How do we assess our early years practice? How do we know if something has gone well or not? Or what needs to change and how this should be done? Often such questions can be answered intuitively. Or we can draw from and build on past experiences. Sometimes it is simply a case of trial and error, and at other times we are guided by an accepted understanding of what is right or wrong. However, in the world of early years practice, where children are central to everything, we must also accommodate the needs and expectations of parents, staff and local authorities, as well as adhering to the EYFS statutory framework. It can be difficult, therefore, to grow and change our practice, while still satisfying the needs of those around us.
A useful tool in helping us achieve this is action research. A form of 'self-reflective enquiry' (Carr and Kemmis 1986, page 62), 'action research' means, at its simplest, 'change by doing'. Models of action research, such as that by Infed (see diagram opposite), give practitioners a more formal structure than would normally be used to work through points of concern in order to find workable solutions.
Action research is particularly relevant to the early years sector because it supports the development of reflective practice, an approach seen as essential to the successful delivery of care and education to very young children. For example, Key Elements of Effective Practice (KEEP) states: 'Effective practice in early years requires committed, enthusiastic and reflective practitioners with a breadth and depth of knowledge, skills and understanding.'
The Statutory Framework for the EYFS (2012) notes that during staff supervision, staff should be given opportunities 'to identify solutions to address issues as they arise' (page 17, para 3.20). And Prof Cathy Nutbrown in her review of early years qualifications emphasises that practitioners should be able to apply 'what they know about how children develop and play in a reflective and considered way' (Foundations for Quality, page 19, para 2.6). So, an understanding of when and how to apply a model of action becomes an important tool for practitioners.
PRIME EXAMPLES
The North East Surrey College of Technology (NESCOT) delivers the Sector Endorsed Early Years Foundation Degree on behalf of Kingston University. As part of the degree, second-year students must undertake an action research project within the confines of their setting. This year we had some magnificent submissions and prime examples of how finding the answer to one simple question can benefit the children in our care.
All the projects used the Infed model, so each student:
- devised a question that needed to be answered in order to solve a dilemma
- investigated the subject, drawing on research, in-house data and Government initiatives
- gathered information (data) about the issue, through questionnaires and by speaking to colleagues, parents and children
- used the data as evidence to help answer their question, and
- planned Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timely (SMART) next steps.
CASE STUDIES
1. BEHAVIOUR POLICY
How can I, as an early years practitioner, ensure that the behaviour policy effectively represents the cognitive and chronological development of children aged three to five years in my setting?
This student had known for some time that the behaviour policy within her setting was not fit for purpose, as it was generic, covered ages 0 - 19 and contained no relevant behaviour strategies to help support the child or staff. The school felt that the policy was fit for purpose, citing the previous EYFS Statutury Framework (2008) to support its stance: 'Schools are not required to have separate policies to cover EYFS requirements' (page 13, para 3.3). A recent Independent School Inspectorate report had also found no problem with the school's policies, which were written by the head teacher, and awarded the setting a 'good'.
The practitioner, however, knew that the policy was at odds with the revised EYFS framework which states: 'Providers must have and implement a behaviour management policy, and procedures. A named practitioner should be responsible for behaviour management in every setting. They must have the necessary skills to advise other staff on behaviour issues and to access expert advice if necessary' (page 23, para 3.50).
To avoid appearing critical of the head teacher, the practitioner brought the revised framework to the head's attention and highlighted the need to work in partnership to develop a new behaviour policy.
The second step was to establish what information parents needed to support their children's behaviour and to use this information as the basis for an early years behaviour policy. The information was gathered through a questionnaire asking parents what they felt they needed from a policy.
As a result, the school now has a behaviour management policy that is specifically for the early years and includes workable behaviour management strategies that can be replicated by the parents at home.
2. TIDY-UP TIME
How can I, as a teaching assistant in a reception class, make tidy-up time a positive experience for the children?
Tidy-up time was, in this student's experience, stressful for both children and staff. The children would become disruptive, causing staff to raise their voices and sometimes discard children's work as they struggled to clear up. The problem was that staff failed to see tidy-up time as an opportunity to develop children's emotional, social and practical skills.
The questions for the student to address were: first, how can I get teaching staff to recognise the problem and the value of tidy-up time as a learning experience? Second, have I the authority to implement change?
Listening to both children's and adults' frustrations with the process helped get the teaching staff 'on board', while respecting their roles and valuing their expertise made them responsive to the proposed changes. By exploring the learning opportunities that tidy-up time could offer, staff began to view this time as a valid part of the children's day and, therefore, one that should be planned.
The staff developed various strategies to make tidying-up more enjoyable, including allowing more time; improving storage; playing music; creating a 'work in progress' area; and working in pairs. They also incorporated the children's ideas, which included a tidy-up checklist.
The main achievement has been the change in staff attitude. Rather than a chore, teachers now view tidy-up time as a time of learning. The change has also prompted discussions about how staff view other 'transition' times within the school and the potential benefits of planning for them.
3. DEFERRING SCHOOL ENTRY
How can I support parents in deciding when to move their child from pre-school to reception class?
This question arose from the student's personal experience of having a late summer-born child, whom she believed was not ready for reception class at age four, and belatedly learning about the option to defer her son's entry to school. So she sought to establish if other parents were aware of this choice.
Her research took an unexpected direction when she discovered that current guidance on this subject is contradictory, while current practice is questionable. She found that many schools fail to advertise that late summer-born children can defer entry to reception. There also seems to be a circle of blame surrounding this aspect of policy, with Government, local authorities and schools blaming each other over problems with implementation. In the case of her son, she deferred his entry but only for the first term because the local authority threatened to withdraw the place unless the school gave a January start date.
With those in authority refusing to work in partnership, meaningful dialogue leading to real change is still a work in progress for this student. She has written a letter to the Prime Minister seeking clarification and is canvassing for a change in the law.
LESSONS TO BE LEARNT
While these three projects approached very different subjects, they highlighted similar experiences and issues:
- Others' feelings - all queried systems and structures put in place by others and so had the potential to make colleagues feel criticised and vulnerable.
- The need to respect others' roles and expertise.
- The need for partnership working and for everyone to be on board to bring about change. Students had senior management approve all questionnaires and data collection processes and shared findings with them.
- The importance of the child's perspective and how their experiences can be a driver for change. Children tell us things by their behaviour and this was clearly demonstrated by the observations made during these pieces of action research. The behaviour during tidy-up time; inconsistent approaches to behaviour management leading children to have difficulty in defining boundaries; and late summer-born children unable to cope with the transition from pre-school to reception class.
- The need to debate and sign up to a definition of best practice that whole settings can work towards and that it is important to acknowledge that people have different opinions on what is best.
- Staff need to be empowered to reflect upon their practice and make changes were necessary.
Julie McLarnon is a lecturer in childcare and education at North East Surrey College of Technology
MORE INFORMATION
- The Infed action research model is at: www.infed.org/images/illustrations/lewin_action_research.gif
- Prof Cathy Nutbrown Foundations for Quality - The independent review of early education and childcare qualifications, final report, www.education.gov.uk/publications/
