In recent years the issue of ECEC quality and staff professionalization gained an increasing attention internationally both at academic and policy level. Despite this growing interest very little research has been conducted on these topics according to a participatory approach that engage with service stakeholders (practitioners, children and families, local administrators). The symposium presents the findings of two small-scale studies carried out in pre-school settings of two cities in Northern-Central Italy: Bologna and Modena. In these contexts participatory approaches to research in early childhood settings are embedded in local pedagogical traditions nurtured within the experience of municipal institutions and they recently gained new momentum within certain strands of academic research (Bove, 2009; Mortari, 2007). From this standpoint the studies presented share common aims and methodology: furthering a systemic approach to ECEC quality by providing teachers with professional support within a participatory research framework that sustains their collegial reflectivity on everyday practices.

1. Sustaining ECEC teachers’ professionalism through participatory research.
Tallin, 31stAugust 2013
23°EECERA AnnualConference

2. In this symposium…
Some information about the context
The role of the Educational Research in sustaining teacher professionalism, the qualification of ECEC services
Two different studies carried out in Emilia Romagna (Lazzari e Pugnaghi) but same approach  participatory methodologies
Open questions for discussion

3. Why this symposium
The economic crisis is influencing the ECEC sector at different levels:
–Political
–Organisational
–Pedagogical & educationalThe trend of National and Local governments is to base their political choices on research “evidences”: it’s necessary to understand what works and what doesn’t for deciding what to save and what to cut in times of Austerity.

4. BUT…
“The evidence-based paradigm in early childhood education and care is anything but evident” (Vanderbroeck, Roets & Roose 2012).
In the educational field the relationship between ideologies, social and political choices and pedagogical paradigm is well-known (Gramsci, Habermas, Freire, …)

5. How can research become a tool for Democratic Choices?
-Contextualised in local needs (socially and culturaly situated)
-Provisional and constantly open to new questions and challenges (Bertolini, 1988)
-Involving all actors
“a tool that helps us answer important questions about early childhood –questions that would remain unanswered were it not for the willingness of academics, practitioners and participants (children and adults) to engage with the research process>> (Rolfe & Mac Naughton, 2010)

6. Partecipatory research means…
•Researching WITH teachers rather than ON teachers : a democratic way to empower teachers in their professional development (awarness of their practice and of the pedagogical principles underpinning their practice, driving educational change from within)
•Studying educational events as a situated and contextualised phenomena
•Co-costructing and negotiating interpretation of the Phenomena, starting from sharing meanings and discussing values
Re-thinking the relationship between educational research, the social and the political: from a “evidence-based” to an “evidence-oriented” approach (socially and culturally grounded, democratically constructed)

7. The path presented in this symposium
Starting from the presentation of two participatory research projects carried out in Emilia-Romagna Region we will critically reflect on the relationships between those who plan the research, those who carry it out and those who participate in it.

8. Tallinn, 31 August 2013
Sustaining ECEC teachers’ professionalism through partecipatory research.
A study carried out in state-mantained pre- schools in the City of Bologna.

9. In this presentation…
•The context of the study (recent ECEC policy and research development in Italy)
•The case studied: two pre-school settings located within a comprehensive state- maintained institution in Bologna
•The research process: methodological tools and involvement of participants
•Discussion of findings and critical issues for reflection

10. Policy background
Origin: since 1968 the State Ministry of Education took over responsibility for the pre-school sector (scuola dell’infanzia)
attendance is not mandatoryand free of charge
Recent developments:
•autonomous management of comprehensive school institutions (pre-, primary and lower secondary school)
•national guidelines 3-14 (Indicazioni 2012): the broad aim of scuola dell’infanzia is ‘to promote the development of children’s identity, autonomy and competence’
Issues at stake:
•pedagogical identity of scuola dell’infanzia within comprehensive school institutions

11. Research background
Previous research on professionalism carried out by
the same research team highlighted the weakness
of professional support provided to staff working in
state-maintained pre-schools (Lazzari, 2012;
Manini & Balduzzi, 2013)
Systemic approaches to staff professional
development sustaining the qualification
of ECEC institutions (Urban, Vandenbroeck,
Peeters, Lazzari and Van Laere, 2011; 2012)
Practice-based research aimed at sustaining teachers’ professional development through a partecipatory approach to the qualification of pedagogical practices enacted in state- mantained pre-school settings (Ricerca-Form-Azione)

12. The case studied
Comprehensive school institutition located in the outskirts of Bologna city encompassing two pre-schools.
The access to the field and the problem setting were negotiated with public actors –municipal coordination team and school director –in order to respond to local needs.

13. The research objectives
The research project was tailored on the specific needs of the reality investigated that were:
-enabling the co-construction of a common pedagogical identity between two settings that were traditionally working apart
-promoting collegial confrontation among teachers working across these two settings by facilitating reflectivity on their practices and exchanges of experiences.
Research objectives:
-exploring the pedagogical assumptions guiding teachers’ everyday work with children (intended principles)
-investigating and examining educational initiatives acted out in each setting (enacted practices)
Analysis of the ‘Hidden Curriculum’ as a framework for research and professional development (Bondioli, 2000; Gariboldi, 2007)

14. The research project phases
PRELIMINARY PHASE
Negotiatingaccesstothe fieldand problemsetting
I PHASE
Teachers’ focus groups & analysis of documentation
II PHASE
Ethnographic observations carried out by 3researchers across 7 pre-school classes (5 morning sessions in each one)
III PHASE
Reporting of data analysis and discussion of findings (teachers, pedagogical coordinator, school director)

15. Research methodology and tools
PHASE 1 -Thematic analysis of documentary sources (school educational project, annual planning, documentation) and focus group transcripts (focusing on professional stories)
PHASE 2 -Ethnographic observation of children’s contexts of experience combining:
> qualitative description of interactional events (fieldnotes)
> semi-structured observation focusing on the descriptive categories of the hidden curriculum in ECEC settings (organisation of time, space, groups and activity patterns)
Methodological tools adapted from previous studies carried out within state pre-schools in Italy (Insegnamenti Pedagogici Università Pavia, 1993; Bondioli & Nigito, 2008)

16. Observation grid
An observation grid was elaborated collectively by the three researchers after a first ethnographic observation in each class was carried out focus points for qualitative descriptions:
-routines and transitions
-structured activities
-free play
dimensions observed:
-organisation of physical space
-use of time (continuity/discontinuity, rhythm,…)
-grouping strategies (whole/small, homogeneus/mixed groups)
-activity patterns (children’s interaction with peers, adults and surrounding environment)

17. Analytical grid(adapted from Insegnamenti Pedagogici Università Pavia, 1993)

18. Reporting data analysis…
The data analysis of documentary sources, focus groups and ethnographic observation revealed:
•existing gap between intended pedagogical principles (explicit curriculum) and the contexts of experience constructed by teachers to promote children’s development (hidden curriculum)
•different connotation of physical space in the two settings affecting educational initiatives school-like vs play-based approach
•amount of time dedicated to structured educational initiatives (teacher-directed activities and routines) vs free choice activities (child-initiated) differing across the two settings
•discontinuity and fragmentation of children’s experiences –learning vs play –rather than reciprocal integration of both
whole-group teacher initiated activities for learning purposes vs small-group child-initiated play for socialising function

19. …and collegial discussion
Starting from these fields of tension, all participants* were invited to reflect on how educational practices could be improved across the two pre-school settings:
How could the physical space of the classrooms be re-organised in order to create a differentiated learning environment that better address children’s needs and potentialities? How could physical space outside the class used for mixed-groups workshop activities?
How could a more flexible organisation of time/activity formats be implemented in order to promote a reciprocal interaction between learning and play? (continuity of children’s experience rather than fragmentation)
Could the analytical devices adopted for research be transformed into tools for re-negotiating educational choices collegially over the next year?
Elaboration of a shared educational project and inter-change of competences among teachers for its implementation (flexible roles, pedagogical documentation and exchange of good practices)

20. Concluding reflections
Open questions arising out of research intervention (Ricerca- Form-Azione) in pre-school settings:
-ethical issues with which the researcher is confronted during field observation (children expressing visible discomfort in the setting)
-the role of the researcher > as participant observer, analysing teachers’ practices and > as a trainer, orienting teachers’ reflectivity for the improvement of pedagogical practices in dialogue with all actors involved
Tension between descriptivity <and> normativity: the research paradigm needs to be made explicit and research findings discussed in the light of participants’ multiple perspectives (different visions and professional roles)

21. Coming back to conclusion and to some open questionsResearch does not constitute an attempt to standardize the different services’ educational identities
The studies presented aims to understand the pedagogical culture that preschool services have nurtured over the years in order to identify -in an explicit and negotiated way -common elements that are fundamental of preschools’ educational organisation. These features may represent a reference to guide the process of pedagogical knowledge co-construction and of qualification of educational practices enacted in the settings.
From this perspective the research can provide important evidence for policy-makers, increasing the awareness of their responsibilities in ensuring some favourable working conditions. At the same time, research can support the innovation of ECEC practices starting from collective reflection among teachers.

22. In this perspective an alliance between academic research and preschool institutions is necessary but this alliance opens new ethical issues:
•The ethical responsibility of the researcher during field observation:
pact of confidentiality agreed with teachers VS right of children to wellbeing in school setting
•Tension between descriptivity <and> normativity which is embedded in the role of undertaken by researcher as a facilitator of change
•Tension between descriptivity <and> normativity in regard to the tools used and their contextualisation
•…

23. Bibliography
Balduzzi, L. & Manini M. (Eds.) 2013. Professionalità e servizi per l’infanzia. Roma: Carrocci.
Bertolini, P. 1988. L'esistere pedagogico. Ragioni e limiti di una pedagogia come scienza fenomenologicamente fondata. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Bondioli, A. & Ferrari, M. (Eds.) 2000. Manuale di valutazione del contesto educativo. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Bondioli, A. & Nigito G. (Eds.) 2008. Tempi, spazi, raggruppamenti. Bergamo: Junior.
Gariboldi, A. 2007. Valutare il curricolo implicito nella scuola dell’infanzia. Bergamo: Junior.
Insegnamenti Pedagogici dell’Università di Pavia. 1993. La giornata educativa nella scuola dell’infanzia. Bergamo: Junior.
Lazzari, A. 2012. ‘Reconceptualising professionalism in early childhood education: insight from a study carried out in Bologna.’Early Years, 32 (3), 252 –265.
Rolfe, A. & Mac Naughton, G. 2010. ‘Research as a tool.’ In Rolfe, A., Mac Naughton, G. & Siraj-Blatchford. Doing Early Childhood Research. International perspectives on theory and practice. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Urban, M., Vandenbroeck, M., Peeters, J., Lazzari, A. & Van Laere K. 2011. Competence Requirements in Early Childhood Education and Care. Brussels: European Commission.
Urban, M., Vandenbroeck, M., Peeters, J., Lazzari, A. & Van Laere K. 2012.‘Toward competent systems in early childhood education and care. Implications for policy and practices.’ European Journal of Education, 47 (4), 508 –526.
Vandenbroeck, M., Roets, G. & Roose, R. 2012. ‘Why the evidence-based paradigm in early childhood education and care is anything but evident.’ European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20 (4), 537 –552.

24. Arianna Lazzari
Department of Education Sciences -UNIBO
arianna.lazzari2@unibo.it
Lucia Balduzzi
Department of Education Sciences -UNIBO
lucia.balduzzi2@unibo.it
Antonella Pugnaghi
Department of Education and Human Sciences -UNIMORE
antonella.pugnaghi@unimore.it