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
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.05.001
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08852006
mailto:[email protected]
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.05.001
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’ changing roles in light
f this.
First, I started reading the data on the first day of data collec-
ion while paying attention to the teachers’ behaviors or comments
elated to the purpose of the study. As I continued reading, I looked
or emerging themes across the three teachers’ cases and their
xamples in the data. At this initial stage of analysis, many themes
ere found. Second, I tried to identify salient themes and coded
he major themes in the data while my re-reading continued. It
as important to track the data from all data sources as it helped
erify the themes. Third, as I found 10 major themes (observer, play
ollower/play partner, facilitator, commentator/interpreter, play
upporter, play leader, play interrupter, safety/conflict manager,
ultiple-responder, multiple-role taker), I re-read the examples of
ach theme by each week, searching for how they were related to
he infants’ growth and the teachers’ developing relationships with
he infants. This process helped me to see the changing patterns in
eachers’ role-taking over time. Finally, I counted the teacher’s play
pisodes with their key infants and ‘other’ infants, respectively, on
weekly basis and tabled them [Table 2]. On the last row of the
able, I recorded the total number of the teachers’ play episodes
ielded per week. This helped me to see changes in the frequency
f the teachers’ involvement in play with the infants over the three
onths.
. Results
Analysis of the data suggested that the teachers were involved
n the infants’ play in differing forms with various purposes and
hat their highlighted roles changed over the three months.
.1. Teachers’ roles in play
.1.1. Observer
All three teachers consistently assumed the role of observer in
he infants’ play, emphasizing it as the most important teacher’s
ole. Through observation, the teachers learned “everything about
hem [the infants]” (Emily), “how they feel, what they want, how
hey are developing themselves everyday. . .how they approach
ther people” (Irene), and “the skills that they have acquired or
re currently trying to achieve” (Katie). In particular, the teachers
nderscored that observation helped them to figure out “how to
xpand their play” (Katie) even though “it takes time to sit with
hem for a while, watch what they are doing, and decide how to get
nvolved in their play” (Emily). Emily also said, “Even when I am
eing more observant,. . .I still feel like a part of the play because
here is always opportunity that they might look to you for some
nput or . . .invite me into play.” The teachers’ observant attitude
rovided an opportunity to participate in the play as shown in the
ollowing episode.
“Isabel took a toy out of a basket and put it in another basket.
Irene watched her play. Isabel continued putting the toys in and
out of the basket. Then, she gave a toy to Irene. Irene said “Thank
you, Isabel” and put it in the basket. Isabel gave her another toy
…
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.