1 / 38

Mapping and Appraisal of Scandinavian Research in Early Childhood Institutions: 2006/2007

This project aims to provide research-based knowledge for future policy development in early childhood education institutions. It involves systematic mapping and appraisal of Scandinavian research projects and results, with a focus on play, learning and care curricula, vulnerability and social inequality, professionals and teachers, parents and institutions, implementation of legislation and curricula, and health.

gertrudeanderson
Download Presentation

Mapping and Appraisal of Scandinavian Research in Early Childhood Institutions: 2006/2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mapping and appraisal of Scandinavian research in early childhood institutions in 2006/2007 Contribution to the 19TH EECERA ANNUAL CONFERENCE Strasbourg, France 26th- 29th August 2009 Thomas Moser, Bente Jensen & Inge Johansson Katrin Hjort, Sven Erik Nordenbo, Niels Ploug & Michael Søgaard Larsen

  2. Background and purpose of the project Method and procedure Selected results Conclusions and future perspectives PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

  3. Background and purpose of the project Method and procedure Selected results Future perspectives PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

  4. BACKGROUND Founding: The Danish Evaluation Institute Conducted by: Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research The Danish School of Education University of Aarhus, Copenhagen in 2007-2008

  5. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT • Research based knowledge for future (Danish) policy development (EVA) • Lack of knowledge: Systematic mapping and appraisal of Scandinavian research projects and -results in early childhood education institutions is demanded • Establish a free accessible research database • Make Scandinavian research accessible for non Scandinavian researchers, practitioners, policy providers and public (English language) • In general Practice -, research – and policy development

  6. THE PROCESS IN GENERAL Searching literature Implications for pratice, policy and research ”Qualifying” the hits Re-description Description of main themes/topics Systematical mapping*) characterizing main tendencies *) Following the EPPI-Centre data extraction and coding tool for education studies Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI) Centre, Institute of Education, London University

  7. RESEARCHER GROUP • Professor Sven Erik Nordenbo, Danish School of Education • Professor Katrin Hjort, University of Southern Denmark • Senior lecturer Bente Jensen, Danish School of Education • Professor Inge Johansson, University of Stockholm, Sweden • Professor Jan Kampmann, Roskilde University, Denmark (2006) • Senior lecturer Michael Søgaard Larsen, Danish School of Education • Professor Thomas Moser, Vestfold University College, Norway • Research Director Niels Ploug, Statistics Denmark

  8. SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES 19 million inhabitants Approx. 90 % of the 1-5/6 years old are enrolled in ECE-institutions Scandi-navian: 9,0 mill. 4,6 mill. 5,5 mill. Nordic:

  9. Background and purpose of the project Method and procedure Selected main findings Conclusions and future perspectives PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

  10. PROCEDURE SEARCH IN DATABASE RESSOURCE HITSDanish pedagogical base 141Researchdatabase (Denmark, betaversion) 22NORBOK 69Bibsys Forskdok (Norway) 394Libris (Sweden, betaversion) 238Forskning.se (Sweden) 2www.skolporten.com (Sweden) 7Hand search of Scand. Journal of Educational Research 0ERIC 3References from Review Group 2References from other researchers 7

  11. PROCEDURESEARCHING AND IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS Search hits 1114 references identified 64 doublets identified 1095 unique references identified Reference doublets Reference screening Screening of titles and abstracts 879 references excluded Criteria: wrong institution or document type 1st phase Included documents 171 documents included Not provided documents 1 document Provided documents 170 documents Full texts screening Screening på baggrund af dokumentets tekst 64 documents excluded Criteria: wrong institution or document type 2nd phase Included documents 106 documents included 2006: n=52; 2007:5 n=54;

  12. PROCEDURE MAPPING AND APPRAISAL Re-description of 106 studies Description of six specific themes/topics Systematical mapping*) characterizing main tendencies of 106 studies 52 Swedish 27 Danish 27 Norwegian Implications for pratice, policy and research

  13. Background and purpose of the project Method and procedure Selected results Purpose, research design and –methods Specific themes and issues Conclusions and future perspectives PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

  14. FOUR PUBLICATIONS SO FARhttp://www.dpu.dk; http://www.eva.dk

  15. RESULTS Purpose, research design and –methodsN=106 scientific publications2006: n=522007: n=54

  16. Main topics or focus areas

  17. RESEARCH ISSUES AND TOPICS – DIDACTIC PERSPECTIVE

  18. THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH IN THE STUDIES

  19. RESEARCH APPROACHES

  20. SAMPLES - MAIN FOCUS ON ... *Only three studies 2006 and nine 2007 address exclusively children

  21. The pre-school institutionS in a social perspective

  22. RESULTS SIX SPECIFIC THEMES AND TOPICS

  23. SIX SPECIFIC THEMES AND TOPICS (2006/2007) • Play, learning and care- curricula: 44 studies (26/18) • Vulnerability, social inequality, in-/exclusion in institutions: 16 studies (9/7) • Professionals, teachers: 79 studies (39/40) • Parents and institutions: 19 studies (11/8) • Implementation of legislation and curricula: 6 studies (2/4) • Health: 4 studies (1/3)

  24. Research of Vulnerability, Social Inequality, Inclusion/exclusion Questions to be reviewed in the studies: • Who are the socially endangered children, or better how is the issue of diversity defined? • Can the results from the studies bring us further in order to adress new ways to handle diversity in the ECE in the Nordic contries • What are the main conclusion in a research-perspective?

  25. Vulnerability, social inequality, inclusion exclusion: 16 Studies (in 2006 and 2007) Three categories of studies have been identified both years: • Socially endangered children are seen as a societal problem • Socially endangered children are seen in an individualized and psychological perspective and • Studies on in/exclusion

  26. SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE SEEN AS A SOCIETAL PROBLEM/2006 • A representative study of 2700 Danish pre-school teachers showed a lack of knowledge about how Danish day care centres can improve socially endangered children’s life chances (Jensen, 2006) • Other Nordic studies confirm that working with at-risk children requires certain professional qualifications that are not always present (Björk-Willén, 2006; Lunneblad, 2006) • If the pre-school teachers do not feel competent to handle endangered children, then pragmatic solutions may be chosen, the problem may even be silenced and discrimination may occur instead of an adequate pedagogical strategy (Lunneblad, 2006)

  27. SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE SEEN AS A SOCIETAL PROBLEM/2007 • A Swedish study (Bartholdsson, 2007) showed by an ethnography approach how socialisation takes place, i.e how ‘normality’ is learned. Normality is a complex phenoma and it’s difficult for children to learn to balance the various relationships they meet • A Danish repræsentative study (N=2722 teachers(1000 institutions) demonstrate, that 1) the institutions did not work systematically and focused adressing social inequality 2) The professionals did not believe in longterm-effects of their work with vulnerable children and 3) there was a lack of knowledge, time and ressources to improve the current efforts and work with intervention (Jensen, 2007) • No studies were found in 2007 adressing ethnicity as a specific theme in the inequality discussion (Nordenbo et al. 2009, 36)

  28. SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE SEEN IN AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE/2006 • An interventions supporting at-risk children’s chances for participating in communities of learning are successful if there is a focus on both children’s actions, their thought and language (Wetso, 2006) • In a learning perspective outdoor activities seem to be more inclusive than others for children up to 4 years of age. Socially endangered children (individual disabilities) are accepted by the other children despite their physical difficulties and special needs (Brodin, 2006)

  29. SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN ARE SEEN IN AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE/2007 • A swedish critical study of effects of an intervention on children with extensive behavioural problems os related to childrens social relationships with teachers. The authors suggest that intervention ougth to be directed to creating positive and supportive relationships between the teacher and the child instead of submitting the child alone to a therapeutic regime (Drugli et al, 2007) • A danish study – a research-based evaluation of rehabilitation and training course for children with autism – Apa (Applied Behaviour Analysis concluded that APA as practised in the intervention does not improve the children’s development in the chosen area more that the ordinary programmes on offer for children with autism (Høgsbro, 2007)

  30. STUDIES ON IN- AND EXCLUSION/2006 • A study shows that ‘bullying’ takes place from very early on in children’s lives and that it is an expression of power exertion among small children (Helgesen, 2006) • In a discourse analytical study it could be shown that the ‘discourse on deviation’ in itself is at risk of becoming an exclusion mechanism (Lutz, 2006). • Researchers suggest two scenarios aiming at settling with the deviation paradigm: 1) redefining diagnosis techniques and/or 2) bringing an end to giving extra resources to socially endangered children and instead use the resources on improving the general day care conditions.

  31. STUDIES ON IN- AND EXCLUSION/2007 • A study using a survey and an observation methods to focus strongly on exclusion mechanisms. The results showed that most children (89% of N=353) achieve a sense of belonging or other types of social relationships (friendliness, coexistence, friendship) – but the main point with regard to vulnerability is that 50 children, 14 % of the total, do not experience the feeling of belonging. The author’s conclusion is that preschool has not succeeded as reguired of the Swedish Legislation (1998) in creating an environment in which all children are included and have the sense of belonging (Jonsdottir, 2007) • Another study (Löfdahl & Hägglund, 2007) found that social differences brought into the preschool institutions by children themselves as a result of differences in conditions at home being maintained or even strengthened the differences witt the resulting risk of them being handed on – and again - despite the fact that legislation requires them to improve the opportunities for all children

  32. Research of Vulnerability, Social Inequality, Inclusion/exclusion The Review-questions were: • Who are the socially endangered children, or better how is the issue of diversity defined? • Can the results from the studies bring us further in order to adress new ways to handle diversity in the ECE in the Nordic contries • What are the main conclusion in a research-perspective?

  33. MAIN CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING RESEARCH OF SOCIALLY ENDANGERED CHILDREN • A broad variation of concepts and perspectives • BUT On one hand, the Nordic ECE-systems (Legislations and the holistic, democratic approach) seem to provide unique opportunities for supporting all children through learning AND care. • On the other hand, there is a risk of maintaining or even strengthening the reproduction of socio-cultural differences. • More research is needed: about interventions based on ECE adressing the question about the effects of different educational approaches, taking theories of organisational learning ínto account and a comparative perspective • See for example the Danish intervention study (ASP project), as presented in the paper “A Nordic approach to ECE systems and social inequality - a Danish trial” (Jensen, 2009a, b).

  34. Background and purpose of the project Method and procedure Selected results Conclusions and future perspectives PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

  35. MAIN CONCLUSIONSOF THE 2006 & 2007 MAPPING • Ethnography and case oriented studies focused on micro-processes, learning and professional work are predominating. • Little focus on political, social cultural and economical frames and their implications for the practical work. • Surprisingly little focus on children. • Inquiries aiming at the family’s social background, economical situation and its implications for the work in preschool institutions are rather rare. • The caring dimension of the pedagogical work is only examined in a few studies (few studies of the youngest children). • Comparative studies are missing. • The researchers’ craftsmanship. What is in the research process? • Few intervention studies.

  36. CHALLENGES FOR PRACTICE • Research and practice are significant related (R&D) • Rather many evaluations • The institutional frames for inclusion- as well as exclusion-processes • A widened view of learning and the dynamics of learning • The importance of the interaction with parents and the relations between the professionals and parents • What are the relationships between the political level and the practitioners, for example to secure and develop quality?

  37. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES – KEY QUESTIONES CONCERNING RESEARCH • What are the criteria for good research? • What is evidence? • Is evidence a homogenous or heterogeneous concept?

  38. The Danish School of EducationUniversity of AarhusTuborgvej 164 DK-2400 København NV tel:  (+45) 8888 9969fax: (+45) 8888 9922 http://www.dpu.dk/site.aspx?p=9882

More Related