qualitative research in early years

• Open access
• Published: 20 February 2015

Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation

• Wendy K. Jarvie 1  

International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy volume  6 ,  pages 35–43 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

65k Accesses

1 Citations

Metrics details

Governments around the world have boosted their early childhood education and care (ECEC) engagement and investment on the basis of evidence from neurological studies and quantitative social science research. The role of qualitative research is less understood and under-valued. At the same time the hard evidence is only of limited use in helping public servants and governments design policies that work on the ground. The paper argues that some of the key challenges in ECEC today require a focus on implementation. For this a range of qualitative research is required, including knowledge of organisational and parent behaviour, and strategies for generating support for change. This is particularly true of policies and programs aimed at ethnic minority children. It concludes that there is a need for a more systematic approach to analysing and reporting ECEC implementation, along the lines of “implementation science” developed in the health area.

Introduction

Research conducted over the last 15 years has been fundamental to generating support for ECEC policy reform and has led to increased government investments and intervention in ECEC around the world. While neurological evidence has been a powerful influence on ECEC policy practitioners, quantitative research has also been persuasive, particularly randomised trials and longitudinal studies providing evidence (1) on the impact of early childhood development experiences to school success, and to adult income and productivity, and (2) that properly constructed government intervention, particularly for the most disadvantaged children, can make a significant difference to those adult outcomes. At the same time the increased focus on evidence-informed policy has meant experimental/quantitative design studies have become the “gold standard” for producing knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ), and pressures for improved reporting and accountability have meant systematic research effort by government has tended to focus more on data collection and monitoring, than on qualitative research (Bink, 2007 ). In this environment the role of qualitative research has been less valued by senior government officials.

Qualitative Research-WhatIs It?

The term qualitative research means different things to different people (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ). For some researchers it is a way of addressing social justice issues and thus is part of radical politics to give power to the marginalised. Others see it simply as another research method that complements quantitative methodologies, without any overt political function. Whatever the definition of qualitative research, or its role, a qualitative study usually:

Features an in depth analysis of an issue, event, entity, or process. This includes literature reviews and meta studies that draw together findings from a number of studies.

Is an attempt to explain a highly complex and/or dynamic issue or process that is unsuited to experimental or quantitative analysis.

Includes a record of the views and behaviours of the players — it studies the world from the perspective of the participating individual.

Cuts across disciplines, fields and subject matter.

Uses a range of methods in one study, such as participant observation; in depth interviewing of participants, key stakeholders, and focus groups; literature review; and document analysis.

High quality qualitative research requires high levels of skill and judgement. Sometimes it requires pulling together information from a mosaic of data sources and can include quantitative data (the latter is sometimes called mixed mode studies). From a public official perspective, the weaknesses of qualitative research can include (a) the cost-it can be very expensive to undertake case studies if there are a large number of participants and issues, (b) the complexity — the reports can be highly detailed, contextually specific examples of implementation experience that while useful for service delivery and front line officials are of limited use for national policy development, (c) difficultyin generalising from poor quality and liable to researcher bias, and (d) focus, at times, more on political agendas of child rights than the most cost-effective policies to support the economic and social development of a nation. It has proved hard for qualitative research to deliver conclusions that are as powerful as those from quantitative research. Educational research too, has suffered from the view that education academics have over-used qualitative research and expert judgement, with little rigorous or quantitative verification (Cook & Gorard, 2007 ).

Qualitative Research and Early Childhood Education and Care

In fact, the strengths of qualitative ECEC research are many, and their importance for government, considerable. Qualitative research has been done in all aspects of ECEC operations and policies, from coordinating mechanisms at a national level (OECD, 2006 ), curriculum frameworks (Office for Children and Early Childhood Development, 2008 ), and determining the critical elements of preschool quality (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003 ), to developing services at a community level including effective outreach practices and governance arrangements. Qualitative research underpins best practice guides and regulations (Bink, 2007 ). Cross country comparative studies on policies and programs rely heavily on qualitative research methods.

For public officials qualitative components of program evaluations are essential to understanding how a program has worked, and to what extent variation in outcomes and impacts from those expected, or between communities, are the result of local or national implementation issues or policy flaws. In addition, the public/participant engagement in qualitative components of evaluations can reinforce public trust in public officials and in government more broadly.

In many ways the contrast between quantitative and qualitative research is a false dichotomy and an unproductive comparison. Qualitative research complements quantitative research, for example, through provision of background material and identification of research questions. Much quantitative research relies on qualitative research to define terms, and to identify what needs to be measured. For example, the Effective Provision of PreSchool Education (EPPE) studies, which have been very influential and is a mine of information for policy makers, rely on initial qualitative work on what is quality in a kindergarten, and how can it be assessed systematically (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003 ). Qualitative research too can elucidate the “how” of a quantitative result. For example, quantitative research indicates that staff qualifications are strongly associated with better child outcomes, but it is qualitative work that shows that it is not the qualification per se that has an impact on child outcomes-rather it is the ability of staff to create a high quality pedagogic environment (OECD, 2012 ).

Challenges of Early Childhood Education and Care

Systematic qualitative research focused on the design and implementation of government programs is essential for governments today.

Consider some of the big challenges facing governments in early childhood development (note this is not a complete list):

Creating coordinated national agendas for early childhood development that bring together education, health, family and community policies and programs, at national, provincial and local levels (The Lancet, 2011 ).

Building parent and community engagement in ECEC/Early Childhood Development (ECD), including increasing parental awareness of the importance of early childhood services. In highly disadvantaged or dysfunctional communities this also includes increasing their skills and abilities to provide a healthy, stimulating and supportive environment for young children, through for example parenting programs (Naudeau, Kataoka, Valerio, Neuman & Elder, 2011 ; The Lancet, 2011 ; OECD, 2012 ).

Strategies and action focused on ethnic minority children, such as outreach, ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants and informal as well as formal programs.

Enhancing workforce quality, including reducing turnover, and improved practice (OECD, 2012 ).

Building momentum and advocacy to persuade governments to invest in the more “invisible” components of quality such as workforce professional development and community liaison infrastructure; and to maintain investment over significant periods of time (Jarvie, 2011 ).

Driving a radical change in the way health/education/familyservicepro fessions and their agencies understand each other and to work together. Effectively integrated services focused on parents, children and communities can only be achieved when professions and agencies step outside their silos (Lancet, 2011 ). This would include redesign of initial training and professional development, and fostering collaborations in research, policy design and implementation.

There are also the ongoing needs for,

Identifying and developing effective parenting programs that work in tandem with formal ECEC provision.

Experiments to determine if there are lower cost ways of delivering quality and outcomes for disadvantaged children, including the merits of adding targeted services for these children on the base of universal services.

Figuring out how to scale up from successful trials (Grunewald & Rolnick, 2007 ; Engle et al., 2011 ).

Working out how to make more effective transitions between preschool and primary school.

Making research literature more accessible to public officials (OECD, 2012 ).

Indeed it can be argued that some of the most critical policy and program imperatives are in areas where quantitative research is of little help. In particular, qualitative research on effective strategies for ethnic minority children, their parents and their communities, is urgently needed. In most countries it is the ethnic minority children who are educationally and economically the most disadvantaged, and different strategies are required to engage their parents and communities. This is an area where governments struggle for effectiveness, and public officials have poor skills and capacities. This issue is common across many developed and developing countries, including countries with indigenous children such as Australia, China, Vietnam, Chile, Canada and European countries with migrant minorities (OECD, 2006 ; COAG, 2008 ; World Bank, 2011 ). Research that is systematic and persuasive to governments is needed on for example, the relative effectiveness of having bilingual environments and ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants in ECEC centres, compared to the simpler community outreach strategies, and how to build parent and community leadership.

Many countries are acknowledging that parental and community engagement is a critical element of effective child development outcomes (OECD, 2012 ). Yet public officials, many siloed in education and child care ministries delivering formal ECEC services, are remote from research on raising parent awareness and parenting programs. They do not see raising parental skills and awareness as core to their policy and program responsibilities. Improving parenting skills is particularly important for very young children (say 0–3) where the impact on brain development is so critical. It has been argued there needs to be a more systematic approach to parenting coach/support programs, to develop a menu of options that we know will work, to explore how informal programs can work with formal programs, and how health programs aimed young mothers or pregnant women can be enriched with education messages (The Lancet, 2011 ).

Other areas where qualitative research could assist are shown in Table 1 (see p. 40).

Implementation Science in Early Childhood Education and Care

Much of the suggested qualitative research in Table 1 is around program design and implementation . It is well-known that policies often fail because program design has not foreseen implementation issues or implementation has inadequate risk management. Early childhood programs are a classic example of the “paradox of non-evidence-based implementation of evidence-based practice” (Drake, Gorman & Torrey, 2005). Governments recognise that implementation is a serious issue: there may be a lot of general knowledge about “what works”, but there is minimal systematic information about how things actually work . One difficulty is that there is a lack of a common language and conceptual framework to describe ECEC implementation. For example, the word “consult” can describe a number of different processes, from public officials holding a one hour meeting with available parents in alocation,to ongoing structures set up which ensureall communityelementsare involved and reflect thespectrum of community views, and tocontinue tobuild up community awareness and engagement over time.

There is a need to derive robust findingsof generic value to public officials, for program design. In the health sciences, there is a developing literature on implementation, including a National implementation Research Network based in the USA, and a Journal of Implementation Science (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman & Wallace, 2005 ). While much of the health science literature is focused on professional practice, some of the concepts they have developed are useful for other fields, such as the concept of “fidelity” of implementation which describes the extent to which a program or service has been implemented as designed. Education program implementation is sometimes included in these fora, however, there is no equivalent significant movement in early childhood education and care.

A priority in qualitative research for ECEC of value to public officials would then appear to be a systematic focus on implementation studies, which would include developing a conceptual framework and possibly a language for systematic description of implementation, as well as, meta-studies. This need not start from scratch-much of the implementation science literature in health is relevant, especially the components around how to influence practitioners to incorporate latest evidence-based research into their practice, and the notions of fidelity of implementation. It could provide an opportunity to engage providers and ECE professionals in research, where historically ECEC research has been weak.

Essential to this would be collaborative relationships between government agencies, providers and research institutions, so that there is a flow of information and findings between all parties.

Quantitative social science research, together with studies of brain development, has successfully made the case for greater investment in the early years.There has been less emphasis on investigating what works on the ground especially for the most disadvantaged groups, and bringing findings together to inform government action. Yet many of the ECEC challenges facing governments are in implementation, and in ensuring that interventions are high quality. This is particularly true of interventions to assist ethnic minority children, who in many countries are the most marginalised and disadvantaged. Without studies that can improve the quality of ECEC implementation, governments, and other bodies implementing ECEC strategies, are at risk of not delivering the expected returns on early childhood investment. This could, over time, undermine the case for sustained government support.

It is time for a rebalancing of government research activity towards qualitative research, complemented by scaled up collaborations with ECEC providers and research institutions. A significant element of this research activity could usefully be in developing a more systematic approach to analysing and reporting implementation, and linking implementation to outcomes. This has been done quite effectively in the health sciences. An investment in developing an ECEC ‘implementation science’ would thus appear to be a worthy of focus for future work.

Bink, S. (2007). A Large-scale Policy Research Programme: A Canadian Experience. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (pp. 109–116). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

COAG (Council of Australian Governments). (2008). A National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development . Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2008-10-2/docs/indigenous_early_childhood_NPA.pdf

Cook, T. & Gorard, S. (2007). What Counts and What should Count as Evidence. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (pp 33–49). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar  

Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., & Torrey, W. C. (2002). Implementing adult “tool kits” in mental health . Paper presented at the NASMHPD conference, Tampa, FL.

Engle, P. L., Fernald, L. C. H., Alderman, H., Behrman, J., O’Gara, C., Yousafzai, A., Cabral de Mello, M., Hidrobo, M., Ulkuer, N., Ertem, I. & Iltus, S. (2011). Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet , 378 (9799), 1339–1353.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (FMHI Publication #23) . Retrieved from University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, the National Implementation Research Network website: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf

Grunewald, R., & Rolnick, A. (2007). A Productive Investment: Early Childhood Development, In M. Young & L. Richardson (Eds.), Early Child Development From Measurement to Action: A Priority for Growth and Equity (pp. 15–26). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Jarvie, W.K. (2011). Governments and Integrated Early Childhood Development Policies and Services . Paper presentedat the 2011 International Conference on Early Childhood Development, Beijing.

Naudeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M. J. & Elder, L. K. (2011). Investing in Young Children: An Early Childhood Development Guide for Policy Dialogue and Project Preparation . Washington, DC: The World Bank.

OECD. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2012). Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Office for Children and Early Childhood Development, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2008). A Research Paper to inform the development of an early years learning framework for Australia . Retrieved from http://deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/EarlyChildhoodWorkforce/Documents/AResearchPapertoinformthedevelopmentofAnEarlyYears.pdf

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., & Elliot, K. (2003). The Effective Provision of PreSchool Education (EPPE) Project: Intensive Case Studies of Practice across the Foundation Stage (Technical Paper 10). London: DfEE/Institute of Education, University of London.

The Lancet. (2011). The Debate: Why hasn’t the world embraced early childhood development? [Video Post] Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/series/child-development-in-developing-countries-2

The World Bank. (2011). Early Child Development in China: Breaking the Cycle of Poverty and Improving Future Competiveness (Report No. 53746-CN). Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/9383/709830PUB0EPI0067926B09780821395646.pdf?sequence=1

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business, University of New South Wales at Canberra, Northcott Dr., Canberra, ACT, 2600, Australia

Wendy K. Jarvie ( visiting professor )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy K. Jarvie .

Additional information

This paper was originally prepared for the OECD Early Childhood Education and Care Network Meeting, 24 January 2012, Oslo, Norway.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jarvie, W.K. Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation. ICEP 6 , 35–43 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-6-2-35

Download citation

Published : 20 February 2015

Issue Date : November 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-6-2-35

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• early childhood education and care
• implementation
• qualitative research
• implementation science
• ethnic minority children

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

“It’s Embedded in What We Do for Every Child”: A Qualitative Exploration of Early Childhood Educators’ Perspectives on Supporting Children’s Social and Emotional Learning

Claire blewitt.

1 Health and Social Care Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia; [email protected] (C.B.); [email protected] (A.O.); [email protected] (H.M.); [email protected] (R.G.)

Amanda O’Connor

Heather morris, andrea nolan.

2 School of Education, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia; [email protected]

3 Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 1, 42-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia; [email protected]

Rachael Green

Amalia ifanti.

4 Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece; rg.sartapu@itnafi

Kylie Jackson

5 Bestchance Child Family Care, 583 Ferntree Gully Road, Glen Waverley, VIC 3150, Australia; ua.gro.ecnahctseb@noskcaJK

Helen Skouteris

6 Warwick Business School, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Early childhood educators play an important role in supporting children’s social and emotional development. While a growing body of research has examined the impact of curriculum-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs on child outcomes, the approaches educators use to strengthen children’s social and emotional functioning through their everyday practices are less defined. This study explored Australian early childhood educators’ perspectives on children’s social and emotional development, the approaches educators use to encourage children’s social and emotional skills, the enablers and barriers to SEL within the preschool environment, and the additional support needed. Thirty Early Childhood Education and Care professionals participated in semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Findings suggest children’s social–emotional development is at the forefront of educator planning, practice, and reflection. Participants described utilising various approaches to support children’s social and emotional skills, embedded within interactions and relationships with children and families. Specifically, strategies could be grouped into four broad categories: a nurturing and responsive educator–child relationship; supporting SEL through everyday interactions and practice; utilising the physical environment to encourage SEL; and working in partnership with caregivers. There was, however, inconsistency in the variety and type of approaches identified. Time constraints, group size, educator confidence and capability, high staff turnover, and limited guidance regarding high-quality social and emotional pedagogy were identified as key barriers. Participants sought practical strategies that could be embedded into daily practice to build upon current knowledge.

1. Introduction

Early childhood presents a unique window for social and emotional skill development. Social and emotional competence in young children has been described as an emerging ability to establish secure relationships with both adults and peers, experience, regulate and express emotions, explore the environment, and learn. This development occurs within the context of family, community and culture [ 1 ]. Frameworks of social–emotional functioning in early childhood grapple with the rapid growth that takes place during this period and the overlap between various skills and behaviours. As such, scholars often suggest domains of development and discrete skills that sit within each [ 2 , 3 ]. Drawing on a review of social–emotional domains most often captured in theoretical models, Halle and Darling-Churchill [ 4 ] offer social competence, emotional competence, self-regulation, and behaviour problems as central to understanding and assessing child development. Executive functioning is increasingly included as a distinct but related dimension, referring to the cognitive processes which enable children to organise their thinking and behaviour, facilitating self-regulation and learning.

This is also a period when social and emotional difficulties can first emerge. Australian research suggests between 13% and 19% of children aged 1.5 to 3 years display clinically significant difficulties with social, emotional or behavioural functioning, increasing to almost 20% by six years of age; however, only 16% of these access support from specialist mental health services [ 5 ]. Increasing understanding of the epidemiology of mental health problems indicates a robust link between social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties in childhood and later mental health problems [ 6 , 7 ], in addition to other maladaptive outcomes including obesity, diabetes and heart disease, lower rates of tertiary education, and reduced vocational opportunities [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].

The social and emotional skills that provide a foundation for ongoing learning and wellbeing are largely shaped by a child’s early relationships and care experiences [ 11 , 12 ]. Socioecological perspectives of child development [ 13 ] offer a framework to consider the multiple relationships and environments in which child development occurs. While family is recognised as the first and foremost influence on children’s wellbeing, other individuals, such as early childhood educators, can play an important role in supporting healthy development. Many children access Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in the formative years before formal schooling [ 14 ], offering a pathway to reach children at their point of need. High-quality ECEC includes both structural and process elements. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, this encompasses a stimulating environment, high-quality pedagogy and teacher–child interactions, highly qualified educators, and positive working conditions [ 15 ]. Together, these factors can strengthen children’s social, emotional, and cognitive functioning and subsequent school readiness, with research suggesting improvement in short- and long-term learning, health, and vocational outcomes [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. This can be especially important for children showing signs of early social and emotional difficulty, and children exposed to other individual or familial risk factors, such as socioeconomic disadvantage [ 20 , 21 , 22 ].

Knowledge of the importance of high-quality early learning experiences has seen children’s social and emotional skills prioritised in learning policy and curricula across countries, including Australia [ 23 ], the United States [ 24 ], England [ 25 , 26 ], and Singapore [ 27 ]. Social and emotional learning (SEL) describes the process by which children acquire and apply knowledge, skills, and attitudes relating to self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision making [ 28 ]. Research evidence shows early childhood educators can strengthen these emerging social and emotional competencies that promote future learning, health, and wellbeing in a similar way that they foster language and early literacy skills; through explicit instruction, teacher practices, integration within broader early learning pedagogy, and systemic integration across early childhood classrooms, settings, families, and communities [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Subsequently, there is increasing availability of SEL programming designed for ECEC to support educators to foster children’s social and emotional health [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ].

Teachers’ perspectives on SEL can influence adoption and sustainability and may moderate impact child outcomes [ 35 , 36 ]. These have been investigated by examining the social validity of SEL programming [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], and exploration of educators’ views relating to classroom-based SEL programs [ 41 ]. In a recent qualitative study, early childhood teachers (pre-kindergarten to Grade 3) in urban classrooms in the United States contended that they, with parents, were responsible for supporting children’s social and emotional competences. Educators wanted SEL curricula but did not want scripted programs as these placed restrictions which some perceived to limit their ability to effectively implement interventions. They also highlighted that SEL programming should reflect school and classroom culture, children’s racial and ethnic background, and the culture of children’s community, and that tangible resources and support from professionals was critical for successful implementation. Barriers to SEL included limited time, lack of support, insufficient resources, devaluing the teaching of social and emotional competences, and programs that were not contextually relevant [ 41 ].

Studies have also examined how educators facilitate SEL through their everyday practice and interactions, without deliberate intervention (i.e., without utilising an explicit SEL program). Aubrey and Ward [ 42 ] used survey (n = 46) and follow-up interviews (n = 3) to explore the views of early years practitioners in the United Kingdom regarding early intervention for young children experiencing difficulties in personal, social, and emotional development (PSED). They identified a variety of strategies to strengthen PSED including modelling, establishing clear expectations, formally teaching social skills, dialogue and explanation, shared games and activities, and scaffolding. A similar mixed-methods approach was adopted by Hollingsworth and Winter [ 43 ] in the United States who explored preschool teachers’ beliefs relating to social–emotional competencies and the teacher practices that support these skills. In a study involving 32 Head Start and pre-kindergarten teachers, educators placed higher importance on social–emotional skills than early language, literacy, and math and employed a variety of responsive practices to promote prosocial skills, pretend play, and friendship formation. In contrast, Papadopoulou and colleagues explored the perceptions of 34 educators working in childcare centres in Greece. While educators acknowledged the importance of social and emotional competencies, they did not report consistent use of practices to promote these skills in the ECEC setting. The authors argued this may be influenced by a lack of formal pedagogical childcare curricula, guidelines or practices focused on social and emotional development, structural barriers, and a belief that social and emotional development is beyond their sphere of influence [ 44 ].

1.1. The Australian Context

SEL literature recognises that while children have common developmental needs, cultures differ in how competences are expressed, and approaches to aid SEL must empower children within their unique environment [ 45 , 46 ]. Similar to other countries, Australia has seen rapid interest and expansion in SEL across all levels of education, including ECEC. Australian ECEC providers operate under the National Quality Framework [ 47 ], incorporating national law and regulations, the National Quality Standard, the assessment and quality rating process, and learning frameworks including Being, Belonging, Becoming: Early Years Learning Framework 2009 (EYLF) [ 23 ]. This framework guides early childhood curriculum and pedagogy to address the developmental needs, interests, and experiences of each child, while taking into account individual differences. The EYLF describes the expected outcomes for all children who attend ECEC services, with a strong emphasis on social and emotional wellbeing, including that they have a strong sense of identity, are connected with and contribute to their world, have a strong sense of wellbeing, and are confident and involved learners and effective communicators. This Framework calls attention to child-centred and integrated teaching approaches to facilitate knowledge and skill acquisition, while recognising children learn at different rates, in different ways, and at different times. Further, it acknowledges educator practice and decision making is based on knowledge and skill, knowledge of children, families and communities, self-awareness of how their own beliefs and values impact children’s learning, personal styles, and past experiences. Underpinning the EYLF learning philosophy is contemporary knowledge of early social and emotional development, encouraging educators to consider children’s learning and development within daily practice, curriculum decisions, planning, and reflection. In Victoria, where the current study was conducted, the Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework, aligned to the pedagogy of the EYLF, also informs the practice of Victorian professionals working with young children [ 48 ].

1.2. The Present Study

National policy and frameworks set a clear expectation that Australian educators foster children’s social and emotional competencies. However, many educators have not received formal preservice or professional learning in SEL or strengthening children’s social and emotional capabilities through teacher–child interactions [ 41 , 49 , 50 ]. Furthermore, little is known about educators’ perceptions of how they encourage SEL within the early learning environment, and there lacks research investigating the barriers and enablers for SEL delivered as part of everyday ECEC practice.

To inform the development of an intervention to support educators to foster children’s social and emotional development in Australian early childhood settings, an understanding of educator knowledge and perceptions of their current practice was needed. Exploration of educators’ perspectives regarding children’s social and emotional development and the role they play could uncover important strengths and limitations in current practices, highlighting opportunities to support the sector to improve outcomes for young children.

The aim of this study, therefore, was to examine educators’ perspectives on children’s social and emotional development within the ECEC environment, the approaches educators use to encourage children’s social and emotional skills, the enablers and barriers for educators in fostering social and emotional skills within their classroom, and the supports that could strengthen practice across the sector. To address this topic in depth, a qualitative design with semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions was adopted.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participants.

A convenience sample of 30 professionals working within the ECEC sector were recruited to participate in this study [ 51 ]. Participants included early childhood educators working in kindergarten and long day-care rooms from four Melbourne-based ECEC providers (n = 20), 5 non-teaching staff who held a leadership or executive management position with oversight of ECEC service provision, 3 researchers with expertise in early child development within ECEC, and 2 staff from non-government agencies with knowledge or involvement in efforts to increase early social and emotional development. These non-teaching professionals were included to provide further insight and validation of educators’ perspectives. A list of potential participants was generated by the research team and invited to participate via email. The demographic characteristics of participants are provided in Table 1 . The ECEC providers who participated in this study manage services within culturally diverse communities across the Greater Melbourne region.

Demographic characteristics of the participants.

2.2. Interviews and Focus Group Discussions

This study included both individual in-depth telephone interviews (n = 13) and in-person focus group discussions (n = 17). The inclusion of individual interviews and focus group discussions was informed by the availability and preference of participants. In-depth interviews were carried out with 13 professionals. Participants were provided a Plain Language Statement from the research team via email. Where informed, written consent was provided, an interview was conducted via phone by a member of the research team (CB). Each interview was audio-recorded. While recognising in-person interviews are often considered the gold standard [ 52 ], studies show telephone interviewing can offer an effective mechanism for data collection [ 53 , 54 , 55 ]. In one of the four participating ECEC centres, educators were invited to take part in a focus group discussion with their peers during a planned professional development session. All educators received a Plain Language Statement and a member of the research team described the project. Educators (17 in total) who provided informed, written consent were separated into three groups. A member of the research team facilitated each group discussion using the interview schedule, which was audio-recorded.

Interview questions were designed by the authors of this study. The topics in the interview guide (provided in Supplementary Materials ) related to participants’ knowledge of children’s social and emotional development in early childhood, approaches utilised to support children to develop both socially and emotionally in ECEC settings, perceived barriers to SEL, and potential pathways to overcome these barriers. The structure of the discussions included an introductory statement on each topic (knowledge, approaches, barriers, and pathways), followed by a series of open-ended questions. Ethics approval to conduct the study was granted by the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group.

2.3. Analysis

Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify the patterns and themes reported [ 56 ]. Our analyses were guided by the approach used by O’Connor, Nolan, Bergmeier, Williams-Smith, and Skouteris in their qualitative study investigating early childhood educator perspectives of supporting parent–child relationships and children’s social and emotional development [ 57 ]. Specifically, the five phases of inductive thematic analysis used were: (i) become familiar with the data; (ii) generate initial codes; (iii) search for themes; (iv) review themes; and (v) define and name themes [ 56 ]. Interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Two researchers (CB, AO) independently read, re-read, and coded 20% of transcripts to ensure the identification of consistent themes. Each transcript was read multiple times and initial codes identified. Similar initial codes were then grouped into more general themes, guided by the study aims. An Excel spreadsheet was used to assist with data management, coding, and analysis. Researchers compared and refined codes, themes, and subthemes, and any differences in independent coding were resolved by discussion. One author (CB) coded the remaining transcripts according to the coding structure. Members of the research team then reviewed and cross-checked codes, themes, and subthemes to ensure accurate coding of participant perspectives.

Four core themes emerged from the analyses, described in detail below, relating to: (1) educator knowledge; (2) mobilising knowledge—social and emotional learning is embedded within interactions; (3) barriers—capacity and capability; and (4) strengthening educator skill—building knowledge through practical strategies. Quotes are verbatim comments from participants (E = Educator, individual interview, FG = Educator, focus group, and P = ECEC professional in a non-teaching role).

3.1. Educator Knowledge

Participants referred to a broad range of competencies to describe early social and emotional development. Social development was recognised through prosocial interactions and communication with peers, caregivers, and groups, ability to communicate own needs, and confidence to separate from parents or caregivers. Emotional skills included understanding, labelling, expressing, and regulating emotion, recognising emotion in others, and displaying empathy. Self-awareness and identity, confidence, responsible decision making, resilience, and coping were also identified. Professionals who were not employed directly within the classroom (i.e., ECEC leaders, researchers, and program managers) were more likely to describe social and emotional development as the demonstrated growth in capabilities against expected milestones or norms, compared with educators who described observed behaviours and reflected on their own encounters and experiences working with children. Only two participants discussed the relationship between social–emotional development and mental health; however, all recognised social–emotional functioning as one of the most important areas of focus for ECEC, and foundational for future development:

Really for me social and emotional development is the most important thing to focus on for young children, I think all of the academic stuff will come if they have the right sort of social and emotional development [E08]

When asked to describe the factors that influence children’s social and emotional skills, educators and other ECEC professionals referred to individual, interpersonal, and environmental aspects. At the individual level, child temperament, communication skills, stage of development, confidence, and resilience were identified. Most emphasised the importance of secure, consistent relationships with parents and caregivers, as well as other adults outside the family. In addition, organisational and environmental factors were acknowledged in many interviews as important determinants of social and emotional growth, including the home environment, general surroundings and experiences, cultural influences, high-quality early years learning programs, and exposure to environments that encourage exploration.

Participants pointed to various indicators of early social challenges. Behavioural problems including aggression, attention seeking, lack of initiative, and excessive physical expression were highlighted, as well as difficulty engaging in prosocial interaction and play, evident through high levels of conflict, lack of confidence, and social disconnection. A number of educators identified difficulty separating from parents, internalising behaviour, over-reliance on the educator, and speech and language delays as indicative of broader social difficulties. Similar themes were identified as markers of emotional problems. Several respondents also referred to dysregulated emotional responses as an important indicator of potential emotional challenges. ECEC professionals recognised the need to consider children’s behaviour in terms of what would be expected of a child that age, as well as the “normal” behaviour of the individual child.

Educators reported that they derived knowledge through structured learning experiences such as pre-service education, professional development, online training, and conferences, as well as educator-led learning through internet and print research, sourcing journal articles, and referring to theory. Many discussed drawing on their experiences in the early learning environment, working with children and families with diverse and individual needs, knowledge gained through the trial-and-error nature of the ECEC educator role, observation of their peers, insights from parents, knowledge gained from being a parent themselves, and interaction, discussion, and reflection with colleagues:

It’s talking amongst our peers too, and observing, and learning as you go along with the children [FG5]

Further, several highlighted the benefits of working closely with other professionals, including preschool field officers and early intervention services who can provide targeted and intensive strategies and assistance. One service offered educators monthly consultations with a clinical psychologist. During each session, an educator presented on a child exhibiting difficult or challenging behaviour. The group then worked together on strategies, and the psychologist offered input and advice in relation to mental health and possible influential family factors.

Educators were asked if they used a curriculum to support children’s social and emotional development. Responses were mixed. Several noted their practice was guided by the EYLF. Others did not use a specific curriculum but indicated practices to support social and emotional development were embedded within a shared philosophy and approach, experience and understanding of the dynamics of the children and group, planning for children’s learning, reflection, and professional development. A small number of respondents suggested they would welcome specific SEL curricula:

I think a curriculum would be a great thing, because then you could be quite sure what all children are getting…. all the children would have the same foundation [E08]

I would say it’s possibly the forgotten area a little bit. I think there’s a big focus on literacy, a big focus on numeracy, STEM is the big buzz word at the moment, that everybody is focusing on, which is fantastic but as these things come into fashion, some of the other things fall off a bit and I think because social and emotional [development] is different, I don’t think there is a one size fits all…… just from an intentional teaching perspective, I think it’s something we could definitely do some more work on [E14]

3.2. Mobilising Knowledge—SEL Is Embedded within Interactions

Participants described various approaches to support children’s social and emotional skills. These were embedded within relationships and interactions with children and families.

3.2.1. Educator–Child Relationship

The educator–child relationship was widely acknowledged by educators and other professionals as critical to children’s development. Through a responsive and nurturing relationship, educators “tune into” children, gaining knowledge and understanding of each child’s individual needs. They can then identify concerns quickly and predict possible future behaviour. Staff from ECEC services (both educators and management) described this relationship in terms of attachment theory, emphasising that educators offer security by building trust and being emotionally available. One educational leader noted how this secure and safe base allows children to feel supported and build confidence as they experience “big feelings” and practise the skills to master them; the conversations children have with educators help them to make sense of what they are feeling.

I think it’s just really being available to the children, so really being in tune with them, to their emotions and being emotionally available yourself so that you can respond to children appropriately, you know you can support them through managing their emotions appropriately [P03]

3.2.2. Supporting SEL through Everyday Interactions

Targeted strategies to support SEL were embedded within everyday experiences and interactions, during child-directed play and learning, guided play and learning, and adult-led learning. Educators discussed utilising a broad range of approaches tailored to children’s needs; however, there was variation in the breadth of strategies identified across interviews. As noted by an ECEC leader:

Supporting children with social and emotional [development] shouldn’t sit separate to what we do every day with every child…it’s embedded in what we do for every child [P01]

Educator role modelling was identified as especially beneficial for children experiencing behavioural difficulty. Educators discussed allowing children to observe and absorb appropriate behaviour without expectations and gradually participate at their own pace. Many educators also discussed assisting children in identifying and labelling their emotions, understanding there is nothing wrong with their feelings, and building strategies and skills to move forward. The following comment is representative of findings:

We label the emotion, “I can see you’re really angry that your friend walked away from you, and I can see that made you upset, let’s try and solve the problem together” and getting in the moment rather than teaching on the mat [FG5]

Tapping into teachable moments during child-led play was identified by several participants, who recognised the learning that occurs through responsive interactions and gentle conversations. Individual and small group discussions allow educators to work alongside children, talk about how they are feeling, and help them to identify the words to explain their emotions. Educators also described working with children through adult-led teaching, using social stories, structured activities, songs, books, games, puppets, and role play. As one educator noted, stories are an especially effective way to help children to identify with what might be happening around them, and how they and others might be feeling, thereby starting to develop empathy:

Children are quite egocentric and our role is to get them to start thinking about how our behaviours and actions can affect other people as well [E14]

3.2.3. Physical Environment Supports SEL

The influence of the layout and organisation of the preschool classroom on children’s development was also highlighted. Educators noted visual aids (e.g., visual schedules and visual cards) are especially helpful for children with additional needs (requiring or able to benefit from specific considerations or adaptations). These can assist children in understanding and predicting what the day will look like, self-regulating, and controlling their emotions. Educators used the physical resources and materials within the room as a behaviour management technique—for example, redirecting children to activities or play stations which educators knew were enjoyable for that child, and setting up play spaces that responded to different sensory needs. The variety of play spaces and activities available encourage creativity, social interaction, and quiet time. As one educator explained:

I think everything in a kindergarten setting is set up to help children socially and emotionally, from the types of play spaces that are provided, they’re active, there are quiet play spaces, there’s play spaces for one child, there’s places for four children, everything in the room is set up to help them engage socially in their environment and with the people around them [FG4]

3.2.4. Working with Caregivers

Participants consistently emphasised the importance of working in partnership with caregivers to support children’s social and emotional functioning. Parents were recognised as the most important influence on their child’s life, and therefore, any strategies implemented in the preschool classroom are unlikely to be effective without reinforcement and consistency at home. Educators built relationships with families, recognised the individual needs of the child and family, and worked with the family to identify and implement strategies. ECEC centres use a range of approaches to build this partnership, including intake interviews, questionnaires, meetings, making parents feel welcome when dropping off and picking up their child from the centre, online learning stories (written observations and photographs shared with caregivers via an online system), and home visits.

3.3. Barriers—Capacity and Capability

Several barriers to supporting social and emotional skills were identified: a lack of time to focus on SEL, group size, educator capability, confidence and training, high staff turnover, difficulty engaging with families, perceived lack of recognition of the educator’s role, and a lack of consistency across services. Most respondents identified that time constraints and high educator-to-child ratio (in Australia, centre-based ratio requirements are as follows: birth to 24 months: 1:4, between 24 and 36 months: 1:4 or 1:5 depending on the state, over 36 months and up to preschool age: 1:10 or 1:11 depending on the state) negatively influenced educators’ ability to embed social and emotional learning. Several emphasised children need one-on-one time to work through emotions and challenges at the time they experience them, but this is often not possible due to competing priorities. Challenges associated with a perceived increased proportion of children attending ECEC services with additional or undiagnosed additional needs were identified. These included ensuring the service caters to the needs of all children, the time required to complete documentation to access additional support, and the risk of overlooking the needs of both children experiencing social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties as well as typically developing preschoolers.

Educator capability to nurture social and emotional skills was identified as a potential barrier in several interviews, with respondents acknowledging capability is shaped by preservice education and professional development, experience in different settings, time in the sector, and motivation. Two participants in ECEC leadership positions suggested a lack of confidence and self-esteem can influence educator practice, with one noting educators often develop attachments with children and will instinctually know how to support social and emotional skills but lack confidence and belief in the importance of their role. Gaps in educators’ skillset were also identified by a small number of respondents, specifically working with children experiencing social and emotional difficulty, and engaging with parents whom the educator may perceive as difficult to communicate with. Educator motivation to up-skill and explore the resources available, and their ability to be mindful and reflective in prioritisation of activities, was also noted as a potential barrier (e.g., what is most important to do for the child). Participants working directly with children did not specifically discuss their capability to attend training. A number of respondents suggested tertiary training programs needed to place greater emphasis on social and emotional competencies, and evidence-based approaches to translate concepts to effective practice.

Notwithstanding the importance of working in partnership with families, engaging with caregivers regarding children’s social and emotional development was emphasised as a significant challenge, particularly due to parental expectations. For example, a number of educators noted a disconnect between some parents’ focus on literacy and numeracy, compared to social and emotional development, which was described as the critical developmental focus from the educator perspective. Educators can find it difficult to communicate the value of SEL to parents, while being respectful of their culture and beliefs. One educator described a lack of interaction with parents as a barrier to learning more about their child. In addition, the complexity of working with parents of children who may be experiencing difficulties was noted, particularly when the educator perceived parents were not ready or able to engage in a dialogue or accept that their child may be having difficulty.

And a lot of families they don’t get it, that social and emotional is so important for school [it’s language and literacy] that if they’re not coping and they’re not managing at school just with their emotions and socially, they’re not going to be happy therefore they’re not going to learn and they don’t understand that [they don’t make that connection] [FG4]

Sometimes it’s hard to have that initial conversation with the parent, so you just have to know and understand what the family structure is about because you can’t sort of go in and go “your child’s got…”, you have be quite tactful [respectful]…One of the children in my room, it took me 12 months to have that conversation because it was never ever the right time and then one time it happened and I was there ready to go, you know [FG5]

Educators and other professionals identified an extensive range of programs to support SEL within preschool. The KidsMatter Early Childhood Framework [ 58 ] had been utilised by several participants. Other programs which centres were currently or had previously implemented included Animal Fun [ 59 ], 1-2-3 Magic [ 60 ], Circle of Security [ 61 ], PALS Program [ 62 ], and Early ABLES [ 63 ]. However, some highlighted the volume of programs available and increasing expectations placed upon educators meant programmatic approaches were less likely to be embedded and sustained within ECEC services over time:

…you know every couple of years there’s a revolution in childcare, everyone’s got a new idea and everyone’s got to implement the new idea and then you go back to 10 years ago, and go this worked then [FG4]

Two educators noted the approach to implementation was ad hoc, with classrooms within the same centre independently selecting certain components or themes each year. Another respondent (researcher) discussed the lack of clarity regarding what a high-quality SEL pedagogy looks like, suggesting if you asked a group of educators to describe the key elements of SEL, the key capabilities, progression, and pedagogies that support learning, you would likely receive different responses:

Educators can’t pick up a journal and see that example, a really well targeted description of what capabilities in SE look like, progression low to high, what effective pedagogy looks like, what effective measurement and clinical practice looks like [P10]

3.4. Strengthening Educator Skill—Building Knowledge through Practical Strategies

Participants identified a need for support that responds to the unique context and requirements of ECEC centres, aligned with the National Quality Standard and EYLF, and not requiring additional time or resources to implement. That is, resources that are accessible, easy to use, and can be embedded into daily practice and routines, as reflected in the following comment:

It needs to be something that’s easy to implement, that’s quickly accessible, that you can put into your program without having to think too much about it, so it naturally fits in, it links it with everything that’s already existing, it links with the NQS, it links with the EYLF, it links with all those things, but it’s not something else to learn, we don’t have to go oh my gosh, it’s another box we have to tick, it’s another thing we have to meet, it’s another criteria that has to be acknowledged in the program and then adding to it, it would be nice if it just fit nicely into the social and emotional area in everything [FG4]

Up-skilling educators in practical strategies and techniques that foster SEL was suggested by several participants, who noted that tools need to respond to the different ways educators build knowledge, considering sensory learning styles and delivery modalities, for example:

Educators always want practical stuff. Tell me how to do it, they like to have the information, but then give me the strategies, what do I have to do? So, practical stuff is really important, whether that’s conversation starters, actual sentences that you can use with children to support that, and I think video can be useful as well, just seeing how an educator does approach that kind of development in action is often, I think useful as well [E14]

Coaching and mentoring were highlighted as effective in building capability within ECEC classrooms. Two ECEC providers had implemented a mentoring program to nurture and develop educator practice, with participants noting more was needed. Increased opportunity to reflect, collaborate, and share knowledge with team members was suggested. Greater focus on explicit social and emotional skill instruction in addition to warm and responsive play, approaches tailored to the developmental stage of the child, and greater emphasis on collecting and interpreting data relating to child progress were also raised as mechanisms to strengthen educator practice and child outcomes.

4. Discussion

The current study examined ECEC professionals’ understanding of early social and emotional development, the practices and approaches that encourage children’s social and emotional skills, the enablers and barriers for early childhood educators in fostering skill growth, and the additional resources and support that could assist in this respect. The findings suggest children’s social and emotional development is at the forefront of educator planning, practice and reflection, supporting findings from similar research with early childhood educators in the United Kingdom [ 42 ], United States [ 41 , 43 , 64 ] and Singapore [ 65 ]. Participants unanimously endorsed the role of early childhood educators in fostering children’s social and emotional skills, in partnership with families, as the building block for healthy learning and development.

Social–emotional competence is a multifaceted concept based on emotional, cognitive, and behavioural knowledge and skill [ 66 ]. The current study suggests early childhood educators recognise this breadth and complexity of social–emotional skills, and the linkages that exist between social and emotional competencies. For example, several participants discussed the importance of the secure attachment that can form between an educator and child, and how this encourages the child to feel safe and explore the social world and provides a model for social interactions on which to build future relationships.

Participants described utilising a broad range of approaches to support children’s social and emotional development, which could be grouped into four categories: (1) nurturing and responsive educator–child relationships; (2) supporting SEL through everyday interactions and practice; (3) utilising the physical environment to encourage SEL; and (4) working in partnership with caregivers. Similar groupings have been reported by other researchers who have classified SEL strategies in early childhood settings. For example, O’Conner and colleagues [ 67 ] identified three classroom factors (beyond using a SEL curriculum) associated with social and emotional skill development for children aged three to eight years: positive classroom climate (modifying the physical space and materials, classroom management strategies and routines, and a supportive and emotionally positive environment), instructional strategies (modelling, reacting to, and instructing about children’s emotional expression) and teacher’s own social and emotional competence (supported through direct training, reflective supervision and relationship building, and stress-reduction strategies).

Educators in this study appeared to value and utilise programs and interventions to support SEL at the class-wide level, yet perceived embedding SEL into everyday interactions as the most effective way to foster children’s strengths and meet the unique needs of each child in the moment. Hollingsworth and Winter [ 43 ] similarly reported teachers foster prosocial skills by setting the tone of the social environment and responding to situations as they arose. This points to the potential utility of both universal class-wide SEL intervention in addition to fostering every child’s SEL through tailored and responsive supports embedded within interactions. Knowledge and insight from families was also recognised as vital for children’s SEL. Educators work with caregivers to understand the unique needs and context for each child, identify proactive, preventative, and early intervention strategies, and scaffold learning across home and service settings. In early childhood, family–child relationships are the primary source of learning experiences. SEL activities in the preschool environment can be reinforced and enhanced by enlisting families as partners in the overall SEL approach [ 28 , 68 ].

The findings of this research, however, indicated inconsistency across ECEC providers in the variety and type of strategies educators use to support social and emotional skill growth. There may be a lack of guidance on translating the EYLF into practice with regard to preschoolers’ social and emotional development. As a result, children’s exposure to high-quality interactions, strategies, and techniques that facilitate SEL is influenced by the knowledge, skill, and confidence of educators, and the culture, leadership, philosophy, and structural quality of each service, including educator-to-child ratio, space, resources, staff qualifications, programs, and curricula. This aligns with a recent exploration of Australian early childhood educators’ perceptions of the EYLF. This research reported educators are engaged with the content but seeking ways to transform the professional concepts embedded in the EYLF into their practice [ 69 ].

Teaching in early childhood is often characterised by continuous analyses of children’s understanding, and decisions about curriculum and pedagogy. This highlights the importance of understanding the knowledge educators draw on in their decision-making processes [ 70 ]. Regarding how educators understood and conceptualised social and emotional development, and how they perceived they supported children’s social and emotional skills, participants in this study appeared to draw on both explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to objective and rational knowledge that can be easily transferred through words and sentences [ 71 ]. It is knowledge that educators are consciously aware that they are using and that can be documented and communicated—for example, the EYLF, manualised SEL programs, and the step-by-step description of strategies where educators could clearly articulate why they were using the approach and the desired outcome for children. Tacit knowledge, by contrast, is personal and subjective, relating to the mental models, values, beliefs, perceptions, insights, and assumptions that educators form when working with children and families over time [ 72 , 73 ]. This knowledge may be more difficult to transfer to others. Across several interviews, educators suggested their practice was based in their knowledge and relationships with children, but they found it challenging to describe the specific strategies and techniques applied, which may reflect their tacit knowledge base.

Making educator knowledge explicit is critical to support teacher learning [ 74 ]; however, research indicates much teacher knowledge is implicit and not articulated [ 75 ]. Reliance on tacit knowledge also limits the opportunity to replicate high-quality, evidence-based practice across settings. The findings of this study highlight that although social–emotional development is a priority for early years professionals, there is inconsistency in training and application of support to enable this to occur. ECEC professionals seek practical strategies that will support them to strengthen children’s social and emotional skills through their everyday interactions and practice. Building upon educators’ practical (tacit) knowledge through the provision of explicit, documented techniques tailored to the breadth of strengths and needs within the room could allow educators to integrate formal learning with personal experience. More could also be done to assist educators in connecting with families to foster social–emotional development within the home environment.

5. Study Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, it relied on a convenience sample. While the authors invited educators from several different ECEC providers and included non-teaching ECEC professionals to validate the findings, these cannot be generalised, as is the nature of qualitative research. This approach was, however, appropriate to address the research aims, representing the perspectives of the participants, and feasible within the time and resourcing constraints of the study. Second, the research methodology included both in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Recognising it would have been preferrable to individually interview all participants, this format was most feasible for participants, and a pragmatic decision to integrate both methods was made. Furthermore, this research focused on educators’ perceptions of supporting children’s social and emotional development in the ECEC environment. This is important because educators’ perceptions and judgments affect teaching practice. However, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding their actual practices and behaviour. It would be beneficial to conduct observations of educators in the early learning classroom to better understand what teachers do in practice. Finally, while this study provides insights on the perspectives of Australian ECEC professionals, we did not explicitly explore how participants’ beliefs and practices were informed by either their own cultural background, or the cultural background of children in their care. While beyond the scope of the current study, this would be valuable to consider in future research.

6. Conclusions

This study adds to the literature through its focus on how the Australian ECEC sector approaches SEL in preschool classrooms. Aligned to the EYLF, ECEC professionals uniformly conceptualised children’s social and emotional skills as critical to ongoing development and a primary focus for the sector. However, findings suggest the breadth of strategies and techniques to support this development vary across organisations, influenced by a range of factors including structural quality, educator knowledge, skill and confidence, and qualifications and experience. Educators acknowledge trial and error is necessary in early years settings, and an approach that works for one child may not have the same impact or benefit for the next. Attention towards ensuring all children receive the type of interactions that will support positive social and emotional outcomes is warranted. Strengthening knowledge through a variety of explicit and practical strategies that can be embedded into daily practice was recommended by participants. These findings will inform the development of a pedagogical intervention to promote SEL and positive mental health in preschool classrooms and may offer valuable insights to support the pedagogical practices championed in Australian early learning policy.

Acknowledgments

The research team wishes to express their sincere gratitude to all participants, including early childhood educators, ECEC leaders, researchers and other professionals who took part in this research study and shared their valuable insights and experiences.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1530/s1 , Table S1: Interview Guide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, C.B., H.S., H.M., A.N., and A.O.; methodology, C.B., H.S., H.M., A.N., A.O., and R.G.; investigation: C.B., H.S., H.M., and A.O.; validation, C.B., H.S., and A.O.; formal analysis, C.B., H.S., and A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B.; writing—review and editing, C.B., H.S., H.M., A.N., A.O., R.G., K.J., A.I., and A.M.; supervision, H.S., H.M., A.N., A.M., and K.J.; project administration, C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics approval to conduct the study was granted by the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group- Health (ID: 39_2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

At the time this study was conducted, Claire Blewitt was engaged by one of the organisations included in this study as a Research Assistant. The role was not within the Early Years team, or with any of the educators or other professionals involved in this study. Kylie Jackson is employed by one of the ECEC organisations who participated in this study. Her role is not within the Early Years team, or with any of the educators or other professionals involved in this study. Helen Skouteris has an academic relationship with some organisations included in this study. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Advertisement

Writing and Publishing Qualitative Studies in Early Childhood Education

• Published: 07 June 2016
• Volume 45 , pages 15–26, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Olivia N. Saracho 1  

2415 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

When a study is published in a respected professional journal, it not only verifies that the research has been completed but also that it has been subjected to anonymous peer review. Published results from studies in early childhood education contribute to the field’s knowledge and provide direction to guide future early childhood education research studies. Early childhood education researchers have become confident in conducting qualitative studies to offer data-based results that can contribute to early childhood theory, research, policy, and practice. Qualitative studies can be written in several ways. Researchers use the purpose of the study, research questions, theoretical framework, and preferred writing style to select the appropriate format. This article provides a format that is simple and acceptable to encourage beginning and inexperienced researchers to write a publishable qualitative research report. It discusses several sections of an article including: title, abstract, introduction, purpose of the study, research questions, review of the literature, research methodology, informants, data collection methods, data analyses, data verification, results, discussion, and references. Each of these sections is discussed and illustrated with excerpts from manuscripts that were published previously by the author.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Parental Educational Expectations and Academic Achievement in Children and Adolescents—a Meta-analysis

Martin Pinquart & Markus Ebeling

The Role of School in Adolescents’ Identity Development. A Literature Review

Monique Verhoeven, Astrid M. G. Poorthuis & Monique Volman

When Does a Researcher Choose a Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Research Approach?

Feyisa Mulisa

1 The children and teachers' names are fictitious to protect their anonymity.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading . Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education.

Barnes, W. S., Snow, C. E., Hemphill, L., Chandler, J., & Goodman, I. F. (2000). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Caputo, R. (2004). Advice for those wanting to publish quantitative research. Families in Society, 85 , 401–405.

Article   Google Scholar  

Caulley, D. N. (2008). Making qualitative research reports less boring: The techniques of writing creative nonfiction. Qualitative Inquiry, 14 (3), 424–449.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Developing publishable mixed methods manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 107–111.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline of practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1–2). Los Angeles: Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Derntl, M. (2011). Basics of research paper writing and publishing . Unpublished manuscript, RWTH Aachen University.

Drisko, J. W. (2005). Writing up qualitative research. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86 (4), 589–593.

Gephart, R. P, Jr. (2004). From the editors: Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4), 452–462.

Jalongo, M. R., & Saracho, O. N. (2016, in press). Writing for publication: Tools and transitions that support scholars’ success. New York, NY: Springer.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Karther, D. (2002). Fathers with low literacy and their young children. The Reading Teacher, 56 (2), 184–193.

Lange, P. (2008). How to write a scientific paper for peer-reviewed journals. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, S. Savva, & J. O’Reilly (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed (pp. 70–81). Brentwood, Essex: Multi-Science Publishing Company Ltd.

Leech, N. L., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2011). Writing publishable mixed research articles: Guidelines for emerging scholars in the health sciences and beyond. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5 (1), 7–24.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lohr, K. N. (2004). Rating the strength of scientific evidence: Relevance for quality improvement programs. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16 (1), 9–18.

Marks, L., & Palkovitz, M. R. (2004). American fatherhood types: The good, the bad, and the uninterested. Fathering, 2 (2), 113–129.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of “direct” research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), 580–589.

Modern Language Association. (2009). MLA handbook for writers of research papers . New York, NY: Modern Language Association.

Ortiz, R. W. (2004). Hispanic/Latino fathers and children literacy development examining involvement practices from a sociocultural context. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3 (3), 165–180.

Ortiz, R., Stile, S., & Brown, C. (1999). Early literacy activities of fathers reading and writing and young children. Young Children, 54 (5), 16–18.

Parsons, J. A. (2008). Key informant. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.) Encyclopedia of survey research methods: A-M ., (Vol. 1, p. 407). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Saracho, O. N. (1984). Perception of the teaching process in early childhood education through role analysis. Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception, International, 19 (1), 26–39.

Saracho, O. N. (1988a). An evaluation of an early childhood teacher education curriculum for preservice teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 38 , 81–101.

Saracho, O. N. (1988b). A study of the roles of early childhood teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 38 , 43–56.

Saracho, O. N. (1997). Introduction: A family literacy themed issue. Early Child Development and Care, 127–128 , 1–2.

Saracho, O. N. (2001). Exploring young children literacy development through play. Early Child Development and Care, 167 (1), 103–114.

Saracho, O. N. (2002). Family literacy: Exploring family practices. Early Child Development and Care, 172 (2), 113–122.

Saracho, O. N. (2004). Supporting literacy-related pPlay: Roles for teachers of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31 (3), 203–208.

Saracho, O. N. (2008). A literacy program for fathers: A case study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35 (4), 351–356.

Saracho, O. N. (2013). Writing research articles for publication in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41 (1), 45–54.

Saracho, O. N. (2014). Critical perspectives on research methodologies in early childhood education. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in early childhood education: Review of research methodologies (Vol. II, pp. 1–22). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1998). A play foundation for family literacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 29 , 41–50.

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (2009a). Educating the young mathematician: An historical perspective through the 19th century. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36 , 297–303.

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (2009b). Educating the young mathematician: The 20th century and beyond. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36 , 305–312.

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (2013). Introduction: A contemporary researchers vade mecum (redux) . In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children/3rd (pp. 1–15). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Steig, W. (1969). Sylvester and the Magic Pebble . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Stevenson, R. B. (2004). Constructing knowledge of educational practices from case studies. Environmental Education Research, 10 (1), 39–51.

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (3), 207–211.

Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emerging literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173–206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

University of Chicago Press. (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1988).

Book   Google Scholar  

Word Press (no date). Research rundowns: Uncomplicated reviews of educational research methods . http://researchrundowns.wordpress.com/ .

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Young, F. W., & Young, R. C. (1961). Key informant reliability in rural Mexican Villages. Human Organization, 20 (3), 141–148.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Teaching, Learning, Policy and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

Olivia N. Saracho

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivia N. Saracho .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Saracho, O.N. Writing and Publishing Qualitative Studies in Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood Educ J 45 , 15–26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0794-x

Download citation

Published : 07 June 2016

Issue Date : January 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0794-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scholarly writing
• Qualitative research
• Report writing
• Publication
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research