Supporting early learning for children under three: research and practice

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on young children's learning at home and in early childhood settings, in order to identify key caregiving practices which support the learning and development of children under three. Design/methodology/approach – Starting with well-known reviews carried out in England, the USA, Australia and New Zealand, the authors searched the literature for evidence of the developmental needs of babies and toddlers. They then drew on the psychological and educational literatures to identify key practices supporting physical development, learning and communication, using expert review to build on the scientific research in areas where evidence was sparse. Findings – The review explores three key areas of practice: play-based activities and routines; support for communication and language; and opportunities to move and be physically active. Research limitations/implications – This review is not systematic or exhaustive, but aims to integrate current evidence within these three key areas in a succinct and accessible manner. The authors recognise that there are many other dimensions of effective practice, many of which are addressed elsewhere in this special edition, as well as myriad other influences on children's development, including social, family and environmental factors. Originality/value – Worldwide, growing numbers of children under three are experiencing non-parental care in early childhood settings. In comparison to evidence for preschool children, the literature on effective practice for under-threes is sparse. Given the urgent need for information to guide policy and practice, this paper provides a starting point and calls for a multi-source approach to strengthening the evidence base.

Understanding quality in home visiting—How Far Have We Come and Where Do We Need to Go?

“…First, it seems clear that the field would benefit from a comprehensive quality framework that can help organize the varying definitions, measures, and processes that make up the current landscape of home‐visiting quality research. This work should build on and expand existing frameworks specific to home visiting (Daro, ; Korfmacher et al., ) and draw from the considerable work to define and measure quality in other fields such as early childhood education and early intervention (La Paro, Thomason, Lower, Kintner‐Duffy, & Cassidy, ; Layzer & Goodson, ; Mathers, Eisenstadt, Sylva, Soukakou, & Ereky‐Stevens, ). An important first step will be to synthesize what we already know.…”

Challenging or creative? Impatient or curious? Disposition discourse in the early years

“…In a study with Labella, Engel (2011) found significantly low levels of curiosity within classrooms and attributed this to the focus within schools around attainment of skills, the pressure of testing and assessment and concluded that education was focussed on mastery rather than enquiry. Although this was a study of older children, as outlined above, the documentary analysis of the Early Years Foundation Stage revealed few explicit references to curiosity, even though children are primed to be curious (Mathers et al, 2014). The lack of focus on curiosity as a key aspect of children's learning within the EYFS may indicate why practitioners do not focus on this in practice.…”

“…This focus indicates that lifelong learning can have a positive impact upon the poverty rates which continue to rise within the UK (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2017). Lifelong learning has particular relevance to this research as the earliest years lay its foundations (Mathers, Eisenstadt, Sylva, Soukakou and Ereky-Stevens, 2014).…”

“…Traditionally, research within early years has focussed on studying children aged three and above with a notable absence of literature on the under threes (Mathers, Sylva, Eisenstadt, Soukakou and Ereky-Stevens, 2014) and gaps in research focussing on practice and provision for babies and toddlers (David, Goouch, Powell and Abbott, 2003). O'Sullivan and Chambers (2014) point out that there is limited research around quality of pedagogy and learning environments for two-year olds and refer to this age group as the poor relations, often lumped into the broad category of 'under threes.…”

“…Mathers et al (2014) highlight the importance of playful interactions as opposed to formal activities. These playful interactions require opportunities for children to take a lead in their play and Williams et al (2014) contrast play based programmes with ones where children are expected to work with content such as maths, language and literacy.…”