Name it and claim it: supporting early childhood teachers to recognise themselves as researchers

ABSTRACT

There are increasing demands for teachers to continue to improve the quality of education. This focus is evident in the Early Childhood Education and Care sector in Australia where the professionalisation agenda is tied to teacher professional learning. While the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL) has strengthened expectations on teachers to engage with research and become inquirers into their own practice, current early childhood documents that guide practice use non-descript terms without ascribing them to research or researching. We argue that greater opportunities are needed for early childhood teachers to be recognised as consumers and producers of research and validated as researchers of their own practice. Professional learning programs, such as the Supporting Oral Language Development (SOLD) Program outlined in this paper, provide the potential to acknowledge and build the research skills of early childhood teachers, thereby supporting their self-efficacy and confidence as researchers.

KEYWORDS:

• Teachers as researchers
• professional learning
• early childhood education

Introduction

Many countries across the world have an increased focus on continued professional development for teachers to ensure improvement in the quality of education provision (Cordingley 2008; “Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017”). A prominent phenomenon linked to this international objective is the demand for research-based education (Bergmark 2020). Engaging teachers in professional inquiry and research-informed teaching is considered a way forward for developing the professional capabilities required of ‘twenty-first Century teachers’ (Reeves and Drew 2013). A key message of the Strengthening a research-rich teaching profession for Australia report (White et al. 2018), a jointly funded investigation by three professional associations committed to education and educational research in Australia, notes the need to build teacher capacity to ‘not only read research more critically but also produce knowledge about their own practice’ (18). The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL) have strengthened expectations for teachers to engage with research and become inquirers into their own practice across four different career stages – graduate, proficient, accomplished, and lead teacher. For example, three of the seven professional standards within the three domains of professional knowledge, professional practice, and professional engagement mention ‘research’. These standards state that teachers are required to ‘demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research, structure teaching programs using research, lead processes to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching programs using research, lead initiatives … using effective research-based learning, and plan for professional learning by accessing and critiquing relevant research’ (AITSL 2011). Such examples speak to a culture of inquiry.

Similar to other OECD countries, a key policy agenda in Australia has become the promotion of early childhood teacher professionalisation that posits the professional learning of the workforce as a key factor in achieving this goal (Nolan and Molla 2020). Following major policy reforms, attention has focused on upgrading qualifications and offering professional learning opportunities to the Early Childhood Education and Care workforce (see Irvine and Price 2014; Nolan 2017; Sumsion et al. 2015; Whitington, Shore, and Thompson 2014). These professional learning opportunities aim to increase the quality of the workforce to support the achievement of positive outcomes for children (CoAG [Council of Australian Governments] 2009). However, such standards and policy discourses fail to support teachers in ways to engage in critical research, build research capacities, and to advocate for teacher autonomy in positioning themselves as researchers (Cloonan, Hutchison, and Paatsch 2019).

The aim of the current study was to explore how early childhood teachers actively engage in practice-orientated research to respond to the call for a ‘research-rich and self-improving’ teaching profession (White et al. 2018, 6) as reflected in the Australian teaching standards documents. Specifically, we wanted to provide opportunities through a professional learning program to support teachers to see themselves as producers of research related to their own practice that would encourage engagement in collective, critical reflection leading to informed decision-making. We saw this as contributing to teachers’ professionalism (Ellis and Castle 2010; Cantalini-Williams et al. 2015; DeLuca, Bolden, and Chan 2017). To address the aim of the study we developed a professional learning program that introduced and assisted early childhood teachers based across Victoria, Australia, to implement Action Research (AR) (Kemmis, McTaggart and Nixon 2014) projects on their own practice. The program – Supporting Oral Language Development (SOLD), focused on the practices for strengthening young children’s oral language development in pre-school settings. The questions that guided our research were:

1. What were the perceived benefits to the teacher participants in being supported to research their own practice in relation to enhancing young children’s oral language development?

2. In what ways were these teachers seeing themselves as researchers and engaging in the research process?

Overall, we were trying to determine how the teacher participants engaged in a program that supported them to research their own practice, and what this means for future professional development offerings. These findings add to the dearth of literature exploring the notion of teacher as researcher, identifying ways this can be strengthened.

Literature: engaging teachers as researchers

Leggett and Newman (2019) claim that practitioner research is an approach that has increased in usage ‘by and with teachers’ (138). In reviewing the literature related to the benefits of engaging teachers in research, they identify these benefits as learning, empowerment, and self-determination in professional direction. Other studies also point to the benefits of teachers researching their own practice including becoming a more reflective practitioner (Yang, Peh, and Ng 2021), trialling new ways of teaching (Bergmark 2020), pushing the boundaries of professional knowledge, pedagogy, and identities (Goldhaber 2007), and recognising the connections between theory and practice (Newman and Mowbray 2012). Leggett and Newman's (2019) study highlighted the ways in which the teacher participants made connections between research, knowledge, and professionalism, with research viewed as daily typical practice. For these participants, research enabled them to generate questions to challenge and dismantle current ways of thinking and practice and was used as a tool for ‘enabling change’ (144). A sense of professional identity began to emerge where reflection on daily practice assisted these participants to consider what encompassed a professional teaching-learning environment. However, Reeves and Drew (2013) contend that without support, teachers may view action research as a one-off experience, as teachers may find it difficult to innovate and develop further through this inquiry approach.

Researching one’s practice through action research involves teachers in a cycle of asking questions, gathering data, reflecting on this data to determine a course of action, and then implementing this new plan. Simply stated it involves reflecting, planning, acting, observing, and then reflecting to continue through a cycle of guided reflection (Dickens and Watkins 1999). Reflection is defined as a mindful process of looking back at one’s experiences and evaluating these to gain understanding about the learning and the learner (Dewey 1933), and has been a hallmark of teachers’ practice, where they are expected to engage in purposeful deliberations on their everyday work in classrooms. Teachers who regularly reflect on what they do and how they do it to improve their practice achieve better outcomes for their students (Siraj et al. 2008; Raban et al. 2007). Reflection has been positioned as an important learning process for teachers for many decades (Dewey 1933). The work of Schön (1983; 1987) points to the effectiveness of professionals if they use their previous experiences to reflect in and on their practice. Reflection is therefore viewed as a pathway to transform understandings that involves reconstruction and reconsideration of one’s experiences (Boud, Keogh and Walker 1985; Moon 1999), as it uncovers the ‘unthought [and unconscious] categories of habit’ (Adkins 2003, 25).

Action research is widely advocated as an approach that supports the professional learning of teachers as they reflect and build knowledge ‘in ways that inform professional learning and hence practice’ (Groundwater-Smith et al. 2013, 91). Cycles of action and reflection incorporate diagnosis, action, and deliberation (McNiff 2002), focusing on practical issues identified by the participant as needing to be changed. Action research can be seen as a meta-practice – ‘a practice that changes other practices’ (Kemmis 2009, 463). Engaging in research on one’s own practice, participants can alter how they work while at the same time gaining a deeper understanding of the factors that influence practice (Kemmis 2009). This engagement in research also supports teachers to think more critically about their own beliefs and approaches to their role (Vaughn et al. 2014).

Theoretical positioning

In this study we draw on Bourdieu’s (1990) theory of practice, where all practices are considered as generated by habitus, which is considered as the subjective element of practice. This theory is utilised to explore and illuminate the social processes involved in how teachers see their identity as a teacher. Put another way, this study sought to analyse practices so that the underlying structuring principles of the habitus are revealed. While habitus is not visible, it plays out in the effects it has on the practices and beliefs of people – in this study, the participating teachers. Habitus works in tandem with field as there is an unconscious relationship between the two (Bourdieu 2005). According to Bourdieu, field refers to the social space where interactions, transactions and events take place and requires interrogating to locate the issue under study (historically, contextually, and relationally). Field also relates to ‘the ways in which previous knowledge about the object under investigation has been generated, by whom, and whose interests were served by these knowledge-generation practices’ (Thomson 2012, 65). However, habitus and field cannot be separated from capital as these three thinking tools (Rawolle and Lingard 2013) are considered an ‘inter-dependent, co-constructed trio’ (Thomson 2012, 69). Forms of capital such as economic, cultural, social, and symbolic are advantaged within any given field. In this study, capital refers to symbolic capital which is considered as ‘the enactment of the principle of the field. It is the realisation in specific forms of power in general’ (Moore 2012, 102). To explore the social space where interactions and events occur (social processes), this study is situated within the specific historical, local, and relational context, where the influence of previous knowledge and understandings have been considered in relation to early childhood teachers as researchers.

Methodology

The SOLD program

The Supporting Oral Language Development (SOLD) is a research-informed, state-wide professional learning program. Encouraged in 2018 by the Victorian Department of Education and Training to develop the program, SOLD positions teachers as researchers by engaging them in components of AR. The research cycle aligns with the National Early Years Planning Cycle and links to the practices and procedures the teachers already undertake in their daily work. SOLD was designed to build early childhood teachers’ knowledge and understandings around oral language development to assist them to critically reflect on their current practice from an evidence-informed stance. The SOLD participants choose a case study child from their work setting as the focus of their research project. Teachers set goals (research questions), and actively collect and analyse evidence (data) to make informed judgements to guide practice such as planning, acting and observing, reflecting and revising planning. They are introduced to research skills such as data collection using video-based methodologies (Xu, Aranda, Widjaja and Clarke 2019), transcription creation, and data analysis techniques (Braun and Clarke 2013). Early childhood teachers who participate in the SOLD program focus on the language skills of the children they teach and then utilise evidence of child progress to plan for the next cycle of research. Connections are made to the related research literature and models of data collection and analysis. The teacher participants engage in the program as researchers of their own practice and are accountable for the various research processes that make up the action research cycle individually and collectively.

The SOLD program comprises of a series of four, three-hour Professional Learning Sessions (PLS). Prior to the Covid 19 pandemic these PLS were presented face-to-face, then moved to online during lock-down. Participation involves deepening individual and collective knowledge and understandings of oral language in young children; opportunities for teachers to reflect on aspects of their own practice relating to young children’s oral language learning; observing and analysing young children’s language skills; linking to learning frameworks; and being introduced to an action research model to support further research on their own practice. Teachers undertake research on their own practice in their own settings between each of the four PLS by collecting and analysing data, defining a research question to focus the investigation, planning and implementing an intervention, evaluating the intervention through data analysis and deliberation, and replanning the next cycle of the research process. The SOLD program positions professional learning as a social practice (Nolan and Molla 2018) and is built from the characteristics identified as critical to quality professional development (Cherrington and Thornton 2013, 120).

Research design

This study adopted a qualitative approach, drawing on interpretivist theory (O’Donoghue 2007) to facilitate the ‘understanding of the subjective world of human experience’. Specifically, the study concentrated on how the world is interpreted by those involved in the research. Interpretivism is characterised by the endeavour to ‘get inside the person and to understand from within’ (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2018, 17). The data that informs this paper was drawn from the 2019 and 2020 cohorts of teachers located across Victoria, Australia who undertook the SOLD program (N = 112) working in rural, regional, and metropolitan early childhood services. The data was collected from end-of-program participant evaluations and individual participant semi-structured interviews post-program. The end-of-program evaluations consisted of a survey accessed either online or by hard copy that collected demographic information and participants’ reflections about the most and least valuable aspects of the program, the time commitment, expectations, and changes in understandings and practice in relation to young children’s oral language learning. The survey also explored whether participation in the SOLD program had changed perceptions of themselves as professionals in the early childhood sector. Questions were mainly open-ended to capture individual opinions with a few questions with drop-down response choices. Approximately, one third of participants volunteered to participate in a 40 min interview that took place at a time suitable for them. The interview questions concentrated on the perceived benefits of engaging with the program, any incongruity to already acquired knowledge and/or practice, the extent to which SOLD supported their critical reflection on practice, and whether SOLD assisted participants to view themselves as researchers of their own practice.

A qualitative thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2013) was conducted on the data. This analysis searched for themes and patterns of meaning in the words, phrases, and sentences that participants wrote or spoke. This method of analysis enables the researcher to capture the complexity and messiness of relationships that occur in the real world (Attride-Stirling 2001). Braun and Clarke’s (2013) seven steps of analysis were followed including: transcription, reading and familiarisation, coding, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and finalising the analysis.

Ethical clearance was applied for and approved by both Deakin University where the researchers were employed and the state-based Department of Education. Participants of the SOLD program were invited to take part in the research and agreed by signing an informed consent form. The name of participants and other identifying information were subsequently removed from the dataset to protect the identity of the participants. Pseudonyms have been used to replace teachers’ names and workplaces.

Findings

This section reports the findings relating to Research Questions 1 and 2.

Research Question 1: What are the perceived benefits to the teacher participants in being supported to research their own practice in relation to enhancing young children’s oral language development?

Three themes were identified in the data related to perceived benefits to the teachers: (1) knowledge building; (2) raising confidence when connecting with allied-health professionals; and (3) strengthening reflections on practice.

Knowledge building

Teacher comments unanimously reported how their understandings about language had deepened as a result of participating in the SOLD program. The first session of the SOLD program focused almost exclusively on revising and extending teachers’ current understandings of oral language. The session content covered the functions of language, and expressive and receptive forms of language. The three major components of language were explored – Form, Content and Use – across the five sub-systems – syntax, morphology, phonology, pragmatics, and semantics (Bloom and Lahey 1978; Owens 2015). Research literature relating to this content was also introduced.

A number of participants commented that this first session of the SOLD program was ‘overwhelming’, ‘a lot to take in’, ‘intense’, and ‘a bit full-on’ due to the amount of information covered. However, revisiting and implementing this content during SOLD sessions 2, 3 and 4 in addition to reflective activities between each of the sessions, supported the teachers to consolidate and build their knowledge as they began to apply their learning to their practice. For example, the teachers began to analyse video excerpts of their own practice to identify the different subsystems of language that the children were developing. Throughout the four professional learning sessions, teachers constantly reflected on their new knowledge and discussed their deepening understandings and reported back to the rest of the group. In the latter SOLD sessions, attention focused on pedagogy and possible strategies that teachers could employ to support oral language development for students in their settings. For example, there was a strong emphasis on understanding the importance of developing children’s social use of language (pragmatics) whereby teachers were encouraged to engage in conversations with the children to develop the more subtle cues of conversation. At the same time, teachers were also encouraged to continue to support children’s vocabulary (semantics), as well as developing complex sentence structures (syntax and morphology) and articulation (phonology).

Reflecting on their participation in the SOLD program, almost all participants felt more informed in identifying and responding to the language learning of the children they taught. Many articulated that they had developed ways to describe the specific areas of language they were observing, assessing, and supporting in the children. Some representative comments were:

Yeah, I think I was able to now label what I am supporting or what I am observing. I think I was doing it … but then without knowing I was doing it, whereas now I know that yep, this is what I’m doing.

Further enhanced my knowledge and allowing me to reflect on my own questioning and conversation pattern that I have with students.

Many teachers spoke of feeling more knowledgeable about language, which also related to increasing their level of confidence. For these teachers either having more knowledge on the topic or having their existing knowledge confirmed supported them to feel more self-assured in their practice. Typical teacher responses included,

It has reaffirmed that I am on the right track even after so many years of teaching.

I am now better equipped to identify and respond to language development issues and feel much more confident that I can do so effectively.

I feel a lot more professionally reassured and confident to implement and express my knowledge around the subject, to families and other professionals.

Raising confidence when connecting with allied-health professionals

For some of the teachers there was an underlying sense that after completing the SOLD program they now had the professional language to talk to other professionals. On all occasions when this sentiment was noted it related to allied-health professionals such as speech pathologists and medical practitioners. As two teachers articulated:

We did learn about all the sort of technical sort of things – we probably knew – we know about language, but we didn’t know about the technical terms so in that respect, it was good to know about that so that we had conversations with speech therapists.

Giving us the tools and equipment to be able to talk to other professionals.

When asked whether they had changed as a teacher because of undertaking the SOLD program, one teacher responded as follows:

I don’t know that it’s changed a lot. Maybe, when speaking to other professionals, so pediatrician or if I’m wanting to refer to a speech pathologist, then I know I’ve got the background knowledge to be able to say ‘Well this is what I think’ and these are my examples of …, so that type of language has changed.

This excerpt highlights the increase in this teacher’s confidence as they can participate as a more knowledgeable professional in their interactions with other professionals from different disciplines. Similarly, another participant noted that the SOLD program had supported them to understand the language used in reports compiled by other professionals, particularly around the specific sub-systems of language described in these reports as measured by formal standardised assessments.

For one teacher increasing their knowledge of oral language development created the opportunity to connect with the local speech pathologist and delve deeper into why some children experience specific challenges with oral language development. The following excerpt illustrates how one teacher had experienced a purposeful exchange with another professional which led to further investigative research.

It [SOLD program] probably opened a whole new area for me as far as language development, understanding the grassroots of how children learn to speak. Like I know the basics … but looking for those deeper problems of why children, also the parts of the language the children are not using as well. So I’ve been able to talk with a local speech therapist and even study that a little bit further.

Strengthening reflections on practice

The SOLD program presented research relating to the importance of fostering children’s oral language development and the link to teacher pedagogy in supporting these skills. Teacher responses from the survey and interviews showed that most teachers valued the tools as useful in assisting them to reflect on their practice. For example, during the third PLS participants were introduced to the Patterns of Teacher Talk and Children’s Responses Framework for observing and analysing teacher talk behaviours and child talk responses (Paatsch, Scull, and Nolan 2019). For all cohorts the immediate applicability of how this framework could support them to reflect on their own use of talk within the classroom became evident, and they were eager to use the framework to analyse their own case study video data.

Overwhelmingly, teacher participants noted how their reflections on young children’s oral language development had become more informed and specific. The teachers noted that their subsequent practice became more intentional due to applying the content knowledge from the SOLD program with their own case studies. One early childhood service leader commented ‘It [practice] has certainly changed in the way that teachers are more reflective of the experience that not only we’re providing but how we’re potentially interacting around those experiences.’ Similarly, teachers also commented that the most valuable aspect of participating in the program (included below) was highlighting the importance of reflecting and how the program had strengthened this:

Helping me to really think about children’s language development and how I can support this. Made me think more about my questions of children. Are they open-ended questions? Do I know the answer? How to extend on children’s language development.

I also found the self-assessment of my own use of language toward the children very useful and it made me think a lot about what I say and how I say these things to achieve the desired outcome. I am now often thinking about the things I have said to a child after the fact when before I may not have given it another thought.

Teacher responses showed that the specifically created tools for the SOLD program guided deeper teacher reflections that led to a greater awareness of the different aspects of language development. These tools were designed to complement assessment processes espoused in government documents that guide practice, as well as making immediate connections to practice.

Research Question 2: In what ways are these teachers seeing themselves as researchers and engaging in the research process?

By engaging in research (through their individual case studies) and with research (SOLD PLS and associated resources) teachers extended their knowledge relating to the theory and practice of supporting young children’s oral language. There was evidence of many teachers using research-related terms as they initiated research in the form of AR in their classrooms such as: ‘learning to analyse in depth’, ‘case studies – talking about them and analysing them further’, ‘analysing our own talk’, ‘sampling’, ‘getting good samples and analysing the data’, ‘We’re going to do that sampling as a regular thing within our service now.’ Teachers also showed understandings of the action research cycle, as reflected in the SOLD program. As one teacher explained:

I have taken data, analysed, set goals, and designed experiences to meet the needs of the child in my setting. I have also used photography to retell our experiences and reinforce semantics, syntax, and morphology.

Teachers were invited to outline the valuable aspects of the program or what they gained from participating in the SOLD program through the end-of-program survey. Results showed that most participants commented on how useful it was to undertake a case study and the processes associated with conducting the research cycle. The following comments attest to the ways in which teachers found this process useful:

I also found it quite interesting to analyse my own style of communication and thought that was a really useful tool I will take away from the training.

Taking what we had learnt and applying it to our own case study and having time in the sessions to work on our own case study.

Analysing the videos through discussion and reflecting.

One participant summarised the impact of the SOLD program on her opportunity to reflect on her own identity as a professional who engages with research saying: ‘I feel much more knowledgeable. I have even thought of a research project I would like to undertake in a Masters [degree qualification]!’ For this teacher there was a clear pathway forward through engaging in further research. However, this was the only teacher to make a comment about future study involving research.

Engaging with research as consumers and producers, in this case to support understandings of the components of language, even if overwhelming for some at the beginning of the program, built their confidence in their practice context, and provided them with evidence-informed ways to strengthen their practice. However, there was greater emphasis placed on reflecting on aspects of practice than a wholistic view of the cyclical research process and seeing themselves as researchers.

Discussion

Findings from this study highlight how, in general, early childhood teachers are not viewing themselves as researchers despite that this is the work they are engaging with, to some extent, every day in their professional lives. Teachers constantly deliberate on their practice and modify their approaches and programs to support children’s learning and development. During their time participating in the SOLD program, the teachers began to use some research terms incidentally in relation to what they had engaged with or implemented in their programming. They also engaged with already produced research on the topic. However, they were reluctant to position what they were doing as research or recognise themselves as researchers. Reasons for this reluctance could be that the concept of teachers as researchers is not a common discourse in early childhood policy documents that guide practice. For example, terms such as ‘reflection’, ‘assessment’, ‘inquiry’, and ‘evidence’ are evident in the Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia [EYLF] (DEEWR 2009) and the National Quality Standard (ACECQA 2018) but are not ascribed to research or researching. This lack of explicit mentioning of teachers as researchers does not situate research as an important part of a teacher’s identity resulting in a lack of confidence when engaging in research processes. Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) theorisation of teacher knowledge is useful to consider here as they propose three conceptions of teacher learning that lead to different ways of thinking about improvement of teacher education, professional development, school and curricular change, and assessing teachers throughout their careers. These conceptualisations prompt thinking about how knowledge is produced, how it is utilised, and how teachers are positioned within this knowledge generation. Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s concepts of learning are:

1. knowledge-for-practice

2. knowledge-in-practice

3. knowledge-of-practice

(*emphasise in original)

‘Knowledge-for-practice’ is considered as knowledge or theory produced by others (such as university-based researchers) for teachers to utilise to improve their practice. Participants in our study drew a distinction between ‘clinical research’ and research that is relevant for teachers. The following data excerpt highlights the sentiment that research is something that other disciplines engage in, such as allied health, but not necessarily by teachers in educational settings. ‘There isn’t a lot of research in oral language in primary school years. I’m sure that speech pathologists would have it.’ This quotation shows signs of some level of engagement with research literature, however, positions the production of research as a non-teacher activity.

‘Knowledge-in-practice’ relates to practical knowledge teachers use to probe, learn, and deepen what is embedded in their practice through experience and reflective practice. There is an expectation within the current guiding Australian early childhood documents that early childhood teachers’ practice is underpinned by their deliberations. For example, the EYLF lists ‘ongoing learning and reflective practice’ as one of the five principles that underpin quality practice (DEEWR 2009). Reflecting in action, reflecting on action (Schon 1987), and reflecting for action (Killion and Todnem 1991) enables the reframing of issues and situations, and a more nuanced understanding of practice to emerge. Critical reflection assists educators to consider what has shaped who they are as educators so current omissions and the under-valuing of their own experiences, and the experiences of others can build their capabilities to deliver quality practice as determined by policy expectations (Nolan and Lamb 2019). Through critical reflection educators are expected to identify children who could benefit from additional support in their learning, provide that support, and assist families to access specialist services if required (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR] 2009).

What was less obvious to the participants in this study was that the action research process they implemented during the professional learning program was a research process. Typically, the teachers directly aligned this with reflection which was seen as part of their daily work. Habitus plays out here as a ‘structured and structuring structure’ (Kemmis, McTaggart and Nixon 2014, 170). Specifically, to understand practice, one must uncover the underlying structuring principles of the habitus (Grenfell 2012). This presents as a system of dispositions, which produce perceptions, appreciations, and practices (Bourdieu 1990), with habitus conferring value on some things but not on others. Being a reflective practitioner is something that is valued and expected within the Early Childhood Education sector so here we see the effects of habitus playing out in certain practices and beliefs (Grenfell 2012). Habitus has also been described as an individual’s ‘feel for the game’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Bräuchler and Postill 2010) and can become a deeply ingrained ‘doxa’; ‘beliefs or notions and presuppositions that are not up for negotiation’ (Bräuchler and Postill 2010, 9). Considering oneself a teacher-researcher is not a commonly held belief in the field and as such is not often part of the teachers doxa.

‘Knowledge-of-practice’ is about local knowledge gained through inquiry that teachers use to determine what is most suitable for their own teaching context. This knowledge is not considered as ‘universal knowledge that divides formal knowledge … from practical knowledge’ (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 250). Rather it is knowledge teachers require to teach well that is generated when they intentionally research their own practice and theorise their work in relation to social, cultural, and political issues. Such practice is not formally recognised as part of the culture of the Early Childhood sector and perhaps does not fit comfortably with teachers’ perceptions around what an early childhood teacher is and does. As has been noted elsewhere (Fleer 2015; Langford 2010) teacher identities may change due to engagement in novel or new pedagogical practices as they navigate their way through their established beliefs. The teachers in this study were challenged to re-interpret their roles with other teachers and themselves, as they engaged as consumers and producers of research. While teachers’ roles are revealed in the stances they adopt through their career (Wenger 1998; Woods and Jeffrey 2002), these identities are not set in stone but rather positioned as in a state of evolution (Lave 1993) influenced by how they negotiate their membership in ‘social communities’ (Wenger 1998, 145).

The SOLD program was specifically designed to position teachers as researchers, providing opportunities for them to not only research their own practice in a systematic way through AR, but also to engage with broader issues that impact teachers practice through connections with the research literature and in conversations with other teachers. From the data that has been presented in this paper, this research process seemed to instil confidence in many of the teacher participants in relation to how they understand their practice in a more evidence-informed way.

Teacher research engagement provides ‘a productive interface’ to bridge the gap between research and practice (Borg 2013, 230), however, there needs to be strong connections linking research to teacher practice for teachers to engage and see the relevance (Nolan and Molla 2020). In Australia, the Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2011) provide an opportunity to make this connection with teacher quality mandated to the implementation of professional standards as a way to regulate the profession (Gannon 2012). While this speaks to a performativity agenda (Rizvi and Lingard 2010; Stronach 2010) engagement is important, however these standards are rarely considered relevant to the Early Childhood sector. In 2018, the AITSL conducted an extensive review that included stakeholder consultation and submissions and an online survey. The outcomes from this review included the recommendation that all early childhood teachers in Australia be required to register under a unified national system to ensure quality early childhood teaching, leading to stronger student outcomes (AITSL 2011). However, while most early childhood teachers who completed the survey reported that teacher registration was worthwhile (75%), more recent research has shown that some early childhood teachers reject the need for teacher standards and registration (Fenech and King 2022; Fenech and Watt 2022). Specifically, insights from three early childhood teachers in the study by Fenech and King (2022) showed that these teachers did not see the need for registration nor that it improved their practice. In contrast, they believed that quality improvement was based on their own intrinsic motivations and their undertaking of ongoing professional development (73). These findings suggest further research is warranted to explore how early childhood teachers are, or are not, engaging with standards that have been increasingly adopted as a policy mechanism to regulate services to improve quality and children’s outcomes in early childhood education (Fenech and Watt 2022).

Conclusion

This paper explored how early childhood teachers actively engaged in practice-orientated research to add to the literature calling for a ‘research-rich and self-improving’ teaching profession (White et al. 2018, 6). This paper argues that more opportunities for early childhood teachers to be recognised and supported as consumers and producers of research and validated as researchers of their own practice are needed. If we heed the call to support teachers to be ‘creators as well as consumers of knowledge about educational practice’ (Mockler and Groundwater-Smith 2017, 215), then there needs to be opportunities such as within professional development programs for teachers to engage in ‘Knowledge-of-practice’ processes (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999). Professional learning programs should build the research skills of early childhood teachers thereby supporting their self-efficacy as researchers, and guiding documents need to not only use the language of research but position teachers as researchers. The SOLD program is one example of supporting teachers to engage with and in research to enable them to feel more confident to name and claim themselves as researchers. Building the research capacity of teachers could increase the power and professional standing of teachers in ways that would give them greater confidence in making linkages between classroom practices, policies, and research.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the early childhood teachers and educators who willingly took part in the research aspect of the Supporting Oral Language Development (SOLD) professional development program.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).