This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 04 December 2014, At: 04:19Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Making Research Relevant in PreserviceEarly Childhood Teacher EducationLinda J. Harrison a , Myra Dunn a & Kennece Coombe aa School of Teacher Education, Charles Sturt University , Bathurst,New South Wales, AustraliaPublished online: 23 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Linda J. Harrison , Myra Dunn & Kennece Coombe (2006) Making ResearchRelevant in Preservice Early Childhood Teacher Education, Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducation, 27:3, 217-229, DOI: 10.1080/10901020600843434

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901020600843434

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

217

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27:217–229, 2006Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print/ 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901020600843434

UJEC1090-10271745-5642Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, June 2006: pp. 1–28Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education

Making Research Relevant in Preservice Early Childhood Teacher Education

Making Research RelevantL. J. Harrison et al. LINDA J. HARRISON, MYRA DUNN, AND KENNECE COOMBE

School of Teacher Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, New SouthWales, Australia

Increasingly, researchers, teacher educators and governmental agencies underline theneed for early childhood professionals to be able to conduct and use relevant researchin their practice. In contrast, early childhood teachers tend to draw exclusively onpractical advice rather than research evidence to evaluate and develop their teaching.To address these contradictions in expectations, recently developed preservice earlychildhood teacher education programs have included a core research subject thataims to foster an appreciation of the value of research and its contributions to pro-fessional practice. This study examines the effectiveness of teaching and learningapproaches designed to make research relevant to undergraduates at an Australianregional university by tracking students’ changing views about research during a one-semester teaching period. The findings of this study show that relevant learning experi-ences, such as designing and conducting a simple research project, modeling research,collaborative inquiry, focused reading, and organizing a research conference, signifi-cantly changed student perceptions of the relevance of research to their teaching andtheir future role as early childhood professionals.

Introduction

Increasingly, early childhood teachers are expected to “understand and use methods of inquiryand research findings in making professional decisions” (National Association for Early Child-hood Teacher Educators and American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Posi-tion Statement, 2001). In addition, early childhood research has been identified as a priorityarea by governmental agencies (National Crime Prevention, 1999; Australian Institute ofHealth and Welfare, 2005). Kilderry, Nolan, and Noble (2004) note the “renewed vigour” ininternational early childhood research, which has explored new ways of researching with chil-dren—changing perspectives and developing new theoretical frameworks. They argue stronglythat through research knowledge “early childhood professionals will be empowered to makeadvancements in professional, educational and service provisions.” (Kilderry et al., p. 25).

In direct opposition to this sentiment, however, members of the professional group intowhich early childhood education students will be inducted, for the most part, tends not to reador use research to inform their work. Fleer (2001, p. 43), using data from 364 Australian early

Received 20 March 2006; accepted 17 May 2006.This research was supported by a grant from Charles Sturt University’s Teaching and Learning

Fund. The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Sally Knipe and Dr. AgnesMacmillan, Murray Institute of Education, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales tothe initial design and implementation of the study.

Address correspondence to Linda J. Harrison, School of Teacher Education, Charles SturtUniversity, Bathurst, New South Wales, Australia 2795. E-mail: lharrison@csu.edu.au

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

218 L. J. Harrison et al.

childhood respondents attending conferences, reported that the preferred resources used toinform teaching/policy work were inservice programs, professional conferences, and curricu-lum materials. Journals and books were a fourth resource area, but the preference was for“curricula and practical teaching books.” Research was nominated by only a small number ofrespondents, and of the respondents who said that research informed their practice, only 2.4%were recent graduates with less than one year’s experience. These data confirm the concern ofmany early childhood teacher educators that preservice teachers eschew research in favor ofpractical materials when seeking means to improve teaching practice or to solve particularchallenges, and that students prefer more practical activities in their coursework—somethingthey can use in the classroom—rather than more theory, analysis, or research.

Universities in Australia and overseas increasingly include a core subject devoted todeveloping early childhood students’ understanding and appreciation of research. The rele-vance of including undergraduate research studies in early childhood teacher education isunderlined by the number of recent publications devoted to this topic. For example, Grayand Campbell-Evans (2002, p. 47), in an Australian study, argue it is important to ensure thatteachers see the importance of engaging in and using early childhood research so that theycan “confidently make data driven decisions related to the processes of teaching and learn-ing.” Patterson and colleagues (2002) support these contentions and add that developingresearch skills in undergraduate students facilitates the establishment of a “community ofenquiry” which, they predict, will have real carryover in students’ later professional lives.Moran’s (2002) work at the University of Tennessee with early childhood preservice teach-ers also emphasizes the emergence of collaborative inquiry, critical thinking, and reflectivepractice through learning how to do research. Potter’s (2001) research at Nanying Techno-logical University, Singapore, makes similar points, although her study involved inserviceteachers in the field doing research rather than preservice teachers. Cooney, Buchanan andParkinson (2001) at the University of Wyoming maintain that, in order for there to be contin-uous renewal in early childhood education, preservice teachers need to experience doingauthentic research and practice a range of data collection methods. They argue that teachingand research should become interdependent. Although these undergraduate early childhoodteacher education programs differ in the approach and placement of research-training subjectin the course, the expectations are similar across all these studies. These are: to develop crit-ical thinking competencies and problem-solving; to create an inquiry-oriented environmentthrough collaborative projects with both staff and students; to teach new skills in designing,conducting, and reporting a research study; to enhance reflective practice through a struc-tured process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data; and to develop skills in criticalevaluation of research evidence. Ebbeck (1992) also makes the point that there is a need todemystify research so that students resistance to the idea of incorporating research into theirprofessional repertoire is lessened or eliminated. A longer term expectation is that the expe-riences gained in doing research subjects in undergraduate early childhood teacher educationprograms will contribute to changes in the research culture of the profession. These include:seeing teaching as integrally related to research; moving from being a receiver of knowledgeto a producer of knowledge; feeling empowered in relation to decisions about practice andpolicy; and engaging in a “rigorous questioning of the status quo and a creative discovery ofmore relevant ways of operating” (Potter, 2001, p. 12). The consensus view is that “teachersmust be participants in educational research [and that this must begin] from their first educa-tion courses” (Gray & Campbell-Evans, 2002, p. 29).

Identifying effective ways of teaching research skills to undergraduates is therefore ofconsiderable interest to many academics. There is a wealth of literature on ways and meansof promoting effective, relevant research in postgraduate studies (e.g., Gilbert, Balatti,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Making Research Relevant 219

Turner, & Whitehouse, 2004; Green, Maxwell, & Shanahan, 2001; Holbrook & Johnston,1999; MacAlpine & Norton, 2006; McAuley, Evans, Pearson, & Tregenza, 2005; Samara,2006; Wood, 2006). There is similarly a growing body of literature that focuses on theneed and expectation that academics will incorporate research into their teaching in highereducation (e.g., Brew, 2003; Holbrook & Devonshire, 2005). It can be deduced, therefore,that those who are involved in teaching in higher education recognize that their practiceneeds a theoretical base (in their own research or scholarship of others’ research) and thatthe skills for both interpreting and doing research need to be taught directly. Researchsubjects present students with unfamiliar content and terminology, new demands such asreading academic papers and reviewing a body of literature, and expectations for deep andcritical thinking. These demands tend to highlight the diversity of undergraduate students’academic aptitude and the extent of their professional maturity. A key challenge inundergraduate research study, therefore, is to develop ways of teaching that make the contentrelevant and accessible to students at diverse levels.

Aims and Background

This investigation was based on the concerns of a group of Australian early childhoodteacher educators who see research as fundamental to the early childhood profession andthe effective preparation of teachers. The aim of the present project was to investigate theeffectiveness of the undergraduate research coursework in the 4-year Bachelor of Education(Early Childhood) programs at a multicampus university in regional Australia by focusingon student perceptions of the value of research in their field and the practical value ofresearch skills learned. On each of three campuses, students in their 3rd or final year enrollin a core subject dedicated to the teaching of research approaches and methodology.Although the subject is developed and taught separately, essentially the aims are the sameacross all three campuses. Expectations are that students will understand why and howeducational research is conducted, develop an awareness of the strengths and weaknessesof a range of research approaches in early childhood, recognize how the beliefs and valuesof the researcher influence what is researched and the methods used; be able to conduct asmall-scale educational research project, and read, understand and critically appraiseresearch literature and reports. A similar range of learning experiences is also delivered ateach site. These include: lectures and tutorials/workshops; online reading and forum post-ings; working collaboratively in small groups; studying a set research text; critiquing anddiscussing research articles; journal writing; conducting a small research project and present-ing findings orally and in written form; and organizing and mounting a conference.

The approach taken in these subjects is one of learning about research by active engage-ment in the process, through designing and implementing a research project, or by participatingin a supervised project. The effectiveness of this approach was the focus of the present inves-tigation, drawing on students’ perceptions of research in early childhood and their experiencesduring the subject. Of particular interest was the extent to which students’ attitudes to researchand the skills they developed changed over the course of the teaching session.

Methods

Design

Students were invited to participate in the study when they were doing their compulsoryresearch studies coursework. A key concern in designing the project was the need to separate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

220 L. J. Harrison et al.

the research study from the teaching and assessment of the subject. This was made possibleby employing a research assistant who took full responsibility for introducing and con-ducting the research. As part of the teaching about research and the ethical conduct of thestudy, it was explained to the students that the reasons for having someone other than thelecturers undertaking data collection were to obviate, as far as possible, the power rela-tionship between teacher and student and assessor and assessed; to provide an open forumfor students to talk freely about their experiences of the subject in progress; and to ensureconfidentiality and privacy for the participants.

The research assistant met with each cohort to explain the study, distribute an informationsheet and consent form, and invite students to participate. Students were asked to completequestionnaires and to make available any work completed as part of this subject (e.g.,forum postings, journal entries, drawings, assessable work) to the research assistant. Studentswere also invited to participate in focus-group interviews conducted by the research assistant.The research assistant took responsibility for administering and collecting questionnaires,and conducting audiotaped interviews.

Participants

Student interest in the project was high, with most students in each cohort consenting toparticipate. The number of participants at each of the three campuses was: A: N = 34 (classof 40), B: N = 21 (class of 24), and D, N = 15 (class of 16)—giving a total of 70. The cor-responding number of students who took part in the interviews was A: 2 groups of 3, B: 1group of 4 plus 2 individuals, and D: 2 groups of 6—making a total of 24.

Procedures

A short questionnaire was administered at the beginning and end of the teaching session.The items were designed to assess four broad areas: students’ general understanding ofresearch (four items, e.g., “My views and understandings about research are already verydeveloped”); students’ views about the importance of research for early childhoodteachers in the field (three items, e.g., “I think it is important for early childhood teachersto be up-to-date with the latest research in their chosen field”); students’ use of researchand research skills to evaluate or inform their work in the classroom (five items, e.g., “Ilook for research evidence of good practice and use this in my teaching”); and outcomesfor students of studying the subject (two items, e.g., “I believe this subject will contributeto my overall development as an early childhood professional.”)

Statements were rated using either a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from very stronglydisagree (1) to very strongly agree (7) in group A, or a 5-point Likert scale, ranging fromstrongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) in groups B and D. Minor changes to the wordingwere made to adjust the questions for the beginning and end of session; for example, theTime 1 item “I often question the practices I see in the field because of the research I haveread” was amended for Time 2 to “After doing this subject I am now more likely to questionthe practices I see in the field.” Students were also asked to give their age and details ofany prior experience of working in an early childhood setting.

Interviews were conducted at the beginning (Week 1), midpoint (Week 7), and end ofthe teaching session (Week 12) using a semistructured procedure. Similar content waselicited at each point, by adapting the following series of questions: What do you think are thereasons for doing research in early childhood education? What are the most important thingsyou think have learned in the research subject? What were the major learning methods you

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Making Research Relevant 221

experienced in this subject; which did you think were most effective/which were the leasteffective? What kinds of skills have you gained through doing this course (e.g., interviewskills, child assessment, reading and analyzing research) and how might these influence yourfuture work as an early childhood professional? Do you think this course has given you theskills to design and conduct a simple research project? Would you use these to improve yourteaching? If you were going to do some research in early childhood, what areas would yoube interested in/why these areas? Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed in full.

Results

Cohort Characteristics

Students’ age and prior experience in early childhood services were compared for the threestudent cohorts (A, B, and D) using one-way Analysis of Variance and Scheffe posthocanalysis. Results showed that the groups differed by age: group B was younger and lessvaried in age (M = 21.2 years, SD = 1.5) than groups D (M = 25.3 years, SD = 6.6) and A(M = 24.3 years, SD = 5.7), F-ratio (2,66) = 3.4, p < .05. Age was closely related to yearsof experience in early childhood services, r(67) = .43, p < .01, but the groups did not differon this variable. Each of the three groups had a similar proportion of students who had hadprevious early childhood work experience: A = 36%, B = 30%, D = 33%.

Beginning-of-Session Perceptions

Students in groups B and D contributed to data collected at Time 1, the beginning of theteaching session. Questionnaire data were initially examined at the single-item level in relationto the four areas addressed in the survey: 1) students’ general understanding of research, 2)the importance of research for early childhood teachers in the field, 3) students’ use ofresearch and research skills to evaluate or inform their work in the classroom, and 4) outcomesfor students of studying the subject. Scores for seven items from sections 1 and 3 were com-bined to give an overall mean score for student self-perception of research (Cronbach’salpha = .74). Scores for two items from section 2 were combined to give a mean score forstudent perception of research in the field (Cronbach’s alpha = .85).

Results for the two subscale scores showed a clear difference between students’perception of the importance of early childhood research in the field: M = 5.33 (SD = .89),equivalent to more than “agree” response on the 1–7 scale, and of their own use and awarenessof research: M = 4.16 (SD = .62), equivalent to “not certain.” Comparison of means testsshowed that these subscale scores were similar for the two groups.

Focus group interviews with students in groups B and D suggested that most studentsthought that the major purpose of the subject was to teach them how to do research and tohelp them understand the nature of research in their chosen field. Doing the research subject,it was anticipated, would help students to understand the research reports they read. Manyexpressed apprehension about understanding “overly academic” research articles, whichthey found incomprehensible and difficult to read. The subject would teach them the languageof research. They wanted to be able to “critically analyze” what they read, to judgewhether research was “good” or “bad” and, more especially, whether the results of particularstudies were worth taking into account in their teaching. Overwhelmingly, they wereconcerned that the subject should assist them in practical classroom teaching, and itsrelevance was considered conditional on that fact. They were of the opinion that if the subjectdid not assist them in practical classroom skills it would be of little relevance to them.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

222 L. J. Harrison et al.

Midpoint Perceptions

Students in groups B and D were interviewed at the midpoint of the teaching session, bywhich time they had chosen a research area to investigate and were making plans for theend-of-session conference. The majority of these projects were collaborative, developed andconducted with a small group of other students, with the support of their lecturers and otherstaff. The focus group interviews indicated change in students’ thinking about research.

Students recognized that they had developed different attitudes towards research.They saw the purpose of research as serving the early childhood field, answering questionsthat needed to be asked in order to give quality education to young children. They alsothought it was important that practitioners have the skills to use the findings of research torefine and improve their teaching, especially in the areas of programming and assessment.Specifically, students considered that increasing and deepening their knowledge aboutyoung children (how they develop and learn) through using research was an integral partof improving teaching.

Students pointed out that the field was continually changing. They said that researchhad already transformed the field and that, as professionals, it was their duty to keep upwith the new knowledge generated by research. Also considered important was theidea that research could investigate hotly debated issues in the field, so that some sort ofuniformity of understanding could be arrived at: “So many people have got differentperspectives and there’s so much argument and debate. . . . [research helps us] try and finda common answer.”

Students claimed they now knew how to be critical, and ask questions such as: Whodid the research? Why was it done? Who is the audience? Who commissioned it? Is theresearch valid? How have the outcomes been influenced? Who are the stakeholders? Theythought they were now able to view research from a much more professional perspective.

One of the most important things they said they had learned in the research subjectwas an understanding of the nature of research and the hard work involved in completingit. Doing their own projects—designing and conducting research—provided very effectivelearning experiences. Doing data collection and analysis was different from anything elsethey had done in their degree course so far. This research activity was seen as giving themmuch-needed analytical skills that could carry over into their teaching. Constructing ques-tionnaires and conducting interviews, for example, were considered to have direct carry-over skills for early childhood teachers who have to interview colleagues, parents, andcommunity members. They talked about the expertise they had gained in constructingitems for questionnaires and the skills needed to design questions that would be sure toextract the precise information they wanted in order to answer their research questions.The following quotes are illustrative of the points they made:

Children were trying to give us what they thought were the ‘right’ answersrather than what they really thought. That made us develop more critical skillsin constructing good questions.

Reading the textbook falls into place when you’re actually doing the research.It suddenly has meaning.

It’s the hands-on that’s the most important—whether it’s critiquing an articleand discussing that, or whether it’s actually getting involved in the researchitself . . . that is where I learn because there is a purpose in it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Making Research Relevant 223

Peer teaching and learning were also identified as being particularly effective. Stu-dents often made the point that learning from the experience of others was both excitingand valuable for developing collegiality. Debate and critical discussion in the formal situ-ations of lecture and tutorial were also important in the group learning processes at workin the subject. One part of a focus group interview centered on the concept of learningabout “generalization” and what it meant in research. Students indicated that learningabout this idea in the research subject gave them a concept they could transfer to theirwork as practitioners. Thus they were less likely to overgeneralize about what were effec-tive or ineffective teaching methods, or about the characteristics of parents or children:

The subject has taught me not to make assumptions, to look beyond what’s onthe written page. It also teaches you about the nature of generalizations, hownot to overgeneralize, how to be careful of generalizing.

End-of-Session Perceptions

All three groups (A, B, and D) contributed to data collected at the end of the teaching ses-sion (Time 2). Questionnaire data were examined in relation to the subscale groupingsdescribed for Time 1. Students’ self-perceptions about research were computed by com-bining the scores for seven items (Cronbach’s alpha = .87), perceptions of the importanceof early childhood research to the field were computed by combining two items (Cron-bach’s alpha = .81). Analyses were conducted in two phases: first, to assess the pattern ofchange from the beginning to the end of the teaching session (Time 1 versus Time 2) forgroups B and D, and second, to compare final outcomes (Time 2) for the three cohorts.Focus group comments were used to further explain Time 2 outcomes.

Change from Time 1 to Time 2. Results for students’ self-perceptions of their use ofresearch skills showed a marked improvement over the teaching session (see Table 1).Scores for the 21 students in groups B and D who completed the questionnaire at both datacollection points had increased from “not certain” at Time 1, M = 4.07 (SD = .58), to“agree” at Time 2, M = 5.00 (SD = .83), on the 1–7 scale. Although all students showed asubstantial increase from the beginning to the end of the teaching session, group compari-sons showed that final scores were significantly higher for group D, M = 5.49 (SD = .47),

Table 1Change in Ratings about Research for Self and for the Early Childhood Field

Beginning-of-Session End-of-Session F-ratiob

M SD M SD Time TxG

Ratings for Selfa 4.07 0.58 5.00 0.83 6.09* 4.14*Ratings for EC Field

5.21 0.87 5.57 0.94 1.16 1.32

aratings are on a 1 to 7 scale: 1 = very strongly disagree, 4 = uncertain, 7 = very strongly agree.bF-ratio for repeated measures Analysis of Variance of Time with Group as a between-subjects

factor and Age as a covariate.*p < .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

224 L. J. Harrison et al.

than for group B, M = 4.57 (SD = .85). This suggests that students in D cohort weremore positively influenced over the course of the session than students in B cohort. Theseeffects were further tested using a repeated measure ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriancebetween groups), including location as a fixed factor and student age as a covariate.Results confirmed the effect of time on self-perceptions of research, F = 6.09, p < .05, andtime by location, F = 4.14, p = .05. Age did not contribute significantly to the equation.

Results for perceptions of the importance of research for the early childhood field alsoimproved over the course of the session, but to a lesser extent: M = 5.21 (Time 1) increasedto M = 5.57 (Time 2), but the repeated measures ANOVA test did not achieve significance.Group level comparisons confirmed previous findings about group D: final scores werealmost one point higher, M = 6.05 (SD = .72), than for group B, M = 5.14 (SD = .92).

End-of-session outcomes for all cohorts. In order to compare outcomes for the threecohorts, Time 2 scores for groups B and D were adjusted to a 1–5 point scale to match thescores for group A. End-of-session data were available for 55 students. ANOVA andScheffe posthoc analyses were used to compare groups on the two outcome measures(see Table 2). Overall responses for self-perceptions of research ability achieved a ratingof “agree” (point 4 on a 5-point scale), M = 3.93 (SD = .51). As noted above, group differenceswere evident: scores were highest for group D, M = 4.34 (SD = .36), midway for group A,M = 3.92 (SD = .37), and lowest for group B, M = 3.59 (SD = .72), F (2, 54) = 7.01,p < .01. Posthoc tests showed that significance was due to the scores for group D beinghigher than those for both B and A groups; there was no difference between B and Ascores. Results for perceptions of research in the field achieved a high overall rating,M = 4.34 (SD = .59). Comparison of means showed that ratings were highest for group D,M = 4.75 (SD = .33), midway for group A, M = 4.31 (SD = .54), and lowest for group B,M = 4.06 (SD = .76), F (2, 54) = 4.24, p < .05. In this test, significance was due to D scoresbeing higher than B; there was no difference between D and A, or B and A.

The observed differences between the groups were further examined by controllingfor cohort characteristics of age and years of experience working in early childhoodsettings in the repeated measures ANOVA test. Test results did not change, indicating that

Table 2Group Differences in Age and End of Session Ratings about Research

for Self and for the Early Childhood Field

Group

Age(years)

End-of-session ratingsa

for self for EC field

M SD M SD M SD

A 24.3 5.7 3.92 0.37 4.31 0.54B 21.2 1.5 3.59 0.72 4.06 0.76D 25.5 6.6 4.34 0.36 4.75 0.33F-ratiob (df) 3.4* (2,66) 7.01** (2,54) 4.24* (2,54)Posthoc test A, D > B D > B, A D > B

aratings are on a 1 to 5 scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = uncertain, 5 = strongly agree.bF-ratio (df) for Analysis of Variance of group differences with Scheffe posthoc test.*p < .05; **p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Making Research Relevant 225

the greater improvement over the session for group D was not due to inherent qualities of thestudents. However, there were differences in the campus populations, which may providean explanation. Group D was recruited from the smallest enrollment (15 participants froma total of 16 students), and had the largest participation in the focus groups (12 of the 15students). It is plausible that the higher overall ratings achieved by group D might be dueto the involvement in focus group discussions by a majority of participants. This componentof data collection, which encouraged informal conversations about students’ perceptionsof research and the components of the subject, is likely to have assisted the group in theirgrowing confidence as researchers.

Focus group outcomes. By the end-of-session interviews, considerable attitudinal shift wasseen on the part of students. In earlier data-gathering periods students had had doubtsabout the value of reading and doing research for their teaching. Now, at the end of theirsubject, they were able to see the value of research knowledge in terms of its transference toteaching and how their professional lives were enriched by it. This data-gathering sessionwas also different in the sense that students were much more confident talking conceptu-ally about research and its value to them as practitioners. They were able to articulateclearly their understandings about critical-thinking processes and transfer concepts learned inthe research subject to practical situations:

Every project has found something that you can take on board yourself as ateacher and think, “When I’m teaching I need to be aware of this”, or even as aparent as well or just a member of the community in your home environment.

The issue of developing critical thinking was a frequently mentioned topic. Elab-orating on this, students said they had learned to make attempts to be objective andneutral when they examined issues from a research point of view. Previously, theyhad not seen ideas such as trying to be objective as important. They also said they hadlearned not to take particular professional attitudes for granted, but to question whatcolleagues and others were saying, and to be critical about some of the so-called“commonsense” knowledge that floats around the staffroom in preschools and otherearly childhood settings.

A number of students perceived the organizing skills they had learned both in mount-ing the conference and in conducting the research project as being really important fortheir later role as professionals. Students pointed out that learning how to break down atopic, narrow the focus to its “very essentials”—to manageable research questions—couldeasily transfer to organizing units of teaching. More than that, they said they were notafraid to do research now, and would certainly be prepared to do so if the need arose intheir practical situations. Thus the research subject was perceived as making researchaccessible to teachers, and provided them with the skills to explore an area of interest.This included becoming acquainted with the language of research and new concepts, suchas the nature of qualitative and quantitative research, and being able to choose evaluativetechniques from a rich variety of research methods. They felt these skills could be trans-ferred into their professional lives:

I guess when we are in the classroom as teachers, not being afraid to doresearch and not thinking, “We can’t do it. We don’t have the knowledge,”But now we know where to start and how to carry out research in our ownclassroom. Even though it might be really small, you know, we can still do it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

226 L. J. Harrison et al.

Underlying this attitudinal shift on the part of most students, however, ran another sub-theme counterpoint to the main melody. A few students saw the research subject as a low pri-ority in their education, having little value in their development as professional teachers. Thesewere the students who also said they would never do research in their own classrooms andwho saw only limited transferability in the concepts and ideas the subject presented them with.

Designing and conducting a research project assisted students in their understandingof research concepts they found both difficult and complex. Students at all three campusesmaintained that they learned much more about research by doing it rather than readingabout it or listening to someone lecture about it. Choosing their own topics meant that stu-dents were committed to and interested in their project: “By learning the terms and pro-cesses and putting them into practice I could see how they work.”

Similarly, while students thought the reading was not valuable by itself—since theysaid frequently they did not understand what they were reading—they saw it as importantin the whole scheme of the subject. It was seen as a necessary adjunct to the lectures, tuto-rials, and discussions and helpful to the research project. Students were adamant that thereading was of no use without its practical illustration through their research projects:

It was just so abstract (reading the text) that you couldn’t picture it in yourhead how that would work. The lectures helped but they still didn’t give us theunderstanding that we needed. It was the practical stuff that actually enabledus to understand better.

Probably there wasn’t any one thing in isolation that would have worked byitself, like you just needed to put the whole lot together whether it was thereading of the textbook, the lectures plus the forum tasks and then the project.You just needed the whole lot.

One focus group cited an example of how important illustration was in understanding thereadings. The lecturer talked about her own research as an illustration of a research paradigmdescribed in the text, helping students to understand the concept of paradigm. So learning bymodelling an illustrated example was an effective learning technique in the course: “I guessbecause it is so academic and because it is at such a high level, higher than we had experiencedbefore—so new to us. There needs to be just masses and masses of practical application.”

Another method of practical example cited by students as effective was inviting guestspeakers to talk to students about their own research. Students said they found it easier tounderstand complex concepts through relating the “illustrated” research described to theirown research projects.

Discussion

The qualitative and quantitative results of this project provide compelling evidence thatthe goals of the research methods subjects were achieved and that the teaching, learning,and assessment approaches were effective. Teaching methods consisting of designing andconducting a research project; the combined effects of focused reading, research, andmodeling by teacher educators; guest speakers who were able to bring their research alivefor students; peer learning through critical debate and discussion; use of collaborativelearning techniques; the organizational experience of mounting a conference; and dissem-ination through oral presentations and forum postings; all contributed to the realization ofthe goals of the subjects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Making Research Relevant 227

The use of a student-initiated research project as a means of teaching research skillsand processes provided the necessary “practical” application to bring to life the materialprovided in lectures and readings. Student responses in both the questionnaires and thefocus group interviews show that doing the research subject had “demystified” manyaspects of research. Thus, whilst acknowledging their research inexperience, many stu-dents nevertheless confidently anticipated that they would do research in the future, usingit to inform their practice and foster continuous renewal in their profession. Nearly all thestudents felt much more confident in reading, interpreting and using research as a tool.

The questionnaire data showed that students increased their self-rated knowledge andresearch abilities from the beginning to the end of the session. The focus group interviewsprovided many examples of how this had been facilitated by the strategies put in place tosupport students’ learning. There were also many reminders that the content and expecta-tions raised by this subject were difficult for early childhood students. They started thesession with little appreciation of the inclusion of a research subject in the core program,and were ready to deem it “irrelevant” to their future work as teachers. This underlined thelecturers’ experience that the subject was a particularly challenging one for students andrequired critical attention to the development of authentic and relevant tasks to engage andmotivate students.

Like the application of “the project approach” to early childhood teacher education(Dejong, 1999), engaging in a topic that was of interest and relevant to the group achievedmultiple goals: students gained new knowledge about the nature of research; developedskills in designing, implementing, organizing, and interpreting research data; and reflectedon and reevaluated their own dispositions towards research in early childhood. Further,they gained a broader appreciation of the ways that teaching can be improved, not just bygood practice, but by critical thinking and applying the findings of relevant research.

Future Directions for Research

Many institutions offering early childhood degrees have incorporated research subjects intheir undergraduate programs. Relevant studies of the effectiveness of such coursework aregrowing in number. Thus the future directions of research in this area point to follow-upstudies to determine whether the research orientations gained by students are actually usedand maintained in their later professional lives. This study also revealed a student preferencefor research about practice, to the exclusion of other important aspects of the profession suchas policy making, administration, philosophy, and constructing theoretical frameworks forearly childhood education, all of which also are affected by research and contemporarythinking in the field. Thus, future research should also focus on the nature and quality ofearly childhood professionals’ theorizing about their profession, considering for example:Do early childhood teachers read and interpret research? Do they use research to inform theirpractice? Are they able to translate theoretical paradigms into practice? Do they do research?On what basis is change effected in early childhood professionals?

Implications

The evidence gathered in the first stage of this study (at the beginning of the researchsubject) confirmed our impression that preservice teachers focus principally on learninggood practice through their practicum placements and rarely see the value of consultingearly childhood literature or research to improve or develop good practice. It is thisgrowing body of research, however, that informs government policy both in Australia and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

228 L. J. Harrison et al.

overseas, drives early childhood teacher education programs, and initiates changes in thefield. Thus, specific learning experiences provided in research subjects in preserviceundergraduate degrees should direct students to consider the value of both doing researchand consulting research studies in their field. Such studies are critical for producingempowered early childhood professionals able to adapt and change according to the find-ings of the research in their chosen field.

Consequently, given the undeniable importance that researchers, teacher educators,and governmental agencies place on early childhood professionals being able to conductand use relevant research, it is evident that inclusion of compulsory research-oriented sub-jects in undergraduate early childhood teacher education degrees is high on the agenda forboth the present and the future education of early childhood professionals. Movementtowards such inclusions can be seen in such countries as Australia, Canada, and the UnitedStates. The success of the research subject in this study demonstrates that such subjectscan establish new mind-sets and develop new skills, such as habits of collaborativeinquiry, meaningful reflection, adaptability, and good critical/analytical thinking in youngprofessionals, which will contribute significantly to the early childhood field.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005). A picture of Australia’s children (AIHW Cat. No.PHE-58). Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Develop-ment, 22, 3–18.

Cooney, M. H., Buchanan, M., & Parkinson, D. (2001). Teachers as researchers: Classroom inquiryinitiatives at undergraduate and graduate levels in early childhood education. Journal of EarlyChildhood Teacher Education, 22, 151–159.

Dejong, L. (1999). Learning through projects in early childhood education. Journal of Early Child-hood Teacher Education, 20, 317–326.

Ebbeck, M., (1992). Research in early childhood education: Essential for the profession. In B.Lambert (Ed.). Changing faces: The early childhood profession in Australia (pp. 81–89).Watson, ACT: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Fleer, M. (2001). An early childhood research agenda: Voices from the field. Canberra, ACT:Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia.

Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P., & Whitehouse, H. (2004). The generic skills debate in researchhigher degrees. Higher Education Research and Development, 23, 375–388.

Gray, J., & Campbell-Evans, G. (2002). Beginning teachers as teacher-researchers. Australian Jour-nal of Teacher Education, 27, 29–49.

Green, B., Maxwell, T. W., & Shanahan, P. (Eds.) (2001). Doctoral education and professionalpractice: The next generation. Armidale, NSW: Kardoorair.

Holbrook, A., & Johnston, S. (Eds.). (1999). Supervision of postgraduate research in education.Coldstream, VIC: Australian Association for Research in Education.

Holbrook, N., & Devonshire, E. (2005). Simulating scientific thinking online: An example ofresearch-led teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 24, 201–213.

Kilderry, A., Nolan, A., & Noble, K. (2004). Multiple ways of knowing and seeing: Reflections on therenewed vigour in early childhood research. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29, 24–28.

MacAlpine, L., & Norton, J. (2006). Reframing our approach to doctoral programs: an integra-tive framework for action and research. Higher Education Research and Development, 25,3–17.

McAuley, P., Evans, T., Pearson, M., & Tregenza, K. (2005). Using digital data and bibliometric analy-sis for researching doctoral education. Higher Education Research and Development, 25, 189–199.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Making Research Relevant 229

Moran, M. J. (2002). Implications for the study and development of inquiry among early childhoodpreservice teachers: A report from one study. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,23, 39–41.

National Association for Early Childhood Teacher Educators and American Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education. (2001). Position Statement. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.naecte.org/aacte.htm

National Crime Prevention. (1999). Pathways to prevention: Developmental and early interventionapproaches to crime in Australia. Canberra, ACT: National Crime Prevention, CommonwealthAttorney General’s Department.

Patterson, C., Sumsion, J., Cross, T., McNaught, M., Fleet, A., Talay-Ongan, A., & Burgess, C.(2002). Teaching as inquiry: Engaging preservice teachers with research. Australian Journal ofEarly Childhood, 27, 21–25.

Potter, G., (2001). The power of collaborative research in teachers’ professional development.Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26, 8–13.

Samara, A, (2006). Group supervision in graduate education: A process of supervision skill develop-ment and text improvement. Higher Education Research and Development, 25, 115–129.

Wood, K. (2006). Changing as a person: The experience of learning to research in the social sci-ences. Higher Education Research and Development, 25, 53–66.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

4:19

04

Dec

embe

r 20

14