essential insight into current provision for early reading with very young children. Similarly, Appleby and Andrews (2011) suggest that reflective practice is a “complex, multi-faceted process which in its most effective form is personalised and owned by practitioners” (p. 57). This is intentional within the overall design of the research study. The supplementary research questions are: What influences Early Years Teacher Trainees’ practice in the settings in encouraging children’s development in reading? What are the implications of this for the training of EYTs? I will refer to ‘practitioners’ throughout the majority of this study, as the participants were employed practitioners, as well as EYT trainees. I use the terminology of ‘early reading’ to refer to reading that happens at the very beginning of life, but this terminology does not presume that there is a ‘pre-reading’ stage and then an ‘actual’ reading stage. Early reading is ‘reading’. Research focus The focus of this research study is specific to the experiences and challenges of the trainees undertaking the part-time Graduate Employment-Based (GEB) Route, as this route is intended for graduates already working in an early years setting (Boardman, 2012a) and as argued by Brooker (2007), conceivably already leading practice and provision in their early years settings. As I have stated in the research proposal, “the rationale for this particular training route is that this cohort of trainees are already experienced practitioners” (Boardman, 2012a, p. 6). Given that early reading is such a contested debate with such “polarised views” in existence (Joliffe et al., 2012, p. ix) and is a concern for practitioners requiring further training (‘NQT Survey’, NCTL, 2014, 2015; Ofsted, 2011; ‘Bristol Online Survey’, 2014, 2015), it seems rational to focus on
addition, Finnegan et al., (2016) argue that in order “to become good readers, children first need to become confident communicators, with clear speech” (p. 3) alongside strong levels of understanding. It is widely acknowledged that this vital early reading development is most significant within the early years. A substantial aspect of the professional role of the EYT involves creating and developing a communication and sensory environment, rich in literacy experiences for children from birth to five years, which is seemingly woven into the Teachers’ Standards (Early Years) (NCTL, 2013). Similarly, ‘The Framework for the National Curriculum’ (DfE, 2011a) and ‘The Early Years; Foundations for Life, Health and Learning Independent Review’ (DfE, 2011b) both suggest that an important feature of effective and high quality provision is providing very young children with a rich language and literacy environment and curriculum. It would seem that the dominant discourse of quality and literacy are often associated in the context of early years. Head and Palaiologou (2016) assert that “the term literacy relates to reading and writing” and suggest the “simultaneous development and mutually reinforcing effects” (p. 292) of these two aspects of communication. Although Glenn et al., (2006) state that most children learn to read, usually in their own time and without too much difficulty, reading for some children can be the most perplexing experience (Reid Lyon, 2006). In particular, this may be the case for those young children who have not been exposed to early reading practices. Reid Lyon states: Nearly four decades of scientific research on how children learn to read support an emphasis on phoneme awareness and phonics in a literature-rich environment. These findings challenge the belief that children learn to read naturally. (Reid Lyon, 1998, p. 14) Both Glenn et al., (2006) and Reid Lyon (1998) agree that it is the pre-school stage in early years (nursery) that nurtures early reading development for young children. Indeed, it is acknowledged that a strong knowledge and
buzzword” (p. 62), which is certainly the case relating to Ofsted and the mismatch of quality indicators between the ‘Ofsted Inspection Framework’ and other quality indicators; ‘Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale’ (ECERS, Harms et al., 2011), the ‘Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale’ (ITERS, Harms et al., 2006) and Local Authority schemes, such as ‘Step into Quality’ (Lancashire County Council, 2015). In addition, Cottle (2011) argues, most early years practitioners identify that having a mutual understanding of the vision, aims and ethos of the setting and how best to support children as integral to quality. Ball (1994) defines “high quality early education as provision that leads to lasting cognitive and social benefits in children” (p. 18). To a certain extent the influential EPPE Project (Sylva et al., 2004) identified alignment between quality provision and improved outcomes for children. Additionally, the ‘Early Education Pilot for Two-Year-Old Children’ (Smith et al., 2009) highlighted that, when children attend the higher quality settings, there was a direct impact upon their outcomes, which implied that the quality of the setting is the significant factor. The ‘Children’s Workforce Strategy’ (DfES, 2006) portrayed a direct relationship between quality provision and well-qualified practitioners, which Murray (2013) suggested placed “the development of the workforce as central to raising quality in children’s services” (p. 528). The prerequisite for knowledgeable practitioners to ensure quality practice and provision is a recurring consistent theme throughout key documentation, research and reports (HMSO, 1990; Ball, 1994; Sylva et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2009; Mathers et al., 2012 and Nutbrown, 2012). Additionally, Nupponen (2006) considers that effective leadership is also a vital aspect of the quality discourse. Leadership in early years settings, however, is somewhat ambiguous and viewed as complex in and of itself by practitioners and researchers (Dunlop, 2008; Osgood, 2004). Muijs et al., (2004) also report that effective leadership influences outcomes for young children and families, yet proposed that research on the effects of quality leadership is somewhat limited in early years. Consequently, the ‘Nutbrown Review’ (2012)
(2011) states that for many practitioners, the “concept of quality can be elusive and dynamic” (p. 261). Indeed Murray (2013) claims that many ECEC practitioners are motivated by their passion for children’s well-being and development and Osgood (2010) asserts that practitioners have a strong commitment to make an impact. Similarly, Moyles (2001) considers that this drive and passion is vital to the role of the practitioner and is an innate part of the nature of early years professionalism. This commitment and desire to make a difference (Gill, 2006) and moral purpose (Starratt, 2007) is also described as true leadership by Marquardt (2000). It is now widely acknowledged within the literature that babies and toddlers are proficient learners from birth (David et al., 2003; DfE, 2014). To illustrate this, Gopnik, Meltzoff and Kuhl (2001) proposed that babies and toddlers are already primed to explore, investigate and explain their word” (p. 17). Throughout this vital quest to understand their world, however, very young children require support from consistent, knowledgeable adults who provide high quality interactions (Betawi, 2015). Whitehead (2009) refers to the crucial “role of the adult in supporting early reading development as literacy informants, demonstrators, scribes, reading partners, models and facilitators” (p. 79). Similarly, Goouch and Lambirth (2011) strongly suggest that practitioners and teachers “should always read to children, share books with children and guard such activities against erosion” (p. 75) in their busy curriculum environment, to continue to engage and motivate young children as readers. As motivation is a key characteristic for early communication and the later development of literacy skills, it is essential that practitioners encourage children’s talking and listening skills consistently and act as positive role models by engaging in rich literacy practices themselves (Roulstone et al., 2012; Tassoni, 2013). In summary, this literature has explored some constructions of quality, however in order to understand what quality provision in reading looks like, I firstly need to explore what is meant by the terms ‘literacy’ and ‘reading’.
‘The National Strategies 1997 – 2011, A brief summary of the impact and effectiveness of the National Strategies’ (2011) document highlights “prior to 1998, there was no systematic attempt at a national level to drive improvements in standards through a focused programme of managing changes in the way that core subjects are taught in classrooms” (p. 2) [as a key rationale for their] “professional development programme providing training and targeted support to teachers” (p. 2). The focus of this “targeted support” (p. 2) featured an increased emphasis on phonics within the EYFS (DCSF, 2007; DfES, 2008; DfE, 2012) and specified ‘Systematic Synthetic Phonics’ within the ‘Communication, Language and Literacy’ (CLLD) programme materials. As such, this emphasis was then aligned with Ofsted policies (‘Reading for purpose and pleasure, an evaluation of the teaching of reading in primary schools’, Ofsted, 2004; ‘Reading by six how the best schools do it’, Ofsted, 2010; ‘Getting them reading early’, Ofsted, 2014), which inevitably directly influences practice and provision in schools and consequently, early years settings. Currently, the ECEC workforce is subject to a wide range of policy documents that specify phonics as the principal approach to teaching reading, which may be leading to an increased emphasis on the ‘standards agenda’ described by Roberts-Holmes and Bradbury (2016b), which is now apparent in early years settings. Figure 2.1: ECEC policy documents relating to ‘phonics’ Figure 2.1 highlights the policy directives and resources (including both QTS and EYTS revised Teachers’ Standards) that influence and impact on early years provision, in turn leading to ‘schoolification’ (Moss, 2014; 2015; Vannebo and Gotvassli, 2017) and an intense, unnecessary focus on phonics.
(Evans, 2011, p. 318) Evans (2011), although evidently focused on print, embraces the strong links between language and play as pivotal to developing children as readers. Moreover, Roskos et al., (2010) argue that there are positive outcomes when young children link their play with talk, stories and the wider literacy practices situated in real, meaningful experiences. Essentially, there appears to be a lack of literature focused on under-threes in supporting and developing early reading practices. The main focus for under-threes appears to be on emergent literacy, discussed previously in this chapter. Subsequently, many definitions and perceptions of reading with very young children appear to be influenced by the discourse on decoding print as emergent literacy and the discourse of phonics (Goswami, 2015; Whitehurst and Lonigan, 2002; Sénéchal and Lefevre, 2002). Policy discourse is firmly situated in viewing reading as decoding (DfES, 2007; Johnson and Watson, 2005; Ofsted, 2014; Rose, 2007; Torgeson et al., 2006). In addition, Ofsted publications such as ‘Are you ready? Good practice in school readiness’ (Ofsted, 2014) and ‘Reading by six: how the best schools do it’ (Ofsted, 2010) advocate children reading early and view reading as the decoding of text. Moss (2013) describes this school readiness term as “fitting a dominant narrative of normativity and performativity, in which the purpose of education is conformity to predetermined performance criteria” (p. 5). The discourse of ‘school readiness’ is a feature in several Education Reviews and Statutory Guidance Documents (‘Unseen children: access and achievement 20 years on’, Ofsted, 2013, ‘Early Years Outcomes’, DfE, 2013, Coghlan et al., 2010) and within the EYFS. The EYFS (DfE, 2014) states that “the three prime areas reflect the key skills and capacities all children need to develop and learn effectively, and become ready for school” (p. 9). In contrast, Swedish governments have a particular focus on pre-school being “unique”, the first step in a lifelong learning perspective and a “valid part of the
Therefore, when children play they are learning about broad constructions of literacy and reading that go way beyond ‘print’, which is important to note from the literature review. The next section reviews the literature relating to the links between language acquisition and early reading, beginning with babies. 2.7. Tuning into babies: the established links between language acquisition and early reading As discussed earlier in my doctoral studies (Boardman, 2014b), before birth, after birth and in the early days and weeks of their lives, babies are already processing information about sounds, patterns of language, attuning to tones and distinguishing their own familiar adult’s voices (Karmiloff and 2001, Mampe et al., 2009). Indeed, Goouch (2014) maintains that “babies have a genetic predisposition to become attuned to tones, patterns and structures of language, even before birth” (p. 5). Goouch continues to state that babies’ “language development is an active and interactive process which includes attachment and attunement, communication and contingency from a very early age” (p. 5). Similarly, Blythe (2011) argues that “communication begins before birth and thus, babies are already born with an innate desire to communicate” (p. 38). In addition, Elkin (2014) suggests that educationalists are now “very aware that babies are active listeners and learners from their earliest moments” (p. 43). Wolfe and Nevills (2004) and Test, Cunningham and Lee (2010) suggest that “pre-schoolers learn about 2,500 new words a year and about 7 new words every day” (Test, Cunningham and Lee, 2010, p. 4), which is significant for educationalists to understand, encourage and support. Essentially, Hamer (2012) proposes that: Language development is influenced by the child’s communication environment. Parents give their babies and young child an advantage when they talk with them, read with them, listen and respond to their babbles, gestures and words. Smith,
The fact that the title of ‘teacher’ has been initiated as a ‘one size fits all’ approach, is in itself exacerbating issues for the ECEC workforce. Oberhuemer (2005) highlighted that the discourse of teacher is “a fairly homogenous concept associated with a transmission role” (p. 7), which may or may not align with the role of the early years practitioner, yet as Lloyd and Hallett (2010) point out it does not seem to account for the “pre-existing institutional and conceptual divides between teachers and other practitioners” (p. 84). Hargreaves and Hopper (2006) in their comparative “sense of status” (p. 172) study suggest that “EY and primary teachers perceived less respect from the general public and the media, which seems to confirm a sense of inferiority of occupational status” (p. 184). Given that these perceptions were based on qualified teachers, it could be suggested that this could apply even more so to the EYTTs in this study relating to their work with under-threes. Yet, it appears that there is still a mismatch between early years teachers’ beliefs and practices relating to teaching, play and learning, which is further compounded by Ofsted’s 2015 ‘Teaching and play in the early years – a balancing act?’ paper. Ofsted (2015) report that teachers’ perceptions in the early years “depended on how they interpreted key definitions from the Statutory Early Years Foundation Stage framework” (p. 9). In addition, Ofsted (2015) highlight that there was a “reluctance to use the word ‘teaching’” mainly from professionals working in “pre-school settings”, who “viewed teaching as a very formal approach” (p. 10): They considered teaching to be the domain of schools and those who had qualified teacher status. As such, it held less relevance to the vast majority of professionals in pre-school settings. (Ofsted, 2015, p. 10) This relevance and viewpoint of teaching within the ECEC workforce is clearly problematic for professionals and their identity (Gibson, 2013; Osgood, 2010). Ofsted continue to suggest that best practice was found when “early years professionals learn from schools” (Ofsted, 2015, p. 7), therefore perpetuating the notion of schools ‘leading’ in order to support early years provision. Given
Priorities, such as managing pupils’ behaviour, early reading, and special educational needs and disability Assessing and evaluating teaching The use of evidence and research to inform teaching”. (NCTL, 2016, p. 14) Additionally, compliance criteria also state that each EYTT must have “taught in at least two schools or early years settings” to achieve Early Years Teacher Status (NCTL, 2016, p. 18). Aside from the specific criterion stated, the content of taught sessions is very much left to the accredited training provider, yet aligned with QTS provision for the purposes of Ofsted, despite the specific recommendation from the ‘Nutbrown Review’ (2012), as follows: The Teaching Agency should develop a more robust set of full and relevant criteria to ensure qualifications promote the right content and pedagogical processes. (Nutbrown, 2012, p. 29) This is significant to note for the purposes of this research, as each training provider may have opposing priorities or ideologies, yet early reading seems to have been ‘slotted in’ and identified as a specific area to include in the content of the training for EYTTs. Thus, providers are free to decide how much or how little time and content is devoted to early reading, which is also very much dependent upon provider knowledge, perceptions and ideologies and is unhelpful for the outcomes of young children. 2.10. Summary The review of the literature has highlighted some complexities in the definitions and perceptions of early reading, nationally and internationally. Yet, unarguably, literacy is critical for life-long learning (Finnegan et al., 2016;
technology as a particular challenge and suggested that “the consequences of using such methods should be carefully considered” (p. viii). This proved to be the optimum method and was successful, considering the return of the hard copies. Nonetheless, these then needed to be manually uploaded onto a spreadsheet, which was very time consuming. The following table presents a sample of the survey questions asked: Figure 3.3: Sample survey questions How do you currently support very young children with early reading? Please list your strategies/activities/experiences/teaching for: Babies Toddlers 2 year olds 3 – 5 year olds What has informed these strategies/activities? How do you decide how to teach and what to teach? Have you have had any training or staff development on early reading? How has this influenced or impacted upon your current teaching in this area? Please provide examples. Are there any particular challenges in teaching/supporting very young children with early reading in your setting? The survey questions are presented in full in Appendix 0. The other qualitative methods utilised were interviews and focus group workshops. Rubin and Rubin (2012) describe interviewing as “the art of hearing data” (p. xv), which I established as an effective description. Boudah (2011) advocates that interviews are very important within the field of qualitative research because these are a useful method to investigate a particular issue in depth and to discover how individuals or groups of people think, understand and feel about an issue. Given the aims of this study, interviews were clearly going to be a very valuable tool as I sought to understand the experiences, views and beliefs of the practitioners. Similarly, Fraenkel et al., (2012) also propose that interviews can be used to explore participants’ thoughts and feelings about a particular situation. It is these aspects that warranted the use of interviews as a research method; practitioners using their own words as
What is this saying to me? What do I see going on here? What is this an example of? What is happening here? What is trying to be conveyed? What is missing? What did I learn from these notes? Why did I include them? What strikes me? (Cresswell, 2007, p. 153) These questions were based on Cresswell’s (2007) suggestions for data interpretation. Early analysis after the initial survey presented a challenge with some key unexplained gaps in the survey data, which were later addressed with further data from the interviews, focus group workshops and Zines. At various points in this research project, I felt overwhelmed with the volume of data generated and drawing out key themes and issues and constructing the analysis has been an arduous task. I grouped and examined each data set as soon as I received its sources. I utilised “computer assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS)” (Welsh, 2002, p. 2), as Welsh (2002) proposed that “this serves to facilitate an accurate and transparent data analysis process, whilst also providing a quick and simple way of counting who said what and when, which in turn may provide a reliable, general picture of the data” (p. 3). The ‘search’ tool in NVivo offered the possibility to cross-examine the data, which I felt “improved the rigour of the analysis process by validating (or not) some of my own impressions of the data” (Welsh, 2002, p. 3). In contrast, Seidel (1991) points out that using software packages may guide researchers in one particular direction. Alternatively, Hahmed Hilal and Alabri (2013) suggest that “NVivo, as a qualitative data analysis computer software package, has many advantages and may significantly improve the overall quality of research” (p. 182). I decided to embrace the “value of both manual and electronic tools in the qualitative data analysis” (Welsh, 2002, p. 3) process and aimed not to rely on one method in particular, making use of the advantages of each. The analysis used for each of the methods will be discussed in the next few sections of this chapter.
factor in the practitioners’ perceptions of pedagogy and provision. It would be helpful if NCTL could be specific about this Early Years Teaching Standard and relating amplification, with an explanation on how and indeed, if, this applies to the age range of under-threes. It is also important to situate the fact that “most pedagogical practice in early literacy education is based almost entirely on the sign system of alphabetic print in such a way that the focus of ‘natural’ reading development is tied to print concepts to the exclusion of other types of signs and symbols” (Hassett, 2006, p. 83). Consequently, House (2011), Moss (2010) and Taggart (2011) propose that there is currently a damaging top-down pressure on early years practitioners and Roberts-Holmes and Bradbury, (2016a) contend there is a move to resort to an overly formal curriculum in preparation for the next stage of achievement, which as the data confirms is reflective of these practitioners’ accounts and the use of phonics programmes of study. The challenges noted by the practitioners in supporting under-threes with early reading link to the earlier sections of this chapter about this being a confusing and complex topic. The practitioners note that “the advice (from LA and setting) is often confusing”, “understanding and defining early reading is a challenge”, “supporting parents”, “supporting the wide range of abilities” and “supporting EAL and SEN children” are key challenges. Lily, an interview participant, explained the challenge for her was the concept of reading in general: One of the challenges is phonics and the confusion about how to teach it, we have the resources and the timetable has phonics activities on daily or weekly, but it has to be delivered in a particular way and not all children learn in this particular way. Parents are confused with the alphabet and alphabetic code. English is tricky. I think we get early reading right really – just need to be better with teaching phonics. Lily works in a Children’s Centre and is explaining that the challenge for her is teaching phonics, which again associates the practitioners’ perception of early reading as being linked to phonics. Lily suggests that her setting is getting early
“meetings with my manager”, “a teacher monthly visit”, “peer support”. Phonics, again, emanated into many of these statements for under threes; “we have regular inset phonics days”, “attended phonics training courses”, “L&S training” and “the Lead Teacher from the TA supports us with phonics, tracking and assessment”. It is evident from these statements that practitioners are receiving training in phonics. The findings also indicate that this focus on phonics training, together with earlier findings of a lack of understanding of what early reading is in practice for under-threes, is influencing practice and having a potentially negative impact on provision for under-threes. Equally, the survey data question ‘what support or training do you think would help you in your work with under-threes?’ yielded very similar themed responses of further training for early reading, more specific training on early reading and in particular how best to support under-threes. Crucially, 78% (28/36) suggested more support for early reading is required for their work under-threes. Notably, 28% (14/50) did not respond to this question, which may suggest that they do not feel they need any support or further training. Principally, there were some really interesting suggestions from survey participants of “good practice with under-threes guidelines”, “guidance on supporting babies”, “visits to see outstanding practitioners”, “share good practice experiences together”, “support for the setting and a clear strategy”, “support with developing an setting early reading policy” and “a specific training programme for early reading would be good - lots of phonics training is already available” to put into practice to support the practitioners. These are all very valuable suggestions that are not currently available or easily accessible for professionals working with under-threes. It could be argued that there is a plethora of research and publications to support early years practitioners, but I would propose that much of the research, literature and the textbooks are not focused upon supporting early reading and certainly not focused on work with under-threes. The findings imply that, because there is very little research and specific training on supporting under-threes, the focus on phonics with older children is radiated and often diffused to under-threes, thus influencing and
you asked me as an interview participant about the environment for early reading, I didn’t know what to say because I don’t think we did have an environment suitable to support early reading for our babies and toddlers. It is my responsibility as the EYTS in the setting to lead on practice and I have chosen to lead on early reading and in my setting – I really want to get this right. (Focus Group Workshop 1) Another practitioner commented: I gained a lot more confidence after the early reading sessions and then again after the phonics sessions on EYTS. I am doing more reading and research now and looking at the environment as a whole to support early reading and not just reading books and stories etc. but this is not enough – we need more reading support and if nothing else a reminder of what we should be doing with babies, toddlers and (Survey Data, PDN) This practitioner is commenting on her increased confidence after some taught sessions as part of the EYTS training, comparable to earlier findings of reflection on practice being key to building confidence. It is possible, however, that “needing more reading support” with babies and toddlers could be interpreted as starting phonic work which could be cause for concern, although she does continue to suggest a reminder of good practice with babies, toddlers and two-year-olds to possibly counteract this concern. The findings highlight that contributing to this research project has led to the practitioners making vital changes. Ella commented that taking part in the research study “is making me think a bit more about reading to the children”. Similarly, Lucy reflects that her team need to continue “using books every day and just ensuring some consistency”. Undoubtedly, the time, space and opportunity to focus purely on early reading and solely on under-threes has been of benefit to practitioners involved in this research study. Interestingly, they have never been asked these questions before, specifically relating to under-threes, as Lily remarked that “these are really hard questions that I’ve
which is clearly affecting their confidence to do what is best for under-threes, in relation to book sharing and reading. The wider context of the EYTS and the confusing positioning of this as a status in early years education (Fitzgerald and Kay, 2016) may also be impacting on practitioner confidence, leading to some vulnerability, lack of confidence and potential undermining of professional autonomy (Lloyd and Hallet, 2010; Moss, 2010, 2014), all of which were in evidence within the data. EYTTs are not necessarily in a position to challenge national rhetoric or local policy in schools, given that the context of their own parity is contestable and has not been given the equal status of QTS, pay or conditions. This may then lead to EYTTs feeling vulnerable, therefore easily influenced. On the other hand, Osgood (2006) suggests that practitioners can in fact “resist the regulatory gaze” (p. 5) and become professionals within their setting. Yet this in itself is problematic within the ECEC workforce, without guidance and support and to a certain extent ‘permission’ to do so. 5.2. What are Early Years Teacher Trainee’s views and beliefs about reading and how does this influence their practice with under-threes? Early reading has been described as “complex” and “a mystery” by practitioners. Practitioners in this research study consider reading and books primarily as an ‘educational’ adult-led activity. They associate early reading and literacy practices as sounding out letters and preparation for later reading of ‘books’ from a school or setting reading scheme. The discourse of “getting children interested in books” and “ready to read” is prevalent in the views and beliefs about reading. Practitioners believe that children will read when they are ready, which does not align with the views of reading being an active search for meaning promoted by researchers such as Clay (1991), Riley (1996), Smith (1984) and Whitehead (2007), or as the collaborative engaging process also advocated by many researchers (Bearne, 2003; Ehri, 2002). The practitioners in this study do not fully appreciate that the activities they provide with enable a secure foundation in reading and consequently lead to improving the life chances of the children in their settings. These aspects,