When I Think of Research

Dear colleagues, all I can say is that this class was truly a challenge for me. But despite the challenges, I have learned a lot.

The insights I have gained about research from taking this course is that research is necessary and is responsible for the many policies and procedures that are in place in the early childhood field. Also when research is executed fairly and justly all parties involved benefit. I now understand that research design (quantitative and or qualitative) is determined by the purpose of the research i.e., to measure phenomenon or to understand it. Another insight I have gained is that although I have always understood how important it is to ask open ended questions during the interview process, I never viewed the researcher as someone having power (McNaughton, Rolfe, and Siraj-Blatchford 2010). However, if research is going to credible and if participants are going to be represented fairly and justly, that power must be redefined and shared with the participants (McNaughton, Rolfe, and Siraj-Blatchford 2010).
.
There is so much more that I could write about, but I will move on to the next question.   In what ways have my ideas about the nature of research changed?   My ideas about the nature of research has changed tremendously, because now I realize that there is a lot of forethought and planning that goes into research. I realize that the credibility of research is dependent upon many things, including the researcher’s epistemology (belief system of what is considered to be truth) the methods of data collecting and triangulation methods.

The lesson I learned about planning, designing and conducting research in early childhood is that studies show that research does not have to be on a massive scale, but can be small. I also learned that children as participants in a study are credible, providing the techniques used are age appropriate (McNaughton, Rolfe, and Siraj-Blatchford 2010).  

Some of the challenges I encountered was grasping the wording in the text book. I seemed to have struggled with the sentence structure in the text. Other challenges related to understanding research, included understanding the differences between quantitative and qualitative research designs. I also found putting the definitions into my own words challenging at times. Ways that I met these challenges is that I read the text over and over and sometimes read it out loud. Sometimes I would step away from the text and revisit it at another time. 

What are some of the ways your perceptions of an early childhood professional have been modified as a result of this course? Some of the ways my perception of the early childhood profession has changed since taking this class, is that the early childhood field needs research in order to make improvements.  In closing I want to say thanks to all of the encouraging comments you made during our discussions. Some of you made this class sound so easy when I found it to be quite challenging. I wish you all the happiest of Holidays.  

Cheryl Byrd


 References
 

Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe, S.A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010) Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory & practice. (2^nd ed.) New York, NY: Open University Press McGraw Hill

Research Around the World

Some of the latest international research topics I discovered while exploring the European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA) website were as follows;

Research with children: three challenges for participatory research in early childhood (Waller, T & Bitou, A. 2011),  Children’s cortisol patterns and the quality of the early learning environment (Sajaniemi, N., Suhonen, E., et al. 2011), and Introducing children’s perspectives and participation in research (Harcourt, D., & Einarsdotter, J. 2011). 

From the first research topic, I discovered that researchers are using stories as participatory tools to elicit children’s perspectives in research for the purpose of pedagogy. But other research has revealed that relying on participatory tools (things and activities for the children to explore and do) have underlying issues that could be problematic, namely, adults imposing their interpretation of the children’s responses to the participatory tools, the absence of grounding the research in the children’s culture and restricted adult child interactions due to the emphasis placed on the participatory tools being used (Waller, T. & Bitou, A. 2011). What I learned from this sturdy is that what may seem like a good ideal, may turn out not to be so good after all. 

The second research topic about the correlation between the patterns of cortisol in three – five year old children and the quality of the early learning environment (Sajaniemi, N., Suhonen E., et al. 2011) was very interesting to me because of my personal experience with observing children in the classroom. I have witnessed first hand children holding their hands over their ears and saying it’s too loud. The research from this study showed that cortisol levels in young children were highest within the first thirty minutes of waking up and subsided in the evening. Children were also found to have higher cortisol levels while at school than at home (Sajaniemi, N., Suhonen E., et al. 2011). I agree that a classroom of 15- 18 three year olds can be too much for some children. Moving forward, now that my awareness of this matter has been heightened,  I will be implementing some new cues to help the children tone down their voices and provide more sensory activities to bring calmness in the room. 

The third research topic - Introducing children’s perspectives and participation in research (Harcourt, D., & Einarsdotter, J. 2011) reinforced the concept that utilizing children’s input in research has a lot to offer and that children are competent enough to communicate their views. Also worthy of mentioning, I discovered that this research was developed by a Special Interest Group (SIG). The EECERA organization encourages other early childhood professionals to present topics of interests for the purpose of conducting research. The proposed topic undergoes the process of starting out as a topic, being refined and then developed into a hypothesis. The EECERA will accept or reject a proposed hypothesis depending on the value it may contribute to the early childhood field. My personal view about the encouragement of SIG is that it allows for knowledge in the early childhood field to expand as well as provide upcoming researchers to gain experience.

As the early childhood field continues to evolve, ongoing research has much to contribute especially now that we know that children are well capable of communicating their views as participants in research.  

References

Waller, T. & Bitou, A. (2011) Research with children: three challenges for participatory research in early childhood European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19 (1) 5 – 20. Retrieved form: http://www.eecera.org/

Sajaniemi, N., Suhonen, E., Kontu, E., Rantanen, P., Lindholm, H., Hyttinen, S., & Hirvonen, A. (2011): Children’s cortisol patterns and the quality of the early learning environment, European Early Childhood Research Journal 19 (1) 45-62. Retrieved from http://www.eecera.org/

 

Harcourt, D. & Einarsdotter, J. (2011) Introducing children’s perspectives and participation in research European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19 (3) 301 – 307. Retrieved form: http://www.eecera.org/