I know I don’t read enough or even pick up a book in the baby room sometimes

6.1. Methodology insights

The chosen methodology facilitated opportunities for the practitioners to document and explain how they support early reading in practice with under-threes, to articulate and explore their views and beliefs, to explain how this influences daily practice, and to discuss their experiences. On reflection, I am satisfied overall with the methods I used to respond to the research questions. The mixed methodological approach chosen yielded some insightful qualitative data. With the benefit of hindsight, I would have reviewed and amended the survey questions and the interview questions further to be a little more open, allowing for further depth and breadth of responses from the EYTTs. I believe that using the large sample for the survey was successful and generated interesting and useful data. There were, however, limitations with some of the responses as they lacked breadth. In addition, I probably included too many questions in the survey. In retrospect, I would have preferred to conduct more interviews to follow-on from the survey questions to gain a deeper understanding of the perspectives of the participants, as suggested by Hesse-Biber (2010), as qualitative data, since interviews offer perspectives and viewpoints first-hand. For example, I still have some unanswered questions about why practitioners did not respond to some of the survey questions relating to babies and toddlers, which I intend to follow-up as part of a continuation online survey to support the EYTTs as former trainees (similar to their Newly Qualified Teacher year). I envisage that I will continue with the interpretative, constructivist naturalistic approach taken with future research, as this offered me the benefit of not having to be totally detached from this research (Mertens, 2005). This was not possible given my ontological and epistemological beliefs about early reading, as described in Chapter 1.

6.2. Summary of the key findings

This study revealed that these practitioners support early reading development with a variety of ‘unintentional’ early reading activities, without the crucial knowledge or understanding of how these relate to reading. The findings suggest that practitioners did not often recognise or value reading activities, as reading books and sharing stories was mainly used as a ‘fill-in’ activity with under-threes, as a settling down activity. As a result, books were not frequently provided or easily accessible to babies and toddlers. Equally, the data suggests that picture books were rarely used with babies to support their early reading development. Practitioners suggested that they were “too busy” to read with them, other than at scheduled story times – often busy prioritising care routines over ‘education’ (Bennett, 2013; Roberts-Homes, 2013). These findings are consistent with research from Goouch and Powell (2013), who also found that practitioners accredited important care values to their work with babies.
In addition, the data strongly indicated that practitioners largely did not value sharing picture books with under-threes as a support for early reading, and this was especially the case with babies. Moreover, some practitioners seemed to require some observable evidence that sharing books was a worthwhile activity in order to read with young children and babies in particular. These findings are consistent with those of Levy and Preece (2016) in relation to parents shared reading behaviours. This finding is worrying for many reasons, not least because it demonstrates a lack of understanding about the importance of early reading practice with the youngest children. The findings highlight this as a tangible training issue, given that Clare (2012) argues that:
The baby room is the foundation of any nursery; it is here that the foundations for future learning and development are laid, so it is of vital importance that we place quality practitioners in this room, practitioners who see the potential of the babies in their care.

(Clare, 2012, p. 36)

Similarly, Eisenstadt (2012) proposed that we are still undervaluing the crucial nature of the essential work necessary to support under-threes, at our peril. Indeed, as a result of the findings from this research, I would argue that this is certainly the case for early reading.
What is more, the findings highlighted that practitioners in this study support the early reading development of under-threes with phonics activities and implement a formal teaching of phonics. Practitioners’ accounts and Zine entries included many references to ‘Letters and Sounds’ (DfES, 2007) and ‘Jolly Phonics’, occasional references to ‘Read, Write, Inc.’ (Miskin, 2016) as daily planned adult-led activities. This suggests that the wider phonics educational policy and practice debate is directly influencing practice with under-threes, as practitioners report that they are teaching phonics to under-threes in their settings. This is a significant finding and is very concerning for the provision for under-threes. There are many criticisms of a phonics based approach to teaching early reading, much of which is discussed within the literature review, yet most would agree that phonics should not be taught to under-threes. As a result, the EYTTs views and perceptions of early reading are permeated by phonics, evidenced in the fact that they generally defined early reading in relation to phonics. Moreover, this perception and definition of reading is having a detrimental impact on practice and provision for under-threes, a fact which ought to be addressed urgently. The annual DfE KS1 ‘Phonics Screening Check’ and the achievement results presented by the DfE perpetuate this heavy focus on phonics and as such, practitioners working with under-threes are being influenced by schools preparing for the ‘Phonics Screening Check’, rather than supporting children as ‘readers’.
In addition, the ‘school readiness’ agenda is influencing the definitions and perceptions of early reading for these practitioners. Data indicated that practitioners viewed reading as an ‘educational’ activity and they believe that children will read “when they are ready” and they usually read at school, by working through a prescribed reading scheme. This perception of reading and literacy practice is also consistent with other researchers, such as Levy (2009), Miller and Paige Smith (2004) and Roberts-Holmes (2015) who also found that the primary school curriculum was impacting upon early years pedagogy and provision. Moreover, given that further research has indicated that a “dominant use of reading schemes” with Reception age children “was detrimental to children’s perceptions of reading and engagement with reading practices” (Levy, 2009, p. 375), it is very worrying that practitioners are reporting that they are implementing phonics activities with children under the age of three.
Furthermore, there was also a noticeable absence of technology and digital literacies within the data sources, which illustrates a accompanying lack of understanding about early reading practices and the use of technology in early years, which builds upon the previous research findings of Marsh (2004) and Yelland (2006, 2011). This is also disappointing, given that Sefton-Green et al., (2016) acknowledge that “digital technology use now comprises core everyday activities for children” (p. 9).
Markedly, by taking part in this research and by engaging in an on-going reflection of practice and pedagogy, practitioners swiftly adapted their practice and considered the deficit of their provision, which is a testament to their professionalism. The practitioners are critically reflective of their own practice, demonstrating the capacity to critique and develop their practice through some thoughtful and at times challenging reflections and dialogue, rather than specific instruction or standards-based training. The EYTTs began to question and challenge their own practice as a consequence. This was particularly apparent during the interviews, where some EYTTs demonstrated anxious behaviours when asked to talk about their reading practices with under-threes. If these questions had not been asked as part of this research, then these vital findings would never have been identified, as practitioners appeared to be otherwise confident in their practice.
Reading has become a circumstance for political focus (Arizpe and Smith, 2016) and as such, there have been many studies investigating reading, yet few which explore early reading with under-threes, which this thesis presents.

Directory: 17919
17919 -> Study Guide ~ Physical Features of the United States Atlantic Coastal Plains

Download 7.59 Mb.

Share with your friends: