Online Licence Agreement
1. Licence
This Licence Agreement is between Early Childhood
Australia (ECA) and the Individual or Institution who
has subscribed to the ECA Publication(s) (hereafter
referred to as the Subscriber).
1. The ECA Publication(s) you are about to access
are copyrighted by ECA (hereafter referred to as
the Publisher). All rights reserved. In all countries,
there are civil and/or criminal laws against
copyright infringements. By downloading, copying,
installing, accessing or otherwise using ECA
Publication(s) you agree to be bound by the terms
of this Licence Agreement.
2. As the Subscriber, you are responsible for
ensuring that the terms and conditions of this
Licence Agreement are adhered to fully.
3. If the Subscriber or Authorised User fails to
abide by these Terms and Conditions or violates
any other terms of this Agreement, the Publisher
reserves the right in its sole discretion to suspend
or terminate access to the Electronic Journals
and/or Books immediately and without notice, in
addition to any other available remedies.
2. Access
Individual Subscriber:
Individual Subscribers are only permitted to store
the ECA Publication(s) on the local drive of their own
Personal Computer with access only for their personal
use. No local area network, wide area network,
intranet or internet storage and access is permitted
without the prior written permission of ECA (see
clause 4).
Institutional Subscriber:
The Publisher hereby grants to the Institutional
Subscriber (and their Authorised Users) the non-
exclusive and non-transferable right and licence to
access, retrieve, display and make copies from the
online form of the ECA Publication(s), for which an
Institutional Subscription has been paid, solely for
their scholarly, research, educational and personal use
in accordance with the terms of this Agreement at
only one Site of that Institution. Institution Subscribers
are responsible for storing the ECA Publication(s)
on an internal network and its access has to be
monitored to limit the access to the chosen number of
simultaneous users.
Subscribing libraries which provide public access may
provide access to and permit copying from the online
form of the ECA Publication(s) by members of the
public for their scholarly, research, educational and
personal use by means of workstations located at the
library facility.
Definitions:
Authorised Users:
Authorised Users include all current Institution
employees (permanent and visiting faculty) and
students/members of the Subscriber at a single Site.
Sites:
A single Site is a contiguous campus community,
including lodgings and residences of faculty, staff
or students, or one contiguous commercial office
complex, connected by a local area network
whose terminals are physically linked together
within the organisational premises.
3. Usage Restrictions
The online version of the ECA Publication(s) may
NOT be used for any (i) fee-for-service use including
providing access to or selling copies of items,
(ii) systematic supply or distribution of portions
of, or items from, the online version of the ECA
Publication(s) in any form to anyone other than an
Authorised User whether or not such service is done
for compensation, or (iii) any similar commercial or
marketing activity.
1. The Subscriber may:
1.1 Load the ECA Publication(s) on the
Subscriber’s server on their Secure Site.
1.2 Make such backup copies of the ECA
Publication(s) only as are reasonably necessary.
1.3 Make such (temporary) local electronic copies
(by means of caching or mirrored storage) of all
or part of the ECA Publication(s) as are necessary
solely to ensure efficient use by Authorised Users.
1.4 Allow Authorised Users to have access to the
Licenced Materials from the Server via the Secure
Network and print out copies in accordance with
the Subscriber’s usual and customary policies,
practices and applicable copyright laws, including
the making of interlibrary loans.
 1.5 Display, download or print the ECA
Publication(s) for the purpose of internal marketing
or testing or for training Authorised Users.
2. Authorised Users may:
2.1 Search, view, retrieve and display the ECA
Publication(s).
2.2 Electronically save individual articles and/or
book chapters, or items of the ECA Publication(s)
for personal use.
2.3 Print a copy of the ECA Publication(s) for
personal use.
2.4 Distribute a copy of individual articles and/or
book chapters, or items of the ECA Publication(s)
in print or electronic form only to other Authorised
Users within the institution (for the avoidance of
doubt, this subclause shall include the distribution
of a copy for teaching purposes to each individual
student Authorised User in a class at the
Subscriber’s institution).
4. Unauthorised Use
1. Neither the Subscriber nor Authorised Users may:
1.1 Remove or alter the authors’ names or the
Publisher’s copyright notices or other means of
identification or disclaimers as they appear in the
ECA Publication(s).
1.2 Mount or distribute any part of the ECA
Publication(s) on any electronic network, including,
without limitation, the internet and the World Wide
Web, other than the Institution’s Secure Network.
1.3 Transmit electronic copies of the ECA
Publication(s) or portions of the Publication(s) to
others, except for other Authorised Users.
5. Data Delivery
The ECA Publication(s) are currently delivered in
standard internet formats such as HTML and/or Adobe
Acrobat Reader PDF format. The Publisher reserves
the right to change delivery formats, as well as the
access method, display or any other feature that may
affect the manner in which Authorised Users access
and make use of the ECA Publication(s).
The Publisher shall use reasonable efforts to provide
continuous availability of the ECA Publication(s)
through the internet. Such availability will be
periodically interrupted due to maintenance of the
servers, software installation and downtime related
to equipment or services outside of the Publisher’s
control.
The Publisher reserves the right to withdraw from the
ECA Publication(s) any item or part of an item that it
no longer retains the right to publish, or which it has
reasonable grounds to believe infringes copyright
or is otherwise offensive, defamatory or erroneous.
In such event, the Subscriber must delete the ECA
Publication(s) and destroy all paper and electronic
copies immediately.
6. Queries
If you have any difficulties concerning the terms of
this Licence Agreement or if you have any questions
regarding ECA copyright, please contact:
T: 1800 356 900
E: publishing@earlychildhood.org.au

2. The Publisher’s express prior written permission

must be obtained in order to:
2.1 Use all or any part of the ECA Publication(s) for
any Commercial Use.
2.2 Systematically distribute the whole or any part
of the ECA Publication(s) to anyone other than
Authorised Users.
2.3 Publish, distribute or make available the ECA
Publication(s), works based on the ECA Publication(s)
or works which combine them with any other
material, other than as permitted in this Licence.
2.4 Alter, abridge, adapt or modify the ECA
Publication(s), except to the extent necessary to
make them perceptible on a computer screen or
as otherwise permitted in this Licence. For the
avoidance of doubt, no alteration of the words or
their order is permitted.
 Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

Journal Online Annex

2 Editorial AJEC Vol. 42 No. 4 includes an Online Annex

Lennie Barblett component. Access and further information
can be found at:
www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/ajec
4 Trust, empathy and time:
Relationship building with families experiencing
69 Parental knowledge and use of the
vulnerability and disadvantage in early childhood
National Quality Framework in their
education and care services*
child care decision-making:
Wendy Roberts
Informed believers, informed dismissers
and indifferent disregarders*
13 What’s the story?
A
 mber Hinton, Sheila Degotardi and
Exploring parent–teacher communication
Marianne Fenech
through ePortfolios*
Amanda Higgins and Sue Cherrington
78 All children have the best start in life to
create a better future for themselves and
22 Developing a ‘classroom as community’ approach
for the nation*
to supporting young children’s wellbeing*
Dr. Jan Deans, Suzana Klarin, Rachel Liang
Victoria Whitington and Elspeth McInnes
and Erica Frydenberg

30 Engaging vulnerable children and families:

87 Civic action and learning with a
Learning from a new model of education
community of Aboriginal Australian
and care*
young children*
Loraine Fordham and Anne Kennedy
Dr Louise Gwenneth Phillips and
Kerryn Moroney
38 'I belong here; I been coming a big time':
An exploration of belonging that includes
97 Early childhood educator mental health:
the voice of children*
 Performing the National Quality Standard*
Selma Jo Wastell and Sheila Degotardi
Lara Corr, Kay Cook, Anthony D. LaMontagne,
Elise Davis and Elizabeth Waters
47 Working with teachers’ pedagogical strengths:
The design of executive function activities for
play-based programs*
* Denotes primary research articles
Marilyn Fleer, Linda Harrison, Nikolai Veresov
and Sue Walker

56 The Starting School Study:

Mothers’ perspectives of transition to school*
Cathy Kaplun, Sue Dockett and Bob Perry

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 1
 Editorial
I was reading Moss (2010) the other day as I always find
his writing to be a good reminder of the expansive nature
of early childhood knowledges, and that our knowledges
are not one set entity—they are fluid, dynamic and ever-
changing. Moss reminds us that it is the professional task
of early childhood educators to develop their knowledge
base by questioning, employing different perspectives and
acknowledging the diversity that exists. He writes:
Rather than embodying and reproducing a body of
professional knowledge, the educator needs to start
from acknowledging the multiplicity of paradigms, the
diversity of knowledges and the plurality of values that
exist in the world. The educator needs to appreciate the
range of disciplines, theories and practices available, and
to understand her or his responsibility to decide where
to situate herself or himself in this complex and diverse
range of possibilities: perspective can be a choice; it
need not be a necessity (Moss, 2010, p. 15).
The Australasian Journal of Early Childhood welcomes
the idea that early childhood professional knowledges
are interrogated and viewed from multiple perspectives,
and that such practices assist in broadening knowledge
and thinking. In this issue, there are research projects that
assist with this as they describe and push theoretical and
pedagogical perspectives, and give recommendations
from findings about practice and pedagogy.
Roberts reports qualitative research that explores
the key enablers and barriers in early childhood
environments encountered by early childhood educators
and professionals and by children and families who were
experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage. Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was used to analyse semi-
structured interviews to uncover that empathy, time and
trust are key to relationship-building and underpining values
that guide effective practice. Roberts has developed a new
model of the Core Elements of Effective Engagement that
can assist early childhood educators and professionals in
their understandings of the wider context of vulnerable
families; stimulate discussion of the enablers and barriers
for families experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage in
early childhood settings.
Through a constructivist–interpretivist paradigm, Higgins and
Cherrington focus on the use of ePortfolios as a parent–
teacher communication tool. Through a case study design,
they found that the ePortfolios facilitated different levels of
communication between parents and teachers, and gave a
wider perspective of children’s learning. Given the 24-hour
access to the ePortfolio, parents could view them in their
2 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
own time and could add their own stories and comments;
this led to a strengthening of the parent–teacher relationship.
It was also found that it gave parents the confidence to
talk to teachers about their children’s learning.
Whitington and McInnes, in their study, use a socio-
constructivist theoretical approach informed by neuroscience
and sociological research. In the Wellbeing Classroom
Project, children’s (aged six to eight years) wellbeing was
supported using a ‘classroom as community’ approach to
inform the thinking and actions of the adults involved. Over a
year, an up-skilled teacher employed a number of strategies
and a common set of resources that assisted children in
transforming abstract ideas into interpersonal interactions,
and led to building a sense of community. Furthermore,
introducing parents to the strategies and resources
strengthened the school connections and extended the
community beyond the classroom.
The study by Fordham and Kennedy describes a research
project conducted over a two-year period, framed by social
constructivism, using ethnographic and phenomenological
methodologies. The focus of the research was the Early
Years Education Program (EYEP) provided for vulnerable
children and families by the Children’s Protection Society.
The study found that the EYEP had a strong emphasis on
sustaining parental engagement, achieved by a gradual
and individualised process of child and family orientation;
genuinely involving parents in the development of
their child’s education and care plans, and supporting
the ongoing professional development of educators.
Implications of the findings are given for universal early
childhood services working with children and families
experiencing vulnerabilities.
A rights-based approach was adopted by Wastell and
Degotardi using a participatory theoretical framework to
find out how young children understand and express their
experience of ‘belonging’ in their early care and education
setting. A group of 28 children (aged three to five years)
were given multiple expressive opportunities that enabled
the recording of diverse modes of communication, and
allowed for the documentation of children’s conceptions.
The research confirms that young children are indeed
capable of conceptualising and expressing complex
cognitive concepts like ‘belonging’. These children’s
conceptualisations of ‘belonging’ included two main
ideas: ‘belonging through people’ and ‘belonging to place’,
and showed that children are capable of articulating an
understanding of a conceptual word, and being experts
on their own lives.
Fleer, Harrison, Veresov and Walker share the of young Aboriginal Australian children in an ECEC centre.
pedagogical outcomes of a pilot project where teachers Communitarian citizenship theory framed the study, and
used playworlds (Lindqvist, 1995) to embed executive through participant observations, children were observed
function (EF) into their programs. This study took a demonstrating civic actions as defined by the civic concepts.
cultural–historical conceptualisation of development, Cultural values were found to shape civic action.
where executive functions were viewed as being holistic Lastly, Corr, Cook, LaMontagne, Davis and Waters
functions in social practices. The researchers found that gathered data by semi-structured interviews to provide a
teachers needed more information about EF; re-thought contextual understanding of family day care educators’ mental
their pedagogical practices and designed pedagogical health and its evaluation by both educators and management.
practices for developing EF in playworlds, transitions Using Hochschild’s emotional labour theory, they found that
and their play-based programs. By designing pedagogical educators’ mental wellbeing is often undeclared, yet it is
practices for embedding EF in activities in their programs, imperative to the provision of quality ECEC services. Based
teachers increase the likelihood of children’s engagement on their findings, the researchers call for changes to be made
that promotes the development of their EF. to the NQF to support educators’ wellbeing.
The Starting School Study used a strengths-based So, after reading these research contributions with
approach underpinned by the theoretical understanding different perspectives, paradigms, methodologies and
that the transition to school is a socially-constructed findings, can you, in Moss’s words, decide where to situate
experience. Kaplun, Dockett and Perry, drawing on yourself ‘in this complex and diverse range of possibilities’?
a bio-ecological approach, interviewed two cohorts
(2009–2011) of mothers identified as experiencing one
of the nine criteria of risk and having a child starting Dr Lennie Barblett
school. The authors drew the conclusion that, ‘where AJEC Editor
the clear communication of stakeholders’ expectations, Edith Cowan University
entitlements, opportunities and aspirations were
acknowledged, and stakeholders’ respective roles were
respected and supported, partnerships developed that References
supported mothers’ involvement in school, for children’s Lindqvist, G. (1995). The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of
wellbeing, safety and learning’. play and culture in preschools. Uppsala studies in education, 62.
Stockholm, Sweden: Uppsala University.
Hinton, Degotardi and Fenech investigate parental use of
Moss, P. (2010). We cannot continue as we are: The educator in
the National Quality Framework (NQF) in making informed an education for survival. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,
childcare choices. Using a national survey and case 11(1), 8–19.
studies, the researchers found that parents’ knowledge
of the Framework is low, and their use of NQF quality
ratings to inform early childhood education and care (ECEC)
decision-making is even lower. It was apparent that parents
had limited knowledge of the NQF and quality ratings, and
that the tools were not always used in the ways intended.
The objective of using the NQF and quality ratings to assist
parents in choosing high-quality services has not been
realised at this stage.
In this qualitative study, Deans, Klarin, Liang and Frydenberg
describe the implementation of a Social Emotional Learning
(SEL) program entitled ‘COPE-R’ by a practitioner who was
part of the research team. A case study methodology was
used to capture the voices of the children and the teacher.
The team found that the children who engaged in the COPE-R
program demonstrated increased social–emotional skill
development. This was evident through being able to identify,
recognise emotions and give voice to social–emotional
issues, enact relational empathy and demonstrate care for
the environment and others.
Phillips and Moroney draw the Australian data from
Civic action and learning with young children: Comparing
approaches in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.
This article describes the evidence of the civic capacities

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 3
 Trust, empathy and time:
Relationship building with families experiencing vulnerability
and disadvantage in early childhood education and care services
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.01

Dr Wendy Roberts
Monash University

THIS ARTICLE IDENTIFIES some key enablers and barriers in early childhood education
and care (ECEC) environments in Australia encountered by early childhood educators and
professionals (ECEPs) and by the children and their families experiencing vulnerability
and disadvantage. Improving educational outcomes can change the cycle of disadvantage
for children and their families. This research asks both the providers and users of services
concurrently about what they think is important and effective. This qualitative case study
used Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to analyse semi-structured interview
data gathered from 30 families and their children and 33 qualified ECEPs. The research
focused on the enablers and barriers around social inclusion, access, participation
and engagement at the different levels of system, service, children and their families,
and ECEPs. The study found that the participant groups shared an understanding
that empathy, trust and time proved key to relationship building as a starting point
in addressing some of the key barriers. Social inclusion, access, participation and
engagement are key to early learning success in early childhood—a time integral to
overall health, wellbeing and future role in society. This study has led to the development
of a new model for engagement and relationship building.

Ethics has not necessarily been central to public debate. There is

Approval was gained from Monash University Human
Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC), Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) and
permission from the Manager of Family and Children’s
Services Department of Knox City Council. Given the
circumstances of family participants and the nature of
the cultural and social sensitivities addressed in this
study, counselling support was offered to all participants,
should they have felt adversely affected during and/or post
participation.
Introduction
We can each make a difference if we are vigilant to
create a new kind of society, more compassionate,
more caring, more sharing where human rights,
where children’s rights are respected and protected—
Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu (Castle, 2000).
Over the past decade, Australia has experienced sustained
and contested social change wherein relationship building
an acute need for attention to be paid to ‘relationships of
trust and reciprocity’ (Edwards, Cheers & Graham, 2003,
p. 75), particularly in the provision of ECEC for children and
their families experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage.
Participation in ‘high quality early years education has
many gains, with the greatest gains and improvements
in development to be seen when support is focused on
vulnerable children’ (Siraj-Blatchford & Woodhead, 2009,
p. 44). Improving educational outcomes can change
the cycle of disadvantage for children and their families
(Carbone, Fraser, Ramburuth & Nelms, 2004). My research
focused on the key enablers and barriers to social inclusion,
access, participation and engagement from the frontline
ECEPs’ perspectives, and from families and children
experiencing disadvantage and vulnerability. The terms
vulnerability and disadvantage are used in alignment with
the Victorian Government’s shared policy definition of
vulnerability (Victorian Government, 2013), which identifies
that families from particular population groups—Aboriginal
families, newly arrived immigrants, families living on low
incomes for one year or more, young parents and families
affected by disability—are over-represented.

4 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

In this research, early childhood educators and
professionals (ECEPs) were interviewed about family
engagement, relationships, partnership, collaborations and
communication needs, and how these might be enhanced
by professional development. The families of children
experiencing vulnerability were also interviewed. All
ECEPs were concerned about establishing and maintaining
social connection with the children and families that could
engender the sense of belonging and wellbeing, combat
feelings of isolation and enhance sensitivity toward
cultural identity. Underpinning these considerations were
understandings of the importance of empathy, trust and
time in the development of relationships. Empathy in
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) partnerships
is valued, but not well understood (Peck, Maude &
Brotherson, 2015). Empathy should be an essential part
of early childhood teacher education programs ‘as a
means to “bridge” relationships between teachers and
families’ (Peck et al., 2015, p. 169). Trust is implicit in
an empathetic approach, and the development of both
requires time. Effective staff–parent partnerships require
‘communication, commitment, equality, skills, trust, and
respect ... [and] equality or reciprocity’ (Mac Naughton &
Hughes, 2011, p. 189). From a cultural perspective, ECEPs’
attitudes may vary between children and their families, and
this can challenge the development of empathy (O’Brien,
2003). Teachers should accept and respond sensitively to
diverse families (Peck et al., 2015). Culturally-responsive
teaching requires empathy (Chezare, 2015) that can create
an honest feeling of trust and respect (Ferguson, 2003).
With increasing societal diversity, empathic relationships
are crucial (Chezare, 2015).
Empathy, time and trust
Empathy underpins successful human relationships and
concerns connection and understanding of others (Peck et
al., 2015). For ECEPs, empathy can be enacted via ‘holistic
approaches to teaching and learning [that] recognise the
connectedness of mind, body and spirit’ (DEECD & VCAA,
2009, p. 14). It is essential to attend to physical, social,
personal, emotional and spiritual wellbeing, as well as
cognitive aspects of learning that should be integrated
and interconnected. ECEPs recognise ‘the importance
of reciprocal relationships and partnerships for learning’
(DEECD & VCAA, 2009, p. 14).
In Australia, the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF)
expects that in ECEC services, families will be welcomed,
respected and actively encouraged to participate.
Genuine partnerships between ECEPs and families must
‘value each other’s knowledge of each child [and] each
other’s contributions to and roles in each child’s life’
(DEEWR, 2009, p. 12). Effective partnerships are based
on understandings of the expectations and attitudes of
both parties, building on strengths and supporting the
achievement of learning outcomes (EYLF, 2009). To do
this, it is essential that both educators/professionals and
families trust each other, communicate respectfully and
honestly, and share decision-making (DEEWR, 2009; Tayler,
2006). The Victorian Early Years Learning and Development
Framework (DET, 2016) aspires to respectful relationships
and responsive engagement that protects and regulates
children in a safe environment, which fosters confidence
and learning. Best practice begins with empathy. Some
families may have experienced trauma and retain little trust
in others. This needs to be addressed in order to build
partnerships that benefit children (Peck et al., 2015; Sims,
Hayden, Palmer & Hutchins, 2000). Developing empathic
partnerships is a skill that can be learned (Feshbach &
Feshbach, 2009), so training should be available (Axford,
Lehtonen, Kaoukji, Tobin & Berry, 2012). Building empathic
connection can take a long time.
Time (or the lack of it) can be a barrier to best practice.
Investing time in relationship building is vital, given that
as problems worsen, they become more difficult and
expensive to remedy (Hertzman, 2002). Succinctly,
‘complex issues need complex solutions, which in turn
need time to implement’ (Boag-Munroe & Evangelou,
2012). For example, forming support groups for families
can foster a sense of belonging within community
but establishing such groups can be complicated and
involve professionals and volunteers who bring personal
experience, practice wisdom and/or their own practical and
emotional understandings of parenting or grandparenting.
ECEC services are well placed to enable and enact change
when there is adequate provision of time, resources
and facilities (Roberts, 2015). ECEPs need to develop
relationships of trust with families and with each other.
Collaborative networks can be effective and may involve
cross-sector approaches, families and volunteers. Ideally,
learning for all involved requires empathy, trust, time and
a protected space where people feel safe that they will be
listened to, understood, supported and not judged. Building
trust between staff and families can act as a provider of
support and guidance that refrains from overriding the
family’s own beliefs, motivations and wants for their
child within the ECEC service. Parents who experience
or participate in neglect need to find common ground with
workers so that trust can develop. With trust, parents
become more open and responsive to workers, and are
more likely to make life changes.
Families and relationships: Building a
collaborative approach
Building trusting relationships should occur in the ECEC
setting and in the home. The creation of a home environment
that encourages learning is the greatest indicator of a
child’s educational success (Henderson & Berla, 1994).
Families are key to childhood success and educators can
assist families to support their child’s educational needs.
Relationship building is part of a ‘scaffolding process’
when educators work with a child’s learning experience
using empowering communication that fosters openness
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 5
and trust. It is important to understand family motivations
around their child’s education, and to support them to
adapt and develop new skills as needed. The ECEPs ability
to establish a positive, non-judgemental relationship with
all children and parents is critical. In an ideal early years
caring setting, teachers demonstrate non-judgemental
empathy by embracing and including everyone who enters
(Peck et al., 2015), and interventions that seek to foster
and strengthen close peer friendships create supportive
relationships (Fitzpatrick & Bussey, 2014). Friendships
provide children with social and emotional support that
is important for their resilience in times of change and
uncertainty, and foster feelings of happiness and wellbeing
(Danby, 2008; Dunn, 2004).
In building empathetic and trusting educational
environments, collaboration can break down barriers,
increase understanding, share common purpose and
embrace diversity. Transformational, responsive sharing
builds connection and collaboration (Wong & Hughes,
2006). This requires time and the ability to focus on good
quality relationships, mutual respect, trust and effective
communication. Collaborative models include co-creation
(collective creativity) (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) and
shared meaning-making. Collaborative practice approaches
are based on coexistence, cooperation, coordination,
collaboration and/or integration (Moore & Skinner, 2010).
For families, being involved in the collaborative process
occurs through shared decision making, goals, attitudes
and beliefs about children.
Positive relationships can be linked to wellbeing. With
time and values that are enriching and supportive, children
(like all people) can gain a greater sense of self. When
parents were treated as capable decision makers who
understood their child’s strengths and needs, ‘families
were more willing to partner with them [and] teachers
felt connected’ (Peck et al., 2015, p. 175). Gaining trust is
enabling, and facilitates a sense of security (Sims et al.,
2000). It takes time to foster effective communication that
is respectful and empathetic (Daro, McCurdy, Falconnier
& Stojanovic, 2003). Language is powerful (Eisikovitz
& Buchbinder, 1996) that ‘can either perpetuate social
exclusion or promote positive values’ (UNICEF, 2007,
p. 1). Positive communication encourages, welcomes and
validates others (Mac Naughton & Hughes, 2011). ECEC
service professionals require skills in both communication
and child development (Mac Naughton & Hughes, 2011).
My study focuses on the importance of building respectful,
empathetic, collaborative relationships that support
educational engagement with children and their families
experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage. Effective
family engagement is the key to early years learning
success. This research presents arguments for a new
family engagement model that encapsulates successful
relationships between ECEPs, children and their families.
6 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Methodology
This research study uses a qualitative approach,
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Reid, Flowers
& Larkin, 2005). This approach is humanistic, accepts
meanings, meaning-intention and meaning-fulfilment
(Moran & Mooney, 2002), and explores how social life
is constructed by those who live in it and is manifest in
relationships. The lived-experience approach employed
connotes authenticity in action (Moran & Mooney,
2002). Such exploration ‘stems from a philosophical
concern with the nature of “being-in-the-world”’ (Moran
& Mooney, 2002, p. 248). This interpretive approach
can provide access to particular perspectives, rich
detailed understandings about meanings and patterns of
behaviour (Pianta, Kraft-Sayre, Rimm-Kaufman, Gercke &
Higgins, 2001). Hermeneutics attempts to make sense
of the often complex interrelationships of beings and
these relationships. This case study involved educators/
professionals and families within ECEC settings. Research
through ‘case studies can give a voice to the powerless
and voiceless’ (Tellis, 1997, p. 2). Collecting data by survey
and semi-structured interview is a common strategy in social
research (Denscombe, 2010). This study asks both the service
providers and users of services concurrently about what they
think is important and effective. The key conceptual theory
underpinning this research is Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural
theory, which describes human learning as a social process.
Closely aligned with this is Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological
perspective (1979) that looks at the ‘lifeworld’ of the individual
child within its various contexts.
Knox Council in Outer East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia,
was selected as the research site because of its long-
standing commitment to assisting and supporting
children and their families experiencing vulnerability and
disadvantage. The key pockets of disadvantage are in the
Knox suburbs of Ferntree Gully, and The Basin, Bayswater
and Boronia. There is a concentration of risk factors and
threats, and heightened vulnerability of young children—
particularly in the northeast sector of Knox where there are
more children living in one-parent, low income, welfare-
dependent or jobless families. There are significant areas
of reduced housing stability, high residential mobility and
homelessness. Other factors include a relatively high
crime rate, child abuse and neglect, family violence,
mental health issues, alcohol and substance misuse,
problem gambling, disability, economic stressors, cultural
sensitivity and diversity. Many of these factors are widely
represented across my family participants. Aboriginal and
Indigenous families, culturally and linguistically diverse
families, newly arrived immigrant and refugee families,
children and families affected by disability, low-income
families and young parents are also represented. Knox
has the ‘second largest population of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people in Melbourne’s Eastern Metropolitan
Region’ and over 130 different countries are represented
in the population of Knox (Knox City Council, 2016). In
this study, the diverse participant group reflects the
demographic of the Knox region.
The manager of Family and Children’s Services Department
at Knox Council invited ECEPs across early childhood
intervention services, preschools, childcare centres
(occasional and long day care), family day care, maternal
and child health centres, and other specialist support
services (preschool field officer program and inclusion
support agency) to participate. Thirty-three staff from
diverse roles across all service types completed an online
questionnaire. Each participant was also interviewed. The
contextualising questionnaire generated a broad picture of
the work of ECEPs. Interview questions included: 'What
do you think the key barriers and enablers are for ECEPs
and for children and their families experiencing vulnerability
and disadvantage in early childhood education and care
services?' The team leaders and senior staff of each ECEC
service invited the families in their program to participate,
and 30 families agreed to be surveyed and interviewed.
The online questionnaire sought contextualising data,
and the semi-structured interviews explored deeper
understandings. Questions included: 'What is working
and not working for you about your child attending the
early childhood program/s'?
Fifty-three children participated in a drawing activity.
These children were enrolled in varied Knox Council ECEC
services and gave their assent through an age-appropriate
form, after consent from their families. Each child was
asked, ‘Could you draw a picture of your [specific name
of service] and how you feel about coming to this [kinder/
childcare/play group/family day care/early intervention]
group? The children were asked to speak about their
drawings and their narratives/statements were transcribed.
All participants were de-identified.
Findings
The findings are presented under each level of system,
service, children and their families and ECEPs, and focus
on building relationships and collaborative partnerships in
which empathy, trust and time are pivotal. It should be
noted that although identified as experiencing vulnerability
and disadvantage, not all participating families identified
themselves in this way.
Systems level: Policy and practice
Policy must support equity and equality, and embrace
broader social justice issues. Some typical responses to
current challenges at the systems/policy level identified
further funding and resources required to enable more
time to support and engage with children and their families
experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage in ECEC
services. Many participants mentioned time as a barrier
towards best practice. One ECEP participant stated that:
The Victorian Government talks about having a shared
responsibility in supporting vulnerable children and
families across the community so that those most in
need get the support required. But I think the problem
in achieving this lies in not having enough time to
network, connect and partner with other services to
ensure the service system provides genuine, tailored,
flexible approaches to vulnerable families.
Without extensive frameworks and best practice models to
guide ECEPs and a knowledge of effective strategies that
engender more effective relationship-based approaches to
education—opportunities for systemic partnerships, cross
collaborations and consultation between all stakeholders
for the benefit of the individual family and child—best
practice will not be supported. Many ECEPs indicated a
desire for further professional knowledge and mentoring to
increase their skills in working effectively with vulnerable
children and their families. Common themes were a desire
for mentoring programs, specific workforce professional
development, and the inclusion of this in tertiary training in
early childhood education. One ECEP participant explained,
‘I am experienced but would like to be further trained and
mentored to be able to work better with highly complex
children and their families’, and another ECEP participant
stated, ‘I didn’t learn about how to work with vulnerable
children and families at university when I did my Bachelor
of Early Childhood Education’.
Service level strategies
At the service level, there was much discussion around
strength-based, family-centred practice and outreach
programs and their effectiveness. One ECEP participant
stated that, ‘our program provides outreach services to
vulnerable families, and this appears to work very well for
these families, especially home visits and outreach into
the playgroups where vulnerable families are welcomed
and feel comfortable’. Other ECEP participants agreed that
the strength-based, family-centred practice employed is
important as ‘this builds trust and respect between the
professional and the parent’. Yet, there seemed to be
barriers around service information. One ECEP participant
explained that, ‘engaging for the families is difficult initially,
when they don’t know you or trust you yet’. Another ECEP
participant responded that, ‘for parents to know about the
services available is often difficult’.
Another identified barrier was accessing the information
needed by vulnerable families. For example, to enrol
families in a service can be difficult and the needed
information can overwhelm families, ‘many of which tell
me they can’t read, once they feel comfortable and trust
me’. Many ECEP participants articulated that accessible,
easy to understand communication about the service is
crucial. One participant identified a barrier and its solution
at the service level and explained:
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 7
 Something that commonly comes up for educators
and professionals is a lack of information shared, and
communication between the welfare agencies and
the (ECEC) services ... so, I’d like to see stronger
communication and streamlining of services and
sectors, and more time spent in this area, so that
everyone’s working together to best support the child
and the family.
Providing time for collaborative support processes might be
a response to some of the issues at the service level. This
would lead to open dialogue between relevant stakeholders.
Supporting early childhood educators and
professionals (ECEPs)
Many ECEPs have stated that they feel very well-prepared
for child-focused work, but less so from their training to
engage with adults, particularly families. One person
highlighted, ‘when I studied Early Childhood Education
at university, I did not learn anything about working
with vulnerable children and their families. I feel very
unprepared with this work’. Many ECEPs shared this
view. These were seen as key gap areas in these services,
which offered regular opportunities for professional
development. Much of the ECEP data concerned such
issues around seeking new family engagement based on
partnerships, relationships, collaboration, communication
and professional development. Many highly experienced
ECEPs identified the need for different types of
knowledge, skills and strategies to enable them to work
more successfully with the complex needs of vulnerable
and disadvantaged children, parents and families.
Effective partnerships were seen to be non-judgemental,
non-threatening, non-expert approaches that demonstrate
reliability, commitment, trustworthiness, confidentiality,
and empathy. An ECEP participant considered it vital to
be ‘a real person and not coming in as an expert is really
important. Reflective listening is a very powerful tool and
builds up trust with the families’. Understanding families
from ‘where they are at’ and being ‘empathetic’ is vital.
ECEPs thought of strong partnerships with families as
essential, and emphasised the need for parents to be
involved in decision making. Participant responses around
relationships, perceptions and feelings repeatedly arose
as the issue surrounding both enablers and barriers. A
participant stated that, ‘vulnerable families are sensitive,
very sensitive’. Another said, ‘if families become defensive,
or think that you’re judging them or don’t care about them,
they are likely to leave the service. So you’ve got to be
very careful with that’. Yet another added, ‘getting some
families to engage in other services apart from this service
is difficult. To encourage them to get out of the house and
go to playgroup, kinder or childcare takes time’.
Concepts emerged around relationships with some key
themes repeatedly mentioned by ECEP participants.
8 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
ECEPs desired knowledge about issues such as ‘being able
to effectively communicate’ and building ‘strong trusting
relationships’ with families whose children attended their
services. One participant noted:
Some families can be immediately defensive. You’ve
got to be very mindful about what you’re saying,
especially early on, before that trust is developed,
and help them understand why we’re asking lots of
questions about their child and family to understand
their needs.
Data indicated that relationship-building can be seen as an
enabler, involving empathy, time and trust as key. Another
enabler identified by a participant was:
Developing that relationship [that’s] constant ... if
they’re trusting someone, they’re more likely to open
up about what they really need, or what’s going on;
more likely to move along the pathway of accessing
more services, or agreeing to have a look, have a go. I
think that’s a really big thing. That relationship is really
important, that’s the key really.
Other concerns around the notion of reducing the power
imbalance between ECEPs and families, and including
parents in decision making, were desired but ECEP
participants felt that it was a ‘struggle to find the training
or support they need to help translate those principles into
real life practice on the ground’. Another ECEP participant
mentioned that ‘strength-based approaches work’,
couched in terms of ‘empowering families, and identifying
and fostering the protective factors that promote their
health, wellbeing, learning and development’. They also
wanted further professional development about building
relationships, fostering parent–child interactions and
supporting the home learning environment. These were
deemed critical factors in the development and wellbeing
of all children, including children with a disability. It
was important to understand what motivates families
to achieve the goals they have for their children and to
support parents’ development of skills.
Barriers exist when ECEPs do not have time for the families
and children in their service that is needed to establish
familiarity, trust and empathy. One interviewee stated:
Sometimes expressed concerns and needs about the
child or family come out more quickly with parents
when there’s that constant person or if they are in
weekly groups … that they’re coming to, and they
can share with other parents and with a range of staff
[members] who show empathy and care. There’s
always the parents who feel comfortable with different
people, and they’ll tell different people different things,
depending on the trust that’s been developed.
Consistently, the concepts of relationships, relationship-
building, attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions were
noted. One ECEP participant stated:
 I had a family who identified as vulnerable last year. For
the mother this was a safe place ... we say the doors
are always open to families, and we encourage and
welcome family contribution to the program. Showing
appreciation for their time and their efforts … makes
them feel really good as well.
Building trust, showing empathy and having the time to
spend are necessary tools for positive communication so
that ECEPs and families can collaborate to share in the
child’s health, wellbeing and education.
Children and families level
From the perspective of the families experiencing
vulnerability and disadvantage, some of the key themes
included social connection, a sense of belonging,
combating isolation, seeking trust, and feelings of inclusion.
A significant number of parents admitted that they were
reluctant to seek assistance after previous negative
experiences, as they feared stigmatisation and criticism
of their parenting skills. Some family participants reported
feeling pressured by family and other services, and were
initially distrustful of ECEC professionals. Establishing a
respectful, sensitive, collaborative relationship between
children and their families and ECEPs was essential, and
easily damaged by the latter adopting an attitude that
could be considered dismissive or patronising. Trusting,
empathetic, warm, caring, honest, sincere, real and
supportive behaviours were all named by families as critical
in the relationship between themselves and the ECEPs.
Respect for families’ diverse backgrounds, values and
beliefs, was also seen as important.
Many parents talked about wanting to feel a connection, a
sense of belonging and feeling included. They wanted their
child welcomed into the care and education setting, and
wanted access to help and support when trust and rapport
was present. They often spoke about feeling isolated and
judged, and talked about open and welcoming environments
as being critically important to them. During interviews,
families noted some enablers around ECEP relationships
in supporting them and their children at services. One parent
said that, ‘having caring staff working with us and building
a relationship with our children, where there is trust and
acceptance of our family circumstance’; and ‘feeling a sense
of being cared for and special, makes these early years a
positive experience for us’; and ‘wonderful teachers and
the relationship my child and I have, not only with them but
also with the other children and parents’. Another family
participant explained, ‘I trust the educators at my child’s
kinder because they have spent time getting to know my
child and our family and our particular situation, which isn’t
the norm. They are caring and kind to us, and we are grateful
for this’. Yet another family participant shared, ‘We trust
them and know they want the best for our son and our
family. They are very supportive of our cultural background
and our beliefs.’
Families feel appreciative and receptive toward ECEPs
who take a genuine interest in their circumstances and
their child’s future. Many described positive perceptions
and relationships with ECEPs as: ‘flexible, highly
qualified, friendly, accepting, kind, attentive, trustworthy
and knowledgeable staff—information shared between
them, so we as parents can talk to more than one point of
contact’. In multicultural Australia, empathetic, culturally
competent, genuinely interested ECEPs are essential, as
one family participant described:
I could not have asked for better teachers. They care
about us and I trust them. They were aware and
encouraging of my child’s Indigenous heritage. They
made my child feel very included … my child has had
a great year and made some great friendships.
Such findings were consistent across most families
interviewed.
Analysis of children’s drawings and accompanying
commentary revealed that almost all children seemed to
draw happy images regardless of their family’s stressors,
which were determined through correlating information
from the families using the ECEC services. From the
children’s perspectives, the ECEC settings were delivering
a successful service, indicated through the positive
emotions and moods shown in the words the children
used and what they drew. These children’s connections
were often around activities, fun and play, the buildings
and its surroundings. One child participant described, ‘This
is the playdough table and I love playdough. This is me
with my friend’. Another child participant explained, ‘I love
playing with my friends here. We have fun’. Additionally, a
child participant shared, ‘That’s my teacher and that’s me
and that’s my friend’. The children’s friendships with their
peers were highlighted as important to them, along with
their relationships with their families and ECEPs.
Again, barriers were based around perceptions, feelings,
values and attitudes between ECEPs and families, for
example, ‘when people don’t listen and don’t respect
you as a family’, and again, ‘judgemental professionals
who show no empathy for my situation’. Respecting
parents in the decision making of their child’s education
and wellbeing, and their views and motivations for their
child is an enabler. While a barrier was described by one
family participant:
It has been awful with the workers in the child
protection system not listening to me as a mum, just
because I have a disability and mental health issues. I
am still the mum and I know my son better than them.
Empathy involves looking and feeling through the ‘eyes’
of another. It is considered a positive skill and attitude to
have, while ‘young people within DHS and the Courts who
don’t understand and don’t care’ and a ‘lack of supportive
communication and lack of knowledge of my child’s needs’
were seen as barriers. A strong enabler for families being
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 9
engaged in the early years sector was feeling secure,
for example, ‘this service is a safe place—there’s no
one judging anybody. They are more compassionate and
understanding, and I trust them’. Consistently, relationships
were the key enablers and barriers identified.
Discussion and conclusion
The Australian Curriculum asserts that, ‘Australians
become successful learners, confident and creative
individuals, and active and informed citizens [through]
ideologies of quality, equity and transparency’ (ACARA,
2013, p. 7). In Australia, it is noted that:
Education plays a critical role in shaping the lives of the
nation’s future citizens. To play this role effectively, the
intellectual, personal, social and educational needs of
young Australians must be addressed at a time when
ideas about the goals of education are changing and
will continue to evolve (ACARA, 2013, p. 7).
The ECEPs have a clear commitment to quality, equity
and transparency, and an understanding of the importance
of relationship building in their engagement with families
experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage. Like the
families in the study, ECEPs emphasise the importance
of building empathy and trust, and having the time and
support to do this. These understandings suggest that
a new family-engagement model is needed in the early
years’ sector, and might address some issues about
inclusion, access, participation and engagement of
vulnerable and disadvantaged families in supporting
the child’s health, wellbeing and education through a
relationship perspective. Working in partnership with
families, successful relationships and positive self-view
within ECEC is vital. Services need to develop relationships
of trust with families and with each other. Relationship
building is not only time-intensive but requires adequate
and sustained funding to ensure continuity of staffing and
provision of services (Boag-Munroe & Evangelou, 2012).
Moore and Skinner (2010) identified relational and
interpersonal barriers that align with this paper’s research
findings about perceptions, beliefs, values, insensitivities
to culture, judgemental and unsupportive attitudes, and
families’ feelings of mistrust and disempowerment. To
overcome these, it is essential that staff have the necessary
capacity, skills, time and resources for engaging parents
(Axford et al., 2012). Educators can be transformational
agents of social change (Pelo, 2006). When families enter
into the early years setting, my findings have shown that
they consistently encounter barriers around attitudes and
feelings, for example, a mistrust of services and feeling
judged. ECEPs indicated a desire for further knowledge
and professional development. Many felt comparatively
well-prepared for child-focused work but poorly prepared
for adult engagement with vulnerable families.
10 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Relationships-based family engagement requires
skills in communication, a humanitarian and value-
based approach in which trust, empathy and time
play a large part. All these issues must be recognised
to support dialogue and to form a common ground
for engagement between stakeholder groups.
I recommend a model that encapsulates the core elements
of effective engagement in ECEC by the child, their family
and the ECEPs.
Core elements of effective engagement
Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the core elements
of effective engagement between the child, the family and
the ECEP, who are placed at the centre of my diagram. The
three inner central rings (Empathy, Time and Trust) are the
key elements that must surround children, families and
ECEP. These are the essential qualities that underpin the
values that guide effective practice and prompt greater
communication and relationship building. Radiating around
this are increasing circles that respect the sequence of
the necessary aspects needed for successful results
in the early years, which are: Empathy, Time and Trust,
Communication and Relationships. Surrounding these
are the enablers in ECEC, based on my data and the
relevant literature. The concentric circles are surrounded
by quadrants representing indicators of success. The
quadrants of the model are: Social Inclusion, Access,
Participation and Engagement. Each quadrant contains
enablers that, if not present, form barriers. All of these
combine to create effective collaborative practices that
foster children and family relationships and effective
engagement with ECEPs.
This research study found that both ECEPs and families
shared an understanding that empathy, trust and time
proved key to effective relationships. Empathy, time
and trust are at the core of all effective relationships,
and generate a shared space for engagement and
communication. This study suggests the need for more
collaborative practices and the acceptance of a new model
for relationship building. This new model has potential
to support ECEPs’ understandings of the broader
context in which vulnerable families are situated.
It also has the potential to stimulate discussion
amongst ECEPs and families about raising awareness
of the enablers and barriers for families experiencing
vulnerability and disadvantage (including those with
disabilities) regarding inclusion, access, participation and
engagement in ECEC settings.
ORCID iD/s
Dr. Wendy Roberts: orcid.org/0000-0002-8988-5196
Figure 1. Core elements of effective engagement
References
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority
(ACARA). (2013). The shape of the Australian Curriculum version
4.0. Sydney: ACARA. Retrieved from https://acaraweb.blob.
core.windows.net/resources/The_Shape_of_the_Australian_
Curriculum_v4.pdf.
Axford, N., Lehtonen, M., Kaoukji, D., Tobin, K., & Berry, V.
(2012). Engaging parents in parenting programs: Lessons from
research and practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(10),
2061–2071.
Boag-Munroe, G., & Evangelou, M. (2012). From hard to reach
to how to reach: A systematic review of the literature on hard-
to-reach families. Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 209–239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2010.509515
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carbone, S., Fraser, A., Ramburuth, R., & Nelms, L. (2004). Breaking
cycles, building futures: Promoting inclusion of vulnerable families
in antenatal and universal early childhood services. Melbourne,
Vic.: Department of Human Services.
Castle, C. (2000). For every child: The UN convention on the rights
of the child in words and pictures. Hong Kong: Midas Printing
Chezare, A. W. (2015). Conflicts and contradictions: Conceptions
of empathy and the work of good-intentioned early career
white female teachers. Urban Education, 50(5), 572–600.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914525790
Danby, S. (2008). The importance of friends; The value of friends;
Friendships within peer cultures. In, L. Brooker & M. Woodhead
(Eds.), Early childhood in focus 3: Developing positive identities:
Diversity and young children (pp. 36–41). Milton Keynes, UK:
The Open University.
Daro, D., McCurdy, K., Falconnier, L., & Stojanovic, D. (2003).
Sustaining new parents in home visitation services: Key participant
and program factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(10), 1101–1125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.007
Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: For small-
scale social research projects (4th ed.). Berkshire, England:
Open University Press.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
(DEECD) & Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA).
(2009). Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework
for all Children from Birth to Eight Years. Melbourne, Vic.: DEECD
Retrieved from www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/childhood/
providers/health/veyldframework.pdf.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
(DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years
Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth
of Australia. Retrieved from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/
National-Quality-Framework-Resources-Kit/belonging_being_and_
becoming_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia.pdf.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2016). Victorian
Early Years Learning Development Framework for all Children from
Birth to Eight Years. Melbourne, Vic.: DET. Retrieved from www.
education.vic.gov.au/Documents/childhood/providers/edcare/
veyldframework.pdf.
Dunn, J. (2004). Children's friendships: The beginnings of intimacy.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Edwards, J., Cheers, B., & Graham, L. (2003). Social change and
social capital in Australia: A solution for contemporary problems?
Health Sociology Review, 12(1), 68–85.
Eisikovitz, Z., & Buchbinder, E. (1996). Pathways to
disenchantment: Battered women’s views of their social
workers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(3), 425–440.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088626096011003008
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 11
Ferguson, R. F. (2003). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Woodhead, M. (Eds.). (2009). Early childhood
the Black-White test score gap. Urban Education, 38(4), 460–507. in focus 4: Effective early childhood programmes. Milton Keynes,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085903038004006 UK: The Open University.
Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (2009). Empathy and education. Tayler, C. (2006). Challenging partnerships in Australian early
In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy childhood education. Early Years: An International Research Journal,
(pp. 85–98). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 26(3), 249–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09575140600898423
Fitzpatrick, S., & Bussey, K. (2014). The role of perceived friendship Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative
self-efficacy as a protective factor against the negative effects Report, 3(2), 1–14. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/
of social victimization. Social Development, 23(1), 41–60. http:// vol3/iss2/4.
dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12032
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2007). UNICEF,
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (Eds.). (1994). A new generation Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in
of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. rich countries, Innocenti Report Card 7. Florence, Italy: UNICEF.
Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education. Retrieved from www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf.
Hertzman, C. (2002). Leave no child behind! Social exclusion and Victorian Government. (2013). Victoria’s vulnerable children:
child development. Perspectives on Social Inclusion Working Paper Our shared responsibility. Strategy 2013–2022. Melbourne, Vic.:
Series. Toronto, Canada: The Laidlaw Foundation. Retrieved from Victorian Government. Retrieved from http://youthlaw.asn.au/wp-
http://laidlawfdn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/wpsosi_2002_ content/uploads/2016/07/Victorias-vulnerable-children-Our-Shared-
may_leave-no-child-behind.pdf. Responsibility.pdf.
Knox City Council. (2016). Community access and equity strategic Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher
planning – Draft profile findings, 2013–2017 (pp. 11–12). Knox, psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Vic.: Knox City Council. Press.
Mac Naughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2011). Parents and professionals Wong, S. W., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Ethnicity and language
in early childhood settings. New York, NY: Open University Press. contributions to dimensions of parent involvement. School
Psychology Review, 35(4), 645–662.
Moore, T. G., & Skinner, A. (2010). Background paper: An
integrated approach to early childhood development. Paddington,
NSW: The Benevolent Society. Retrieved from www.rch.org.au/
uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/TM_BenSoc_Project_09.pdf.
Moran. D., & Mooney, T. (Eds.). (2002). The phenomenology
reader. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
O’Brien, E. (2003). The political is personal: The influence of
white supremacy on white antiracists’ personal relationships. In,
A. W. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out: The continuing
significance of racism (pp. 253–270). New York, NY: Routledge.
Peck, N. F., Maude, S. P., & Brotherson, M. J. (2015). Understand
preschool teachers’ perspectives on empathy: A qualitative inquiry.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(3), 169–179. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10643-014-0648-3
Pelo, A. (2006). At the crossroads: Pedagogical documentation
and social justice. In A. Fleet, C. Patterson, & J. Robertson (Eds.),
Insights: Behind early childhood pedagogical documentation
(pp. 173–190). Mt. Victoria, NSW: Pademelon Press.
Pianta, R. C., Kraft-Sayre, M., Rimm-Kaufman, S., Gercke, N., &
Higgins, T. (2001). Collaboration in building partnerships between
families and schools: The National Center for Early Development
and Learning’s kindergarten transition intervention. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 16(1), 117–132.
Reid, K., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2005). Exploring lived
experience. The Psychologist, 18(1), 20–23.
Roberts, W. (2015). Enabling change through education for children
and their families experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage: The
understandings of early childhood professionals. Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood, 40(2), 49–56.
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the
new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal
of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5–18. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/15710880701875068.
Sims, M., Hayden, J., Palmer, G., & Hutchins, T. (2000). Working
in early childhood settings with children who have experienced
refugee or war-related trauma. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 25(4), 41–46.

12 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

 What’s the story?
Exploring parent–teacher communication through ePortfolios
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.02

Amanda Higgins
Sue Cherrington
Victoria University of Wellington

ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS (ePORTFOLIOS) ARE a relatively new phenomenon in early

childhood education (ECE) with minimal existing research available on their use and
effectiveness as a learning and communication tool in ECE. This article reports on a study
examining the influence of ePortfolios on parent–teacher communication in one early
childhood (EC) service. Reported data has been drawn from online surveys, document
analysis of ePortfolios, individual interviews and focus group interviews with parents and
teachers. Thematic analysis identified two main themes: the benefits and drawbacks of
communicating via the ePortfolio, and the types of communication that were evident.

Introduction
Profile books or portfolios are commonplace tools for early
childhood education (ECE) services to communicate with
parents—especially about children’s learning—in New
Zealand (NZ) (ERO, 2008). A portfolio can be described
as a purposeful collection of artifacts that tells the story
of a child’s effort, progress and/or achievement (Abrami
& Barrett, 2005). These are often referred to as ‘learning
stories’, a type of narrative assessment (Carr, 2001). While
most services have been using hard-copy portfolios over
the last two decades, ePortfolios are a newer development.
But ePortfolios can offer unique advantages over hard-copy
portfolios, as they are able to integrate multimedia tools
to organise learning, thus illustrating children’s learning
progress more effectively over time. They are also easily
shared and contributed to, with feedback held in one place
(Abrami & Barrett, 2005).
As a relatively new phenomenon, albeit with rapidly
increasing adoption, research on the use and effectiveness
of ePortfolios as a learning and communication tool
in ECE is limited. Goodman’s (2013a, 2013b) mixed
method research found that engagement with ePortfolios
enhanced communication between parents and teachers.
Communication—focused on learning stories and centre
events recorded within the ePortfolio—was more frequent
and more positive than when hard-copy portfolios alone
were used. Parents felt better informed about their child’s
learning, and this led to increased confidence in approaching
teachers and talking about the stories. Teachers rated the
positive effect of ePortfolio communication more highly
than parents.
Parents reported that having information about their
child’s activities at the centre also led to more meaningful
conversations with their child. Teachers found that parents
also posted more of their own stories online than they
did in hard-copy portfolios and that their comments had
more detail about the child’s life at home, giving teachers
greater awareness about the child. Having the ePortfolio
online meant that more family members had access to the
ePortfolio, even when they did not live locally. Teachers got
to know wider whānau (Māori word for extended family)
through the ePortfolio, and extended family members
greatly appreciated the ePortfolio, as it was a way they
could connect with the child’s learning. Similar findings
were reported for parents who travelled a lot, or who did
not live with their children (Goodman, 2013a, 2013b).
Teachers participating in the Early Childhood Education
Information and Communication Technology Professional
Learning Program (ECE ICT PL program) engaged in
action research projects focused on using ICT, including
ePortfolios, within their ECE contexts. Hatherly’s (2010)
evaluation of those projects found that where ePortfolios

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 13
were used, face-to-face conversations with parents
happened more readily than occurred with hard-copy
portfolios, deepening relationships with parents. Family
members overseas were also better connected to what
children were experiencing at the centres. An evaluation
of this program found parents were positive about how, in
relation to parent–teacher communication, ICTs supported
continuity between home and centre. However, this
communication was generally ‘not focused on children’s
specific learning interests’ (Cherrington et al., 2009, p. 14).
When asked how ICT supported parents in being more
engaged in their child’s learning, program facilitators
were more likely to give examples of what children
were doing, but there was little evidence of the ‘extent
to which the children’s learning is foregrounded in these
communications’ (p. 18).
Parent–teacher communication
This research drew upon Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
theory as a framework for theorising about effective
two-way communication. Ecological theory is based on
the premise that a person’s development is influenced
by the environmental systems that they interact with.
Bronfenbrenner described these five systems starting with
the microsystem, which is the immediate environment
in which the child spends time, such as the home. The
second system—the mesosystem—is described as ‘a set
of interrelations between two or more settings in which
the developing person becomes an active participant’
(p. 209), for example, the home and the ECE setting. So,
ePortfolios can be considered a mesosystem tool that
connects the microsystems of the child’s home and early
childhood setting, supporting inter-setting communication.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) hypothesised that young children’s
‘developmental potential of participation in multiple
settings will vary directly with the ease and extent of two-
way communication between those settings’ (p. 216). He
saw families’ inclusion as a key part of the communication
network, and proposed that interchanges between settings
were enhanced through processes:
[that] are bidirectional, sustain and enhance mutual
trust and goal consensus, and exhibit a balance of
power favorable to those linking parties who facilitate
action in behalf of the developing person (p. 218).
Communication involves a reciprocal interaction between
others and ourselves, recognising how we both affect and
are affected by the communication (Loveridge, 2002). This
definition highlights the reciprocal nature of effective
communication. The importance of parent–teacher
communication making a positive difference for children
is well recognised (Hughes & MacNaughton, 2001; Meade,
2012; Stonehouse & Gonzalez Mena, 2004; Whalley, 2007).
The NZ government mandates parental involvement in ECE
settings as part of regulatory and funding requirements
(MoE, 2008) indicating its value. Research supports
14 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
this stance: for example, the Effective Provision of Pre-
School Education (EPPE) project in Britain indicated strong
parental involvement, through shared aspirations and
regular discussions about children’s progress was linked
to positive learning outcomes for children (Sylva, Melhuish,
Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart, 2010).
While communication between teachers and families is
a key contributor to parent engagement, it can also be
fraught with difficulties from both teachers’ and families’
perspectives. Hughes and MacNaughton’s (2001) Australian
case study investigated teachers’ views on parent–teacher
communication and relationships. Participating teachers
reported that parent involvement was difficult and complex.
Due to the challenge in reaching shared understandings
with parents about what was best for their children, they
were hesitant about involving parents. However, teachers
also articulated that communication with parents was
essential to their work with children. Because of this
complexity, staff preferred informal communication such
as chats at the beginning and end of the day over more
formal communication channels (e.g., parent conferences
and message books). Elliot’s (2003) Australian qualitative
study, which investigated parents’ perceptions of quality
EC care and education, found that parents felt they were
informed rather than communicated with; teachers did
not share information that parents were interested in and
there was a perceived lack of interconnectedness between
home and centre experiences.
Research investigating verbal communication between
teachers and parents has found such communication to
be sporadic and challenging, especially in relation to time
and privacy (MacNaughton, 2004). Differences between
parents’ and teachers’ ethnic backgrounds also influenced
the quantity of conversations (Bernhard, Lefebvre, Kilbride,
Chud & Lange, 1998). Reedy and McGrath (2010) found
that even short exchanges (e.g., ‘hi, how are you?’) helped
build rapport between parents and teachers, and often led
to other conversations. These daily exchanges, especially
with regards to sharing information about children’s
wellbeing, were important for parents to develop trust
in the teacher. Such informal daily conversations were
valued more by parents than centre-planned events
in Martin’s (2006) research. This Irish study surveyed
parents and teachers about parent–teacher communication
and opportunities for parents’ participation. Informal
communication opportunities occurred mostly at the
beginning or end of the session, and 54 per cent of parents
felt these helped to build a partnership with teachers.
While communication between teachers and parents
happened mostly at children's drop-off and pick-up times;
these times were often difficult for both teachers and
families (Stonehouse & Gonzalez-Mena, 2004). At the end
of the day when parents may have more available time,
teachers were often tidying up and wanting to leave, or
more senior teachers were not available for conversations
(Zellman & Perlman, 2006). Issues of teachers’ availability
were also described in MacNaughton’s (2004) study: while
teachers reported always being available for parents,
they also said a lack of time hindered their ability to build
relationships with them. Parents also identified challenges
in finding a ‘good’ time to talk with teachers: parents did
not want to interrupt teaching, and arrival time was often
hectic with teachers busy with other parents. Findings
from the New Zealand Council of Education Research
(NZCER, 2007) survey support this: 25 per cent of parents
commented on the difficulty of talking within their service’s
opening hours. McGrath’s (2007) study also found that
at drop-off time, parents were often managing two
conversations simultaneously—one with the teacher and
one with their child—while at the same time, the teacher
was supervising the environment and talking with the
parent. For parents, lack of appropriate space for them to
talk with teachers was also an issue affecting the quality
of conversations (MacNaughton, 2004).
The quality of teacher communication with parents may be
linked to the proportion of qualified teachers at the service.
Meade et al. (2012) found that settings with 100 per cent
qualified teachers were more intentional in how they
communicated and were more able to articulate children’s
learning to parents. These teachers had better systems
for communication, using, for example, blogs, email and
a key teacher system where a teacher was assigned to
each child. These strategies increased opportunities for
deeper communication with parents. Centres with all
qualified teachers were more likely to include portfolio
documentation that was more personalised to the child and
included richer descriptions of learning. It also contained
more parent comments and threads of dialogue between
teachers and parents, compared to centres with 50–79
per cent qualified teachers (Meade, 2012).
Communication supported by Information and
Communication Technology (ICT)
The ECE ICT PL programme referred to earlier, found that
parent–teacher relationships were enhanced when ICTs
supporting two-way communication were used (Hatherly,
Ham & Evans, 2009). Where teachers made children’s
learning visible through ICTs such as photos and videos,
families gained a better understanding of their child’s
learning and parents felt reassured that their child was
settled. Being able to engage with their child’s learning
encouraged some families to document stories from home
or to continue experiences and conversations documented
by teachers with their children at home. When this
happened, children were able to see both their home and
centre life valued.
Where online documentation of children’s learning
occurred, opportunities for home–centre collaboration on
assessments were created. Teachers reported that the
immediacy of the online tools, which parents could access
anytime and anywhere, facilitated such collaboration
(Hatherly et al., 2009). However, Hatherly (2010) cautioned
that to make learning visible, rather than merely sharing
children’s experiences via visual media such as photos
and videos, teachers needed to provide a commentary
that highlighted the learning that was occurring. The
NZ Education Review Office’s (2008) evaluation of ECE
assessment practices also found that the availability of
ICT enabled teachers to include parents more effectively
and make children’s learning more visible.
Given the limited existing research into ePortfolios in ECE,
this study aimed to investigate the types of communication
afforded by ePortfolios and looked at how these might
influence relationships between teachers and parents, as
well as engagement with children’s learning. The following
research questions were developed:
1. How do ePortfolios facilitate communication between
families and teachers in an EC centre?
2. What type of communication is fostered through the
use of ePortfolios in an EC centre?
3. What impact does communication through the use of
ePortfolios have on teacher–parent relationships and
children’s ongoing learning?
Methodology
This study was undertaken for a Master of Education thesis
completed by the first author, and was located within a
constructivist-interpretivist paradigm that acknowledges the
possibility of many different reasons for people’s actions.
It emphasises a detailed account of the issues, rather than
making broad generalisations (Mukherji & Albon, 2010).
A case study design was chosen to better understand
families’ and teachers’ experiences in using ePortfolios.
The bounded system of the case included all those at the
selected ECE centre who used the web-based ePortfolio
platform at the start of the research, including parents,
wider whānau and teachers. While the children’s ePortfolios
were included as a data source, children did not participate
in this research. This centre was chosen because it had
used ePortfolios for more than two years and these were
embedded into the centre’s assessment practices.
The centre was managed as a not-for-profit service,
employed all degree- or diploma-qualified ECE teachers,
and catered to 25 children between two and five years.
All parents and teachers had access to email. The centre
was well resourced with digital cameras and computers,
and there was a computer and data projector available to
children. All seven teachers and 29 parents from the 33
families attending the centre agreed to participate in the
study. Wider whānau, who were registered on the children’s
ePortfolio of participating parents, were invited to take part
in an online survey, which was completed by 13 individuals.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 15
Four data collection methods were used: an online survey
distributed to all parents and teachers; analysis of exemplar
learning stories and in-depth analysis of four children’s
ePortfolios; semi-structured interviews; and focus group
interviews with a sample of parents and teachers. The
online survey asked respondents to rate the usefulness
of the ePortfolio across items relating to communication,
relationships, and children’s learning using a four-point
rating scale. It was followed by open-ended questions
where respondents were asked to give examples. The
interview and focus group questions were framed around
the research questions, together with questions developed
from themes emerging from the survey data.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was gained from the Victoria University of
Wellington Human Ethics Committee before approaching
the participants or conducting the study (SEPP/2013/74
RM 20286). Informed consent was first gained from the
centre’s management committee and then from teachers
and parents before children’s ePortfolios were accessed
and online surveys emailed out. Further informed consent
was obtained from interview and focus group participants.
The first author was not involved in the individual
teacher interviews or those with any parents known
prior to beginning the research, in order not to influence
participants’ response as a result of her professional
knowledge of the centre. A research assistant selected
teacher interviewees, liaised with the transcriber and
provided de-identified interview transcripts to the first
author in order to maintain anonymity of these participants.
Data analysis
Thematic analysis of qualitative data was undertaken while
quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics. An
initial analysis of learning stories ascertained who commented
on stories and the content of those comments. Then, stories
containing five or more comments were selected for further
analysis as these were seen to provide potential evidence
of substantial dialogue. Ten per cent (n = 120) of all the
stories initially analysed fitted this criteria. The quantitative
data collection methods used alongside qualitative methods
provided precise numerical data and enabled greater
triangulation of the data (Johnson & Christensen, 2012).
Thus, quantitative data collected from the learning stories
and participants’ survey could be compared and integrated
alongside the analysis of participants’ open-ended responses
in the surveys, interviews and focus group interviews to
better understand how ePortfolios facilitated communication.
Results
Two key themes from the data are presented here: the
benefits and drawbacks of communication via the ePortfolio;
and the types of communication evident through online
comments. Pseudonyms have been used throughout.
16 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Benefits and drawbacks of communication
via ePortfolios
A key finding from the surveys and interviews was that
parents and wider whānau felt well informed through the
ePortfolio about their child’s experiences and learning
while at the centre. After reading stories in the ePortfolio,
grandparents in particular (who didn’t have regular face-to-
face contact with their grandchildren) reported being able
to have conversations with their grandchildren about their
activities at the centre. Online communication through
the ePortfolio supported and enhanced face-to-face
conversations between teachers and parents, teachers and
teachers, and families and children. All teachers, parents,
and wider whānau surveyed, felt that the ePortfolio helped
strengthen communication between home and the centre,
with 75 per cent (n = 15) of parents and 100 per cent
(n = 7) of teachers saying it helped quite a lot or a great
deal. Parents reported that face-to-face conversations with
teachers often resulted from teachers’ responses to their
online comments. The four parents interviewed, felt that
the online conversations strengthened the face-to-face
conversations at the beginning and end of the day.
All surveyed parents and teachers felt that the ePortfolios
helped strengthen the teacher–parent relationship to some
extent, with 26 per cent (n = 7) feeling the ePortfolio had
strengthened the relationship a great deal. This was also
evident in all the parent interviews when participants
were asked how the communication via the ePortfolio
had affected their relationship with the teachers.
When new teachers shared their ‘profile’ on the ePortfolio,
these were more likely to be read by parents than when
they were displayed on the wall in the centre, and helped
to spark conversation. Parents noted that commenting
online built relationships with teachers more quickly. One
described how the ePortfolio had ‘broken the ice’ and led
to more face-to-face communication. Teachers’ interview
responses also spoke of strengthened relationships, with
two teachers describing how it provided another avenue
for communication. One teacher gave an example where
parents engaged with a small group story about worm
farming and sustainability, resulting in both online and
face-to-face conversations. Parents also shared knowledge
and resources with the teacher to extend the project. She
explained how exciting it was that everyone was involved
in this particular learning journey.
In the survey, 35 per cent (n = 7) of parents identified
similarities between children’s learning and experiences
at home and at the centre. This data was supported in
the parent interviews, where three parents described how
they provided further experiences at home based on what
teachers shared in the learning story. One parent identified
that when the story was more focused on learning, she
was more likely to follow up on the interest or experience
at home as she became aware of how it benefited her
child. Two parents described posting new stories on their
child’s ePortfolio in which they had made links to a story Types of online comments
a teacher had written and shown how they extended this Analysis of online comments from 39 exemplar stories
learning at home. revealed six core categories of comments (see Figure 1).
While there was considerable evidence in both the parent
survey and interviews of how learning and interests at the
centre were followed up at home, it was less evident how
teachers followed up on parents’ and whānau comments
or stories to influence children’s learning at the centre. In-
depth analysis of four children’s ePortfolios for threads of
continuity supported this finding, with few stories having
dialogue that shared information, supported or extended
ongoing experiences or learning. Parents interviewed felt
that there was limited follow-up on learning specified within
stories. While teachers may have made suggestions,
there were few further comments or stories to indicate
that any follow-up activity occurred. When asked about
this in the teachers’ focus group interview, two teachers
reported that it was easier to be specific when they were
writing about something that had taken place. But they
felt there was a risk that if they were too specific looking
forward, the child wouldn’t follow up with what they had
planned. Another teacher described how, when she had
non-contact time to write up what happened, it seemed
too late to write about the learning that was followed up
as it had lost its timeliness. This suggests that what was
Figure 1. Categories of comments made on
included in children’s ePortfolios was only a small portion
learning stories
of what actually happened and may not give a full picture
of children’s ongoing learning. Affirmation was the most frequent type of comment (44
Group stories influenced the nature of communication per cent, n = 114), and wider whānau used this type of
between teachers and parents. Interviewed parents were commenting most often (74 per cent, n = 36). Comments
more careful about their comments on group stories, as in this category included affirming the child in the story, the
they did not want their comments to be misconstrued experience described in the story, or the comment made
by other readers and were thus more likely to make by another person.
general comments. Parents and teachers in the focus Giving further information was the second most frequent
group interviews supported this view. Teachers described type of comment made (25.9 per cent, n = 67). The
discussing this issue frequently at staff meetings. They following comments by teachers are examples of sharing
felt parents were less likely to comment on group stories, specific information about a child. The story described a
and that teachers were more inclined to make general child who had been persisting with placing tiny beads onto
comments on group stories to ensure they didn’t single a heart shaped frame, but the beads kept getting knocked
anyone out. off for various reasons:
The ePortfolio platform offered tools not available with Alwin made another creation today. She worked really
hard-copy portfolios. Analysis of surveys and interviews hard at it for almost an hour and was thrilled to see it
revealed the ease of using the ePortfolio was significant for ironed and stuck together.
parents’ engagement. For example, many parents noted
Then another teacher commented:
that having access or immediate notification of a new
story or comment via email supported their involvement. The first time she made it, she excitedly held it up to
In contrast, interview data indicated that the number of show me! Millions of beads all over the floor and a
notification emails generated from group stories could be very sad face! All I needed to say was, ‘I’m sure you
annoying to parents and wider whānau. While this function can remake that in no time, Alwin’, and she sat up at
could be turned off, it meant no notifications for the the Kai table remaking her heart (through a few tears).
individual stories would be received either, which parents Parents also offered specific information, as in this
appreciated getting. The easy access enabled teachers to example about two children developing a close friendship:
review previous stories and make links to current stories,
which was not possible with hard-copy portfolios if the We showed Liz these pictures at home and she was
book was at home. Having access to photos and videos very keen to keep looking at them, and often asked to
was highlighted as a benefit of the ePortfolio platform. see them again; she even started describing what was

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 17
 happening in detail (Liz and Colin going down slide!)
when I came to pick her up last week (parent 1).
Other types of information shared included more general
statements about the child (n = 13) or the experience (n = 6),
general information on the topic within the story (n = 4), or
sharing their own experiences around the story topic (n = 2).
The data showed appreciation comments were the third
most frequently occurring type of comments used (12 per
cent, n = 31) and involved thanking in some way. Parents
and wider whānau thanked teachers for writing the story
or supporting their child, while teachers thanked parents
for their comments or information they had shared, and
thanked other teachers for providing learning experiences.
For example, one teacher had written an appreciation
comment in response to a group story about a teacher-
organised experience called ‘clubs’, which her colleague
had taken for her that day.
The category links to potential follow-up accounted for 7 per
cent (n = 19) of comments. These comments referred to
some type of future follow-up to the experience described
in the story. Teachers (9 per cent, n = 10) were slightly
more likely to make this type of comment than parents
(6 per cent, n = 6). Finally, conversational comments
accounted for 7.75 per cent (n = 20) of the comments.
These were comments that were generally chatty, involved
humour or were unrelated to the story.
Parents, wider whānau and teachers were asked in the
surveys why they commented on stories in children’s
ePortfolios. Wider whānau were most likely to do so to
give affirmation to children, while this was the third most
frequent reason for parents’ comments. Interestingly, while
no teachers in the survey noted giving affirmation as a reason
to comment, this was the most frequent type of comment
teachers made in the exemplar stories (35.9 per cent, n = 39).
Giving information was the second most frequent reason (20
per cent, n = 5) parents gave in the survey for commenting
on stories, often because when they recognised similar
learning or interests happening at home and the centre, they
wanted to share this with teachers. All parents interviewed
noted the importance of sharing information to give insights
into what their children did at home. One parent described
how providing more information showed that parents valued
what teachers were doing.
When threads of online dialogue were analysed in
the exemplar stories it became apparent that some
conversations were at a more surface level and others
were more substantive. For example, the following online
conversation followed a story about an individual child
challenging himself climbing up a rope net:
Father: That’s awesome, go Andy!
Grandparent: Well done Andy
Aunty: Whaaaa hooooo
18 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Terry (teacher): Yeah he sure is brave, eh
Mother: That’s really cool! He is learning so many
awesome things at [the centre]. Thank you!
Terry (teacher): Yes, I am sure that Andy will go from
strength to strength. Kia kaha! (Māori for
‘Be strong, keep going!’)
Grandparent: Good skills little man.
Much of this conversation is more about affirmation and
appreciation, and adds little to the child’s ongoing learning
pathways. In contrast, the following online dialogue follows
an individual story about a boy who is playing dramatically,
pretending to catch a fish:
Grandparent: John, perhaps daddy could take you fishing
at the [city] pier when you come to stay
with [grandma] and grandpa in January.
Mother: Yes, he’s been getting into ‘fishing’ quite
a bit lately. Whenever we go to [the] park
these days he will fashion himself a fishing
rod out of a stick or piece of flax and we go
fishing in the pond. Apparently, I only catch
small fish and he catches the big ones.
Terry (teacher): It’s wonderful to hear how fishing has
become a real interest for John. When I
am outside next, I’ll be sure to set up a
fishing activity.
Lisa (teacher): He’s been really interested in ‘Maui’s magic
jawbone’. We acted the Maui story out
recently at mat time (story to come), and
John has been using his own magic jawbone
to do some fishing—just like Maui! [Maui is a
central character in a number of Māori myths]
Terry (teacher): It’s great to hear how John has been able to
link his interest in fishing to this Maui myth.
This dialogue is indicative of how the sharing of information by
parents, family and teachers tells a deeper story of learning.
This has more potential to influence the child’s experiences
both in the centre and at home, evidenced by the teacher and
grandparent suggesting further experiences to offer John.
Discussion
The three original research questions form the basis of the
following discussion.
How ePortfolios facilitate communication between
families and teachers
The ePortfolio platform provided an avenue for
communication that often led to face-to-face conversations.
Both one-way and two-way communication helped
facilitate children’s learning.
One-way communication
The first level of communication evident was one-way
communication where parents and wider whānau were
informed by teachers via the ePortfolio about their child’s
experiences and learning at the centre. The importance
to families of being informed about what children were
doing and learning was a key finding, and concurs with
Goodman’s (2013b) findings. Through being informed,
families were then able to make links with what children
were doing at home, sometimes extending the experience
described in the teacher’s story.
This finding is reflected in results from other research,
where it was important for parents to be informed about
their child’s daily experiences when they were unable to
be with them (Bernhard et al., 1998; Elliot, 2003; Reedy &
McGrath, 2010). Information that teachers communicated
via the ePortfolio in this study addressed this need for
most parents. This suggests that some parents valued
the ePortfolio as a tool for keeping themselves informed,
rather than as a two-way communication tool.
Two-way communication
The second level of communication was two-way,
where parents responded to the teachers’ stories via
the ePortfolio platform’s commenting tool or added their
own story. Almost all participating parents in the study
commented on a story at least once (96.5 per cent), and
44 per cent (n = 12) added their own story at least once.
This shows high levels of engagement, especially when
compared to Meade et al.’s (2012) research where 44 per
cent of parents in the case studies had contributed either
a comment or story to the hard-copy portfolio at least
once. This suggests ePortfolios may encourage a higher
response rate from parents than has been evident with
traditional paper-based portfolios.
Hatherly et al. (2009) and Goodman (2013b) found that
when parents felt more informed about daily happenings
through their child’s ePortfolio, they had increased
confidence to talk directly with teachers. Three-quarters
of parents in this study felt the ePortfolio had helped
them communicate with teachers about their children’s
lives outside the centre. This response rate is high
compared with Goodman’s (2013a) study, where 42.8
per cent of parents, when asked the same question, felt
that ePortfolios helped them communicate. There are
a number of possible explanations, including that the
centre in this study was in a high socio-economic area
so participants may have had greater access to, and been
more confident with ICT; staff from the case study centre
were all qualified; or the length of time this centre had
been using the ePortfolio.
ePortfolio tools that facilitate communication
Having 24-hour access to the ePortfolio and receiving email
alerts meant participants were kept informed of new stories
and could view and use the ePortfolio when it suited them.
It also gave opportunities for parents and wider whānau to
easily give feedback if they wanted, through commenting
or adding their own story. The immediacy provided by the
ePortfolio was also reported in Hatherly et al.’s (2009)
research, which found greater collaboration between
teachers and families. The asynchronistic element of
the commenting tool meant that teachers and parents
did not need to be physically available at the same time,
thus alleviating many of the issues in regards to finding a
convenient time and place to talk, for both teachers and
parents as described by MacNaughton (2004), NZCER
(2007), and McGrath (2007).
Types of communication fostered
Different types of communication were fostered through
the ePortfolio, including the content of comments and
the depth of online dialogue created by the thread of
comments attached to each story.
Content of communication
Affirmation was the most frequent type of comment made
by parents, teachers and whānau. This differs from Meade’s
(2012) research where most parents’ feedback in the
hard-copy portfolio book focused on describing the child’s
interests at home. This may indicate that commenting
online was viewed as informal conversation, much the
same as using Facebook, so could be seen differently than
writing in a hard-copy portfolio. This informal nature of
conversations was seen as an important way for parents to
build rapport and trust with teachers in Martin’s (2006) and
Reedy and McGrath’s (2010) studies. While these related
to face-to-face conversations, parallels can be seen in
regards to the informality of online comments in this study.
Surface versus substantive dialogue
Ten percent of ePortfolio stories received five or more
comments. While this was a significant quantity of
comments, it didn’t always ensure a deep, substantive
conversation. Substantive dialogue was more likely
when specific information was shared about children.
Sharing information was the second most frequent type
of comment (25.9 per cent), with 61.5 per cent of the
exemplar stories having at least one of these comments.
This appears higher than results reported in Meade et
al.’s. study (2012) where only two of the ten services in
their case study managed to set up substantive dialogue
with ‘one or two’ (p. 57) parents in the hard-copy portfolio
on at least one occasion. However, dialogue occurred
more often via email when this approach was used. This
could suggest that even with a high level of affirmation
commentary, substantive dialogue is more likely to happen
online than in a paper-based format.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 19
Impact of communication on relationships and
ongoing learning
All participating parents and teachers felt that the ePortfolio
helped strengthen relationships with each other. Teachers
described parents contributing more to the curriculum, and
having more conversations both online and face-to-face as
examples of these growing relationships. This finding is
supported by Hatherly (2010), who found conversations
with teachers happened more readily when parents were
using ePortfolios, leading to stronger relationships.
In Martin’s (2006) study, parents frequently cited the need
for increased two-way communication and a greater flow
of information to improve the partnership relationship.
ePortfolios offer another avenue for parents to give
feedback, and the ease with which this could be done
appears to increase the amount of feedback.
While the quantity of online communication was significant
and helped to build relationships, this didn’t always mean
that the content was useful to build on children’s learning
in the centre. As in Elliot’s (2003) and Meade et al.’s (2012)
research, some parents reported a lack of detail about
the learning in their child’s stories. From the interviews
it became apparent that some parents and teachers
preferred to receive comments that gave more information
about children’s experiences, as these were both easier
to respond to and helped to support the child’s learning.
Despite this preference, affirmation type comments
were more frequent (44 per cent) than those that shared
information (25.9 per cent). This suggests that comments
that link to children’s ongoing experiences and learning
were more difficult to make than affirmation comments,
or that participants didn’t appreciate how these types of
comments could influence children’s ongoing experiences
and learning. Both Hatherly (2010) and Cherrington et al.
(2009) highlighted the importance of making learning
visible, rather than simply describing the experience
or providing photographic evidence. Sharing specific
information about children went one step in this direction,
but generally there was little evidence that online dialogue
supported ongoing learning by itself.
Conclusion
In this case study, ePortfolios facilitated communication
between teachers and parents, as well as with wider
whānau and children to varying degrees. Families chose to
participate in different levels of communication that ranged
from one-way communication to two-way communication,
where families responded to teachers’ stories or added
their own, helping to give a wider perspective of their
child’s experiences and learning.
As a case study, limited generalisability of the results of
this research to the wider early childhood community is
possible, particularly given that the characteristics of the
centre mean that it is not representative of all NZ ECE
20 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
centres. Furthermore, because parents who responded
in the survey that they never or seldom commented on
the ePortfolio were unwilling to be interviewed, their
perspectives were not included. Understanding why
this group of parents did not engage with the ePortfolio
would add to our knowledge about the effective use of
ePortfolios. Despite these limitations, this study does
contribute to the small but growing body of knowledge
about how ePortfolios can be used in ECE contexts to
strengthen parent–teacher relationships, support parents’
engagement and enhance children’s learning.
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was supported by a research
grant from Victoria University of Wellington (Grant
#205601).
ORCID iD/s
Sue Cherrington: orcid.org/0000-0002-9547-3534
References
Abrami, P., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and
development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology, 31(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.21432/T2RK5K
Bernhard, J., Lefebvre, M., Kilbride, K., Chud, G., & Lange, R.
(1998). Troubled relationships in early childhood education: Parent–
teacher interactions in ethnoculturally diverse child care settings.
Early Education and Development, 9(1), 5–28.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood settings:
Learning stories. London, UK: Paul Chapman.
Cherrington S., Oldridge L., Green V., Dalli C., Davidson S.,
Glasgow A., Rosewarne S., White E., & Wansbrough D. (2009).
Evaluation of the early childhood education information and
communication technologies professional learning programme:
Final report. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
Elliot, R. (2003). Sharing care and education: Parents’ perspectives.
Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(4), 14–21.
Goodman, N. (2013a, June). Fostering quality parent and
teacher engagement with children’s learning using the Educa
Online Portfolio System. Paper presented at the IECS Winter
Research Seminar. Early childhood professional learning:
Growing the profession/growing the community, Wellington, NZ:
Victoria University of Wellington.
Goodman, N. (2013b). Enhancing engagement using Educa online
portfolios. The Space Magazine, 33, Spring, 24–25.
Hatherly, A. (2010). The rise (and fall) of ICT in early childhood
education. In eLearnings: Implementing a national strategy for
ICT in education, 1998-2010 (pp. 88–95). Christchurch, NZ: Core
Education Ltd., 88–95.
Hatherly, A., Ham, V., & Evans, L. (2009). Effective learning in early
childhood education? The Impact of the ECE ICT PL Programme:
A synthesis report. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (2001). Building equitable staff–
parent communication in early childhood settings: An Australian
case study. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 3(2).
Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n2/hughes.html.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research:
Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Loveridge, J. (2002). Working with young children and their
families in early education settings: The importance of dialogue and
shared understandings. DELTA: Policy and Practice in Education,
54(1 & 2), 171­­­–­­­191.
MacNaughton, G. (2004). Children, staff and parents: Building
respectful relationships in New Zealand and Australian early
childhood contexts—The Australian context. Australian
Journal of Early Childhood, 29(1), 1–7. Retrieved from www.
earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/
AJEC0401.pdf.
Martin, S. (2006). Opportunities for parent partnership and
advocacy in early years services in Ireland. New Zealand Research
in Early Childhood Education Journal, 9, 15–31.
McGrath, W. H. (2007). Ambivalent partners: Power, trust, and
partnership in relationships between mothers and teachers in
full-time child care centers. Teachers College Record, 109(6),
1401–1422.
Meade, A. (2012). Centre–parent communication about children’s
learning. Early Childhood Folio, 16(2), 38–43.
Meade, A., Robinson, L., Smorti, S., Stuart, M., Williamson, J.,
with Carroll-Lind, J., Meagher-Lundberg, P., & Te Whau, S. (2012).
Early childhood teachers' work in education and care centres:
Profiles, patterns and purposes. Wellington, NZ: Te Tari Puna Ora
o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare Association.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Licensing Criteria for Early Childhood
Education and Care Centres 2008 and Early Childhood Education
Curriculum Framework. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Government.
Mukherji, P., & Albon, D. (2010). Research methods in early
childhood: An introductory guide. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
New Zealand Council of Educational Research (NZCER). (2007).
First NZCER National Survey of Early Childhood Education
Services: 2003–2004. Wellington, NZ: NZCER.
New Zealand Education Review Office (ERO). (2008). The quality of
assessment in early childhood education. Wellington, NZ: Crown.
Reedy, C., & McGrath, W., (2010). Can you hear me now?
Staff–parent communication in child care centres. Early Child
Development and Care, 180(3), 347–357.
Stonehouse, A., & Gonzalez Mena, J. (2004). Making links:
A collaborative approach to planning and practice in early childhood
services. New South Wales, Australia: Pademelon Press.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart,
B. (Eds.). (2010). Early childhood matters: Evidence from the
effective pre-school and primary education project. Oxfordshire,
UK: Routledge.
Whalley, M. (2007). Involving parents in their children’s learning
(2nd ed.). London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Zellman, G., & Perlman, M. (2006). Parent involvement in childcare
settings: Conceptual and measurement issues. Early Child
Development and Care, 176(5), 521–538.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 21
 Developing a ‘classroom as community’ approach to
supporting young children’s wellbeing
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.03

Victoria Whitington
Elspeth McInnes
University of South Australia

INTRODUCING THE IDEA OF THE ‘classroom as community’, a class of six- to eight-year-

old children engaged with a project, The Wellbeing Classroom (McInnes, Diamond &
Whitington, 2014), which intended to support and advance their social and emotional
development. This paper examines how the notion of ‘classroom as community’ informed
the thinking and actions of the adults involved, and identifies six key elements of the
approach employed. The teacher employed five strategies over a year: professional
learning and reflection; building trust with children and modelling emotional self-
regulation; teaching social skills across the day; accessing regular outreach worker
support; and involving parents. Led by an upskilled teacher, the ‘classroom as community’
approach was found to have successfully supported children’s social and emotional
development, particularly those with difficulties. The project’s reach included parents,
thus extending its effects. This article reports on the significance of the concept of
classroom as community to the project’s success.

Introduction relationships (Streeck-Fisher & van der Kolk, 2000), and

After family, schools provide the environments where
children over five years of age spend most time. Children’s
ability to cope with the social, emotional and behavioural
demands of schooling is shaped by their family experiences
and their early years of school. For children with difficulties,
school-based individualised responses have been shown
to be ineffective, risking stigmatising and further isolating
children (van Lier, Vuijk & Crijnen, 2005). Group approaches
have been found to be more effective (Stefan & Miclea,
2014). The notion of classroom as community has recently
been researched as a motivator for learning (Ciani,
Middleton, Summers & Sheldon, 2010), and to develop a
sense of agency via group belonging (Schreiber & Valle,
2013). This study explores the concept’s usefulness in
improving children’s social and emotional learning.
The neuroscience of learning shows that school children
who experience chronic stress or trauma have difficulties
learning and integrating new information (Australian Childhood
Foundation, 2010). Chronic childhood stress and complex
trauma impact the development and function of the brain,
affecting children’s emotional, cognitive, social, physical
development and behaviour (NSCDC, 2014). Social-emotional
effects of chronic stress and trauma include risky behaviours
and relationship difficulties (Ko et al., 2008), problems with
emotional self-regulation, and poor self-concept with feelings
of shame and guilt, aggression and mistrust in interpersonal
depression (Luecken & Lemery, 2004). Consequently,
traumatised children often have difficulty making friends.
They tend to avoid novel experiences and social contact
(Streeck-Fisher & van der Kolk 2000, p. 912), jeopardising
their socialisation.
Teachers need to understand the difficulties faced by
chronically stressed children, and know how to create
supportive learning environments. Providing support for the
idea of community in this process, researchers Schreiber
and Valle (2013) and Ciani et al. (2010) found that enabling
autonomy and building trust within groups assists children to
be more available for learning. Furthermore, there is evidence
that a community-based approach supports children’s learning
motivation via a peer-shared culture that fosters children’s
sense of autonomy (Lash, 2008; Scully & Howell, 2008).
Potential stressors, which all children must negotiate, include
relationships with school staff (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004),
relationships with peers (Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 2006) and
the ability to successfully engage with the school curriculum
(Ladd, Kochenderfer & Coleman, 1997). Children who
experience difficulty adapting to the classroom environment
may face academic failure (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004), peer
rejection (Coie, Dodge & Kupersmidt, 1990) and negative
teacher judgement (Henricsson & Rydell, 2004). Teachers’
most common response to behavioural issues is individual
punishment (Lewis & Sugai, 1999), yet punishment has been

22 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

shown to stigmatise and alienate children, and damage the
teacher–child relationship (Berk, 2013). Children who are
frequently being punished are more likely to have poor
academic progress (Noguera, 2003).
Teachers need an approach that supports young children’s
social and emotional development and shapes their behaviour
so they become valued and respected class members.
One possibility is to consider the classroom as a potentially
supportive community for children, including those with social
and emotional challenges. This research aimed to investigate
how the notion of class as community informed the thinking
and actions of the adults involved in The Wellbeing Classroom
project (McInnes et al., 2015). It also identified the key
elements of the classroom as community approach employed
during the project’s implementation.
The Wellbeing Classroom project principally employed
sociocultural theory, which posits that meaning is actively
created in everyday interactions in the learning environment
(Vygotsky, 1978). The idea of the socially-formed mind,
central to Vygotsky’s theory, contends that the human mind
is developed from the pattern of social interactions in which
individuals engage with significant others. The notion of
the socially-formed mind implies a clear role for community
in children’s intellectual development. Furthermore, it is
theorised that in learning contexts, with expert scaffolding the
role of the teacher reduces and learner competency grows.
The theoretical approach was also informed by neuro-
scientific research, providing strong evidence of the effect
of high stress and trauma on brain development (NSCDC,
2014), and sociological research. In sociological research,
the term ‘community’ refers to a sense of membership,
shared emotional connection, needs fulfilment and
influence within a group (Nowell & Boyd, 2014, p. 230).
Such groups can be based on locality, cultural practice,
identity or cohorts which meet members’ needs for
belonging, influence and connection.
Within classrooms, a sense of community can function as
a pedagogical resource that provides its own feedback loop
to members, enabling a sense of achievement, efficacy
and identity. Those who experience difficulties within the
group are not excluded, but rather invited into a process of
communication to enable the community to accommodate
and adapt to meet members’ needs. The term ‘community’
in the Wellbeing Classroom project was thus positioned
as a context for children’s learning, relating, healing and
development. Seen as a community, the classroom offers
an immersive everyday context in which children are provided
with ongoing social and emotional skills teaching, guiding cues
and understanding and the chance to repair mistakes. The
classroom offers multiple, repeated opportunities for children
to learn and relearn socially-adaptive thinking and behaviours,
observed by Perry (2009) as impossible in an individual clinical
setting. Furthermore, there are trusted adults who teach the
needed skills and provide models.
Classroom communities have the power to create
trusting non-hierarchical, power-shared, non-judgemental
relationships where everyone is valued (McInnes et al., 2015).
This approach means that teachers must relinquish some
of their power, and actively teach children about their own
feelings and others’ feelings so they know these need to be
acknowledged. In such classrooms, social and emotional skill
teaching is crucial. Children learn social rules and practise pro-
social interactions in low-risk environments (McCaskill, 2007).
The interactional quality of the classroom builds a community
in which children learn how to support each other emotionally,
to give each other time, space and support when upset. This
approach means that children are likely to feel safe, valued
and welcome at school. Their stress levels may lower and
they become more available to learn and get on with others
(McInnes et al., 2015).
The teacher, in this context, is also likely to need support.
In their study, McInnes et al. (2015) found that during the
project’s initial implementation, the teacher was regularly
mentored to help enact major change, gradually moving
towards operating independently.
The project teacher used two resources that aimed to
improve children’s social and emotional skills. Play is the
Way is ‘a cooperative physical games program’ in which
‘children are required to work together towards positive
collective outcomes’ (Street, Hoppe, Kingsbury & Ma, 2004,
p. 97). The structured games and language aim to promote
peer support, trust, respect and understanding by engaging
children’s emotions. They require mastery and control of
emotions so children can participate, be aware of others’
needs and interests, and co-operate to achieve success
(McCaskill, 2007).
Similarly, the Kimochis program aims to help children to identify
and express their feelings positively, and to recognise the
contexts that prompt those feelings (Kimochis, n.d.; Pritchard
Dodge & Grimm, 2014). The plush toy characters introduce
children to a vocabulary of feeling, providing interactive
storybooks to relate each character’s feelings to the events
of the storyline. They promote children’s empathy, enabling
them to recognise their own or others’ feelings through the
characters; and efficacy, by presenting the different choices
and outcomes available to characters.
A ‘classroom as community’ approach includes parents,
providing a non-threatening pathway between home and
school. Parents of children exposed to chronic stress and
trauma are themselves often similarly pressured. A community
approach extends to families by arranging evening events, and
welcoming incidental interactions with the teacher. Children
take home the ideas and words they have learnt about how
to respond and solve conflict. Perry (2009) pointed to the
key role of parents in providing supportive contexts for
trauma-affected children. If the parent is knowledgeable
and effective, then the support is more likely to work.
The following research questions were posed. How did
the notion of ‘class as community’ inform the thinking and
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 23
actions of the teacher and outreach worker involved in The Project data
Wellbeing Classroom project (McInnes et al., 2015)? What
The data used to assess the project in terms of its community
were the key elements of the ‘classroom as community’
approach was collected from:
approach employed?
¡¡ five reflective interviews with the classroom teacher,
focusing on the project’s implementation
Methodology ¡¡ a reflective interview with the outreach worker at the
project’s end
Methodological approach
¡¡ class sociometric data collected by the teacher in Terms
The research used a grounded theory approach (Glaser, 2, 3 and 4.
1992) by which the emerging meanings from the process
of systematic data analysis develop and inform theory. The Procedure
research employed thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006)
Ethics approval for the project was obtained from the
in which participants’ comments are read and coded by
University of South Australia and the Department for Education
theme. Thematic analysis allows researchers to interpret
and Child Development (ethics number: 0000028159). The
and summarise participants’ ‘experiences, meanings and …
children’s parents, the school principal, the teacher and the
reality’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 81), providing new insights.
outreach worker consented to participation. The project was
Sociometry measures group cohesion (Moreno, 1989), and
implemented across a four-term school year. The outreach
is used by teachers to track the development of children
worker played a key role in sourcing materials—Play is the
as a group to identify the patterns of mutual friendship and
Way and Kimochis—and provided training and support to the
isolation. Ideally, over a year, the numbers of mutual choices
classroom teacher in their use.
should increase and isolated children decrease.
Data about Josh’s professional knowledge and reflections
Participants about implementation of classroom strategies were collected
through four interviews conducted at the end of each term.
Nineteen children from a Year 2/3 classroom (six to eight
Josh was interviewed a year later, to reflect on the project’s
years) of 28 children from a low income, outer metropolitan
impact on the children and his professional practices.
Australian suburban primary school, participated with
Regarding the sociometric measure during each term, Josh
parental consent. Eight children were identified as exhibiting
asked the children, ‘Write the names of three people in the
behavioural difficulties that affected their learning. Informal
class who are important to you’. Tim was interviewed once
evidence indicated that these children either had or were
at the end of Term 4.
currently living in contexts which were traumatic for them.
Their teacher Josh (pseudonym), and Tim (pseudonym), an
Analysis
outreach worker, also gave consent to participate.
In a recursive process, the teacher and outreach worker
Project strategies interview data was organised into themes, which were
defined, named then checked against the research question
Five strategies were implemented during the 2012
and aims. Three sociograms were constructed about children
school year.
across the year, by number of choices including mutual choices
1. The teacher engaged in professional learning and from class peers. The analysis identified how the notion of
adopted a ‘classroom as community’ mindset, drawing ‘classroom as community’ informed the adults’ thinking and
ideas from many resources including Making Space for actions. It also identified the elements that shaped the social
Learning (Australian Childhood Foundation, 2010). and emotional climate and peer cohesion of the class.
2. The teacher built trust relationships with children and
between the children, which in part involved him initiating Findings and discussion
with children and modelling emotional self-regulation.
Analysis of both the interview and sociometric data revealed
3. The teacher taught an explicit social-skills program using
that community was central to the social and emotional
two resources: Kimochis (n.d.) and Play is the Way
learning strategies employed by the two adults. Josh and Tim
(McCaskill, 2007), employing their underlying principles
were found to employ a community-building approach using
and language in everyday interactions at school.
six key elements of the ‘classroom as community’ approach.
4. The teacher accessed an expert outreach worker who
regularly supported him in implementing the social- 1. The adoption of a community-based mindset
skills programs. regarding classrooms and schools.
5. The teacher built relationships with parents by holding To try and build up their sense of community, I think, is
after-school barbeques, which focused (in a fun way) pretty important and I reckon I can do that with the
on learning about the two social-skills programs. seven- and eight-year-olds! (Teacher interview 1).

24 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

Classrooms have the potential to be communities, however,
it cannot be assumed that they are ‘communities’, as
defined by Nowell and Boyd (2014). A sense of group
membership, shared emotional connection, needs
fulfilment and influence is needed. Recognition that the
classroom context has the potential to be a community,
which can powerfully and positively influence learning,
is now less prominent than in previous decades—
perhaps due to the emphasis on individual performance
and assessment to meet federal testing benchmarks.
Nevertheless, Josh viewed his class as a community. This
approach provided a powerful tool that enabled children
to safely develop socially and emotionally. In contrast,
teachers using an individual approach see their classroom
as a series of individual interactions between them and
each student.
Josh’s understanding of the class, as a supportive and
potentially healing community, was evident in the following
statement about his approach to one child who was living
with a history of trauma. Josh understood that if one child
has that issue, it is likely that others do too, and that a
community approach would help.
I won’t say, ‘This is for (Child X). We need to help
him.’ But I’ll say, ‘People in this room are feeling this
way, and how can we help them?’ And indirectly it’s
helping a few others as well who might be sort of on
that borderline (Teacher interview 2).
Josh extended this community approach beyond
his classroom.
… even if the students aren’t in my class, I’ll make sure
I say hello to them and make sure they know me, and
[that] they can feel comfortable talking to me (Teacher
interview 1).
Also evident was Josh’s sense of the growing healing
power of the class community, as the children developed
their social and emotional skills and capacity to support
each other.
…as a team and as a group, they are getting better at
caring for each other and looking out for each other
(Teacher interview 2).
Feelings of belonging were found to be central to the
development of the classroom community. The approach
provided an inclusive classroom in which Josh and Tim
reported that children felt they belonged, even when they
had behaved in an antisocial way. Children were given time
to calm down through doing other activities rather than
being punished. In describing his approach to a child with
significant trauma, Josh said he was:
…trying to foster that, I guess, team philosophy within the
class as well. To be accepting of (Child X) and understand
that he’ll make mistakes along the way, but don’t hold it
against him; he’s trying (Teacher interview 1).
On the same topic, Tim observed, in describing his
approach to another child living with trauma:
… when (Child Y) needed that time, that circuit breaker,
it would be about, ‘Well (Child Y), would you like to go
and do [another activity]?’ That was highly effective in
getting (Child Y) to regulate himself… it doesn’t take
him away from that classroom environment, he’s still
part of that class (Outreach worker interview).
2. Developing individual trusting relationships
amongst the children, the teacher and the
outreach worker
Josh made his relationship with the children his
highest priority.
I just guess it comes down to trying to know the
student individually. That came from counselling
training as well—that to help someone through their
problems, you need to understand them.
I do try and take in more of what they say, like in those
little incidental conversations ... To try and learn as
much as I can about them, I often sit with the kids,
like when they’re eating their lunch and talk to a few
of them (Teacher interview 1).
The Australian Childhood Foundation (2010) observed
the importance of teachers making time to spend with
individual children. Such often teacher-initiated interactions
build relationships (Latisha, 2014; Nolan, Taket & Stagnitti,
2014). This approach was found in the present study, as
the outreach worker commented regarding Child X:
I initiated the idea of the teacher spending some of
his Non-InstructionaI Time (NIT) [preparation] time
with (Child X) one-on-one, doing some models up in
the tech room. And the profound effect that had on
building a relationship between the teacher and (Child
X) (Outreach worker interview).
Morgan, Pendergast, Brown and Heck (2015) observed
that teachers need to move their identity from a ‘deliverer
of curriculum and attaining measurable outcomes to being
and becoming a person in an authentic relationship’
(p. 1048) with their students. Nolan et al. (2014) added
that teachers who wish to develop trusting relationships
with their students will become emotional management
role models, if, like Josh, they share their emotional
experiences.
I’ll acknowledge to the class now that I’m not in a state
where I can make strong choices. I was saying this has
happened … and it’s just all piling up on me now. I just
need five minutes and then I can recharge and start again
… In the past I would have just lost it, and time out … But
yeah, I can sort of pre-warn them (Teacher interview 2).
Relationship repair on an individual basis is also important.
When relationships were damaged in some way, Josh
reported that he consciously repaired the relationship.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 25
 I’ve … been more conscious of making sure that …it’s helped them become better models to the other
relationships are repaired and that we don’t just leave people in the classroom (Teacher interview 3).
things on the backburner (Teacher interview 1).
Latisha (2014) gave a strong role to circle time and cooperative
activities, finding that over the year, such sessions improved
3. Explicitly and systematically teaching an ongoing
children’s empathy and understanding. This is consistent with
social and emotional skill learning program
the teacher’s prioritising of explicit social and emotional skills
Children’s knowledge of social skills, and their capacity to act teaching. Josh observed:
using them, is important to their success at school. Yet, not
Early in the year, there were a lot of comments like,
all teachers understand fully the need to explicitly teach them.
‘Such and such made me do that'. I’m not getting those
Josh observed:
excuses anymore. They’re taking responsibility for their
When I first started [teaching], I just expected that kids own choices and behaviours (Teacher interview 5).
would know [social skills]. It was like the students will
The strength of the community approach is that, potentially,
follow because I expect it. But now I’ve learnt … you do
it exponentially increases the number of positive, affirming
have to teach it and model it (Teacher interview 1).
interactions in which a child can participate in one day,
Wilson McCaskill (2007) pointed out the value of teaching accelerating change.
social skills in a whole-class low risk context. In this study,
in response to the children’s observed needs, Josh planned 4. Providing expertise and support for the teacher
lessons designed to develop those skills, stating: from the broader community
Allocating a couple of lessons a week to simply this … Tim regularly worked in Josh’s classroom, enabling Josh to
in the past, I may have just waited for those teachable achieve more than would have otherwise been possible.
moments, for it to come up. But by actually allocating time
Josh recognised Tim’s key support role in shifting his
to it, it basically forces you to talk about it at least once
teaching towards relational pedagogy and classroom
or twice a week and get things out in the open (Teacher
community building.
interview 3).
He has played a huge supporting role, particularly talking
This explicit teaching is consistent with a recommendation
with [children with trauma histories]. He’s been able
from the Australian Childhood Foundation (2010) regarding
to supplement a lot of the content we’ve talked in the
working with children who have experienced trauma.
classroom and deliver it to them one-on-one or … intensify
‘… integrate emotional literacy activities into the curriculum
it for the kids. He also came in and did the introduction for
to support children to recognise, name and manage feelings
the Kimochis, to give me a chance to look at it and see it as
and learn to respond to others’ expression of feelings’ (p. 75).
well. So, he’s been [a] huge [help], organising the [parent]
Explicit teaching of social skills was found to have a positive
nights (Interview 3).
effect on at-risk children in particular.
Tim concurred with Josh regarding the catalytic effect of
(Child Z) could quickly see that his actions were affecting
his role on the classroom change process to a relational,
the group and that was affecting the way people talk to
community-based approach.
him, the way people respond to him (Teacher interview 1).
The guidance role to teacher was pivotal. That made the
The social-skills teaching was also found to distribute
difference in what he did in the classroom. If I wasn’t doing
responsibility for class behaviour from solely the teacher to
the stuff with the individual students, there still would have
the group. Josh observed:
been the change in those students, but it was useful … it
A few people started chatting and there were two or made a greater change (Outreach worker interview).
three telling them to be quiet, because we’ve talked
The role of in-service professional learning in improving the
about [the fact that] it takes great strength to be sensible.
quality of teaching is increasingly being recognised (Feinstein,
If your friends are chatting, the easy thing would be for
2015). Increasingly, teachers are being offered professional
you to talk to them as well, but it’s not the right thing to do
learning support in class to improve practice (Timperley, 2008).
(Teacher interview 2).
Professional learning can extend teachers’ knowledge of
Teacher modelling was also important in developing a classroom
children’s social and emotional development, and ways
community. This finding is consistent with Nolan et al. (2014)
to support it. ‘Outsiders’ can provide valuable skills and
who emphasised the role of modelling in learning social and
knowledge to support teachers who are re-thinking their
emotional skills, and not just relying on incidental teaching. The
pedagogy to improve practice and outcomes for children
teacher taught skills and also modelled responding in situations
(Feinstein, 2015; Latisha, 2014; NSCDC, 2014). Peeters
that were emotionally challenging for him.
and Sharmahd (2014) argued for the use of such people as
Josh observed that the children with more advanced social mentors, advocates, facilitators and role models. Peeters
and emotional skills were models for their peers: and Sharmahd (2014) stated that ‘guiding facilitators’ can
provide teachers with the opportunity to reflect on their

26 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

practices and stimulate them into ‘discovering what is
possible’ (p. 415). These researchers also found that such
facilitators were of particular value in communities where
many children were at risk, as in this study’s community.
5. Fostering working relationships with parents
so they are included as a part of the classroom
community, bringing schools and parents
into synchrony
Parents engaged with considerable interest in the project,
with almost all families attending the after-school events.
I was really pessimistic about it [parent nights].Then to
get, you know, 90 per cent of parents, families coming
in; it was a huge achievement (Teacher interview 2).
Josh described the opening that this high attendance
provided in building a broader community knowledge of
and interest in the class social and emotional development
program, and the importance of that level of participation
to project success.
I definitely think [Kimochis night] was vital … I had quite
a number of parents say, ‘We’ve heard sons/daughters
talk about Kimochis, but we didn’t really know what it
is’. It was a way for us to share exactly what it was,
how it worked, what it meant.
In education, if you don’t have the support of the
parents, it’s very difficult to make it sink in and flow
on. So, I definitely see parents are very important for
the success of this project (Teacher interview 4).
Josh and Tim also gave examples of the reach of the social-
emotional learning programs into the children’s homes.
Josh said:
It was nice to hear, ‘Oh yeah, my son came home [and]
told my other son about this, and how we work through
problems’. It was really positive (Teacher interview 2).
Tim said:
We had those parents [who] wanted to know more. We
even … had parents that wanted to buy the Kimochis
to use at home. So we’re getting an impact.
I was … hearing parents use the Play is the Way
language with their children … The kids had taken all
of that language home, they’d … taught their parents.
[There was] one child who said to her mum, ‘This is
what we’re doing at school, mum, this is the way
I want you to tell me off from now on’ (Outreach
worker interview).
Tim also provided insight into the value of his support for
Josh, as together they extended the classroom community
to include families. In this way, a broader learning
community was built. Tim commented about this change
in Josh’s confidence regarding parental involvement.
It’s reignited his faith in parents wanting to be involved
with their child’s learning. He was starting to see that if
we provide a learning environment [where] the kids enjoy,
where the kids flourish, then they’ll share it with their
parents. And the kids acted as peer educators for their
parents, bringing the parents along; and all of a sudden,
we’re doing parenting work (Outreach worker interview).
The idea of partnerships between schools and their
communities has made recent gains in Australian education
systems, specifically in schools with considerable numbers
of children at risk. Building class communities, which extend
beyond the school gates, holds particular importance for
communities with low incomes. Shonkoff et al. (2012)
pointed to the social capital that developed in poorer
communities when schools, families and other organisations
work together to improve children’s start in life.
In their research into the implementation of a social and
emotional skills program, Stefan and Miclea (2014) found
that for skill transfer to the home and generalisation of skills
learned in the classroom, parents need to be involved in the
learning program. From a clinical perspective, Perry (2009)
argued that for children living with trauma, healing occurs
most powerfully when parents are part of the process.
The project included a play-based approach to involving
parents. Support for this approach comes from the
literature concerned with the value of play-based social
skill learning (Milteer & Ginsberg, 2012).
6. Involving the whole school in an extended social
and emotional learning program to enable a
whole site culture to develop
The class provided the most intense focus for the social
and emotional skills program; however, other teachers
in the school implemented some teaching in this area,
particularly the Play is the Way program. Josh noted the
positive effect of this across the school.
It’s just like any program that comes into the school. If
it’s a whole school and everybody is doing it, everybody
is on board; the language becomes more ingrained
around the school (Teacher interview 5).
The value of a whole-school approach to social and
emotional skills learning is strongly supported in the
literature (Australian Childhood Foundation, 2010; Feinstein,
2015; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Peeters & Sharmahd, 2014).
In writing about school-wide programs to support the social
and emotional development of Tiwi Islander children, Dobia
and O’Rourke (2011) added that parents prefer universal
rather than targeted programs that are appropriate to the
school and community context.
Peeters and Sharmahd (2014) argued the need for school-
wide responsibility regarding the teaching of social skills,
saying that the building of such programs cannot solely be
left to individual teachers. The responsibility for working
with families, particularly those whose children are at
risk, lies in the creation of a broader system that has
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 27
governance, financing and expertise to effect real change.
Feinstein’s (2015) review of the literature regarding
children’s social and emotional learning concluded that
whole-school and community approaches were those
that most successfully implemented these learning
programs for children. Feinstein (2015) also argued that the
strongest evidence has been found for the employment
of a universal approach, that is, a structured process for
program implementation that includes clear goals and
steps to reach them.
In this project, a systematic, school-wide approach
was employed. Those running the programs at both
the classroom and school levels were trained and had
reference manuals. Tim argued that schools are a key
central community location and, therefore, ideal places
for community development to occur.
I think school is the centrepiece of most communities
and it’s the one place where everybody in the
community links in, in some way. So, I think that’s
the other powerful thing I’ve seen in the picture this
year. If we recognise this and use school as that pivot,
we can engage parents, kids, adults, we can engage
the whole community in what’s happening (Outreach
worker interview).
Sociometric data
The findings of the sociometric data analysis supported the
interview analysis regarding the ‘classroom as community’
approach. Over the school year, a tighter and more socially
cohesive classroom community developed. The number of
children’s mutual choices (important friendships) increased
threefold from 8 to 25. In Term 2, 18 participants were
chosen 35 times by other classmates. This number rose
to 42 times in Term 3 for 19 participants; then rose again
to 50 times for 19 participants by Term 4. Furthermore, the
numbers of children who had one or more mutual choices
rose from 6 in Term 2, to 11 in Term 3, and 14 in Term 4.
Conclusion
This paper discussed how the concept of ‘classroom
as community’ informed the thinking and actions of the
adults involved in The Wellbeing Classroom project.
It also identified the key elements of the community-
based approach employed. The six elements identified
coalesce around the idea of community, which begins
with establishing trusting relationships between a class
teacher, children and their peers. Attention to the wellbeing
of each member of the classroom community was found,
in time, to develop trust amongst children and adults.
Children’s learning of social and emotional skills, using
a common set of resources, enabled them to become
familiar with the concepts and language of the resources
and to be immersed daily in their use. Regular enactment
transformed concepts from abstract ideas into lived
28 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
interpersonal interactions. As skill development occurred,
the children gradually acquired the skills to build a sense
of community together.
To be authentic in his interactions, Josh relinquished the
position of ‘power over’ for ‘power to’ and became an
authoritative community member who used his position
to facilitate improved relationships amongst all. The
expertise of the outreach worker provided the teacher
with important validation and support to make this shift
in power relations and practice.
Welcoming parents into the classroom community and
to the resources provided a home–school connection,
maximising the effect of the strategies employed in the
classroom to create a community. The strategies were
also enacted beyond the school gate. In a ‘classroom
as community’ approach, parents can see their child’s
positive responses and developing skills, enabling them
to be more socially successful at school. In this way,
parents may become community-based champions for
the school and their children, and come to feel that they
too can contribute positively.
A limitation of this research was that it was conducted
in one classroom. A whole-of-school participation in the
social and emotional learning program is recommended,
as it would enable the community culture to be carried
into the later years. Incoming children would enter a
world where they are able to learn about relationships
more easily, and teachers would be able to share how their
class has engaged with different aspects of the program
and together grow their expertise.
ORCID iD/s
Victoria Whitington: orcid.org/0000-0003-3644-2727
Elspeth McInnes: orcid.org/0000-0002-1677-572X
References
Australian Childhood Foundation. (2010). Making space for
learning: Trauma informed practice in schools. Retrieved 23 July,
2017, from www.childhood.org.au/for-professionals/resources.
Berk, L. E. (2013). Child development (9th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Ciani, K., Middleton, M., Summers, J., & Sheldon, K. (2010).
Buffering against performance classroom goal structures: The
importance of autonomy support and classroom community.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 88–99.
Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Kupersmidt, J. (1990). Peer group behaviour
and social status. In S. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in
childhood (pp. 17–59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dobia, B., & O’Rourke, V. (2011). Promoting the mental health and
wellbeing of Indigenous children in Australian primary schools.
Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Feinstein, L. (Ed.). (2015). Social and emotional learning: Skills
for life and work. London, UK: Social Mobility and Child Poverty
Commission, Early Intervention Foundation. Retrieved 23 July,
2017, from www.eif.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Social-
and-Emotional-Learning-Final-Report-1.pdf.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis:
Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. M. (2004). Elementary school
children with behaviour problems: Teacher-child relations and
self-perceptions. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
50(2), 111–138.
Kimochis. The curriculum. (n.d.). Kimochis. Retrieved 23 July,
2017, from www.kimochis.com/about/social-emotional-learning-
curriculum/.
Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J.,
Wilson, C., Wong, M., Brymer, M. J., & Layne, C. M. (2008).
Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first
responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 39(4), 396–404.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. (1997). Classroom
peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational
systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school adjustment?
Child Development, 68(6), 1181–1197.
Lash, M. (2008). Classroom community and peer culture in
kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(1), 33–38.
Latisha, M. (2014). Fostering positive peer relations in the primary
classroom through circle time and co-operative games. Education
3–13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years
Education, 42(2), 125–137.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behaviour support:
A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1–24.
Luecken, L., & Lemery, K. (2004). Early caregiving and physiological
stress response. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(2), 171–191.
McCaskill, W. (2007). Play is the way: Methodology manuals
1 & 2. Greenwood, WA: The Game Factory.
McInnes, E., Diamond, A., & Whitington, V. (2014). The wellbeing
classroom. Salisbury, SA: Salisbury Communities for Children.
Retrieved 23 July, 2017, from www.salisburyc4c.org.au/
resourcedownloads/The_Wellbeing_Classroom_Report.pdf.
McInnes, E., Diamond, A., & Whitington, V. (2015). Embedding
wellbeing and creating community in classrooms. In K. Brettig (Ed.),
Building stronger communities with children and families (pp. 104–
127). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Milteer, R. M., & Ginsberg, K. R. (2012). The importance of play
in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong
parent–child bond: Focus on children in poverty. Pediatrics, 129(1),
e204–e213.
Moreno, J. L. (1989). The autobiography of JL Moreno, MD.
Journal of group psychotherapy, psychodrama and sociometry,
42, 58–126.
Morgan, A., Pendergast, D., Brown, R., & Heck, D. (2015).
Relational ways of being an educator: Trauma-informed practice
supporting disenfranchised young people. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 19(10), 1037–1051.
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (NSCDC). (2014).
Excessive stress disrupts the architecture of the developing brain.
Boston, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved 23 July, 2017, from
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2005/05/
Stress_Disrupts_Architecture_Developing_Brain-1.pdf.
Noguera P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of
punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into Practice,
42(4), 341–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4204_12
Nolan, A., Taket, A., & Stagnitti, K. (2014). Supporting resilience
in early years classrooms: The role of the teacher. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(5), 595–608.
Nowell, B., & Boyd, N. (2014). Sense of community responsibility
in community collaboratives: Advancing a theory of community
as resource and responsibility. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 54(3–4), 229–242.
Peeters, J., & Sharmahd, N. (2014). Professional development for
ECEC practitioners with responsibilities for children at risk: Which
competencies and in-service training are needed? European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(3), 412–424.
Perry, B. D. (2009). Examining child maltreatment through
a neurodevelopmental lens: Clinical applications of the
neurosequential model of therapeutics. Journal of Loss and
Trauma, 14(4), 240–255.
Pritchard Dodge, E., & Grimm, D. (2014). Kimochis feel guide: Early
childhood edition. San Rafael, CA: Plushy Feely Corp. Retrieved
23 July, 2017, from https://issuu.com/kimochis/docs/kimochisecc_
interiorforissuu_waterm.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer
interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon & R. M.
Learner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3: Social,
emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schreiber, L., & Valle, B. (2013). Social constructivist teaching
strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research,
44(4), 395–411.
Scully, P., & Howell, J. (2008). Using rituals and traditions to create
classroom community for children, teachers and parents. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 36(3), 261–266.
Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., & The Committee on Psychosocial
Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee On Early Childhood,
Adoption, and Dependent Care; Section on Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood
adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232–e246.
Stefan, C. A., & Miclea, M. (2014). Effectiveness of the social-
emotional prevention program as a function of children’s baseline
risk status. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
22(1), 14–44.
Streeck-Fischer, A., & van der Kolk, B. A. (2000). ‘Down will come
baby, cradle and all’: Diagnostic and therapeutic implications of
chronic trauma on child development. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 903–918.
Street, H., Hoppe, D., Kingsbury, D., & Ma, T. (2004). The
game factory: Using cooperative games to promote pro-social
behaviour among children. Australian Journal of Educational and
Developmental Psychology, 4, 97–109.
Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and
development. Retrieved 23 July, 2017, from http://edu.aru.ac.th/
childedu/images/PDF/benjamaporn/EdPractices_18.pdf.
van Lier, P., Vuijk, P., & Crijnen, A. (2005). Understanding
mechanisms of change in the development of antisocial behavior:
The impact of a universal intervention. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 33(5), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-
6735-7
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 29
 Engaging vulnerable children and families:
Learning from a new model of education and care
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.04

Loraine Fordham
Anne Kennedy
Charles Sturt University

OVER THE PAST DECADE, researchers and policy-makers have increasingly affirmed
universal early childhood education and care (ECEC) services as the best way to
provide equitable ECEC to all children. While evidence suggests that Australian ECEC
services are trying to engage vulnerable children and their families, some of the most
vulnerable do not avail themselves of universal services. ECEC programs that specifically
focus on vulnerable families may provide two solutions to the problem of at-risk children
not participating in universal ECEC services. They may ensure that some of the most
vulnerable will connect with services designed to support them and they may assist the
sector by sharing how they successfully engage vulnerable families. This paper appraises
universal and targeted ECEC services and suggests how both can be combined. It then
describes a recent ethnographic study into an Australian ECEC program designed to
support vulnerable children and families. It shares some of the study’s findings as well as
implications that may be helpful for universal ECEC service providers.

Introduction and socio-cultural contexts quite different from those of

Over the past decade, researchers and policy-makers (Scott,
2009; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart,
2004) have increasingly affirmed high-quality universal early
childhood education and care (ECEC) services as the best
way to provide equitable ECEC to all children. More recently,
reviews of international ECEC research, policies and practices
have shown that quality matters in the provision of early
childhood education and care. The evidence is very strong
in regard to the benefits of quality ECEC for disadvantaged
children (Brennan & Adamson, 2014). While there is research
evidence to suggest that Australian ECEC services are
trying to engage with vulnerable children and their families
(Skattebol et al., 2014), the literature also indicates that some
of the most vulnerable do not or cannot avail themselves
of universal or mainstream services (Centre for Community
Child Health, 2010; Winkworth, McArthur, Layton, Thomson
& Wilson, 2010).      ‘Understanding and responding better to the needs of highly
Longitudinal evaluations of several international programs
that provided children at-risk with high-quality ECEC
services (for example, Abecedarian, HighScope Perry
Preschool, Chicago Child Parent Centers), indicated that
they produced long-lasting positive effects across a range of
academic, health and wellbeing measures (Perez-Johnson
& Maynard, 2007). However, those studies are dated and
were located in geographical locations with populations
contemporary Australia. As Penn and Lloyd (2007) assert,
the ‘parochial’ nature of these studies suggests that
knowledge transferability and generalisability of the findings
can be questioned for different contexts and times.
A small number of Australian programs specifically targeted
to support vulnerable children and their families have shown
positive outcomes in regard to parent–child interactions,
parent confidence, and children’s behaviour and language
(Gwynne, Blick & Duffy, 2009; Scott, 2013). But given that
the number of children in Australia known to Child Protection
Services is increasing—with 48 015 children from birth to
four years receiving child protection services in the period
2015–2016 (AIHW, 2017)—it seems important that we
continue to build an Australian evidence base concerning how
best to provide ECEC services for children who are at risk.
Indeed, a literature review by Harrison et al. (2011) titled
vulnerable Australian families and their children’ highlighted:
1. the diversity within vulnerable populations and the
need for early childhood programs to address this
diversity through localised, individual approaches
2. the value of long-term research into intervention
outcomes and the processes involved in achieving
these outcomes.

30 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

 he authors concluded with a call for an Australian
T nation’ (MCEETYA, 2008). As Harrison, Goldfeld, Metcalfe
longitudinal early childhood study with at-risk or vulnerable
families that would reflect the unique nature of the
Australian context.
ECEC programs that specifically focus on vulnerable
families may provide two useful solutions to the problem of
children who are at risk and not participating in mainstream
ECEC services (Lord, Southcott & Sharp, 2011). Firstly,
targeted services may ensure that some of the most
vulnerable children and families will be connected to
services that are designed to support them. Secondly,
they may also be able to assist the wider ECEC sector by
sharing how they successfully sustain the engagement of
vulnerable families with their services.
One relatively new research-based ECEC program that is
aiming to achieve both—it is designed to support vulnerable
children and families and it is sharing its findings with the
sector—is the Early Years Education Program provided by
the Children’s Protection Society (CPS) in Melbourne. CPS
is committed to providing new evidence that can be of
practical benefit to the universal Australian ECEC sector as
well as to inform policy decisions. Accordingly, it is filling a
research gap by conducting an Australian-first randomised
controlled trial together with a benefit-cost analysis into
the effects of the provision of high-quality ECEC services
to at-risk children and their families (see Jordan, Tseng,
Coombs, Kennedy & Borland, 2014). In addition to the
randomised controlled trial, CPS commissioned an in-depth
ethnographic study into the Early Years Education Program.
This paper begins with an appraisal of the key aims
and benefits of universal and targeted ECEC services,
and suggests how both models can be combined to
overcome an unhelpful dichotomy. It then describes the
Early Years Education Program, the ethnographic study
that has evaluated it, and shares some research findings
and implications that may be helpful for universal ECEC
service providers.
Universal and targeted ECEC services
Universal service provision provides the main platform
for education and care service delivery in Australia. The
commitment to universal services is based on a belief
that children and families have rights as citizens to access
similar standards within a range of different ECEC service
types. Social cohesion and social inclusion is strengthened
if all families and children share the same education and
care experiences in mainstream or universal services
(Ben-Galim, 2011; Centre for Community Child Health,
2006). The Council of Australian Government’s (COAG)
agreement to a National Quality Framework (ACECQA,
2011b) provides evidence of a commitment to universal
early childhood education and care services. The agreement
aims to ensure that by 2020 ‘all children have the best start
in life to create a better future for themselves and for the
and Moore (2012, p. 5) assert, ‘Universal programs support
children’s early learning; potentially conferring a level of
benefit to all children and all populations … [with] gains …
most evident for the most disadvantaged children’.
Targeted service provision is considered the opposite
of universalism. Targeted provision may appeal to
governments in times of financial constraint because
funding can be allocated to where it is most needed.
There is some evidence, however, that targeted provision
can lead to greater expenditure because of the higher
costs associated with administration and assessment of
eligibility (Moore, 2008). Research also shows that targeted
programs can provide both short and long-term benefits
for children and families (Harrison et al., 2012). However,
targeted service provision has been criticised because it
may label particular families and children in a way that can
have a stigmatising effect (McDowell Clark, 2013; Moore,
2008). When services are provided for every child and
family (universalism), the standard of provision is more
likely to be sustained than when services are provided for
a targeted group of children and families (Owen, Sharp &
Spratt, 2012).
A more complex approach to universal services has
emerged as the evidence suggests, that while most
children’s best interests can be met in universal services,
some children (including children at risk or children with
special needs) will require additional services or support
systems if they are to participate in meaningful ways
(Centre for Community Child Health, 2014; O’Connell, Fox,
Hinz & Cole, 2016; Owen et al., 2012). Progressive or
proportional universalism is the term used to describe this
more complex approach to providing equity as well as equal
opportunity for every child (Centre for Community Child
Health, 2014; Harrison et al., 2012). La Placa and Corlyon’s
research (2014) identified the challenges for vulnerable
families accessing and engaging with mainstream or
universal services. They argue for progressive, relationship-
focused and research-informed approaches, ‘By successful
engagement, we refer to the processes by which services
reach out and continue provision after initial contact,
constructing further pathways and contexts for parents and
services’ (p. 221). The ‘reaching out’ and ‘further pathways’
referred to by La Placa and Corlyon might include a suite
of additional and integrated services within the one setting
or a local community.
The Early Years Education Program is based on an
understanding of the arguments for and against targeted
service provision versus universalism, and a belief that
the issues are more complex than a dichotomy suggests.
One of the critical complicating factors in Australia is the
disparity between services in relation to structural quality
indicators including the number of qualified staff, the level
and specialism of educators’ qualifications, the ratio of
children to adults and group size. The National Partnership
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 31
Agreement on the National Quality Agenda for Early
Childhood Education and Care (COAG, 2013) aims to raise
the standards of structural matters of quality, except for
group size, which is not addressed in national regulations
or standards. As the reform agenda is being implemented
over a considerable period of time (2012–2020), disparities
in structural matters of quality remain within the universal
service system. Disparities in process matters of quality,
especially in relation to the quality of relationships that
support and enhance children’s learning, are also evident
in the ECEC sector—both in Australia and internationally
(NSCDC, 2004; Tayler, Ishmine, Cloney, Cleveland &
Thorpe, 2013). The E4 Kids longitudinal study in Australia
(that is evaluating the impact of children’s participation in
ECEC and kindergartens at three and four years of age)
has found evidence, using standardised and validated
rating tools, that ‘instructional support’ in these settings is
‘quite low’ (Tayler et al., 2013). The impact of participation
in education and care services for children under three
years of age in Australia remains under-researched and
less understood.
The Early Years Education Program was established in
recognition of the challenges in providing high-quality care and
intense early learning interventions within mainstream ECEC
services for vulnerable children and their families. It responds
to the literature on the significance of the first three years of
life on children’s development, learning and wellbeing. It is
informed by knowledge of the impact of neglect and stress
(trauma) on children’s early brain development, and of the
role of relationships on children’s emotional and cognitive
development (Perry, 2002; Shonkoff, 2011; Shonkoff &
Phillips, 2000; Stevenson, 2007).
The Early Years Education Program
The Early Years Education Program (EYEP) is located
in a purpose-refurbished children’s centre in a low
socioeconomic, high-need area of North East Melbourne.
Data from the 2015 Australian Early Development Census
(AEDC, 2014–2015) revealed that 17.9 per cent of children
from this community entered school developmentally
vulnerable on two or more AEDC domains, a figure that is
significantly higher than the national average (11.1 per cent).
The EYEP was founded in response to the difficulties of
accessibility and affordability experienced by vulnerable
families in securing a place in an early childhood education
and care service. Children are aged under three when they
enter the program and have been assessed as having two
or more risk factors as defined in the Child Development
and Trauma Guide (DHS, 2007). Typical risk factors include
‘mental health issues, substance abuse, family violence,
recent refugee experience, parent/carer under 20 years’
(DHS, 2007, p. 4). The structural components of the EYEP
are above the National Quality Framework regulatory
requirements and include high child to staff ratios (3:1
for children under three years; 6:1 for children over three
32 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
years), qualified staff and small group sizes. Children
receive at least 25 hours a week of high-quality education
and care for 50 weeks of the year for three years, at no
cost to their families.
Six key elements underpin the EYEP: Belonging, Being
and Becoming: Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF)
(DEEWR, 2009); infant mental health consultation;
wrap around family services; parental engagement and
partnerships; nutrition; and an attachment framework
(Jordan et al., 2014). The model is supported by an
interdisciplinary approach implemented by the team
including the centre director, EC pedagogy leader, a
receptionist with EC training, a team of educators, a
cook, an infant mental health professional, family support
workers, and consultants in early childhood curriculum and
infant mental health.
A key aim of this program is for these children to enter
school developmentally equal to their non-disadvantaged
peers. Although enrolment is restricted to children who
meet the risk factor criteria, the EYEP operates within the
universal frameworks of the Australian National Quality
Framework and the National Quality Standard (ACECQA,
2011a; 2011b). The combination of targeted recruitment
and a purposefully designed intensive intervention
program—within the universal education and care
framework—suggests that the centre is operating as a
type of ‘progressive universalism’ model.
Ethnographic study
An in-depth, ethnographic study investigating the everyday
practices of the EYEP was conducted over a period of
two years (2014–2015). It involved a two-step process
of interviews with EYEP team members and parents of
children attending the centre, a series of focus group
discussions with EYEP educators, and many days of
observations. The main aims of the study were: to
understand the experiences of all EYEP participants
(children, families and educators); to articulate educators’
needs in implementing the program; and to share the
learnings with the ECEC sector in order to increase the
capacity of other ECEC services to support the participation
of, and engagement with, vulnerable children and families.
Research approach
In the qualitative research literature, authors use the terms
‘interpretivism’ and ‘constructivism’ interchangeably to
describe a researcher’s relationship with the data (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2013; Mertens, 2005). For the current study,
the term ‘social constructivism’ (Creswell, 2013, 2014)
was chosen, as within this paradigm, researchers seek
an understanding of the social world and assume multiple
meanings, co-creating understandings between the
researcher and the participants, and utilising natural settings
for its research procedures (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013).
Developed within a social constructivist paradigm (Creswell,
2013, 2014), the current study utilised ethnographic and
phenomenological methodologies (Creswell, 2013) in order
to understand the complex world of lived experience from
the point of view of the participants (Schwandt, 2000). The
emphasis in this research approach was to allow meanings
to emerge from the researcher’s encounter with the EYEP
rather than imposing meanings on this program from other
existing models (Hoey, 2011).
Ethics
Ethics approval for this study was obtained from Charles
Sturt University (approval No. 2013/172) using the National
Ethics Application Form (Version 2008 - V2.0). The study
met all the ethical requirements of the National Statement
including informed consent, confidentiality and the right
to withdraw from the study at any time without prejudice.
Participants
All 27 families that had a child or children enrolled in the Early
Years Education Program during the first year of the current
study, gave consent for their child/children (n = 37) to participate
in the study, and 24 families agreed to be interviewed. Twelve
educators and ten other permanent (i.e. not casual) EYEP team
members employed over the course of the study agreed to
participate in interviews. Seven educators and two other EYEP
team members took part in focus groups, and all educators
were observed. Four children (drawn from the cohort of 37),
who were transitioning to school in 2016, gave their consent
to be interviewed (Fordham, 2016).
Procedures
Five data collection methods were employed: participant
observations, semi-structured interviews, focus group
discussions, photographs and audio recordings of
interactions between educators and children. The
participant observations of what occurred in the children’s
rooms were overt in that the researcher was identified to
all research participants in the setting (Spriggs, 2010) and
over the course of the two-year data collection period,
approximately 100 days were spent observing everyday
activities at the child and family centre. Observations were
recorded in a series of notebooks labelled with the name of
the observation setting and documented as per Creswell
(2013), with running records of activities noted on the left
hand page (of a two-page opening) and the researcher’s
reflections written on the right hand page.
Two interviews were designed to take place with families
and EYEP team members over the course of the study with
an approximate 12-month interval. However, due to a large
number of children graduating from EYEP at the end of the first
year of data collection and EYEP staff turnover, not all parents
and staff could complete two interviews. All interviews were
audio recorded. The audio files were de-identified and sent via
a secure method to an interstate transcription service.
Three focus groups were held with EYEP educators and
other team members wishing to participate at six-monthly
intervals commencing approximately six months after their
first interview. Focus groups were held in the afternoons
(after the children and families had left for the day), ran for
approximately an hour and a half, and addressed between
three and five topics. All focus groups were audio recorded
and the audio files were de-identified and sent via a secure
method to an interstate transcription service.
Photographs were taken of the children’s play and learning
spaces (both indoors and outdoors); the educators’
teaching plans; key program elements (such as nutrition);
physical layout of the centre; and the local community.
Typically, photographs were taken at the start of each
observation day before children and families arrived, and
always with permission from the educators. Great care
was taken not to photograph or identify any of the research
participants. Occasionally, photographs were taken of the
children’s work during the day as examples of their play
and learning, but the children’s permission to do so was
always requested first.
Consent was obtained from all relevant participants
(parents and educators) for the researcher to discreetly
use an iPad (with an application called Voice Record Pro
7) to audio record examples of the educators’ interactions
with the children. These recordings took place during the
final period of data collection only, when children and
educators were extremely familiar and comfortable with
the researcher’s presence. Some of these recordings
were targeted to record specific activities (for example
mealtimes or group times), and other recordings were
made randomly in order to sample regular interactions.
Data analysis
Thematic analysis was the approach used to analyse data.
It involved carefully searching across the data set ‘to find
repeated patterns of meaning’ (Braun & Clark, 2006, p. 86)
in order to minimally organise the data set while providing
rich, detailed descriptions of the phenomena being studied
(Braun & Clark, 2006). The thematic analysis process used
was a six-stage hybrid of Braun and Clark’s six phases and
Rossman and Rallis’ (2003) seven phases (see Table 1).
Table 1. Stages of data analysis (Fordham, 2016)
Stage of
Analysis process
analysis
1 Organising the data sets
2 Familiarisation with the data
3 Generating codes
4 Interpretation: Searching for themes
5 Reviewing and defining themes
6 Writing up
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 33
Research findings and any significant changes that may have occurred or are
occurring in the children’s and families’ lives. Educators also
The study found that the EYEP places a very strong use this time to share the child’s portfolio with the parent(s).
emphasis on sustaining parental engagement in both the The progress of previous goals is discussed and new goals
education and care processes and outcomes (Fordham, are identified, clearly linked to the EYLF learning outcomes,
2016). Two ways that the EYEP achieves this are: along with learning experiences and actions that will be
1. A gradual and individualised process of child and family taken to achieve the planned goals. Parents are encouraged
orientation to the program. to identify their goals for their children, and how these
goals can be supported at home as well as in the centre.
2. Genuinely involving parents in the development of their
After each meeting, the outcomes are typed up as the new
children’s education and care plans.
Education and Care Plan, and all parties participating in the
review sign it, before copies of the plan are given to those
First step to engagement: An individualised, gradual
present. Subsequently, educators write up each goal in
orientation and transition
detail on an Individual Learning Development Record, which
The EYEP employs an individualised, gradual process of clearly identifies the strategies, experiences and materials
child and family orientation into the centre. After enrolment, that will be employed to meet every goal.
each child and family has an orientation and participation plan
In these 12-weekly plan and review meetings, the
that is developed between the child’s primary carer and the
educators share accurate and unbiased information with
child’s parent(s). The purpose of the plan is to ensure that each
the parents in ways that enable the parents to understand
child’s transition into the centre is in their best interest, which
their children’s progress and best interests, as well as share
means that it is tailored to each child and family’s needs and
their own ideas for new goals and strategies that might help
circumstances. The orientation takes place gradually over a
to achieve them. Meaningful partnerships are developed
period of weeks and months. For children under 12 months,
when parents’ views are listened to, when their knowledge
the process may take up to 12 weeks, and for children over
is treated respectfully and inclusively in the goal setting
12 months, it may take up to eight weeks. Educators and
process, and when they are seen as their child’s most
parents review the plan together at the end of each week. An
important educator as well as capable contributors in their
infant mental health professional also supports the planning
children’s lives (Scott, 2013; Whalley, 2007).
and processes involved in a child and family’s orientation and
transition into the centre.
Sustaining educators’ needs—ongoing training
There is no rush to move a child and family through the and support
orientation process, with a slow transition into the centre
In order to sustain families’ engagement within the centre,
supporting children and their parents to gradually build trust
CPS supports its educators using a range of strategies that
with educators and settle into the new setting. Educators
assist them in undertaking the complex and challenging
have time to listen to parents’ concerns and hear their
work of enacting the EYEP model. Firstly, all EYEP educators
stories. They can also observe how the child and parent
are qualified, with the minimum qualification being a
interact, answer questions, provide information and model
Diploma in Children’s Services. Research suggests that
positive practices in a warm, gentle, consistent manner. Even
higher educator qualifications are important for achieving
when their children are fully oriented into the program, the
improved outcomes for children and lower levels of stress
parents are welcome to stay in the centre each day for as
for educators (Huntsman, 2008; McDonald, 2010).
long as they like. They can stay for meals, participate in play
activities with their children or use the parent resource room. Secondly, an ethos of ongoing reflection pervades practice
We recognise that this gradual process of orientation is easier as educators engage in regular meetings with room
when parents are not working. colleagues; fortnightly one-on-one reflective sessions
with a supervisor; and monthly whole team reflections
Sustaining engagement—shared planning facilitated by a counsellor. In addition, an early childhood
curriculum consultant supports educators in reflecting on
Once a child has completed their transition into the centre,
their pedagogical practices at individual, room and centre
and both child and parent(s) are settled, the child’s primary
levels, and regular infant mental health consultations
carer (educator) arranges a meeting with the parent(s) and
enrich the educators’ understanding of factors that might
together they develop an Education and Care Plan. Family
be influencing the children’s emotions and behaviours.
caseworkers may also attend this meeting but it is the
Finally, educators receive ongoing external professional
parent(s) and educator who develop the child’s education
development that is relevant to their collective and
and care goals and plans. Children’s plans are reviewed
individual interests with regard to supporting the children
every three months to ensure the relevancy of the education
and families. Circle of Security (Dolby, 2017), Attachment
and care goals. Meetings are held at the children’s centre,
Theory (e.g., Colmer, Rutherford & Murphy, 2011), and the
and commence with a review of the child’s progress, as
Impact of Childhood Trauma (Perry, 2002) are examples
well as a discussion of their skills, achievements, interests
of professional learning topics undertaken by educators.

34 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

Discussion
The EYEP employs a holistic curriculum that is both child-
and family-centred. Being child-centred means having a
strong understanding and implementation of the Early
Years Learning Framework and the National Quality
Standard—with special attention to relational pedagogy,
the environment and time. Being family-centred means
enhancing parental belonging and sustaining parental
engagement with intentional family-centred practices.
Underpinning the work of the EYEP is a relational pedagogy
that acknowledges the importance of educators being
intentional about their work with children, and recognising
the centrality of relationships for learning (Papatheodorou,
2009). Embedded in the relational pedagogy of the EYEP is
the EYLF Vision—Belonging, Being and Becoming (DEEWR,
2009). Another way to consider relational pedagogy is
through the lens of family-centred practice (Dunst, 1997).
As Fordham and Johnston stated (2014, p. 172), ‘Family-
centred practice is the hallmark of family support programs
as it implies that families have the ultimate control over
decisions about their children’. Additionally, family-centred
practice acknowledges that the family is the constant in the
child’s life, the expert on their child’s abilities and needs, and
a unique and capable unit (Fordham & Johnston, 2014). The
EYEP welcomes all children and families respectfully, so
that they feel safe and included in an unhurried, interesting
environment where wellbeing and learning are nurtured
and encouraged. The EYEP exemplifies a space where
relationships and learning coincide (Malaguzzi, 1998).
In the descriptions of quality pedagogy observed in the
Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) study,
Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva (2004, p. 720) distinguished
between ‘pedagogical interactions’ and ‘pedagogical
framing’. Pedagogical framing is defined as ‘the behind-
the-scenes aspects of pedagogy’ and includes the use
of resources and the shaping of the environment. An
understanding of attachment and knowledge of the effects
of trauma on children’s development as well as knowledge
about teaching and learning inform the EYEP pedagogy.
Consequently, EYEP educators were intentional in their
selection of resources and in how they shaped the learning
environment, responding to emotional needs, cultural
diversity and children’s interests.
Time is another important element of quality pedagogy
(Rinaldi, 2006). It requires:
… not only a certain quantity of time so as not to be
‘time governed’ but also a certain concept of time that
is not ‘the time of production’ … time is something
else, a necessary element for creating relationships, an
offering that the school gives: ‘time to children, time
to teachers, time for their being together’ (p. 18).
In the EYEP, time as defined above underscores the
program. There is time for families to gradually orientate
into the program; children have unhurried time for settling
into the program each day and for learning at their own
pace; time is prioritised to support children’s emotional
regulation; educators have time to play with children; there
is time for sustained, shared thinking (Siraj-Blatchford &
Sylva, 2004); EYEP program routines strive to meet the
children’s time, and less so, the adults’; families in crisis
are given time; there is time for a pedagogy of listening
(Rinaldi, 2006); and educators have time for planning,
for reflection and for supervision. These aspects are
all described in great detail in the final research report
(Fordham, 2016).
Implications
Findings from this study suggest three distinct implications
for universal EC services working with children and families
experiencing vulnerabilities:
1. 
Engage families well. Once families are engaged, it is
crucial to sustain their engagement. If services sustain
parental engagement, their children will continue to
participate in EC services, with the obvious outcome
being the potential to improve children’s learning,
development and wellbeing.
2. It takes time to build relationships with families,
particularly with families that may have experienced
high levels of stress or social disadvantage, and that
may have a mistrust of professional services. A slower
orientation into an EC setting is one way to facilitate
this process. Training in family-centred practices would
support educators to be better skilled in building
respectful relationships with every family.
3. Educators (and other EC staff) would benefit from
learning and training in:
a. Attachment Theory to understand emotions and
needs behind children’s behaviours
b. the effects of trauma on children’s learning and
development, so that educators can support
children who may be reliving traumatic experiences
c. designing a holistic curriculum and implementing
relational pedagogy that supports and enhances
every child’s capacity as a learner.
Conclusion
It is hoped that by sharing some of its education and care
practices with the sector, EYEP can enhance understanding
of the professional values, knowledge, attributes, skills and
practices that EC service providers might find helpful in
providing high-quality services for vulnerable children and
their families. Evidence from the ethnographic study into
the EYEP model indicates that progressive universalism,
as enacted in this centre, has the capacity to sustain
engagement with families and children living with multiple
and complex risk factors.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 35
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the three philanthropic
agencies that funded this study:
The Felton Bequest Funds, The John T Reid Charitable
Trust and The William Buckland Foundation. The authors
also wish to acknowledge input and assistance provided by
the CPS EYEP:Q Research Subcommittee: Aileen Ashford,
Kate Cotter, Dr. Alice Hill, Associate Professor Brigid
Jordan, Dr. Jane Munro and Professor Jennifer Sumsion.
ORCID iD/s
Loraine Fordham: orcid.org/0000-0002-2660-0915
References
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2011a). Guide to the National Quality Standard. Sydney,
NSW: ACECQA.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2011b). Guide to the National Quality Framework.
Sydney, NSW: ACECQA.
Australian Early Development Census (AEDC). (2014 –2015).
Banyule community profile. Commonwealth of Australia.
Retrieved 26 October, 2017, from www.aedc.gov.au/data/data-
explorer?id=62126.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2017). Child
protection Australia 2015–16: Child Welfare Series no. 66 (Cat. no.
CWS 60). Canberra, ACT: AIHW.
Ben-Galim, D. (2011). Parents at the centre. London, UK: Institute
for Public Policy Research. Retrieved 26 October, 2017, from www.
ippr.org/publications/parents-at-the-centre.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brennan, D., & Adamson, E. (2014). Financing the future:
An equitable and sustainable approach to early childhood education
and care. Sydney, NSW: Social Policy Research Centre, University
of New South Wales.
Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH). (2006). Services for
young children and families: An integrated approach. (Policy Brief
No. 4). Melbourne, Vic.: CCCH.
Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH). (2010). Engaging
marginalised and vulnerable families (Policy Brief No. 18).
Melbourne, Vic.: CCCH.
Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH). (2014). The future of
early childhood education and care services in Australia (Policy brief
No. 26). Melbourne, Vic.: CCCH.
Colmer, K., Rutherford, L., & Murphy, P. (2011). Attachment theory
and primary caregiving. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,
36(4), 16–20.
Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2013). The national
partnership agreement on the national quality agenda for early
childhood education and care. Retrieved 2 November, 2017, from
http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/NQF/nap_national_quality_agenda_
early_childhood_education_care_signature.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
36 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2013). Introduction: The discipline
and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed., pp.1–41).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
(DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years
Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth
of Australia.
Department of Human Services (DHS). (2007). Child development
and trauma guide. Melbourne, Vic.: State Government of Victoria
Dolby, R. (2017). The circle of security: Roadmap to building
supportive relationships. Research in Practice Series, 24(2).
Canberra, ACT: Early Childhood Australia.
Dunst, C. J. (1997). Conceptual and empirical foundations of family-
centered practice. In R. J. Illback, C.T. Cobb, & H. M. Joseph (Eds.),
Integrated services for children and families: Opportunities for
Psychological Practice (pp. 75–93). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Fordham, L. (2016). Extending the reach of the Early Years
Education Program: The EYEP:Q Research Report. Melbourne,
Vic.: Children’s Protection Society. Retrieved 26 October, 2017,
from www.cps.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EYEP-Q_
Research_Report_web.pdf.
Fordham, L., & Johnston, C. (2014). Family-centred practice for
inclusive early years education. In K. Cologon (Ed.), Inclusive
education in the early years: Right from the start (pp. 171–188).
Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
Gwynne, K., Blick, B. A., & Duffy, G. M. (2009). Pilot evaluation
of an early intervention programme for children at risk. Journal of
Paediatrics and Child Health, 45(3), 118–124.
Harrison, L. J., Goldfeld, S., Metcalfe, E., & Moore, T. (2012).
Early learning programs that promote children’s developmental and
educational outcomes: Resource sheet No.15 produced for the
Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare, & Melbourne, Vic.: Australian Institute of
Family Studies.
Harrison, L., Sumsion, J., Press, F., Wong, S., Fordham, L.,
& Goodfellow, J. (2011). A shared early childhood development
research agenda: Key research gaps 2010–2015. Canberra, ACT:
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. Retrieved
26 October, 2017, from www.aracy.org.au/publications-
resources/command/download_file/id/284/filename/A-shared-
early-childhood-development-research-agenda-Key-research-
gaps-2010-2015.pdf.
Hoey, B. A. (2011). What is ethnography? Retrieved 26 October,
2017, from http://brianhoey.com/research/ethnography/.
Huntsman, L. (2008). Determinants of quality in childcare: A review
of the research evidence. Ashfield, NSW: NSW Department of
Community Services Retrieved 26 October, 2017, from www.
community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/321617/
research_qualitychildcare.pdf.
Jordan, B., Tseng, Y., Coombs, N., Kennedy, A., & Borland, J. (2014).
Improving lifetime trajectories for vulnerable young children and
families living with significant stress and social disadvantage: The
early years education program randomised controlled trial. BMC
Public Health, 14(965). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-965
La Placa, V., & Corlyon, J. (2014). Barriers to inclusion and
successful engagement of parents in mainstream services:
Evidence and research. Journal of Children's Services 9(3),
220–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-05-2014-0027
Lord, P., Southcott, C., & Sharp, C. (2011). Targeting children's Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for
centre services on the most needy families. LGA Research Report. qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social
Slough, UK: The National Foundation for Educational Research. constructionism. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
Retrieved 26 October, 2017, from www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/ of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Thousand Oaks,
LGTC01/LGTC01.pdf. CA: Sage.
McDonald, M. (2010). Building the capacity of professionals through Scott, D. (2009). Think child, think family: How adult specialist
post-qualification development and training. Australian Institute of services can support children at risk of abuse and neglect. Family
Family Studies: CAFCA Practice Sheet Series. Melbourne, Vic.: Matters, 81, 37–42.
Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 26 October, 2017, from
Scott, D. (2013). Family-centred practice in early childhood
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/publication-documents/
settings. In F. Arney, & D. Scott (Eds.), Working with vulnerable
ps4.pdf.
families: A partnership approach (2nd ed.). Port Melbourne, Vic.:
McDowell Clark, R. (2013). Childhood in society for the early years Cambridge University Press.
(2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Shonkoff, J. P. (2011). Protecting brains, not simply stimulating
Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas, and basic philosophy: minds. Science, 333(6045), 982–983.
An interview with Lella Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini,
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to
& G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio
neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development.
Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 49–97).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching pedagogy in
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and
English pre-schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(5),
psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and
713–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000234665
mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Skattebol, J., Blaxland, M., Brennan, D., Adamson, E., Purcal,
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth
C., Hill, T., Jenkins, B., & Williams, F. (2014). Families at the centre:
Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). The Melbourne Declaration. Canberra,
What do low income families say about care and education for
ACT: The Commonwealth of Australia.
their young children? Sydney, NSW: Social Policy Research
Moore, T. G. (2008). Rethinking universal and targeted services: Centre, UNSW.
CCCH Working Paper 2. Parkville, Vic.: Centre for Community
Spriggs, M. (2010). Understanding consent in research involving
Child Health.
children: The ethical issues. A handbook for human research ethics
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (NSCDC). committees and researchers. Melbourne, Vic.: Murdoch Children’s
(2004). Young children develop in an environment of relationships: Research Institute, The Royal Children’s Hospital.
Working Paper No. 1. Cambridge, MA: Center on the Developing
Stevenson, O. (2007). Neglected children and their families (2nd
Child, Harvard University. Retrieved 26 October, 2017, from
ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/
Young-Children-Develop-in-an-Environment-of-Relationships.pdf. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., &
Taggart, B. (2004). The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education
O’Connell, M., Fox, S., Hinz, B., & Cole, H. (2016). Quality early
(EPPE) Project. Technical Paper 12—The Final Report: Effective
education for all: Fostering, entrepreneurial, resilient and capable
Pre-School Education. London, UK: Institute of Education,
leaders. Mitchell Institute policy paper No. 01/2016. Melbourne,
University of London.
Vic.: Mitchell Institute of Victoria University. Retrieved 26
October, 2017, from www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/wp-content/ Tayler, C., Ishmine, K., Cloney, D., Cleveland, G., & Thorpe, K.
uploads/2016/04/Quality-Early-Education-for-All-FINAL.pdf. (2013). The quality of early childhood education and care services
in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(2), 13–21.
Owen, S., Sharp, C., & Spratt, J. (2012). Closing the gap: Policy
into action. In L. Miller, & D. Hevey (Eds.), Policy issues in the early Whalley, M., & the Pen Green Centre Team (Eds.). (2007).
years (pp. 28–44). London, UK: SAGE Publications. Involving parents in their child’s learning (2nd ed.). London,
UK: SAGE Publications.
Papatheodorou, T. (2009). Exploring relational pedagogy.
In T. Papatheodorou, & J. Moyles (Eds.), Learning together in the Winkworth, G., McArthur, M., Layton, M., Thomson, L., &
early years: Exploring relational pedagogy (pp. 3–17). Abingdon, Wilson, F. (2010). Opportunities lost: Why some parents of
UK: Routledge. young children are not well-connected to the service systems
designed to assist them. Australian Social Work, 63(4), 431–444.
Penn, H., & Lloyd, E. (2007). Richness or rigour? A discussion of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2010.508170
systematic reviews and evidence-based policy in early childhood.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1), 3–18. https://doi.
org/10.2304/ciec.2007.8.1.3
Perez-Johnson, I., & Maynard, R. (2007). The case for early,
targeted interventions to prevent academic failure. Peabody
Journal of Education, 82(4), 587–616.
Perry, B. D. (2002). Childhood experience and the expression of
genetic potential: What childhood neglect tells us about nature
and nurture. Brain and Mind, 3(1), 79–100.
Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. Listening,
researching and learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field:
An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 37
 ‘I belong here; I been coming a big time’:
An exploration of belonging that includes the voice of children
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.05

Selma Jo Wastell
Sheila Degotardi
Macquarie University

BELONGING, AS A TERM and a concept, has entered popular lexicon and is being
extensively referred to in a variety of everyday and academic contexts. The word
presumes a shared understanding, yet despite its common usage, theoretical literature
suggests that this is not an accurate assumption. This research investigated what
belonging meant to a group of young children aged between three and five years in an
early care and education service, and the implications of their understandings. The core
concepts of belonging to people and to place had been identified in the literature but what
emerged was that children identified new elements, which were powerful determinants
of belonging for them. The research confirmed that young children are indeed capable
of conceptualising and expressing complex cognitive concepts like belonging when
provided with a context conducive to this.

Introduction The current context of young children’s belonging

Belonging is a term evident in much of the current discourse
around the education and care of young children. A sense
of belonging, it is argued, affords children of all ages the
identity, emotional security, relationships and agency that
they need to learn and thrive as an active member of their
learning community (McMahon, Reck & Walker, 2007).
For this reason, the Australian early childhood curriculum:
the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) states that
‘Experiencing belonging—knowing where and with whom
you belong—is integral to human existence’ (DEEWR, 2009,
p. 7). While children’s learning and wellbeing is central to
these claims, little is known about their own perspectives
and understandings of the concept of belonging. This paper
addresses this issue by exploring how young children
understand and express their experience of belonging in
their early care and education setting. By placing children’s
perspectives in the spotlight, we aim to contribute to current
understandings of the value of belonging, especially as it
applies to young children in early childhood contexts.
If we are, as Sumsion and Wong (2011) suggest, going
to incorporate belonging as something more meaningful
than ‘a pleasantly alliterative platitude’ (p. 38), then it is
important to expand our current understanding to include
the perspective of young children, and re-construct a shared
and inclusive interpretation of the belonging concept.
Belonging is a complex and philosophical concept with
deep emotional and historical connections, and diverse
interpretations. Peers and Fleer (2013) describe it as a
philosophical concept bound in ontological origins, and it
is perhaps due to this deep embedding of belonging in
our collective psyche that the inclusion of the concepts
'Belonging, Being and Becoming' were an agreed
early inclusion into the EYLF (Sumsion & Wong, 2011).
These origins of belonging, embedded as they are in a
philosophical and narrative history, provide an element of
mystery understood to be part of the appeal of the Early
Years Learning Framework (Peers & Fleer, 2013). These
mystical roots of belonging may have contributed to the
current situation where much of the existing writing around
the topic is conceptual. Empirical studies do occur, but they
are predominantly focused on adults and older children
(Bame Nsamenang, 2008; Haza Gutiérrez & Figueroa
Fuentes, 2008). There is, consequently, a paucity of
research that investigates how young children understand
and conceptualise belonging in their everyday lives.
Peers and Fleer (2013) contend that to arrive at an
everyday interpretation of this concept, we need to begin
to deconstruct the scientific and philosophical aspects
inherent to our understanding. This post-modern reality
of multiple experiences of belonging existing within

38 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

different contexts informed the current literature review;
and consistent themes of people, agency, place and
inclusion emerged from this process. These elements are
discussed below and constituted the starting point for the
construction of the present research.
The EYLF identifies relationships as being significant for
the development of a sense of belonging by stating that
‘belonging acknowledges children’s interdependence with
others and the basis of relationships in defining identities’
(DEEWR, 2009, p. 7). In the early childhood arena, a
paradigm shift has occurred in the last few decades from
focusing on the child as an individual to viewing children as
strongly influenced by their social context (Cannella, 2005;
Wainman et al., 2012). This change in focus reinforces the
role of relational connection and has placed relationships at
the centre of most contemporary studies of young children.
The connection to people through relationships was the
most significant theme to emerge from the literature, and
is variously depicted as belonging to a group (Woodhead
& Brooker, 2008), social belonging and belonging to family
and community (Cannella & Viruru, 2004).
The second major theme emerging from the literature
was the experience of place—described as a desirable
attachment crucial to self-identity (Chehab, 2008). Bame
Nsamenang (cited in Woodhead & Brooker, 2008) refers
to belonging as ‘going beyond human relationships and
extending to familiarity with places and environments’
(p. 13). Place attachment, as an aspect of belonging, is
clearly established and one such place for young people
is often an educational or care setting. Haza Gutiérrez and
Figueroa Fuentes (2008) identified the strong connection
that young people develop with place, and expand this
notion with the idea that children are capable of having
feelings of belonging simultaneously to a variety of places
or environments. In recent research about place, Dockett,
Kearney and Perry (2012) found that young children are
able to demonstrate a depth of knowledge about, and a
real interest in, their own community. This was despite
educators participating in that study voicing doubt about
whether young children are able to understand abstract
concepts like community (Dockett et al., 2012).
This doubt is present in many discourses about young
children, and raises the notion of agency and the
significance of a rights-based perspective being employed
in research. Agency is realised when a child is able to
influence the activity and the people he or she is involved
with (Brownlee & Berthelsen; 2009). It was another
element of belonging that emerged from the literature.
Agency captures the political (Sumsion & Wong, 2011),
empowerment (Mashford-Scott, Church & Tayler, 2012)
and power issues embedded in belonging. It follows that
children who experience a familiarity with place develop a
sense of history or comfort there, leading to an experience
of empowerment, agency and belonging. Woodhead
and Brooker (2008) explain that if children feel they are
empowered to participate and contribute to their settings,
a sense of belonging will ensue. Belonging is, therefore,
supported in an environment where children have their
needs and rights recognised, while at the same time being
provided with opportunities to express personal agency. The
EYLF confirms this link between belonging, participation
and agency by recognising that a child’s influence is part of
their construction of identity—‘who I am’, ‘how I belong’
and ‘what is my influence?’ (DEEWR, 2009, p. 20).
The final theme that emerged from the literature—linked
to the development of children’s sense of belonging—was
that of inclusion, often experienced by young children as
acceptance and peer approval (Board of Studies NSW, 2008;
DEEWR, 2009). The EYLF frames inclusion and exclusion
around children’s sense of belonging as: ‘They develop
understandings that their actions or responses affect
how others feel or experience belonging’ (DEEWR, 2009,
p. 25), but then also states that children understand the
impact of this behaviour: they ‘become aware of ways in
which people are included or excluded from physical and
social environments’ (p. 28). Bame Nsamenang (2008) also
acknowledges this link with exclusion: ‘Tacit in the concept
of a “sense of belonging” is the opposite experience of “not
belonging”’ (p. 16). Inclusion and exclusion are linked to the
experiences of belonging to people (Woodhead & Brooker,
2008), acceptance and understanding (Board of Studies,
2008) and fairness (DEEWR, 2009).
The present study
As stated above, children’s voices are largely absent from
research examining the concept of belonging, even when
that research concerns young children. The premise of this
study was that children could convey an interpretation of
the concept of belonging if they were provided multiple and
appropriate opportunities to do so. A rights-based approach
was adopted, using a participatory theoretical framework,
which drew on Article 12 of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child which outlines that the child has a
right to express his or her views freely in all matters affecting
them and to have these taken into account (1989). Rights-
based approaches to educational research, therefore, seek to
find ways that will support children’s endeavours to express
their perspectives and to support their active participation
in the research process. A rights-based approach purports
that children are competent social beings who are capable
of having insight into, and being experts in their own lives
(Baird, 2013; Rinaldi, 2006). However, as Dockett et al. (2012)
point out, ‘children’s participation is sometimes limited by the
boundaries imposed by a restricted adult view of children’s
competence’ (p. 287). Some researchers acknowledge that
although children may struggle with verbally articulating
complex thoughts (Peers & Fleer, 2013)—such as their
sense of belonging in a consistent way through language—
their thinking and ideas are able to be captured using a
variety of alternative information-gathering techniques.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 39
Hence, contemporary theorists contend that children may
hold different perspectives to those of the adults in their
community, and should be given a voice when they are the
subject of research (Dockett, Einarsdóttir & Perry, 2011;
Harcourt, Perry & Waller, 2011). Accordingly, the aim of this
research was to address the following question:
 How do young children understand and express
their experience of belonging in their early care and
education setting?
The findings provide an enhanced understanding of young
children’s perspectives on belonging, and may have the
potential to inform existing practices and contribute to our
body of knowledge about this fundamental concept in early
childhood education.
Method
Participants and recruitment
This research was conducted with a group of 28 three- to
four-year-old children in an early care and education service
operating with extended hours on the Central Coast of New
South Wales. The service was selected due to its location
in a mixed residential/educational/industrial setting, with
families from diverse socioeconomic contexts represented.
The director of the service consented to participate, and
approval from Macquarie University’s Ethics Committee
was granted prior to the commencement of the research
(Approval number: 5201400577). The director selected one
of the playrooms to be the research site and the two early
childhood educators working with this group of children
agreed to be the primary adult participants. The role of
the educators was to support the children in their ability
to be informed participants (Mukherji & Albon, 2015) in
the research, but the educators themselves were not the
focus of the analysis.
The researcher collected data for one day a week, six hours
a day, over a five-week period. Information that ensured
informed consent was distributed to the children’s parents
and educators prior to the commencement of the research.
The participating children were those attending on the days of
data collection and whose parents had granted this consent.
Parents who chose to grant consent were encouraged to
talk to their children about the research and their right to
participate or withdraw. This was reinforced by the researcher
and the educators who addressed this issue regularly, using
developmentally-appropriate terminology. They encouraged
feedback from the children to maximise their agency and
right to choose whether to participate or not.
Non-participating children were not included in the
analysis, and their actions and expressions were not
documented. They were, however, easily accommodated
as the experiences were presented as part of the daily
routine. All children chose whether to participate or not,
according to their predilection each day.
40 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Data collection techniques
From the commencement of the project, the position was
assumed that children would be capable of articulating
their understandings of the complex concept of belonging:
‘If you think they can do it—then they can’ (Duncan, 2009,
p. 179). The methods of data collection reflected this
commitment, and a modified Mosaic approach (Clark,
2005)—involving the use of multiple data collection
methods—was employed with the aim of capturing an
authentic reflection of children’s voices. This Mosaic
approach allowed for the children to be viewed as active
participants in the research, and provided for the voices
of the least-visible to be included (Clark & Moss, 2011).
The approach involved creating multiple expressive
opportunities for the children that enabled the recording
of diverse modes of communication and accommodated
the documentation of all children’s conceptualisations;
not just those whose primary mode of expression was
verbal (Harcourt et al., 2011). Written observations, voice
recordings, examples of children’s work and photographic
documentation were collected to capture the multiplicity
of children’s responses. This diversity, aided by a variety
of child-centred materials, supported the triangulation of
data. The multiple and varied learning invitations provided
for the children as experiences are detailed under the
headings below.
Guided discussion supported by storytelling
This data-generation technique was modified from
a group discussion method used by Clark (2005) to
construct a shared understanding of belonging between
the researcher and the children. Once children’s present
knowledge was established, they were encouraged to
articulate increasingly complex constructions of their own
understandings of belonging, with the use of intentional
teaching strategies such as open-ended questioning. Story
books with a theme of belonging served as a starting point
in this co-construction of knowledge, and each of the
books presented to the children had a title page stating:
‘This book belongs to …’. This construct was familiar to
most of the children and provided a useful platform from
which to launch a discourse on what belonging meant to
this group of children.
Selma: Who do you think this book may belong to?
Oliver: It belongs to you.
Selma: What makes you think that?
Anna: You brought it from your house with you.
Selma: If I left the book here, who might it belong to then?
Oliver: You, it would still belong to you and you could
fetch it again. The belonging will stay with you.
(All references to children and educators use pseudonyms.)
This technique of guided participation put forward by
Rogoff (cited in Dunphy, 2012) suggests that when
children collaborate to make new meaning, they increase
their skills and offer educators new ways to ‘think about
and describe children’s learning’ (p. 291).
Imaginative play
Imaginative play incorporating open-ended materials and
persona dolls (a ‘mini-me’ made from small containers
with photographs of individual children attached, Figure 1)
was provided to encourage the children to pursue their
own play agendas (Barblett & Maloney, 2010). These mini-
mes served as a mechanism for the children to include
themselves in the exploration of social constructs like
belonging in a non-threatening way, and were presented
by the researcher as an added element to open-ended
block play. Children who chose to engage in this area,
were encouraged to discuss belonging and to explore their
understandings if they showed a willingness to do so.
Figure 1. A ‘mini-me’, which served as an imaginative
play device
Drawing opportunities
Drawing was offered to provide children with a narrative
tool that was both familiar and non-threatening (MacDonald,
2009). Letter writing was added as the children began to
do this spontaneously. A provocation was posed:
Would you like to leave a message for someone who
makes you feel like you belong here?
Many children dictated messages such as: ‘I like playing
with Josh. We play trash packs. We bring them from
home’, and drew accompanying pictures. These were
rolled up and inserted as communications inside the
appropriate mini-me.
Child conferencing based on a story scenario
A story box was presented with artefacts representing
different possibilities for promoting belonging. Children,
who appeared engaged with the concept of belonging in
the experience detailed above, were invited to be part of an
individual conference (Clark, 2005), during which they were
told a short imaginative story about a new child in the service
(represented in Figure 2 by the wooden figurine).
Figure 2. The story-telling box gave children the
opportunity to participate without ‘words’
Participating children were invited to select the items
they thought might enhance that new child’s sense of
belonging. The options provided were: an educator from
the service, a friend, a comfort blanket, food from home,
a ticket allowing for choice (agency), a family photo, a
toy from home and a toy from the service. This more
abstract experience enabled children already engaged in
discussions about belonging to build on that foundation.
Data analysis
Data analysis was conducted inductively using a qualitative
analytical approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data
from all experiences was analysed holistically, by reading
data from all data-generation experiences to derive
themes and categories from the entire data set. Examples
consistent with emerging themes were coded to establish
patterns and meanings for analysis (Miles & Huberman,
1994; Mukherji & Albon, 2015). These themes were then
compared with the components of belonging previously
identified in the literature, providing a theoretical starting
point for the qualitative analysis. Data, which had been
gathered using the child-conferencing data-collection
method, was codified with numerical values that allowed
for the inclusion of some quantitative analysis. Through the
process of comparing and contrasting the new information
with that extracted from the literature review, initial themes
were reconceptualised and a model that included these
children’s understandings of belonging emerged.
Findings
The data generated in the study suggested that children’s
conceptualisation of belonging comprised two main
components: belonging through people and belonging
to place.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 41
The lattice pie in Figure 3 is used to represent the relationship
between the two fundamental components of belonging:
Place and People. These constitute the ‘filling’. The recurring
elements that gave substance to these components namely:
agency, shared interests, belongings, inclusion and time are
the strands of the pie.
Figure 3. Pie graphic: A visual representation of the
research construct.
The consistent presence of an emotional connection
provided the framework that marked these elements as
significant for the children. The findings related to each
of these components and their connecting elements are
detailed below.
Components of belonging
People
Consistent with the view that belonging to people is
achieved through the strength of relationships (Brownlee
& Berthelsen, 2009; Cannella, 2005), the data confirmed
that people were central in the establishment of these
children’s sense of belonging. In the ‘child conferencing
based on a story scenario’ experience, children most
frequently chose the family photo and mini-mes of a friend/
educator when selecting an item that would enhance a
sense of belonging. The two major contributors, in an early
childhood learning setting, to belonging through people are
relationships with peers and relationships with educators.
Relationships with peers
Children who are labelled by a peer as friends, experience
belonging (Jonsdottir cited in Engdahl, 2012), and the
children in the present study clearly articulated the
importance of peer relationships using the range of
mediums of expression available to them. For example,
children were invited to create a picture of someone who
made them feel like they belonged, and responded:
Olivia: (to her sister, Maddy) Draw a picture of me—
you belong to me.
Olivia proceeded to draw a picture of herself,
her sister and their friend, Freya.
42 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Selma: (to Olivia) Why did you choose to put Freya in
the picture?
Olivia: (to Selma) She makes me feel at home.
Selma: (to Maddy) If you came here without Olivia,
would you still belong here?
Maddy: (to Selma) No.
Woodhead and Brooker (2008) confirm that acceptance
within a peer group is central to a sense of belonging as it will
not only enhance children’s sense of self but also their feeling
of being accepted. Olivia clearly links the feeling of comfort
and safety from home (an emotional connection) with the
sense of belonging that this peer affords her. Another child
who, when asked what would make a new child feel like they
belonged in the story box scenario, selected the ‘mini-me’
representing a friend, and had the following explanation for
his choice: ‘If he has no friends, he will cry and cry, and his
mum would have to come and pick him up’.
Relationships with educators
Children’s right to meaningful and sustaining relationships
is integral to many of the conventions, frameworks and
regulations that support and guide educators in children’s
services (Nutbrown & Clough, 2009; United Nations, 1989).
Accordingly, in response to the question: ‘Who makes you
feel special at preschool; like you belong?’, one of the children
offered this insight into his relationship with an educator:
Morgan: Naomi massages my shoulders when I’m
sad and then I’m laughing to nearly explode
my heart.
When the educator concerned was asked to comment on
this information, she reflected that this child sometimes
became overwhelmed with situations, and she had
discovered that this strategy assisted him to ‘move on’.
In this example, Naomi identifies the need to support a
child who then in turn attributes the resulting emotional
connection as giving meaning to the relationship, which
is linked to his sense of belonging. This child had been
attending this early childhood setting for two years,
resulting in a shared history that supported and gave
meaning to this relationship. The combination of time
and emotional connection appears to have contributed
to his experience of belonging through this relationship
with an adult. These two partners have brought a shared
history into their interactions, which has developed the
relationship (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2009; Cannella, 2005)
and enhanced belonging for the child.
Place
Chehab (2008) proposes that place attachment can be a
very powerful aspect of belonging, and that the school
can have an important role in building a positive sense
of belonging. In this study, many children could identify
places that held special significance for them. For example,
in response to the query: ‘What places make you feel like
you belong at preschool?’, the following were recorded:
Olivia: I love [to be] inside the most because I love
the colouring-in and the textas.
Morgan: The drawing table inside preschool makes me
feel busy. I can make a drawing to make my
Mum happy.
Joshua: I like it in the kitchen. It’s cosy.
The children conveyed the sense of belonging that physical
spaces afforded them through words like ‘love’, ‘busy’,
‘happy’, ‘like’ and ‘cosy’; thus supporting the significance
of emotional connection in children’s constructions of
belonging. Belonging has also been associated with the
feeling of being suitable, or of being the right person to
be in this place (Woodhead & Brooker, 2008). During a
story time with guided discussion, a story was shared
about a chicken that ended up in an unfamiliar place. A
discussion began about how the chicken might have felt
being in a place where she didn’t belong. The following
ideas were offered:
Morgan: Not comfortable.
Freya: It is just not her place; it is Bruno’s place (Bruno
being the dog in the story).
In this instance, the participating children identified an
emotional connection with the negative concept of not
belonging by using words such as ‘not comfortable’ and
‘not her place’. The significance of place is, therefore,
confirmed by this research, but the importance of people
in the construction of a sense of belonging was given much
more prominence than place by these young children.
Elements of belonging
Belongings
The significant role that the children’s possessions played
in their experience of belonging was consistently raised in
this study. In response to the question:
‘What makes you feel like you belong?’, the following
answers were recorded:
Felix: When I’m resting, I feel at home because I
bring my dino-pillow pet.
Ma Mi: My cuddly—it’s called Happy Bear.
It is common to label such items as ‘belongings’ but
when used to describe emotional security, these are
referred to as transitional objects or ‘lovvies’ (Brandt,
2014). Transitional objects are objects that are not part of
the child’s body—that can be used for comfort—and are
primarily a reminder of a significant attachment relationship
(Hobara, 2003), which can then serve as a bridge between
home and early childhood contexts.
Selma: Tell me about what you have brought from
home today.
Rafi: Books from home, dinosaur books and ‘polices’
book that dad reads (goes and gets a book
about police). It makes me remember dad and
my Lego.
For this group of children, it appeared that these objects
of attachment played a complex and central role in their
experiences of belonging. These belongings offered layers
of meaning comprised of status, agency, power, familiarity,
comfort and shared interests with others. These meanings
depended on the child, the location, the element of risk
(transgression) and the significance afforded to the object.
When children removed items from their lockers at times
that were ‘not sanctioned’, this action appeared to enhance
agency and elevate their social capital. The status of
belongings accessed clandestinely was greater than when
their use was sanctioned (for example at rest time). In the
play scenario below, Emily secreted a ‘snow pony’ from her
locker, elevating her status within the group. That, in turn,
permitted her certain power privileges in the play:
Selma:  Emily, Ma Mi thinks you are ignoring her. Can
she play too?
Emily: She is playing; she is wicked fairy. Do you want
to be the wicked fairy?
Ma Mi:  Shakes her head (No).
Emily: (to Freya) Well, then you must be the
wicked fairy.
The emotional connection that children establish with their
belongings did not always result in positive outcomes for
the children. Jacob, for example, had some toys that he had
brought from home. But the educators did not permit him
to keep them:
Selma:  Why did you bring that toy with you today?
Jacob: He wanted to come with me for a visit. He loved
me and I found him in the car.
Selma:  What happened then?
Jacob:  The teacher said no to my robot, so I was cross.
Time
In response to the question: ‘What makes you feel like you
belong at preschool?’, during guided discussion, children
frequently identified issues around time. For example:
Morgan: I’ve been here for years. Do you know how many
[years] I’ve been here? About eleven thousand.
Felix: I come here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
and Thursday. Four days.
Rafi: I’ve been coming a big time.
As the investigation around belonging progressed,
other children were able to voice their conceptualised
relationship between belonging and time. This grew into
a co-construction of the paradigm that time impacted on
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 43
belonging. And the longer the children had attended or
the more days they came in, the higher the status they
seemed to be afforded. This was further evidence of
children building increasingly intricate conceptualisations
with an educator who believed in their ability to think in
complex ways.
Shared interests
It became evident that when children shared an interest, it
served to strengthen their relationship. It then contributed
to their perception of belonging. In the examples below,
the children articulated the importance of their shared
interests:
Selma: Who is special for you here at preschool? Who
makes you feel like you belong?
Olivia: Freya. She loves me … we play ‘school’ and
she lets me be the teacher sometimes.
Morgan: Ben … we play Lego and Star Wars together.
Isaac: 
Me and Aiden. We like to go on the
monkey bars.
Emerging from this data is evidence of a socially-
constructed situation where children use their common
belongings to establish and maintain meaningful peer
relationships. This shared experience is then integrated
into their peer culture (Löfdahl & Hägglund, 2012), assisting
in building shared funds of knowledge (Hedges, 2015). In
addition to giving meaning to peer relationships, children
also identified shared interests as a significant element
of the relationships that they had with their educators,
as discussed previously. The drawing of an educator
in Figure 4 was in response to the question: ‘Who makes
you feel special at preschool, like you belong?’
Figure 4. Drawing, as an alternative mode of expression,
was used to include the diverse ‘voices’ of children
Anna drew this picture and then offered: ‘Naomi—she’s
my friend. She plays hide and seek with me’.
44 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Discussion
This research project set out to investigate how young
children understand and express their experience of
belonging in an early care and education setting. One of
the initial tenets of the study was the belief that if we
trusted that children were able to articulate a conceptual
idea such as belonging, then they would be empowered
to do so. This study has affirmed that children are capable
of articulating an understanding of what a conceptual word
like belonging means to them. It also validates the notion
that children can be trusted as capable experts in their own
lives (Harcourt et al., 2011).
The introduction of the lattice pie metaphor represents
a new conceptualisation of belonging and demonstrates
that for children, belonging is a multi-layered concept.
The central components of people and place are overlaid
by elements that afford meaning to their experiences of
belonging. Any construct that attempts to categorise and
explain a notion as complex and nuanced as 'belonging', will
suffer from some stretching and straining to accommodate
the multiplicity of possible connections. Although adding
a new conceptualisation may run the risk of contributing
to the ‘conceptual confusion’ referred to by Sumsion
and Wong (2011), it is included with the expectation of
illustrating the new associations that arose through the
inclusion of young children’s articulations of belonging.
While the presented conceptualisation enhances current
understandings of how the concept of belonging resonates
with young children, it also raises some challenges
to those who are invested in developing and providing
programs that authentically incorporate children’s
voices. First, the inclusion of time could be problematic
because—with the exception of a few early childhood
services—it is often circumstances other than the best
interests of the children that determine a child’s patterns
of attendance. The discontinuity of care, as de Groot Kim
(2010) identified, reflected in the comings-and-goings of
children’s attendance is often dictated by service policy or
parental preferences. Foregrounding this aspect is timely
in relation to the current political focus on service provision
being driven by parental workforce needs rather than the
best interests of children (Gibbs, 2015). These political and
structural forces have the potential to be compounded,
resulting in the identified needs of young children being
over-ridden by economic and political imperatives.
Second, the way belongings brought from home are
managed is typically dominated by adult perceptions of
the negative role of these items, and their access is often
tightly controlled. An outcome of the authentic inclusion
of children’s perspectives on belonging would be a re-
negotiation of the status of belongings brought from
home—based on the key role that children attribute to
them. If we are to accept the children’s articulation that
the connections between the home and care setting, and
the role of time are significant, then policies and processes
may be required to support this (de Groot Kim, 2010) to
ensure these elements are not overlooked.
The highlighting of shared interests by the children, as
an essential component of meaningful relationships,
and belonging has structural as well as pedagogical
implications for early childhood practitioners. An authentic
inclusion of young children’s voices that reflected the
significance of shared interests between children and
educators would see the support of this relationship
becoming an explicit intentional teaching strategy to
promote a sense of belonging. The Australian National
Quality Standard (Standard 5.1) states that respectful and
equitable relationships need to be developed with each
child (ACECQA, 2013), and the promotion of sustained
shared interests between children and educators could
enhance the quality of these relationships significantly.
Finally, the current focus on belonging in the early
childhood discourse could obscure the negative but real
experience for children, of not belonging. If we accept
that exclusionary behaviours can be associated with a
sense of superiority (Woodhead & Brooker, 2008) then
inclusion becomes an imperative for those wanting to
incorporate a social justice perspective in early childhood
settings. A rights-based paradigm compels the promotion
of participation and inclusion of all children, and encourages
educators to challenge the construction of power of one
group over another.
Children from both individualistic and relational cultures
could be concurrently sharing an early childhood care and
education setting despite their experiences of belonging
being grounded in contrasting sociocultural practices.
Equally, children from cultures where strong power
differentials between teachers and children exist, may
struggle to establish their sense of belonging alongside
children from a background with a more egalitarian paradigm.
Conclusion
There are many ways to describe the experience of
belonging, for example: feeling secure, feeling suitable,
feeling ‘like a fish in water’, feeling recognised and
feeling able to participate (Woodhead & Brooker, 2008,
p. 4). These were expressed in different ways by the
children participating in this research (who then prevailed
to contribute a few of their own constructions). A new
emphasis emerged on the role of shared interests,
belongings brought from home, emotional connection and
time. It brought the project full circle to reflect an authentic
inclusion of children’s voices.
Having documented a clear voice for preschool-aged
children, it would be logical to explore how belonging is
experienced by younger children. A link between shared
interests and belonging was demonstrated by this research,
and a link between togetherness and shared interests
has been identified with younger children (Van Oers &
Hannikainen, cited in Degotardi & Pearson, 2014). This
invites the possibility of exploring this aspect of belonging
with a younger age group. While very young children may
not be able to express their ideas as proficiently as their
older peers, the model of multiple methods of expression
could be adapted to develop observational frameworks
allowing for the experience of belonging to be studied with
infants and toddlers. The unique and important role that
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children may have,
when examining belonging in an Australian context, is
acknowledged but was not able to be addressed in this
small study. A future investigation that incorporates aspects
of belonging that children from cultural backgrounds other
than mainstream Australian experience, would broaden our
developing body of knowledge, reflect greater diversity
and be more inclusive.
ORCID iD/s
Selma Jo Wastell: orcid.org/0000-0002-7995-8523
Sheila Degotardi: orcid.org/0000-0003-2066-2223
References
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2013). National Quality Standard. Canberra, ACT:
ACECQA. Retrieved from www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/
childhood/providers/regulation/nqs.pdf.
Baird, K. (2013). Exploring a methodology with young children:
Reflections on using the mosaic and ecocultural approaches.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(1), 35–40.
Bame Nsamenang, A. (2008). In a globalised world, local culture
must be the anchor of identity. Early Childhood Matters, 111, 13–17.
Barblett, L., & Maloney, C. (2010). Complexities of assessing
social and emotional competence and wellbeing in young children.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 35(2), 13–18.
Board of Studies NSW (2008). English stage 6: Support document
2009–2014 for English (ESL) module B: Texts and society. Sydney,
NSW.: Retrieved from www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_
hsc/pdf_doc/academic-english-support-2009-2014.pdf.
Brandt, K. (2014, April). Learning to look at dyads and development
in new ways: A path for policy-makers, providers and parents.
Paper presented at the Early Childhood Australia National
Conference: Seasons of Change, Convention and Exhibition
Centre, Melbourne, Vic.
Brownlee, J., & Berthelsen, D. (2009). Beliefs about toddlers' learning
in child care programs in Australia. In D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee, & E.
Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in the early years: Research
and pedagogy (pp. 93–108). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cannella, G. S. (2005). If 'Western' child development is a problem, then
what do we do? In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood
education (pp. 17–39). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Cannella, G. S., & Viruru, R. (2004). Childhood and postcolonization:
Power, education, and contemporary practice. London, UK:
Routledge Falmer.
Chehab, M. (2008). Promoting a sense of belonging in an
environment of conflict. Early Childhood Matters, 111, 37–40.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 45
Clark, A. (2005). Ways of seeing: Using the Mosaic approach to MacDonald, A. (2009). Drawing stories: The power of children's
listen to young children's perspectives. In A. Clark, A. T. Kjørholt, drawings to communicate the lived experience of starting school.
& P. Moss (Eds.), Beyond listening: Children's perspectives on Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(3), 40–49.
early childhood services (pp.29–49). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Mashford-Scott, A., Church, A., & Tayler, C. (2012). Seeking
Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The children's perspectives on their wellbeing in early childhood
Mosaic approach (2nd ed.). London, UK: National Children's settings. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 231–247.
Bureau. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-012-0069-7
Degotardi, S., & Pearson, E. (2014). The relationship worlds Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data
of infants and toddlers: Multiple perspectives from early years Analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE
research and practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Publications.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Mukherji, P., & Albon, D. (2015). Research methods in early
for the Council of Australian Governments (DEEWR). (2009). childhood: An introductory guide (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE
Belonging, being and becoming: The Early Years Learning Publications.
Framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth
Nutbrown, C., & Clough, P. (2009). Citizenship and inclusion
of Australia.
in the early years: Understanding and responding to children's
de Groot Kim, S. (2010). ‘There’s Elly, it must be Tuesday’: perspectives on 'belonging'. International Journal of Early Years
Discontinuity in child care programs and its impact on Education, 17(3), 191–206.
the development of peer relationships in young children.
Peers, C., & Fleer, M. (2013). The theory of ‘belonging’: Defining
Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(2), 153–164.
concepts used within Belonging, Being and Becoming—The
Dockett, S., Einarsdóttir, J., & Perry, B. (2011). Balancing Australian Early Years Learning Framework. Educational Philosophy
methodologies and methods in researching with young children. In D. and Theory, 46(8), 914–928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131857
Harcourt, B. Perry, & T. Waller (Eds.), Researching young children's .2013.781495
perspectives: Debating the ethics and dilemmas of educational
Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening,
research with children (pp. 68–81). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
researching and learning. London, UK: Routledge.
Dockett, S., Kearney, E., & Perry, B. (2012). Recognising young
Sumsion, J., & Wong, S. (2011). Interrogating 'belonging' in
children’s understandings and experiences of community.
Belonging, Being And Becoming: The Early Years Learning
International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 287–305. https://
Framework For Australia. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,
doi.org/10.1007/s13158-012-0073-y
12(1), 28–45.
Duncan, J. (2009). ‘If you think they can do— then they can’: Two-
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). 1577
year-olds in Aotearoa New Zealand kindergartens and changing
U.N.T.S. 3. Retrieved from https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/
professional perspectives. In D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee, &
uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_
E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in the early years:
rights_of_the_child.pdf?_ga=2.89718107.1377290275.1507681954-
Research and pedagogy (pp. 164–184). New York, NY: Routledge.
2028242202.1507681954.
Dunphy, E. (2012). Children's participation rights in early childhood
Wainman, B., Boulton-Lewis, G., Walker, S., Brownlee, J., Cobb,
education and care: The case of early literacy learning and
C., Whiteford, C., & Johnsson, E. (2012). Young children's beliefs
pedagogy. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(3),
about including others in their play: Social and moral reasoning
290–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2012.716700
about inclusion and exclusion. Australasian Journal of Early
Engdahl, I. (2012). Doing friendship during the second year of Childhood, 37(3), 137–146.
life in a Swedish preschool. European Early Childhood Education
Woodhead, M., & Brooker, L. (2008). A sense of belonging.
Research Journal, 20(1), 83–98.
Early Childhood Matters, 111, 3–6.
Gibbs, L. (2015). The families package: Box office bomb or
blockbuster? Rattler, 114, 10–13.
Harcourt, D., Perry, B., & Waller, T. (Eds.). (2011). Researching
young children's perspectives: Debating the ethics and dilemmas
of educational research with children. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Haza Gutiérrez, J., & Figueroa Fuentes, P. (2008). Who are we?
The Arrumacos children: Identity and the sense of belonging. Early
Childhood Matters, 111, 24–28.
Hedges, H. (2015). Sophia's funds of knowledge: Theoretical and
pedagogical insights, possibilities and dilemmas. International
Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 23(1), 83–96.
Hobara, M. (2003). Prevalence of transitional objects in young
children in Tokyo and New York. Infant Mental Health Journal,
24(2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10046
Löfdahl, A., & Hägglund, S. (2012). Diversity in preschool:
Defusing and maintaining differences. Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, 37(1), 119–126.
McMahon, A., Reck, L., & Walker, M. (2007). Defining well-being
for Indigenous children in care. Children Australia, 32(2), 15–20.

46 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

 Working with teachers’ pedagogical strengths:
The design of executive function activities for
play-based programs
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.06

Marilyn Fleer Linda Harrison Sue Walker

Nikolai Veresov Charles Sturt University Queensland University of Technology
Monash University

EVIDENCE FOR THE PREDICTIVE effect of Executive Functions (EF) on school readiness and
later school achievement has been noted. However, some studies show that EF activities are
not sustained beyond the study period due to limited engagement by teachers and children.
In light of this problem, this paper presents the pedagogical outcomes of a pilot study
where teachers used ‘playworlds’ (Lindqvist, 1995) to embed EF into their programs. Five
preschool teachers and five assistant teachers participated in the study over 10 weeks. Focus
group interviews of all participants were conducted. A cultural-historical analysis showed
that teachers developed motivating activities that promoted the sustainable development
of EF in contexts of high child-engagement and motivation. The pedagogical features and
implications for early childhood education are reported.

Introduction papers between 2000 and 2010 (Carlson, 2011) and a

A significant body of research has now recognised the
dramatic growth in Executive Functions (EF) between the
ages of three and five years (Center on the Developing
Child, 2012). From a cognitive psychological perspective,
EF, as a term, captures a highly complex set of cognitive
abilities such as working memory, inhibitory control and
cognitive flexibility. These interrelated processes support
children’s ability to manage and control thoughts and
behaviours. This means children think/plan before they
act, remember rules and events, and are focused and less
likely to be distracted by irrelevant or extraneous factors.
There is growing evidence that the development of EF is
an important aspect of early childhood education (Bodrova,
Leong & Akhutina, 2011). For instance, EFs are considered
as key dimensions of self-regulation and are ‘needed for
the construction of new explanatory understanding of the
physical world’ in early childhood (Bascandziev, Powell,
Harris & Carey, 2016, p. 71). Further, it is thought that EFs
are foundational for complex cognitive processes, such
as abstract thought (Diamond, 2013). Many studies have
shown a direct relation between EF training in preschool
and positive cognitive and social outcomes later in school
(Razza & Raymond, 2015).
Consequently, research into EF has escalated in recent
years, as evidenced by a five-fold increase in published
continued quantity of publications since (e.g. Bascandziev
et al., 2016). But one problem still remains. Even when
child-appropriate EF measurement tools are employed in
research, children and teachers are not always motivated
to engage in EF tasks, and teachers find it difficult to
embed EF training into their programs (Röthlisberger,
Neuenschwander, Cimeli, Michel & Roebers, 2012).
Consequently, we designed a pilot study that allowed us to
collaborate with teachers, to collectively examine how EF
activities could be embedded into their existing programs.
For consistency, the teachers used an approach known as
‘playworlds’ (Lindqvist, 1995), which they drew upon to
design pedagogical practices for embedding EF into their
existing programs. It was predicted that if teachers drew
upon their strengths in designing play-based programs,
then a more engaging context for teachers and children
for EF activities would result. We were interested in
studying whether EF activities could be embedded into
teachers’ existing programs, as well as in identifying those
pedagogical practices—of both their existing program
and of playworlds—that were deemed by teachers to
be successful in maintaining EF activities beyond the
research period. For clarity, we use the term ‘playworlds’
when distinguishing the new play practices from teachers’
existing play-based programs.

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 47
To achieve the goals of this paper, we briefly discuss
the theoretical framing of the study, which includes both
the principles of playworlds and our cultural-historical
conception of EF. This is followed by the study design
and findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of
the implications of the results.
A cultural-historical conceptualisation of
development: Executive function activities
as social practice
The literature generally defines EF as including working
memory, inhibition or self-regulation and cognitive
flexibility or shifting. Working memory refers to a child’s
ability to store, update and retrieve information whilst
simultaneously doing other things (Röthlisberger et al.,
2012). Inhibitory control involves the ability to self-regulate
and not respond immediately, but to withhold a response in
favour of another action (Center on the Developing Child,
2012). A typical example of this is the game of Simon
Says, where the child observes actions that are different
to the instructions given in the game. The child inhibits his/
her immediate response to copy the actions, in favour of
listening to the instructions and following the verbal rather
than visual cues. Cognitive flexibility is also known as set-
shifting, and this refers to the ability to shift attention to a
different task or change a response or action in relation to
changes in the environment (Bascandziev et al., 2016). An
example of this is when children play a game that involves
multiple dimensions, such as sorting by colour and shape,
and then being invited to shift their sorting criterion. These
definitions and examples of EF tasks are what commonly
feature in the literature.
In our study, we conceptualised EFs not as separate
functions but as holistic functions in social practices
(Fleer, Veresov & Walker, 2017). This is in keeping with
a cultural-historical conception of child development. A
cultural-historical perspective is concerned with ‘the idea
that basic uniqueness of child development consists
in a merging of cultural and biological processes of
development’ (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 23). This is captured
in the idea of the dialectical unit. Vygotsky (1997) wrote
that children’s development must be conceptualised ‘as
a dialectical unit of two essentially different orders, and it
sees the basic problem of research to be a thorough study
of the one order and the other and a study of the laws
of their merging …’ (p. 22). What was key to Vygotsky’s
thinking was examining the nature and interlacing of these
two lines of development—the biological and the cultural.
In line with this perspective, the study of higher mental
functions from a cultural-historical perspective does not
examine separate EF in isolation of context. But rather, it
seeks to examine the synthesis of the context in which these
functions develop in relation to activities, and the relation
the functions may have to each other in the course of the
48 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
child’s cultural development. Vygotsky (1997) suggested
that research should seek to ‘establish the basic laws of
the structure and development of this synthesis’ (p. 26).
Vygotsky (1997) argued that ‘the very formulation of the
problem of cultural development of behaviour already
leads us directly to the social plane of development’
(p. 106). It is through these social relations that EFs develop
(Bodrova et al., 2011). Consequently, a study of EF must
be considered in the context of the social relations that
create the conditions for the cultural development of the
child. In support of a cultural-historical conception of EF, the
teachers who participated in the study were invited to not
only embed EF activities into their existing programs, but
were also asked to build EF through play. For consistency,
the teachers were asked to set up playworlds in ways that
developed children’s EF, and which were in line with their
existing programs.
A cultural-historical conception of play:
Playworlds
Lindqvist (1995) introduced the approach of playworlds.
Her study of playworlds drew upon Vygotsky’s conception
of play, where children and teachers collectively created
imaginary situations and dramatised stories. In playworlds,
children and adults regularly change the meaning of objects
and actions in order to give them a new sense (Vygotsky,
2016), such as when a twig becomes a magic wand.
Lindqvist (1995) said, ‘When using playworld as a concept,
I mean the fictitious world (context) which children and
adults come to share …’, where they ‘interpret and
dramatize the themes …’ (Lindqvist, 1995, p. 70). In
playworlds, ‘Dramatic action cannot exist without a plot’
(Lindqvist, 2003, p. 73).
A defining feature of playworlds is that the teacher takes
on a character in the play. In their research, Hakkarainen,
Brédikyté, Jakkula and Munter (2013, p. 216) show that in
successful playworlds, teachers work ‘with young children
not only to support the development of ongoing play, but
also to present and model higher forms of play’. Teachers,
who are inside the imaginary situation in play with children,
can sensitively expand the play, pose new problems, support
the development of solutions and generate new adventures.
Another defining pedagogical feature of playworlds is the
need for dramatic events—ones that are exciting and
motivating for children. Dramatic collisions refer to exciting,
engaging or contradictory moments in the playworld, where
children and teachers are emotionally involved. Drama
creates particular conditions that can activate children into
action; into imagining solutions to pending problems and
creating collective moments of reflection in the play. Drama
can create the momentum to support the development of
the playworlds, which in turn has been shown to support
children’s development (Lindqvist, 1995).
Entering into these playworlds, where new rules and roles Procedure and data collection methods
are enacted, and where dramatic events are experienced,
An initial meeting was held between the research team and the
children must cross a border of some kind to signal they
participants. A follow-up two-hour professional development
are collectively in the imaginary situation (Lindqvist, 2003).
session was conducted to provide a detailed introduction to
Lindqvist (1995) gives the example of entering into a
the playworlds play-based intervention (Lindqvist, 1995), and
basket and riding in a hot air balloon into other lands, to go
the concept and phenomenon of perezhivanie (Vygotsky, 1994)
on journeys. Fleer (2017) introduced a chair as the border,
to support their planning for creating dramatic playworlds. This
following the narrative of Enid Blyton’s Magic Wishing
session was video recorded.
Chair, in which children go on adventures as the magic
wishing chair travels from their home to distant lands. The teachers were invited to plan and implement a ten-
week EF program for their children. Some embedded EF
‘Playworlds’ is an ideal vehicle for the development of EF
activities into games, while others introduced playworlds.
because teachers can support shifting by creating new
After the conclusion to the implementation period, the
rules in the playworld, such as children walking backwards
teachers were brought together for a two-hour focus group
(Hakkarainen, 2006). Playworlds also promote inhibition
session to discuss what they did, what challenges they
because children are required, on entering into the playworld,
met and what advice they would give others who might
to follow certain rules that are counterintuitive, such as
be considering developing EF through play. This session
asking children to do things back to front (Hakkarainen,
was also video recorded with permission.
2006). Further, playworlds support working memory
because children have to recall play narratives and be in Teachers were asked to keep a structured log of what they
character when responding to problem situations—such as did each week in relation to developing EF through play.
solving a problem from the perspective of the wolf when Documentation in the form of newsletters and wall displays
playing the fairy tale of the Three Little Pigs. Consequently, about the project were encouraged. This documentation
the teachers used the principles of playworlds for designing was also collected as part of the pilot project.
meaningful EF activities into their programs. In our study, A total of 69 minutes of focus group interview data was
we were interested in identifying how teachers embedded generated, and documentation included an expansive
EF activities into their programs, and what pedagogical ten-week structured log, planning notes, and family
practices they designed to support this process. display information.
Ethical approval for the project was obtained from the
Study design University Human Research Ethics Committee (ethics
approval number: 1400000212). With the agreement of
The pilot study sought to determine: 1) If EF could be
the director and the educators, parents were invited to
embedded into existing programs in ways that were
provide consent for their children’s participation.
engaging for teachers and children; 2) When drawing upon
the principles of playworld, what were the pedagogical Analysis
characteristics the teachers designed for embedding EF
into their programs. Perezhivanie was used in this study to frame the analysis.
The concept of perezhivanie was first introduced by
Sample Vygotsky (1994) to explain the dialectical dimensions
of an emotional phenomenon and conscious thought
Five teachers and five assistant teachers from three rooms
in the lived context of a social-material exchange. It is
in one early childhood setting were involved in the pilot
a Russian term that is recognised as being difficult to
study. The setting was a private kindergarten providing
translate (Veresov & Fleer, 2016). Consequently, the
an educational program for children in the year prior to
term has increasingly been referenced in Russian. More
commencing formal schooling. Children attending the
recently, perezhivanie has been conceptualised as both a
setting were from predominantly middle class families.
phenomenon and a concept (Fleer, 2016; Veresov & Fleer,
A total of five groups of children (n = 91, 31 female) from
2016), but also as ‘a unit of analysis’ (Vygotsky, 1994).
the three rooms were the recipients of the programs
As a phenomenon, the term captures the emotional
developed by the teachers. The children were aged
relationship or engagement a person has with their social-
between four and five years (M age = 55.2 months, SD
material environment. In our study, perezhivanie captured
= 5.4). All teachers were experienced and held an early
this subjective attitude of the person (e.g. emotionally
childhood qualification. Five of the teachers had a degree,
charged moments in the data, such as when a teacher
with one also having a PhD. The teachers are well known
excitedly reports on a particular pedagogical practice
within their state, and regularly contribute to professional
associated with EF). As a concept, it foregrounds how
development of other teachers.
someone consciously considers or feels this relationship
to the environment, and as such, this concept allowed us

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 49
to study which aspects of social environment influenced
the development of EF (e.g. when teachers commented
on how children asked to play EF games particularly
because they were so engaging for them).
Perezhivanie, as a unit of analysis, captures the idea
of an indivisible unit of personal and environmental
characteristics in which the smallest unit is sought that
makes up the relational whole. In our study, this meant
capturing holistically the process of development through
examining the ongoing records gathered by the teachers,
and discussed during the focus group interviews (i.e.
the pedagogical principles found to collectively engage
children and teachers in EF). Here we looked for dramatic
tensions that could signal key situational and personal
characteristics in the context of introducing/embedding EF
activities into the teachers’ programs. We also examined
how teachers talked about the pedagogy being designed
(as evidenced in their gestures and narratives in the video
material). This was done in the context of their emotional
responses and the motivational characteristics surrounding
the embedding, or otherwise, of EF activities into their
program (perezhivanie as a phenomenon). We also looked
for how teachers said they responded to the children in
terms of the motivational and engagement characteristics
(perezhivanie as a concept). Together, these moments in
the data allowed us to look for patterns, and it was the
patterns associated with the pedagogy that we drew
out, so that we could determine if EF activities could be
embedded into a program in ways that were engaging for
teachers and children. This was considered alongside the
essence of the pedagogical characteristics that teachers
designed for embedding EF into their programs.
Findings
The key pedagogical features and challenges for introducing
EF activities into an existing program are discussed in
this section.
Research question 1: How teachers embedded EF
into their programs
The study found a pattern of implementation across the
teachers that featured an initial need for information on
EF, followed by a period of study, then dabbling and finally
a confidence to fully embed EF into teaching programs.
This approach to adopting a new practice is consistent with
the literature, where innovations usually proceed through
different phases, such as orientation to the innovation,
information seeking, mechanical use, refinement,
integration and renewal or refocusing of other ways to do
it better (Hall & Hord, 2014).
After an initial orientation phase, a key implementation
issue appeared to be not so much the need for more
information, but rather re-thinking what was already known
50 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
about their professional practice. That is, looking with
new eyes at everyday practices to see how a focus on EF
could enhance the activities and thinking of the children.
For instance:
Briana: I was looking at what I was doing in every play
situation (for how to introduce EF activities).
Tania: We got better at looking at what the children
were doing.
The teachers considered how their environment lent itself
to open-ended possibilities to imagine in the playworlds,
to trick, to change the meaning of actions and objects, and
to continually develop and change the rules. For instance:
Tania: Look at the environment and ask yourself,
‘Does it allow for possibilities. Do the children
have time where different possibilities can be
taken forward?’.
The successful pedagogical practices were thought to be
ones in which the EF activities could focus on tricking.
Lindqvist (2003) also found that children enjoyed ‘silly
things’ when role-playing (p. 76). The teachers felt that
the ‘tricking’ helped embed the EF activities into the
play because children met new rules in the play—such
as new passwords to go through an obstacle course, or
to enter a playworld, or to cross the bridge in the role-
playing of the fairy tale of the Three Billy Goats Gruff.
Children regularly role-played being different characters
in these imaginary situations, with new roles, actions
and rules, as each adventure was introduced or revisited
on subsequent days. This helped the children with their
working memory—trying to remember which character
they were in the play, the storyline, and also who the other
children were so that the actions or narration were in line
with the plot or problem the children were trying to solve.
In addition to ‘tricking’, it was found that a range of
implementation characteristics were identified as the
pilot progressed. Table 1 summarises the key features
for enriching EFs in the playworlds. Although these
implementation considerations are not surprising findings,
they do highlight the depth of re-thinking that was needed by
the teachers—something the data suggested they appeared
to embrace with enthusiasm and professional ease.
The teachers reported that the focus of their staff
meetings, their documentation to families, and their
planning approach were all centred on developing EF
through playworlds and transition games. They argued
that teachers who decide to take on this new approach
should find others who are also engaging in the activity
of developing new pedagogical practices to develop EF.
Teachers in single centres would need to find creative
solutions to regularly share and discuss ways of building EF
through games and playworlds. This is consistent with the
literature on how successful professionals work together
on their practice (Edwards, 2010, 2011).
Table 1. Implementation characteristics for developing EF activities in playworlds

Characteristics Examples of teacher perspectives

Starting EF and playworlds Letty: Try out different things and share with each other. Give it a go.
Planning Briana: Embedding EF was a different approach throughout the day.
Analysis of programs and Lucy: We could use things that were already in our program, such as the puppets.
play environments And the puppets helped us bring different things to the children that were
linked to EF.
Scale Letty: EF is not just about a one-day program.
Lucy: W e started small. For example, we only had a four-minute playworld
when we started.
Timing Letty: Revisiting the playworld and EF: what time of the day you do playworlds
is important.
Build EF around children’s Carol: We build the play themes and EF around what we played anyway, like
interests dinosaur themes.
Open-ended environments Tania: S  et up scenarios. Look at the environment and ask yourself, ‘Does it allow
for possibilities?’.
Space Tania: S et up a particular space. Establish this as soon as possible.
Repetition Tania: C hildren often asked to return to it, even when we thought it was exhausted.
Modelling Tania: W e modelled EF in the playworld.
Winding up EF and Letty: W
 e did struggle with packing away the Billy Goats Gruff playworld, as other
playworlds games gradually came into the space, and it developed in new ways.
Feeling comfortable being Carol: T he biggest thing is that you must feel comfortable going into that role … in the
in a playworlds role playworld; to become those characters.

How teachers interpreted and felt about EF
The teachers noted that through participation in the pilot
project, they changed how they thought about their
pedagogical practices. For example, they identified that
in thinking about EF activities, they had to create really
engaging conditions for the children—if the EF activities
were to be meaningful for the children and catch their
interest. The teachers commented that when children
were engaged in the EF activities, they asked for these
activities. And this was a sign to the teachers that they
had created meaningful and engaging conditions for the
introduction of EF activities.
Sally: We really changed, or I did, we …
Letty: I really grew in that way. When we first started,
[I considered] how to create a playworld for the
Billy Goats Gruff, and I worried about how to
keep the children’s interest. But when it came
from them, the EF, a shift I made…
The teachers’ enjoyment appeared to be connected with
how much the children were enjoying the EF activities and
playworlds. For example:
Lucy: The children loved the nonsense involved in
shifting. It was fun and it evolved.
Letty: The children ask, ‘When can we go back
into the playworld again?’. (Discussed in the
context of doing the EF games.)
The teachers were also stretched through the EF activities,
because, as the children learnt how to comfortably play
with the rules of the play, they invented their own. And the
teachers needed to make the shifts as well. For example:
Letty: It was also testing for the teachers not just
because [of] the EF skills, but also [because]
the teachers had to catch on to the children’s
passwords.
Lucy: It can feel overwhelming. We learnt along the
way, and as the program progressed.
The sustained and imaginative engagement provided
through the playworlds meant that the EFs were being
actively developed with children, and created in the context
of a collective imaginary situation for teachers and children
alike. The collective sense of the imaginary situation was
valued by the children, and this supported the maintenance
of EF activities. For instance, memory (having to remember
to respond to each other in character) and shifting (knowing
and responding to character changes by children and
teachers) tasks were engaging in the collective play:
Bronwyn: T here were times when we do it (EF and
playworlds) on our own. But we loved it when
we had the whole group or class go into the
tunnel to become those characters, and we all
become the character … As everyone is being
it, so they are asking to go back and do it again.

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 51
In these collective imaginary situations, the children
helped each other with remembering the new rules and
actions needed to play. A sense of togetherness for the
whole group was created. Consistent with Hakarrainen
et al. (2013) and Lindqvist (2003), this study found that
‘the children like playing with the adults’ (p. 76). However,
teachers taking an active role in play is something that
appears to happen less frequently (Fleer, 2015) than is
generally advocated (Lindqvist, 1995). The teachers in our
study noted how important it was to feel comfortable with
the new role they were taking through introducing EF in
the collective play (playworlds), where they would need
to take an active role as a character in the play:
Carol: The biggest thing is that you must feel
comfortable with what you have decided to do.
Lindqvist (2003) has suggested that adults do play a
key role in the success of playworlds, stating that in her
research:
The adults needed to dramatize the action in order to
provide play with a meaning. The characters played
by the pedagogues were of particular importance in
bringing the play to life because they created a dialogue
between the adults and the children which opened the
door to the fictitious world. The pedagogues became
mediators (pp. 73–74; Original emphasis).
This study found that the active role of the teacher in
children’s play was central for developing engaging EF tasks,
and this appeared to create the conditions that children
returned to again and again without loss of enthusiasm.
Research question 2: The pedagogical
characteristics that teachers designed to support
the development of EF
One of the defining features of the pilot study was how
teachers designed pedagogical practices for developing
EF in the playworlds. The expansiveness of playworlds
appeared to orient children and teachers towards
embedding EF within a collective narrative rather than
introducing a disembedded EF task. To achieve the goal
of building EF through playworlds, the teachers noted a
range of special features that were different or were in
line with previous practice, which they had to actively
consider in their program planning. What was found was
that the problem scenario had to be carefully considered.
For instance:
Lucy: We introduced the problem in the story
as it was happening: ‘What if bear didn’t
come back?’.
Being inside the collectively-created play allowed the
teachers to more easily embed the problem scenario
because they were in tune with the jointly-developing
storyline and the children’s roles, the rules they were
enacting and their engagement in the EF tasks.
52 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
The borders that were created to signal when the teachers
and children were entering the playworld also required
some thought, and provided opportunities for designing
engaging EF activities. For instance, a range of borders
were identified. For example:
Tania: We used the monkey bars and that was our
entrance into the dinosaurs playworlds.
Hakkarainen et al. (2013) have suggested that the transitions
themselves contain psychological content that children
engage with when they enter the playworld. For instance,
children build the ability to consciously consider when they
are crossing the boundary between real and imagined world.
The children also think deliberately about their role and how
this changes, or not, and the actions they take in the plot that
is evolving. Further, the children need to consider multiple
points of view on any problem situation that arises in the
playworld—all contributing to the development EF.
The teachers in the study indicated that initially, entering
into the playworlds through the established border was
only for a few minutes. This was necessary because this
was a very new practice for the children and the teachers.
Rather than children initiating their own play within smaller
groups, the playworlds centre on all of the children being
in the same imaginary play situation. For example:
Lucy: Children would go through a tunnel—we used
an old cardboard box. We used questions such
as, ‘What happens if …?’. The first time in the
tunnel, we whispered: ‘if you were the rabbit …?,
If you were the bear …?’. The character the child
was, also changed. The children had to remember
which character in the story they were.
The teachers also found that an important pedagogical
feature of successful EF activities was having extended
discussions with the children before they went into their
imaginary playworld. For example:
Bronwyn: W
 e had a lot of discussion before they went into
the playworld. Their ideas were coming to us,
and their ideas we tried to draw out. We would
say, ‘OK, so you want it to be different again’,
and they would come up with ideas: ‘Let’s do
this …’. So they would say, ‘left is right, and up
is down’ or ‘Who needed to be rescued?’.
These opportunities to discuss the characters were also
important because, on different days, different children would
be different characters or there would be different problems
to solve or different journeys to go on (planning). These
dimensions needed discussion, so that any shift in character
role could be supported (switching). Similarly, remembering
all of the different dimensions of the plot and who was
playing a particular character also required support (working
memory). By the teachers being inside the imaginary situation
with the children—the playworld—it was possible to give this
support from within the play, so that the play complexity and
EF could be further developed. For example:
Lucy: We introduced the problem in the story as it
was happening: ‘Can you tell the story from
the wolf’s perspective?’.
Another defining pedagogical feature of designing EF
into play-based programs was that the teachers regularly
took an active role or character in the playworld. That is,
the teachers were not observers of the children’s play
but rather were play partners. For instance, the teachers
reported a scenario in which the children didn’t draw upon
the natural height of the teachers when solving a problem
of reaching something that the children could not:
Lucy: In playworlds, children see teachers as players.
When we were rescuing Old Bear, the children
couldn’t work out how to get Old Bear down
from a tree. The children forgot that we were
teachers. We were just Big Rabbit and Little
Rabbit. They didn’t think about asking us to
get Old Bear down because we were tall and
could reach [it]. The children forgot we could
reach [it], because they saw the teachers as
players.
Lindqvist (2003) found that:

the children like playing with the adults. When the
adults act out roles, the children know that they
are playing and do not have to worry about ‘adult
conventions’. The adults show the children that they
know how to play—that is to say, that they are aware
of the rules of play’ (p. 76; Original emphasis).
Finally, as noted by Lindqvist (2003):
Adults are important factors when children play. The
unequivocal result of this study is that when adults
dramatize roles and actions and invite the children into
a play world, the children know what is play and what
is not (p. 77).
In line with Hakarrainen et al. (2013), the teachers also step
in and keep the play alive for the children, through carefully
managed interactions and a high level of responsiveness,
as was also noted in our study:
Letty: We ask, ‘I wonder …?’; ‘How might this
work?’; ‘How can we do it?’.
Hakkarainen et al. (2013) have argued that:

dramatizing stories and taking roles motivates adults to
step in a joint playworld and take a role, which in turn
wakes up the adult’s own imagination, helps emotional
involvement, and perezhivanie. It changes the adult–
child relationship and ‘switches’ adult thinking from
rational to narrative (p. 223).
Finally, an important dimension not noted in the literature
(Bodrova et al., 2011; Hakkarainen et al., 2013) is the
finding that teachers enriched the children’s play through
encouraging them to research problems as they arose.
For instance:
Carol: Just because children are little it doesn’t mean
they can’t find out more information and build
knowledge.
The teachers felt that expanding the play through
knowing more, and doing this in targeted ways relevant
to the problem children were trying to solve in their play,
developed the play further.
Sustaining the programs that develop children’s EF
The teachers found that the program of building EF through
play continued after the research period as a natural part
of children and teachers’ interactions. This happened
because, first of all, the teachers built knowledge of
what worked for developing EF through play into their
existing programs and the playworlds they introduced,
and, therefore, maintaining and expanding what they were
now doing felt natural. Second, the children demanded the
activities, as was noted by the teachers:
Carol: They are constantly asking for it.
Letty: The children will ask, ‘which one are we
doing?' (as the transition game). They are
always asking.
Finally, the children also led the building of EF through play
by transferring into their general play activities the ‘tricks’,
‘passwords’ and other experiences they had enjoyed
during the pilot study. For example:
Letty: Children are still coming up with passwords.
The children were inventing passwords to go
into the fort they had created in their play.
Bronwyn: [In] the outdoor area, we have a tent and the
children have introduced passwords to go in;
something that has come directly from the
playworlds we did.
Bronwyn: They really love playing the opposite games.
They use the opposite prepositional language.
They invent it themselves now. It goes directly
into their play—their spy game.
This unexpected finding—of the children transferring and
demanding that the program of building EF through play
continue—suggests that the teachers had successfully
embedded the development of EF into their programs
(existing program and introduced playworlds).
Discussion
The pilot study reported in this paper identified the key
pedagogical characteristics of developing EF through play
in practice. The teachers found that, through analysing their
everyday practices, they could embed EF into transition
games and their play-based program. The themes of
the playworlds that the teachers designed, created the
motivating conditions for the EF activities, and these were
fairy tales with child-oriented rules to cross the bridge,
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 53
story books to build adventures and journeys, and outdoor
obstacle courses and structures (forts, tents) that needed
passwords. The borders that were created in this pilot
study included boxes to crawl through, ladders to climb
and curtains to pass through.
But, the most important finding of this pilot study was that
teachers appeared to easily draw upon their professional
knowledge to embed EF into their existing programs. It
was found that the play practices in place and the play skills
already developed, provided a sound basis from which
to consider developing EF through play. What was new
for their pedagogy, however, was how teachers became
a character in the imaginary play, modelled the tricks,
passwords and other features, so that over time, children
could rely less on teacher support when using their
working memory, could shift quickly when new rules and
roles were introduced, and could inhibit and self-regulate
under the new play conditions. Key here was how children
themselves took a leadership role and transferred the new
practices into other play and contexts in the classrooms.
The teachers conceptualised EF as part of their practices,
rather than as functions per se, and this is in keeping with
a cultural-historical theory of higher mental functions as
discussed by Vygotsky (1997). Overall, the study found
that when teachers themselves embed the EF activities
into their programs, then the sustained development of EF
activities in early childhood education is possible.
Conclusion
This study suggests that teacher-designed pedagogical
practices for embedding EF activities into their programs
increase the likelihood that children will experience
engaging and meaningful tasks that will promote the
development of their EF. As such, the long-term educational
and social benefits of developing EF in the preschool
period, which have been reported in the literature, can
be realised, but in ways that teachers and children enjoy.
Acknowledgments
Special acknowledgement is made of the outstanding
expertise and professionalism of participating educators.
The collaboration with Lady Gowrie is acknowledged as
key for the implementation of the research. Also, this work
was supported by the Collaborative Research Network, an
Australian Government initiative (Members: Charles Sturt
University, Monash University and QUT).
ORCID iD/s
Marilyn Fleer: orcid.org/0000-0002-1224-5510
Linda Harrison: orcid.org/0000-0003-3835-6283
Nikolai Veresov: orcid.org/0000-0001-8714-7467
Sue Walker: orcid.org/0000-0002-7267-9978
54 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
References
Bascandziev, I., Powell, L. J., Harris, P. L., & Carey, S. (2016).
A role for executive functions in explanatory understanding of the
physical world. Cognitive Development, 39, 71–85.
Bodrova, E., Leong, D. L., & Akhutina, T. V. (2011). When
everything new is well-forgotten old: Vygotsky/Luria insights in the
development of executive functions. In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner,
E. Bowers, S. Lewin-Bizan, S. Getsdottir, & J. B. Urban (Eds.),
Thriving in childhood and adolescence: The role of self-regulation
processes. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
Number 133 (pp. 11–28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carlson, S. M. (2011). Editorial. Introduction to the special issue:
Executive Function. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
108(3), 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.01.004
Center on the Developing Child. (2012). Executive function:
Skills for life and learning (In Brief). Retrieved from the CDC
Harvard University website: https://46y5eh11fhgw3ve3ytpwxt9r-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/InBrief-
Executive-Function-Skills-for-Life-and-Learning-2.pdf.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review
of Psychology, 64, 135–168.

Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner:
The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries
between professional practices: Relational agency and relational
expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal
of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39.
Fleer, M. (2015). Pedagogical positioning in play—teachers
being inside and outside of children's imaginary play. Early Child
Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1801–1814. http://dx.doi.or
g/10.1080/03004430.2015.1028393
Fleer, M. (2016). An everyday and theoretical reading of
perezhivanie for informing research in early childhood education.
International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(1), 34–49.
Fleer, M., Veresov, N. & Walker, S. (2017). Re-conceptualizing
executive functions as social practices in children’s playworlds,
Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 14, 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.04.003
Fleer, M. (2017, in press). Digital playworlds in an Australia context.
In T. Bruce, M. Bredikyte, & P. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Routledge
Handbook of play in early childhood. London, UK: Routledge Press,
Taylor and Francis Group.
Hakkarainen, P. (2006). Learning and development in play. In J.
Einarsdottir, & J. T. Wagner (Eds.), Nordic childhoods and early
education: Philosophy, research, policy, and practice in Denmark,
Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (pp. 183–222). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Hakkarainen, P., Brédikyté, M., Jakkula, K., & Munter, H. (2013).
Adult play guidance and children's play development in a narrative
play-world. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
21(2), 213–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789189
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2014). Implementing change: Patterns,
principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Lindqvist, G. (1995). The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of
play and culture in preschools. Uppsala studies in education, 62.
Stockholm, Sweden: Uppsala University.
Lindqvist, G. (2003). The dramatic and narrative patterns of play.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11(1),
69–78.
Razza, R., & Raymond, K. (2015). Executive functions and school
readiness: Identifying multiple pathways for school success.
In S. Robson, & S. Flannery Quinn (Eds.), The Routledge international
handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding
(pp. 133–149). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group.
Röthlisberger, M., Neuenschwander, R., Cimeli, P., Michel,
E., & Roebers, C. M. (2012). Improving executive functions
in
5- and 6-year-olds: Evaluation of a small group intervention
in prekindergarten and kindergarten children. Infant and Child
Development, 21(4), 411–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.752
Veresov, N., &, Fleer, M. (2016). Perezhivanie as a theoretical
concept for researching young children’s development. Mind,
Culture, Activity: Symposium on Perezhivanie, 23(4), 325–335.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2016.1186198
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van
der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 347–348).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky,
Volume 4: The history of the development of higher mental
functions (R.W. Rieber, Ed., M. H. Hall, Trans.). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (2016). Play and its role in the mental development
of the child. International Research in Early Childhood Education,
7(2), 3–25.

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 55
 The Starting School Study:
Mothers’ perspectives of transition to school
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.07

Cathy Kaplun Sue Dockett

Western Sydney University Bob Perry
Charles Sturt University

THE STARTING SCHOOL STUDY explored the transition to school from the perspectives
of parents living in a disadvantaged area of Sydney, Australia. Fifty-seven parents
participated in semi-structured interviews about their child’s transition to school between
2009 and 2011. Topics discussed included: preparation for school, the first day, school
relationships, supports and barriers to involvement and aspirations. A team of researchers
working collaboratively in 2011 consolidated national and international research and
theory of transition to school, to develop and publish an aspirational document entitled
Transition to school: Position statement. The statement recognised and promoted the
importance of transition to school using four constructs: opportunities, expectations,
entitlements and aspirations. The results of the Starting School Study are discussed using
these constructs. Overall, mothers in the study valued education, wanted their children to
achieve and be successful, and hoped their children would have positive experiences of
school; better than their own. The pivotal role of the teacher is discussed.

Introduction Defining disadvantage

Transition to school presents a time of changes, adjustments
and opportunities (Dockett, Perry & Kearney, 2012) as
children and families negotiate the ‘physical environment,
learning expectations, rules and routines, social status and
identity, and relationships’ (Hirst, Jervis, Visagie, Sojo &
Cavanagh, 2011, p. 6). The contexts of home and school,
and the connections established between them, shape
children’s educational trajectories (Moorman Kim et al.,
2012). Parents, as children’s first educators, have a key role
in supporting children’s transition to school (Sayers et al.,
2012; Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2013). Families experiencing
disadvantage may face a range of challenges, which can
impact their preparation and support of children starting
school (Dockett et al., 2011; Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2013;
Smart, Sanson, Baxter, Edwards & Hayes, 2008). Despite
these challenges, families experiencing disadvantage
are committed to supporting their children’s school
engagement and long-term educational achievement
(Avvisati, Gurgand, Guyon & Maurin, 2013; Baquedano-
Lopez, Alexander & Hernandez, 2013; Dockett et al., 2011;
Smart et al., 2008).
The social, economic and health resources available to
families and communities determine their level of advantage/
disadvantage. Australian census data uses indexes commonly
known as SEIFA (Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas) to
report levels of advantage/disadvantage by geographic area
(ABS, 2006). The far-reaching impact of disadvantage goes
beyond limiting access to financial, health, social and housing
resources/services (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2012;
McLachlan, Gilfillan & Gordon, 2013), to influence family
interactions and approaches to parenting (Moore, McDonald,
Sanjeevan & Price, 2012). Disadvantage may shape how
families and children navigate transition to school (Dockett
et al., 2011; Smart et al., 2008), with a positive transition
providing a gateway for disrupting cycles of intergenerational
disadvantage for families (COAG, 2009).
Transition to school
Transition to school is a multifaceted process involving
several stakeholders; it begins before school starts (prior-
to-school [PTS]) and continues into the early years of school
(Dockett & Perry, 2007; Petriwskyj, Thorpe & Tayler, 2005).

56 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

Context, connections and relationships in and across
those contexts influence the transition to school over
time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). During transition,
parents are often open to assistance and support (Dockett
et al., 2011), presenting an opportunity to develop parent–
teacher partnerships that foster a positive school transition
(Emerson, Fear, Fox & Sanders, 2012). Stakeholders hold
similar and diverse expectations, values and perceptions
about aspects of transition to school (Mirkhil, 2010).
Acknowledgement and understanding of these similarities
and differences can build supportive home–school
partnerships (Cassidy, 2005; Dockett & Perry, 2007)
that can provide social support for children coping with
stressors in the transition to school (Wong, 2013).
This paper discusses the findings of the Starting School
Study—as a descriptive study of transition to school—from
the perspective of mothers living in suburban Sydney. A social
constructivist approach noted the adopted and changing roles
and identities of mothers through their interactions and their
insights into factors that influenced the transition process.
The Transition to school: Position statement (Educational
Transitions and Change [ETC] Research Group, 2011)
provides a framework to discuss the findings.
Transition to school: Position statement
The Transition to school: Position statement (ETC, 2011),
developed by a collaborative group of Australian and
international transition-to-school researchers, recognises
the knowledge, understandings, skills and abilities of all
stakeholders involved in the transition of children to formal
primary schooling. A range of national and international
terminology and research underpins the statement
(Dockett & Perry, 2014a), with constructive critiquing
from practitioners and policy-makers. The statement
consolidates notions of social justice, human and children’s
rights, educational reform and ethical agendas within a
strengths-based perspective of stakeholders involved in
transition to school (Dockett & Perry, 2014a, 2014b).
Four characteristics for stakeholders are identified in the
statement: opportunities, aspirations, expectations and
entitlements. This paper presents the findings of the
Starting School Study through mothers’ perspectives of
these four characteristics, using the statement’s underlying
focus on equity to assist the analysis (Dockett & Perry,
2014a). The term ‘parent’ is used when referring to the
parenting role or generally to describe both parents.
1. Opportunities
The transition to school should provide opportunities
for parents to collaborate with educators and other
professionals to strengthen and support each child’s
ongoing learning and development. The opportunity for
parents to review children’s educational attainments, and
consider their future achievements should also occur.
2. Aspirations
Parents aspire to positive educational outcomes, support
and continuity for their children at times of transition
and beyond. They aspire to children being happy and
successful at school, to have friends and to be respected
and recognised as individuals within the various groups of
which they are members. Parents aspire to contribute to
children’s education through the development of trusting,
respectful and reciprocal relationships.
3. Expectations
Parents expect their knowledge of the child to be respected
by educators/other professionals, and be utilised along
with teaching skills and expertise to create an optimal
learning environment for their child. Parents expect to
contribute to the child’s education in partnerships with
educators. Parents expect children’s safety and wellbeing
to be central in any educational decisions. Parents expect
children’s individual strengths and learning needs to be
recognised, and to be able to advocate for the child and
be supported in this role.
4. Entitlements
Parents are entitled to feel confident that children will
receive an education that promotes their wellbeing through
equity and excellence in education. Parents are central
to children’s education, and are entitled to be partners in
children’s learning.
The Starting School Study
The Starting School Study used a strengths-based approach
underpinned by theoretical understandings of transition
to school as a socially constructed experience. Drawing
on a bio-ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
2006), outcomes of transition to school are dependent
on relationships, and the capabilities of stakeholders to
meet challenges and take up opportunities, while adapting
to changes involved in the transition process over time.
Participants
Mothers with children eligible to begin formal schooling
were recruited to the Starting School Study following
participation in a randomised-controlled trial of home-
visiting (Kemp et al., 2008). In New South Wales, children
turning five years old on or before 31 July in that year
are eligible to start school in Kindergarten, and by law,
must be enrolled by their sixth birthday (Department of
Education and Communities, 2014). The home-visiting trial
recruited mothers (average age 27.7 ± 5.9 years) who
were identified as at-risk on a self-reported standardised
psychosocial assessment during a routine antenatal visit
(Matthey et al., 2004). Mothers resided in an identified
area of significant socioeconomic disadvantage, being in
the bottom 10 per cent nationally of areas by postcode
on the SEIFA indexes (ABS, 2006). Recruited mothers
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 57
experienced at least one of nine criteria of risk including:
being an unsupported parent; experiencing a major
stressor, depression and/or a mental illness; maternal
age under 19 years; late antenatal care (after 20 weeks
gestation); and/or current substance misuse (Kemp et
al, 2008). Fifty-seven families participated in the Starting
School Study, with 20 families starting their first or only
child at school. Cohort I started in 2009 (26 mothers) and
Cohort II started in 2010 (31 mothers) (Table 1).
Data collection
Mothers participated in semi-structured interviews at two
time points: prior to school entry (pre-start); and towards
the end of Term 2 (post-start) in the first year of the child’s
schooling (see Table 1). All relevant ethics approvals
were obtained. Guidelines for working with families were
followed (Early Childhood Australia [ECA], 2006). Mothers
gave written consent for the first interview, including audio-
recording, with ongoing verbal consent implied when the
second interview was organised.
Pre-start interviews
Mothers shared experiences of their child’s transition to
school in a semi-structured interview, usually occurring in
the home (a now familiar practice due to the home-visiting
trial). Mothers responded to open-ended questions about
activities, supports and information shared with the child
about starting school.
Post-start interviews
Post-start interviews occurred towards the end of June
(Term 2 in NSW), in the child’s first school year. Mothers
shared information about their child’s first day at school and
ongoing school progress in an interview, usually coinciding
with school drop-off at the child’s school.
Analysis
Analysis followed the principles of grounded theory (Corbin
& Strauss, 1990) assisted by NVivo 8 software. Initially,
thematic coding was performed, with coding similarities
identified, related codes collapsed (axial coding) to form
subcategories, and principle themes developed and tested
Table 1. Cohort allocation of participants, and timing and content of data collection
Cohort Parents (n = 57) Starting year Pre-start (October–January)
I 26 2009 Consent and interview
II 31 2010 Consent and interview
58 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
by comparing and contrasting mothers’ experiences.
Themes reflected the process of transition to school. A third
of the interviews were dual coded for inter-rater reliability.
Results
Principle themes (Tables 2 to 7) developed under six
headings: Preparation; Readiness; School start; Issues and
concerns; Aspirations; and Child–teacher relationships. The
number of mothers who referred to each item is indicated,
rather than the frequency they referenced the item. The
diversity and uniformity of mothers’ responses is shown,
highlighting important areas in the transition to school.
Preparation
Mothers’ expectations influenced the preparation of their
child for school. Preparation involved practical things,
such as providing equipment or a school visit, and having
conversations about topics relevant to school.
Practical preparation for school
Four main categories were formed from mothers’
responses: equipment and uniform; school visit/s; teacher
contact; and academic-focused home activities (Table 2).
Home activities had a strong literacy and numeracy focus,
sometimes supplemented with purchased workbooks.
Besides their school visits, fifty-three mothers reported
children attending orientation programs that varied in
content and length, ranging from 2–4 daily sessions of a
few hours to half-day or full-day sessions over 4–6 weeks.
All programs incorporated a school tour, a classroom visit
and an opportunity to meet a teacher. Eight mothers
described intensive transition programs offered PTS
start with structured sessions once per week over 1–4
school terms. Fifty mothers described these programs
as invaluable for children’s preparation and adjustment to
school. One mother explained:
It made her [child] more familiar with the school area
itself, like the buildings and that sort of thing. She met
a couple of the teachers … a few of the children that
were going to be in her class. So, I think she was a bit
more comfortable with starting school.
Post-start (April–June)
Consent and interview
Consent and interview
The importance of developing children’s understandings
of school expectations was also noted:
Just the whole atmosphere ... of being here and [thinking,]
‘OK, well, this is what I’m going to be doing, this is where
I’m going to be’; and getting used to the teachers … to
the bell, the routine. I think … that helped a lot.
In post-start interviews, 49 mothers reported the usefulness
of the information received from schools in their child’s
school start; four mothers wanted more/less information
depending on their familiarity with the school system.
Conversations about school
Mothers’ expectations of school were reflected in
their topics of conversations with children: adjustment,
dispositions, environment, family, learning, being big/
grown up, and self-care (Table 3).
Forty-two mothers described adjustment to school
routines, acceptable behaviour, teachers, uniforms and
equipment. Conversations involving dispositions included
children’s friends, being friendly and having fun at school.
Twenty-six mothers talked about the environment referring

Table 2. Practical preparation of the child prior to starting school (n = 57)

Practical preparation No. of parents Comments

Equipment and uniform 18 He knows he has to wear a uniform; his brother does.
She comes with me to pick up her sister ... She knows where
School visit/s 37
everything is, she has been to the school often.
He's met the Kindergarten teachers ... but they don't put
Teacher contact 49
them [the teachers] into classes until next year.
They give you brochures when you first enrol your kids
Information about school 5 in Kindergarten.
Home activities— We try to read as many book as we can ... We do our
43
Academic focus alphabet. We learn how to count to ten.
He gets up in the morning with the other kids. He wants to
Routines 10 get dressed and go [to school] with them.

Craft 7 She’s got a whole heap of craft things. Chalk board and paint.
She plays with babies [dolls]. She bathes it and changes its
Play 5 [clothes] ... rides her bike ... or plays cards ... And she'll go
through her little picture books.

Table 3. Topics of parent conversations prior to children starting school (n = 57)

Topics No. of parents Comments

Adjustment 42 Be good at school and listen to the teacher.

Dispositions 19 You can play with your friends and make new friends.

We’ve talked about the school, the new toilets, new

Environment 26
classroom and new area that he’s going to play in.

Family/ sibling/ relative 16 I’ve told him he’s going to be with his brothers.

Learning 19 You’re going to learn. It’s all about learning at school.

We say, ‘oh, you're a big girl. You're going to school

Being big/ grown up 8
next year’.

Self-care skills 7 She'll have to learn to do it by herself and properly.

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 59
Table 4. Indicators of children’s readiness for school

Indicators of readiness No. of parents Comments

He can read a bit ... spell a bit ... count ... I think he’s ready to
Academic skills 35 the standard of Kindergarten and more.
He’s always talking about it [school] and eager, and says,
Behaviours/actions 25
‘How many days?’... until he starts.
Socially, he hasn't got a problem ... so I've got no problem …
Social-emotional 20
like worrying about him at school, socially.
Boredom 8 She just gets bored a lot; very bored at home.
She’s only four and a half ... she’ll be five in April, but I think
Age 13
she’s ready.

to areas of the school, activities, school hours, the canteen classroom support; and/or covering books. Nine mothers
and the bell. Sixteen mothers told their children about family viewed involvement as helping children with homework.
members attending school. Conversations about learning Fourteen of 24 mothers not involved in the child’s PTS
involved: reading, writing, spelling, learning the alphabet and setting, would not become involved at school. Barriers
counting. Seven mothers spoke about self-care, including included childcare and employment. Twelve mothers were
children being grown up, independent or safe. involved at school with older children.
Table 5. Parent involvement/non-involvement and
Readiness
barriers to school involvement (n = 57)
Children were described as ready to start school by 55
mothers, with the indicators of children’s readiness noted Post-start
(Table 4). Pre-start
responses
Parent involvement
Children’s academic skills included abilities, skills and
No. of No. of
knowledge of letters/numbers, and/or a desire to read/ parents parents
write/count. Behaviours/actions focused on children’s
Intention of school
independence and confidence (e.g. attending to tasks 40 13
involvement
for long periods, listening to/carrying out instructions,
and wanting to attend school and complete schoolwork). Non-involvement at
24 –
prior-to-school (PTS) setting
Social-emotional indicators included positive interactions
with peers, making friends, standing up to others Non-involvement at school 14 25
appropriately, and/or separating easily from mothers. Other Already involved at school 12 21
readiness indicators were children’s age and boredom at
home. Thirty-nine mothers expressed concern about an Homework 9 56
indicator of readiness. Barriers 19 15
Despite some initial ‘teething’ problems, 46 mothers Primary care of other
14 11
believed children had been ready for school, with most children
mothers indicating school had positively influenced Employment 14 11
children’s growth and development. Ten mothers remained Lack of time 6 12
concerned about children.
Teacher permission/
5 8
communication
Parental involvement at school
Mothers were asked about their intentions of being Post-start, 13 mothers intended to be involved once
involved at school; whether they were presently involved in children were settled. Those involved were contacted by
the prior-to-school (PTS) or school setting, and any barriers the classroom teacher. Challenges lay in juggling children’s
to their school involvement (Table 5). homework with household tasks and caring for other
children, especially with more than one school-aged child;
Mothers viewed involvement as assisting with: school/ however, 56 mothers said children enjoyed homework.
church functions; the canteen; parent committees; Mothers felt guilty if homework was incomplete, or felt the

60 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

benefits of knowing what children were learning negated
homework stress. One mother attributed her younger child’s
smooth transition to school to the knowledge acquired from
accompanying her when helping in her son’s kindergarten
reading groups. Barriers to involvement are shown, with
eight mothers reporting a lack of teacher follow-up.
Relationships and issues
Mothers identified relationships in the transition to school.
Parent–teacher relationships
Two mothers had an established parent–teacher
relationship through the child’s sibling. One mother
described the teacher as ‘someone who no matter what
happens, there’s a smile on her face. It makes you happy.
And the way she talks … it’s very nice’. The other mother
was happy her son had ‘a strict teacher ... because by four
detentions, he’ll be in line. She does not muck around. I
don’t know how he got her; I’m lucky that he did, but I
think this will fix him up ... with his behaviour’.
Post-start, 51 mothers perceived the teacher as
approachable and helpful. One mother explained: ‘She’s
very understanding, if there’s something wrong, I tell
her and she fixes it all up, she’s very good’. Another
commented:
Before school started, he received a letter, with a photo
of his teacher … letting him know about his class and
all the exciting things that they’re going to be learning,
and that she’s looking forward to … meeting him and
having him for the rest of the term … So, I wasn’t at
all worried.
Difficulties in parent–teacher relationships reported by 12
mothers were mainly concerning unsatisfactory handling
of an issue. For example: ‘In the end, I was getting really
defensive [be]cause I’d seen other kids do stuff, and I
[thought], why aren’t their parents coming up here? Every
day it’s me, me, me’. Three mothers viewed the teacher
as ‘too young, under-experienced and/or needing to be
firmer with children’.
Parent–parent relationships
Pre-start, two mothers did not want to become involved
with other parents stating, ‘I really don't have a lot in
common with a lot of mothers. I find it ... just doesn't
interest me and I don’t want to get in those cliquey
groups’. Post-start, 52 mothers talked about other parents,
usually mothers, in ‘hi and bye’ relationships, where
parents greeted/chatted politely in the playground; and/
or friendships that provided support in and out of school.
School issues and concerns
Mothers spoke about different aspects of school and
identified difficulties pertaining to: communication,
friendships, management and curriculum (Table 6).
Table 6. School issues described by parents (n = 57)
Pre-start Post-start
Issues and concerns:
School issues
No. of No. of
parents parents
Communication 4 14
Friends/older child 54 8
Friends/peers 40 54
No friend at start 16 4
Bullying 6 6
Management and
11 43
curriculum
Communication
Communication included information about school
activities such as invitations to functions, events and
parent–teacher nights. Pre-start, four mothers experienced
problems with details of orientation programs. Post-
start, 14 mothers identified various communication
issues. Mothers often relied on other parents to confirm
information, usually those with older children. Many did not
know what was happening with their child: ‘I don’t really
know. I haven’t spoken to the teacher’. Communication
about the child was lesser at school than mothers had
received in PTS settings. Changes in school routines, e.g.
having a kindergarten relief teacher, made without notice
created confusion and stress for children and mothers.
Friendships
Fifty-four mothers spoke of children knowing a peer and/or
an older child at school when starting. Mothers indicated
40 children would be starting with a friend from their PTS
setting; 16 children would be starting without a friend.
Five mothers were concerned about bullying at school,
with one mother concerned her child would be the bully.
Post-start, four children started school without a friend. All
children made at least one friend in their class; 54 mothers
reported many made ‘new’ friendships. Orientation
sessions and engagement with external sporting groups
assisted friendships. Six mothers praised how staff
handled and resolved bullying incidents.
Management and curriculum
Pre-start, concerns related to: differences in public/private
schools, class grading according to academic ability, and
re-allocation of children to classes in the early weeks of
school. Post-start, 23 mothers described a positive aspect
of school management relating to: a resolved issue,
information about curriculum, or support for children’s
speech-language. Twelve mothers thought issues with a
child’s behaviour were satisfactorily resolved by the school;
21 mothers were dissatisfied.
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 61
Of 16 mothers mentioning school support, nine mothers
felt supported when teachers identified and talked to
them about children’s strengths/needs. ‘They [teachers]
are more than happy to help’. Seven mothers spoke of the
difficulties accessing support for their child. ‘For her [the
child’s] situation, no, there is no support... I’ve actually
asked the teacher ... she [says,] “we have to do what we
can do” ... apparently, the school decided they don’t want
teacher’s aides’. One mother voluntarily assisted every
day in her child’s classroom to provide the necessary
learning support.
Thirty-eight mothers described positive experiences
of school as a child. Difficulties with schoolwork, failed
subjects and fractious teacher–student relationships were
recalled by 21 mothers, who wanted their child’s school
experiences ‘to be better than mine’.
Aspirations
Mothers’ aspirations formed the subcategories of:
success, academic, social-emotional/behavioural, child’s
choice, occupation and health (Table 7).
Table 7. Aspirations parents hold for their children (n = 57)
Pre-start Post-start
Aspirations
No. of No. of
parents parents
Success 32 32
Academic 31 28
Social-emotional/
25 25
behavioural
Child’s choice 16 22
Occupation 7 8
Health 2 1
Pre-start, mothers hoped their children would have
‘success’ described as children ‘being happy’ (15 mothers),
‘achieving’ (13 mothers) and/or ‘heading in the right
direction’ (15 mothers). Heading in the right direction
meant staying ‘out of trouble’, making the ‘right decisions
and behaving’. Mothers held academic aspirations for
children including: learning/ finishing school (25 mothers),
being ‘smart’ and/or ‘bright’ (nine mothers), and gaining
employment (three mothers).
Post-start, mothers wanted children to be ‘successful
and achieve’ (32 mothers) highlighting children doing
their ‘best’ (27 mothers), going in the ‘right direction’
(six mothers) and ‘being better than me’ (six mothers).
Academic aspirations focused on children completing
school (20 mothers).
62 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Discussion
The Transition to school: Position statement underpins
parents’ perspectives of transition to school in four areas:
opportunities, expectations, aspirations and entitlements.
It offered a useful comparative tool to discuss the
perspectives of mothers participating in the Starting School
Study. It recognises the roles and important responsibilities
of other stakeholders such as schools, teachers and local
communities in supporting families and children in the
transition to school (Barbarin et al., 2008).
Opportunities
Mothers identified the opportunities that starting school
presented for their children, and the unanticipated
opportunities this brought for themselves to become
involved at school and engaged in children’s learning.
Involvement for many mothers was school-driven,
reinforcing the findings of Lawson (2003) of the
‘schoolcentric’ relationship between school and family.
The teacher was pivotal to mothers’ involvement, in
knowing what was happening at school, how their child
was progressing and in providing the opportunity to
support their child’s learning. Some mothers noted how
the teacher had initiated involvement through a personal
invitation. Proactive relationship-building by teachers
can assist the transition to school (Dockett et al., 2012;
Hornby & Lafaele, 2011) and can support children’s school
achievement (Hindman, Skibbe & Morrison, 2013). The
unanticipated opportunity of forming new friendships with
other mothers, in and out of the school, was something
many mothers enjoyed. Mothers adjusted to differences
in supports offered at schools, compared to PTS settings
(Dockett et al., 2012).
Mothers engaged various strategies to support children
in adapting to school life, particularly around emotional
support (Wong, 2013). Some mothers remained concerned
about issues but opportunities to develop the parent–
teacher relationship continued as these were resolved.
Mothers sometimes felt their knowledge was not as
valued as the teacher’s knowledge and advice (Arndt,
Rothe, Urban & Werning, 2013).
Mothers realised children starting school presented other
opportunities for them to return to work, study or gym,
and/or to concentrate on their younger children. Although,
once school started, mothers realised how quickly time
between school drop-off and pick-up disappeared.
Expectations
Parents’ beliefs and expectations have been linked to
children’s positive development and academic school
achievement (Hindin, Steiner & Dougherty, 2017; Puccioni,
2015). Mothers’ expectations influenced their preparation
of children for school. Mothers saw academic skills as
a main, but not only, indicator of children’s readiness
for school. Children’s school readiness, particularly
their academic skills, is a concern for parents living in
disadvantage (Barbarin et al., 2008; Puccioni, 2015).
Mothers did not indicate that preparing children placed
additional pressures on them, although purchasing
workbooks may have added some financial costs. Mothers
did see homework as stressful (Pressman et al., 2015),
managing it within busy family schedules; for some, it
evoked guilt when not completed. Families devised systems
to assist homework completion around other tasks such as
counting while setting the table. Clearer communication of
teachers’ expectations of homework may have alleviated
homework stress for families having difficulties.
Transition/orientation programs provided an important
opportunity for children to make friends PTS start.
Mothers, who were concerned if children were not
socialising, often approached the teacher for information
and support and expected help. Mothers felt supported
when teachers offered practical ideas to help the child
make friends, such as bringing a ball to school to engage
other children. Mothers expected communication from
teachers, albeit different from teachers in PTS settings,
about children’s progress and activities; differences were
greater than parents predicted (Murray, McFarland-Piazza
& Harrison, 2015). Mothers often sought out teachers to
obtain information, or had a specific concern to discuss
about their child. For some, concerns were raised in
formal parent–teacher meetings only, thus important
issues took some time to be addressed. Communication
assisted development of supportive partnerships (Griebel
& Niesel, 2013) with mothers reporting a positive parent–
teacher relationship when concerns were acknowledged
and resolved. Relationships became strained when
expectations of communication were not met, and
parents’ issues/concerns were not satisfactorily resolved.
When teachers did not respond to mothers’ requests or
expectations were not clearly communicated, mothers felt
they were not needed/wanted at school.
In our study, mothers reported their need for more
information and better communication when starting a child
at school (Wildenger & McIntyre, 2011). Factors not fully
investigated in this study, such as parent cliques, attitudes
of school staff, cultural influences and family issues may
have influenced involvement (Peña, 2000). For example,
one mother had not anticipated dealing with staff attitudes
as a barrier to obtaining learning supports for her child, and
developed a stronger advocacy role. Parental involvement
may be influenced by parents’ level of education, maternal
depression and single parent status (Kohl, Lengua &
McMahon & Conduct Problems Prevention Research
Group, 2000). Mothers in this study reported barriers to
involvement as employment and care of young children.
Establishing common understandings may have helped
to avoid communication issues raised by mothers in our
study. Parent information nights/meetings could be held
earlier in the term to establish common ground between
parents and teachers about school expectations. The
school newsletter and more experienced parents provided
mothers with information, particularly when they initially
started their child at school. It is important to effectively
utilise these avenues as important information sources
for new families.
Aspirations
The position statement clearly reflects the aspirations of
mothers in this study for children to be happy, have friends,
to do well and have success in school and in later life.
Mothers were often concerned about the child’s abilities to
cope with the academic expectations of school (Lee & Goh,
2012). Mothers sometimes needed practical information
and support from the teacher to make informed choices
to strengthen and support children in their educational
attainment; sometimes mothers needed reassurance from
teachers they were doing everything ‘right’. When the focus
was on supporting the child, most mothers followed teacher’s
suggestions and were supportive of activities/strategies to
improve the child’s learning and educational outcomes.
Mothers hoped to develop positive relationships with
others in the school community to support the child’s
learning and progress at school. Mothers made friends
with other parents at school, something many had not
thought about when focusing on children starting school.
These relationships enabled the exchange of information
and provided mothers with a further source of support,
particularly in managing the day-to-day nuances of school
life. Overall, mothers wanted their children to be well-liked,
happy and successful; they wanted children to achieve
more than they had at school, which often involved initially
getting good grades then completing high school and,
hopefully, continuing on to complete higher education.
Entitlements
Mothers felt children were entitled to an education, to
have teachers who supported their learning, and to be
able to be involved in their child’s schooling. Most mothers
were involved in their child’s education through direct
participation in school activities or supporting children at
home, e.g. doing homework. Mothers who had established
a positive relationship with the teacher and had knowledge/
information about the school and curriculum, were more
likely to advocate for their child’s wellbeing, safety and
learning needs. Advocates were sometimes dissatisfied
with the outcome of their efforts suggesting mothers felt
entitled to have their worries and concerns about children
addressed and resolved satisfactorily by the school. Harper
(2016) suggests that parents should be advocates for their
children, and hold schools accountable to their school
mission statement. However, for some mothers in our
study, this role may be dependent on their capabilities in
taking on an advocacy role and dealing with the power
Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 63
differentials that exist in many schools (Hands, 2013).
Parents’ attitudes and involvement in children’s schooling
may be influenced by personal experiences of school, as a
child (Miller, 2015; Turunen, Dockett & Perry, 2015).
A positive start to school was facilitated when mothers
in our study felt knowledgeable about school, confident,
involved at school, and when they developed collaborative
relationships with teachers and others in the school
community (Hirst et al., 2011). Initially, these relationships
relied on the teacher being proactive in approaching
mothers and personally inviting them to participate or
assist in an activity. Once this initial introduction was made,
mothers felt more confident in approaching the teacher to
raise concerns or ask about children’s progress at school.
Conclusion
Parents are not a homogenous group; there are similarities
and differences in their experiences of school, expectations
and aspirations for their children. Understanding mothers’
perspectives and what occurs for families and children
in the transition to school is important for developing
school–family relationships that support children’s smooth
transition to school and ongoing learning. The Transition to
school: Position statement clearly documents similarities
and differences in stakeholders’ perspectives. Mothers in
our study, despite living in a disadvantaged area, shared
the perspective of other parents in wanting to support
their children in learning, doing well and succeeding at
school. When clear communication of stakeholders’
expectations, entitlements, opportunities and aspirations
were acknowledged and roles were respected and
supported, partnerships developed that enhanced
mothers’ involvement in school for children’s wellbeing,
safety and learning.
This study acknowledged that mothers are not solely
responsible for ensuring a successful transition to school.
Schools, and particularly teachers, played a critical role in
supporting mothers in their child’s transition to school.
Schools must enable parents to advocate for their children
by creating a context where teachers listen to, and provide
respectful and ongoing support and guidance to parents
in supporting their child. Feeling welcomed, involved and
respected, enabled mothers in this study to advocate for
their child. Further investigation of parental advocacy and
how schools respond to parents in this role is needed.
Initially, mothers required more information and knowledge
about the school. Later, they used this knowledge to
advocate for their child, raising concerns and expecting
teachers to assist in resolving them. Responsive
communication between teachers and mothers assisted
the transition process for the child and alleviated many
parental concerns. Lack of communication with mothers
about children’s progress, and mothers’ dissatisfaction
with the resolution of concerns were two factors that
64 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
were detrimental to the teacher–mother relationship.
Mothers often spoke of just ‘giving up’ on resolving a
longstanding issue. This has implications for school staff
to communicate about, and resolve even minor concerns.
Overall, most mothers thought their child had made a
successful transition to school, despite initial concerns
for some children. Understanding parents’ expectations,
aspirations, opportunities and entitlements can provide a
helpful framework to build collaborative parent–teacher
relationships, and assist children’s successful transition
to school.
Funding body
Australian Research Council Linkage Projects Funding
DP0770212
ORCID iD/s
Cathy Kaplun: orcid.org/0000-0002-8601-3587
Sue Dockett: orcid.org/0000-0002-4594-2961
Bob Perry: orcid.org/0000-0003-2237-0267
References
Arndt, A. K., Rothe, A., Urban, M., & Werning, R. (2013). Supporting
and stimulating the learning of socioeconomically disadvantaged
children—perspectives of parents and educators in the transition
from preschool to primary school. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 21(1), 23–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.10
80/1350293X.2012.760336
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2006). Information paper:
An introduction to socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA) 2006
(Cat. No. 2039.0). Canberra, ACT: ABS. Retrieved from www.
ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D729075E079F9F
DECA2574170011B088/$File/20390_2006.pdf.
Australian Social Inclusion Board. (2012). Social inclusion in
Australia: How Australia is faring (2nd ed.). Department of the
Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra. Retrieved from http://library.
bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/3170/1/Social%20inclusion%20in%20
Australia%20how%20Australia%20is%20faring2012.pdf.
Avvisati, F., Gurgand, M., Guyon, N., & Maurin, E. (2013). Getting
parents involved: A field experiment in deprived schools. The Review
of Economic Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt027
Baquedano-Lopez, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernandez, S. J. (2013).
Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools:
What teachers need to know. Review of Research in Education,
37(1), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12459718
Barbarin, O. A., Early, D., Clifford, R., Bryant, D., Frome, P.,
Burchinal, M., . . . Pianta, R. (2008). Parental conceptions of
school readiness: Relation to ethnicity, socioeconomic status and
children's skills. Early Education and Development, 19(5), 671–701.
http://dx.doi.org/:10.1080/10409280802375257
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model
of human development. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human
development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). New York, NY: Wiley.
Cassidy, M. (2005). ‘They do it anyway: A study of primary 1 Hindin, A., Steiner, L. M., & Dougherty, S. (2017). Building our
teachers’ perception of children’s transition into primary education. capacity to forge successful home–school partnerships: Programs
Early years: An International Research Journal, 25(2), 143–153. that support and honor the contributions of families. Childhood
Education, 93(1), 10–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.20
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research:
17.1275232
Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology,
13(1), 3–21. Hindman, A. H., Skibbe, L. E., & Morrison, F. J. (2013). Teacher
outreach to families across the transition to school: An examination
Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2009). Investing in
of teachers’ practices and their unique contributions to children’s
the early years—A national early childhood development strategy.
early academic autcomes. Early Childhood Education Journal,
Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from www.
41(5), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0410-4
startingblocks.gov.au/media/1104/national_ecd_strategy.pdf.
Hirst, M., Jervis, N., Visagie, K., Sojo, V., & Cavanagh, S. (2011).
Department of Education and Communities. (2014). Primary school
Transition to primary school: A review of the literature. Canberra,
enrolment. Retrieved 23 April, 2017, from https://education.nsw.
ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from www.
gov.au/public-schools/going-to-a-public-school/enrolment/primary-
kidsmatter.edu.au/sites/default/files/public/Transition-to-Primary-
school-enrolment.
School-A-literature-review.pdf.
Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Transitions to school: Perceptions,
Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement
expectations, experiences. Sydney, NSW: UNSW Press.
in education: An explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1),
Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2014a). Research to policy: Transition to 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.488049
school position statement. In B. Perry, S. Dockett, & A. Petriwskyj
Kemp, L., Harris, E., McMahon, C., Matthey, S., Vimpani, G.,
(Eds.), Transitions to school: International research, policy and
Anderson, T., & Schmied, V. (2008). Miller Early Childhood
practice (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) trial: Design, method and
Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2014b). Continuity of learning: A resource sample description. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 424.
to support effective transition to school and school age care.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., McMahon, R. J., & Conduct Problems
Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Department of Education.
Prevention Research Group. (2000). Parent involvement in school
Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/
conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family
other/pdf_with_bookmarking_-_continuity_of_learning-_30_
and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6),
october_2014_1_0.pdf.
501–523. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00050-9
Dockett, S., Perry, B., & Kearney, E. (2012). Family transitions as
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School–family relations in context:
children start school. Family Matters, 90(1), 57–67.
Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban
Dockett, S., Perry, B., Kearney, E., Hampshire, A., Mason, J., & education, 38(1), 77–133.
Schmied, V. (2011). Facilitating children’s transition to school from
Lee, S., & Goh, G. (2012). Action research to address the transition
families with complex support needs. Albury, NSW: Research
from kindergarten to primary school: Children's authentic learning,
Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Charles
construction play, and pretend play. Early Childhood Research and
Sturt University.
Practice,14(1), 1–21.
Early Childhood Australia (ECA). (2006). Early Childhood Australia's
Matthey, S., Phillips, J., White, T., Glossop, P., Hopper, U.,
Code of Ethics. Canberra, ACT: ECA.
Panasetis, P., . . . Barnett, B. (2004). Routine psychosocial
Educational Transitions and Change (ETC) Research Group. (2011). assessment of women in the antenatal period: Frequency of risk
Transition to school: Position statement. Albury-Wodonga, NSW: factors and implications for clinical services. Archives of Women’s
Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Mental Health, 7(4), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-004-
Charles Sturt University. Retrieved from http://arts-ed.csu.edu.au/ 0064-6
education/transitions/publications/Position-Statement.pdf.
McLachlan, R., Gilfillan, G., & Gordon, J. (2013). Deep and
Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., & Sanders, E. (2012). Parental persistent disadvantage in Australia: Productivity Commission
engagement in learning and schooling: Lessons from research. staff working paper. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Retrieved from www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/
Miller, K. (2015). From past to present: How memories of school
command/download_file/id/7/filename/Parental_engagement_
shape parental views of children's schooling. International Journal
in_learning_and_schooling_Lessons_from_research_BUREAU_
of Early Years Education, 23(2), 153–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.108
ARACY_August_2012.pdf.
0/09669760.2014.992869
Griebel, W., & Niesel, R. (2013). The development of parents in
Mirkhil, M. (2010). ‘I want to play when I go to school’: Children’s
their first child's transition to primary school. In K. Margetts, & A.
views on the transition to school from kindergarten. Australasian
Kienig (Eds.), International perspectives on transition to school:
Journal of Early Childhood, 35(3), 134–139.
Reconceptualising beliefs, policy and practice (pp. 101–110).
London, UK: Routledge. Moore, T. G., McDonald, M., Sanjeevan, S., & Price, A. (2012).
Sustained home visiting for vulnerable families and children:
Hands, C. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-
A literature review of effective processes and strategies. Parkville,
level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada.
Vic.: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and The Royal
Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149.
Children’s Hospital Centre for Community Child Health.
Harper, L. J. (2016). Supporting young children’s transitions to Retrieved from www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/
school: Recommendations for families. Early Childhood Education ccch/resources_and_publications/Home_visiting_lit_review_RAH_
Journal, 44(6), 653–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015- processes_final.pdf.
0752-z

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 65
Moorman Kim, E., Coutts, M. J., Holmes, S. R., Sheridan, S. Sayers, M., West, S., Lorains, J., Laidlaw, B., Moore, T. G., &
M., Ransom, K. A., Sjuts, T. M., & Rispoli, K. M. (2012). Parent Robinson, R. (2012). Starting school: A pivotal life transition for
involvement and family–school partnerships: Examining the children and their families. Family Matters, 90, 45–56.
content, processes, and outcomes of structural versus relationship-
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Mayo, A., Melhuish, E., Taggart, B., Sammons,
based approaches (CYFS Working Paper No. 2012-6). Lincoln, NE:
P., & Sylva, K. (2013). The learning life course of at ‘risk’ children
Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and
aged 3–16: Perceptions of students and parents about ‘succeeding
Schools. Retrieved from http://cyfs.unl.edu/resources/downloads/
against the odds’. Scottish Educational Review, 45(2), 5–17.
working-papers/CYFS_Working_Paper_2012_6.pdf.
Smart, D., Sanson, A., Baxter, J., Edwards, B., & Hayes, A.
Murray, E., McFarland-Piazza, L., & Harrison, L. J. (2015). Changing
(2008). Home-to-school transitions for financially disadvantaged
patterns of parent–teacher communication and parent involvement
children: Summary report. Retrieved from www.thesmithfamily.
from preschool to school. Early Child Development and Care, 185(7),
com.au/~/media/files/research-advocacy/Research%20and%20
1031–1052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.975223
Evaluation%20archive%20PDFs/home-school-summary-2008.
Peña, D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and ashx?la=en.
implications. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 42–54.
Turunen, T. A., Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2015). Researching
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598741
memories about starting school: Autobiographical narratives as
Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C. (2005). Trends in construction a methodological approach. European Early Childhood Education
of transition to school in three western regions, 1990–2004. Research Journal, 23(5), 635–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135
International Journal of Early Years Education, 13(1), 55–69. 0293X.2015.1104039
Pressman, R. M., Sugarman, D. B., Nemon, M. L., Desjarlais, J., Wildenger, L. K., & McIntyre, L. L. (2011). Family concerns and
Owens, J. A., & Schettini-Evans, A. (2015). Homework and family involvement during kindergarten transition. Journal of Child and
stress: With consideration of parents’ self confidence, educational Family Studies, 20(4), 387–396.
level, and cultural background. The American Journal of Family
Wong, M. (2013). Learning to cope with stress during transition
Therapy, 43(4), 297–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2
from kindergarten to school. The International Journal of Early
015.1061407
Childhood Learning, 19(2), 49–59.
Puccioni, J. (2015). Parents’ conceptions of school readiness,
transition practices, and children's academic achievement
trajectories. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(2), 130–147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.850399

66 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 67
 OUTDOOR LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS
Spaces for exploration, discovery
and risk-taking in the early years
Edited by Helen Little, Sue Elliott and Shirley Wyver

Educators have a key pedagogical role in

promoting early years outdoor play in natural
environments.

Active outdoor play involving risk-taking has

been linked to positive effects on social health
and behaviour, and encourages physical activity
and motor skill development. At the same time,
it has been recognised that opportunities for
children to experience outdoor learning have been
reduced in recent decades due to the impacts of
technology, urbanisation and social change.

This book brings together renowned authors, with research and professional
experience in a range of disciplines, to provide a comprehensive guide to
developing positive and engaging outdoor learning environments in the early
years.

This is an essential reference for all early childhood educators revealing how
the benefits of outdoor play can be enjoyed by children in a wide range of
settings and spaces.

Available now in bookshops

68 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

AJEC Outdoor Learning Environments ad.indd 1 28/08/2017 12:54:19 PM

 Aus
trala
of E sian Jo
arly
Chil urnal
dho
od

Vo l .
42 N
o. 4 D
ecem
ber 2
Onli 017
ne A
nnex
 Parental knowledge and use of the National Quality
Framework in their childcare decision making:
Informed believers, informed dismissers and
indifferent disregarders
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.08

Amber Hinton Marianne Fenech

Sheila Degotardi The University of Sydney
Macquarie University

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE National Quality Framework (NQF) aimed to improve the
quality of formal early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings across Australia,
and enable parents to make informed childcare choices. Since this Framework was only
introduced in 2012, research has yet to determine if these intended outcomes have been
achieved. The impact of this policy on the choices of prospective parents is explored.
Findings suggest that prospective parents’ knowledge of the Framework is low and their
use of NQF quality ratings to inform ECEC decision making even lower. Various influences
on prospective parents’ ECEC choices appeared to prevent those who knew about the
ratings from using them effectively. Notwithstanding efforts to promote the NQF and
quality ratings as tools for parents when choosing ECEC for their children, findings
suggest that the use of these tools is highly influenced by market failures.

Introduction observable features (Mocan, 2007; Weaven & Grace, 2010).

In Australia, over one million children aged between birth
and 12 years attend formal, government approved, early
childhood education and care (ECEC1) services2 (DET,
2015). Around 22 per cent of children under two years
attend an ECEC service (ABS, 2014), with attendance in the
year prior to formal schooling increasing to around 90 per
cent (Hand, Baxter, Sweid, Bluett-Boyd & Price-Robertson,
2014). The quality of these services is, therefore, of
paramount concern, with research demonstrating that
high-quality ECEC enhances children’s life outcomes
(EIU, 2012; Heckman & Masterov, 2007). However, if
parents do not know what high-quality ECEC looks like and
what factors contribute to it, then they may inadvertently
make a choice that may not provide the best opportunities
in early childhood, and subsequent life, for their child.
Research consistently indicates, however, that parents
have limited capacity to assess ECEC quality (Barros &
Leal, 2015; Cryer, Tietze & Wessels, 2002; Forry, Tout,
Rothenberg, Sandstrom & Vesely, 2013; Mocan, 2007).
Additionally, parents do not always examine quality when
choosing ECEC (Peyton, Jacobs, O’Brien & Roy, 2001)
and when they do, quality evaluations are often based on
Collectively, this research suggests that parents tend to
operate as uninformed consumers with limited knowledge
about what constitutes high-quality ECEC, raising the
possibility that some parents may evaluate mediocre quality
ECEC as being high quality (Fenech, Harrison & Sumsion,
2011; Mocan, 2007; Shpancer et al., 2002).
Positioning parents as uninformed consumers validates
government implementation of quality assurance systems
that use evidence-based standards intended to regulate
ECEC quality. In Australia, the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) developed the National Quality
Framework (NQF) to overcome the fragmented system of
regulations provided by each state and territory (ACECQA,
2016b). The NQF incorporated the National Quality Standard
(NQS) and an assessment and quality rating system
(ACECQA, 2016b), which came into effect on 1 January
2012. The NQS regulates and assesses quality in terms
of: educational program and practice; children’s health
and safety; physical environment; staffing arrangements;
relationships with children; collaborative partnerships with
families and communities; and leadership and service
management (ACECQA, 2016a).

69 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

Services are rated on these seven quality areas as well
as assigned an overall quality rating ranging from ‘working
towards’ the standards to ‘excellent’ (ACECQA, 2016a).
The quality ratings of services are available online, and
must be displayed within the centre. Both strategies are
intended to be accessed by parents to assist them in
choosing high-quality ECEC for their children. However,
while quality ratings must be visibly displayed in ECEC
services, it is not compulsory for staff to inform prospective
parents of their rating.
Implicit in a policy such as the NQF is the positioning of
parents as autonomous and rational consumers, who are
both willing and able to employ choice to secure quality
ECEC within a regulated market (Fenech et al., 2011; King
& Meagher, 2009). According to choice theory (Marshall,
1996, 1997), however, decision making is complex and
may not be autonomous due to the way discourses and
constraints govern and control the choices available
(Marshall, 1996). Although consumers are assumed
capable of autonomous choice, based on their interests,
needs and available information, the chooser is influenced
by a range of societal and political forces that may or may
not be within their own personal control (Marshall, 1996,
1997). The notion of both freedom and choice may be
thought of as self-directed, however, both these concepts
are effectively organised through relationships of power
and power structures (Marshall, 1996).
In Australia, the NQF is relatively new, and very limited
research has examined parents’ knowledge of, and
engagement with this resource to inform their choice
of ECEC service. Recent focus group research, with
parents currently using an ECEC service, found that
parents’ awareness and understanding of the NQF and
rating system was low (Hall & Partners Open Mind, 2014).
Other research has found that parents believed that the
NQF was simply a regulatory system for ECEC, and were
unaware that the information provided through the quality
ratings could assist them in their ECEC decisions (Woolcott
Research & Engagement, 2014). International research
has also demonstrated that quality assessment and rating
initiatives have not succeeded in enabling parents to
negotiate ECEC markets as autonomous choosers. In the
United States for example, it has been found that parental
awareness of the quality rating and improvement system
is low (Elicker, Langill, Ruprecht, Lewsader & Anderson,
2011). Similarly, Mocan (2007) found that parents did not
fully utilise the information available to them when they
evaluated quality. Such findings suggest that providing
information to parents about ECEC quality does not
necessarily translate into more informed decisions
(Chaudry, Henly & Meyers, 2010; Forry et al., 2013).
This paper reports on an investigation of parents’
knowledge of and engagement with the NQF and quality
ratings. Unlike most research into ECEC choice, which is
retrospective in design, the current research adds to the
70 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
limited number of studies that focus on parents who are
‘prospective users’ of ECEC (Boyd, Thorpe & Tayler, 2010;
Grogan, 2012; Pungello & Kurtz-Costes, 2000). It focuses
on the understandings of prospective parent users of formal
ECEC, that is, parents considering using long day care (LDC)
or preschool for the first time. The purpose of this paper is
to examine these prospective parents’ knowledge of the
NQF and associated rating system, as well as if, and to
what extent, they are using the quality ratings to inform
their ECEC choices. These parents’ attitudes towards the
NQF and its quality ratings are also explored.
Research design
A prospective, longitudinal research design was used in
this study to explore the processes used by parents to
select ECEC, including whether they are operating as
autonomous choosers. More specifically, the study utilised
two methods of data collection: a national survey and case
studies. Ethical approval was obtained through Macquarie
University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (Ethics
approval reference number: 5201400849). The national
survey featured a cover page detailing the research
purpose, and by continuing with the survey, participants
acknowledged their consent. Signed informed-consent
forms were obtained from all participants in the case study
before interviews took place.
National survey
A national survey was designed to explore influences on
parents’ ECEC decision making, with a particular focus on
understandings about quality ECEC, early learning and the
NQF and its associated quality ratings. The survey included
various questions taken from the literature on parents’
ECEC decision making. The survey was piloted in two
phases, on a total invited sample of 69 parents who were
colleagues or friends of the project’s chief investigators or
collaborating partner organisation research managers. The
first piloting phase detected errors in question ordering and
the electronic rating systems for specific questions. It also
allowed ambiguity in questions to be identified and corrected.
The second piloting phase permitted the identification of
questions that failed to yield meaningful differences or were
deemed by the respondents to be repetitive. These questions
were removed from the final survey.
The survey was administered through an online survey
platform from July 2014 to January 2015 (n = 231).
Recruitment strategies of prospective ECEC users included
advertisements disseminated nationally that targeted
prospective users of formal ECEC through: print and online
media on parenting; parent advocacy and support groups;
the websites of major formal ECEC providers and peak
early childhood organisations; maternal health centres; and
word of mouth. Respondents were drawn from across
Australia, with the majority coming from New South Wales
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
(New South Wales n = 149; Victoria n = 22; Queensland
n = 20; South Australia n = 15; Western Australia n = 13;
Australian Capital Territory n = 7; Tasmania n = 3; Missing
data n = 2). For the purposes of this paper, responses to
the following survey questions were analysed:
¡¡ Did you know that formal childcare services across
Australia are rated for the standard of quality education
and care they provide?
¡¡ If yes, when exploring formal childcare options, have
you found out what each service’s quality rating is?
¡¡ When thinking about which particular service you
hope to enrol your child in, how important is the
service’s official quality rating, as determined by
the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality
Authority (ACECQA)? (Likert scale—1 = extremely
unimportant to 9 = extremely important.)
Case studies
Qualitative case studies of 10 prospective users of ECEC
from New South Wales were undertaken to investigate
these parents’ decision-making processes and experiences
as they explored, chose, enrolled and commenced their
child in an ECEC service. Recruitment strategies included
promotion of the project through the national survey and
advertisements placed in parenting magazines and online
media. Parents who were recruited via advertisements
were provided a link to complete the national survey online.
Table 1 provides the demographic details of the participants,
including their children’s age on commencement of ECEC.
A total of four to seven interviews were conducted with
each parent, over a period of eight to 22 months, from
October 2014 to July 2016. The majority of interviews took
place face-to-face. However, some were carried out over
the phone (Table 1 details the number of interviews per
participant). Some participants had more interviews than
others because a delay in their proposed starting date in
ECEC meant that more interviews were conducted along
their journey to check in on their stage in the process. Final
interviews for each participant were conducted six months
after commencement of ECEC.
The interviews were semi-structured, with questions
developed around existing literature on ECEC choice. Of
relevance to this analysis were responses that discussed
knowledge of, beliefs surrounding, and use of the NQF
and associated quality ratings in participants’ choice of
ECEC setting, as well as their ongoing interest in the NQF
and quality ratings.
¡¡ Did parents know about the NQF, and how much detail
did they know?
¡¡ How did parents find out about the NQF?
¡¡ Did parents feel that the NQF was important?
¡¡ Did the quality ratings influence their ECEC choice?
Case study analysis
Data analysis was undertaken in two steps, with initial
inductive coding of specific responses related to the
research questions, and subsequent identification and
examination of the connections between them (Hatch,
2002). The process involved using NVivo software (by QSR
International) to locate participant comments regarding the
NQF and quality ratings.

Table 1. Case study participants’ demographic details

Age of child Age of child on Highest

Type of formal
Name Age at first commencement Number of education/
ECEC that was
(parent) (parent) interview of ECEC interviews qualification
selected
(months) (months) level
Cara 29 8 10 5 Post Graduate LDC
Daisy 34 4 14 6 Post Graduate LDC
Elizabeth * * * 4 * Preschool
Bachelor
Fiona 37 41 42 5 Preschool
Degree
Graham 32 1 16 7 Post Graduate LDC
Kelly 31 13 14 5 Post Graduate LDC
Lisa 32 7 11 5 Post Graduate LDC
Mary 37 9 24 7 Post Graduate LDC
Bachelor
Renee 31 20 25 6 LDC
Degree
Bachelor
Sharon 28 8 11 6 LDC
Degree
Note: Pseudonyms have been used.
*Missing data (did not participate in national survey, interview responses only).

71 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

Keyword searches were also undertaken to uncover
attitudes towards, as well as knowledge and use of, the
NQF and quality ratings. Analysis of the codes revealed
similarities among subgroups of participants, which led
to the conceptualisation of three distinct parent profiles
(Glesne, 2010).
Findings
National survey
To establish the proportion of respondents who knew
that services were rated for the standard of education
and care they provide, the national survey asked parents
if they were aware of a quality rating system. Out of 231
respondents, 123 (53.2 per cent) answered yes to this
question (see Table 2). Respondents who answered yes
to this question, and who had started to explore ECEC
options (n = 99), were then asked if they had found out
what each service’s quality rating was when exploring
these options. Only half (50.5 per cent) of these parents
responded that they had done so.
Case studies
Parent profiles
With respect to participants’ knowledge and use of
the NQF quality ratings, qualitative analysis revealed
three distinct categories of prospective users: Informed
believers, Informed dismissers and Indifferent disregarders
(see Table 3). Informed believers knew of the NQF, valued
regulation and quality assurance, and consistently utilised
the quality ratings to inform their decisions. Parents
categorised as Informed dismissers also knew of the NQF,
however, they did not value it as an informer of quality, or
use the quality ratings to inform their decisions. Parents
in the Indifferent disregarders category had no or limited
knowledge of the NQF as well as competing priorities
when looking for ECEC and, at the time of decision making,
attributed little importance to the rating system.
Table 3. Parent profiles
Informed Informed Indifferent
believers dismissers disregarders
Graham Renee Elizabeth
Sharon Mary Daisy
Lisa
Fiona
Cara Cara
Kelly Kelly
Note: Cara initially fit with the Informed believers category,
however, she later shifted to the Informed dismissers category
due to limited availability of ECEC places. Kelly shifted from
the Indifferent disregarders category to the Informed believers
category due to increased engagement with her chosen centre.
Informed believers
The Informed believers—Graham, Sharon, Lisa, Fiona, Cara
and Kelly—were distinguishable from other parents in that
they either expressed the capacity and motivation to obtain
knowledge about in-depth information regarding ECEC
(including the NQF and quality ratings), or had one or more
source of direct information to inform them about ECEC
(including the NQF and quality ratings in the way of personal
knowledge, a friend or family member). Graham and Cara
prepared for their ECEC selection well in advance, and took
it upon themselves to become self-informed through online
research, seeking out quality ratings of individual services
before visiting them. Fiona gained knowledge of the NQF
and quality ratings through her employment in the infants
department in a primary school where staff were required to
visit the onsite preschool and have an understanding of the
NQF. Sharon drew on her past experience working in ECEC
services, and knew that they were accredited in some way.
She was also informed about the new ratings system and NQF
by her sister and close friend, who both currently worked in the
sector. Similarly, Lisa was informed about the NQF and quality
ratings by a friend who was studying early childhood education.
These parents explained that the NQF gave them peace
of mind when choosing a centre. They had faith that the
Framework would meet its aim of ensuring that services
met quality standards.

Table 2. Survey respondents’ reported awareness and exploration of the national quality ratings

Awareness of Found out quality ratings

n Percentage n Percentage
rating system of ECEC services visited
Yes 123 53.2 Yes 50 50.5
No 108 46.8 No 49 49.5
Total 231 100.0 Total 99* 100.0

Note: *24 parents who answered yes to the ‘awareness’ question had not started exploring ECEC options, and hence did not answer
the ‘explore quality’ question, therefore they are excluded from the total.

72 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

Graham, for example, stated:
I just feel [that] if there’s a regulatory body for child care,

they must know what they’re doing … it’s widespread
throughout the country … you just get the feeling that
if there’s a regulatory body, umbrella, everything that’s
underneath there at least has a standard quality.
Similarly, Lisa expressed a trust in the validity of the NQF,
which led to a confidence that it would accurately reflect
the quality of the service:
I like that idea too that it’s sort of a structured system
 Informed dismissers
… I feel like I can trust that … the rating gives me
confidence that … people who know more than I
do about the standards of childcare centres, have
analysed and considered this place. So, my feeling
that it is a nice place [comes from the fact] there is
something underpinning that.
While the Informed believers all used the NQF and quality
ratings to support their ECEC decision making, the ways in
which they used the system varied. Graham, Sharon and
Cara used the quality ratings to inform their choice of ECEC
service, however, only Graham and Cara actively used the
online ratings to locate ECEC services. Sharon instead
asked about each service’s quality rating when visiting:

… I asked all of them [what their quality rating was] … I
checked all of their accreditation standards [for] what they
had scored … I’m probably the most painful mum.
Sharon also added that the willingness of the centre to
provide NQF information to her was important because it
provided the assurance she was looking for:

… and how willing they were to give that information.
They’re going to have them [children] more of the week
than we are, so it’s got to be somewhere that’s right.
Lisa and Fiona used the ratings more to support their own
evaluations of quality and decisions: ‘it [the quality rating]
validates my feelings about the place, yeah’ (Lisa).
It is important to note that, while these parents were
all categorised as Informed believers, other factors also
played a role in their decision making. Fiona, for example,
was swayed by her desire for educational features
that she associated with a preschool service, and also
wanted a location that was close to home. Location
was similarly important for Lisa, but she also drew on
her friends’ recommendation to narrow her selection
to services managed by specific service providers. For
Sharon, location, value for money and hours of operation
were key influences. And while Graham began his search
before conceiving, he concluded that in addition to the
quality ratings, his decision was ultimately influenced
by availability of a place when needed: ‘Availability. So,
whichever place would give us a spot’.
While Kelly initially fit into the Indifferent disregarder category,
her views shifted to an Informed believer after she had been
73 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
attending her chosen centre for some time. Kelly’s interest in
the NQF increased when she found out the quality rating of
her service (excellent). Kelly mentioned that her ECEC service
encouraged parent feedback about the quality:
…
 they like parents to complete surveys ... they
encourage parents to write not only what’s good, but
[also] what’s not so good or what they would like to
change. Because she said, ‘even though we have X
(high) rating, we would like to improve and stay on top’.
As Informed dismissers, when compared with those
categorised as Informed believers, both Mary and Renee
attributed much less importance to the NQF as an informer
of quality. While they stated that they were aware of the
rating system, they appeared less knowledgeable about
how to access these ratings. Mary for example, stated:

… I haven’t looked at the numbers online … they’re
publicly available, are they? … they don’t come up in
a Google search … if you’re a new parent and you
Google, and you’re looking for child care in your area,
you probably do want to know that there’s a national
body that oversees it and [that] there’s this amount of
publicly available information. I read a lot of media …
I had no idea.
Instead, Renee and Mary became informed of the quality
ratings when visiting services, although neither placed
much importance on having this knowledge or on the
reliability of the ratings. Renee dismissed the importance
of the quality ratings, as well as the need for services to
inform her about their rating:
Yes, it [quality rating] was mentioned. But for me it
was … ‘what is that?’, ‘Whatever, okay. I’m sure you’re
fine. You’ve been around forever’. So, I didn’t place too
much importance on the quality rating of the centre.
These parents, therefore, both dismissed the usefulness of
the ratings and thought that all services would be offering
a similar level of quality. Mary stated that she thought the
standard of quality in all ECEC services would be similar:
… they’re fairly uniform … After doing the number of
centre tours that I did do, I realised that they’re all going
to meet the minimum standards to a certain extent.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the quality ratings did not factor
into Renee or Mary’s decision making. Neither parent
knew the quality rating of their chosen service before they
enrolled their child.
Neither Mary nor Renee had any ongoing interest or
engagement with the NQF or quality ratings, or knew if
the quality rating was displayed in their services. After
her child had been attending formal ECEC for six months,
Mary’s thoughts on the importance of the quality rating
had not changed:
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
 Probably if they were underneath the baseline
benchmark, I would want to know where and how
and why, and how that might be affecting my kid, and
then I make my own judgement.
Mary, therefore, downplayed the authority of the NQF
as an informer of quality, relying instead on her own
assessment. Renee’s dismissal, however, appeared to
have a different rationale, founded instead on her belief
in the subjective nature of quality:
If it’s [quality rating] an accurate reflection of the quality
given … it’s relevant—it’s important. But … quality is
subjective. It’s different for everyone and my idea of
what quality is now … is different to what I thought
quality could be before ...
While Cara initially shared the characteristics of an Informed
believer, her views shifted to an Informed dismisser as she
progressed through the decision-making process. Due to
limited availability in her area, Cara had little choice other
than to enrol her child into a service that was not yet
rated. Interviews subsequent to this point indicated that
her interest in the NQF and quality ratings declined to the
point of dismissal:

… you couldn’t just rely on that [quality rating] either
… you still had to go with practicality, [with] what was
available in the area … It’s one thing to maybe narrow
it down a bit, but if you don’t have much choice ...
Indifferent disregarders
Daisy, Kelly and Elizabeth were categorised as Indifferent
disregarders of the NQF. These parents had no or limited
knowledge of the NQF or quality ratings when they
were looking for ECEC, did not use the NQF to locate an
ECEC service for their child, and did not enquire about
the ratings when visiting services. Instead, these parents
appeared to have ‘stumbled upon’ information about the
NQF. Daisy was made aware of the NQF from staff when
visiting a service, while Elizabeth found out during the
initial interview with the researcher. Kelly first heard of the
NQF when completing the national survey for this study in
which there were questions around the NQF.
What unified these parents as Indifferent disregarders was
that other pragmatic factors assumed priority during their
decision-making process. Daisy’s priority was location and
convenience, as she had no car and needed the service
to be within walking distance of her house. Having
experienced an acrimonious marriage breakdown, Kelly’s
main concern was the personal safety of her child, requiring
a location which was some distance from her residence.
Elizabeth’s desire for a specific type of preschool program
over-rode any interest in her chosen centre’s rating. When
questioned about whether she had found out about the
quality assessment of her chosen centre, she replied:
I assume they would [have a rating], but I haven’t
actually looked up what it is … They gave me a whole
74 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
stack of paperwork, it’s probably in there. But I can’t
remember it off the top of my head.
Sometime after enrolment, while Daisy stated that she
valued the quality assurance that regulation provided, she
admitted to not knowing what the quality rating of her
child’s service was. Kelly, in contrast, developed an interest
in the NQF after finding out that her chosen centre had
received an ‘excellent’ rating. Reflecting back, Kelly stated
that she would have found it helpful had she known about
the NQF when visiting services, and on reflection, thought
that it may have assisted her when asking questions. She
thought services should inform parents of their quality
rating when they are enquiring about a service:
You would think that they [w]ould advertise themselves
… none of the child cares we went to said anything
about it.
Discussion
The first aim of this study was to determine whether
parents were aware of the NQF and the rating system.
The survey analysis showed that knowledge of the quality
rating system was low, with just over half of respondents
reporting awareness of the system. Furthermore, while
seven of the 10 case study parents were aware that the
ratings existed, only three knew that the ratings were
available online. These findings are consistent with
previous small-scale research undertaken in Australia which
showed that current users of formal ECEC had little or no
awareness of the NQF or quality ratings (Hall & Partners
Open Mind, 2014; Woolcott Research & Engagement,
2014). It should be noted, however, that awareness of
a quality rating system does not necessarily indicate that
parents know what the system is, what it entails or what it
means for them, and only implies awareness that a quality
rating system exists.
Regarding the second aim, our survey findings suggest
that the NQF did not figure prominently in prospective
parents’ decision making with fewer than 50 per cent of
parents, who knew about the rating system, reporting
that they found out about centre ratings as part of their
investigations. Of the seven parents in the qualitative
sample, who knew about the NQF and quality ratings,
only two actively used these tools to inform their search
for ECEC; and a similarly low number actively enquired
about the ratings when looking for ECEC. These results
support previous findings that suggest that parents are
not using the NQF and quality ratings to inform or support
evaluations of quality and/or decisions (Hall & Partners
Open Mind, 2014). One interpretation of this finding is
that parents’ understandings of the requirement for
high-quality ECEC need to be increased, so that they are
able to draw on the NQF ratings to inform their decision-
making process. However, the answer may not be so
simple. Our findings support Marshall’s (1996, 1997)
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
contention that decision making is always framed within
competing personal and societal demands. For example,
parental beliefs about what is best for their child and their
own definitions of quality in addition to limited personal
resources may present a barrier to informed choice. As
seen by the attitudes of the Informed dismissers, while
their own definitions of quality were important in their
assessments of services, they did not consider the NQF
or quality ratings in their decision making. Comments
made by both Mary and Renee in the Informed dismissers
category indicate that they view having knowledge of
quality assurance rating systems as unnecessary, and
this resulted in low motivation to invest effort into finding
out more about the NQF or quality ratings. These parents
chose to rely on their own judgements and assessments
of quality when selecting a service. This supports the view
that parents’ understanding of quality can be more value-
based and less knowledge-based—focusing on what may
be important to them rather than on the knowledge of
expert opinions on child development or quality (Boyd et
al., 2010; Fenech et al., 2011).
Consistent with this idea, parents in the Indifferent
disregarders group valued convenience, safety and program
type over everything else. These parents still made an active
choice about ECEC, but the criteria used in their decision
making were based around personal circumstances and
family resources. While these parents knew of the quality
ratings, pragmatic influences took priority. These findings
suggest that the assumption that providing parents with
increased information about quality will automatically make
them better consumers is flawed, as pragmatic factors
and value-based judgements may limit parents’ ability or
willingness to engage with such information.
The case study data revealed that the parents who did use
the quality ratings to inform their decisions, had either prior
knowledge of the NQF or the motivation and capacity to
find out about them. While international research suggests
that parents with higher education levels and higher
socioeconomic status (SES) are often more likely to consider
quality when making ECEC choices (Grogan, 2012; Peyton
et al., 2001), the findings presented here suggest that these
parents should not be treated as a homogenous group.
While all case-study participants in our study held university
qualifications, parents in the Informed believers category
were unique in that they held existing knowledge, and had
greater personal resources with which to access and use
available information. Three parents in this category either
worked in, or had friends/family working in the education/
early childhood sectors while another worked in tertiary
education and undertook research for a living. These parents
appear to have thoroughly researched their decision, and
therefore, regarded the information provided by the quality
rating system as one of many indicators of quality. Parents’
value systems were also implicated, as these parents’
initial awareness of the features and importance of quality
ECEC appeared to motivate them to undertake in-depth
75 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
research about quality. While it appears that, for these
parents, the quality rating system was meeting its aim as a
quality informant, the fact that they were highly motivated
and able to access information about quality, suggests that
they may have been in a strong position to assess centre
quality without it.
In summary, our research has supported previous findings
that there are broad individual variations in the way
parents engage with the ECEC choice process, and the
circumstances of parents impact the way ECEC is located,
considered and selected (Chaudry et al., 2010; Forry et al.,
2013; Grogan, 2012). Therefore, while our findings support
previous research (Hall & Partners Open Mind, 2014) that
suggests increasing awareness of the existence of the
NQF and quality ratings should be considered, our results
demonstrate that parents will vary in their use of such
ratings as a knowledge source. Some parents may benefit
from being provided with details on what quality rating
systems mean, and how they can inform their decision
making. However, for others, factors such as availability
issues (market failures) mean that information from rating
systems may not necessarily translate into quality-informed
decision making. These findings are consistent with
research that found that parents do not always examine
quality when selecting an ECEC service for their child
(Peyton et al., 2001), and reinforces the view that many
parents are uninformed consumers of ECEC who have
limited informed knowledge about what quality ECEC looks
like, and what factors contribute to it. For these parents,
the NQF and associated quality rating system may best be
seen as a mechanism for raising the overall quality of ECEC
centres so that children, regardless of their parents’ decision
making, can be assured of a high-quality ECEC experience.
It is clear that this issue is complex and further research is
needed to understand the complexities of the implications
of the NQF as both an information source for parents and
a quality-enhancing measure for ECEC services.
Limitations and future directions
While this study provides informative insights into
prospective parents’ knowledge and beliefs about, and
engagement with, the NQF and quality ratings, some
limitations need to be acknowledged. First, our findings
must be interpreted in the context that, at the time of
the survey administration and the commencement of
case studies, only around 50 per cent of formal ECEC
services had been quality-rated (ACECQA, 2014, 2015).
That the NQF was still relatively new when the research
was undertaken may have contributed to parents’
expressed limited knowledge of the system. Second,
despite intensive and sustained promotion, the number
of responses received nationally from the survey was
relatively low. This low response rate suggests that more
direct targeting of prospective parent users is needed.
Third, it is also important to note that case study findings
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
cannot be generalised to the larger population. The sample
in the case study is not representative of the Australian
population, as it comprised of parents with above average
levels of education and SES, who were mostly Caucasian,
English-speaking adults from the Sydney metropolitan
area and surrounds. While our findings question whether
these parents can be treated as a homogenous group,
international research has suggested that parents with
lower incomes or education levels tend to prioritise
accessibility, safety and health features, and provider
characteristics over other indexes of quality (Forry et
al., 2013; Peyton et al., 2001). Australia has a diverse
population that has many unique sub-populations and
communities. Future research—with Indigenous, culturally
and linguistically diverse, and rural communities, in addition
to parents with lower levels of education and income—is
needed to further explore potential differences among and
within these populations.
Conclusion
Findings reported in this paper suggest that prospective
parent users of formal ECEC have limited awareness of
the NQF and associated quality ratings, and that these
tools are not always being used in the way they were
intended. Subsequently, the intended objective of the
NQF and quality ratings to help parents choose high-quality
ECEC for their child is seemingly not being achieved. While
market failures exist, unless parents are knowledgeable or
motivated to learn about what high-quality ECEC looks like
and start their search for ECEC early, there appears to be
limited prospect of the NQF and quality ratings being used
to inform their decision making. Yet, regardless of parents’
knowledge and use of the NQF and quality ratings, it is
imperative to recognise that the NQF plays an important
role in ensuring that ECEC services provide high-quality
care and education for children.
The NQF and associated quality standards, on which
the quality ratings are based, have seen significant
improvements in staff qualification requirements,
increased ratios, and an increased focus on children’s
early learning (ACECQA, 2016b). Additionally, of the
proportion of services that have been re-assessed, 66 per
cent have received an increased quality rating, indicating
that the intended improvements to ECEC quality are
being achieved (ACECQA, 2016c). Findings from this
study, therefore, should not be interpreted to mean that
the NQF is unimportant or unnecessary. Rolling back the
NQF would likely have a negative bearing on children’s
short- and long-term experiences and outcomes, and
thus is not a recommended policy trajectory despite, and
because of, parents’ seemingly limited use of this quality-
assurance tool.
76 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Endnotes
1
In this paper, prior to school formal early childhood
education and care services for children aged birth to five
years, including LDC, FDC and preschool, are the focus and
these types of services will be referred to as ECEC.
2
In Australia, formal government approved ECEC services
include LDC/FDC, preschool, outside school hours and
occasional care. These services are required to operate
under the NQF.
ORCID iD/s
Amber Hinton: orcid.org/0000-0003-1317-4483
Sheila Degotardi: orcid.org/0000-0003-2066-2223
Marianne Fenech: orcid.org/0000-0002-4892-5585
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2014). Childhood education
and care, Australia, June 2014. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/
ausstats/abs@.nsf/cat/4402.0.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2014). National Quality Framework snapshot Q3
2014. Retrieved from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/Reports/2014/
ACECQASnapshot_Q3_2014.pdf.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2015). National Quality Framework snapshot Q1
2015. Retrieved from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/Reports/2015/
NQFSnapshotQ1_2015.pdf.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2016a). Assessments and ratings. Retrieved
10 September, 2016, from www.acecqa.gov.au/national-quality-
framework/assessments-and-ratings.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2016b). Explaining the National Quality Framework.
Retrieved 10 September, 2016, from www.acecqa.gov.au/national-
quality-framework/explaining-the-national-quality-framework.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2016c). National Quality Framework snapshot Q2
2016. Retrieved from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/Reports/2016/
NQF_Snapshot_Q2_2016.pdf.
Barros, S., & Leal, T. B. (2015). Parents’ and teachers’ perceptions
of quality in Portuguese childcare classrooms. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 30(2), 209–226. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10212-014-0235-4
Boyd, W., Thorpe, K., & Tayler, C. (2010). Preferences of first-time
expectant mothers for care of their child: ‘I wouldn’t leave them
somewhere that made me feel insecure’. Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, 35(2), 4–12.
Chaudry, A., Henly, J., & Meyers, M. (2010). Conceptual
frameworks for child care decision-making (ACF-OPRE White
Paper). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Cryer, D., Tietze, W., & Wessels, H. (2002). Parents’ perceptions
of their children’s child care: A cross-national comparison. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 259–277. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0885-2006(02)00148-5
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2015). Early
childhood and child care in summary: September quarter, 2015.
Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/
other/eccc_in_summary_sept_quarter_2015_0.pdf.
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). (2012). Starting well: Weaven, S., & Grace, D. (2010). Examining parental and staff
Benchmarking early education around the world. Commissioned perceptions of child care service quality across competing business
by the LIEN Foundation. London, UK: EIU. Retrieved from http:// structures. Australasian Journal of early Childhood, 35(2), 54–62.
graphics.eiu.com/upload/eb/Lienstartingwell.pdf.
Woolcott Research & Engagement. (2014). Summary of findings
Elicker, J. G., Langill, C. C., Ruprecht, K. M., Lewsader, J., from the 2014 National Quality Framework review consultation
& Anderson, T. (2011). Evaluation of ‘Paths to QUALITY’ process. Retrieved from www.woolcott.com.au/NQFReview/
Indiana’s child care quality rating and improvement system: Final Summary%20of%20Findings%20for%20the%202014%20
report. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Center for NQF%20Review%20consultation%20process.pdf.
Families Publications.
Fenech, M., Harrison, L., & Sumsion, J. (2011). Parent users of
high-quality long day care: Informed consumers of child care?
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 95–103.
Forry, N. D., Tout, K., Rothenberg, L., Sandstrom, H., & Vesely,
C. (2013). Child care decision-making literature review. OPRE
Brief 2013–45. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers:
An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grogan, K. (2012). Parents’ choice of pre-kindergarten: The
interaction of parent, child and contextual factors. Early Child
Development and Care, 182(10), 1265–1287. http://dx.doi.org/1
0.1080/03004430.2011.608127
Hall & Partners Open Mind. (2014). Families research project:
Knowledge and meaning of National Quality Standards ratings
pilot study. South Yarra, Vic.: Hall and Partners.
Hand, K., Baxter, J. A., Sweid, R., Bluett-Boyd, N., & Price-
Robertson, R. (2014). Access to early childhood education in
Australia: Insights from a qualitative study (Research Report No.
28). Melbourne, Vic.: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Hatch, A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings.
New York, NY: State University of New York.
Heckman, J. J., & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity
argument for investing in young children. Applied Economic
Perspectives and Policy, 29(3), 446–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9353.2007.00359.x
King, D., & Meagher, G. (Eds.). (2009). Paid care in Australia:
Politics, profits, practices. Sydney, NSW: Sydney University Press.
Marshall, J. D. (1996). The autonomous chooser and ‘reforms’ in
education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 15(1–2), 89–96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00367517
Marshall, J. D. (1997). Michel Foucault: Problematising the
individual and constituting ‘the’ self. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 29(1), 32–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1997.
tb00526.x
Mocan, N. (2007). Can consumers detect lemons? An empirical
analysis of information asymmetry in the market for child care.
Journal of Population Economics, 20(4), 743–780. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00148-006-0087-6
Peyton, V., Jacobs, A. C., O’Brien, M., & Roy, C. (2001). Reasons
for choosing child care: Associations with family factors,
quality and satisfaction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
16(2), 191–208.
Pungello, E. P., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2000). Working women’s
selection of care for their infants: A prospective study. Family
Relations, 49(3), 245–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2000.00245.x
Shpancer, N., Bowden, J. M., Ferrell, M. A., Pavlik, S. F., Robinson,
M. N., Schwind, J. L., … Young, J. N. (2002). The gap: Parental
knowledge about daycare. Early Child Development and Care,
172(6), 635–642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430215108

77 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

 All children have the best start in life to create a better future
for themselves and for the nation
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.09

Jan Deans
Suzana Klarin
Rachel Liang
Erica Frydenberg
University of Melbourne

THIS PAPER REPORTS ON a social emotional learning (SEL) program entitled COPE-R and
the role of the teacher in supporting young children’s developing social and emotional
understandings, particularly around caring and empathy. Thirty-eight four- and five-year-
old children and their teacher from an inner-Melbourne city long day preschool program
participated in the research. The teacher was also a member of the research team hence
the study falls within the realm of practitioner-research, which aims to shed further
light on the role of the teacher in designing, implementing and evaluating challenging
programs for young children. A qualitative case study methodology was employed to
ensure that the voices of the children and the teacher-researcher were centrally located
in the research. The data included the teacher-researcher’s program plans and reflective
journal notes, children’s drawing-tellings and transcribed child interview data. Findings
highlight the capacities of the participating children to engage in the COPE-R program
and to demonstrate increased social emotional skill development—as evidenced through
being able to identify and give voice to social emotional issues, enact relational empathy,
demonstrate care for others and the environment, and recognise emotions in self and
others. Also, the findings provide insight into the role of the teacher in implementing the
COPE-R program, which enabled the participating children to give voice to a range of
social and emotional issues including empathy, reciprocity, generosity, kindness and joy.

Introduction entitled COPE-R (http://elc.unimelb.edu.au/#wellbeing).

Over recent years, there has been growing interest in the
recognition of the importance of helping young children
to understand their own emotions and the emotions of
others. Recent research (Belacchi & Farina, 2012; Parker,
Mathis & Kupersmidt, 2013) has identified that children
who demonstrate a capacity for comprehending the
emotions of self and others are in general perceived as
more empathic, adaptive and socially oriented. Mortari
(2011) acknowledges the significance of the development
of emotional competency for all people, noting that young
children are ‘capable of recognizing the emotions in other
subjects, revealing themselves capable of empathy’
(p. 345). Also, further evidence highlights the importance of
social and emotional skill development alongside academic
skills for success in school and beyond (Durlak, Weissberg,
Dymnicki, Taylor & Schellinger, 2011; Paulus et al., 2015).
This paper reports on a recently developed, implemented
and evaluated social emotional learning (SEL) program
This program is an outcome of long-term research (Cornell
et al., 2017; Frydenberg, Deans & Liang, 2014) that has
investigated preschool children’s coping and resilience. The
paper introduces the program and reports on its efficacy
with insight provided into one teacher’s approach to
teaching empathy, respect and care to a group of four-year-
old children enrolled in a long day inner-city preschool. The
COPE-R program was developed with the express purpose
of supporting preschool children in developing deeper
understandings of the complexity of the social world in
which they live, especially in relation to how personal
beliefs, values and desires are generated from within the
emotional realm. It was also developed within a theoretical
paradigm that acknowledges children’s theory of mind
(Apperly, 2010), which indicates that preschool children
have the cognitive capacity to attribute mental states to
self and others. This also involves the child’s capacity to
develop a range of skills such as: paying attention to others
and copying or modelling behaviours; recognising the

78 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

emotions of others and employing vocabulary to express
these (happy, sad, angry); acknowledging that they are
different from other people and have personal preferences
(food, play and clothing); understanding that emotions are
a result of circumstances (feeling hurt if not included in
play); and finally and most importantly, they can adopt the
persona of another in their play.
Building emotional competency in early
years programs
One of the fundamentals of preschool education is to
create learning environments that engage children with
the processes and experiences of belonging, being and
becoming (DEEWR, 2009). Through ongoing facilitation and
scaffolding by teachers, children develop self-confidence,
trust in others and learn to interact with peers with care,
empathy and respect. Early years Australian curricula
documents, including the Early Years Learning Framework
(DEEWR, 2009) and Victorian Early Years Learning and
Development Framework (DEECD, 2009) emphasise the
importance of social and emotional teaching and learning,
as it is recognised that development of skills in these
domains are foundational to children’s developing sense
of self, social wellbeing and agency.
Recent research (Frydenberg, Deans & Liang, 2014;
Myers, 2000; Smith, 2013) indicates that SEL programs
targeted at enhancing pro-social skills in preschool-aged
children have the ability to promote positive developmental
outcomes such as positive peer relationships, reduction
in externalising problems such as physical aggression and
enhanced emotional regulation (Carreras et al., 2014; Flook,
Goldberg, Pinger & Davidson, 2015). Common foundation
skills covered in SEL programs include understanding
emotions in oneself and others; caring for oneself and
others, and learning to be a good listener and a good
communicator (Durlak et al., 2011).
An early childhood environment in which children can
express healthy emotions, regulate them and understand
the emotions of self and others, all add up to a successful
preschool experience and also help children to cultivate
empathic capacity (Denham, Bassett & Zinsser, 2012).
Empathy is described as individuals being able to
understand and interpret the behaviour of others,
anticipate what someone else might do, and feel what
others are feeling and then respond to them (Allison,
Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Stone & Muncer, 2011;
Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). The establishment
of empathetic behaviours is considered to be important for
moral reasoning and overall pro-social behaviour (Decety,
2011; Feshbach & Feshbach, 2009). Baron-Cohen and
Wheelwright (2004) distinguish the cognitive from the
emotional dimension of empathy. While cognitive empathy
comprises of emotion recognition and perspective taking,
emotional empathy includes the phenomena of shared
79 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
feelings more adequately to another person’s situation
than to one’s own. A recent study revealed that emotional
empathy development is complete in the preschool years,
whereas cognitive empathy develops well into school
years (Schwenck et al., 2014).
Mortari (2011) has reported that young children (four
to seven years of age) are not only competent thinkers
and communicators about their own emotions and the
emotions of others, but they also have the capacity for
deep reflection, and develop complex arguments around
emotions when given conversational prompts and guided
by more competent partners. Frydenberg, Deans and
Liang (2014) demonstrated in their early years coping
skills research that children can learn helpful coping
skills through modelling by adults and interactions with
adults and children. In the educational context, this can
be achieved through direct teaching and the use of visual
tools such as the Early Years Coping Cards (Frydenberg &
Deans, 2011), role-plays and games that depict issues of
concern to children and how they might deal with them.
While the content and tools/resources that constitute an
SEL program in a preschool setting are important, a less
discussed topic in this arena is the paramount role that
teachers play to scaffold children’s learning throughout
the process of implementation of such programs. The
literature (Burdelski, 2010; Dachyshyn, 2015; Rosenthal
& Gatt, 2010) notes that the connection is strong between
early years teachers’ embodiment of and implementation
of SEL curriculum, and the development of social and
emotional competence of young children. Moreover, the
stability and security of the teacher (adult)–learner (child)
relationship directly influences SEL (DeMeulenaere, 2015;
Eisenberg, Cumberland & Spinrad, 1998). Teachers have
also been identified as playing a pivotal role in enhancing
SEL skills in children by creating a safe teaching and
learning environment for cultivating and expressing
emotions; modelling and developing empathic behaviours,
encouraging and facilitating productive coping, problem-
solving skills; shaping effective communication behaviours
through positive reinforcement; and most importantly,
weaving SEL into the school day and embodying
SEL concepts moment-by-moment (Caselman, 2007;
Miyamoto, Huerta & Kubacka, 2015; Rafaila, 2015).
The COPE-R program
The COPE-R program comprised of five sessions that
emphasised Care, Open communication, Politeness,
Empathy, with sessions allocated for Review (Table 1
elaborates on program details). It was delivered by the
teacher-researcher in large group learning situations over a
five-week period, with approximately 45 minutes dedicated
to each session. The COPE-R program was integrated
into the classroom curriculum, and from the outset, it
was defined and influenced by an ecologically oriented
thread (environmental key) that emerged as an outcome
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
of interest-driven curriculum (DEEWR, 2009) focusing on modalities such as role-playing, meditation, singing and
collectivity, connectedness and the common spirit of the visual art to focus their attention on the specialised content
group. The teacher established a ‘community of learners’ and to maintain their interest over time (Pianta, La Paro
(Rogoff, 1994) by engaging the children in a range of & Hamre, 2008).

Table 1. Overview of the COPE-R program

COPE-R sessions Aims/Objectives Learning experiences

Session 1: For the teacher to discuss
CARE feelings and to engage
in role play and focused
observation, with the aim
of interpreting each other’s
body language, facial
expressions and behaviours.
For the children to identify
and name and become
active in their awareness of
emotions of self and others.
Session 2: For the children and
OPEN teacher to collaborate
COMMUNICATION on brainstorming and
identify the qualities of
open communication, with
emphasis placed on seeing,
hearing, listening and
sensing.
Session 3: For the children and teacher
POLITENESS to discuss the concept of
politeness and to focus on
the quality of the children’s
and teacher’s personal
and close physical and
verbal interactions in the
classroom.
Session 4: For the children to be
EMPATHY introduced to the idea of
empathetic relating through Children to describe what it means to share.
engagement in role-play
scenarios based upon real
life relationships, encounters What can we share with others?
with close people and
communities, materials,
ideas and world issues.
Session 5: REVIEW For the children and teacher Creating a bank of words that communicate care, concern, empathy.
to review learning from
the previous four sessions
and cross-reference new
knowledge across all areas Japanese Tea Ceremony where the sharings of care, open
of the curriculum.
Whole group discussion:
Provocations:
How do we care for others and ourselves?
Can we be ‘feeling’ detectives?
Can we name good feelings that make our bodies happy and relaxed?
Can we name bad feelings that make our bodies feel hard and shaky?
Can you draw a picture of when you were caring for yourself or
another person?
Role-playing ‘good feelings’ and ‘bad feelings’.
Drawing-tellings that depict good or bad feelings or both.
Guided collaborative drawing that identifies what is needed to achieve
open communication. Use of Early Years Coping Cards to focus
children’s attention on what it looks like to be a good listener; body
language, eye contact, posture.
Role-play in pairs to enact open communication and focused listening.
Drawing-tellings that depict open communication.
Group discussion to clarify children’s understandings of the meaning of
politeness. Provocation: What does it mean to be polite?
Introduction of Early Years Coping Cards to stimulate conversation about
what polite behaviours look like.
Creating a list of words that communicate being polite.
Create a ‘mandala of silence’ using coloured stones and shells.
Drawing-tellings that depict polite behaviours. Words that communicate
polite and caring behaviours.
Group discussion including role-play that demonstrates different ways in
which we can demonstrate empathetic sharing.
Provocations:
How do other people see us if we don't share?
Develop the noise level chart.
Drawing-tellings that depict showing care and concern for self
and/or others.
Children to choose the word that resonates with them the most and
write this word on a name tag with string to hang on a ‘care and
respect tree’.
communication, politeness and empathy are enacted.
Creating a poster for the children to display, to remind them about the
importance of caring and sharing in the space.
Singing ‘Hello Little Apple Blossom’ and ‘Peter’s Song’.
Sharing of final thoughts as a celebration of new knowledge and
understandings.

80 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

Methodology
This qualitative study was located within the field of
practitioner research, as the teacher implementing the
program was also a member of the research team. In
educational environments, practitioner research has been
promoted by a number of authors in relation to curriculum
reform and development, by acknowledging the important
role that teachers can play as researchers with a view
to advancing their own practice (Kemmis & McTaggart,
2000; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). This idea encompasses
the notion of practitioner research having a clear purpose,
which implies that the research includes a systematic
investigation that draws the practitioner into a cycle of
critical reflection (Schön, 1983).
Practitioner research enables:
¡¡ an increased commitment to developing and
understanding teaching practice
¡¡ teachers to keep up-to-date with contemporary
information and research literature
¡¡ the development of analytical skills that enable critical
reflection on personal values and beliefs as they relate
to teaching practice
¡¡ an increased capacity to reason, deliberate and make
ethical-practical judgements
¡¡ teachers to be more open to their work as a
professional, and also provides validation of the
professional contribution of the individual (Clarke &
Erickson, 2003; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Mills,
2003; Stremmel, 2002).
For this research, the primacy of the teacher-researcher
role was identified on the understanding that not only
would the research include the voices of children but
it would also direct attention towards uncovering the
impact of the teacher’s knowledge, understandings and
judgements on the children’s learning. Hence, there was
no attempt to separate out the teacher-researcher from the
research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) but rather to accept the
transcripts that were generated via teacher observations
as subjective outcomes of ‘active looking’ (DeWalt &
DeWalt, 2002), or as ‘written photographs’ (Erlandson,
Harris, Skipper & Allen, 1993) of both the children’s
responses and the SEL program.
A case study approach was adopted to allow a holistic
examination of the phenomena (Jorgensen, 1989;
Neuman, 2006). For the purpose of this research, it was
the investigation of the lived experience (van Manen, 1990)
of the children’s social emotional learning and the role
of the teacher in supporting the learning. Taking a case
study approach offers the researcher an opportunity to
undertake an investigation of phenomena over time and
to design, implement and report on research that is unique
or singular for a particular reason (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000;
Neuman, 2006).
81 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Locating the study ethically
Ethics approval was granted by the Human Ethics Research
Committee, at the university where the study was undertaken
(HERC Project No: 1135950) prior to the commencement
of the research. Parent(s) of each of the children provided
informed consent for their children’s participation and for the
use of de-identified data as part of the program evaluation
for research. Consistent with the rights-based literature
(Cameron, 2005; Mayall, 2000), especially in relation to how
children are provided with information about any research
in which they might participate, the teacher-researcher and
the researchers met with the children and explained the
research process and the nature of the intended COPE-R
program. The children were also provided with additional
information about the research and how the children’s
involvement would help teachers in the future to better
understand how to help children learn. It was also made
clear to the children that non-participation was also a choice.
All of the participating children gave verbal consent to the
teacher-researcher during their circle discussion time before
the commencement of the COPE-R program.
The participants and the setting
Thirty-eight four- and five-year-old children and their
teacher from an inner-Melbourne city long day preschool
program participated in the research. The teacher-
researcher implemented the COPE-R program as part of
the mainstream program. The practitioner-researcher had
previous experience of being a member of a research team.
The data
The data included the teacher-researcher’s program plans
and reflective journal notes, children’s drawing-tellings
(Wright, 2007a, 2007b) (which were collected at the
completion of each session) and child interview data, which
was collected throughout the program and transcribed.
Drawing-tellings
At the conclusion of each COPE-R session, the children
were invited to draw something they had remembered from
the session. The teacher-researcher moved throughout
the group giving one-on-one time to enable individuals to
share their drawings and to add a descriptive narrative,
which was transcribed verbatim by the teacher-researcher.
Drawing-tellings, as a primary data source, provided an
accessible technique for collecting meaningful information
from the children, and allowed them to participate directly
and effectively in the research. Piaget (1962) commented
that a child’s art represents a replica of his/her thinking;
hence, the visual record created by each participating child
at the conclusion of the COPE-R session involved the
children in the immediate identification and re-visitation of
thoughts, feelings, images and actions experienced during
the session. Drawing has been identified as one of the
preferred modes of expression for children in the early
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
childhood years (Burkitt, Barrett & Davis, 2005; Docket &
Perry, 2005) and, as such, offers a non-threatening means of
collecting meaningful data. A number of prominent authors
(Cameron, 2005; Dockett & Perry, 2005; Scott Frisch, 2006;
Wright, 2007a, 2007b) also argue that children’s drawings
provide an insight into how children make meaning of their
lived experience. Merriman and Guerin (2006) note that
‘child-centred research which shows respect for children
and promotes their entitlement to be considered as persons
of values and persons with rights’ (p. 48), often employs
drawing to help researchers access the perspectives of the
young child. From a research perspective, when drawing
is combined with verbal narrative, additional insight into
the child’s experience is captured. As language is attached
to lived experience (Wittgenstein, 1967), and words, in
effect, are socially fashioned mediatory devices that are
an end product of thinking (Vygotsky, 1986), the record
of children’s verbal descriptions of their drawings added
additional dimension to this data set.
Program plans and journal notes
As noted earlier, the teacher of the COPE-R program was
also a member of the research team and, consequently,
undertook a dual but complementary role in the research
process. There was no intention to separate the two roles,
but rather acknowledge that the combined experience
brought to the program design could only benefit the study.
The teacher-researcher was the person responsible for the
implementation and evaluation of the COPE-R program and,
as such, undertook comprehensive and systematic program
planning and journaling, which was used throughout the
data collection to support ongoing reflective practice
(Schön, 1983, 1987). These documents also provided
ongoing insight to enable the development and extension
of the program. Children’s interests and ideas were also
incorporated into the program planning cycle; an approach
that ensured alignment with child rights perspectives.
Analysis
The analysis first involved a broad sweep of the entire
collection of drawing-tellings (n = 60), the aim being
to uncover the main categories and themes that were
represented across the sample. Secondly, a content
analysis was undertaken of all individual child drawing-
tellings, with a view to identifying how individual children
used graphic representations and narratives to explain their
social emotional understandings. The teacher-researcher
program plans and reflective journal notes and the child
interview transcripts were subjected to a content analysis
and verified by two researchers independently. This process
involved word-based or line-by-line coding, which aimed to
identify patterns or categories of description put forward
by the participants in the research process (Richards,
2001; Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). In this
research, such coding ensured that the children’s and
82 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
teacher-researcher’s words and actions were embedded
in the analysis; a position that is commensurate with the
research paradigm that aimed to uncover both the voices
of the participating children and their lived experience of
the COPE-R program.
Findings and discussion
Analysis of data evidenced the capacities of all participating
children (n = 38) to engage in the COPE-R program and to
demonstrate a range of emotional competencies that included:
¡¡ giving voice to social emotional issues
¡¡ enacting relational empathy
¡¡ demonstrating care for others and the environment
¡¡ recognising emotions in self and others.
Giving voice to social emotional issues
The data in the form of drawing-tellings, collaborative
posters and teacher-researcher journal notes evidenced
a wide range of words to describe their ‘good/pleasant
feelings that make our bodies happy and relaxed’. These
included: joyous, silly, surprised, loving, caring, trusting,
friendly and sunny. They also identified a corresponding
list of words that described ‘hard/unpleasant feelings that
make our bodies hard or shaky and jelly-fish like’. These
included: grumpy, sad, cross, annoyed, going bananas,
bored, mad, frustrated, scatty and having a yellow minute.
The teacher-researcher journal notes and the drawing-
tellings demonstrated a heightened awareness of social
emotional confidence, which was also expressed through
their actions towards their friends and through their
articulation of a wide range of emotional issues. As noted
by Dacey and Lennon (1998), ‘Agency is the capacity to
act intentionally. When people view their own ability to do
something, they assume the freedom to act with intention.
Before acting they must believe in their self-efficacy’
(p. 181). The findings indicate that the participating
children embraced their personal responsibility for naming
emotions, and enthusiastically engaged in collaborative
discussions about social emotional issues.
Enacting relational care and empathy for others and
the environment
The concept of empathy can be viewed as the building block
for relationships because it refers to an individual’s capacity
to understand and even embody the perspectives, needs
and intentions of others (Gallese, 2003). The children’s
focused engagement in the COPE-R program highlighted
their capacity to question not just what they knew about
care between and for humans, but also their perception
of care between humans and the environment. There was
extensive evidence through the drawing-tellings that the
children were able to consistently graphically represent
and explain their involvement in the care of their friends,
the immediate environment and the world. For example:
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
¡¡ ‘When you care, you look at someone and listen.’ Children openly shared their emotions. For example, one
¡¡ ‘I am caring for my sister. She is learning to walk and child’s drawing-telling communicated deeply felt emotion
I use my hands to make her feel strong.’ (Figure 2):
¡¡ ‘My dad felt like not going to work one day. He works When I felt sad, my friends came around me and they said,
very hard. I made him a vegemite sandwich and a cup ‘let’s go and play together’. I wasn’t crying, but I felt like
of coffee to help him feel better. After his breakfast, crying; my eyes felt sad. When I was sad, it felt like there
he felt better.’ was a dark sun in the sky. When my friends came to talk
to me, it felt like the sun was shining in the sky again.
¡¡ ‘To share, you must be kind and listen to a person,
and ask for something in a nice way.’
The children also expressed wishes for a more sustainable
and peaceful future, for example:
¡¡ ‘We should melt all the guns and turn them into
beautiful things.’
¡¡ ‘We should connect all the waters of the world.’
¡¡ ‘Every human is precious.’
The teacher-researcher journal notes recorded the
children’s understandings of polite/non-polite behaviours.
The transcripts noted that the children’s list of traditional and
newly-invented polite expressions were applied daily in the
classroom and revisited on many occasions such as during
meal times, greetings and communication. These included:
excuse me; may I; could I; I appreciate this; oh, this is lovely;
my pleasure, darling; just a gentle reminder; hedgehog’s Figure 2. Sharing emotions through drawing-telling
little hands. The teacher-researcher journal notes also
highlighted the children’s developing awareness of cultural For the young child, the development of empathy for others
differences in relation to polite behaviours. For example, is ongoing (Feschbach & Feschbach, 2009) and contingent
one child from an Arabic/Asian background commented that on developing cognitive and emotional skills that enable the
‘politeness is being soft with a kind voice when speaking child to not only assume the perspective of another person
with others, gently bowing and sometimes even closing but also to be able to feel and understand the emotional
your eyes’. In response to engagement in a Japanese Tea state of the person or the experience. In this study, the
Ceremony (Figure 1), another child noted ‘a quiet, beautiful children were observed as responding empathetically to
and friendly space, and sharing from one pot makes us others and paying attention to their intentions. As noted
kind and polite. When you are calm, it’s easier to be polite by Berrol (2006), feeling empathetic is understood to have
because you say your words with kindness’. its roots both in the brain and in the body, with scholars
Feschbach and Feschbach (2009) and Hoffman (2000)
identifying that in order to share and respond to another
person’s physical and emotional experience, the child needs
to first experience it him/herself.

Appreciating the emotions of self, others and spaces

The findings evidenced the children’s commitment to
appreciating their own emotions and the emotions of their
peers. A significant outcome of a collaborative learning
experience was the creation of a poster that represented
listening with your whole body. The resultant collaborative
drawing of a ‘good listener’ depicted a person listening with
his/her brain (open brain), eyes (clear, bright and focused),
ears, whole body (calm and tall) and heart (gentle, especially
when a person is sad or angry). One child said: ‘listening is
more than just hearing, it’s concentrating with your whole
Figure 1. Experiencing reverence through a Japanese body; you need to listen to your friends with your whole
Tea Ceremony body’ (Figure 3).

83 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017


Figure 3. Good listening: Concentrating with your
whole body
The children also demonstrated their appreciation for and
sensitivity to their surroundings, and in doing so, extended
the reach of their social emotional understandings to
include the appreciation for the emotion of spaces. The
teacher-researcher led the children into the development
of a ‘noise level chart’, with colours selected by the
children to correspond to noise levels. White being the
softest, whispering sound, blue being soft and normal,
green being an optimal loud sound, orange being very
loud but not alarming, and red being the shouting, angry
sound. The significance of silence was also identified in the
teacher-researcher journal notes as being important with
children engaging in meditation and creating soft, quiet,
peaceful spaces in the playroom. The teacher-researcher
journal notes also uncovered how aesthetically pleasing
and open-ended play materials such as stones, crystals
and glass stimulated the children to express their social
and emotional connections. The children took the initiative
to develop collaboratively what they entitled The mandala
of silences, which was reverently created with stones,
feathers and other precious objects that they found in
their playroom.
Limitations of the study
As all researchers would agree, every research design
comes with a set of strengths and, unavoidably, some
weaknesses (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). Through
the adoption of the case study approach, this research
was limited by the very nature of a single case and by the
84 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
number of participating children that made up the sample
for the study. On the one hand, this could be considered
a limitation of the study, but as has been evidenced by
the strength of the data generated, the study was able to
capture the lived experience of the teacher-researcher and
a group of children as they embarked on their collaborative
COPE-R learning journey. It might be, however, that in
another setting with a different teacher and different
children, the practices and outcomes reflected in this
study might not correspond. Such diversity is understood
and accepted in early childhood settings. Nevertheless,
the nature of this research was such that it is likely that
the COPE-R program and the idea of practitioner-research
would resonate with and interest other teachers.
Conclusion
This paper has presented evidence that highlights the
capacity of young children to deeply reflect upon and make
comments about emotions and relationships. What has
been uncovered is that the children, who participated in
the study, had many ideas when it came to finding ways
to problem-solve and communicate their understandings of
Care, Open communication, Politeness and Empathy. The
paper has showcased one teacher-researcher’s journey
to enact the recently-developed COPE-R program, which
was implemented and systematically documented to guide
one group of children’s growing understandings of what it
means to be a caring and empathetic member of a group
that respects the opinions and feelings of others.
Through intentional scaffolding and by following the lead
of the children, the teacher-researcher facilitated the
establishment of a caring community of learners (Rogoff,
1994) who worked together to create a harmonious
platform from which all members could grow and learn.
The findings draw attention to how the program stimulated,
supported and led to a significant change in the emotional
climate of the group. It can be noted that the implications
of this research point to the relevance and efficacy of the
COPE-R program to support young children’s developing
capacity to embrace their personal and collective emotional
lives, and give voice to shared values, beliefs and practices
(Calloway-Thomas, 2010; Dachyshyn, 2015), which
enable the enactment of empathy, reciprocity, generosity,
kindness and joy.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the following Master
of Educational Psychology students of the University
of Melbourne: Chelsea Jane Cornell, Danielle Kaufman,
Neisha Kiernan and Prishni Dobee, who formulated the
COPE-R program described in this paper. We would also
like to acknowledge all the children and staff at the early
learning centre who participated in this program.
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
ORCID iD/s
Jan Deans: orcid.org/0000-0003-4386-6050
Rachel Liang: orcid.org/0000-0002-1517-9969
Erica Frydenberg: orcid.org/0000-0002-2083-4913
References
Allison, C., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Stone, M.,
& Muncer, S. (2011). Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient
(EQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 51(7), 829–835.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.005
Apperly, I. (2010). Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of ‘theory of
mind’. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy
quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or
high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175.
Belacchi, C., & Farina, E. (2012). Feeling and thinking of others:
Affective and cognitive empathy and emotion comprehension
in prosocial/hostile preschoolers. Aggressive Behavior, 38(2),
150–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21415
Berrol, C. (2006). Neuroscience meets dance/movement therapy:
Mirror neurons, the therapeutic process and empathy. The Arts in
Psychotherapy, 33(4), 302–315.
Burdelski, M. (2010). Socializing politeness routines: Action, other-
orientation, and embodiment in a Japanese preschool. Journal
of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1606–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pragma.2009.11.007
Burkitt, E., Barrett, M., & Davis, A. (2005). Drawings of emotionally
characterised figures by children from different educational
backgrounds. The International Journal of Art and Design
Education, 24(1), 71–83.
Calloway-Thomas, C. (2010). Empathy in the global world:
An intercultural perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Cameron, H. (2005). Asking the tough questions: A guide to ethical
practices in interviewing young children. Early Child Development
and Care, 175(6), 597–610.
Carreras, M. R., Braza, P., Muñoz, J. M., Braza, F., Azurmendi,
A., Pascual-Sagastizabal, E., ... Sánchez-Martín, J. R. (2014).
Aggression and prosocial behaviours in social conflicts mediating
the influence of cold social intelligence and affective empathy on
children’s social preference. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
55(4), 371–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12126
Caselman, T. (2007). Teaching children empathy, the social
emotion: Lessons, activities and reproducible worksheets (K-6)
that teach how to ‘step into other’s shoes’. Chapin, SC: YouthLight
Incorporated.
Clarke, A., & Erickson, G. (Eds.). (2003). Teacher inquiry: Living
the research in everyday practice. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
Cornell, C., Kiernan, N., Kaufman, D., Dobee, P., Frydenberg, E., &
Deans, J. (2017). Developing social emotional competence in the
early years. In E. Frydenberg, A. Martin & R. Collie (Eds.), Social and
emotional learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives,
programs and approaches (pp. 391–412). Singapore: Springer.
Dacey, J. S., & Lennon, K. H. (1998). Understanding creativity.
The interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
85 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Dachyshyn, D. M. (2015). Being mindful, heartful, and
ecological in early years care and education. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood, 16(1), 32–41. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1463949114566756
Decety, J. (2011). The neuroevolution of empathy. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1231, 35–45.
DeMeulenaere, M. (2015). Promoting social and emotional learning
in preschool. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 43(1), 8–10.
Denham, S., Bassett, H., & Zinsser, K. (2012). Early childhood
teachers as socializers of young children’s emotional competence.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(3), 137–143.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
(DEECD). (2009). Victorian Early Years Learning and Development
Framework. Melbourne, Vic.: Early Childhood Strategy Division,
DEECD, and Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
(DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, Being & Becoming: The Early Years
Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth
of Australia.
DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation:
A guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2005). Children’s drawings: Experiences
and expectations of school. International Journal of Equity and
Innovation in Early Childhood, 3(2), 77–89.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., &
Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social
and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal
interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental
socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993).
Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (2009). Empathy and education.
In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy
(pp. 85–98). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015).
Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in preschool
children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum.
Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 44–51.
Frydenberg, E., & Deans, J. (2011). The early years coping cards.
Melbourne, Vic.: ACER Press.
Frydenberg, E., Deans, J., & Liang, R. (2014). Families can do
coping: Parenting skills in the early years. Children Australia,
39(2), 99–106.
Gallese, V. (2003). The roots of empathy: The shared
manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity.
Psychopathology, 36(4), 171–180.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development:
Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology
for human studies. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–606). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
Mayall, B. (2000). The sociology of childhood in relation to children’s Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2001). Surveys and
rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 8(3), 243–259. questionnaires: An evaluative case study. In G. Mac Naughton,
S. Rolfe & I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research:
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education:
International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 149–161).
Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn
Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
and Bacon.
Smith, C. A. (2013). Beyond ‘I’m sorry’: The educator’s role in
Merriman, B., & Guerin, S. (2006). Using children’s drawings as
preschoolers’ emergence of conscience. YC: Young Children,
data in child-centred research. The Irish Journal of Psychology,
68(1), 76–82.
27(1–2), 48–57.
Stremmel, A. (2002). Teacher research: Nurturing professional and
Mills, G. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher
personal growth through inquiry. Young Children, 57(5), 62–70.
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human
Miyamoto, K., Huerta, M. C., & Kubacka, K. (2015). Fostering social
science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, ON: University
and emotional skills for well-being and social progress. European
of West Ontario.
Journal of Education, 50(2), 147–159.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:
Mortari, L. (2011). Thinking silently in the woods: Listening to
MIT Press.
children speaking about emotion. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 19(3), 345–356. http://dx.doi.org/1 Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations (2nd ed.).
0.1080/1350293X.2011.597966 Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Myers, D.G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. Wright, S. (2007a). Graphic-narrative play: Young children’s
American Psychologist, 55(1), 56–67. authoring through drawing and telling. International Journal of
Education and the Arts, 8(8), 1–28.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Wright, S. (2007b). Young children’s meaning-making through
drawing and ‘telling’: Analogies to filmic textual features. Australian
Parker, A. E., Mathis, E. T., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (2013). How is
Journal of Early Childhood, 32(4), 37–48.
this child feeling? Preschool-aged children’s ability to recognize
emotion in faces and body poses. Early Education & Development, Zeichner, K., & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner research.
24(2), 188–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.657536 In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.,
pp. 298–330). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Paulus, M., Licata, M., Kristen, S., Thoermer, C., Woodward,
Association.
A., & Sodian, B. (2015). Social understanding and self-regulation
predict pre-schoolers’ sharing with friends and disliked peers:
A longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioural
Development, 39(1), 53–64.
Piaget, J. (1962). The language and thought of the child. London,
UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pianta, R., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom
Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing.
Rafaila, E. (2015). The competent teacher for teaching emotional
intelligence. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180,
953–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.253
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language
teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of
communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4),
209–229.
Rosenthal, M., & Gatt, L. (2010). ‘Learning to live together’:
Training early childhood educators to promote socio-emotional
competence of toddlers and pre-school children. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(3), 223–240.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals
think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward
a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwenck, C., Göhle, B., Hauf, J., Warnke, A., Freitag, C. M., &
Schneider, W. (2014). Cognitive and emotional empathy in typically
developing children: The influence of age, gender, and intelligence.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(1), 63–76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2013.808994
Scott Frisch, N. (2006). Drawing in preschools: A didactic
experience. The International Journal of Art and Design Education,
25(1), 74–85.

86 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

 Civic action and learning with a community of Aboriginal
Australian young children
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.10

Louise Gwenneth Phillips

Kerryn Moroney
University of Queensland

CIVICS AND CITIZENSHIP ARE increasingly used in early childhood education policy, but
what citizenship and civic learning can be for young children is under-researched and
lacking definition. Drawing from the Australian findings of the major study Civic action
and learning with young children: Comparing approaches in Australia, New Zealand,
and the United States, this article shares evidence of civic capacities that a community of
young Aboriginal Australian children demonstrate in an early childhood education and
care centre. Communitarian citizenship theory provides a framework for citizenship that is
accessible for young children by focusing on families, communities and neighbourhoods.
Cultural readings of illustrative examples on how young Aboriginal children express civic
identity, collective responsibility, civic agency, civic deliberation and civic participation are
discussed, highlighting how cultural values shape civic action. Links to state and national
early childhood curricula are provided to guide others to further support civic learning in
early childhood education.

Introduction (Phillips, 2016). The focus of the Statement is on specifying

We are concerned about the lack of support for children as
contributing citizens. Not nation–state citizenship but ‘what
it means to be a political agent’ (Tijsterman, 2014, p. 178),
that is, what it means to have rights and responsibilities in
the polis—the public sphere. Children are aware of social
and political issues, and are capable of discussing such
issues and offer workable suggestions. As Louise found
when sharing persona doll stories (2005) and later when
she shared a broad range of social justice stories with
young children (2010); and as have many others in varying
studies with young children (e.g. Bartlett, 2008; Davis,
2010). Throughout her research, Louise has witnessed
young children initiating social actions to redress injustices
as active citizenship, as active contributors to the social
cohesion of society (e.g. Phillips, 2010, 2011).
The word ‘citizen’ is increasingly being used in early
childhood education policy, for example, Supporting
young children’s rights: Statement of intent (2015–2018)
(Australian Human Rights Commission & ECA, 2015)
names ‘Engaged civics and citizenship’ as one of its
five themes. The Statement of Intent (the Statement)
is a landmark document renowned internationally for
embedding actions for children to know their rights
educator roles, for instance, to ‘recognise children as active
citizens who have a role in contributing to their broader
community whilst respecting and acknowledging each
child’s evolving capacity’ (p. 12). Though, what a child as an
active citizen can be is not specified—aside from: someone
who exercises ‘civic rights and responsibilities’, and is ‘a
participant in the digital world’ (p. 13). People generally
don’t know what citizenship can be for children, potentially
due to the pronounced lack of studies in the early years, as
noted in the Spencer Foundation’s commissioned review
of empirical research in civic learning and action research
in K–12 education (Flanagan, 2012). To date, there have
been few studies on young children’s citizenship in early
childhood settings (e.g. Bath & Karlsson, 2016; Page, 2008)
and these studies have largely been with middle class,
well-resourced children.
This noticeable gap in research on children’s citizenship
for marginalised children in early childhood settings,
motivated Jenn Keys Adair (University of Texas), Jenny
Ritchie (University of Victoria, Wellington) and Louise to
develop a three-year ethnographic study titled Civic action
and learning with young children: Comparing approaches in
Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (funded by

87 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

the Spencer Foundation). We sought to understand what
citizenship could mean in early childhood by identifying:
¡¡ civic actions that young children demonstrate
¡¡ educational strategies and/or environments that
cultivate authentic civic action in young children in
kindergarten settings
¡¡ national and cultural conceptualisations of young
children, and their role in mediating children, family
and teacher participation in civic action.
Australian findings from this study with an Aboriginal
early childhood education and care centre are discussed
in this article. To our knowledge, this is the first study
to investigate citizenship for Aboriginal children in early
childhood education.
Citizenship theory
We looked to communitarian citizenship as it aligned
with the study’s interests in community participation
and community and cultural framing of citizenship.
Communitarian ‘citizenship is rooted in a culturally
defined community’; it aims for a cohesive and just
society (Delanty, 2002, p. 161), and is about preservation
of identity and participation in the political community.
Emphasis is placed on purposeful group action to create a
cohesive, just society through care and concern for fellow
community members, expressed through responsibility
to the community (Delanty, 2002). Recent theorising of a
notion of children’s citizenship builds on communitarian
understandings of citizenship, making a case for children’s
agency in the public sphere or wider community (Lister,
2007). There is a growing movement of community
initiatives, which actively seek and support children’s
contributions (e.g. City of Port Philip, 2011; Saballa, Mac
Naughton & Smith, 2008). We see that communitarian
citizenship has applicability in the polis spaces that
children do have access to—early childhood settings.
Early childhood settings are, for many children, their first
entry into the polis (a community of unknown others) (Mac
Naughton 2007), thereby offering a shared space in which
children can explore negotiation of group action.
In our readings of communitarian citizenship literature, we
identified five key concepts:
1. Civic identity (who am I in the community), which
is about how your identity is defined in community
participation.
2. Collective responsibility (care for others), which is
enacted care and concern for others—responsibility
to the community.
3. Civic agency (what can I do), which includes the
possibilities and parameters of action of members in
community participation.
88 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
4. Civic deliberation (considering different points of view),
which is the consideration of varying values in diverse
communities.
5. Civic participation (inclusion and action), which is
collective action for the good of all in the community.
These concepts provided a guide for our ethnographic
observations of marginalised young children in early
childhood education settings in three nations, to explore
and define possibilities of what we witnessed these young
children demonstrate in their negotiations of sharing
spaces with groups of others. The following information
details the tri-nation research design and ethical issues of
researching with an Aboriginal community, before sharing
findings of children’s demonstrated civic actions at an
Aboriginal early childhood education and care centre.
Research design
Approximately nine months were spent engaging in
participant observation (documented via detailed field
notes and video recordings) of children’s participation at
a kindergarten in each respective nation. Video footage
was played back to the children, educators and families of
each site, to collectively share interpretation. Site-selected
video footage was shared with the other sites for tri-
nation interpretative dialogues, a methodology referred
to as video-cued ethnography (Tobin & Hsueh, 2007).
Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America
were selected to compare how these nations’ different
approaches to cultural marginalisation in early childhood
influence citizenship for marginalised young children. We
knew that support for young children as citizens was
only emerging in these three nations’ early childhood
education policy, curricula, literature and discourse, with
most empirical examples of children as active citizens
being located in well-resourced communities (e.g. Bath &
Karlsson, 2016; Page, 2008; Phillips, 2010, 2011). We then
wondered what was possible for first nations’ children,
embedded in intergenerational trauma from a legacy of
colonisation and institutional racism. This article focuses
on learnings from spending nine months with an Aboriginal
Australian-governed early childhood education and care
centre in a regional Aboriginal community.
Entering Aboriginal community methodology
Scientific research has a legacy of tyranny for colonised
peoples across the globe (Smith, 2012). Aboriginal children
have been part of the Aboriginal Australian experience of
being over-researched, without permission, consultation
or involvement of Aboriginal people—generating mistrust,
animosity and resistance in communities. Researching
young children (generally) can and often is a colonising
practice, through unequal power structures with adults
determining what, how and who is researched, often
subjectifying and oversimplifying children for adult
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
knowledge gain (Cannella & Viruru, 2004). With grave
concern and sensitivity to these injustices, relationship-
building was foregrounded over research agendas. In
respect for community protocols and cultural safety, Louise
discussed the project with Kerryn (a Luritja woman) who
had a six-year-plus relationship with Buranba (community
selected pseudonym meaning ‘westerly winds’ in
community language) childcare community as a mentor.
Kerryn then discussed Louise’s story and the project with
the community and early childhood leaders at Buranba,
who expressed interest in hearing more.
Buranba is a Budget Based Funded long day care program
(a national government funding scheme for operational
Figure 1. Children using a camera
funding of the service due to the regional community’s
reduced resources) that was established by Aboriginal
women in the community. It is one of the few Aboriginal-
governed early childhood facilities in Australia. We visited a
few times over 15 months to talk with staff and community
about the centre, community, early childhood education and
the project. We explained the project in terms of children
having a voice, rights and being active contributors to
community. This lengthy process of talking and meeting
was necessary to build community trust and gain consent
from community, before obtaining ethical clearance approval
from The University of Queensland’s Behavioural and Social
Sciences Ethical Review Committee. Then we sought
individual consent from educators, children and families for
participation with a kindergarten group of four- to five-year- Figure 2. Children using researcher notebooks
olds. To decolonise conventional research methodologies,
in which the researcher must not influence the research Observed civic actions
context and participants are surveyed as specimens (Smith, With the defined frame of civic concepts of civic identity,
2012), we became involved in the everyday practices of collective responsibility, civic agency, civic deliberation and
Buranba. We are both early childhood teachers, so we civic participation, we journaled and videoed children’s
joined in the children’s activities and co-played, building observed civic actions. We were mostly located with the
relationships and getting to know the children. We three- to four-year-old class. But as the centre provides
played with the children and took part in the daily caring care and education for children from birth to five years,
activities. We did everything the educators did. This is a it operates as a community, so we spent time with each
core cultural value—if you are there, you are responsible, age group. Evidence of each of the five civic concepts
so you contribute. After a few days, we introduced the opens with a citizenship theory explanation, then the tabled
video camera—showing the children what it did and asking illustrative data samples are discussed through cultural
their verbal consent to be filmed. We also had a consent readings collated from conversations with Aboriginal
form with pictures asking the children to tick what they researchers, educators and community members about
agreed to. The camera’s built-in projector enabled footage observations and video recordings of children’s civic
to easily be played back to the children at group time, so actions. These cultural readings offer explanations of how
they could see and comment on what we were doing. To community cultural values permeate children’s civic actions.
nurture the core values of reciprocity and participation in Then, key focuses and learning areas in the Foundations for
research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Success (The State of Queensland Department of Education
(AIATSIS, 2012; NHMRC, Australian Research Council & and Training, 2016) are identified to illustrate how civic
Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee, 2007), we did learning is central to early childhood curricula, and to support
what they did, so they did what we did; cameras were readers to further evidence civic learning and action in their
shared with the children (Figure 1), along with our notebooks practice. Though each concept is discussed one at a time,
(Figure 2). Consultation with children, educators and as a means of organising and explaining the evidence, each
community members occurred throughout the design, data concept does not operate in isolation.
collection and dissemination of the project, and will continue
to occur, as the relationships nurtured are for life.

89 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

Many observed actions and curricula references cut across
multiple civic concepts. The lists of observed civic actions
are not by any means complete lists of what was observed
across nine months, but instead illustrate an overview of
these children’s demonstrated civic actions.
Civic identity
Civic identities are personal and group identities formed
and negotiated in relation to one’s presence, role and
participation in public life (Troup, 2010). Across the
nine months of being with the Buranba children, they
demonstrated their civic identities in varied ways (Table 1).
Buranba is in a town of only Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples. When children start at the centre, they
usually know other children through extended family and
kinship ties. Their extended family is their community—
who they belong to. As Coco (educator) explains: ‘We are
all one family here in this community’. Children already
settled at the centre look after their newly enrolled sibling or
cousin by ensuring they are included in play and sitting beside
them at meal times (see 30/07/2015 and 18/11/2015 entries).
Once familiar with Buranba, this widens to include all the
children in their class group and even the whole centre. The
children also frequently referred to key sites (see 11/06/2015,
12/06/2015, 5/10/2015 and 7/10/2015 entries) and events
in their local community, and relished Aboriginal and Torres
Strait cultural experiences through stories, songs and art (see
11/11/2015 entry). Civic identity meant knowing, honouring
and celebrating kinship ties, community and Aboriginality.
As Sylvia (Elder) proclaimed: ‘You can’t go forward without
knowing where you’re coming from’.
The cultural nuances of civic identity are supported through
the Foundations for Success, Learning Area of ‘being
proud and strong’, which is about children developing
‘pride and strength in personal and cultural identity and
sharing a sense of belonging and connectedness’ (Identity
and Belonginging, point 1). The children at Buranba
demonstrated pride in their culture and connectedness
to kin and Country.
Collective responsibility
Collective responsibility is frequently referred to in
citizenship literature, particularly in communitarian
citizenship. In recognition of a biocentric world, with
multiple living beings (not just humans), we use the
term collective responsibility to infer that responsibility is
shared, not just for other humans, rather responsibility for
all living beings, environments and objects.
The children at Buranba demonstrated a strong sense of
collective responsibility for each other and the environment
(Table 2). Their care for each other was particularly resonant,
with this being the most frequently demonstrated civic
concept by far. As Janelle (educator) shared: ‘We care in

Table 1. Evidence of civic identity observed

Civic concept Practices Data examples

Identifying self and
others
Naming community to
which they belong
Pride in achievements
Naming places in their
community
Civic identity Honouring cultural
responsibilities of
Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander family
structures
Group identity
Interest in cultural
heritage
Naming self and each other in video clips (11/06/2015)
Introducing classmates to researchers (30/07/2015)
Jack declares community he lives in (7/10/2015)
Jack and Talia proudly point out Aboriginal Country where their family
members come from on Aboriginal Australia map (5/10/2015)
Jack climbed a tree, I took a photo. He then said: ‘Show it to the other
kids, hey’ (7/10/2015)
On community walk, children pointed out the community cultural
centre, shop and helicopter landing pad (11/06/2015)
Jedda points at photo of yarning circle and says: ‘Not allowed’
(12/06/2015)
Aiden’s brother cousin minds his chair for him at lunch table (30/7/2015)
Jakirra gives two handfuls of new sand to her sister through the fence
(18/11/2015)
Jack, Quincey and Cedric all had headbands tied around their heads and
climbed up a tree: ‘We are turtles’ (18/08/2015)
Children keenly watch and ask questions on Aboriginal cave painting in
First Footprints DVD (11/11/2015)
Children are fascinated when Kerryn grinds rock to make ochre paint.
Talia proudly tells her brother, ‘We made paint from rocks’ (11/11/2015)

90 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

this community’, and Sylvia, an Elder, in the community
explained: ‘Cos you’re not being a proper blackfella unless
you think of others in your mob’. Children, who have barely
begun to walk, reach out to comfort crying babies. Older
children know it is their responsibility to care and look out
for younger children, and generally, all children know to look
out for their mob (see 11/06/2015 entry). Across our 30-plus
visits, we never saw a child left out or being ostracised.
Even when a child was really angry, when instincts might
suggest it would be safer to stay clear, another child would
come by and offer a play item, food or just watch from afar
until the child settled (see 11/06/2015 entry).
There was also a frequent demonstration of collective
responsibility for cleaning, especially amongst the girls
(see 19/08/2015 and 6/10/2015 entries). Wet wipes were
frequently used to wipe down doll beds, clean mirrors and
tables. The most notable action was when all 10 children
(aged one to five) in the Echidna Room followed two four-
year-old girls’ lead in wiping paint off a table with wet
wipes (see 19/08/2015 entry). Kerryn, read the recurrent
cleaning practice from her own experiences of child rearing
in community and as embodied intergenerational links of
Aboriginal people having to prove themselves as house
proud, even if the benefits of owning home and land in

Table 2. Evidence of collective responsibility observed

Civic concept Practices Data examples

Providing comfort Aiden was crying because he had sore feet. Jakirra sat next to him and
to someone hurt stroked his toes, offering a sympathetic look and said, ‘Aww’ (12/06/2015)

Sharing food Jakirra shared the last cracker with Jack and Quincey (6/10/2015)

Kylea wet a paper towel and cleaned the mirror in the bathroom (6/10/2015)
Cleaning shared After painting cardboard shapes, one by one, all the children in the
spaces Echidna Room (mixed age group) get wet wipes to wipe paint off the table
(19/08/2015)
Providing for
Ezra initiated getting a cup of water for his classmates at lunch (7/10/2015)
others
Looking out for As Antony was crying, Alisa watched him through the whole time he was
each other distressed (11/06/2015)
Caring for shared Jack scaled a fence and collected a toy car and all other toys that had been
equipment thrown over there (12/06/2015)
Ezra pointed out dirt on hospital floor when we went for community visit
(11/06/2015)
Collective
responsibility When a toddler running around with large stick, dropped it, Quincey
immediately picked it up and gave it to me. I asked: ‘What should I do with it?’
Identifying health Quincey and others said: ‘Throw it over the fence to neighbourhood footpath’
concerns/hazards (18/08/2015)
in environment
Jakirra quickly yelped: ‘magpie!’ alerting others to get away as a magpie
swooped in close to the children (11/11/2015)
Talia squealed: ‘Ants!’ pointing out about 20 ants crawling on Louise’s feet
(11/11/2015)
Talia accidently knocked drawing pins on the floor. Kylea picked them up
Removing hazard
(1/10/2015)
Helping locate
Tammy pointed out to Kylea her hoodie and helped her put it on (1/10/2015)
others’ belongings
Kylea was managing the water set up at the playground, getting out the cups.
Self-initiate setting Jakirra set up the bin without being asked (10/06/2015)
up routine-care Saul, Aiden, Jack, Cedric and Jakirra all started to pack away beds. Jack,
resources Cedric and Jakirra worked as a team to carry one bed together. Aiden and Saul
carried a bed each on their own (30/09/2015)

91 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

government-controlled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities cannot be achieved. The responsibility of
looking out for family and the community is vital for survival,
to ensure families stay together in government-monitored
environments. The children probably do not fully know the
breadth of such intergenerational oppression; it is more
likely they are imitating adult carers. The community grew
out of a mission history. All houses in the community are
public housing, no one owns their own home, so families
are regularly subjected to inspections, and Elders in the
community readily recall the humiliation of public hygiene
inspections and violent subsequent punishments in the
dormitories of the mission (e.g. Hegarty, 1999).
The Buranba children demonstrated diligent care for the
shared environment and resources. For example, Ezra
carefully used a project camera as per instructions, but also
recognised that he had responsibility to the group to share
back with them the footage (see Figure 1). The cameras
were not understood as equipment for self-interest, but
rather for collective interest. Collective interests, rights and
responsibilities were readily demonstrated by the children,
nurtured by the community—cultural value of ‘thinking of
your mob’ as evidenced in frequent examples of children
identifying (see 11/06/2015, 18/08/2015 and 11/11/2015
entries) and removing hazards (1/10/2015 entry) in the
environment. They also took collective responsibility in
provisioning the environment (10/6/2015 entry) and storing
care materials (30/09/2015 entry).
In the Foundations for Success, such acts of collective
responsibility are acknowledged in the focus of ‘positive
relationships’ (points 1–3) in the Learning Area of ‘being
an active participant’, which sees children relate to others
with care, respect and empathy, and are responsible and
respectful of environments.
Civic agency
Civic agency emphasises skilful, imaginative, collective
capacity and action to act on common challenges across
differences (Boyte, 2008). For young children, we understand
civic agency as what they believe they can do collectively
within their communities for change. How environments
enable such civic agency is of prominent consideration.
Civic agency at Buranba was demonstrated mostly through
physical movement, specifically demonstrated in three
out of the four observed practices listed in Table 3. We
listened to what the children’s bodies were saying they
wanted to do and how they negotiated the environment.
The children actively resisted most practices of corralling
e.g. group time, sitting on chairs. The children desired to
move in, with, over and under the physical environment
(see 7/10/2015 and 11/06/2015 entries). They were not
disembodied—as is often demanded in western education
92 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
that privileges theory over practice—on the understanding
that the body is not involved in cognition (O’Loughlin,
2006). The children at Buranba are very much embodied—
as they readily responded to ‘what can my body do in
this space’, as opposed to ‘what am I meant to do’. The
children’s desire to choose how, when and where they
move was obstructed by multiple fenced partitioning,
imposed through building codes (see 11/06/2015 and
4/09/2015 entries), regulating the physical environment,
and child and educator engagement with the environment.
Enabling environments for children’s civic agency in early
childhood requires further attention to flexibility of usage
and exploration.
In consideration of place (environment), Gruenewald
(2003) offers a critical pedagogy of place to decolonise and
reinhabitate. That is, to recognise and dislodge externally
imposed dominant ideas, assumptions and ideologies
(Smith & Katz, 1993), and see such environmental
constraints as legislated fencing, and age group segregation
as colonising forces that limit and control children’s civic
agency to be with family and to move and explore freely
the potentialities of the environment. To reinhabit depends
on ‘identifying, affirming, conserving, and creating those
forms of cultural knowledge that nurture and protect
people and ecosystems’ (Gruenewald, 2003, pp. 318–
319). The children play freely in the street when not at
Buranba. From about age three, the children independently
walk around the community, and by nine to 12 years of
age they have a home range of independent mobility of
7.8 sq km (Kreutz, 2015). This is accepted community
practice. There is no through traffic in the community of
less than 2000, and community looks out for each other.
The children at Buranba demonstrated civic agency
through voice, but largely through movement of the whole
body, as not just being with other humans but being with
animals, trees and built structures. Embodiment plays a
significant role in cultivating understanding and/or explaining
understanding of how things relate to each other (Merleau-
Ponty, 2004), so that through embodiment ‘we are in an
open dialogue with the world we inhabit’ (Stolz, 2015, p.
485). The legacies of intergenerational colonisation are
imprinted on young bodies’ motivations for civic agency
(e.g. the desire for freedom to wander far and wide).
In the Foundations for Success, such illustrations of civic
agency are reflected in the ‘confidence and resilience’
(points 1–2) focus of the Learning Area ‘being proud and
strong’, which is about ‘children making decisions and
choices’ and having ‘courage and resilience to persevere
and manage change and challenge’. The children at
Buranba largely expressed their confidence and resilience
through their strong young bodies.
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
Table 3. Evidence of civic agency observed

Civic concept Practices Data examples

Seizing available Children run through an opening to the next door yard when gate is open
resources/ (4/09/2015)
opportunities Jakirra and Saul get brushes, rollers and chairs for painting for Jacenia,
Raina, Talia and Archy (11/11/2015)
Jakirra spots a small dog in neighbouring yard, scales fence, grabs the dog
To freely move
then climbs back over fence with the dog (11/06/2015)
and interact with
the physical Running around the back of the tool shed, climbing trees, chasing dogs
environment when on community walk (7/10/2015)
Civic agency Tammy cleaned tables and swept crumbs with dustpan and brush while
Saul and Quincey ate crackers. Saul thumped his fist down on cracker and
growled: ‘Tammy, go and get that over there’ (5/11/2015)
Voicing concern Jedda yelled at boys under the tarp: ‘Get out!’—because she wanted to go
under there and they were kicking and fighting too much (12/06/2015)
Ezra told others to stay back when he spotted a beetle to ensure it didn’t get
squashed (12/11/2015)
Seeking adult help Saul took me over to the rope ladder that was wound up, pointing for it to be
on behalf of group brought down for him and his friends to use (18/08/2015)

Civic deliberation attention away from conflict (see 11/11/2015, 12/06/2015

Civic deliberation is an important educative process for
building openness to multiple perspectives and negotiation.
Englund (2000) advocates civic deliberation in education for
the ‘ongoing meaning-creating processes of will-formation’
(p. 312), that is, the process of building collective thought,
care and action about an issue.
Though schools and early childhood settings are
recognised as sites for building civic deliberation skills
through critical discussions of facts and values to evaluate
and judge in public discussions in western democratic
societies (Kymlicka & Norman, 1994), educator-facilitated
group discussion and shared decision making were not
prominent at Buranba.
In citizenship theory (e.g. Habermas, 1996), deliberation
implies lengthy discussions and debates about issues,
which was not noticeably evident amidst the children,
so at first it seemed civic deliberation was not prevalent.
Then, on considering the purpose of civic deliberation
for cultivating openness to diverse perspectives and
negotiating collective will, many occasions were noted
in which the children at Buranba could reach consensus
through a quick nod to seek agreement on an idea and to
communicate agreement (see 11/11/2015 and 6/10/2015
entries in Table 4). Further, they were swift at shifting
dissent to consensus through quick playful offers to shift
and 30/07/15 entries). We marvelled at the efficiency
of these young children’s consensus-reaching. Civic
deliberation for children at Buranba was largely non-verbal,
often seamless and exceedingly expeditious.
In the Foundations for Success, civic deliberation is
reflected in the focus of ‘listening and negotiation’ (points 1
and 4) in the Learning Area of ‘being an active participant’,
through children ‘becoming aware of fairness’ and ‘of the
reciprocal rights and responsibilities necessary for active
community participation’.
Civic participation
Civic participation in communitarianism refers to genuine
civic action in pursuit of the general good of all within a
community (Pateman, 1970); good as in, what is agreed
and sought after by all, not morally judged. Community
participation (a more commonly used term of civic
participation) is cultivated through group and community
belonging, so that ‘the more people affect each other,
communicate and hold each other accountable, in short,
the more people share a common life, the more obligations
they have towards each other’ (Tijsterman, 2014, p. 189).
The children at Buranba regularly initiated collaborations
for the good of all (see Table 5).

93 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

Table 4. Evidence of civic deliberation observed

Civic concept Practices Data examples

At the water trough, Jacenia washes containers. Jakirra fishes out
Respond to
containers with a sieve then splashes Jacenia. Jacenia says, ‘No!’, then
disagreement with an
offers: ‘Hey, we jump in here?’ and nods, and they both climb into the
alternative offer
water trough (11/11/2015)
Aiden and Ezra sit next to each other building separate block towers.
Aiden runs out of blocks and reaches for Ezra’s, who pulls his away
saying, ‘No’. Then Aiden points his tower at Ezra’s while making
shooting noises. They both ‘play fight’ with block towers (12/06/2015)
Consider other
perspectives Aiden pushes a football through a hole in the climbing frame and when
it falls to the ground, he runs to grab it. Jack then tackles Aiden. Aiden
tries to push Jack away, then Jack snuggles his head into Aiden’s belly
Civic deliberation pretending to be a cat, ‘Meow’. Quincey joins in the play, snuggling and
patting Jack the cat. Aiden happily enjoys the cat play (30/07/2015)
Jakirra, Jack, Aiden and Talia are sitting in the tyre covered by a tarpaulin
Vary language to that Jedda carefully places over them. Aiden pokes his head up. ‘Get
support agreement under’, Jedda instructs, but Aiden says, ‘no’. ‘Get under please’, Jedda
then offers and Aiden gets under as asked (31/07/2015)
Jakirra and Jedda work together to cover the tarp over a large tractor
tyre, taking time to get the position right, then give each other the
Making a collective thumbs up (30/07/2015)
decision Quincey and Jack point to different places they want to go for a walk on
a map of town then point at an area that I read as ‘football field’. They
both affirm, ‘Yeah, let’s go there’, with big smiles and nods (6/10/2015)

Table 5. Evidence of civic participation observed

Civic concept Practices Data examples
Ezra films the class group when we visited hospital, then shows them
Inclusion of others
the footage through the viewer (11/06/2015)
Working collectively After rest time, Saul, Quincey, Jack, Aiden and Jakirra carry their
to complete stretcher beds to storage room to pack away. Jack turns the storage
community routine room light on. They work in pairs, one at each end, to stack them
tasks (3/09/2015)
Civic participation Jedda and Jakirra try to tame a silver tarp by grabbing a corner each and
pulling it down to the ground. There’s much laughter and offering of
commands: ‘You get it’, ‘Get on top’. They both willingly oblige to each
Working together other’s commands (12/06/2015)
to shared goals
Mia, Dean, Lea, Tina and Melly work together to tie skipping rope
between two bikes and then tie another rope to the front of first bike.
Mia then pulls the rope to pull the two bikes along as a train (30/07/2015)

94 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

One child would start an idea such as packing away a bed
(3/09/2015 entry), tying down a tarp (12/06/2015 entry)
or tying bikes together (30/07/2015 entry) then others
readily followed, reading body and environment cues for
when assistance was needed. An individual would rarely
struggle for long before another child would assist. The
resilience of the cultural value of collectivism is viscerally
felt as noted earlier: ‘… you’re not being a proper blackfella
if you don’t think of others in your mob’. An Aboriginal
Australian worldview of shared identity and communal and
familial obligations supports community participation for
collective interest or will (Maddison, 2009). The sense of
collectivism runs deep.
The children’s acts of civic participation were not adult-
provoked or encouraged. The educators were present,
providing resources and comfort and care as needed, but
they did not intervene with suggestions or provocations,
only reminders of safety cautions, creating a reassuring
space for the children to initiate, negotiate and act together.
In a chapter on Aboriginal children’s play, Veronica Ecenarro
(a Bardi woman) (Fasoli, Wunungmurra, Ecenarro & Fleet,
2010) explained that Indigenous adults trust older children
to look after younger children and freely permit children to
act out real-life situations that involve risks.
Civic or community participation is the overall purpose
of the Foundations for Success, Learning Area of ‘being
an active participant’. Attention to children’s active
participation recognises and supports their contributions
to agreed community goals.
Civic learning starts from birth
Most of the above examples were from two- to four-year-
olds. Buranba educators see civic learning as a lifelong
continuum for all. Most of the educators are Aboriginal and
live in the community, and their children, nieces, nephews
and cousins attend the centre. Everyone knows each other
in the community and the family each child belongs to.
Educators and children visit other rooms to be with family
members. Community members visit throughout the day,
including Elders and members of the aged care facility
next door. Different ages and generations intermingle as
part of daily routines with joy and care for each other.
If citizenship is about what it means to have rights and
responsibilities in the public sphere, then this community
provides a space that is just one step beyond family—a
community of known others rather than unknown others,
where children can enact shared community values.
In seeking to understand what citizenship is for
young Aboriginal children, the project team found
that community values define civic actions—and the
Foundations for Success offers a framework to keep
them alive and growing. For civic identity, it involves
‘knowing where you’re coming from’, that is, knowing,
honouring and celebrating Aboriginality, lore, kinship ties,
95 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
community—which resonates with the Learning Area of
‘being proud and strong’. For collective responsibility, it is
about ‘thinking of others in your mob’ to enact the ‘positive
relationships’—focus in the Learning Area of ‘being an
active participant’. For civic agency, it’s about expressing
collective capacity and action, to act on common challenges
for co-existence with all others (people, animals, plants
and environment) through strong young bodies moving
freely—that reflects the ‘confidence and resilience’ focus
of the Learning Area ‘being proud and strong’. For civic
deliberation, consensus is largely reached through quick
nods and conflicts shifted through playful alternative offers
that are seamless—the focus of ‘listening and negotiation’
in the Learning Area of ‘being an active participant’ sustains
and enhances understandings of different perspectives,
fairness and reciprocating rights and responsibilities. For
civic participation, it is about readily pitching in for what
is collectively agreed upon, as children enact being active
participants who are connected to Country and contribute
to community. Through celebrating these ways of being,
the place of cultural knowledge in the meaning-making of
citizenship for young children is affirmed and conserved.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge and graciously thank the custodians
and community members for welcoming the research
team into their community to enter the worlds of their
beautiful children.
ORCID iD/s
Louise Gwenneth Phillips: orcid.org/0000-0002-2937-145X
References
Adair, J. K., Phillips, L., Ritchie, J., & Sachdeva, S. (2016). Civic
action and play: Examples from Maori, Aboriginal Australian and
Latino communities. Early Child Development and Care, 187(5–6),
798–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1237049
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
(AIATSIS). (2012). Guidelines for ethical research in Australian
Indigenous Studies. Canberra, ACT: AIATSIS.
Australian Human Rights Commission & Early Childhood Australia
(ECA). (2015). Supporting young children’s rights: Statement of
intent (2015–2018). Retrieved from www.humanrights.gov.au/
sites/default/files/supporting_young_children_rights.pdf.
Bartlett, S. (2008). Climate change and urban children: Impacts and
implications for adaptation in low- and middle-income countries.
Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 501–519.
Bath, C., & Karlsson, R. (2016). The ignored citizen: Young
children’s subjectivities in Swedish and English early childhood
education settings. Childhood, 23(4), 554–565. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0907568216631025
Boyte, H. C. (2008). Against the current: Developing the civic
agency of students. Change, 40(3), 8–15.
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
Cannella, G. S., & Viruru, R. (2004). Childhood and postcolonization:
Power, education and contemporary practice. New York, NY:
RoutledgeFalmer.
City of Port Philip. (2011). Creating a child-friendly Port Philip:
2012–2015. Retrieved from www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/
Report_5_-_Attachment_1_-_Early_Years_Plan_2012_-__2015.pdf.
Davis, J. M. (2010). What is early childhood education for
sustainability? In J. M. Davis (Ed.), Young children and the
environment: Early education for sustainability (pp. 21–42).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Delanty, G. (2002). Communitarianism and citizenship. In E. F. Isin
& B. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of citizenship studies (pp. 159–174).
London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Englund, T. (2000). Rethinking democracy and education: Towards
an education of deliberative citizens. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
32(2), 305–313.
Fasoli, L., Wunungmurra, A., Ecenarro, V., & Fleet, A. (2010).
Playing as becoming: Sharing Australian Aboriginal voices on
play. In M. Ebbeck & M. Waniganayake (Eds.), Play in early
childhood education: Learning in diverse contexts (pp. 215–232).
South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
Flanagan, C. (2012). Civic learning/civic action: The state of the
field. Commissioned report for The Spencer Foundation’s strategic
initiative on civic learning and civic action. Chicago, IL: The Spencer
Foundation. Retrieved from www.spencer.org/sites/default/files/
pdfs/ConstanceFlanagan.pdf.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical
pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions
to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Hegarty, R. (1999). Is that you, Ruthie? St Lucia, Qld: University
of Queensland Press.
Kreutz, A. (2015). Children and the environment in an Australian
Indigenous community: A psychological approach. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey
of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104(2), 352–381.
Lister, R. (2007). Why citizenship: Where, when and how children?
Theoretical inquiries in Law, 8(2), 693–718.
Mac Naughton, G. (2007). Trials and transitions to citizenship: What
really matters in early childhood education? Paper presented at the
Dean’s Lecture Series, University of Melbourne, Vic.
Maddison, S. (2009). Black politics: Inside the complexity of
Aboriginal political culture. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2004). The world of perception (O. Davis,
Trans.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. (Original work published in
1948.)
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian
Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee.
(2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research.
Canberra, ACT: NHMRC. Retrieved from www.nhmrc.gov.au/_
files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72_national_statement_
may_2015_150514_a.pdf.
O’Loughlin, M. (2006). Embodiment and education: Exploring
creatural existence. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
96 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Page, J. (2008). Rethinking citizenship from the perspectives
of four and five year old children’s experiences of being happy.
In G. Mac Naughton, P. Hughes & K. Smith (Eds.), Young children
as active citizens: Principles, policies and pedagogies (pp. 220–
229). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, L.G. (2005). Stories: The bridge of understanding.
Educating Young Children, 11(2), 27–29.
Phillips, L. G. (2010). Social justice storytelling and young children’s
active citizenship. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 31(3), 363–376.
Phillips, L. G. (2011). Possibilities and quandaries for young children’s
active citizenship. Early Education and Development, 22(5),
778–794.
Phillips, L. G. (2016). Educating children and young people on
the UNCRC: Actions, avoidance and awakenings. In J. Gillett-
Swan & V. Coppock (Eds.), Children’s rights, educational research
and the UNCRC: Past, present and future (pp. 39­–59). Didcot,
UK: Symposium Books.
Saballa, M., Mac Naughton, G., & Smith, K. (2008). Working
with children to create policy: The case of the Australian Capital
Territory’s children’s plan. In G. Mac Naughton, P. Hughes &
K. Smith (Eds.), Young children as active citizens: Principles,
policies and pedagogies (pp. 62–76). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and
Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London, UK: Zed Books.
Smith, N., & Katz, C. (1993). Grounding metaphor: Toward a
spatialized politics. In M. Keith & S. Pile (Eds.), Place and the
politics of identity (pp. 67–83). London, UK: Routledge.
Stolz, S. A. (2015). Embodied learning. Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 47(5), 474–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013185
7.2013.879694
The State of Queensland Department of Education and Training.
(2016). Foundations for success: Learning, teaching, leading.
Retrieved from www.foundationsforsuccess.qld.edu.au/.
Tijsterman, S. (2014). Global and cosmopolitan citizenship.
In H. A. van der Heijden (Ed.), Handbook of political citizenship
and social movement (pp. 177–201). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Tobin, J., & Hsueh, Y. (2007). The poetics and pleasures of video
ethnography of education. In R. Goldman (Ed.), Video research
in the learning sciences (pp. 77–92). New York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Troup, C. (2010). Civic identity. In R. L. Jackson II & M. A. Hogg
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Identity (pp.80–83). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
 Early childhood educator mental health:
Performing the National Quality Standard
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.11

Lara Corr
Kay Cook Anthony D. LaMontagne
Swinburne University Deakin University

Elise Davis Elizabeth Waters

Australian Institute of Family Studies University of Melbourne

IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION and care (ECEC) settings, the mental wellbeing of
educators is likely to be crucial to delivering high-quality care. Hence, this paper uses
a contextual understanding of educators’ mental health, and its evaluation by both
educators and management, to reveal areas of the National Quality Framework that
require critical revision. Drawing on Hochschild’s (2012) theory of emotional labour, we
report on the analysis of semi-structured interviews with family day care educators
(n = 16) and ECEC sector key informants (n = 18). Results demonstrate widespread belief
that educator mental wellbeing affects care quality and the children attending care. In
response to job stressors and perceived surveillance, educators use emotional labour
to hide negative feelings and manage risks associated with low mental wellbeing. In
this context, making individual educators fully responsible for performing good mental
health to meet the National Quality Standard may increase job stress and emotional
labour, further distancing the aims of high-quality care. Our findings suggest that revising
the NQS to improve working conditions, and addressing educator mental wellbeing are
essential approaches for supporting high-quality ECEC practice.

Background “fit and proper” provider’ (ACECQA, 2011, p. 11). It may

In Australia, just under one million children attend early
childhood education and care (ECEC) services (ABS, 2014).
High-quality ECEC is considered essential to supporting
child wellbeing and development (Moore, 2014), and relies
upon positive interactions between educators and children
(Whitaker, Dearth-Wesley & Goozea, 2015). Hence, the
National Quality Framework (NQF) includes a set of quality
standards that focus upon these interactions (ACECQA,
2011). All areas are relevant to quality at some level,
however for this paper, ‘Quality Area 5: Relationships
with children’ is the main focus. This is because the
quality of interactions between the educator and child in
ECEC settings is negatively associated with depressive
symptoms in educators, yet their mental health is rarely
addressed (Jeon, Buettner & Snyder, 2014). The essential
role of educator health is implied in the ECEC regulations,
which stipulate that a person who ‘operate[s] or manage[s]
a children’s service must meet the criterion of being a
be assumed that underpinning this criterion is a minimum
standard of mental wellbeing required to provide quality
ECEC services.
In family day care (FDC) settings, one educator is
responsible for meeting all regulatory requirements,
managing the business and providing direct ECEC to
small groups of children in the educator’s home (Forry et
al., 2013). As such, meeting the ‘fit and proper’ criterion
takes on additional significance for sole proprietors such
as FDC educators. Over 22 000 FDC educators care for
around 210 570 children, representing a vital part of the
ECEC landscape (DET, 2016). However, FDC occurs in the
context of particularly demanding working conditions that
general work–health research (Nieuwenhuijsen, Bruinvels
& Frings-Dresen, 2010; Stansfeld et al., 2013), as well as
research specific to FDC (Corr, LaMontagne, Cook, Waters
& Davis, 2015) indicates as being challenging to good
mental health. These conditions include high demands
and effort, low rewards, isolation, financial insecurity and

97 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

lack of employment entitlements related to their (generally)
self-employed, owner-operator status (Corr, Davis, Cook,
Waters & LaMontagne, 2014a). In occupational health
research, many of these conditions have been shown to
compromise mental wellbeing and even lead to mental
illness in previously healthy workers (Stansfeld et al., 2013).
Understanding how job context and mental wellbeing
in FDC influence care quality is essential, given the
demonstrated relationships between working conditions
and worker wellbeing, and policy links between mental
health and ECEC quality (Corr, Davis, LaMontagne, Waters
& Steele, 2014b). In FDC, the mental health of lone
educators can have a profound impact on the quality of
care provided to children, yet the mental health of ECEC
educators in general, and FDC educators in particular, is
poorly understood (Corr et al., 2014b). How educators
experience the emotional challenges posed by the
demanding work conditions of FDC—while also needing
to demonstrate ‘fit and proper’ conduct and provide
quality ECEC to children—is what we seek to examine
here. Drawing on Hochschild’s (2012) theory of emotional
labour, we argue that poor mental wellbeing is likely to
be ‘hidden’, as educators have a lot to lose by disclosing
poor mental health and seeking treatment, i.e. potential
negative implications for themselves and their business.
Furthermore, governing bodies and FDC schemes monitor
FDC educators to mitigate any care–quality risks associated
with, among other things, poor educator mental health—
surveillance that could make disclosure even less likely.
In this paper, we examine the emotion ‘work’ performed
by FDC educators with respect to mental wellbeing, and
locate this within the context of the broader FDC and
ECEC context. We begin this analysis by providing a brief
overview of Hochschild’s (2012) theory of emotional labour
and its applicability to both ECEC work and the ‘fit and
proper’ quality criterion (ACECQA, 2011).
Emotional labour
Emotional labour refers to workers’ use of emotional
management to ensure that the emotions desired by
clients, and needed to meet job requirements, are
presented (Kruml & Geddes, 2000; Zapf, 2002). When
the workers’ internal state does not naturally bring about
the required emotional display, labour in the form of ‘deep
acting’ (active or passive strategies to manufacture the
desired emotion), or ‘surface acting’ (where the worker
fakes the required emotion), can occur (Hochschild, 2012;
Lee & Brotheridge, 2011).
Hochschild’s emotional labour theory provides insight
into how and why workers modify their internal emotions
and external displays of emotions to meet ‘feeling
rules’ imposed by occupations, workplaces and society
(Hochschild, 2012). Given the strong feeling rules that
govern interactions in ECEC (e.g. displaying positive
98 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
emotions towards children) and the intensity of interaction
with children and parents, emotional labour is widely
employed by educators in the sector (Andrew, 2015; Lee
& Brotheridge, 2011). Emotional labour may be a key risk-
management tool for early childhood educators to perform
the National Quality Standard (NQS), and in the FDC
context, to keep their businesses running. Investigating
the complexities of educators’ mental wellbeing, and how
it is managed in FDC, is vital for supporting FDC educators’
wellbeing, livelihood and the quality of education and care
they provide to children.
Method
This study is part of a larger public health mixed-methods
research project ‘Work and Wellbeing in Family Day Care’
which investigated the relationships between FDC working
conditions and educators’ mental wellbeing. Ethics
approval was granted by the University of Melbourne
Human Research Ethics Committee 1034554.1.
Sampling and recruitment of participants
FDC educators in Victoria (Vic.) and Queensland (Qld)
(metro and regional) were recruited for participation
through three avenues:
¡¡ email invitation to educators, distributed by Family
Day Care Australia (FDCA)—the peak body for FDC
¡¡ verbal invitation to educators by their scheme
coordination and management staff
¡¡ snowball sampling through fellow FDC educators—
recruitment via scheme staff may have biased the
sample towards those with more positive experiences
of FDC; however, responses varied widely from
positive to negative.
Key informants from across the FDC sector were also
interviewed as they hold valuable insight into, and
understanding of, the issues and context being investigated
(Quinn-Patton, 2002). Informants were selected based on
a socio-ecological framework with informants situated at
different ‘distances’ to the educator, from scheme staff
(frequent interactions) to policy-makers (scarce interactions).
Informants comprised of representatives from a union, Vic.
and Qld state government departments (n = 2), Vic. and
Qld educator and scheme associations (n = 4), a Vic. ECEC
training organisation, and family day care schemes (n = 4)
(management and coordination staff). Specific informants
were selected based on location (Vic./Qld), organisational
affiliation, prior contact (through other research) and
representatives put forward by their organisation.
Sample description
Participating educators were female, with the exception of
one male participant, reflecting the predominantly female
ECEC workforce. All were self-employed contractors
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
to private (n = 9) or non-profit schemes (n = 7). Ages
ranged from 20–63 years and the average age was 44
years. Diverse experience was represented, with time in
FDC ranging from one to 29 years (mean = 8.5 years).
Educators reported working longer than a standard full-
time week, with hours ranging from 45–84 per week
(mean = 63). A variety of children attended the services
each week (mean = 11), including children with disabilities
or developmental delays, and children from non-English
speaking and Indigenous backgrounds.
Of the 18 key informants, most (n = 13) currently worked or
had worked in the FDC sector. Organisations represented
included private and non-profit FDC schemes, government,
a training provider, FDC educator and scheme associations,
FDCA and a union. We draw on these interviews to illustrate
the surveillance, perceived or real, of educator mental health,
given the connections made between mental health and care
quality. All educators and key informants gave written and
verbal consent to participate.
Data collection
Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were used to
gather data on the context of educator mental wellbeing in
FDC from Australian educators and sector key informants.
Interviews took place from September 2011 to January
2012 (length ranged from 20 minutes to 2.5 hours).
Interview questions were derived from one of the main
study aims: ‘To examine family day care educators’ and
key informants’ perspectives on the influence of educator
mental health and wellbeing on care provision’.
Data analysis
Data in this paper is drawn from discussions following the
question: ‘Do you think the way an educator feels (their
mental wellbeing) affects how they talk, interact and play
with the children in their care?’ That is, how they enact
the NQS (Quality Area 5). We chose not to enquire about
educators’ experiences of or perspectives on mental illness.
Instead, we focused on educators’ feelings and mental
wellbeing, and used the third person so educators and key
informants could refer to others or educators in general.
All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim.
Following data immersion, abductive, thematic analysis
was carried out to discover ‘rich points’ and new information
(Agar, 1999) concerning how educator mental wellbeing
was seen to interact with quality of care. Thematic analysis
was used to code each new idea, then to organise the
ideas into minor and major themes. Data was organised
using the software, NVivo Version 9 (QSR International).
In response to the interview question, educators and key
informants discussed the context surrounding educators’
feelings and mental wellbeing, describing the roles ECEC
practice, managerial practices, ECEC regulation and
business pressures played in educators’ experiences. We
99 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
sought to examine these relationships and to explore how
these interconnected pressures open up or close down
opportunities for supporting educator mental wellbeing.
To achieve this, we adopted a critical perspective
(Carspecken, 1996; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011) that
allowed us to focus on the power relations underpinning
educators’ experiences—most easily identified as the ‘fit
and proper’ requirement and the NQS—and conduct a
critique of ‘commonly held values and assumptions’ of
mental wellbeing in FDC (Crotty, 1998, p. 157).
Given the critical perspective and search for ‘rich points’,
we arrived at themes concerning how mental wellbeing
underpins care quality by revealing the influence of working
conditions and emotional labour on educators’ mental
wellbeing and care provision, as well as how professionalism
and risk management play a role in educators’ performance
of being a ‘fit and proper’ provider.
Results
Findings demonstrate the multilayered context
surrounding educators’ mental wellbeing in ECEC that is
often unspoken, yet key to the delivery of quality ECEC
services. Educators’ mental wellbeing was seen as critical
to quality ECEC. Educators and key informants described
how they saw educator mental wellbeing interact with
FDC provision (in particular with respect to working
conditions and care quality) and how the risk associated
with negative feelings was managed and monitored. The
following sections illustrate these interactions, with each
section beginning with an interview excerpt that succinctly
encapsulated participants’ experiences.
Mental wellbeing underpins care quality
‘… it would absolutely have [an] impact on those things’
Participants described how educators that were stressed
or upset changed the way they interacted with children
and the kind of activities they instigated or encouraged.
One key informant spoke of how an educator’s feelings
could influence all aspects of FDC:
You know yourself, if you’re not feeling 100 per cent,
you don’t put the same energy into something. So,
I can’t see how that wouldn’t impact and influence
[educator] behaviour: the interactions, the types
of environments, the types of experience, the
conversations. I think that it absolutely would have
[an] impact on those things; and even how you see
children, your image of children changes when you’re
not feeling 100 per cent (Key informant 7).
Supporting these qualitative findings are two large-scale
quantitative studies in early childhood that demonstrated
that educator depressive symptoms were related to
greater withdrawal and insensitive care and lower overall
care quality (Hamre & Pianta, 2004; Jeon et al., 2014).
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
Educator mental wellbeing and ‘feeling good’ was
seen as contributing significantly to positive childhood
environments, relationships with families and to child
outcomes. Responsibility for wellbeing and a successful
ECEC service was placed solely on educators, rather
than systems to support them, ‘... when things are all
running smoothly, and the educator[s] are well and looking
after themselves and happy doing what they’re doing
and loving it, you can see the children just flourish’ (Key
informant 5). Again, this evidence supports developing
quantitative ECEC literature that found the wellbeing of
vulnerable children responded to educator stress levels
(Groeneveld, Vermeer, van IJzendoorn & Linting, 2012)
and that educator depressive symptoms were directly
and indirectly associated with more emotional problems
in children (Jeon et al., 2014).
One educator, who was depressed when first adjusting to the
demands of FDC, shared her change in behaviour, attitude
and mood with improved mental health: ‘I was happier, more
motivated to do things with them. I was more creative, I had
ideas for the day, I had more time to plan and I actually got to
it. I looked forward to the following day’ (Educator 6). These
findings are congruent with a further quantitative research
that found a positive association between higher care quality
and higher educator mental wellbeing (Gerber, Whitebook &
Weinstein, 2007; Weaver, 2002).
‘The kids know when we’re upset’
Educators and key informants frequently mentioned
that children could tell when educators were happy,
stressed or upset, and that it affected child behaviour
and the emotional climate of the service: ‘They sense
it straight away. As soon as something’s not right, they
pick up on it and then it sets off the whole environment’
(Key informant 2). Children’s sensitivity to mood meant
that educators engaged in emotional labour to manage
their less positive feelings and to match the energy and
happiness of children.
In some ways, how the educator feels, how I feel,
would somehow also reflect on how I deal with the
children and how I talk with them ... there are times I
feel like I really need to push myself even more than
usual to catch up with their being active and being
bubbly and trying to be enthusiastic, or as engaging
as how they want me to be for them. Some days it
takes more of an effort (Educator 2).
ECEC ‘feeling rules’ are clear—showing that one is having
fun and happy at work has been reported elsewhere in
the child care literature (Vincent & Braun, 2013). ‘Putting
on a happy face’ or a ‘mask’ was described by educators
when discussing their attempts to keep their less positive
feelings private: ‘It’s really hard when you have all these
stresses because you’ve still got to put on this face for the
children’ (Key informant 18). It was apparent that emotional
labour was used to encourage a positive FDC experience
for children amidst experiencing job stressors.
100 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Stressful working conditions compromise
educators’ mental health
‘... you really have to dig deep some days’
Interactions with children and parents were said to
influence educator mental wellbeing alongside other
working conditions in FDC, particularly challenging
supervisor­–educator interactions. Educators identified
visits or telephone calls from scheme staff that were highly
critical, rude or dismissive, or aggressive as key stressors
that could leave them feeling very upset or angry.
To be honest, you really have to dig deep some days ...
you’ve got a house full of children and you’re gonna get
off that phone [with the scheme] or that coordinator’s
gonna leave, and you’re there with the children. We’ve
had educators that have burst into tears—that’s not
good. When things are done, they have to be done
in a way that they don’t impact an educator while the
children are in care (Key informant 18).
A sector key informant spoke of how scheme–educator
interactions had a flow-on effect on the children: ‘It’s like
a big long chain; it comes from the [scheme] coordination
unit, feeds through the educator and gets to the kids’ (Key
informant 13). This pathway was supported by evidence
from educator interviews that highlighted how upsetting
interactions with supervisors during the work day led to
decreased mental wellbeing and impacted children in their
care. Working in isolation both heightened the effect of
upsetting interactions with schemes and increased the
burden of emotional labour on educators, as they had no
ready support to momentarily relieve them.
Emotional labour, professionalism and risk
management in family day care
‘It’s just part of being a normal human, I guess’
Family day care invariably involves working with emotion—
both of children in care and of educators themselves. There
was a widespread understanding amongst participants
that educators’ feelings naturally change over time and
in response to different scenarios, such as in response
to joyful or stressful interactions, or illness. Furthermore,
there was a shared understanding that how an educator
feels inevitably influences FDC provision. When educators’
emotions did not match the desired emotions for FDC
practice, emotional labour was employed.
Emotional labour is a high-value activity in FDC, related to
both professionalism and to risk management (Lupton,
2013). There was a strong ideal held by educators,
scheme coordinators and other key informants of the
model educator who was always happy, never stressed,
upset or angry, and provided optimal care experiences
for children. This ideal parallels that of ideal mother and
feminine virtues of selflessness, self-control, patience and
happiness (Colley, 2003; Petrassi, 2012). As one educator
earnestly said: ‘I’m sure it can be done, but it’s just a
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
way of finding how to be perpetually happy’ (Educator
13). However, the ideal did not align with the experience
of most educators, who found themselves unable to meet
these unattainable standards of perfect mental wellbeing,
and interactions with children in the face of daily stressors.
‘It just comes down to professionalism’
A subset of educators and key informants strongly believed
that mental health and wellbeing could, with effort, be
managed so as to not affect their work with children. Tied
to this viewpoint was that the successful employment
of emotional labour to overcome negative feelings
was a job requirement, a sign of professionalism and a
way to protect income. These participants emphasised
that appropriate energy and interaction quality could
be achieved throughout the day, despite stressors and
negative feelings that may be present.
Educator 8: When you walk out of your bedroom door
every morning, you’ve got to leave it there.
I don’t think you can be in a bad mood when
you work with the little ones because, I tell
you, some of the things they do, you can’t
help but laugh at them.
Interviewer: And so, do you find that you can keep quite
consistent?
Educator 8: Yeah, yeah. The energy level and everything
is … consistent.
Interviewer: That’s very impressive.
Educator 8: Well you have to be able to do it, don’t
you? I mean that’s your job; [it’s] in your job
description.
Overcoming stress and negative feelings was seen as a
requirement of FDC that was non-negotiable. Educators
anticipated negative business repercussions for not
effectively managing their emotions, including parent
dissatisfaction and financial insecurity from children being
removed from care.
Educator 10: Well, I know when I’m in a bad mood, they
know I’m in a bad mood ... you’ve just got
to deal with it.
Interviewer: Do you think it affects how you’re interacting
with the kids?
Educator 10: No, because I just suck it up ... you just
bypass it.
Interviewer: Tough lady.
Educator 10: Well you’ve got to, otherwise you don’t
get paid.
Educators identifying as ‘professional’ in this context
equalled being able to manage feelings to provide the
best experience for children, regardless of their emotional
101 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
circumstances. This complements an ECEC educator-
derived view of ‘emotional professionalism’ (Osgood,
2010). Like Andrew’s (2015) focus on emotional capital
in childhood, emotional professionalism, emphasises
that emotional work and emotional labour are not simply
occupational habitas or a ‘gendered script’ but involve
judgement, control, consciousness, reflection and
refinement (Osgood, 2010, p. 128).
Regardless of the study participants’ take on the
effectiveness of emotional labour and its role in
professionalism, there was a clear awareness that
educators’ displays of mental wellbeing were subject to
ongoing assessment by schemes, colleagues and families
using their services.
‘We have to be so careful in everything we do’
Scheme surveillance or monitoring during phone calls,
scheduled and unscheduled visits, and government
assessments are used to provide professional support
as well as to manage risk by ensuring that educators
comply with regulations and the NQS. Personal monitoring
of emotions was found to be pervasive throughout FDC
work. As one former educator observed: ‘We have to be so
careful in everything we do. We have to be careful [in] how
we talk to parents [and] with the children’ (Key informant
18). It was evident that most educators were ‘driven
to self-monitoring through the belief that one is under
constant scrutiny’ (Wood, 2003, p. 235). This internalising
of surveillance, controlling and correcting of thought or
behaviour to match expectations, is consistent with
Foucault’s theory of the panopticon whereby individuals
self-regulate their behaviour under the assumption that
they are being scrutinised by others (2001).
We found that internal (self) and external (colleagues,
schemes, government assessors, children and parents)
monitoring of educators’ displays of mental wellbeing
are a taken-for-granted part of FDC. In some instances,
monitoring of the self extended to the unconscious
monitoring of their own educator colleagues. One educator
described observing colleagues who didn’t seem to ‘love’
FDC anymore, as was evident by their emotional displays
and interactions with children in their care. In doing so,
she distanced herself from this taboo way of operating:
‘... it has to be a job you love. If you didn’t love it, you …
see it. You see it with other carers, who unfortunately are
in it because they are stuck and don’t know what else to
do’ (Educator 5). There was an implication that educators
who didn’t seem to enjoy their work provided lower quality,
though not negligent, care. Beyond this, the educator
described may be experiencing poor mental wellbeing or
‘burnout’ that may be due, in part, to the adverse effects of
emotional labour on mental health and wellbeing; however,
this element was not highlighted or problematised.
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
Ensuring educators are ‘fit and proper’ to operate a Societal expectations, the demands of ECEC practice, as
family day care service well as the working conditions, structure and regulation
of FDC, contribute to a complex relationship between
Monitoring educator mental health and wellbeing is
educator mental health and wellbeing, emotional labour
an implicit part of maintaining a workforce that meets
and care quality. Figure 1 illustrates the pathway from the
prescribed standards of ECEC. Educator assessments
work context (work inputs, which include job stressors and
begin prior to their business opening when they are
expectations of emotional labour) in FDC that influences
screened by scheme management to ensure they are ‘fit
educator mental wellbeing, to care quality (work outputs).
and proper’ to operate the service, both physically and
Also present in Figure 1 is emotional labour. In the absence
emotionally. A government key informant highlighted the
of good mental wellbeing and/or in the face of stressors,
importance of schemes adequately screening educators
emotional labour was performed to support care quality
and only offering contracts to those with evidence of
and that educators were seen to be ‘fit’ for work. Lastly,
good mental health and wellbeing (through a letter from
‘surveillance’ is included as educators’ performance of mental
their doctor). In particular, they emphasised that schemes
wellbeing and the quality of care they provide was under
should obtain evidence that any mental illness, such as a
surveillance by educators themselves, their colleagues,
depressive disorder, was being appropriately managed.
families using their service and government assessors.
It might come into that ‘fit and proper’ because we
might expect you to disclose that and then, I guess,
from what we would want you to do about it? If I were
a manager of a scheme, I would need to have some
pretty hard evidence that it was being managed and
that things were in place, and I think that you couldn’t
be discriminatory about it but you need to make sure
(Key informant 9).
Scheme staff, on average, visited educators on a monthly
basis. From these visits, staff observed that care provision
and children’s emotional states changed according to
educator mental wellbeing.
[When educators feel good] they’re more interactive
with the children, I mean all our carers are very
interactive with their children, but you tend to pick up Figure 1. A model of the relationship between the FDC
on things. The kids are happier; they pick up a good work context, educators’ mental health, emotional
vibe, so they don’t feel stressed out. The carers are a labour and care quality
lot more active, want to do a lot more and will get down
on the floor at the child’s level (Key informant 2). Figure 1 illustrates how educators’ performance of mental
wellbeing (and emotional labour, when needed) is enacted
Some scheme key informants described how they could
in light of the internalised and externalised surveillance of
tell when educators ‘weren’t themselves’ and mentioned
meeting regulations (‘fit and proper’) and the NQS. This
that they have a role in providing support to educators
leaves educators in the precarious position of experiencing
when this occurred. Yet, this issue was raised infrequently
job stress and even serious emotional distress without
and in passing. Job stress, which presents a serious risk to
the opportunity to disclose the need for help and support.
workers’ mental health (LaMontagne, Keegel & Vallance,
2007) was commonly accepted in FDC. The conflict
between stressors, emotional experiences and the ideal Discussion
of stable mental wellbeing may be a job stressor, and
also discourage educators from disclosing poor mental The evidence presented in this research draws attention to
wellbeing or from seeking help. key contextual issues and complexities to be considered
when seeking to achieve optimal care quality by supporting
The response of one scheme to educators with poor educators’ mental wellbeing. At the most fundamental
mental health demonstrated the perceived risk associated level, it shows how meeting NQS ‘Quality Area 5:
with the situation. In one instance, educators who were Relationships with children’ cannot be achieved without
experiencing poor mental health were ‘supported’ to attending to educators’ mental wellbeing. The NQS
‘make their own choice’ to close their businesses. When highlights the need for interactions with children to be
poor mental health was disclosed or became visible to warm, responsive, consistent and sensitive. However,
scheme staff, it appeared that a lack of mental health these research findings highlight how the potential of
literacy and support pathways in schemes and the broader the NQS clashes with the reality of FDC—particularly the
sector meant that educators had little choice but to resign. presence of stressful working conditions and the disclosure

102 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017

trap that risks the viability of educators’ businesses and
prohibits help-seeking. The clash undermines the NQF with
the inconvenient truth that without good-quality working
conditions in ECEC which support mental wellbeing, high-
quality care will not be possible. Without revising the NQF
and the NQS to have the needs of educators considered
alongside children’s needs, rather than a largely silent
workforce, the aims of the NQF will not be achieved.
This study shows that surveillance and emotional labour
are commonplace in FDC. This surveillance is unsurprising
given that wellbeing and emotional management become
public and open to scrutiny when they are commodified
(Kruml & Geddes, 2000), particularly when the experiences
and outcomes of children are at stake. Monitoring reassures
a society wishing to protect children and uncomfortable
with non-kin care of children, and reflects public and
policy interest in childhood quality and the effects of
childhood on children (Zoritch, Roberts & Oakley, 2000).
Emotional labour and emotional professionalism are also
unsurprising, given the skill and pressures associated with
ECEC practice. However, surveillance of mental wellbeing
without realistic expectations is not only counterproductive
in ECEC but it also misses the opportunity to model to
children how to deal with difficult emotions by ‘feeling
your feelings’, self-compassion and mindfulness (Neff &
Davidson, 2016). An open discussion about the role of
educator mental wellbeing and transient feelings in the
ECEC context is vital for gaining consensus on the balance
possible and optimal in this context.
The context of FDC with expectations of high mental
wellbeing means that disclosure could entail serious
implications for educators: having inadequate mental
health is tantamount to disclosing that you are not fit to
operate a service. That educators are reliant on written
verification from their doctor—that they are fit for duty—
may unfortunately prevent educators with developing
mental health problems from seeking help from their
doctors. Should educators seek help and need to take a
break from operating their service, returning to FDC has
additional complexities to long day care.
Usual best practice in workplaces of promoting ‘return
to work’ after recovering from an episode of poor mental
health is likely to be particularly risky and multifaceted
for educators in the FDC context. As owner-operator
small businesses, educators do not have paid sick leave
or straightforward options to keep their businesses
‘open’ when they are on leave. In addition, the families
that use their service may not be willing to have an
alternative educator during their primary educators’ time
away. Additionally, families may not carry the ‘trust and
goodwill’ considered necessary to support educators to
return to work caring for their children in the vulnerable
early childhood period (MacEachen, Clarke, Franche,
Irvin & Workplace-based return to work literature review
group, 2006). Of note is, returning to work that features
poor psychosocial conditions can be more detrimental
103 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
to workers’ mental health than being unemployed
(Butterworth et al., 2011). Hence, supporting an educator
in returning to FDC when they are isolated, unsupported
or have a difficult relationship with scheme supervisors or
parents, is fraught.
Notwithstanding its complexities in the FDC and likely the
larger ECEC context, this study’s findings firmly support
the global call to invest in mental health promotion and into
boosting workers’ mental health and wellbeing (Beddington
et al., 2008), which in this context, provides a tremendous
secondary benefit to children attending ECEC services.
Crucially, this paper also provides evidence of the type of
interventions that are not likely to be successful and may
be potentially damaging, given the context of FDC practice
and operation requirements. Given the configuration of
FDC work as a precarious owner-operator small business,
where maintaining the appearance of mental wellbeing
is needed to remain viable (Corr et al., 2014a), there
appears to be little scope for intervening to improve
the mental wellbeing of individual educators through
behavioural, self-help approaches. The effectiveness of
such individualised approaches has been recognised in
health promotion research as severely limited (Baum,
2004), particularly for addressing the adverse impacts of
psychosocial stressors on mental health and wellbeing.
From this evidence, it is also clear that to improve mental
wellbeing, post-hoc interventions that rely on educators’
disclosure of poor mental health, are unlikely to be taken
up because of their high risk to educators’ caring identity
and, therefore, their livelihoods.
This study’s findings indicate the need for evidence-based
mental health promotion that works within the culture and
context of FDC and the NQS that involves ‘upstream’,
preventative approaches to improving educators’ working
conditions at a population level (LaMontagne, Keegel,
Louie & Ostry, 2010). These upstream approaches, such
as systems and policy changes to improve the working
conditions and work lives of worker populations, are the
most effective way to make significant improvements
in their mental health (Landsbergis, Grzywacz &
LaMontagne, 2014).
Conclusion
Good quality ECEC relies on a high-quality, stable workforce
with strong mental wellbeing (Corr, 2015). This cannot be
achieved without building into regulations the NQF and the
NQS good-quality working conditions and other methods
of low risk mental health promotion for educators. The
inconvenient truth of ECEC is clear that educators cannot
deliver high-quality care with poor pay, without respect and
under straining working conditions that compromise their
mental health. This research provides impetus to promote
and protect educators’ mental health by modifying working
conditions, systems and policies. Such mental health
interventions are an investment that will benefit not only
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
ECEC educators, whose mental health is risked by poor
pay and conditions (Corr, 2015), but also to children’s
mental health and wellbeing, with tremendous gains for
society as a whole.
Acknowledgement
Lara Corr is supported by a National Health and Medical
Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship.
ORCID iD/s
Lara Corr: orcid.org/0000-0002-2207-4938
Kay Cook: orcid.org/0000-0002-0894-2815
Anthony D. LaMontagne: orcid.org/0000-0002-5811-5906
Elise Davis: orcid.org/0000-0002-5076-2869
References
Agar, M. (1999). How to ask for a study in qualitatisch. Qualitative
Health Research, 9(5), 684–697.
Andrew, Y. (2015). ‘I’m strong within myself’: Gender, class and
emotional capital in childcare. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 36(5) 651–668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.
2013.835711
Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2014). Childhood education
and care, Australia (Cat. No. 4402.0). Canberra, ACT: ABS.
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority
(ACECQA). (2011). Guide to the National Quality Standard. Sydney,
NSW: ACECQA.
Baum, F. (2004). The new public health (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Vic.:
Oxford University Press.
Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F.
A., Jenkins, R., ... Thomas, S. M. (2008). The mental wealth of
nations. Nature, 455, 1057–1060.
Butterworth, P., Leach, L. S., Strazdins, L., Olesen, S. C.,
Rodgers, B., & Broom, D. H. (2011). The psychosocial quality of
work determines whether employment has benefits for mental
health: Results from a longitudinal national household panel survey.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 68(11), 806–812.
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational
research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Colley, H. (2003). ‘Children can wind you up!’: Learning to labour
in the nursery. Paper presented at the Gender and Education
Association Conference: Revisiting Feminist Perspectives on
Gender and Education, University of Sheffield, UK.
Corr, L. (2015). Fair care? Exploring relationships between
educators’ mental health, working conditions, and care quality
in family day care (Doctoral thesis), University of Melbourne, Vic.
Corr, L., Davis, E., Cook, K., Waters, E., & LaMontagne A. D. (2014a).
Fair relationships and policies to support family day care educators’
mental health: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1214
Corr, L., Davis, E., LaMontagne, A. D., Waters, E., & Steele, E.
(2014b). Childcare providers’ mental health: A systematic review
of its prevalence, determinants and relationship to care quality.
International Journal of Mental Health Promotion,16(4), 231–263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2014.931067
104 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
Corr, L., LaMontagne, A. D., Cook, K., Waters, E., & Davis, E.
(2015). Associations between Australian early childhood educators’
mental health and working conditions: A cross-sectional study.
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(3), 69–78.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning
and perspective in the research process. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen
and Unwin.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2016). Early
childhood and child care in summary: June quarter 2016. Canberra,
ACT: Australian Government.
Forry, N., Iruka, I., Tout, K., Torquati, J., Susman-Stillman, A.,
Bryant, D., & Daneri, M. P. (2013). Predictors of quality and child
outcomes in family child care settings. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 28(4), 893–904.
Foucault, M. (2001). Power: The essential works of Foucault,
1954–1984, Vol. 3 (R.T Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: The New Press.
Gerber, E. B., Whitebook, M., & Weinstein, R. S. (2007). At the
heart of child care: Predictors of teacher sensitivity in center-based
child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3), 327–346.
Groeneveld, M. G., Vermeer, H. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., &
Linting, M. (2012). Stress, cortisol and well-being of caregivers
and children in home-based child care: A case for differential
susceptibility. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38(2),
251–260.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Self-reported depression in
nonfamilial caregivers: Prevalence and associations with caregiver
behavior in child-care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
19(2), 297–318.
Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization
of human feeling (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Jeon, L., Buettner, C. K., & Snyder, A. R. (2014). Pathways from
teacher depression and child-care quality to child behavioral
problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(2),
225–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035720
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2011). Rethinking critical theory
and qualitative research. In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg & K. Tobin
(Eds.), Key work in critical pedagogy (pp. 285–326). Rotterdam,
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Kruml, S. M., & Geddes, D. (2000). Exploring the dimensions
of emotional labor: The heart of Hochschild’s work.
Management Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 8–49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318900141002
LaMontagne, A. D., Keegel, T., Louie, A. M., & Ostry, A. (2010).
Job stress as a preventable upstream determinant of common
mental disorders: A review for practitioners and policy-makers.
Advances in Mental Health, 9(1), 17–35. 
LaMontagne, A. D., Keegel, T., & Vallance, D. (2007). Protecting
and promoting mental health in the workplace: Developing a
systems approach to job stress. Health Promotion Journal of
Australia, 18(3), 221–228. 
Landsbergis, P. A., Grzywacz, J. G., & LaMontagne, A. D.
(2014). Work organization, job insecurity, and occupational
health disparities. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
57(5), 495–515.
Lee, R., & Brotheridge, C. (2011). Words from the heart speak to
the heart: A study of deep acting, faking, and hiding among child
care workers. Career Development International, 16(4), 401–420.
Lupton, D. (2013). Risk and emotion: Towards an alternative
theoretical perspective. Health, Risk & Society, 15(8), 634–647.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2013.848847
Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017
MacEachen, E., Clarke, J., Franche, R. L., Irvin, E.,
& Workplace-based return to work literature review group. (2006).
Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work
after injury. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health,
32(4), 257–269.
Moore, T. G. (2014). Understanding the nature and significance
of early childhood: New evidence and its implications. Centre for
Community Child Health. Melbourne, Vic.: Murdoch Children’s
Research Institute.
Neff, K. D., & Davidson, O. (2016). Self-compassion: Embracing
suffering with kindness. In I. Ivtzan & T. Lomas (Eds.), Mindfulness
in positive psychology: The science of meditation and wellbeing
(pp. 37–50). London, UK: Routledge.
Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Bruinvels, D., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2010).
Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a
systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 60(4), 277–286.
Osgood, J. (2010). Reconstructing professionalism in ECEC:
The case for the ‘critically reflective emotional professional’.
Early Years, 30(2), 119–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09575146
.2010.490905
Petrassi, D. (2012). ‘For me, the children come first’: A discursive
psychological analysis of how mothers construct fathers’
roles in childrearing and childcare. Feminism & Psychology,
22(4), 518–527.
Quinn-Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stansfeld, S. A., Pike, C., McManus, S., Harris, J., Bebbington, P.,
Brugha, T., ... Clark, C. (2013). Occupations, work characteristics
and common mental disorder. Psychological Medicine, 43(5),
961–973.
Vincent, C., & Braun, A. (2013). Being ‘fun’ at work: Emotional
labour, class, gender and childcare. British Educational Research
Journal, 39(4), 751–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.20
12.680433
Weaver, R. H. (2002). Predictors of quality and commitment in
family child care: Provider education, personal resources, and
support. Early Education and Development, 13(3), 265–282.
Whitaker, D., Dearth-Wesley, T., & Goozea R. A. (2015). Workplace
stress and the quality of teacher–children relationships in Head
Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30(Part A), 57–69.
Wood, D. (2003). Editorial: Foucault and panopticism revisited.
Surveillance and Society, 1(3), 234–239.
Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A
review of the literature and some conceptual considerations.
Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 237–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-4822(02)00048-7
Zoritch, B., Roberts, I., & Oakley, A. (2000). Day care for pre-
school children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (3),
Art. No.: CD000564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.
CD000564.pub2

105 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Volume 42 Number 4 December 2017