly... I’m a big kid. I make them laugh and I do a lot of acting. And I’ll just
break out in song. At first that kids are like “what?” and if they say a word and it
makes me think of a song, I’ll start singing that song! And they will remember it
that way! That’s me, that’s my classroom. Teaching is about who we are and how
we relate. My story is I was born and raise in this city. Maybe I’m like you. Maybe
I look like you. What is your story? They know that I can relate.
I would also find other people’s stories. There are so many stories that you could
read that make the kids say, “Oh, wow. That’s like me!” So I did a lot of searching
for stories. Or I would tell stories - I would make them up sometimes too! I told
stories, even though they might not have been true, when I know some kid was
going through something, to make them feel better. You know? Yeah, so I told
my story first, or told how I felt.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
196
This was especially true when those kids walked through my classroom door.
Remember Mrs. O’Connor? She made sure that she greeted me at the door. So
in all of my years I made sure that when the kids were coming in I asked them
“How you doing today? I’m glad you are here.
Storytelling as a Moral Craft
Throughout our conversations, Lena shared so many memories with me, both of
her personal history as a child in a family, community, and school, and also of her
memories as a teacher. Lena described the challenges and struggles that she
faced throughout her teaching career, but also what worked well when teaching
all children. So often her early positive memories of schooling mirrored those
best practices that she described in her own pedagogy.
Current literacy instruction in the US shows a disturbing trend towards viewing
reading, writing, and oral language as an isolated practice of skills, separate
from the rest of the curriculum. The field of education has begun to describe and
prescribe literacy instruction that involves direct, monologic instruction between
the teacher and the child and solely focused on the skills and cognitive abilities
of the child. However, educational research continues to point towards literacy
practices that are social, dialogic, cultural, and deeply embedded in multiple
curriculum areas. The memories that Lena shared with me highlight these best
practices and are clear evidence of what developmentally appropriate practice
can look like in the early childhood classroom (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).
Lena described the way that she embedded literacy into all of the topics of
learning, using stories and books to explore topics of science, history, and the
arts. She sees literacy not just as reading, but writing and oral storytelling as
well. For Lena, stories can be the social acts that help children interact with one
another, learning about themselves and their world.
Together, Lena and I imagined future classrooms where all stories, where all
cultures, and where all histories are welcome, shared, and respected. These
stories don’t necessarily come from textbooks and scripted curricula, but
instead from the homes, families, public libraries, and backyards of the children
and teachers in the classroom. For Lena, she regularly described how to share,
foster, and promote the idea that teaching isn’t necessarily a scientific applied
science, but instead is a craft: a craft of stories, care, learning, and teaching, or
even what Tom (1980) calls a “moral craft”:
I believe we can move forward, maybe it’s different, maybe something new…
we need to bring the storytelling back in. With all the props and all the different

Choosing Relationships in Times of Challenge & Change
197
voices and characters.
You know, it’s funny because Ruby Stills is gone… and there is never going to be
another one like her. But maybe, just maybe I should start that up. That’s what I
was thinking. Maybe I need to tell some more stories, visit the different libraries
and tell all the different stories, the old fables, the old stories. Maybe that is just
what I need to do.
References
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood
Programs.(Revised Edition). National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1509 16th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1426.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading
experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental psychology, 33(6), 934 – 945.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history research. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.
Dollard, J. (1949). Criteria for the life history. Magnolia, MA: Peter Smith.
Finn Jr, C. E., & Petrilli, M. J. (2014). Knowledge at the Core: Don Hirsch, Core Knowledge, and the
Future of the Common Core. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved on August 13 2019 from http://
edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/EDHirsch-Report-Papers-Final.pdf
Goodson, I. (2001). The story of life history: Origins of the life history method in sociology. Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research, 1(2), 129-142.
Hirsch, Jr., E.D. (2006). The Knowledge Deficit: Closing the Shocking Education Gap for American
Children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Labaree, R. V. (2006). Encounters with the library: Understanding experience using the life history
method. Library Trends, 55(1), 121-139.
Lemov, D., Driggs, C., & Woolway, E. (2016). Reading reconsidered: A practical guide to rigorous
literacy instruction. John Wiley & Sons.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2017). National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). Retrieved August 13 3019 from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of
text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16 – 20.
Tom, A. R. (1980). Teaching as a moral craft: A metaphor for teaching and teacher education. Curriculum
Inquiry, 10(3), 317-323.
Wexler, N. (April 2018) “Why American Students Haven’t Gotten Better at Reading in 20 Years” from
The Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved on June 15 2019 from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/
archive/2018/04/-american-students-reading/557915/
Willingham, D. (2012, March 7). School Time, Knowledge, and Reading Comprehension [Blog post].
Retrieved January 31 2020 from http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-science-and-
education-blog/school-time-knowledge-and-reading-comprehension

199
Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our
Time: Retrospective Insights on Design & Delivery
of a Blended Early Childhood Degree Programme
Deirdre Breatnach
Abstract
As noted by the Higher Education Authority (HEA, 2019:1),
‘digital technologies can be critical enablers of education’ and
can offer ‘flexible learning pathways’. It also highlights students’
‘need to constantly upskill to realise their potential, personally
and professionally’ (Ibid: 11). Several universities and colleges
throughout Ireland have adopted digital technologies through
offering online and blended degree programmes. This paper
presents the findings of staff and student evaluations regarding a
blended Early Childhood degree programme which was designed
and delivered by two higher education institutions in Munster.
This particular programme was established to allow early years
educators gain a degree qualification while continuing to work in
the sector. The following article outlines retrospective insights on
this degree, discusses the impact of this programme, and offers
some suggestions for future consideration in the development of
blended courses.
Introduction
During a five-year period from September 2014 until May 2019, a blended
Level 7 degree programme, the Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Practice
(BA ECP), was delivered jointly by two Irish Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs), namely Mary Immaculate College (MIC), Limerick, and the Institute of
Technology (ITT), Tralee. The overall aim of this inter-institutional BA ECP was
to respond to demands for accessible graduate pathways in the field of Early
Childhood Care and Education (ECCE). This programme ran for three cycles –

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
200
the first cohort commenced in September 2014, and the third cohort of students
graduated in October 2019. This paper describes the learning experiences of
this course from the viewpoint of twelve of the staff members involved in the
design and delivery of this degree as well as exploring the perspectives of
twenty eight of the students from the three cohorts who have completed this
blended programme. Evaluations were conducted through the use of online
surveys and interviews which provided quantitative data and some qualitative
commentary on engagement with the various aspects of the programme. This
paper outlines the views of staff on the design and delivery of the programme
and, in particular, on the transition from classroom-based learning to the online
environment. The article also examines students’ experiences of blended
learning and how theoretical concepts and practice-based knowledge were
developed within this format. It also presents discussion and recommendations
for future considerations in the development of other blended programmes
within HEIs.
Designing a Blended Degree in Early Childhood Practice
Blended learning offers students opportunities for learning in a flexible format.
It is integral to how instruction is developed in colleges and universities. It is
widely adopted across higher education, with some scholars referring to it as
the new ‘normal’ (Dzubian et al., 2018). Providing meaningful learning through
an online format involves engaging appropriately with relevant technological
tools to support student learning outcomes (Dabbagh, Marra & Howland,
2018). The National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030 (Higher Education
Authority, 2011) stresses the importance of building more flexible learning
opportunities within Irish Higher Education. Thus, many Irish HEIs have
responded by developing blended and online programmes. With regard to
the recently launched Mary Immaculate College Strategic Plan, it emphasises
that all students ‘including mature entrants and learners engaging through
part-time or blended modes - will be enabled to be career-ready with key skills
transferable to the 21st Century workplace and the capacity for self-directed
career advancement’ (Mary Immaculate College, 2019: 6). Blended learning
offers students opportunities for learning in a flexible format. It has ‘become
integral to how instruction is being delivered in colleges and universities. It is no
longer a novelty and is becoming fully integrated into all teaching and learning’
(Dzubian & Piaccanio, 2015: 1).
The Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Practice (BA ECP) was designed to
allow students to continue to work in the early years sector while undertaking

Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our Time: Retrospective Insights on
Design & Delivery of a Blended Early Childhood Degree Programme
201
a degree. It was a 180-credit programme and graduates were conferred with
a University of Limerick Level 7 Bachelor of Arts Degree in Early Childhood
Practice. Applicants were required to have a Further Education and Training
Award Council (FETAC) Level 6 award or equivalent (now termed a Quality &
Qualifications Ireland QQI award) and to work in the Early Childhood Care
and Education sector. In the development phase of the programme, it was
decided that the best way to share the course content was for both HEIs to
deliver modules in different semesters, and thus ITT implemented modules in
the Autumn semesters and MIC delivered modules in the Spring semesters.
These modules related to child development, language and literacy in early
childhood, the role of play in children’s development, models of early childhood
curricula, the pedagogy of early childhood education, legal issues in policy and
practice in the area of early childhood education, professional development,
and child health and wellbeing. Periods of supervised placement practice were
also a feature of this degree. During the autumn semesters, students compiled
work-based learning portfolios and in the spring semesters, students were
required to work directly with young children for six hours per week for twelve
weeks. Supervisors from both MIC and ITT undertook placement visits to the
ECCE settings where the students were based in order to mentor and assess
student practice. Approximately one third of the programme was delivered
in face-to-face classes. The remaining two thirds were implemented through
asynchronous and synchronous methods. This meant that students were able to
access asynchronous material such as presentations, notes, readings, video and
audio clips, activities etc. at home in their own time. There were also dedicated
times for synchronous aspects when participants engaged in online discussion
fora and tutorials from home. Students were also required to undertake intensive
independent study for the duration of the programme.
As this was an interinstitutional programme, there were a number of initial
issues for consideration within this collaboration including a registration system,
student cards, library access, and the virtual learning environment itself. It
was agreed that a cohesive system would be in the best interest of students
studying this degree and therefore, every effort was made to ensure that
students’ learning experiences were broadly similar across the two HEIs. The
asynchronous elements included the use of Articulate (see Fig 1), and Adobe
Connect and Blackboard Collaborate were used as synchronous aspects (see
Fig 2). The layout of the Articulate material followed the exact same format in
both institutions.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
202
Staff and Student Insights on Design and Delivery of a Blended Learning
Degree in Early Childhood Practice
Both the staff and the students involved in the BA ECP provided perspectives
on the design and delivery of the programme. A staff evaluation followed the
first delivery of the degree in 2016 and all three student cohorts were invited to
participate in evaluation reviews after each cycle of the programme (2016, 2017
and 2019). These evaluative reviews focused particularly on the participants’

Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our Time: Retrospective Insights on
Design & Delivery of a Blended Early Childhood Degree Programme
203
learning within the virtual environment as well as their engagement with the
technology to support these learning processes. One of the recommendations of
the National Forum’s Principles and First Insights from the Sectoral Consultation
on Building Digital Capacity in Irish Higher Education is to “develop digital
capacity in tandem with a strong evidence base for enhanced pedagogy”
(National Forum, 2014: 13).
Specifically, the key aims of these reviews of the BA ECP were:
• To document the experiences of a blended learning environment from
staff and student perspectives.
• To identify key transitions in online teaching and learning.
• To explore how theoretical concepts and practice-based knowledge
can be developed within a blended learning format.
• To compare findings from these evaluations with similar programmes.
• To inform future revisions and amendments to blended programmes
within HEIs.
Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative approaches were chosen for these reviews in order
to provide a broad evaluation of this learning programme. The key quantitative
aspect involved a staff and student survey, whereby all twenty one staff who had
contributed to the BA ECP degree and all the BA ECP students were invited to
complete an online questionnaire. The staff survey was undertaken following
the first cycle of the programme only, whereas the student surveys took place on
three occasions after each cycle. The online survey was conducted through the
use of questionnaires that were tailored to each group. Participants were invited
to participate via a link to a SurveyMonkey questionnaire (SurveyMonkeyInc.
2019). SurveyMonkey is a secure password protected survey software. The
surveys included rating questions and some open ended questions, and they
were organised in four sections:
1. Preliminary Information
2. Transition to Blended Learning
3. Student Learning Experiences
4. Overall Feedback
Sections one to three utilised mainly rating questions such as the two examples

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
204
outlined below:
As noted in section four above, the survey also included some opportunities for
participants to provide qualitative feedback through open-ended comments.
These were concerned with areas such as:
1. What was the greatest learning point for you in transitioning to blended/
online learning?
2. Please provide any suggestions that you feel would improve any dimension
of the Module/Programme development process (Tailored to staff survey).
3. What three core pieces of advice would you give to incoming ECP students?
(Tailored to student survey).
This type of commentary facilitated the inclusion of additional rich data to
complement the quantitative aspect and assisted in establishing more of ‘a
holistic picture and depth of understanding’ of a research topic (Ary, Jacobs,
Razavieh & Sorensen, 2010: 29). All 80 BA ECP students who had completed
the course over the three cycles (2016-24 students; 2017-17 students; 2019-39
students) were invited to contribute to the evaluation surveys, and 28 students
of the total number participated in these questionnaires. Student involvement
was not associated with any modes of assessment as, in each year, students’
studies were completed fully by the time they completed the survey.
An additional qualitative aspect followed the first cycle of this degree as both
staff and students were invited to participate in interviews. Both face-to-face and
telephone interviews were utilised to explore perceptions of involvement in this
blended learning programme. As recommended by Creswell, these interviews
involved ‘unstructured and generally open-ended questions that…are intended
to elicit views and opinions from the participants’ (Creswell, 2014: 190). The

Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our Time: Retrospective Insights on
Design & Delivery of a Blended Early Childhood Degree Programme
205
use of open questions in a semi-structured format facilitated respondents in
discussing the central concerns as they saw them (Thomas 2009). The interviews
addressed a number of key questions to probe the key aims of the evaluation.
Additionally, the interview format followed an interview protocol, including
ice-breaker questions at the beginning of the process followed by four to five
probing questions, and concluded with an expression of appreciation for the
participants’ time in the interviews (Creswell 2009). Samples of the interview
questions for staff are outlined below:
• What were your initial thoughts on designing a blended learning
module for the BA ECP?
• Describe how the design process went – e.g. what kind of support were
you given etc.?
• How did creating an on-line module compare with previous experiences
of designing a face-to-face module?
• Did you face any challenges in transitioning to online design of a
module?
• Do you think that the blended learning approach was effective for the
delivery of the BA ECP programme?
• Is there any particular advice you would give to other lecturers
embarking on the design and development of an online/blended
module/programme?
The student interview schedule had a similar format, as can be seen in the
examples below:
• How did participating in an online degree compare with your previous
experiences of learning on face-to-face programmes?
• What particular aspects of the programme did you find enjoyable/
interesting?
• What particular aspects of the programme did you find challenging?
• Do you think that the blended learning approach was an effective way
of delivering the BA ECP programme? If so, why/why not?
• Is there any particular advice that you would give to other students
thinking about embarking on online/blended programmes?
Nine staff members and three students were interviewed in the 2016 evaluation
of the programme.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
206
Ethical Considerations
All research involving human subjects requires the researcher to ‘understand
and address ethical issues that arise…including the need to protect the
interests and ongoing welfare of research participants’ (Mac Naughton, Rolfe
and Blatchford, 2010: 4). The following steps were taken to minimise risk in this
study. Ethical approval was sought from the Mary Immaculate College Ethics
Committee (MIREC), and all participants were given clear extensive information
about the project - what the research was about, why it was being undertaken,
and what the results would be used for, and written consent for involvement
was sought (informed consent) (Hammersley, and Traianou, 2012). In addition,
participants were advised that if the information from the research was to be
used for presentations, reports or publications, that all identifying information
would be changed to maintain privacy. In order to minimise bias, the invitation
to participate in the survey was issued by the director of teaching and learning
in one of the institutions after each cycle of the programme. This director had no
involvement with the delivery of the programme. In a similar manner, when the
interviews were undertaken in 2016, they were conducted by a third party and the
interviewer had not been involved in any aspect of the design or the delivery of
the degree. Furthermore, participation in surveys and interviews was voluntary,
with an option to withdraw from the process at any time without consequence
or fear of consequence. Research participant details were anonymised, assuring
the participants of the confidentiality of the data which they had provided.
Data Analysis
Due to the relatively small sample size of the surveys after each cycle of the
programme, the quantitative data was presented using Microsoft Excel, where
the responses to the various questions were provided (Microsoft Corporation
2018). The qualitative commentary from the questionnaires was transcribed
onto a separate document, and was then coded through a phronetic iterative
approach. A similar process was followed in the analysis of the interview
transcriptions from 2016, whereby sustained cycles of coding and analysis were
undertaken. The phronetic iterative approach is one which involves reading
and re-reading the commentary to ascertain common trends within responses.
Furthermore, this approach to analysis alternates between ‘considering existing
theories and research questions on the one hand and emergent qualitative data
on the other’ (Tracy 2019: 211).

Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our Time: Retrospective Insights on
Design & Delivery of a Blended Early Childhood Degree Programme
207
Findings: Staff Survey and Staff Interviews
Following the first cycle of the degree in 2016, surveys and face-to-face
interviews with the staff who had contributed to the design and delivery of the
degree were conducted. Twenty-one members of staff from Mary Immaculate
College, Limerick, and from the Institute of Technology, Tralee, had been
involved with the development and implementation of this degree, and all were
invited to participate. Twelve staff members responded to the survey and nine
interviews were undertaken in which the codes ‘STE’ and a number were used
to denote the various participants. A number of findings emerged from the staff
data. Survey responses indicated that staff members were not that competent
with the use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) see (Fig 3.), with just three
participants out of twelve indicating competence with a VLE when they began
to develop programme modules.
Fig. 3
In addition, within the interviews they expressed some fears and trepidation
regarding transitioning to blended learning as evidenced by the following
comments ‘I suppose first of all I was apprehensive because I didn’t, I never
had, you know, worked online before that [STE 013]’ and ‘my initial thoughts
were help [STE009]’. ‘It was going to be a very steep learning curve [STE003]’.
However, it was also evident that participants felt more comfortable with the
technological aspects following the development of the programme see (Fig 4).

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
208
Fig. 4
It would appear that the support of the educational technologists within both
institutions contributed to the developing confidence of the staff with VLEs as,
during the interviews, each participant noted the guidance of the educational
technology units within the respective colleges. ‘…and from a technical and
blended learning point of view, and they point out what might work well, and
what might need to be looked [at] to make work better, plus they really drive
the quality I think, because they are the one kind of group who see everything
[STE011]’. Indeed, the backing of the educational technology sections was
stressed consistently in all interviews, with a number of participants describing
these units as ‘wonderful’ and the ‘main support base’ of the programme design.
Other case studies examining academic perspectives on blended learning have
suggested that lecturers need ‘appropriate holistic academic development’ in
order to appreciate ‘how best to use technologies’ and ‘to how to develop
effective blended learning environments’ (Donnelly and Mac Avinia 2012: 19).
While the digital literacy competence of staff was enhanced by their contributions
to this degree, many commented on the significant time commitment that
designing a blended programme entailed, with comments such as ‘...and it did
take a lot longer than I had anticipated. It took an awful lot longer than the time
that I had allocated to it. So, yea, it was very time consuming [STE011]. ‘We
all underestimated the work that was involved [STE003]’. The amount of time
needed to transition to a programme with a blended format has been echoed

Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our Time: Retrospective Insights on
Design & Delivery of a Blended Early Childhood Degree Programme
209
in several research studies across various disciplines (Sweeney et al., 2016). In
the development of a blended format for this particular degree, staff members
from both HEIs seemed quite aware of the need to tailor the lecture content to
students who were working in the ECCE field
…so it was a matter of repacking it [the degree] and also of structuring it in
such a way that the learner who is not here could very easily navigate through it
[STE005]. I think that the course was very good for them [the students] because
it allows them to access the modules in their own time they can work their way
through the modules. We have a variety of different types of assessment which
also helps because it taps into you know people’s different abilities it’s not all
essay writing which people can find quite difficult when they return to education
[STE003].
Another element highlighted within the staff interviews concerned the way in
which this blended programme seemed to enhance theory/practice links in
student learning. The participants commented on the relevance of modules to
the students’ daily work.
Because they [the students] had all of that rich experience of working on the
ground for so many years. And you could see... how much they were able to link
their theory with practice [STE013].
Reflecting on their own work and drawing links between theory and practice
and that helps the student to gain confidence in their own ability. And to realise
that what they are doing you know maybe it’s good but how it could also be
improved so overall I think this works well from the students’ point of view
[STE003]’.
As noted previously, staff confidence in the use of technology in learning
contexts increased following the design and delivery of this degree. In addition,
the staff who participated in interviews outlined some of the other skills they had
gained particularly in the area of academic integrity – ‘always having you know
the website that goes with every clip, every picture. And that’s just something
that I do automatically now... we learnt how important that is. So that was good
learning as well [STE018].’
Staff also mentioned how the skills they had utilised in their asynchronous
content had transferred to more traditional lectures, as highlighted in the
following remarks.
I found for example that I started using a lot more clips, short clips, YouTube
clips. Rather than describing experiments, I started showing them things a lot

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
210
more. Or I started varying, the media varying the pace a little bit in lectures,
much more than I would’ve done before. I would’ve probably yapped on. Now I
do change quite considerably I put people into groups more. Just, I vary it more
[STE012].
I think I have gained some of those skills because I am more aware of what is
out there and what will keep them [the students] entertained really [STE 003]’.
Overall, it would seem that staff acknowledged the significant time, dedication,
and effort that blended learning entails. The support of educational technologists
was key in terms of providing expert guidance and supporting the use of various
technological tools within the VLEs. The additional learning that staff gained in
areas such as module design, academic integrity, and more innovative teaching
practices were also evident from the data.
Student Perspectives on the BA ECP
While the staff evaluation of the programme provided interesting insights
on the development of this blended course, the student perspectives, which
were drawn from the three cycles of the programme, offered additional
perspectives on this blended learning degree, particularly on the actual course
implementation. As noted previously, surveys were the main data gathering
instruments utilised with the student participants. Table 1 below displays the
number of students from each year group that partook in the surveys and also
indicates the rationale for programme participation.
Rationale for
Participation in
BA ECP
2016
10/24 students
responded to
survey
2017
07/17 students
responded to
survey
2019
11/39 Students
responded to
survey
Degree
Qualification
10 7 11
Interest in ECE 2 2 1
Mode of
Delivery
4 3 3
Sectoral
Requirements
2 0 2
Table 1

Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our Time: Retrospective Insights on
Design & Delivery of a Blended Early Childhood Degree Programme
211
Analysis of the data from all three cohorts of students revealed a number of
recurring themes which, in the main, related to managing learning within a
blended learning (BL) context.
On their commencement of the degree, students had varying levels of
competence with technology and varied ranges of experience with blended
learning as outlined in Table 2 below.
Prior Experience of
BL 2016 2017 2019
Number of Students 4/10 4/7 5/11
Table 2
In relation to the adjustment from classroom-based to blended learning, more
than half of the students from each cohort selected easily or very easily when
responding to the question related to this transition. Students were generally
satisfied with the asynchronous content of the programme as evidenced by the
following comments from participants
I thought it was great to have the online lessons to refer back to. It gave great
clarity and allowed me to fit studying into my schedule’ [2016].
The online was great as we could access it in our time…’ [2017].
More varied satisfaction levels were in evidence regarding the synchronous
aspects of the degree. One student described the live tutorials as a ‘lifeline’ for
her ‘especially in the first year’ [2017]. Very variable - some great tutorials, some
which drained the last of your energy after a long day’s work [2016]. Students
stressed the need for engagement with module lecturers, noting that tutorials
worked well and were a ‘vital part of blended learning’ [2019] when they were
provided. However, students highlighted that sometimes they had ‘not enough’
[2019] and that in one of the semesters ‘only one tutor provided live tutorials’
and thus they ‘never met or had any tutorial’ with this particular lecturer [2019].
Socialisation activities and building effective relationships with student peers
are key features of online programmes (Jordan, 2009), and BA ECP students
also rated mechanisms for connection highly, for example, news fora, e-mails,
and quizzes. These students also commented on supporting each other and
bonding as a group of learners – network with each other. This will be your
saviour as the course progresses [2017]. Blended learning was described as ‘a
lonely place and it can be difficult to keep perspective of your work’ [2016] and
this student also noted that she was ‘eternally grateful’ for replies to emails. It
would seem that students really appreciated the opportunities for debate and

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
212
questioning afforded within live tutorials and face-to-face classes – as stressed
in the following comment ‘Online was great as we could access it in our time…
and the face-to-face I found as important as it gave me a chance to ask the
questions I needed answering [2017]’.
Recent research on student engagement with online learning highlights issues
related to students’ self-management of high workloads and work-life balance
(Muir et al., 2019). Aligning work life and study commitments were emphasised
by all three cohorts of these BA ECP students. When responding to questions
about the manageability of the workload on a weekly basis, most students
selected somewhat manageable on the rating scale and provided comments
such as juggling full time work and the challenges of ‘keeping on top’ of readings
and coursework [2019]. Assignment submission times were cited as stressful
periods during the programme also. Indeed, when asked about key pieces
of advice that students would offer to others embarking on the programme,
most of their suggestions focused on scheduling appropriate study times and
keeping up to date with the programme content. As noted previously, the
survey, which the students completed, contained a number of open-ended
questions relating to students’ overall perceptions of the programme as well
as considering the key learning that they had gained from this degree. Within
these responses, students referenced the theory-practice links which they had
experienced within modules:
Everything that was very applied, relating to work…so everything kind of related
back to what I’m doing or what I’m really excited about [2016].
It was a big eye-opener to discover that experience in the job does not equate
to expertise [2017]. Linking all the modules in the last semester and putting
theory into practice [2019].
Concluding Comments
This paper has documented the learning experiences of an online degree
from the viewpoints of the staff after the first cycle of the course and student
participants across the three cycles of the programme. As well as providing
key insights into how staff and students experience blended learning and their
feedback on its effectiveness, it has endeavoured to offer some suggestions to
inform the design and delivery of future degrees in the early childhood field. It
would appear that designing, developing, and delivering an online degree in
early childhood practice is a very worthwhile endeavour, as it offers practitioners
in the early years sector opportunities to obtain a degree qualification while

Online was Great as We Could Access it in Our Time: Retrospective Insights on
Design & Delivery of a Blended Early Childhood Degree Programme
213
remaining in the workplace. Nonetheless, undertaking such programmes
requires significant time, commitment, and dedication by both staff members
and participating students.
In particular, data from staff suggests that due allowance should be given for
the design of asynchronous content as it is such a time-consuming process.
Staff have also acknowledged that the support of educational technologists in
addressing the digital competencies of staff is a key factor in the design of an
effective programme. The evaluations of this programme from both students
and staff suggest that the asynchronous content expands access, openness and
flexibility for students and, in general, it is well received. However, synchronous
content and effective support mechanisms seem somewhat more challenging
in terms of a sustained and consistent approach that facilitates the on-going
engagement of students in the learning experiences and creates ‘blended
learning environments’ that ‘find ways of creating social interaction through more
collaboration’ (Güzer & Caner, 2013: 4602). Thus, the data which has emerged
from these cycles of the BA in Early Childhood Practice recommends that the
focus in future blended degrees in the ECCE field should be the development
of high quality relevant asynchronous material coupled with synchronous tools
and resources which allow students to enhance their expertise in the ECCE area
and to engage meaningfully with the content of the programme.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs. L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8th ed). California:
Wadsworth.
Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches (3rd
Ed.), Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Dabbagh, N, Marra R. N. and Howland J.L., (2018) Meaningful Online Learning: New York: Routledge
Donnelly, R. & McAvinia, C. (2012). Academic Development Perspectives of Blended Learning. In
Anastasiades, P.S. (Ed.), Blended Learning Environments for Adults: Evaluations and Frameworks.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 2012
Dziuban, C., and Picciano, A. C. (2015) The Evolution Continues: Considerations for the Future of
Research in Online and Blended Learning. Research bulletin. Louisville, CO: ECAR, Accessed 5
December 2019 at http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P (2018) Blended learning: the new normal and emerging
technologies International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 201815:3 https://
doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
Güzer, P and Caner H., 2013 The past, present and future of blended learning: an in depth analysis of
literature

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
214
Hammersley M. and Traianou, A., (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts
London: Sage
Higher Education Authority, 2011 The National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030 Accessed
5 December 2019 at https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/06/National-Strategy-for-Higher-
Education-2030.pdf
Jordan, L. (2009) Transforming the student experience at a distance: designing for collaborative online
learning, Engineering Education, 4:2, 25-36, DOI: 10.11120/ened.2009.04020025
Mac Naughton, G, Rolfe, S. A. and Siraj-Blatchford I., (2010) Doing Early Childhood Research
International perspectives on Theory + Practice New York: Open University Press
Mary Immaculate College, 2019 MIC Strategic Plan 2023 - A Flourishing Learning Community Accessed
5 December 2019 at https://issuu.com/micireland/docs/mic_strategic_plan_2019_full_eng_fn
Muir, T., Milthorpe,N., Stone, C., Dyment,J., Freeman, E.,bHopwood, B., (2019) Chronicling
engagement: students’ experience of online learning over time, Distance Education, 40:2, 262-277,
DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2019.1600367
Microsoft Corporation, 2018. Microsoft Excel, Accessed 5 December 2019 at https://office.microsoft.
com/excel.
The National Forum, (2014) Principles and First Insights from the Sectoral Consultation on Building Digital
Capacity in Irish Higher Education Accessed 5 December 2019 at https://www.teachingandlearning.
ie/wp-content/uploads/NF-2014-Principles-and-First-Insights-from-the-Sectoral-Consultation-on-
Building-Digital-Capacity-in-Irish-Higher-Education.pdf
SurveyMonkeyInc. (2019) Accessed 5 December 2019 at https://www.surveymonkey.com/
Sweeney M-R., Kirwan, A., Kelly,M., Corbally, M., O Neill,S., Kirwan,M., Hourican, S., Matthews, A.
& Hussey, P. (2016) Transition to blended learning: experiences from the first year of our blended
learning Bachelor of Nursing Studies programme, Contemporary Nurse, 52:5, 612-624, DOI:
10.1080/10376178.2016.1197781
Thomas, G. (2009) How to Do Your Research Project: A Guide for Students in Education and Applied
Social Sciences London: Sage
Tracy, S. J. (2019) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating
Impact Hobeken: Wiley Blackwell

215
Student Paper 1: Promoting Inclusion in Early Years
Care and Education
Fionnuala O’ Malley
Introduction
Children begin to notice differences between people very early
in life (Derman-Sparks, 1989; Lindon, 2012; Hawkins, 2014), and
are capable of holding prejudices from the age of 3 (Connolly,
2007). Children are naturally curious about the world around them,
however, whether or not prejudice emerges is influenced by many
factors, including the attitudes and behaviours of the adults in
their life. One such adult is the early years practitioner, who plays
a crucial role in addressing prejudice and inequality during the
formative stages of a child’s life (DCYA, 2016a; Derman-Sparks,
2013; Murray & O’ Doherty, 2001). Left unattended, prejudice
can result in stereotyping, discrimination, and distress. This can
negatively impact learning opportunities, wellbeing, and outcomes
for children. By applying an inclusive, anti-bias practice approach,
the practitioner can support every child to feel equally respected,
cherished, and able to participate fully in their learning. The
anti-bias approach puts equality and diversity at the heart of the
organisation and is an integral part of quality practice. This paper
examines the role of the practitioner in challenging prejudice and
providing inclusive early education to young children. It includes
a critique on the theories of how prejudice develops in children
as well as examination of best practice models, with a particular
focus on the anti-bias approach, and reference to underpinning
guidelines and frameworks.
Theoretical Frameworks
Prejudice is complex. It is often hidden and deeply embedded in people’s
inner thoughts and values. Murray & Urban (2012, p.31) explain prejudice as

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
216
‘pre-judgement and the formation of opinion without regard for evidence or
reason….a negative belief about or attitude towards a person who belongs to
a group’. Discrimination is the negative behaviour that emerges from prejudice.
The literature offers a range of theories to explain how prejudice develops in
children. One of the early theories proposed is the inner state theory, which
claims that prejudice is linked to emotional maladjustment as a result of strict,
authoritarian parenting, (Adorno et. al., 1950), however, it does not take account
of the child’s active participation in learning or social context. Alternatively,
cognitive development theory (Piaget & Weil, 1951; Katz, 1976; Aboud, 1998)
does recognise the child’s agency and proposes that prejudice is linked to
development stages of the child. The young child displays preference for the
familiar and rejects the unknown, with prejudice peaking at around age seven,
slowly reducing over time as the child’s cognitive skills develop (Aboud, 1998).
While this links to the principle of the child as an active learner in the national
curriculum framework, Aistear (NCCA, 2009), it does not explain why prejudices
remain in older children, nor does it recognise the social impact on early learning
(Nesdale, 2001).
In contrast, a number of theories sit within a social context. One of the original
writers on prejudice, Allport (1954), proposes that individuals categorise people
into groups or stereotypes because it is an easy way to make sense of the world,
using socially constructed assumptions and generalisations. Social groups are
also at the core of social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979),
which is strongly connected to the Aistear theme of Identity and Belonging
(NCCA, 2009), where the child’s self-esteem is linked to their social identity. In SIT,
individuals define themselves through their social identity. The child identifies
with a particular group, the ‘ingroup’, and compares and looks unfavourably at
others, the ‘outgroups’, who may be subject to stereotyping and discrimination
by the ingroup (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Membership of the ingroup promotes
feelings of belonging and positive self-esteem, which motivates people to
belong to them.
Furthermore, social reflection theory outlines how stereotypes of the ingroups
and outgroups are reinforced by the prevailing attitudes and behaviours of
wider society (Sherif & Sherif, 1969), and that children learn prejudice from social
groups, especially parents. Research shows individuals tend to prefer their own
group, whether in competition with each other (Sherif & Sherif, 1969) or not
(Tajfel, 1978), although working together can reduce friction (Sherif & Sherif,
1969). These social context approaches link to Bandura’s (1977) social learning
theory, which highlights how the child learns by observing and imitating others.

Student Paper 2: A Smiling Face Transcends All Language Barriers.
217
It also links to Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural learning, where children learn by
interacting with others in their own culture, and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) socio-
ecological model, which recognises the influence of environmental factors on
early learning. Furthermore, social learning is reflected in the Síolta quality
standards of Identity and Belonging, Interactions and Parents and Families,
which recognises the wider social context of learning (CECDE, 2006). Although
social identity and reflection theories explain why children prefer ingroups
and remain loyal to groups (self-esteem, belonging), they, nonetheless, fail
to take account of the child’s agency and cognitive development. Nesdale
(2001) extended the ingroup/outgroup concept with developmental social
identity theory, which proposes that development of prejudice is linked to both
cognitive development processes and social processes. Interestingly, it appears
young children prefer their ingroup, the same as adults, however, they do not
necessarily dislike outgroups, in contrast to adults (Nesdale & Flesser, 2003),
highlighting the opportunity for early intervention by the practitioner.
Inclusion Models
Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination can limit learning opportunities and
outcomes (Connolly, 2007; Bradbury, 2014) and cause great distress for children
and families (Garrat, 2011; Gray & Donnelly, 2013). However, ‘discrimination and
inequality, it seems, are deeply rooted in Irish society’ (Murray & O’Doherty,
2001, p.18), and despite some slow and steady change, prejudice remains an
issue in Irish society (McGreill, 2011; Murray & Urban, 2012). This is despite
numerous measures to prevent bias in society, such as equality legislation which
outlaws discrimination on nine grounds, including culture, disability, gender and
religion (IHREC, no date). In terms of the early years sector, regulations outline
how every child’s ‘learning, development and wellbeing’ must be supported
within the setting (DCYA, 2016, p.18), and children’s rights are underpinned by
principles of participation, inclusion, and equality (UNCRC, 1989). Furthermore,
these children’s rights underpin national frameworks and strategies, including
Síolta (CECDE, 2006), Aistear (NCCA, 2009), early years strategy ‘First 5’ (Ireland,
2018), and inclusion charter and guidelines (DCYA, 2016a). Historical approaches
to inclusion in Ireland have focused mostly on minorities and how to support
them to integrate to Irish society, for example, assimilation, where the minority
culture was expected to adopt the values of the majority culture (NUI Galway,
2014).
However, fully inclusive practice must include the majority culture and all types
of diversity, including disability, gender, language, and so on, not just culture

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
218
differences. Persona dolls have been used successfully in the early years, which
involves the practitioner using large dolls, each with unique personalities and
culture, to explore and develop empathy. They support children to understand
and accept diversity (Murray & Urban, 2012; Lindon, 2012) in a way that can be
tailored to the child and context. Another model, ‘Respecting Difference’, was
a media initiative delivered to school children in Northern Ireland. It consisted
of cartoons which featured the topics of difference, exclusion, and prejudice
through a diverse group of children in a playground. Evaluation of the project
showed a positive change of attitudes in children towards difference, inclusion,
and empathy, and higher levels of tolerance and trust between communities
(Collins, 2015). Internationally, the Reggio Emilia education approach can
support children’s cultural and social development through the child-centred
ethos, strong connection to families, and flexible curriculum framework if offers
(Durden et. al., 2015). In the USA, the anti-racism approach views schools from the
minority perspective as reflections of a wider society of injustice and inequality,
and proposes an activist, intensive approach to combat racism from a young
age before it becomes accepted and normalised by the child (Husband, 2012).
Crucially, however, the success of any of these models in promoting inclusion is
subject to how the practitioner interprets and applies them.
Anti-bias Approach
Encompassing many of the positive features of the above models, the anti-
bias approach (Derman-Sparks, 1989) is the current model of best practice for
the early years based on inclusion, equality, and diversity, where ‘all children
and their families are recognised, respected and protected from any form of
prejudice or discrimination’ (DCYA, 2016a p16.). The approach focuses on
changing attitudes and practice so that every child is supported (Start Strong,
2013). The anti-bias approach is a goal oriented framework and has been
successfully adopted in many countries including Ireland (Murray & O’ Doherty,
2001; DCYA, 2016a). Critically, Derman-Sparks (2013) highlights the important
role of the practitioner - anti-bias practice does not just happen. Furthermore,
the early years is a critical time to intervene, before negative attitudes become
entrenched (Hawkins, 2014). Using this activist approach, the practitioner
can support all children to enjoy full access, full participation, and maximum
outcomes in the setting.
It does not mean treating all children the same, as children will require different
supports to fully participate. Furthermore, contrary to other equality models, it
includes all diversity, for example, disability and gender as well as culture, and

Student Paper 2: A Smiling Face Transcends All Language Barriers.
219
targets both majority and minority groups. The anti-bias approach underpins
Síolta, in particular the principles of Equality and Diversity and the standard
of Identity & Belonging. ‘Equality is an essential characteristic of quality early
childhood care and education’ (CECDE, 2006, p.7). The values of inclusion,
equality, and diversity also thread through Aistear, particularly the theme of
Identity & Belonging, which is about ‘children developing a positive sense
of who they are’ and feeling valued and respected (NCCA, 2009, p.25). The
anti-bias approach outlines four goals for children and four for adults to guide
inclusive practice in the setting, although the practitioner must first attend to
the adult goals before they are in a position to realise children’s goals. Goals for
the adult focus on personal reflection, building knowledge, building practice
skills, critical reflection, and engaging with families (Murray & Urban, 2012).
Goals for the child centre on supporting individual and social identity, fostering
empathy and acceptance of difference, critical thinking, and empowerment to
stand up to discrimination (DCYA, 2016a).
Role of the Practitioner:
‘Deepening our understanding of who we are now and how we came to be that
person is at the heart of being a strong anti-bias teacher’ (Derman-Sparks, 2010,
p.22). A key theme emerging from the literature is the fundamental importance
of critical reflection on equality and diversity by the practitioner (Murray &
Urban, 2012; Lindon, 2012; Formosinho & Figueiredo, 2014; Durden et. al., 2015;
DCYA, 2016a). In other words, in order for the practitioner to effectively support
the child’s identity and address prejudice, they must first interrogate their
own values and beliefs in the same area, be prepared to have uncomfortable
discussions, and to challenge ‘accepted’ inequalities in the setting. As prejudices
and stereotypes are often embedded within the individual, the practitioner can
unconsciously pass on their own bias to young children (Lindon, 2012; Durden
et. al., 2015). Furthermore, changes to attitudes and values must be across the
entire setting, including policies, procedures, recruitment, imagery, welcome
packs, and open days. The entire system, as well as the individual, must be
competent and aligned (CoRE, 2011). The practitioner may have to review their
knowledge base in order to root out bias or outdated information, for example,
questioning the validity of a ‘universal’ child development theory. The importance
of critical reflection is reinforced in the Síolta principle Role of the Adult and
the quality standard Professional Practice (CECDE, 2006). The national inclusion
guidelines can support the practitioner to kickstart the process individually, and
in the setting, it is designed to ‘provoke questions, challenge thinking and offer

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
220
advice and support for change’ (DCYA, 2016a) and contains a range of prompts
and tools. Key for the adult is to be pro-active in enabling equality (Lindon,
2012), don’t wait for a child with a disability or from an ethnic minority to arrive as
anti-bias practice is for everyone. Engagement with families which is meaningful
and respectful is essential for inclusive practice, and to support identity and
belonging. The child’s family are the most important people in children’s lives
(Connolly, 2007), their primary educator (NCCA, 2009; Hayes, 2013), and the
people who know them best. Every child accumulates knowledge specific to their
culture from home, even those considered disadvantaged. By accessing these
‘funds of knowledge’ (DCYA, 2016a, p.15) about the child’s life, the practitioner
can create relevant and engaging learning experiences in the setting. It may be
more challenging to engage with some families, for example, due to language
barriers or fear of discrimination, however, by explaining it is for the benefit of
the child and showing empathy and sensitivity, this can be addressed. As well
as interactions, the practitioner can use the physical environment to show all
families are valued and equally important in the setting, for example, through
diversity in its posters, artwork, books, toys, and resources. It is important
that all families see themselves represented in the setting (Murray & Urban,
2012). One way to do this is to create a Family Wall display, where children can
bring in photos of their family and home life, which provides opportunities for
meaningful conversations and can act as a starting point for changing practice
(Murray & Urban, 2012). Furthermore, the practitioner may be the person
responsible for accessing external support for a child through the Access and
Inclusion programme (DCYA, 2016b), which will require engagement with both
families and external experts.
In addition, the practitioner may need to invest some time in building
knowledge on diversity issues and the correct terminology to use (DCYA, 2016a)
because ‘words matter’ (Lindon, 2012). This will support them to engage with
both children and families in an empathetic, respectful, and informed manner,
and may include consulting with families on the appropriate terminology to
use or seeking advice from specialist agencies. The practitioner is a role model
in the setting to both children and colleagues and it is important to lead by
example (Lindon, 2012), for example, ‘new communities’ may be a more
appropriate phrase than ‘non-nationals’ to describe ethnic groups living in
Ireland. Training in the anti-bias approach has proven to be highly successful
in supporting practitioners to provide more inclusive, better quality practice
(DCYA, 2013; Cooke, 2013), although it is not always sufficiently valued by early
education training programmes (Derman-Sparks, 2013). Furthermore, it is often

Student Paper 2: A Smiling Face Transcends All Language Barriers.
221
costly to provide diversity training (Formosinho & Figueiredo, 2014), creating an
additional barrier.
The goals for the child can be addressed by the practitioner through the
curriculum, environment, interactions, and ethos of the setting. The first goal
focuses on developing the child’s identity and belonging, both as an individual
and as part of a social group. When children feel a strong sense of self-identity
and belonging, they feel more secure, confident, and able to learn (NCCA,
2009), and can start to understand and accept difference (Hayes, 2013). The
practitioner can support positive identity formation through strong relationships
which validate and respect each child’s background, culture, language, abilities,
gender, and so on. Furthermore, the curriculum and physical environment of
the setting can support positive self and group identity, for example, talking
about different families at circle time or empty packs of food stuffs from all
cultures in the home corner. It is also important to equality proof the physical
environment, for example, universal physical access, or imagery featuring lots of
diversity. The practitioner must also be mindful of how to support the multiple
identities of children, for example, a female child born in Ireland to Chinese
parents who plays football represents different identities, some of which may
be in conflict with each other. The second goal looks at fostering empathy and
acceptance of diversity (DCYA, 2016a). For many children, starting in the setting,
it may be their first real experience of people who are different to them and
their family. The practitioner can support children to communicate and interact
across differences through active engagement and role modelling, activities
on emotions and feelings, correcting bias, and providing accurate information.
Books, puzzles, and toys featuring a wide range of diversity can support children
to become comfortable with difference. The third goal for the child matches
the third goal for the adult, which is to think critically about diversity and bias,
highlighting the strong link between both sets of goals. This goal involves
the adult being informed about diversity, perhaps through a network or by
accessing resources from agencies such as Pavee Point or the National Disability
Authority in order to share accurate information and challenge stereotypes and
misinformation (DCYA, 2016a). It includes using the appropriate terminology
and helping children identify phrases and images which are biased and unfair.
Goal four expands on goal three, and involves empowering children to stand
up to discrimination, as they begin to recognise injustice and unfairness. The
practitioner can support this though listening to the child, by offering language
and tools to address inequalities at an age -appropriate level, by being in tune
to subtle bias, and acting as a positive role model.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
222
Conclusion
Children start to notice difference and display preferences at a young age,
and through both cognitive and social learning processes, this can develop
into prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice continues to exist in Ireland today
and can hinder the child’s ability to fully access, participate, and develop in the
early years, in addition to causing hurt and distress. However, the early years
practitioner can intervene in a positive way to support identity and belonging of
the child and family through respectful and meaningful relationships, backed up
by strong practice skills and knowledge around inclusion, equality, and diversity.
An essential element of inclusive practice is critical reflection by the practitioner,
to interrogate values, attitudes, and bias before being able to support the child
and family. By using inclusive practice in the setting, the practitioner can foster
empathy and understanding of diversity and support children and adults to
challenge stereotypes and negative attitudes. The anti-bias approach offers
the practitioner a goal-oriented framework to do this through the principles of
equality, diversity, and inclusion which will support and empower the child not
only in the setting, but in the wider world too.
References
Aboud, F. (1988) Children and Prejudice. Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Adorno, T.W., Frenel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J., & Stanford, R.N. (1950) The
Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Allport, W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Bradbury, A (2014) ‘Learning assessment + equality in Early Childhood Education settings in England’,
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 22 (3), pp.347-354.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Bronfenbrenner, U., (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. and Morris, P. (2007) ‘The bio ecological model of human development’ in Lerner,
RM., Damon, W. Lerner, RMS, Handbook of Child Psychology Vol 1: Theoretical models of human
development, (ed.) Hoboken. NJ: Wiley.
CECDE/Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (2006) Síolta: The national quality
framework for early childhood education. Dublin: Centre for Early Childhood Development and
Education.
CoRe/University of East London and of Ghent (2011) Competence Requirements in Early Childhood
Education and Care. London and Ghent: European Directorate, Directorate General for Education and
Culture
Collins, C. (2015) Evaluation of the Media Initiative for Children – Respecting Difference Programme
in the Education Sector. Final Report 2015. (Online). Available at: http://www.earlyyears.org/mifc/
schoolsreport/Respecting%20Difference%20in%20Education%20Evaluation.pdf (Accessed 1st February
2019)
Connolly, P. (2007) ‘Fair Play: talking to children about prejudice and discrimination’, Barnardos NI.
(Online). Available at: https://nuigalway.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1633240-dt-content-

Student Paper 2: A Smiling Face Transcends All Language Barriers.
223
rid12335277_1/courses/1819-ECS401/Fair%20Play%20-pdf (Accessed 25th January 2019)
Corrigan, M. (2013) ‘Barnardos Finglas Early Intervention Service’, Childlinks, 2013 (3), pp.23-26.
Cooke, M. (2013) ‘Pre-school education initiative for children from minority groups’,Childlinks, 2013
(3), pp. 7-12.
Derman-Sparks, L. (1989) Anti-Bias Curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. Washington,
D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Derman-Sparks, L. & Olsen-Edwards, J. (2010) Anti-bias education for young children and ourselves.
Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Derman-sparks, L. (2013) ‘From 1993 to 2013: What have we learned about early childhood anti-bias
education?’ Childlinks, Issue 3, pp. 16-18.
DCYA/Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2016a) Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and
Guidelines for Early Childhood Education and Care. Dublin: Government Publications.
DCYA/Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2016b) Better Start Access and Inclusion Model.
(Online). Available at: http://www.preschoolaccess.ie/ (Accessed 12th January 2019)
DCYA/Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2013) Pre-school education initiative for children
from minority groups. Evaluation report summary. (Online). Available at: http://clarechildcare.ie/
zdocs%5CEvaluation%20Report%20on%20the%20Preschool%20Education%20Initiative%20for%20
Children%20from%20Minority%20Groups.pdf (Accessed 30th January 2019)
Durden, T.R., Escalante, E. & Blitch, K. (2015) ‘Start with us! Culturally relevant pedagogy in the
preschool classroom’, Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, pp.223-232.
Formosinho, J. & Figueiredo, I. (2014) ‘Promoting equity in an early years context: the role of
participatory educational teams, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(3), pp.397-
411.
Garrat, L./ Department of Children & Youth Affairs scholarship programme (2012) The body, masculinities
and racism: social relations between migrant and dominant boys in three inner city primary schools
in Dublin, no.19 research briefing. DCYA, 19, pp.1-4. https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/research/
ResearchBriefing19ScholarshipProg.pdf (Accessed 5th February, 2019)
Gray, C. & Donnelly, J. (2013) ‘Unheard voices: the views of traveller and non-traveller mothers and
children with ASD’ International Journal of Early Years Education, pp.1-17
Hayes, N. (2013) Early Years Practice, getting it right from the start. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Husband, Jr., T. (2012) ‘”I don’t see color”: challenging assumptions about discussing race with young
children’, Early Childhood Education Journal, 39, pp.365-371.
Ireland, Government of (2018) First 5, A Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children
and their Families 2019-2028 https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/earlyyearspdf (Accessed 30th
January 2019)
Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission (no date) Equal Status Acts. (Online). Available at: https://
www.ihrec.ie/guides-and-tools/human-rights-and-equality-in-the-provision-of-goodand-services/what-
does-the-law-say/equal-status-acts/ (Accessed 1st February 2019)
Katz, P.A. (1976) ‘The acquisition of racial attitudes in children’. In Katz, P.A. (ed.) Towards the elimination
of racism. New York: Pergamon Press.
Lane, J. (2008) Young children and racial justice: taking action for racial equality in early years –
understanding the past, thinking about the present, planning for the future. London: National Children’s
Bureau.
Lindon, J. (2012) Equality and Inclusion in Early Childhood. London: Hodder Education.
Mac Greil, M. (2011) Pluralism and Diversity in Ireland. Dublin: The Columba Press.
Murray, C. (2013) ‘Diversity & Equality in Early Childhood Education and Care: an Irish perspective’,
Childinks, Issue 3, pp.2-6.
Murray, C. & O’ Doherty (2001) Eist: Respecting diversity in early childhood care, education and
training. Dublin: Pavee Point Publications.
Murray, C. & Urban, M. (2012) Diversity and Equality in Early Childhood: an Irish Perspective, Dublin:
Gill and Mac Millen.
NCCA/National Council for Curriculum & Assessment (2009) The Early Childhood Curriculum
Framework. Dublin: The Stationary Office.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
224
Nesdale, D. (2001) ‘Development of Prejudice in Children’, In Augoustinos, M. and Reynolds, K.
Understanding prejudice, racism and social conflict. Sage: London.
Nesdale, D. & Flesser, D. (2001) Social identity and the development of children’s group attitudes, Child
Development, March/April 72(2), pp.506-517
NUI Galway/National University of Ireland Galway (2014) Promoting inclusion in Early Years Care and
Education module handbook. Galway: NUI Galway
OMC/Office of the Minister for Children (2006) Diversity and Equality Guidelines for Childcare
Providers. Dublin: Office of the Minister for Children.
Piaget, J. & Weil, A.M. (1951) ‘The development in children of the idea of the homeland and relations
to other countries’, International Social Science Journal, (3), pp.561-578
Sherif, M. & Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Tajfel, H. (1978) ‘The achievement of intergroup differentiation’. In Tajfel, H. (Ed). Differentiation
between social groups. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1979) ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’. In Austin, A.G. & Worchel, S.
(Eds.), The social psychology of group relations. Monteray: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Start Strong (2013) Diversity and Equality in the Early Years. (Online). Available at: http://www.
startstrong.ie/contents/401 (Accessed 29th January 2019)
UNHRC/United Nations, Human Rights; Office of the High Commissioner (1989) Convention on the
Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: Development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

225
Student Paper 2: A Smiling Face Transcends All
Language Barriers. Supporting Transitions for
Children + Families with English as an Additional
Language into An Irish Preschool: Educators’
Perspectives.
Irena Chlumecka
Abstract
Transitions in Early Childhood Education (ECE) have been
receiving attention among researchers globally. The emphasis
is stronger on the move from preschool to primary school, while
transitions from home to preschool have received less attention.
It has been noted in recent decades that the world’s population
has been far from stationary, and as such, there is an increasing
number of children being exposed to more than one language.
This case study explored the experiences of three early childhood
educators in one preschool in Ireland as they supported transitions
for children with English as an additional language (EAL) into
the preschool. A qualitative approach was used in gaining the
educators’ perspectives through face-to-face interviews and filling
in a short questionnaire. Previous research highlights the benefits
of maintaining children’s first language in learning subsequent
languages, as well as helping families preserve their cultural
heritage and a sense of identity and belonging. The findings from
this study suggest that there is a need for a more centralised,
research-informed approach to children with EAL in Irish early
childhood settings.
Transitions are defined by many researchers as a change of environment, as
well as the adjustment to the new environment, both on the physical and
psychological level (Lam & Pollard, 2006; Page, Clare & Nutbrown, 2013). In

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
226
early childhood education (ECE), they are sometimes referred to as horizontal
transitions (through the setting) or vertical transitions (from one setting to
another) (Lam & Pollard, 2006; O’Connor, 2018). Guo (2017) further considers
transitions as both the child’s adjustment to the new environment and the new
environment’s inclusion of the child. Bridges (1991, as cited in Prendeville and
Allen, 2002) makes the distinction between change and transition where change
represents the physical aspect of the process, while transition encompasses
the psychological adjustment of the individual to the new situation. He further
outlines three phases of transitions: a) the ending of something familiar, or in
Fabian’s (2007) words, “leaving the comfort zone”; b) the neutral zone, where
the known has ended but the unknown does not yet feel comfortable; and c)
the new beginning, which takes place after letting go of the comfortable and
spending some time in the neutral zone. In the example of moving from home
to preschool, this represents leaving the familiarity of the home environment,
the later stages of the transition process, and finally, the completed process
where the child becomes comfortable within the preschool.
Theoretical Underpinning
From the viewpoint of a Bio-Ecological Model of Human Development,
Bronfenbrenner (1981, p. 6) talks about “ecological transitions” in children’s
lives, referring to the role of the various environments that influence the
child’s developmental trajectory and their interconnection during transitions
(Bronfenbrenner, 1981). It is these immediate environments or microsystems –
such as home and preschool or primary school – that directly influence the child’s
development and the quality of interactions between these environments. The
mesosystem further plays a crucial role in their development (Bronfenbrenner,
1994). In Bronfenbrenner’s terms, it is these interactions between the
microsystems that strengthen the proximal processes between the child and his
or her environments, allowing them to become the agents within the change.
What to Expect During Home to Setting Transitions?
Starting pre-school is often the first time a child will be separated from their
parents or primary caregivers (Lam & Pollard, 2006;O’Farrelly & Hennessy,
2014; O’Connor, 2018). This often evokes an array of emotions such as stress
and anxiety for the child and their parents (Thyssen, 2000; Lam & Pollard, 2006;
Docket & Page et al., 2013; Lam, 2013; Perry, 2013, 2014; O’Connor, 2018) and
educators (Prendeville & RossAllen, 2002; Docket & Perry, 2014), conversely
elements of excitement and anticipation of new experiences (Thyssen, 2000;

Student Paper 1: Promoting Inclusion in Early Years Care and Education
227
Lam & Pollard, 2006; Vogler et al., 2008; Page et al., 2013; Docket & Perry, 2014
), and the feeling of “moving up” (Fabian, 2007, p. 5). Transitions should never
be seen as once-off events (Prendeville and Allen, 2002; O’Kane, 2016). They
are dynamic processes that could last for one week or as long as three months,
and depend on the individual characteristics of the child (Lam & Pollard, 2006),
the environments they are transitioning between, and the quality of interactions
that occur throughout the process (Vogler et al., 2008).
During transitions children are not only changing the physical environment, but
also “crossing the cultural boundary” between home and the setting (Lam &
Pollard, 2006, p. 123; Fabian, 2007). While this is true for all children, for those
with EAL, the language barrier (Kurban & Tobin, 2009; Guo, 2017), and the
sometimes stark cultural differences within their new learning environment
(Fabian, 2007; Guo, 2017) are added disadvantages.
Continuity of Care during Transitions
One factor that influences the process of transitions for children is the continuity
of their experiences from home into the setting (CECDE, 2006; Lam & Pollard,
2006; Fabian, 2007). Lam and Pollard (2006) describe continuity of care as the
transitions experienced between two settings of a similar nature, such as from
home to a childminder, while discontinuity occurs when the two environments
are different in terms of culture, language, and expectations, such as the move
from home to preschool.
Continuity of care can be achieved by several strategies, including effective
communication between educators and families and having in place relevant
policies and procedures (Prendeville & Allen, 2002; CECDE, 2006; Fabian, 2007;
NCCA, 2015). Bronfenbrenner specifies in his writings, as early as in 1981 (p. 6),
that “information in each setting about the other” strengthens the transition
process for the child. In practice, this reiterates the importance of exchanging
information between parents, educators, and other professionals involved in the
children’s lives to ensure a smooth transition process. In terms of policies and
procedures, it is now required under the Quality Regulatory Framework (Tusla,
2018) that settings have a ‘settling-in’ policy. A settling-in policy is described by
Docket & Perry (2014) as a child-centred document that is co-constructed with
all stakeholders. It serves as a guide for educators to offer consistent transition
routines.
Educators in Ireland have access to sample policies which they can adapt to
the needs and context of their settings. The sample settling-in policy (available

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
228
at http://www.tusla.ie) mentions a child’s first language several times: it
acknowledges the additional difficulties of families with EAL during the transition
process; it stresses the importance of adapting routines to support children’s first
language; it encourages the use of some words from the child’s first language;
and advises parents to continue using their first language at home. In the
Aistear Síolta Practice Guide (NCCA, 2015), available to educators in Ireland,
the Transitions Pillar offers several video resources as well as an effective self-
evaluation tool to allow educators to reflect on their practice during transitions.
However, within the Transitions Pillar, there are six Irish research documents
about the transition to primary school, but none for the home-to-setting
transition. Similarly, in the ‘Examples and Ideas for Practice’ section, there are 14
video resources for primary school transitions, but only two for home-to-setting
transition, pointing to an imbalance in information and possible gap in research
with regard to this important transition for young children.
Language as an Empowering Tool: A Theoretical Perspective
Language helps us express and share our thoughts, feelings, humour, and
knowledge with those around us (Honig, 2007). The important role of language
in children’s development is documented in many studies (Han, 2012; Honig,
2016). It is well established that human brains are predisposed to the acquisition
of language, but the mechanisms needed in order to develop it optimally are
still a contested issue. Let us briefly consider language acquisition from the
perspectives of the two most influential theorists, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky,
as portrayed by Feldman and Fowler (1997). According to the authors, while
recognising the importance of language development in humans, Piaget was
known for placing less emphasis on the role of language in an individual’s
cognitive development. He argued that language, as any other form of
knowledge, is acquired through the same process of “equilibration, maturation,
social transmission and experience” (p. 202) and thus, there are no specific tools
required for teaching it to human infants, although interaction with others is
necessary for this to occur. Conversely, Vygotsky considered language as the
most important human ability, one that is passed culturally by conveying word
meanings, sharing literacy, and inter-generational literature. For Vygotsky,
language is the main tool through which all other learning and knowledge is
acquired. This emphasis on the socio-cultural aspect of language acquisition
leads current researchers to acknowledge the pivotal role of parents or primary
caregivers and early childhood educators in language development (Kuhl, 2004).

Student Paper 1: Promoting Inclusion in Early Years Care and Education
229
Supporting Children with EAL in Early Childhood Settings
There is an increasing number of children with EAL joining early childhood
settings both within Ireland (Mhic Mhathúna, 2008) and globally (McCarthy et
al., 2014; Whiteside, Gooch and Norbury, 2017). This change calls for a shift in
support for families with EAL in our settings. This can be achieved by firstly,
the educators being familiar with the benefits of maintaining a first language
or bilingualism and secondly, by adopting effective strategies that support
children’s transitions with due consideration of potential language barriers and
benefits of bilingualism. McCarthy, Mahon, Rosen, & Evans (2014) state that,
within immigrant communities, children are exposed exclusively to the home
language (L1) before learning the second language (L2), usually upon entering
a preschool setting. This is known as sequential bilingualism as opposed to
simultaneous bilingualism, where children are exposed to two languages
equally from birth (McCarthy et al., 2014; Winsler et al, 2014).
Educators are uniquely positioned to inform parents when their child starts
preschool of the benefits of maintaining first language and to reassure them that
children typically learn the second language in their own time (Roberts, 2008).
Winsler and colleagues (2014) and Roberts (2008) further state that children
with EAL have a better chance of learning a second language if they have a
good foundation in their home language. Sometimes immigrant parents may
feel their child will suffer if they do not know the language of the setting they
are joining (Winsler et al., 2014). This was the case for one parent in Rodríguez’s
(2015) study of three bilingual families in the US. In this study, the author outlines
factors that affect successful bilingualism, such as parental attitude and a
society’s approach to minority languages versus the host country’s language.
In other words, parents must want their child to maintain their first language in
order for both languages to be learned successfully. As the primary caregivers,
they decide to what degree this will occur and parents depend on the support
and expertise of the educators to guide them.
Extensive research in the area of bilingualism has confirmed several benefits,
including higher cognitive functioning (Rodríguez, 2015; Winsler et al., 2014),
better outcomes in social and emotional development (Honig, 2016), and
economic benefits (Rodríguez, 2015) through wider career opportunities. Due
to being exposed to two languages from an early age, receptive language
has been observed to be higher in bilingual children than their monolingual
peers (Honig, 2016). In the longitudinal study by Winsler et al., (2014) the
authors further attributed benefits to bilingualism such as promoting cognitive
development in multiple domains including higher meta-linguistic awareness

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
230
as well as processing of information. In the same study, children who were
exclusively exposed to L1 at home had better outcomes in terms of English
literacy (L2) during their preschool years than any of the other groups in the
study. Thus, while this study is not about bilingualism, it is related to benefits of
maintaining first language, which ultimately lead to children becoming bilingual
to some extent.
Adopting Effective Strategies.
Educators have been advised to examine any personal cultural expectations
in order to most effectively welcome EAL families and support children’s home
language in the new setting (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2016).
First and foremost, children must be regarded as individuals in their own right,
regardless of their language, culture or ethnic background (Mhic Mhathúna,
2008). Kernan (2007) stresses that early childhood settings are usually the first
places where children will encounter cultural diversity. Therefore, educators
must ensure that diversity and inclusion are perceived as current issues relevant
to all, making children “feel proud of their own identity” (Kernan, 2007, p. 21).
When considering the stages of language development in children of preschool
age, interactions between educators and children are critical (Wyse & Bradford,
2008). This is evident from Aistear (NCCA, 2009), where each of the learning
goals begins: “In partnership with the adult, the children will…” followed by
the specific goal. The development of oral language skills depends highly on
the quality of interactions within both the environment at home and in early
childhood settings (Kuhl, 2004). As well as effective, consistent strategies,
educators must provide a literacy rich environment in the second language
which will most likely be the language of the primary school to which the child
progresses. Positive educator-child interactions recognise children’s individual
needs as well as stimulating their language development (Pianta, Downer,
Hamre 2016).
Some strategies to support continuity of care for children with EAL during
transitions into the setting include: learning and using key terms from the child’s
first language (NCCA, 2015); understanding key cultural differences between
educators’ culture and that of the incoming families in order to show their
culture is accepted in the setting and their language is valued; and actively
communicating with parents and guardians in both verbal and written form
about their child’s learning. Body language, including gestures and pointing,
is another communication strategy (Honig, 2016). Hooks’ earlier work (2008,
p. 103) supports this research by stating that educators must have “both

Student Paper 1: Promoting Inclusion in Early Years Care and Education
231
knowledge and understanding of various ways to communicate without words
including the use of body language.” Finally, it is well documented that play is
central to children’s learning and development (Canning, 2007; Kernan, 2007;
Banerjee, Alsaman & Alqafari, 2016). Play that is interesting to children has the
potential of being an effective method for learning (Banerjee et al., 2016), by
supporting developing literacy skills where educators create play environments
that promote collaboration between peers, partaking in conversations, and
develop wider vocabulary. Canning (2007, p. 228) further places emphasis on
play as an empowering tool for children to “find their own voice.” She argues,
in relation to peer relationships, that for children to be empowered in play, they
must be able to understand the game or a role-play. This can be particularly
challenging for children with EAL and requires skilled educators to provide
opportunities for collaborative play, while negotiating language differences.
Together, the extensive literature reported here on important considerations
around supporting the transition to preschool for all children, and especially
children for whom English is an additional language, indicates additional
research is required in Ireland on how educators feel about, and approach, this
important transition for young children into preschool classrooms.
References
Banerjee, R., Alsalman, A., & Alqafari, S. (2016) ‘Supporting sociodramatic play in preschools to
promote language and literacy skills of English language learners’, Early Childhood Education Journal,
44(4), pp.299-305. doi:10.1007/s10643-015-0715-4.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Retrieved 24th March 2019 from https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.dcu.idm.oclc.org.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994) ‘Ecological models of human development’, International Encyclopaedia of
Education, 3 (2nd edn). Oxford: Elsevier.
Canning, N. (2007) ‘Children’s empowerment in play’, European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 15(2), pp. 227-236.
Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (2006) Síolta Research Digests, Accessed 23rd
February at: http://siolta.ie/media/pdfs/Research%20Digest%20-.pdf.
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2016) Diversity, equality and inclusion charter and guidelines
for early childhood care and education. Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (2013) ‘Trends and tensions: Australian and international research about starting
school’, International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(2- 3), pp.163-177.
Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (2014) Continuity of Learning: A resource to support effective transition to
school and school age care. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Department of Education.
Fabian, H. (2007) ‘Informing transitions’, In A-W. Dunlop & H. Fabian (Eds.) Informing Transitions in the
Early Years (1st edn), Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 3-17.
Feldman, D. H., & Fowler, R. C. (1997) ‘The nature(s) of developmental change: Piaget, Vygotsky, and
the transition process’, New Ideas in Psychology, 15(3), pp. 195-210.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
232
Guo, K. (2017) ‘A Comparative Study of Immigrant Children Starting Childcare’ Exceptionality Education
International, 27(2), pp. 72–93. Retrieved from https://dcu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=130380229&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Han, W. (2012) ‘Bilingualism and academic achievement’, Child Development, 83(1), pp. 300-321.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01686.x.
Honig, A. S. (2007) ‘Oral language development’, Early Child Development and Care, 177(6-7), pp.
581-613. doi:10.1080/03004430701377482.
Honig, A. S. (2016) ‘Language insights for caregivers with young children’, Early Child Development
and Care, 187(3-4), pp. 527-15. doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1263917.
Hooks, L. M. (2008) ‘Help! they don’t speak English: partnering preservice teachers with adult English
language learners’, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29(2), pp. 97–107. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10901020802059433.
Kernan, M. (2007) Play as a context for early learning and development. Research paper, Commissioned
by National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Retrieved 1st April 2019 from https://www.ncca.ie/
media/1112/how-aistear-was-developed-researchpapers.pdf.
Kuhl, P. (2004) ‘Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
5(11), pp. 831-843. doi:10.1038/nrn1533.
Kurban, F., & Tobin, J. (2009). ‘‘They don’t like us’: reflections of Turkish children in a German preschool’,
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(1), pp. 24-34. doi:10.2304/ciec.2009.10.1.24.
Lam, M., & Pollard, A. (2006) ‘A conceptual framework for understanding children as agents
in the transition from home to kindergarten’, Early Years, 26(2), pp. 123–141. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09575140600759906.
McCarthy, K. M., Mahon, M., Rosen, S., & Evans, B. G. (2014) ‘Speech perception and production by
sequential bilingual children: a longitudinal study of voice onset time acquisition’, Child Development,
85(5), pp. 1965–1980. https://doiorg.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/cdev.12275.
Mhic Mhathúna, M. (2008) ‘Supporting children’s participation in second‐language stories in an Irish‐
language preschool’, Early Years, 28(3), pp. 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140802212191.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009) Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum
Framework, Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2015) Aistear Síolta Practice Guide Accessed 13th
April 2019 at http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/.
O’Connor, A. (2018) Understanding transitions in the early years. London: Routledge, https://doi-org.
dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9781315559100.
O’Farrelly, C., & Hennessy, E. (2014) ‘Watching transitions unfold: a mixed-method study of transitions
within early childhood care and education settings. Early Years, 34(4), pp. 329–347. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09575146.2014.968838
O’Kane M (2016) Transition from preschool to primary school: Research report 19. National Council
for Curriculum and Assessment. Retrieved 12th April from https://www.ncca.ie/media/2471/transition-
research-report-no-19.pdf.
Page, J., Clare, A. and Nutbrown, C. (2013) ‘Planning for positive transitions’ In Working with babies &
children from birth to three (2nd edn). London: Sage, pp. 174-191.
Pianta, R., Downer, J., & Hamre, B. (2016) ‘Quality in early education classrooms: definitions, gaps and
systems’, The Future of Children, 26(2), pp. 119-137. doi:10.1353/foc.2016.0015.
Prendeville, J., & Ross-Allen, J. (2002) ‘The transition process in the early years: enhancing
speech-language pathologists’ perspectives’, Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools,
33(2), 130. Retrieved 4th December 2018 from https://search-proquestcom.dcu.idm.oclc.org/
docview/232590404?accountid=15753.
Roberts, T.A. (2008) ‘Home storybook reading in primary or second language with preschool children:
evidence of equal effectiveness for second-language vocabulary acquisition’, Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), pp. 103-130.
Rodríguez, M. V. (2015) ‘Families and educators supporting bilingualism in early childhood’, School
Community Journal, 25(2), 177.
Thyssen, S. (2000) ‘The child’s start in day care centre’, Early Child Development and Care, 161(1), pp.
33-46. doi:10.1080/0030443001610103.

Student Paper 1: Promoting Inclusion in Early Years Care and Education
233
Tusla. (2018) Quality and regulatory framework: Sessional pre-school service. Dublin:
Tusla. Retrieved 14th April 2019 from https://www.tusla.ie/news/tusla-launches-qualityand-regulatory-
framework-for-the-early-years-sector/.
Vogler, P., Crivello, G. & Woodhead, M. (2008) Early childhood transitions research: A review of
concepts, theory and practice. Working Paper 48. Bernard van Leer Foundation. Retrieved 31st March
2019 from: https://oro.open.ac.uk/16989/1/Vogler_et_al_Transitions_PDF.DAT.pdf.
Whiteside, K. E., Gooch, D., & Norbury, C. F. (2017) ‘English language proficiency and early school
attainment among children learning English as an additional language’, Child Development, 88(3), pp.
812–827. https://doiorg.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/cdev.12615.
Winsler, A., Burchinal, M. R., Tien, H.-C., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Espinosa, L., Castro, D. C., De Feyter, J.
(2014) ‘Early development among dual language learners: the roles of language use at home, maternal
immigration, country of origin, and socio-demographic variables’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
29(4), pp. 750–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.008
Wyse, D. & Bradford, H. (2008). ‘‘You’re supposed to tell me your name now!’ Speaking and listening in
the early years’, In D. Whitebread & P. Coltman (Eds). Teaching and learning in the early years (3rd edn),
GB: Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp. 139-158.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
234
APPENDICES
SUBMITTING A PAPER
A Submission Form and Signed Statement should accompany papers submitted
for journal consideration. Papers should be formatted in accordance with the
guidelines and the stated criteria. All documents should be sent to An Leanbh
Óg: anleabhog@gmail.com
AN LEANBH ÓG Email:
www.anleanbhog@gmail.com
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE
OMEP Ireland, c/o Dr Judith E. Butler, President, OMEP Ireland, Dept. of Sport,
Leisure and Childhood Studies, Cork Institute of Technology, Bishopstown,
Cork, Ireland.
AN LEANBH ÓG EDITORS
Dr Judith E. Butler (OMEP President; Cork Institute of Technology); Dr Frances
Clerkin (Cork Institute of Technology); and Dr Vanessa Murphy (Cork Institute of
Technology).
SUBMISSION FORM
A submission form should accompany the paper submitted to An Leanbh Óg,
Journal of Early Childhood Studies. It may also be downloaded in MS Word
format from the Publications page of the OMEP Ireland website: http://www.
omepireland.ie/publications.html
• Title of Paper;
• Authors;
• Affiliation (organisation, university, etc., if applicable);
• Corresponding author;
• Address for correspondence;
• Email address.

235
Signed Statement to accompany paper:
• The paper being submitted herewith is my/our own original work. It has
not previously been published elsewhere.
• I have followed ethical guidelines throughout this research.
• I have obtained permission in writing from parents/guardians for any
photos of children that are included (if applicable). I have obtained
all necessary permissions for contents, including tables, graphs, and
images from works by others (if applicable, please contact the editors
for clarification if you have any doubts as to whether this applies).
ALO PEER REVIEW PROCESS
ALO operates a double-blind review process. Reviewers are not given the
name/identity of the author(s). Similarly, the author(s) are not given the name/
identity of the reviewers. Each anonymised paper is reviewed by two reviewers.
Authors receive feedback from both reviewers and are given the opportunity to
resubmit the paper.
• ALO has a list of national and international reviewers; the majority of
whom hold a PhD.
• When a paper is received by ALO, it is prepared for peer review by
completely anonymising the document.
• It is then sent to two reviewers from the list.
• Reviewers send the feedback forms to the editors of ALO.
• An anonymous version of feedback from both reviewers is then sent to
the author of the paper.
• The author may resubmit, taking cognisance of the feedback, within a
stated timeframe.
• The amended submissions, along with all feedback information, is then
considered by the ALO editorial team.
Academic papers received will be sent for anonymous peer review, and authors
will be notified of the results in due course. The decision of the Editor is final in
any matter relating to the publication or non-publication of papers.
• Papers should be formatted in accordance with the guidelines below.
Attention should be paid to the specified length (3,000 to 5,000 words).

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
236
The specified length does not include the bibliography/reference list.
• Please apply Harvard or APA referencing system for both in-text citation
and bibliography listings.
Non-academic papers (e.g. practical suggestions for activities to promote early
learning or factual accounts of programmes or visits) may be submitted for
publication in the From the Field section of the journal.
• Non-academic papers - specified length or referencing criteria do not
apply.
• These papers may be published at the discretion of the editorial
committee.
PAPERS SUBMITTED SHOULD MEET THE FOLLOWING
CRITERIA:
• Papers should be original, and the work of the author(s). They should
not be under consideration by another journal and they should not
have been published elsewhere.
• The name, address, institution or affiliation, if applicable, and contact
details (phone, e-mail) of the author(s), and title of the author(s) should
not appear on the paper itself, but should be given on a separate sheet,
along with an abstract of 100 words.
• Papers should be written in a clear straightforward style, avoiding
technical jargon as far as possible. Papers should not exceed 5,000
words in length; bibliography/reference list is not included in word
count.
• All works cited in the paper should be properly acknowledged; see
referencing guidelines below. Where the paper is taken from a larger
work (thesis or dissertation), it is not necessary to include all works
consulted, only those cited in the paper submitted.
FORMAT
• Submit paper in Word format; 1.5 line spacing, font Calibri 11 or Times
New Roman 12. The use of sub-headings is recommended to enhance
readability.

237
• Diagrams, tables etc. should be clear, legible, and captioned (e.g.
Table 1, Fig. 1) and it should be clearly indicated in the text where they
are to be inserted (e.g. Fig. 1 here).
• Any photographs or other illustrations should be sent separately, with
the place where they are to be inserted clearly indicated in the text
(e.g. Photo 2 here).
• Tables and other graphics should be clear and legible, and the
formatting should be kept as simple as possible. The journal may be
printed in monochrome, and not in colour, so please take this into
account when providing graphics, charts, and other illustrations.
REFERENCING
All research builds upon the work of others, but use of the work of others must
be fully and appropriately referenced in the text and credited to the original
authors. There are many online reference generators and guides with examples
of in-text citation/bibliography entries or use the ‘References’ feature in Word.
• https://www.mendeley.com/guides/harvard-citation-guide
• www.citethisforme.com/harvard-referencing
• https://support.office.com/.../add-or-change-sources-citations-
andbibliographies-15926...
• https://eulibraries.files.wordpress.com/2012/.../apa_word_2010_
templateinstructions.do.
The author, date system should be used for citations in the text, including
indirect/paraphrased quotes, and page numbers given for direct quotes. Here
are three examples:
• It may be that the pressure for children to achieve academic readiness
impinges on the time available for play (Bergen, 2002).
• According to Rogoff (2003: 150) ‘transitions across childhoods can also
be considered cultural, community events’ and our research clearly
demonstrates this.
• If citing a website name the site/organisation, year e.g. (NCCA, 2009)
not www…
Direct quotes can be short or long. They can be direct or indirect (paraphrasing);

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
238
see next section for how each is formatted/presented in-text.
FORMAT OF QUOTES
Short quotes (3 lines of text or less) should be enclosed in quotation marks
“quote”, followed by author, date, and page number in brackets e.g. “Follow
instructions for referencing to avoid penalties” (Murphy, 2018, p5). NOTE: Full
stop comes after brackets, and not before. Longer quotes more than three lines
do not have quotation marks, start on a new line, be indented from the left
margin, or put in single-line spacing. Citation is the same though, i.e. must be
followed by author, date, and page in brackets. Full stop after brackets.
A paper that overly relies on quoting the work of others or which does not
reference cited works adequately will not be considered for publication and
will be returned immediately to the author. Plagiarism in academic work can
have very serious consequences. See, for example, the CIT policy on plagiarism;
similar policies operate in most universities (Murphy, 2005: 37).
BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST
All works referred to in the text, and only those works referred to in the text,
must be included in the bibliography/list of references at the end of the paper.
• This list should be in alphabetical order.
• The style preferred by An Leanbh Óg is the Harvard or APA style of
referencing.
Examples of the Preferred Style of Referencing
BOOKS
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Roskos, K.A. and Christie, J.F. (eds.) (2000). Play and Literacy in Early Childhood.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
CHAPTER IN AN EDITED BOOK
Devine, D. (2009) ‘Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in children’s social world
in school’. In S. Drudy (ed.), Education in Ireland: Challenge and Change (pp.
57-72) Dublin: Gill and Macmillan

239
JOURNAL ARTICLES
Certain, L.K. and Kahn, R.S. (2002). Prevalence, Correlates, and Trajectory of
Television Viewing among Infants and Toddlers. Journal of Paediatrics. 109,
634642.
Malaguzzi, L. (1993). For an Education based on Relationships. Young Children,
49 (1), 9-12.
WEBSITES / ON-LINE MATERIAL
Bergen, D. (2002). The Role of Pretend Play in Children’s Cognitive Development.
Early Childhood Research and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 1. On-line journal article,
accessed 15 October 2011 at http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/bergen.html
Early Childhood Ireland. (2018). School Aged Childcare: A Guide to Good
Practice. Accessed 28 September 2018 at https://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009). Aistear, the Early
Childhood Curriculum Framework. Accessed 14 January 2013 at http://www.
ncca.biz/Aistear/
UNPUBLISHED THESIS
Murphy, Mary R. (2001) Parental involvement in early years education and care in
the Cork area. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University College Cork.
PLAGIARISM POLICY
Plagiarism is using the work or ideas of others and not contributing them to the
author/origin [citation]. This includes not just text but graphics, tables, ideas
etc., and includes material found online as well as in print. It is the responsibility
of authors to ensure that they have permission to reproduce any images, graphs,
tables or other material taken from the work of others.
PUBLISHING ETHICS AND ACADEMIC NORMS
An Leanbh Óg: The OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood Studies is
committed to ensuring the highest levels of publishing ethics. All parties who
contribute to its contents are expected to uphold industry standards as they
relate to ethics, plagiarism, and transparency.
Making reference to resources such as the Committee on Publication Ethics

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
240
(COPE), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the British
Educational Research Association (BERA) is strongly encouraged. Specific
questions are always welcome and can be forwarded via email to AnLeanbhog@
OMEPIreland.ie
The editorial independence of An Leanbh Óg is crucial. We are committed
to supporting both authors and editors in the publication of accurate and
innovative research, including running corrections to previously published
material when needed.
It is the policy of An Leanbh Óg to be non-discriminatory, transparent in all
matters, respectful of confidentiality issues, and to contribute to the fair and
open exchange of ideas in the public realm in order to support and develop
education policy.
FOR AUTHORS
We expect authors to submit original work that they have authored and
which has not been previously published. Any doubts whatsoever about such
matters should be shared with An Leanbh Óg. All individuals with authorship
credit should have played an active role in producing the submission and any
individuals who were party to the submission should receive credit.
Citations to the works of others, or previous works of the author, are required,
with the expectation being that academic and publishing norms are met. When
permissions are necessary, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure they have
been provided. Original research data is expected to be presented clearly and
be free of manipulation or selective reporting.
• In addition, privacy and intellectual property rights must not be violated.
Sources of funding or other assistance that supported research or the
development of submissions should be clearly outlined. Research
guidelines regarding the ethical treatment of subjects of study, both
animal and human, are required to have been followed.
• Upon discovery of any errors after submission to An Leanbh Óg, authors
are expected to immediately contact the editors in order to alert them
of the situation.

241
FOR EDITORS AND REVIEWERS
We ask our editors and reviewers to aid An Leanbh Óg in maintaining its policies
and providing useful research and viewpoints to the marketplace of ideas. Any
actual or apparent conflict of interest an editor or reviewer may have regarding
a submission should be shared immediately with An Leanbh Óg. Recusal is
expected in cases of clear competing interests.
The confidentiality of the editorial and review process is to be respected and
fairness in all matters is expected. Any consultation with parties outside of the
editorial or review process regarding a submission must be approved in advance.
Our expectation is that An Leanbh Óg editors and reviewers will contribute to
maintaining the highest research practices and publication ethics.
OMEP IRELAND STUDENT OF THE YEAR AWARD
OMEP Ireland wishes to recognise the work of students undertaking study in
early childhood care and education in Ireland by presenting the ‘OMEP EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AWARD’ to the top graduates in this field in Ireland.
Irish Third level Colleges and Universities offering Level 8 awards in ECEC are
invited to select one piece of work from their top student to go forward for
this award. The work (e.g. essay, dissertation, project or other) is assessed by a
team of OMEP academics and the winner is presented with their award. The
word count for this piece of writing should consist of a minimum of 1000 words
and a maximum of 2500, excluding Harvard references. Further details of the
award, its benefits as well as how/when to submit applications for the award are
available on the OMEP Ireland website.

An Leanbh Óg • Volume 13 • 2020
242
CONTACT OMEP
Dr Judith E. Butler, President, OMEP Ireland c/o Dept. of Sport, Leisure &
Childhood Studies,
Cork Institute of Technology, Bishopstown, Cork, Ireland.
Email: omepireland@omepireland.ie
Website: www.omepireland.ie
OMEP
Organisation Mondiale Pour L´Éducation Préscolaire
(http://www.worldomp.org/en/)
Work Organisation for Early Childhood Education and Care
Organización Mundial Para La Educación Preescolar
Ag t-Eagraíocht Dhomhanda um Oideachas agus Chúram Luath-Óige
OMEP Ireland/OMEP Éireann: An t-Eagraíocht um Oideachas agus Chúram
Luath-Óige
Please see our website for OMEP news, information, downloads, and links to
ECEC websites.
Earlier issues of An Leanbh Óg may be downloaded at http://www.omepireland.
ie/publications.html
Full details of other publications and along with order forms and memberships
forms can be found at http://www.omepireland.ie/publications.html