Over the past decade, great strides have been taken in making the education sector more research-informed. Correlational data suggests that using research aspart of training is related to higher teacher and school performance, and that evidence-informed practice can lead to improvements in pedagogy and confidence (Brown, 2016). In the early years sector too, settings are increasingly keen to have an evidence base which supports their approach and to ensure that staff have a solid understanding of child development. The Government has invested a significant amount in research-informed practice, including funding the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and the Early Years Stronger Practice Hubs programme.
Over the past eight months, our regular feature on research-informed practice in the EYFS has explored approaches at seven different settings across the UK. Although each setting was unique, common themes and underpinning debates emerged across the series:
- Is it best to use existing robust data, or generate your own findings that are bespoke to your setting?
- What does being research-informed really mean?
- How can the work of these seven inspirational settings shift thinking and practice across the sector as a whole?
WHAT SORT OF DATA?
Finding evidence which is really robust can be a challenge. In our article on Sheringham Nursery School, Julian Grenier, then head teacher, criticised the sector for too often’ adopting ‘programmes or approaches that haven't been thoroughly tested’. He warned against observer bias when determining whether an approach has worked or not. In a recent blog, he described the importance of research synthesis and metanalyses. This involves collating the results from multiple studies in order to look at overall effects. He also explained the advantages of using randomised controlled trials(RCTs), which help researchers to disentangle the impact of a specific intervention or approach.
However, RCTs are not without criticism. Around half of 82 EEF RCTs produced results that are inconclusive, a Loughborough University study found. Some feel they are a top-down approach that is focused solely on attainment and not the other more intangible benefits of education. Qualitative research can't evidence cause and effect, but it can be much more easily tailored to local circumstances. Pen Green is an advocate, with nursery practitioners carrying out small-scale qualitative research (with support from researchers at their training base), which links directly to specific needs and context. Felicity Dewsbery, deputy head of Pen Green, said, ‘When you're dealing with human interactions and relationships, to do an RCT isn't necessarily goingto give a [true] outcome. This type of research does generate practice-based evidence and I think it's really important to advocate that.’
Going further, Terry Wrigley, of the University of Edinburgh, wrote of the danger of neglecting practitioners’ experience, students’ needs and social context, adding, ‘We are facing a serious attempt to replace a rich array of research by the “gold standard” of randomised controlled trials and their statistical synthesis, culminating in the EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit’.
Many of the nurseries we featured worked alongside external organisations to take part in existing research projects. For example, Everton nursery are engaged in a creativity project with the Arts Council, while Sheffield Hallam worked with Save the Children to research the impact of early access to two-year old provision. At Stirling University, the Psychology Kindergarten is a research lab and nursery combined, where psychology students carry out studies of child development and academics lead cutting-edge funded research. Sheringham is part of the East London Research School, part of the Research Schools Network, which is funded by the EEF.
So which type of approach and research methodology is best? Well, it depends on what you want to use the research for. As Dr Grenier concludes in his blog, RCTs are not always appropriate. The EEF says in turn, ‘We continually emphasise that the toolkit can only ever be a support to professional judgement, never a substitute for it.’
The table below summarises a range of approaches used across the seven settings from this series and some of their pros and cons. If a setting has money to invest in a new scheme for teaching early phonics, for example, in order to make best use of that investment, it would be prudent to look at existing high-quality research studies about which types of phonics schemes and resources have been shown to be most effective. Something like an RCT, in this instance, will be much more reliable than asking the opinion of one or two colleagues in other settings or trying a different scheme with each class to see who performs best, as the classes and teachers may differ from each other in lots of other ways that will affect outcomes. If, however, there are a small number of children who are really struggling to settle in the mornings, and practitioners want to use research to better understand this issue and support them, they are much more likely to find a solution by using existing research theory about settling and attachment, but also carrying out their own qualitative research in the form of observations and discussions, before trialling one or two approaches and informally monitoring their effects. This is because such issues may be very individual and context dependent. An RCT about effective settling strategies can't deal with the complexities of individual cases and, thus, probably doesn't even exist.
Other nurseries in the series have used practitioner-expertise; for example, Kirktonholme Childcare formed a partnership with early years consultant Alice Sharp and together they used six core strengths, including attachment and attunement, as a theoretical framework for a new nursery. Much of their work is based on Dr Bruce Perry's research on adverse childhood experiences. In our article, Sharp spoke about the importance of using contemporary research which reflects the modern challenges children face, rather than relying solely on the pioneering theorists of the past.
WHICH APPROACH TO USE?
MOVING THE SECTOR FORWARDS
Training
Having skilled practitioners is key to implementing and adapting any research programme, and improving the training and qualifications of the workforce was a key aim across many of the nurseries in this series. To make a tangible impact, many nursery leaders want practitioners who work face to face with children to have a good understanding of child development and theory, not just the management team. At Pen Green, most of the nursery staff have been trained ‘in-house’ at its Research, Development and Training base.
Others, such as Alice Sharp, believe that everyone reaching degree level should not be the priority and instead staff need access to training which provides a good understanding of play and child development and translates theory into practice at a level that is accessible for everyone.
At Sheringham nursery, they have used the EEF report on effective professional development to think about how best to develop nursery practitioners. Their approach is to base CPD on exploring and critiquing high-quality research evidence and ensuring that programmes are sustained, so there is time to put research evidence into practice in their own context and practise new techniques.
At Meadows, being run by Sheffield Hallam University allows both students and researchers to make links with nursery staff. This has led to a range of research projects, which practitioners have helped to co-design. At Everton nursery, they provide backfill to ensure staff can be released to take part in research projects and attend related CPD sessions.
It is worth noting that many of the nurseries interviewed had a children's or family centre attached to them and an integrated care approach. It seems likely that broader family support will continue to be a core part of the EYFS, and that how best to support families and offer early intervention is a worthy focus for future research. This is reflected in initiatives such as the Royal Foundation's Centre for Early Childhood.
DISSEMINATION
Despite the numerous challenges faced by the settings we featured, what shone through was a genuine passion, and a desire for change.
Most of the settings are part of hubs or networks which support other settings locally. Much of their trailblazing work has also been shared freely online. Sheffield Hallam runs a free online CPD network which provides a range of training and has produced guidance and resources on how to support children's communication, while Barnet Early Years Alliance made its OP&L assessment system free for anyone to use. Pen Green shares research papers and presentations that staff have produced online (see Further information).
Such generosity is characteristic of a sector that wants to improve outcomes for all children and raise the profile of the early years and those who work within it. Engaging with research and sharing best practice has been a way for settings to showcase staff's deep learning and commitment and demonstrate that nurseries are so much more than childcare, providing vital early education and support with care, expertise and professionalism, which often goes unacknowledged.
key terminology
Research methodology – The practical methods used to collect information during research. Examples of research methodology could include using observations, running experiments and distributing surveys.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – A specific type of research study where some individuals are ‘given’ an intervention, treatment or programme while others are not. Those receiving the intervention are randomly selected from the wider group. Those not receiving the intervention act as a control group (for comparison).
Quantitative research – Collecting and analysing numerical data for statistical analysis, with the aim of making conclusions and generalisations about wider populations.
Qualitative research – Collecting and analysing other data (such as video footage, interviews and surveys) to understand concepts, issues or experiences in greater depth.
FURTHER INFORMATION
All the articles in this series are at https://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/category/management-guides/research-nurseries.
http://juliangrenier.blogspot.com/2023/03/time-to-choose-do-we-want-evidence.html
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/why-what-works-doesn-t-in-education-research-cdec3de9ac49
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/most-eef-trials-dont-tell-us-anything-say-researchers/
https://centreforearlychildhood.org/report/
https://foundationyears.org.uk
https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/evidence-and-the-eef-toolkit-reliable-science-or-a-blunt-set-of-tools
https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/research/education/early-years
