See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262882634

Developing professionalism through reflective practice and ongoing

professional development

Article  in  European Early Childhood Education Research Journal · April 2014

DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.883719

CITATIONS READS

36 5,064

1 author:

Josephine Bleach
National College of Ireland
13 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dublin Docklands Early Numeracy Programme, Early Learning Initative, National College of Ireland View project

Parent Child Home Programme View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Josephine Bleach on 20 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

ISSN: 1350-293X (Print) 1752-1807 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

Developing professionalism through reflective

practice and ongoing professional development

Josephine Bleach

To cite this article: Josephine Bleach (2014) Developing professionalism through reflective
practice and ongoing professional development, European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 22:2, 185-197, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.883719

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.883719

Published online: 16 Apr 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2262

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=recr20

Download by: [National College of Ireland] Date: 24 March 2016, At: 05:10
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2014
Vol. 22, No. 2, 185–197, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.883719

Developing professionalism through reflective practice and

ongoing professional development
Josephine Bleach*

Early Learning Initiative, National College of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

ABSTRACT: This article contributes to the debate on early years professionalism.

Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

It explores the impact of a continuous professional development (CPD)

programme, in particular a module on professional practice, on early childhood
care and education (ECCE) practitioners’ identity as early years professionals.
Action research informed the development of the programme and ensured that
everyone had a ‘voice’. Support in developing the participants’ pedagogical
knowledge in the learning and teaching domains was also provided. Analysis of
the data collected revealed, how through reflective practice and action planning,
ECCE practitioners’ perception of themselves changed. Through actively
evaluating their own practice and measuring it against the theory and official
discourse of early years quality and curriculum frameworks, the participants
gained new knowledge about themselves and their teaching. They also acquired
the professional language required to discuss children’s learning and their
practice with others.

RÉSUMÉ: Cet article concerne le professionnalisme dans le secteur de la petite

enfance. Il explore l’impact d’un programme de développement professionnel
continu (DPC), notamment un module concernant la pratique professionnelle, sur
l’identité des praticiens de l’accueil et de l’éducation des jeunes enfants. La
recherche-action a informé le développement du programme et s’est assuré que
chacun avait une «voix». Un soutien au développement des connaissances
pédagogiques des participants a également été fourni dans les domaines des
apprentissages et de l’enseignement. L’analyse des données recueillies a révélé
combien avait changé, grâce à la pratique réflexive et la planification de l’action,
la perception qu’avaient les praticiens d’eux-mêmes. En évaluant de manière
active leur propre pratique et en la mesurant au regard de la théorie et du
discours officiel de qualité et des cadres curriculaires de la petite enfance, les
participants ont acquis de nouvelles connaissances sur eux-mêmes et de leur
enseignement. Ils ont également acquis le langage professionnel nécessaire pour
discuter des apprentissages des enfants et de leur pratiques avec les autres.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Diese Studie ist ein Beitrag zur Debatte über

Professionalität in der Frühpädagogik. Es erforscht die Auswirkungen eines
Programms zur kontinuierlichen professionellen Entwicklung (CPD), konkret
eines Moduls zur beruflichen Praxis, auf die professionelle Identität von
elementarpädagogischen Fachkräften. Die Entwicklung des Programms wurde
durch Aktionsforschung begleitet, um die Sichtweisen (‘Stimmen’/‘voice’) aller
Beteiligten zu berücksichtigen. Darüber hinaus wurde der Erwerb pädagogischer
Kenntnisse in den relevanten Lehr- und Lernbereichen unterstützt. Die Analyse
der erhobenen Daten zeigte, wie sich durch reflexive Praxis und

*Email: [email protected]

© 2014 EECERA
 186 J. Bleach

handlungsorientierte Planung die Selbstwahrnehmung der Fachkräfte veränderte.

Durch aktive Evaluierung ihrer eigenen Praxis und den Abgleich mit Theorie
sowie offiziellen Qualitäts- und Rahmenrichtlinien erlangten die Teilnehmenden
neue Erkenntnisse über sich selbst und ihre pädagogische Tätigkeit. Darüber
hinaus erwarben sie die erforderliche Fachsprache, um kindliche Lernprozesse
und pädagogische Praxis mit anderen diskutieren zu können.

RESUMEN: Este trabajo contribuye al debate sobre los primeros años de

profesionalismo. Se explora el impacto de un desarrollo profesional continuo
(DPC) del programa, en particular, un módulo sobre la práctica profesional, (en
el cuidado y la identidad de los primeros años de la educación (AEPI) de los
practicantes) en el cuidado y la educación de la primera infancia (CEPI) y de
(como) los profesionales de los primeros años. La investigación-acción que ha
informad(a)o del desarrollo del programa (y) aseguró que todo el mundo tenía
una ‘voz’; (A)así como el apoyo en el desarrollo de conocimientos de los
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

participantes pedagógicos en los dominios de aprendizaje y enseñanza se imparte

también. El análisis de los datos recogidos revela cómo, a través de la práctica
reflexiva y la planificación de acciones, la percepción de los profesionales de la
CEPI (‘AEPI’) cambia. De forma activa la evaluación de su propia práctica y su
medición, en contra de la teoría y el discurso oficial de la calidad de los
primeros años y las estructuras curriculares, los participantes adquieren
nuevos conocimientos sobre sí mismos y sus enseñanzas. También adquirieron
el lenguaje profesional necesario para discutir el aprendizaje y su práctica con
los demás.
Keywords: early years; professionalism; action research; professional
development; reflective practice

Introduction
Reflective practice and ongoing professional development for staff are regarded as
central to ensuring high standards of quality provision in early childhood care and edu-
cation (ECCE) settings (Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence 1999; UNESCO 2004; CECDE
2006a). In Ireland, as in many other countries (UNICEF 2008) the education and
care divide (Bennett 2003) still operates. Pay, status and conditions for staff in the pre-
school sector are inferior to those in the compulsory education sector, with most ECCE
practitioners having qualifications well below the graduate-level training that is stan-
dard in primary schools. In addition, there are a substantial number of practitioners
who have no formal qualifications. This has an impact on the professional identity of
those working in the ECCE sector, where often they are perceived by parents and
others as ‘glorified babysitters’ (Share et al. 2011). This article examines the impact
of a continuous professional development (CPD) programme, in particular a module
on professional practice, on practitioners’ sense of themselves as ECCE professionals.
Simpson (2010) identified two models of ECCE professionalism. One was socially
constructed and determined, to a great extent, by the official discourse of professional-
ism contained in policy documents, while the other perceived ECCE practitioners as
active and reflexive agents. He suggested the need for a greater recognition of the socio-
cultural circumstances in which ECCE practitioners operate and a greater understand-
ing of the relationship between external contexts, individual resources and processes
(Simpson 2010). Despite professionalism being an unclear and contested concept in
the early years sector (Oberhuemeur 2000), Dalli (2008, 183) suggested that a defi-
nition of professionalism ‘could be conceptually structured around the following
three themes: (1) a distinct pedagogical style; (2) professional knowledge and practices;
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 187

and (3) collaborative relationships’. This article will examine the participants’ percep-
tions of what it means to be a professional and if Dalli’s definition is relevant to their
experiences and context.
Developing a professional identity requires the ability to reflect on and evaluate
practice, prescription and one’s own thoughts (Moyles 2001) along with an active
engagement and negotiation with the various ECCE discourses (Osgood 2010). For
these reasons, the action reflection cycle (McNiff and Whitehead 2006) and
‘dynamic conversations’ (Schön 1983) should be key elements in a CPD programme.
They enable participants to reflect on practice, compare practice to theory and the offi-
cial discourse of professionalism (Simpson 2010) and then develop action plans to
improve practice.
The overall aim of the CPD programme was to support 14 community-based ECCE
centres in Ireland to improve the quality of teaching and learning in their settings
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

through the implementation of Síolta, The Quality Framework for Early Childhood
Education (Síolta) (CECDE 2006a) and Aistear, the Early Childhood Curriculum Fra-
mework (Aistear) (NCCA 2009). Initially, the programme focused on implementing
curriculum and involving parents and families in their children’s learning. However,
as the programme progressed, the participants requested a module on professional prac-
tice. This article outlines the findings from the data collected during the training day on
professional practice as well as the overall CPD programmes. It details the participants’
perceptions of what it means to be an ECCE professional as well as their reviews and
action plans for professional practice. Finally, the impact of the CPD programme on
their professional identities and practice is discussed.

Methodology

Practising in a professional manner requires that individuals have skills, knowledge,

values and attitudes appropriate to their role and responsibility within the setting. In
addition, it requires regular reflection upon practice and engagement in supported,
ongoing professional development. (Síolta Standard 11: Professional Practice CECDE
2006a)

A key aim of the CPD programme was to help participants develop the skills,
knowledge, values and attitudes appropriate to their role and responsibility as an
ECCE professional as well as provide regular opportunities for them to reflect on
and improve their practice. Síolta and Aistear were the official discourses (Simpson
2010) against which practice could be measured and discussed.
Síolta, which is the Irish word for ‘seeds’, consists of a series of themed questions,
which enables ECCE practitioners to reflect on their existing practice and then work on
areas that need improvement. Being focused on process rather than product, it empha-
sises the ongoing journey of working towards quality practice (CECDE 2006a).
Aistear, which means ‘Journey’ in Irish, is the newly developed curriculum framework
for children from birth to six years. As well as describing early years learning and
development, it outlines ideas and suggestions on how these might be nurtured
(NCCA 2009). Guidelines for good practice, which highlight the ‘adult’s important
role in supporting and extending children’s learning and development’ (NCCA
2009) are also included. In the CPD programme, Aistear was a useful benchmark
against which existing practice and pedagogy could be measured. Not only did it
 188 J. Bleach

complement the work with Síolta, it added another dimension to Síolta’s goal of
improving the quality of the educational experience in the ECCE settings.
Action research was chosen as a research methodology for both developing the pro-
gramme and improving the quality of practice within the ECCE settings. A powerful
tool for change and improvement (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2000), it is closely
related to the Síolta Standard 8: Planning and Evaluation (CECDE 2006b), which
ECCE settings are expected to implement.

Enriching and informing all aspects of practice within the settings requires cycles of
observation, planning, action and evaluation, undertaken on a regular basis. (Síolta Stan-
dard 8: Planning and Evaluation CECDE 2006a)

Using action research would help the practitioners develop the skills needed to
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

implement Standard 8 and learn how to improve teaching and learning in their
setting through the successful management of innovation and change.
According to Senge and Scharmer (2001, 240), action research begins by creating a
learning community that works together to ‘nurture and sustain a knowledge-creating
system’, based on valuing each other equally. This includes ensuring that there is a dis-
ciplined approach to discovery and understanding, with a commitment by all partici-
pants to share what is learned. The process used in this project was conducted in
termly cycles and incorporated Síolta Component 8.1 (CECDE 2006b) and it is out-
lined in Figure 1.
The first step in the process for the two facilitators involved was negotiating and
agreeing the process, timetable and content of the programme with the participants.
This involved a series of meetings and on-site visits with the managers and staff in
each ECCE setting. Three Síolta Standards were covered over the course of a year in
three training sessions. These sessions were supplemented by regular visits to individ-
ual settings and additional support sessions, when requested. For each Standard, the
facilitators conducted a review of existing practice, using the Síolta User Manuals

Figure 1. Action research process.

 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 189

(CECDE 2006a), with each individual setting. During these reviews, ECCE staff ident-
ified their existing good practice and as well as the changes and improvements needed if
their setting was to adhere to the Síolta and Aistear frameworks. It also gave staff an
opportunity to discuss and tease out issues in relation to their own setting and
request additional support, if necessary. The findings from these on-site visits were
incorporated into the content of the training sessions.
As a social, collaborative and dialogic approach (Wong 2009) was a central element
of the programme, a ‘combined teaching structure’ (Alvestad and Rothle 2007, 422),
i.e. mixed, flexible, dialectal teaching, was used. The emphasis was on the positive:
‘What are we doing well?’ with the facilitators encouraging the participants to
examine their role and practice as educators in an ‘open and empowering context’
(Moyles 2001, 88). This encouraged the participants to acknowledge their strengths
and how they might improve their practice. It allowed everyone to ‘amicably disagree’
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

and ‘comfortably inhabit a position of not knowing everything’ (Frankham and Howes
2006, 626).
Each training session began with a small group discussion on key open-ended
(Ellis and Kiely 2000) questions taken from the Signposts for Reflection (CECDE
2006a) of a particular Síolta Standard. Feedback and general discussion were fol-
lowed by a presentation on both the theory and sample learning opportunities
from Aistear, which related to that Síolta Standard. Following each presentation,
the action research process was highlighted and the practitioners from each setting
were given the opportunity to prioritise areas for improvements and devise action
plans, which would be implemented following the training day. This format
aimed to encourage collective reflection and professional dialogue, which both sup-
ported and encouraged the participants to critique their existing practice and take on
the challenge of implementing new practices (Li 2008). It also enabled the partici-
pants to connect the pedagogy and theory of Aistear with the quality practice as
envisioned by Síolta.
Standard 11: Professional Practice was usually the topic of the third training day
attended by the practitioners in each setting. It gave them opportunity to reflect on
and discuss their role as ECCE professionals and enabled them to compare their prac-
tice with that outlined in Síolta and Aistear. The training session began with questions
on the difference between a professional and a non-professional worker and how they,
practitioners demonstrate their professionalism to others.
The small group discussion and feedback was followed by a presentation on the
skills and knowledge required by professional ECCE practitioners. This began with
describing their work with children, followed by the type of practice and interactions
required of skilled practitioners. It finished with the requirement for self-awareness,
both in terms of an ECCE professional understanding their role and their ongoing invol-
vement in personal and professional development.
There was then further discussion on the core principles that underpin and inform
professional early years practice. Participants were asked to identify the difference
between someone who practices these principles and someone who does not. Following
feedback and a general group discussion, the core principles of Síolta and Aistear were
presented. Links were made between the issues that arose in discussion and those high-
lighted in the official discourses (Simpson 2010). As with other training sessions, the
presentation and discussion of theory was followed by the practitioners reviewing
their existing practice using Síolta Standard 11 as a guide and then devising an
action plan for improving professional practice in their setting.
 190 J. Bleach

Continuous self-evaluation is central to action research. The CPD programme was

evaluated on an ongoing basis using facilitators’ observations, programme documen-
tation, feedback from stakeholders along with individual evaluation forms on training
days. The notes taken on training days by the practitioners are included in the pro-
gramme documentation. These included their discussions in small groups on the
open-ended questions, their reviews of practice and action plans. The evaluation
forms consisted of a series of closed and open statements. The statements focused on
whether the participants found the training days interesting, easy to understand and
useful to their future practice. The open questions asked participants to list the best
things about the session as well as what aspects they would change for the future.
This ongoing evaluation shaped the development and implementation of the
programme.
Good practice in relation to action research was followed with ethical consider-
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

ations addressed throughout the project. Confidentiality was respected at all times
and the facilitators were sensitive as to how their values and actions could influence
the participants. Particular attention was paid to the reliability, validity and objectivity
(Robson 1993; Creswell 2003) of the feedback and triangulation was used where
possible.

Findings
Analysis of evaluation forms, action plans, facilitators’ observations, minutes and reports
from training days and other meetings provide the findings of this article. The notes taken
during discussions on the qualities of an ECCE professional will be used to illustrate the
participants’ perceptions of what it means to be a professional. Views on the existing pro-
fessional practice in the setting along with the issues that need to be addressed to ensure
that all staff in the setting are adhering to the professional standards advocated by Síolta
will be examined using the written reviews of professional practice and actions plans.
Finally, the evaluation forms will be used to explore the impact of the project on the par-
ticipants’ professional identities and practice. The themes that emerge from these find-
ings will be developed in the rest of the article.

Qualities of an ECCE Professional

As part of training session on Síolta Standard 11: Professional Practice, participants
were asked to discuss the qualities of a professional ECCE practitioner in small
groups with practitioners from other settings. Of the 168 points highlighted as being
important attributes in the records of these conversations, the dispositions and attitudes
of the ECCE practitioner was mentioned most frequently (43% N = 72) times. Words
like ‘confidence’, ‘respect’, ‘open-minded’, ‘dedication’ and ‘calm’ were used to
describe professional ECCE practitioners. Their responsibility to be a role model for
others as well as an active member of the team was also mentioned. This was reflected
in the characteristics mentioned by one group:

Confidentiality, caring (children & staff), good attitude, team worker, dedicated, inter-
ested, pride in workplace, observant, passionate, able to use initiative.

Good communication skills (30% N = 50) were also considered important for ECCE
professionals. This included having the language and ability to interact with others,
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 191

including colleagues, parents and children. The ability to listen to and respect confiden-
tiality was also highlighted. A professional, one group suggested, ‘demonstrates by
their words, actions and body language that they have an interest in the parents, families
and their children’.
Another key quality was the knowledge (19% N = 32) of the practitioner, which was
divided into two areas. One was having qualifications and attending ongoing training
(7% N = 11), while the other was having the professional pedagogical knowledge
required for the job (12% N = 21) Being knowledgeable meant having a broad knowl-
edge of Early Childhood Education, being able to understand and implement the curri-
culum as well as being skilled at providing appropriate learning activities. The issue of
professional judgement was also raised with the comments being made that ‘non-pro-
fessionals may not be aware of how important certain things were’ and ECCE prac-
titioners particularly needed to be ‘aware of children’s skills and abilities’.
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

Professional judgement was considered a more tacit form of pedagogical knowledge,

which it was suggested came from having a great deal of experience as an ECCE prac-
titioner rather than a formal qualification.

Reviews and Action Plans

The reviews and action plans for Síolta Standard 11, conducted by each setting during
the training day, reflected the findings from the practitioners’ conversations on the
qualities required of an ECCE professional, while focusing on practice and relation-
ships. Of the 79 items mentioned as working well in the ECCE settings, both practice
(32% N = 25) and relationships (30% N = 24) were cited most.
Participants also felt that they had the opportunity to reflect upon and review practice
(20% N = 16) and attend training (9% N = 7). As one group stated in their review notes:

We have improved on standards already in place and we reflect on our overall practice,
Curriculum, activities and ideas at the end of the month

Of the 43 items mentioned as needing change, managing and implementing agreed

changes in practice (42% N = 18) and improving communication structures (28% N =
12), both with staff and parents, were mentioned most frequently.
Finding time to reflect upon and review (23% N = 10) both the core principles,
which inform practice, and practice itself was also a concern.
The action plans developed by the participants reflected these concerns. Analysis of
the 14 action plans developed on Síolta Standard 11 revealed that 43% (N = 6) were
around organising time to plan and reflect on implementation and practice. The follow-
ing is an example of type of issues addressed through their action plans:

Implement policies (Síolta)

Plan a date for meetings (12.30–1.30 first Thursday) and bring to the manager
Team to work together
Need all staff to cooperate
Staff time for planning and reflection

Improving communication, both with colleagues parents, was included in the

majority of action plans (71% N = 10). It was considered central to managing the
implementation of Síolta and Aistear, developing the professionalism of each staff
member and keeping parents informed of their children’s learning in the setting.
 192 J. Bleach

Only a minority mentioned training (7% N = 3) and this was in the context of ensur-
ing that all staff were supported within the settings and had the opportunity to attend the
CPD programme.
Concerns about unprofessional behaviour and its impact on implementation of
action plans can be seen from these findings. In their discussions, participants
divided unprofessional behaviour into two categories. The first was staff who did not
have either the knowledge and/or the confidence to behave as a professional, while
the second was staff who lacked interest in their work and did not engage with children
or their colleagues. ECCE managers echoed these concerns, when they spoke about
their struggle to keep all staff involved, motivated and engaged with the CPD pro-
gramme and the action research process. However, they acknowledged that having
all staff attend training days, and therefore being ‘on the same page’, meant that staff
were more willing to participate in the process and implement agreed changes. The
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

ongoing support that the ECCE managers received from the facilitators was also impor-
tant in helping them deal with these issues and concerns.

Evaluation Forms
The themes of improving practice and acquiring professional knowledge were reflected
in the analysis of all the evaluation forms given out at the end of each training day.
Acknowledging the CPD programme as one where they were encouraged to incorpor-
ate Síolta and Aistear both in their own practice and that of their setting, the majority of
the participants (97% N = 482) reported that they found the CPD programme useful to
their practice. Almost half the participants (48% N = 239), who filled out evaluation
forms, mentioned their learning as being the best thing about the programme.

The work we covered was very interesting and useful. I learned a lot.
It gave me another way to look at the child and a lot of new ideas for my own setting.
Learning about curriculum and planning very interesting and informative. I don’t feel so
alone with it now.

While a great deal of Síolta and Aistear was already being implemented in the set-
tings, feedback from ECCE managers and staff indicated that practitioners had, as a
result of participating in the programme, acquired a professional language that
enabled them to ‘name and discuss what they were doing with parents and others’.
Being able to engage in professional dialogue was mentioned as a positive outcome
of the programme by a third of the participants (33% N = 161) who filled out evaluation
forms. As reflected in the following quotes, participants felt that the programme gave
them an opportunity to share ideas, practice and action plans with other ECCE staff:

The atmosphere was very easy going and it helped to promote a good sharing session
amongst all the groups involved. I felt that we are starting to work well together as a
team as well as individual groups.
Being moved around the room and mixing with other teams helped us to network and see
how the training was working in other organisations.

For some participants, taking part in discussions with other ECCE practitioners was
very difficult initially. Many were unfamiliar with the language and concepts being
used and felt that they had not the ‘words’ or language to express their opinions.
Some found it a challenge to make explicit practices that were until now implicit.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 193

Others needed to develop the confidence to speak about their practice in front of
practitioners from other settings. For one participant, the best part about the programme
was:

Learning from other crèches and overcoming my fears and speaking out in front of every-
one with my thoughts and making an input to the discussion.

For others, the training sessions provided valuable opportunities to reflect on and
discuss their practice with colleagues from their own settings. Using Síolta and
Aistear as the basis for the discussion and the standard against which practice could
be measured ensured objectivity and allowed participants to be open with one
another and express their opinions freely.
Overall feedback from both ECCE managers and staff indicated that participating in
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

the CPD programme had increased the confidence of participants and had given them a
greater sense of themselves as professionals. Over the course of the programme, per-
ceptions changed gradually from, ‘We are only care workers with responsibility for
minding children’ to ‘We are professionals with responsibility for supporting children’s
learning and development’.

Discussion
To develop ECCE professionals, Moyles (2001, 89) suggested, ‘professional under-
standing itself needs to be nurtured, to be allowed time to develop and opportunity
to be applied.’ The process used in the CPD programme was critical in developing
the participants’ sense of professionalism. From the beginning, it enabled them to
improve their ‘knowledge through action and their action through reflection’ (Ellis
and Kiely 2000, 3). Using open-ended questions (Ellis and Kiely 2000) based on
Síolta’s Signposts for Reflection (CECDE 2006a) as a basis for discussion gave the par-
ticipants the opportunity to reflect on and review their practice in a professional setting.
This enabled the participants to make their existing knowledge and practice explicit.
The presentations on Aistear furthered their knowledge of Early Childhood Education,
while engaging in action planning with others from their setting allowed individual
practitioners to contribute positively to the development of quality practice in their
setting. Through these sustained interactions, as in Li’s (2008) study, information
became knowledge and knowledge became shared wisdom.
Using a social, collaborative and dialogic approach, as Wong (2009) suggested, was
important in developing the participants’ sense of themselves as both professionals and
educators. Incorporating small group work, both before, during and after the presen-
tation of theory, was central to the process of dialogue and self-reflection as envisioned
in the Síolta Manuals (CECDE 2006a). It provided a safe, yet challenging, space for
participants to discuss and analyse both theory and lived experiences (Herr and Ander-
son 2005). As with the practitioners in Li’s study (2008), it allowed them to reflect on
the effectiveness of their own professional actions and judgements and consider the
impact these had on the children, colleagues and parents with whom they worked.
By encouraging participants to actively examine their own perspectives and actions,
these dynamic conversations (Schön 1983) helped to challenge the existing knowledge,
skills and values of the participants along with the norms and practices in their settings.
Engaging in professional development was not easy for some participants and it
involved a careful negotiation and establishment of authentic, trusted relationships,
 194 J. Bleach

as Herr and Anderson (2005) suggested, on the part of the facilitators. Most of the par-
ticipants had low levels of education and lacked confidence, not only in their own prac-
tice, but also in their basic communication and literacy skills (Share, Kerrins, and
Greene 2011). However, as Moloney (2010, 28) also found in her evaluation of the pro-
gramme in Limerick, that once staff attended training ‘they were just buzzing and full of
ideas and there really were no more problems after that first day of training’. By the last
day of training, childcare staff, who were initially ‘nervous of speaking, participated
well’.
As in Alvestad and Rothle’s (2007) study in Norway, sharing their experiences as
equals helped to motivate and encourage the participants to get involved with the pro-
gramme, improve their own practice and implement the agree actions plans. Working
through interpersonal and professional tensions towards the achievement of goals, as
Frankham and Howes (2006) suggested, created a sense of common ‘moral purpose’
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

(Fullan, Cuttress, and Kilcher 2005, 54), which strengthened not only the participants’
confidence but also their sense of self. Engaging all the participants in meaningful dia-
logue where everyone’s voice was clearly heard, as Deakins (2007) advised, improved
their self-esteem and their confidence in their organisation and profession. By creating
an enthusiasm to work with complexity, to manage the competing demands of theory
and practice and to review values and value-related decisions (Frankham and Howes
2006), the programme enhanced the participants’ professional capabilities, both indivi-
dually and collectively (Senge and Scharmer 2001).
Being an ECCE professional requires knowledge of children and pedagogy.
However, the broad diversity in the qualifications of the participants, with some not
having any formal qualifications, meant that a considerable number of participants in
this programme had, as is common in Ireland (National Co-ordinating Childcare Com-
mittee 2002), gained their knowledge and skills through experience rather than formal
training processes. This, combined with the lack of national early years curriculum
guidelines prior to Aistear, limited their knowledge and understanding of early child-
hood pedagogy (Li 2008). Aistear, as it offered ‘access to new ideas and new knowl-
edge’ (Alvestad and Rothle 2007, 415), was used to support the development of the
participants’ pedagogical knowledge in the learning and teaching domains. It was the
theory against which practice could be measured and provided educational meanings
for familiar practices. As some of the participants explained to Moloney (2010) in
her evaluation of the programme in Limerick, finding out about the theory and how
it is linked to practice was an essential element of the programme. It motivated them
to move from providing what was often a mixed, unrelated, range of educational activi-
ties to assessing and planning activities based on the children’s learning needs and
interests.
Participants brought to the programme their professional identity, which was influ-
enced by their ‘individual dispositions and emotions, day-to-day lives and relation-
ships, training and education’ (McGillivray 2008, 246). Professionalism is
considered to be a contested concept, which is dependent upon the particular cultural
discourse used to define and evaluate it (Oberhuemeur 2000). Interestingly, given the
difference in both the cultural context and qualifications of the participants, the three
themes, which emerged from Dalli’s study (2008) in New Zealand: (1) a distinct ped-
agogical style; and (2) professional knowledge and practices; and (iii) collaborative
relationships’, were reflected in the findings of this study. The pedagogical style, i.e.
a specific strategy, disposition or attitude to early childhood teaching was mentioned
most frequently in the discussions on the qualities of a professional ECCE practitioner.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 195

Encompassing Shulman and Shulman (2004, 259) ‘willing and motivation’ construct of
accomplished teachers, it was considered an essential requirement of a responsible
committed professional, who enjoyed their job. Participants were also very aware, as
Siraj-Blatchford (1993) found, that effective teaching must be based on the prac-
titioners’ knowledge and experience of children and the way in which children learn.
They felt a professional needed the qualifications, skills and experience to understand
and implement the curriculum and support children’s learning. Finally, participants
clearly identified warm, respectful and positive relationships in terms of colleagues,
children and parents (Day et al. 2006) as being an important attribute of a professional
ECCE practitioner. Through their engagement in the CPD programme, participants
conceptualised and articulated their own definition of professionalism and used it as
benchmark against which their own behaviour and that of their colleagues could be
measured. Their sense of identity as professionals increased and they acquired not
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

only the knowledge and language, but also the confidence, to interact with others in
a professional way.

Conclusion
This article explored how a CPD programme, using reflective practice (Schön 1983)
and action research (Senge and Scharmer 2001), impacted on ECCE practitioners’
perception of themselves as professionals. Through actively reflecting on and evalu-
ating their own role as an ECCE practitioner, not only did the participants gain new
knowledge about themselves and their teaching, they also acquired the professional
language required to discuss children’s learning and their practice with others. The
use of action research in this study, as Kemmis (2009) suggested, helped to
change practitioners’ practices, their understanding of their practices, and their way
of relating to others in their settings. This helped to reshape their identities as
professionals.
The action research process was instrumental in helping to bridge the gap between
theory and practice (Ellis and Kiely 2000). It allowed the participants to discuss and
conceptualise the professional roles and norms of an ECCE practitioner. This included
appreciating and understanding both the formal and informal expectations of conduct
expected of an ECCE professional (Garman et al. 2006) as well as the official dis-
courses (Simpson 2010) of Síolta and Aistear. Like Dalli’s (2008) study, pedagogical
style, professional knowledge and practice and collaborative relationships emerged as
the most important attributes for an ECCE professional with the values of responsibility
and communication considered of central importance (Osgood 2010).
The quality of the early childhood education and care depends on the motivation,
skills and abilities of the staff (UNICEF 2008). Educational improvement, according
to Moyles (2001, 89), ‘depends on practitioner feeling they WANT to make a differ-
ence; upon them feeling empowered and professional’. The CPD programme enhanced
participants’ awareness and capabilities, both individually and collectively (Senge and
Scharmer 2001). Beginning by recognising their current levels of mastery, participants
were able to work collaboratively to improve the quality of teaching and learning in
their centres.
With the notion of professionalism in the early years becoming a central concern to
a range of policymakers, ECCE practitioners and stakeholders, this study contributes to
the ongoing debate on early years professionalism, particularly how it might be recon-
ceptualised in a way that reflects the reality of ECCE practitioners’ experiences
 196 J. Bleach

(Dalli 2008). It also demonstrates that regular and ongoing CPD programmes, particu-
larly those which provide scope for reflexivity, support ECCE practitioners to develop
as professionals and contribute positively to the development of quality practice in their
setting.

References
Alvestad, M., and M. Rothle. 2007. “Educational Forums: Frames for Development of
Professional Learning. A Project in Early Childhood Education in Norway.” European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15 (3): 407–425.
Bennett, J. 2003. “Starting Strong. The Persistent Division Between Care and Education.”
Journal of Early Childhood Research 1 (1 and 2): 21–48.
Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE). 2006a. Síolta: The National
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education, User Manuals. Dublin: CECDE.
Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE). 2006b. Síolta: The National
Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education. Síolta Research Digests. Dublin:
CECDE.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2000. Research Methods in Education. 5th ed. London:
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research Design. Qualitative and Quantative Approaches. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge.
Dahlberg, G., P. Moss, and A. Pence. 1999. Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education:
Postmodern Perspectives. London: Falmer Press.
Dalli, C. 2008. “Pedagogy, Knowledge and Collaboration: Towards a Ground-up Perspective on
Professionalism.” European Early Childhood Research Journal 16 (2): 171–185.
Day, C., A. Kington, G. Stobart, and P. Sammons. 2006. “The Personal and Professional Selves
of Teachers: Stable and Unstable Identities.” British Educational Research Journal 32 (4):
601–616.
Deakins, E. 2007. “The Role of Meaningful Dialogue in Early Childhood Education
Leadership.” Australian Journal of Early Childhood 32 (1): 38–46.
Ellis, J. H. M., and J. A. Kiely. 2000. “The Promise of Action Inquiry in Tackling Organisational
Problems in Real Time.” Action Research International, Paper 5. Accessed February 4,
2011. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-jellis00.html
Frankham, J., and A. Howes. 2006. “Talk as Action in ‘Collaborative Action Research’: Making
and Taking Apart Teacher/researcher Relationships.” British Educational Research Journal
32 (4): 617–632.
Fullan, M., C. Cuttress, and A. Kilcher. 2005. “8 Forces for Leaders of Change.” Educational
Leadership 26 (4): 54–58.
Garman, A. N., R. Evans, M. K. Krause, and J. Anfossi. 2006. “Professionalism.” Journal of
Healthcare Management 51 (4): 219–222.
Herr, K., and L. Anderson. 2005. The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and
Faculty. London: Sage.
Kemmis, S. 2009. “Action Research as a Practice-based Practice.” Educational Action Research
17 (3): 463–474.
Li, Y. 2008. “Teachers in Action Research: Assumptions and Potentials.” Educational Action
Research 16 (2): 251–260.
McGillivray, G. 2008. “Nannies, Nursery Nurses and Early Years Professionals: Constructions
of Professional Identity in the Early Years Workforce in England.” European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal 16 (2): 242–254.
McNiff, J., and J. Whitehead. 2006. All You Need to Know About Action Research. London:
Sage Publications.
Moloney, M. 2010. Síolta: Working Together to Sow the Seeds. The Story of of Síolta in
Limerick’s Northside. Accessed September 8, 2010. http://limerickcitychildcare.ie/
Publications/Siolta%20Working%20together%20to%20sow%20the%20seeds.pdf
Moyles, J. 2001. “Passion, Paradox and Professionalism in Early Years Education.” Early Years
21 (2): 81–95.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 197

National Co-ordinating Childcare Committee. 2002. Model Framework for Education: Training
and Professional Development in the Early Childhood Care and Education Sector. Dublin:
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). 2009. Aistear. The Early Childhood
Curriculum Framework. Dublin: NCCA.
Oberhuemeur, P. 2000 “Conceptualizing the Professional Role in Early Childhood Centers:
Emerging Profiles in Four European Countries.” Early Childhood Research and Practice
2(2), Accessed March 30, 2012. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n2/oberhuemer.html
Osgood, J. 2010. “Reconstructing Professionalism in ECCE: The Case for the ‘Critically
Reflective Emotional Professional’.” Early Years 30 (2): 119–133.
Robson, C. 1993. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner
Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London:
Temple Smith.
Senge, P., and O. Scharmer. 2001. “Community Action Research: Learning as a Community of
Downloaded by [National College of Ireland] at 05:10 24 March 2016

Practitioners, Consultants and Researchers.” In Handbook of Action Research, Participative

Inquiry and Practice, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 238–249. London: Sage.
Share, M., L. Kerrins, and S. Greene. 2011. Developing Early Professionalism. Evaluation of
the Early Learning Initiative’s Professional Development Programme in Community
Childcare Centres in the Dublin Docklands. Dublin: National College of Ireland.
Shulman, L. S., and J. H. Shulman. 2004. “How and What Teachers Learn: A Shifting
Perspective.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 26 (2): 257–271.
Simpson, D. 2010. “Being Professional? Conceptualising Early Years Professionalism in
England.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18 (1): 5–14.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. 1993. “Educational Research and Reform: Some Implications for the
Professional Identity of Early Years Teachers.” British Journal of Educational Studies 41
(4): 393–408.
UNICEF. 2008. The Child Care Transition. A League Table of Early Childhood Education and
Care in Economically Advanced Countries. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2004. The Early
Childhood Workforce: Continuing Education and Professional Development. Paris: United
Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Wong, A. C. Y. 2009. “Dialogue Engagements: Professional Development using Pedagogical
Documentation.” Canadian Children 34 (2): 25–30.

View publication stats