Conference concerning Nordic research in the field of early childhood education and care:

Quality and relevance for policymaking

Oslo/Gardermoen, 18.-20.11.2009

Thomas Moser, Vestfold University College Katrin Hjort, Bente Jensen, Inge Johansson, Sven Erik Nordenbo, Niels Ploug & Michael Søgaard Larsen

Mapping and appraisal of Scandinavian research in ECEC institutions (2006-2007)

PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

1. Background and purpose of the project

2. Method and procedure

3. Selected results

4. Conclusions and future perspectives

Funding:

The Danish Evaluation Institute

Conducted by:

Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research

The Danish School of Education

University of Aarhus, Copenhagen

in 2007-2008

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

• In general: Providing research based knowledge Policy development, research and practice

• Develop research based knowledge for future (Danish) policy development (“evidence based”)

• Systematic mapping and appraisal of Scandinavian research projects and -results in early childhood education institutions is demanded (Lack of knowledge)

• Establish a free accessible research database

• Make Scandinavian research accessible for non Scandinavian researchers, practitioners, policy providers and public (English language)

EVIDENCE - BASED PRACTICE

Evidentia = clearness, certainty

Evidence based practice: A term introduced by David Sackett (public health)

A systematically and balanced use of the best existing evidence from clinical research combined with clinical evaluation

No new form of “technocracy” !!!

THREE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE FOR EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE

RESEARCH BASED

EVIDENCE

USER EXPERIENCE

AND INTENTIONS

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

AND COMPETENCY

EVIDENCE- BASED

PRACTICE

Professor Sven Erik Nordenbo, Danish School of Education

Professor Katrin Hjort, University of Southern Denmark Odense (2007)

Senior lecturer Bente Jensen, Danish School of Education

Professor Inge Johansson, University of Stockholm, Sweden

Professor Jan Kampmann, Roskilde University, Denmark (2006)

Senior lecturer Michael Søgaard Larsen, Danish School of Education

Professor Thomas Moser, Vestfold University College, Norway

Research Director Niels Ploug, Statistics Denmark

RESEARCHER GROUP

SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES 19 million inhabitants

80-90 % of the 1-5/6 years old are enrolled in ECE-institutions

5,5 mill.

4,6 mill.

9,0 mill.

Nordic:

Scandi-navian:

PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

1. Background and purpose of the project

2. Method and procedure

3. Selected main findings

4. Conclusions and future perspectives

Systematical mapping*)

characterizing main tendencies

Re-description

Descriptionof main

themes/topics

Implicationsfor pratice, policy and research

THE MAPPING PROCESS IN GENERAL

Searching literature

”Qualifying” the hits

*) Following the EPPI-Centre data extraction and coding tool for education studies Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, Institute of Education, London University

PROCEDURE SEARCH IN DATABASE

RESSOURCE HITSDanish pedagogical base 141

Researchdatabase (Denmark, betaversion) 22

NORBOK 69

Bibsys Forskdok (Norway) 394

Libris (Sweden, betaversion) 238

Forskning.se (Sweden) 2

www.skolporten.com (Sweden) 7

Hand search of

Scand. Journal of Educational Research 0

ERIC 3

References from Review Group 2

References from other researchers 7

1114 references identified

Reference screening Screening of titles and abstracts

879 references excludedCriteria: wrong institution or document type

171 documents included1st phaseIncluded documents

Reference doublets 64 doublets identified1095 unique references identified

1 document Not provided documents

Full texts screeningScreening på baggrund af dokumentets tekst

Provided documents 170 documents

64 documents excludedCriteria: wrong institution or document type

2nd phaseIncluded documents

106 documents included 2006: n=52; 2007:5 n=54;

Search hits

PROCEDURESEARCHING AND IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS

Systematical mapping

characterizing main tendencies of 106

studies

Re-description of 106 studies

EPPI – Reviewer 15 dimensions123 questions

Descriptionof six specific themes/topics

Implicationsfor pratice, policy

and research

52 Swedish 27 Danish

27 Norwegian

PROCEDURE MAPPING AND APPRAISAL

15 dimensions123 questions

PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

1. Background and purpose of the project

2. Method and procedure

3. Selected results Purpose, research design and –

methods

Specific themes and issues

4. Conclusions and future perspectives

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

Purpose, research design and –methods

N=106 scientific publications2006: n=522007: n=54

RESULTS

MAIN TOPICS OR FOCUS AREAS

N= 106 (52/54) NUMBER OF STUDIES

TOTAL 2007 2006

Teaching and learning 23 12 11

Assessment 16 8 8Equal opportunities 13 5 8Curriculum 11 5 6Organisation & Leadership 10 5 5Policy 10 3 7Classroom management 5 1 4Teaching as a career 4 1 3Methodology 4 1 3Other 41 25 16

N= 106 (52/54) NUMBER OF STUDIES

TOTAL 2006 2007

Content in ECE-institutions 35 13 22

Basic values and ethics 32 16 16

Assessment, evaluation, quality assurance and -development 31 23 8

Methods and practices 17 10 7

Purpose, aims and goals of ECE 17 4 13

Work with/based upon governmental/public documents (act; law; curriculum)

10 5 5

RESEARCH ISSUES AND TOPICS – DIDACTIC PERSPECTIVE

N= 106 (52/54) NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS

TOTAL 2006 2007

Description

57 32 25

Exploration of relationships

54 23 31

What works? 21 14 7

Methods development 8 5 3

Reviewing/synthesising research

6 4 2

THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH IN THE STUDIES

RESEARCH APPROACHESN= 106 (52/54)

TOTAL 2006 2007

Ethnography* 42 20 22Case study 21 11 10Cross-sectional study 18 11 7

Document study 18 9 9Views study 16 5 11

Action research* 9 5 4

One group post-test only* 5 2 3One group pre-post test* 5 1 4Systematic review 4 2 2Case-control study* 3 1 2Secondary data analysis 3 2 1 Other review (non systematic) 2 2 0Cohort study* 2 1 1Experiment with non-random allocation to groups* 1 0 1

Experiment with random allocation to groups* 0 0 0

N= 106 (52/54) NUMBER OF STUDIES

TOTAL 2006 2007

Staff 1 working in ECE-institutions

79 39 40

Children 52* 21* 31*

Parents 19 11 8

Staff 2: “around” institutions (administration, local, regional or national municipalities, union-representatives, politicians, connsultants, etc.)

14 9 5

Not specified or ”others” 5 3 2

SAMPLES - MAIN FOCUS ON ...

*Only three studies 2006 and nine 2007 address exclusively children

N= 106 (52/54) 2007 2006TOTAL N % N %

The position of the institution in

society31 16

30 %

15 28 %

Political or economic

background and context

14 2 4 % 12 23 %

Historical or cultural

background and context

9 611 %

3 6 %

Category not applicable

57 3259 %

25

48 %

THE PRE-SCHOOL INSTITUTIONS IN A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

SIX SPECIFIC THEMES AND TOPICS (2006/2007)

1. Play, learning and care, curriculum: 44 studies (26/18)

2. Vulnerability, social inequality, in-/exclusion in institutions: 16 studies (9/7)

3. Professionals, teachers: 79 studies (39/40)

4. Parents and institutions: 19 studies (11/8)

5. Implementation of legislation and curricula: 6 studies (2/4)

6. Health: 4 studies (1/3)

PRESENTATION - OVERVIEW

1. Background and purpose of the project

2. Method and procedure

3. Selected results

4. Conclusions and future perspectives

MAIN CONCLUSIONSOF THE 2006 & 2007 MAPPING

• Ethnography and case oriented studies focused on micro-processes, learning and professional work are predominating

• Little focus on political, social cultural and economical frames and their implications for the practical work

• Surprisingly little focus on children

• Inquiries aiming at the family’s social background, economical situation and its implications for the work in preschool institutions are rather rare

• The caring dimension of the pedagogical work is only examined in a few studies (few studies of the youngest children)

• Comparative studies are missing (local; international)

• The researchers’ craftsmanship. (What is in the research process? Explicitly about research methods and design)

• Few intervention studies, no experimental studies almost no longitudinal studies

SOME CHALLENGES• Questioning and developing the relation between research,

evaluation and practice

• Taking the “holistic” approach seriously also in research. A widened view of learning and the dynamics of learning (including the assessment/testing issue)

• The institutional frames for inclusion- as well as exclusion-processes

• The importance of the interaction with parents and the relations between the professionals and parents

• The relationships between political level, practitioners/professionals and practice (secure and develop quality)

• Combining micro and macro perspective, qualitative and quantitative approaches, cross sectional and longitudinal studies, description and intervention

SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING POLICY MAKING

• Using this and other reviews and mappings actively and critically – cross national/Nordic

• Funding further research mappings, perhaps also “back in time”

• Contribute to disseminate the findings on different levels

• Establishing a formal cooperation between the Scandinavian/Nordic countries (“Nordic/Scandinavian Clearinghouse for Educational Research”)

• Establishing national centers for research based knowledge

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