Best writers. Best papers. Let professionals take care of your academic papers

Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon "FIRST15"
ORDER NOW

Article Review Structure Introduction: How did the author(s) introduce the content area? How was the topic situated withi


Article Review Structure Introduction:  How did the author(s) introduce the content area? How was the topic situated withi

 

Article Review Structure

Introduction:  How did the author(s) introduce the content area? How was the topic situated within a larger view of early childhood education? What is the purpose? Was the need for this research discussed? (i.e. Did the author(s) build a case for a need for this research?) If so, what was the reasoning? Were related studies discussed in terms of the present research? What are the research questions?

Methods: What is the setting? Who are the participants? What are the data sources? How was the data collected? How was the data analyzed?

Findings: What were the findings from this study? How were the findings supported? (examples from transcripts, statistical evidence, etc…)

Discussion: How were the findings interpreted? How were the findings discussed in terms of the research questions? How were the findings discussed in terms of the larger problem within early childhood education? Did the explanation of the findings make sense to you?

Limitations: What were the limitations stated by the author(s)?  Did you find any other limitations existed?

Future directions: What were the future directions stated by the author? Would you use this research for any other future research not mentioned?

Reflection: What did you think of this article? Do you believe there was a need for this research within the field of early childhood education?  Were there any foundational components missing? If you could change portions of this research, how would you change it?

Article Review Structure

Introduction: How did the author(s) introduce the content area? How was the topic situated within a larger view of early childhood education? What is the purpose? Was the need for this research discussed? (i.e. Did the author(s) build a case for a need for this research?) If so, what was the reasoning? Were related studies discussed in terms of the present research? What are the research questions?

Methods: What is the setting? Who are the participants? What are the data sources? How was the data collected? How was the data analyzed?

Findings: What were the findings from this study? How were the findings supported? (examples from transcripts, statistical evidence, etc…)

Discussion: How were the findings interpreted? How were the findings discussed in terms of the research questions? How were the findings discussed in terms of the larger problem within early childhood education? Did the explanation of the findings make sense to you?

Limitations: What were the limitations stated by the author(s)? Did you find any other limitations existed?

Future directions: What were the future directions stated by the author? Would you use this research for any other future research not mentioned?

Reflection : What did you think of this article? Do you believe there was a need for this research within the field of early childhood education? Were there any foundational components missing? If you could change portions of this research, how would you change it?

,

T c

J D

a

A R R A

K T P I I

m g 2 2 p e & i t W i a s e t s

p K h W B r c s

0 h

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 187–198

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

eachers’ roles in infants’ play and its changing nature in a dynamic group are context

eesun Jung epartment of Teacher Education, Patton College of Education, Ohio University, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history: eceived 8 August 2011 eceived in revised form 21 April 2012 ccepted 1 May 2012

a b s t r a c t

Using a qualitative research approach, this article explores teachers’ roles in infants’ play and its changing nature in an infant group care setting. Three infant teachers in a child care center were followed over three months. Observations, interviews, ongoing conversations, emails, and reflective notes were used

ELSEVIER

eywords: eachers’ roles lay nfant development nfant group care

as data sources. Findings revealed that the teachers took on various roles: observer, play follower/play partner, facilitator, commentator/interpreter, play supporter, play leader, play interrupter, safety/conflict manager, multiple-responder, and multiple-role taker. The nature of the teachers’ roles developed and changed over time in relation to the infants’ rapid growth, group dynamics, and infant–teacher relation- ships. This study suggests that infant teachers’ practice is complex, changing, and developmental as the group care context is dynamic and multilayered.

In early childhood education, there has been unanimous agree- ent among educators and researchers that children learn and

row through play (Fromberg, 2002; Manning-Morton & Thorp, 003; Van Hoorn, Nourot, Scales, & Alward, 2003; Wood & Attfield, 005). Play enhances children’s understanding of the social and hysical worlds, enriches their emotional experiences, and empow- rs their ownership and control of their own learning (Borstein

Lamb, 1992; Honig, 2006; Wortham & Wortham, 1989). Thus, n play, children are committed to what they pursue and actively ry out more creative thinking (Broadhead & English, 2005;

hitebread & Jameson, 2005). During play, children flexibly move n and out of their imaginative world, experimenting with their ctions and controlling their real world (Lillard, 2007). Children are ocialized and enculturated by interacting with peers and teach- rs through play (Pramling-Samuelsson & Fleer, 2010). They learn o communicate, negotiate with others, and understand their per- pectives (Fromberg, 2002; Manning-Morton & Thorp, 2003).

Teachers’ roles in children’s play have been regarded as a owerful influence on children’s quality experiences (File, 1994; ontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997). A considerable body of research as focused on teachers’ roles in play at preschools (e.g. Bennett, ood, & Rogers, 2001; Einarsdottir, 1998; Kemple, 1996; Korat,

ahar, & Snapir, 2002; Saracho, 2002). Taking a qualitative

esearch approach, these studies identified teachers’ roles during hildren’s play as stage manager, mediator, player, scribe, asses- or/communicator, planner (Jones & Reynolds, 1992), provider,

E-mail address: [email protected]

885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.05.001

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

observer, participant (Bennett et al., 2001), stage manager, play- mate/enhancer, interviewer, and safety/behavior monitor (Kontos, 1999). Providing detailed descriptions of teachers’ role-taking in play within natural classroom settings, these studies highlight the importance of teachers’ roles and the complexity of classroom con- text and its relation to teachers’ practices. They also provide further insight on the actions of teachers’ involvement in play.

Substantial research also provides that mothers support and enrich infants’ play. When mothers stay near infants, convey an affectionate and sensitive attitude, encourage their attention, sug- gest new toys, and use modeling for play, infants show a high level of focus and far more advanced play than they do in their soli- tary play (Bigelow, MacLean, & Proctor, 2004; Bornstein, Haynes, O’Reilly, & Painter, 1996; Fiese, 1990; Hodapp, Goldfield, & Boyatzis, 1984; Pridham, Becker, & Brown, 2000). However, a majority of the studies concentrate on mothers’ roles while there is a paucity of research on infant teachers’ roles in play. Even though the studies on mothers elucidate the significant aspects of adults’ roles in play, it should be recognized that mothers’ roles cannot be generalized to infant teachers’ due to their contrasting caregiving contexts.

Studies on infant group care reveal the unique nature of infant teachers’ work while posing important questions regarding teach- ers’ roles in play. First, infant–teacher ratios are reported to influence teachers’ behaviors. Some research has shown that if teachers work in settings with high infant–teacher ratios, they show a low level of sensitivity and responsiveness because they have to divide their attentions among several infants (Ahnert,

Pinquart, & Lamb, 2006; Goossens & Melhuish, 1996; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1996). But, somewhat different results are reported by Klein and Feldman (2007) who found that

1 arch Q

t a b o w i p

w i r c u S a P t r n

a ( & ( l s c i 2 g i m r f f i W a e s r b g t e t v o q

t f 2 W v t p c H c v a l r w c

88 J. Jung / Early Childhood Rese

eachers were highly sensitive and responsive to infants even in setting with a high toddler–teacher ratio (1:6 to 1:8). It should

e noted that the teachers were assessed during their one-on- ne interactions with toddlers. These results pose questions about hether teachers’ sensitivity and responsiveness changes depend-

ng on the number of infants they interact with at the moment of lay and how group size might impact teachers’ roles in play.

Second, in group care settings, teachers form relationships ith multiple infants. During the process of relationship build-

ng, teachers and infants become more “contingent, responsive, and eciprocal” (Raikes & Edwards, 2009, p.2). In particular, caregivers hange their behaviors toward infants, becoming significant fig- res as “carer, playmate, resource, and teacher” (Lee, 2006, p.145). ince play is believed to facilitate high-quality infant–teacher inter- ctions (Bergen, Reid, & Torelli, 2009; Degotardi, 2010; Wittmer & etersen, 2010), teachers’ roles in play might also change according o their developing relationships with infants. Thus, how teachers’ oles unfold within the course of the relationship-building process eeds to be addressed.

Third, studies on mothers’ behavior in play suggest that dults change their response according to children’s development Bornstein, Tamis-LeMonda, Hahn, & Hayes, 2008; Danis, Bourdais,

Ruel, 2000; Morelock, Brown, & Morrissey, 2003). In Sachs’s 1984) study, the mother adjusted her language stimulation to the evel of communicative ability of her toddler, using less explicit uggestions and more descriptive speech and inferences for the hild as he became older. Mothers also modify their play behav- or to fit their infants’ cognitive development (Dickson & Smith, 003). In Newland, Roggman, and Boyce’s study (2001), as infants rew over time from 11 months to 17 months, they increas- ngly initiated more social toy play with their mothers and the

others increasingly got involved in their play and responded eciprocally. Whereas many studies demonstrate that mothers dif- erentiate responses according to infants’ developmental status, ew studies explore teachers’ changing practice in response to nfants’ growth. One recent study by Deynoot-Schaub and Riksen-

alraven (2008) showed that teachers’ ways of interacting differed t 15 months versus 23 months. For 23-month-olds, the teach- rs were more supportive and respectful of the infants’ autonomy, howing higher quality interactions than at an earlier age. The esearchers presumed that during the second year, the teachers’ etter understanding of the infants as well as the infants’ rapid rowth in language, cognitive, motor, and social skills contributed o the infants’ independence and teachers’ changing practice. How- ver, a question remains regarding what actually underlied the eachers’ changing practice. Taken together, these studies provide aluable insights into infant teachers’ practice and the complexities f practice inherent in group care settings, but still leave significant uestions unaddressed regarding teachers’ roles in play.

Recently, a group of scholars from various countries collabora- ively conducted cultural–historical research on the play of children rom birth to 3 years of age (Fleer, Tonyan, Mantilla, & Rivalland, 010; Pramling-Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2010; Rao & Li, 2010; hite et al., 2010; Wineberg & Chicquette, 2010). The researchers

ideotaped five to eight children for one whole day in ECE set- ings in each country and interviewed the children’s teachers and arents. The findings showed that the parents and the teachers onsidered play as the most important experience for children. owever, their views of adult roles differed depending on their ulture. For example, the Aotearoa New Zealand teachers mainly iewed their roles as facilitator and guardian, the Swedish teachers s observer, the Australian teachers as supporter of independent

earning, and the American teachers as provider of the play envi- onment. The study suggested that these views of teachers’ roles ere shaped and influenced by the social, cultural, and historical

ontext where they were situated and conceptualized.

uarterly 28 (2013) 187–198

To my best knowledge, the topic of teachers’ beliefs and prac- tices in infants’ play has not been investigated as a primary focus in empirical studies. Rather, infant teachers’ practice has been set as a background context for examining infants’ play. It has mostly been measured in terms of particular characteristics such as sensitivity and responsiveness, and based on a few observed occasions, thus missing a more holistic view of infant teachers’ practice (Santelices, Olhaberry, Perez-Salas, & Carvacho, 2009). Fur- thermore, infant teachers’ beliefs about their practice have been investigated very rarely until recently (Berthelsen & Brownlee, 2007; Degotardi, 2010). This may be in part because infant teach- ers’ practice is seen as less educational or complex than preschool teachers’, which is seen to entail more sophisticated decision pro- cesses. Consequently, there has been a lack of in-depth knowledge on actual infant teachers’ practice and their rationale behind the practice. Many preservice and inservice teachers are not much less prepared for informed practice in responding to infants’ play. To further our understanding of infant teachers’ thinking and prac- tice, there is a need to for research which centers on teachers, details their roles in play, and articulates the rationale behind their practice. Also, given that the nature of infant group care settings is related to teachers’ practices, teachers’ roles should be inves- tigated in a natural group care setting over an extended period of time to document possible changes in practice, and the influ- ences of those changes, as infants grow and change. The present study takes on these inquiries by exploring infant teachers’ roles in play on a daily basis over three months within a natural group care setting.

So far, there is no qualitative study that investigates how infant teachers’ roles in play unfold in a group care setting. Even though quantitative research approaches are predominant in the major- ity of the studies on center-based child care and they accurately differentiate the quality of child care, qualitative research is neces- sary to offer “a richer understanding” of the processes involved in day to day interactions (Fenech, Sweller, & Harrison, 2010, p.293). Using a qualitative case study method, the present study first takes a microscopic approach by exploring what kinds of roles teachers take on in infants’ play. Then, it takes a macroscopic approach by exploring how teachers’ roles change over time. Find- ings from this study can provide insight for preservice and inservice teachers into the nature of infant teachers’ work and expand their perspectives on teaching and caring through play in infant care settings.

Research Questions

1. What roles do infant teachers take on in infants’ play in a group care setting?

2. How do teachers’ roles change over time?

1. Method

The purpose of this study was to deliver a “thick description” of teachers’ actual practice in play and their in-depth rationale behind their practice, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the complexities of teachers’ practices in infant group care set- tings (Merriam, 1998, p.31). Thus, it was important to invest an extended period of time with the teachers, observing and interact- ing with them, so as to understand an insiders’ view of their daily experiences, therefore, qualitative case study was deliberately cho- sen (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). Due to its “richness and diversity” as

a research method (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p.61), case study enabled me to be immersed in the setting, to become close to the teachers’ experiences, and to reflect on what was experienced at the setting (Stake, 2005).

J. Jung / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 187–198 189

Table 1 Description of the participants and their key infants.

Teacher/key infant Emily/Matt Irene/Ava Katie/Isabel

Age Early 30s/15 month Mid 30s/15 month Late 20s/15 month Ethnicity of teacher/infant Caucasian/Caucasian Asian/Caucasian Asian American/Asian

American Infant’s prior experience of the

primary caregiver & the center Emily as a new key teacher to Matt & Returning after the summer break

Irene as a new key teacher to Ava & Returning after the summer break

Katie as a new key teacher to Isabel & Returning after the summer break

Teacher’s position & hours of working per week

Head teacher, supervisor of student teachers & 30 hours

Associate teacher, supervisor of student teachers & 30 hours

Graduate assistant Teacher & 20 hours

on

1

R p l c o r t t v i A w d m p d p

e l p c i r

w f y ( p f n w a w t t

1

v c t I t t i u

Teacher’s education degree M.A. dual degree in early childhood education (ECE) and special educati

.1. Site and participants

After the research proposal was approved by the Institutional eview Board (IRB), I began searching for possible sites, using “pur- oseful sampling” (Merriam, 1998, p.61). After I contacted several

ocal child care centers in New York City, a university-based child are center was invited to be involved in the research because f its dedication to child-centered education and play-based cur- iculum. The center had one infant room where Emily (the head eacher), Irene (the co-teacher), and Katie (the graduate assistant eacher) worked with eight infants. First, I contacted the teachers ia email to explain the purpose of the study and its methods, ask- ng whether they would be interested in participating in the study. ll three teachers returned positive responses via email within two eeks. Then, I individually met with them, explaining the study in etails and describing what might be possible discomfort due to y presence in their room, as well as the potential benefit of their

rofessional growth through reflection. I also ensured the confi- entiality of their participation. All three teachers volunteered to articipate in the study.

The infant room had four additional part-time student teach- rs who rotated working during the weekdays, contributing to a ow infant–teacher ratio (3:1 or less). The setting implemented a rimary caregiver system such that each teacher became a key aregiver for certain infants, responsible for consistently provid- ng individualized care, keeping records, and establishing a secure elationship with their key infants (Margetts, 2005).

Although the focus of the study was on the teachers, the infants ere also observed as the teachers got involved in their play. I

ocused on the infants who were older than 12 months, although ounger infants (0–12 months) were capable and active players Lee, 2006), because there were only limited studies on caregiver’s lay with infants between 12 to 24 months. At the time of the study, our infants (Hannah, Ava, Matt, Isabel) were identified, but Han- ah came to the center only once or twice a week. Thus, observation as mainly focused on the teachers’ play with Ava, Matt, and Isabel,

ll of whom were 15-months-old at the beginning of the study and ere returning from the previous year at the center. The descrip-

ion of the teachers and their key infants is presented in Table 1. All he names are pseudonyms.

.2. Data sources and analysis

The methods of data collection included observations, inter- iews, emails, on-going conversations, and reflective notes. Data ollection began on September 4, 2007, the first day on the cen- er calendar, and lasted for 12 weeks until November 23, 2007. observed the teachers inside the classroom as well as from

he observation room four days a week during the free choice ime (8:45–11:00 AM or 11:30 depending on the weather and the nfants’ schedule). During the observations, running records were sed to note teachers’ and infants’ verbal behaviors (e.g., talk,

M.A. in ECE B.A. (Expect to obtain M.A. in ECE in 6 months)

exclamation) and nonverbal behaviors (e.g., facial expression, ges- ture, mood, action), and I typed them into MS-Word files later. The observation notes were composed of play episodes, which were the unit of analysis in this study (Genishi, 1981). Each play episode necessitated three elements; infant play, teacher involvement, and a beginning and ending moment of the play. The definition of play used for the study followed from the teachers’ definition of play described during their first interviews, which was an infant’s vol- untary and exploratory behavior. If there were an element of infant play and teacher involvement regardless of who initiated the play, it was regarded as an episode. The total number of the episodes for each participant is: Emily (n = 124), Katie (n = 122), and Irene (n = 91).

In order to ensure trustworthiness, I used reflective notes, ‘member checking,’ and ongoing conferencing with a senior researcher. On each reflective note, I wrote down my preconcep- tions related to infant play and teachers’ roles and my expectations about the study results. This helped me to critically examine my pre-assumptions about the study, and to continuously think about alternative ways to read and analyze the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I also sent the participants the observation notes via email to ask for their feedback as ‘member checking’ (Janesick, 1994). They sometimes responded with detailed explanations about the notes. Ongoing conferences with a senior researcher helped me with further reflection on data analysis.

Additional visits, emails, and casual conversations were also utilized to provide clarification of observed behaviors. Individual semi-structured 60–90 minute interviews were conducted with each participant three times, in the beginning (Interview #1: Emily- Sept. 7, Irene-Sept. 14, Katie-Sept. 10), in the middle (Interview #2: Emily-Oct. 18, Irene-Oct. 25, Katie-Oct. 19), and at the end of the research period (Interview #3: Emily-Nov. 20, Irene-Nov. 21, Katie-Nov. 23). This afforded time for the participants to share their present thoughts and reflect on their experiences related to the study. During the interviews, I asked the teachers about their beliefs about infants, play, and teachers’ roles. Their reflections on cur- rent practice and their personal/professional experiences related to play were also discussed since teachers’ beliefs are influenced by these factors (Schoonmaker & Ryan, 1996; Williams, 1996). The interviews were transcribed on the day of the interview.

I organized all the collected data in chronological order. Each episode was indicated by the week of its occurrence and the episode number for a particular teacher. For example, Irene’s episode W10 EP75 indicated that it was Irene’s 75th episode and occurred on the 10th week from the first day of data collection, which was the week of November 5th.

The present study used inductive analysis and the data guided what to look for during data analysis (Hatch, 2002). Originally I

set out to explore the teachers’ roles in play. As the study pro- ceeded, the teachers’ interview and observation data informed me that their roles were changing in relation to the infants’ growth and infant–teacher relationship development over time. Thus, I

190 J. Jung / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2013) 187–198

Table 2 Total number of the teachers’ play episodes with their key infant vs. other infants.

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Total number of the teacher’s play episodes with their key infant

8 19 25 20 23 13 13 11 6 16 8 6

Total number of the teacher’s play 9 19 18 23 15 12 13 10 13 27 13 12

a o

t r f e w t w v f s m e t t t e a t y o m

2

i t

2

2

t r t t o a u e t i b t i p f

episodes with ‘other’ infants Total number of the teachers’ play

episodes with all three infants 17 38 43 41

dditionally included analyses of teachers&#x201

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.



Source link

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"