early childhood education research study

Every child deserves high-quality early education

We improve the learning and development of young children through research that transforms policy and practice.

The State of Preschool 2023

State-by-State Disparities Widening in Preschool Access, Quality, Funding

State of Pre-K Data Explorer

View and Compare State of Preschool Yearbook Data Across States and Years

NIEER Research

Universal PreKindergarten Mixed Delivery Quality and Access

What does it take to provide professional development focused on DLLs?

State(s) of Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education

More research.

Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs and Child Development in Indiana, from 2021-2022

Including Family Child Care (FCC) Programs in Publicly-Funded Pre-K

State Preschool in a Mixed Delivery System

Preschool matters blog, envisioning, planning, and implementing better systems for dual language learners, potential inclusion of outdoor preschool in state funded programs, reaching every child: a call for inclusive early education policies, international journal of child care and education policy, states should and can do much more to support assistant teachers according to a new peer-reviewed article by gg weisenfeld and kate hodges and abby copeman petig of the center for the study of child care employment (cscce) at berkeley..

Qualifications and supports for teaching teams in state-funded preschool in the United States

Join the Conversation

Learn more about our work, research & program evaluations.

We evaluate nationwide early childhood programs, rigorously assessing impact. Data-driven evaluations span years, revealing strengths and weaknesses for targeted improvements.

Policy Landscapes

NIEER's policy landscapes offer insights into early childhood education policies, enrollment, and nationwide funding. Advocates, policy-makers, and researchers rely on them to improve the quality and accessibility of early childhood education.

NIEER Developed Tools

NIEER has created numerous proprietary research tools that include assessments, surveys, cost calculators, and evaluations, used by researchers and educators to gather data, analyze information, and evaluate the effectiveness of early childhood education programs.

International Journal of Childcare & Education Policy

The International Journal of Childcare and Education Policy (IJCEP) is a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal focusing on childcare and education policy research for young children.

Technical Assistance

NIEER provides technical assistance to state advocates on improving the quality of early care and education programs and understanding the costs associated with high-quality programs. NIEER is producing a series of Guides to PreK Expansion and other resources to support state and national advocates in their efforts to ensure all children have access to high-quality early care and education.

Partnership with New Jersey

New Jersey has a rich history of supporting early learning, evidenced by the state's Supreme Court decisions, legal regulations, financial investments, and committed state leadership. However, a pivotal turning point came with a landmark legal decision that sparked significant changes and laid the groundwork for progress over the last two decades.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Stay Informed on Early Childhood Education Each Week

InBrief: The Science of Early Childhood Development

This brief is part of a series that summarizes essential scientific findings from Center publications.

Content in This Guide

Step 1: why is early childhood important.

: Brain Hero
: The Science of ECD (Video)
You Are Here: The Science of ECD (Text)

Step 2: How Does Early Child Development Happen?

: 3 Core Concepts in Early Development
: 8 Things to Remember about Child Development
: InBrief: The Science of Resilience

Step 3: What Can We Do to Support Child Development?

: From Best Practices to Breakthrough Impacts
: 3 Principles to Improve Outcomes

The science of early brain development can inform investments in early childhood. These basic concepts, established over decades of neuroscience and behavioral research, help illustrate why child development—particularly from birth to five years—is a foundation for a prosperous and sustainable society.

Brains are built over time, from the bottom up.

The basic architecture of the brain is constructed through an ongoing process that begins before birth and continues into adulthood. Early experiences affect the quality of that architecture by establishing either a sturdy or a fragile foundation for all of the learning, health and behavior that follow. In the first few years of life, more than 1 million new neural connections are formed every second . After this period of rapid proliferation, connections are reduced through a process called pruning, so that brain circuits become more efficient. Sensory pathways like those for basic vision and hearing are the first to develop, followed by early language skills and higher cognitive functions. Connections proliferate and prune in a prescribed order, with later, more complex brain circuits built upon earlier, simpler circuits.

In the proliferation and pruning process, simpler neural connections form first, followed by more complex circuits. The timing is genetic, but early experiences determine whether the circuits are strong or weak. Source: C.A. Nelson (2000). Credit: Center on the Developing Child

The interactive influences of genes and experience shape the developing brain.

Scientists now know a major ingredient in this developmental process is the “ serve and return ” relationship between children and their parents and other caregivers in the family or community. Young children naturally reach out for interaction through babbling, facial expressions, and gestures, and adults respond with the same kind of vocalizing and gesturing back at them. In the absence of such responses—or if the responses are unreliable or inappropriate—the brain’s architecture does not form as expected, which can lead to disparities in learning and behavior.

The brain’s capacity for change decreases with age.

The brain is most flexible, or “plastic,” early in life to accommodate a wide range of environments and interactions, but as the maturing brain becomes more specialized to assume more complex functions, it is less capable of reorganizing and adapting to new or unexpected challenges. For example, by the first year, the parts of the brain that differentiate sound are becoming specialized to the language the baby has been exposed to; at the same time, the brain is already starting to lose the ability to recognize different sounds found in other languages. Although the “windows” for language learning and other skills remain open, these brain circuits become increasingly difficult to alter over time. Early plasticity means it’s easier and more effective to influence a baby’s developing brain architecture than to rewire parts of its circuitry in the adult years.

Cognitive, emotional, and social capacities are inextricably intertwined throughout the life course.

The brain is a highly interrelated organ, and its multiple functions operate in a richly coordinated fashion. Emotional well-being and social competence provide a strong foundation for emerging cognitive abilities, and together they are the bricks and mortar that comprise the foundation of human development. The emotional and physical health, social skills, and cognitive-linguistic capacities that emerge in the early years are all important prerequisites for success in school and later in the workplace and community.

Toxic stress damages developing brain architecture, which can lead to lifelong problems in learning, behavior, and physical and mental health.

Scientists now know that chronic, unrelenting stress in early childhood, caused by extreme poverty, repeated abuse, or severe maternal depression, for example, can be toxic to the developing brain. While positive stress (moderate, short-lived physiological responses to uncomfortable experiences) is an important and necessary aspect of healthy development, toxic stress is the strong, unrelieved activation of the body’s stress management system. In the absence of the buffering protection of adult support, toxic stress becomes built into the body by processes that shape the architecture of the developing brain.

Brains subjected to toxic stress have underdeveloped neural connections in areas of the brain most important for successful learning and behavior in school and the workplace. Source: Radley et al (2004); Bock et al (2005). Credit: Center on the Developing Child.

Policy Implications

The basic principles of neuroscience indicate that early preventive intervention will be more efficient and produce more favorable outcomes than remediation later in life.
A balanced approach to emotional, social, cognitive, and language development will best prepare all children for success in school and later in the workplace and community.
Supportive relationships and positive learning experiences begin at home but can also be provided through a range of services with proven effectiveness factors. Babies’ brains require stable, caring, interactive relationships with adults — any way or any place they can be provided will benefit healthy brain development.
Science clearly demonstrates that, in situations where toxic stress is likely, intervening as early as possible is critical to achieving the best outcomes. For children experiencing toxic stress, specialized early interventions are needed to target the cause of the stress and protect the child from its consequences.

Suggested citation: Center on the Developing Child (2007). The Science of Early Childhood Development (InBrief). Retrieved from www.developingchild.harvard.edu .

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Sandra Susan Smith (from left), Gwen Carr, and Selwyn Jones speaking during the event.

Remember Eric Garner? George Floyd?

Lawyers reap big profits lobbying government regulators under the radar

Younger votes still lean toward Biden — but it’s complicated

Gauging how children grow, learn, thrive.

Harvard Staff Writer

Ambitious Harvard study aims to discover conditions under which they do best

Edge of discovery.

Third in a series of articles on cutting-edge research at Harvard.

A young child spends weekdays with her grandmother down the street while her parents work. Another attends an unlicensed day care center run by a neighbor. A third is with his stay-at-home dad. A fourth is cared for by a private nanny in the comfort of her own house.

Researchers have long studied how small children grow and learn in formal, high-quality preschool programs, and have found that they develop better language, math, and literacy skills as well as stronger social and emotional connections than those who don’t attend.

Yet little is known about the children who are looked after under informal arrangements involving neighbors, relatives, friends, or nannies, even though these cover 40 percent of children in Massachusetts.

Two Harvard researchers are working to figure that out.

Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) professors Nonie Lesaux and Stephanie Jones , both developmental psychologists, are launching an ambitious study to follow 5,000 children, ages 3 and 4, for four years. The study will track some students before and after their elementary school years, and perhaps into adulthood. The cohort, recruited from 168 communities, is designed to reflect the changing demographics of children across the state.

Through the Early Learning Study at Harvard , Lesaux and Jones aim to update the science around child care by examining the links between children’s development and the characteristics of the educational and care settings where they spend their formative years, be those relatives’ homes or unlicensed daycare centers or, for comparison, local Head Starts and Montessori preschools.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions that parents, communities, policymakers, and school districts are grappling with,” said Lesaux, the Juliana W. and William Foss Thompson Professor of Education and Society and the School’s academic dean. “And we don’t have enough specific information to drive 21st-century policy in early education.”

HGSE professors Nonie Lesaux (left) and Stephanie Jones, leaders of the Early Learning Study at Harvard, recently spoke at a seminar on early education and stress.

Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

“Our body of evidence is outdated. … And what’s missing is the settings described as informal or non-licensed that are offered outside the formal centers. We just don’t know very much about them.” Stephanie Jones

The researchers want to know how those environments affect children’s learning skills and development. Researchers also hope to find out whether children’s learning varies by groupings, and what features of early schooling help support or undermine them.

“Our body of evidence is outdated,” said Jones, a professor of education. “It’s based on studies from the 1960s, primarily. It also focuses primarily on the center-based, licensed, formal early education offerings. And what’s missing is the settings described as informal or non-licensed that are offered outside the formal centers. We just don’t know very much about them.”

Unprecedented scope

In early childhood education, the most influential research includes the Perry Preschool Study , conducted in the mid-1960s at a Michigan preschool, and the Abecedarian Project , conducted in the 1970s in North Carolina. Both studies, which followed children into their adult years, found that the children who received preschool education thrived more than those who did not. The preschool children earned more money, were more law-abiding, were more likely to graduate from high school, and even were healthier.

Conducted by the Saul Zaentz Early Education Initiative at the Ed School, the new Harvard study is designed to be groundbreaking in scope and unprecedented in reach, said Lesaux.

For the first time, researchers will study informal care settings and link their features to children’s social and emotional development. The researchers plan to connect what they learn about early math, literacy, and language skills with data that reflect today’s populations and current settings. A 2016 study , supported by the U.S. Department of Education, examined the quality of informal preschool settings versus formal settings, but used decade-old data.

Earlier studies showed that children who spend more time in daycare centers make advances in language and cognitive skills, but, depending on the number of hours and the characteristics of the settings, may also develop more behavioral problems than children who spend fewer hours there.

A recent study led by Dana Charles McCoy at HGSE analyzed 22 studies on early childhood education published between 1960 and 2016 and found that the benefits of early childhood education have lasting effects. The study concluded that those who went to preschool were less likely to be placed in special education classes and be required to repeat a grade, and more likely to graduate from high school.

In the new study, researchers will assess children’s progress in language, early math, and literacy skills, but also their social, emotional, neurophysiological, and cognitive development by examining their interactions with other children and their relationships with adults in their lives. Lesaux and Jones hope the Early Learning Study eventually will have an impact on national educational policy.

“It certainly has the potential to change the national conversation about early education,” said Lesaux. “It will be the first look, statewide, at both children and the variety of early education settings.”

The researchers also hope to learn why some advances from early education persist for children while others fade in the first years of elementary school.

“A lot of the focus of other studies is the fadeout of academic skills,” said Tara Chiatovich, the Zaentz Initiative’s research scientist and the study’s manager. “We want to see what happens with gains in social and emotional development, which may tend to persist over time more than academic skills. We also want to see where those gains are maintained or undermined in the early years of elementary school.”

Research suggests that high-quality early education makes an important difference in children’s lives, but only a minority of them benefit from it. Of the 60 percent enrolled in some form of preschool nationwide, only 20 percent attend what would be considered a high-quality program. The features of high-quality early schooling include small group sizes, low adult-to-child ratios, and caregiver competencies.

“Children only get one start. Pay now or pay later.” Nonie Lesaux

“Many families don’t have access to a high-quality early education experience for their child,” said Jones. “And we know from decades of research that what really impacts outcomes for children is exposure to high quality. It’s meant to level the playing field, and we’re not there yet.”

The 2006 Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found a strong correlation between higher-quality child care and school readiness. Children in high-quality settings were found to have broader vocabularies, coupled with stronger language and early math skills. They also generally were more cooperative than peers in low-quality preschool programs.

High-quality early education is especially important for children from vulnerable populations, said Lesaux and Jones. Stress and adversity affect children’s learning. Research has shown that children from low-income families benefit the most from high-quality early education, and yet the movement toward universal high-quality preschool has been an uphill battle nationally.

“It has been hard to build the political will to fund high-quality preschool experiences,” said Lesaux. “As a country, we’re not in agreement that it’s worth the investment.”

Field worker Yvonne Illich is helping to recruit families to participate in the Early Learning Study. Her pitch? “I tell them they can see how their child is growing and developing.”

Already in the works

The new study has begun a household survey of parents across Massachusetts to recruit children and families. On a recent afternoon, Yvonne Illich, a field worker with Abt Associates, a research firm partnering with Harvard to conduct the study, took a break from knocking on doors in Lexington, one of her designated work areas.

“Parents ask me, ‘What’s in it for my child?,’ ‘What’s in it for my family?’ ” said Illich. “I tell them they can see how their child is growing and developing. Parents want to make sure their children are having the best jump-start in life.”

In addition to launching an academy for professional learning in early childhood education to hone policymakers and practitioners’ expertise, the Zaentz initiative has begun a fellowship program to build a new pipeline of leaders in the field.

Lesaux and Jones hope that the study’s eventual findings will shift the needle in the debate on universal high-quality preschool. With the number of working families growing nationally, child care is a necessity, said Jones, and having more and better options is important.

“We can ignore these opportunities, or we can invest and do something about it by working on quality,” Jones said. “Whether it’s worth it is not the question; it’s how to maximize it.”

By helping to strengthen early education nationally, the study also could help to strengthen families and society in general, said Lesaux.

“In a high-quality preschool, kids are emotionally more regulated, they do better by their behavior, they bring more to interactions with adults, and adults feel good about both working and knowing that their child is safe and healthy,” said Lesaux.

“Children only get one start,” she added. “Pay now or pay later. We don’t need any more data in this country about the effects of a lousy education on the life of an individual and the life of a community and the strength of the society.”

Share this article

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

Experts weigh in on pop superstar's cultural and financial impact as her tours and albums continue to break records.

When math is the dream

Dora Woodruff was drawn to beauty of numbers as child. Next up: Ph.D. at MIT.

Three will receive 2024 Harvard Medal

In recognition of their extraordinary service

Early Education Pays Off. A New Study Shows How

early childhood education research study

The benefits of early-childhood education can take a decade or more to come into focus, but a new study in the journal Child Development suggests preschool may help prepare students for better academic engagement in high school.

Researchers at the nonprofit ChildTrends, Georgetown University, and the University of Wisconsin tracked more than 4,000 children who started kindergarten in Tulsa, Okla., public schools in 2006. Some 44 percent of the students participated in the Sooner State’s universal state-funded preschools, which include partnerships between school districts and early-learning organizations. Another 14 percent of the students had participated in federal Head Start programs, and the rest did not participate in either program.

Early benefits of preschool participation on students’ math and reading scores mostly faded away by the time students reached high school—a common fade-out problem seen for early education. But Amadon and her colleagues found that students who had participated in Tulsa’s state-funded preschool programs were more likely to attend school regularly and take more-challenging courses than those who participated in Head Start or did not receive early-childhood education.

“The fact that students were attending school more days, the fact that they were enrolling in different types of courses indicates some sort of different engagement in and commitment to their education and their schooling,” said Sara Amadon, a senior research scientist for the nonprofit ChildTrends and lead author of the study. “It didn’t translate to GPA or test scores, but, you know, we also know that GPA and test scores are just one part of the puzzle of persistence and engagement through high school. Those behavioral indicators are also really powerful predictors of graduation.”

The results come as the Biden administration continues to press for universal, publicly funded preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds. Earlier this month, President Joe Biden signed a $1.5 trillion spending bill for fiscal 2022 that included more than $584 million in additional support for child care and early learning programs, including Head Start, Early Head Start, and the Child Care and Development Block Grants. However, the new study suggests state-supported programs may have more-stable benefits than Head Start in the long term.

Overall, students showed no significant differences in cumulative grade point averages or scores on ACT or SAT college placement exams, regardless of whether or not they participated in preschool. There were two exceptions: Native American students performed better in English/language arts on college placement exams, and Hispanic students had higher GPAs, if they attended preschool than if they had not.

Moreover, compared with children who had not attended early education, alumni of Tulsa’s universal preschools challenged themselves more academically: They were significantly more likely to take an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate class, and less likely to fail a high school course in general, than students who had not attended preschool. (By contrast, there was no significant difference academically for students who had participated in Head Start or no early education.)

Better attendance habits later on for preschool participants

In part, this could be because students who attended Tulsa’s universal preschools developed better attendance habits early—and kept them throughout their academic careers.

Students who had attended Tulsa’s preschools were significantly less likely to be chronically absent in high school—defined as missing 10 percent of school days or more—than their classmates who had not attended preschool. On average, preschool alumni missed 1.5 fewer days a year than those who hadn’t attended.

On average, students who had attended Head Start programs instead were also slightly less likely to miss school, but showed no other academic or engagement advantages.

Students of color who had attended preschool were particularly likely to be more engaged in school later on. For example, Hispanic students who had attended preschool attended 2.8 more school days on average in high school compared with Hispanic students who had not attended preschool or who had attended Head Start.

Amadon said the study also highlights the need for educators and school leaders to plan for additional supports for students entering school during the pandemic, who may have had less access to early-childhood education.

“When we think about the upcoming pre-K classes, [education leaders should] make sure they are giving that extra push to ensure that all students are accessing pre-K ... doing a little more outreach, especially to the neighborhoods and communities that you know have families that were hard hit by the pandemic or struggled to find child care” and early education, she said.

The study is part of an ongoing research project tracking the long-term effects of early-childhood education. The next study in the project will focus on differences in college-going among these students.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Black female teacher and group of kids coloring during art class at preschool.

Sign Up & Sign In

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A top researcher says it's time to rethink our entire approach to preschool

Anya Kamenetz

Researchers are joining the play movement after decades of studying state-run pre-K.

Dale Farran has been studying early childhood education for half a century. Yet her most recent scientific publication has made her question everything she thought she knew.

"It really has required a lot of soul-searching, a lot of reading of the literature to try to think of what were plausible reasons that might account for this."

And by "this," she means the outcome of a study that lasted more than a decade. It included 2,990 low-income children in Tennessee who applied to free, public prekindergarten programs. Some were admitted by lottery, and the others were rejected, creating the closest thing you can get in the real world to a randomized, controlled trial — the gold standard in showing causality in science.

The Tennessee Pre-K Debate: Spinach Vs. Easter Grass

Farran and her co-authors at Vanderbilt University followed both groups of children all the way through sixth grade. At the end of their first year, the kids who went to pre-K scored higher on school readiness — as expected.

But after third grade, they were doing worse than the control group. And at the end of sixth grade, they were doing even worse. They had lower test scores, were more likely to be in special education, and were more likely to get into trouble in school, including serious trouble like suspensions.

"Whereas in third grade we saw negative effects on one of the three state achievement tests, in sixth grade we saw it on all three — math, science and reading," says Farran. "In third grade, where we had seen effects on one type of suspension, which is minor violations, by sixth grade we're seeing it on both types of suspensions, both major and minor."

That's right. A statewide public pre-K program, taught by licensed teachers, housed in public schools, had a measurable and statistically significant negative effect on the children in this study.

Farran hadn't expected it. She didn't like it. But her study design was unusually strong, so she couldn't easily explain it away.

"This is still the only randomized controlled trial of a statewide pre-K, and I know that people get upset about this and don't want it to be true."

Why it's a bad time for bad news

It's a bad time for early childhood advocates to get bad news about public pre-K. Federally funded universal prekindergarten for 3- and 4-year-olds has been a cornerstone of President Biden's social agenda, and there are talks about resurrecting it from the stalled-out "Build Back Better" plan. Preschool has been expanding in recent years and is currently publicly funded to some extent in 46 states. About 7 in 10 4-year-olds now attend some kind of academic program.

Preschoolers in state-run programs are falling behind.

This enthusiasm has rested in part on research going back to the 1970s. Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, among others, showed substantial long-term returns on investment for specially designed and carefully implemented programs.

To put it crudely, policymakers and experts have touted for decades now that if you give a 4-year-old who is growing up in poverty a good dose of story time and block play, they'll be more likely to grow up to become a high-earning, productive citizen.

What went wrong in Tennessee

No study is the last word. The research on pre-K continues to be mixed. In May 2021, a working paper (not yet peer reviewed) came out that looked at Boston's pre-K program. The study was a similar size to Farran's, used a similar quasi-experimental design based on random assignment, and also followed up with students for years. This study found that the preschool kids had better disciplinary records and were much more likely to graduate from high school, take the SATs and go to college, though their test scores didn't show a difference.

Farran believes that, with a citywide program, there's more opportunity for quality control than in her statewide study. Boston's program spent more per student, and it also was mixed-income, whereas Tennessee's program is for low-income kids only.

So what went wrong in Tennessee? Farran has some ideas — and they challenge almost everything about how we do school. How teachers are prepared, how programs are funded and where they are located. Even something as simple as where the bathrooms are.

In short, Farran is rethinking her own preconceptions, which are an entire field's preconceptions, about what constitutes quality pre-K.

Do kids in poverty deserve the same teaching as rich kids?

"One of the biases that I hadn't examined in myself is the idea that poor children need a different sort of preparation from children of higher-income families."

Preschoolers learn through play and experimentation.

She's talking about drilling kids on basic skills. Worksheets for tracing letters and numbers. A teacher giving 10-minute lectures to a whole class of 25 kids who are expected to sit on their hands and listen, only five of whom may be paying any attention.

A Harsh Critique Of Federally Funded Pre-K

"Higher-income families are not choosing this kind of preparation," she explains. "And why would we assume that we need to train children of lower-income families earlier?"

Farran points out that families of means tend to choose play-based preschool programs with art, movement, music and nature. Children are asked open-ended questions, and they are listened to.

5 Proven Benefits Of Play

This is not what Farran is seeing in classrooms full of kids in poverty, where "teachers talk a lot, but they seldom listen to children." She thinks that part of the problem is that teachers in many states are certified for teaching students in prekindergarten through grade 5, or sometimes even pre-K-8. Very little of their training focuses on the youngest learners.

So another major bias that she's challenging is the idea that teacher certification equals quality. "There have been three very large studies, the latest one in 2018, which are not showing any relationship between quality and licensure."

Putting a bubble in your mouth

In 2016, Farran published a study based on her observations of publicly funded Tennessee pre-K classrooms similar to those included in this paper. She found then that the largest chunk of the day was spent in transition time. This means simply moving kids around the building.

Preschoolers should all be given the same chance at high-quality, play-based education.

Partly this is an architectural problem. Private preschools, even home-based day cares, tend to be laid out with little bodies in mind. There are bathrooms just off the classrooms. Children eat in, or very near, the classroom, too. And there is outdoor play space nearby with equipment suitable for short people.

Putting these same programs in public schools can make the whole day more inconvenient.

"So if you're in an older elementary school, the bathroom is going to be down the hall. You've got to take your children out, line them up and then they wait," Farran says. "And then, if you have to use the cafeteria, it's the same thing. You have to walk through the halls, you know: 'Don't touch your neighbor, don't touch the wall, put a bubble in your mouth because you have to be quiet.' "

One of Farran's most intriguing conjectures is that this need for control could explain the extra discipline problems seen later on in her most recent study.

"I think children are not learning internal control. And if anything, they're learning sort of an almost allergic reaction to the amount of external control that they're having, that they're having to experience in school."

In other words, regularly reprimanding kids for doing normal kid stuff at 4 years old, even suspending them, could backfire down the road as children experience school as a place of unreasonable expectations.

We know from other research that the control of children's bodies at school can have disparate racial impact. Other studies have suggested that Black children are disciplined more often in preschool, as they are in later grades. Farran's study, where 70% of the kids were white, found interactions between race, gender, and discipline problems, but no extra effect of attending preschool was detected.

Preschool Suspensions Really Happen And That's Not OK With Connecticut

Where to go from here.

The United States has a child care crisis that COVID-19 both intensified and highlighted. Progressive policymakers and advocates have tried for years to expand public support for child care by "pushing it down" from the existing public school system, using the teachers and the buildings.

Farran praises the direction that New York City, for one, has taken instead: a "mixed-delivery" program with slots for 3- and 4-year-olds. Some kids attend free public preschool in existing nonprofit day care centers, some in Head Start programs and some in traditional schools.

But the biggest lesson Farran has drawn from her research is that we've simply asked too much of pre-K, based on early results from what were essentially showcase pilot programs. "We tend to want a magic bullet," she says.

"Whoever thought that you could provide a 4-year-old from an impoverished family with 5 1/2 hours a day, nine months a year of preschool, and close the achievement gap, and send them to college at a higher rate?" she asks. "I mean, why? Why do we put so much pressure on our pre-K programs?"

We might actually get better results, she says, from simply letting little children play.

Why It Matters
Policy Priorities
In Your State
News & Resources
Take Action
Meet the Team
Federal Child C.A.R.E Coalition
Child Care & Development Block Grant
Preschool Development Grants Birth Through Five
Head Start & Early Head Start
Early Head Start - Child Care Partnerships
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Every Student Succeeds Act
Maternal, Infant, & Early Childhood Home Visiting Program
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Apprenticeships
Child and Adult Care Food Program
Tax Policy and Child Care
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
Employer-Provided Child Care Credit - Section 45F
Child Tax Credit
Dependent Care Assistance Program
Appropriations
Legislative Updates

MIT Study Reveals Long-Term Benefits of High-Quality Early Childhood Education

This morning, the School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released the findings of a new study on the long-term effects of Boston’s preschool program. Using admissions lotteries, the research found that participation in the preschool program led to significant long-term improvements in academic and behavioral outcomes in children.

From the study authors:

This work studies the impact of Boston Public Schools’ (BPS) public preschool program using data on more than 4,000 preschool applicants from 1997 to 2003. The study leverages the randomization embedded in the BPS preschool lottery-based assignment process to compare the outcomes of students who won a preschool seat to students whose random lottery number was not high enough to win a seat.

Notably, compared to students who did not attend the Boston Public Schools preschool program, attendees in this study were more likely to graduate high school, more likely to take the SAT, more likely to enroll in college on-time, and more likely to ever enroll in college. Additionally, students who attended preschool had fewer school suspensions in high school and were less likely to experience juvenile incarceration.

Read the full study here and the brief here .

According to the researchers: “As policymakers consider increased public investment in universal preschool, the research findings suggest that preschool can lead to long-term educational attainment gains through improvements in behavior. Furthermore, the observed effects across demographic groups suggest that all students are likely to benefit from universal preschool.”

The findings of this study add to the ever-growing arsenal of research and data that show the undeniable short- and long-term benefits of high-quality early childhood education. Preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds is an important element in a continuum of high-quality early learning and care opportunities that are proven to help children, particularly those from low-income families, develop the social, emotional, and academic skills necessary for success in school and life.

FFYF’s latest national polling shows that Republican and Democratic voters support early learning and care proposals and want to see their elected officials work together:

73% of Republican voters and 95% of Democratic voters support making preschool more available by providing it to all three- and four-year-olds whose parents want to send them, with no additional cost to parents.
78% of Republican voters and 93% of Democratic voters support making child care more affordable by providing financial support to help working families pay some or all of the cost of quality care. What families pay would be on a sliding scale based on their income.
A solid majority of Republicans say their member of Congress should work with Joe Biden on these issues.

A recent proposal from President Biden as part of the American Families Plan would invest $220 billion to ensure all families had free access to the high-quality preschool of their choice and $225 billion to reform and expand access to high-quality child care opportunities for working families, in addition to other crucial investments and supports.

Subscribe to FFYF First Look

Every morning, FFYF reports on the latest child care & early learning news from across the country. Subscribe and take 5 minutes to know what's happening in early childhood education.

Lack of Access to Child Care Impacts Child Well-Being

Earlier this summer, the Annie E. Casey Foundation released their annual KIDS COUNT® Data Book, which has been measuring child well-being at the state level since 1990. The report ranks …

How States Are Using PDG B-5 Systems Building Grants to Support Infants and Toddlers

The BUILD Initiative, ZERO TO THREE, and Start Early, recently released a new brief highlighting the strategies states are using to support infants and toddlers in their Preschool Development Grant …

FFYF’S 2023 State Fact Sheets

Our new analysis of all 50 states and Washington, D.C. shows that child care and early learning programs have tremendous impacts on young children, their families, and the economy at …

Stay Updated

Receive monthly updates on the latest news, policy, and actions to advance federal investment in children and their families.

50 F St NW Suite 740 Washington, DC 20001

By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

Open access
Published: 20 February 2015

Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation

Wendy K. Jarvie 1

International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy volume 6 , pages 35–43 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

65k Accesses

1 Citations

Metrics details

Governments around the world have boosted their early childhood education and care (ECEC) engagement and investment on the basis of evidence from neurological studies and quantitative social science research. The role of qualitative research is less understood and under-valued. At the same time the hard evidence is only of limited use in helping public servants and governments design policies that work on the ground. The paper argues that some of the key challenges in ECEC today require a focus on implementation. For this a range of qualitative research is required, including knowledge of organisational and parent behaviour, and strategies for generating support for change. This is particularly true of policies and programs aimed at ethnic minority children. It concludes that there is a need for a more systematic approach to analysing and reporting ECEC implementation, along the lines of “implementation science” developed in the health area.

Introduction

Research conducted over the last 15 years has been fundamental to generating support for ECEC policy reform and has led to increased government investments and intervention in ECEC around the world. While neurological evidence has been a powerful influence on ECEC policy practitioners, quantitative research has also been persuasive, particularly randomised trials and longitudinal studies providing evidence (1) on the impact of early childhood development experiences to school success, and to adult income and productivity, and (2) that properly constructed government intervention, particularly for the most disadvantaged children, can make a significant difference to those adult outcomes. At the same time the increased focus on evidence-informed policy has meant experimental/quantitative design studies have become the “gold standard” for producing knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ), and pressures for improved reporting and accountability have meant systematic research effort by government has tended to focus more on data collection and monitoring, than on qualitative research (Bink, 2007 ). In this environment the role of qualitative research has been less valued by senior government officials.

Qualitative Research-WhatIs It?

The term qualitative research means different things to different people (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ). For some researchers it is a way of addressing social justice issues and thus is part of radical politics to give power to the marginalised. Others see it simply as another research method that complements quantitative methodologies, without any overt political function. Whatever the definition of qualitative research, or its role, a qualitative study usually:

Features an in depth analysis of an issue, event, entity, or process. This includes literature reviews and meta studies that draw together findings from a number of studies.

Is an attempt to explain a highly complex and/or dynamic issue or process that is unsuited to experimental or quantitative analysis.

Includes a record of the views and behaviours of the players — it studies the world from the perspective of the participating individual.

Cuts across disciplines, fields and subject matter.

Uses a range of methods in one study, such as participant observation; in depth interviewing of participants, key stakeholders, and focus groups; literature review; and document analysis.

High quality qualitative research requires high levels of skill and judgement. Sometimes it requires pulling together information from a mosaic of data sources and can include quantitative data (the latter is sometimes called mixed mode studies). From a public official perspective, the weaknesses of qualitative research can include (a) the cost-it can be very expensive to undertake case studies if there are a large number of participants and issues, (b) the complexity — the reports can be highly detailed, contextually specific examples of implementation experience that while useful for service delivery and front line officials are of limited use for national policy development, (c) difficultyin generalising from poor quality and liable to researcher bias, and (d) focus, at times, more on political agendas of child rights than the most cost-effective policies to support the economic and social development of a nation. It has proved hard for qualitative research to deliver conclusions that are as powerful as those from quantitative research. Educational research too, has suffered from the view that education academics have over-used qualitative research and expert judgement, with little rigorous or quantitative verification (Cook & Gorard, 2007 ).

Qualitative Research and Early Childhood Education and Care

In fact, the strengths of qualitative ECEC research are many, and their importance for government, considerable. Qualitative research has been done in all aspects of ECEC operations and policies, from coordinating mechanisms at a national level (OECD, 2006 ), curriculum frameworks (Office for Children and Early Childhood Development, 2008 ), and determining the critical elements of preschool quality (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003 ), to developing services at a community level including effective outreach practices and governance arrangements. Qualitative research underpins best practice guides and regulations (Bink, 2007 ). Cross country comparative studies on policies and programs rely heavily on qualitative research methods.

For public officials qualitative components of program evaluations are essential to understanding how a program has worked, and to what extent variation in outcomes and impacts from those expected, or between communities, are the result of local or national implementation issues or policy flaws. In addition, the public/participant engagement in qualitative components of evaluations can reinforce public trust in public officials and in government more broadly.

In many ways the contrast between quantitative and qualitative research is a false dichotomy and an unproductive comparison. Qualitative research complements quantitative research, for example, through provision of background material and identification of research questions. Much quantitative research relies on qualitative research to define terms, and to identify what needs to be measured. For example, the Effective Provision of PreSchool Education (EPPE) studies, which have been very influential and is a mine of information for policy makers, rely on initial qualitative work on what is quality in a kindergarten, and how can it be assessed systematically (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003 ). Qualitative research too can elucidate the “how” of a quantitative result. For example, quantitative research indicates that staff qualifications are strongly associated with better child outcomes, but it is qualitative work that shows that it is not the qualification per se that has an impact on child outcomes-rather it is the ability of staff to create a high quality pedagogic environment (OECD, 2012 ).

Challenges of Early Childhood Education and Care

Systematic qualitative research focused on the design and implementation of government programs is essential for governments today.

Consider some of the big challenges facing governments in early childhood development (note this is not a complete list):

Creating coordinated national agendas for early childhood development that bring together education, health, family and community policies and programs, at national, provincial and local levels (The Lancet, 2011 ).

Building parent and community engagement in ECEC/Early Childhood Development (ECD), including increasing parental awareness of the importance of early childhood services. In highly disadvantaged or dysfunctional communities this also includes increasing their skills and abilities to provide a healthy, stimulating and supportive environment for young children, through for example parenting programs (Naudeau, Kataoka, Valerio, Neuman & Elder, 2011 ; The Lancet, 2011 ; OECD, 2012 ).

Strategies and action focused on ethnic minority children, such as outreach, ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants and informal as well as formal programs.

Enhancing workforce quality, including reducing turnover, and improved practice (OECD, 2012 ).

Building momentum and advocacy to persuade governments to invest in the more “invisible” components of quality such as workforce professional development and community liaison infrastructure; and to maintain investment over significant periods of time (Jarvie, 2011 ).

Driving a radical change in the way health/education/familyservicepro fessions and their agencies understand each other and to work together. Effectively integrated services focused on parents, children and communities can only be achieved when professions and agencies step outside their silos (Lancet, 2011 ). This would include redesign of initial training and professional development, and fostering collaborations in research, policy design and implementation.

There are also the ongoing needs for,

Identifying and developing effective parenting programs that work in tandem with formal ECEC provision.

Experiments to determine if there are lower cost ways of delivering quality and outcomes for disadvantaged children, including the merits of adding targeted services for these children on the base of universal services.

Figuring out how to scale up from successful trials (Grunewald & Rolnick, 2007 ; Engle et al., 2011 ).

Working out how to make more effective transitions between preschool and primary school.

Making research literature more accessible to public officials (OECD, 2012 ).

Indeed it can be argued that some of the most critical policy and program imperatives are in areas where quantitative research is of little help. In particular, qualitative research on effective strategies for ethnic minority children, their parents and their communities, is urgently needed. In most countries it is the ethnic minority children who are educationally and economically the most disadvantaged, and different strategies are required to engage their parents and communities. This is an area where governments struggle for effectiveness, and public officials have poor skills and capacities. This issue is common across many developed and developing countries, including countries with indigenous children such as Australia, China, Vietnam, Chile, Canada and European countries with migrant minorities (OECD, 2006 ; COAG, 2008 ; World Bank, 2011 ). Research that is systematic and persuasive to governments is needed on for example, the relative effectiveness of having bilingual environments and ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants in ECEC centres, compared to the simpler community outreach strategies, and how to build parent and community leadership.

Many countries are acknowledging that parental and community engagement is a critical element of effective child development outcomes (OECD, 2012 ). Yet public officials, many siloed in education and child care ministries delivering formal ECEC services, are remote from research on raising parent awareness and parenting programs. They do not see raising parental skills and awareness as core to their policy and program responsibilities. Improving parenting skills is particularly important for very young children (say 0–3) where the impact on brain development is so critical. It has been argued there needs to be a more systematic approach to parenting coach/support programs, to develop a menu of options that we know will work, to explore how informal programs can work with formal programs, and how health programs aimed young mothers or pregnant women can be enriched with education messages (The Lancet, 2011 ).

Other areas where qualitative research could assist are shown in Table 1 (see p. 40).

Implementation Science in Early Childhood Education and Care

Much of the suggested qualitative research in Table 1 is around program design and implementation . It is well-known that policies often fail because program design has not foreseen implementation issues or implementation has inadequate risk management. Early childhood programs are a classic example of the “paradox of non-evidence-based implementation of evidence-based practice” (Drake, Gorman & Torrey, 2005). Governments recognise that implementation is a serious issue: there may be a lot of general knowledge about “what works”, but there is minimal systematic information about how things actually work . One difficulty is that there is a lack of a common language and conceptual framework to describe ECEC implementation. For example, the word “consult” can describe a number of different processes, from public officials holding a one hour meeting with available parents in alocation,to ongoing structures set up which ensureall communityelementsare involved and reflect thespectrum of community views, and tocontinue tobuild up community awareness and engagement over time.

There is a need to derive robust findingsof generic value to public officials, for program design. In the health sciences, there is a developing literature on implementation, including a National implementation Research Network based in the USA, and a Journal of Implementation Science (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman & Wallace, 2005 ). While much of the health science literature is focused on professional practice, some of the concepts they have developed are useful for other fields, such as the concept of “fidelity” of implementation which describes the extent to which a program or service has been implemented as designed. Education program implementation is sometimes included in these fora, however, there is no equivalent significant movement in early childhood education and care.

A priority in qualitative research for ECEC of value to public officials would then appear to be a systematic focus on implementation studies, which would include developing a conceptual framework and possibly a language for systematic description of implementation, as well as, meta-studies. This need not start from scratch-much of the implementation science literature in health is relevant, especially the components around how to influence practitioners to incorporate latest evidence-based research into their practice, and the notions of fidelity of implementation. It could provide an opportunity to engage providers and ECE professionals in research, where historically ECEC research has been weak.

Essential to this would be collaborative relationships between government agencies, providers and research institutions, so that there is a flow of information and findings between all parties.

Quantitative social science research, together with studies of brain development, has successfully made the case for greater investment in the early years.There has been less emphasis on investigating what works on the ground especially for the most disadvantaged groups, and bringing findings together to inform government action. Yet many of the ECEC challenges facing governments are in implementation, and in ensuring that interventions are high quality. This is particularly true of interventions to assist ethnic minority children, who in many countries are the most marginalised and disadvantaged. Without studies that can improve the quality of ECEC implementation, governments, and other bodies implementing ECEC strategies, are at risk of not delivering the expected returns on early childhood investment. This could, over time, undermine the case for sustained government support.

It is time for a rebalancing of government research activity towards qualitative research, complemented by scaled up collaborations with ECEC providers and research institutions. A significant element of this research activity could usefully be in developing a more systematic approach to analysing and reporting implementation, and linking implementation to outcomes. This has been done quite effectively in the health sciences. An investment in developing an ECEC ‘implementation science’ would thus appear to be a worthy of focus for future work.

Bink, S. (2007). A Large-scale Policy Research Programme: A Canadian Experience. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (pp. 109–116). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Chapter Google Scholar

COAG (Council of Australian Governments). (2008). A National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development . Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2008-10-2/docs/indigenous_early_childhood_NPA.pdf

Cook, T. & Gorard, S. (2007). What Counts and What should Count as Evidence. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (pp 33–49). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., & Torrey, W. C. (2002). Implementing adult “tool kits” in mental health . Paper presented at the NASMHPD conference, Tampa, FL.

Engle, P. L., Fernald, L. C. H., Alderman, H., Behrman, J., O’Gara, C., Yousafzai, A., Cabral de Mello, M., Hidrobo, M., Ulkuer, N., Ertem, I. & Iltus, S. (2011). Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet , 378 (9799), 1339–1353.

Article Google Scholar

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (FMHI Publication #23) . Retrieved from University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, the National Implementation Research Network website: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf

Grunewald, R., & Rolnick, A. (2007). A Productive Investment: Early Childhood Development, In M. Young & L. Richardson (Eds.), Early Child Development From Measurement to Action: A Priority for Growth and Equity (pp. 15–26). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Jarvie, W.K. (2011). Governments and Integrated Early Childhood Development Policies and Services . Paper presentedat the 2011 International Conference on Early Childhood Development, Beijing.

Naudeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M. J. & Elder, L. K. (2011). Investing in Young Children: An Early Childhood Development Guide for Policy Dialogue and Project Preparation . Washington, DC: The World Bank.

OECD. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2012). Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Office for Children and Early Childhood Development, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2008). A Research Paper to inform the development of an early years learning framework for Australia . Retrieved from http://deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/EarlyChildhoodWorkforce/Documents/AResearchPapertoinformthedevelopmentofAnEarlyYears.pdf

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., & Elliot, K. (2003). The Effective Provision of PreSchool Education (EPPE) Project: Intensive Case Studies of Practice across the Foundation Stage (Technical Paper 10). London: DfEE/Institute of Education, University of London.

The Lancet. (2011). The Debate: Why hasn’t the world embraced early childhood development? [Video Post] Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/series/child-development-in-developing-countries-2

The World Bank. (2011). Early Child Development in China: Breaking the Cycle of Poverty and Improving Future Competiveness (Report No. 53746-CN). Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/9383/709830PUB0EPI0067926B09780821395646.pdf?sequence=1

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business, University of New South Wales at Canberra, Northcott Dr., Canberra, ACT, 2600, Australia

Wendy K. Jarvie ( visiting professor )

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy K. Jarvie .

Additional information

This paper was originally prepared for the OECD Early Childhood Education and Care Network Meeting, 24 January 2012, Oslo, Norway.

Rights and permissions

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jarvie, W.K. Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation. ICEP 6 , 35–43 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-6-2-35

Download citation

Published : 20 February 2015

Issue Date : November 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-6-2-35

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

early childhood education and care
implementation
qualitative research
implementation science
ethnic minority children

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

“ECEP has a stimulating and safe environment that provides our child with a lot of hands-on activities and an educational philosophy founded upon inquiry.”

– ECEP Parent

A Classroom of Inquiry

While the children learn through play , we learn from them. The Center has been able to leverage what the University of California, Berkeley does best as a community of scholars. The heart of our model is applied research.

Researchers use the classrooms as a living laboratory, where they can gain insights into the way children learn and grow best. In turn, the teachers at the centers are able to implement these innovative, best practices into the daily lives of the children.

Since the first center opened in 1928, innovative teaching and learning approaches have been developed, implemented, and evaluated in collaboration with teachers. Our research studies have influenced how our teachers design spaces and activities to enable each child to learn.

We believe all aspects of child development are integrated, and we’ve even adapted our physical environment to maximize healthy physical development, learning, and personal growth. For example, based on a study of play yards at the center, we’ve brought in play structures that increase options for active play and interaction between children. Our large fresh air spaces are integral to the physical environment at all our centers.

The commitment to the integration of research and practice grew stronger with the launching of the new Early Development & Learning Science (ED&LS) undergraduate program in May 2018. UC Berkeley, the premier public research university, is uniquely positioned — with world-renowned scholars and a diverse student body — to make remarkable progress in redefining developmental science on young children. Key scholars are committed to creative partnerships that integrate understanding across neuroscience, developmental psychology, education, public health, economics, social welfare, and policy.

ED&LS and the new Developing Child Undergraduate Summer Minor and Certificate Program are helping to solidify the redefining of developmental science. The Developing Child is the new ED&LS interdisciplinary, developmental science Summer Minor and Certificate, focused on children from birth to age 8. Integrating research, practice, and policy with problem-solving and implementation skills for the real world, the innovative coursework and practicum enrich the approach of individuals working with or on behalf of young children.

Our research studies enable us to serve as a model for early childhood education. As early as 1932, our researchers have been publishing in peer review journals and writing dissertations and books spanning many academic disciplines. Some of the highlights of this research is featured in “ Creating a Classroom of Inquiry at the University of California at Berkeley. ”

University-based research occurs year-round. Developmental labs on campus conduct studies focusing on a wide range on disciplines. Studies begin during the fall semester and run through spring and summer. Participation in research may take place at all 5 centers, but is most prevalent at the Harold E. Jones Child Study Center and the Haste Street Child Development Center.

During enrollment, families are invited to become part of the Institute of Human Development (IHD) Recruitment Database. This database allows IHD, UC Berkeley developmental labs and the IHD Research Coordinator to contact families regarding consent for upcoming studies, research related activities and updates. Consent for individual studies are sought separately.

Families are notified ahead of time when there will be a research study or survey in their child’s classroom, and will have the opportunity to choose whether to participate. In addition, informal observations of classrooms by UC ED&LS, Early Childhood, Psychology, Sociology or Education students, or other University representatives may occur at any time without parent notification.

Before research begins, research study consent forms are distributed to families participating in the IHD Recruitment Database. Families who consent to their child’s participation in research will be notified when studies are scheduled to begin and if their child agrees to participate.

Children are supervised at all times. A qualified teacher will accompany the researcher and the child while they are involved in a research activity. Children may be observed by researchers from within the observation galleries, or may be engaged in a "game" or specific task in a quiet research room located within your child’s center. Children do not leave school grounds.

There are strict rules to ensure that a child’s participation in research does not interrupt classroom opportunities. Sessions cannot last more than 20 minutes, a child cannot participate in more than three sessions per week, and the child can refuse participation – though most enjoy it and ask to participate or "play games.”

Research is administered by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Human Development (IHD) . All research is reviewed and approved by the UCB Committee for Protection of Human Subjects, and reviewed by the IHD Research Coordinator.

Gopnik Cognitive Development Lab

Changes in cognitive flexibility and hypothesis search across human life history from childhood to adolescence to adulthood

Explaining Constrains Causal Learning in Childhood

Language & Cognitive Development Lab

Spatial Metaphor and the Development of Cross-Domain Mappings in Early Childhood

Evolution of word meanings through metaphorical mapping: Systematicity over the past millennium

Learning language from within: Children use semantic generalizations to infer word meanings

Berkeley Early Learning Lab

Learning higher-order generalizations through free play: Evidence from 2- and 3-year-old children.

“Why is Toma late to school again?” Preschoolers identify the most informative questions.

Memory enhancements from active control of learning emerge across development

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Early Childhood Education Participation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Parent and Provider Perceived Barriers and Facilitators

Ruth beatson.

1 Centre for Community Child Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute & Royal Children’s Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria 3052 Australia

Carly Molloy

2 Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010 Australia

Zoe Fehlberg

Nicholas perini.

3 Social Ventures Australia, Level 7, 1 Chifley Square, Sydney, New South Wales 2000 Australia

Christopher Harrop

4 Bain & Company, Level 37, 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Australia

Sharon Goldfeld

Associated data.

In compliance with ethics approval raw data is not publicly available. It will be stored electronically and then destroyed either 7 years following project completion or 5 years from publication of results.

Participation in high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) benefits children and society. Policy recognition of this manifests through government subsidy strategies to increase ECEC access in the years immediately preceding school. Yet despite this action, many children do not receive the recommended amount. This study utilizes a mixed-methods design to investigate ECEC participation barriers and facilitators in three Australian communities. Parents and service providers completed online questionnaires (45 parents, 63 providers) and semi-structured interviews (21 parents, 16 providers). Results showed that issues related to both direct (e.g., fees) and indirect (e.g., travel) costs are particularly important barriers for families, and are well-recognized by providers. A range of factors were also considered important for facilitating participation (e.g., effective promotion of the benefits linked to high-quality play-based learning in formal settings, professional training of staff). Findings demonstrated the ecological complexity of participation. Strategies to address barriers and harness facilitators are required across multiple levels.

Participation in high-quality early childhood education benefits children.
Many children do not receive the recommended dose of early childhood education.
Parents and providers see various participation costs as important barriers.
Providers may underestimate barriers relating to maternal role beliefs.
Promotion of child benefits and staff training may facilitate participation.

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) models delivered outside the family home include long day care, preschool or kindergarten, family day care, occasional care, and outside school-hours care. Research shows participation in formal ECEC models, particularly high-quality center-based care and preschool or kindergarten programs in the 1–2 years immediately preceding school, has a variety of benefits to child health and development (AIHW, 2015 , Goldfeld et al., 2016 , Warren, O’Connor, Smart, & Edwards, 2016 ). Investment in the delivery of high quality ECEC also has clear economic advantages, with benefits resulting from increases in productivity through greater labor force participation (of parents, and later children) and cost savings from anticipated reductions in expenditure associated with remedial education, unemployment, justice, and health services (Aos, Lieb, Mayfield, Miller, & Pennucci, 2004 , Barnett & Masse, 2007 , Heckman, 2006 , Nores, Belfield, Barnett, & Schweinhart, 2005 , PwC, 2014 , 2019 ).

Early randomized controlled studies dating back to the 1960s and 1970s demonstrated that high quality ECEC participation for children from disadvantaged backgrounds led to improved academic achievement, later educational attainment and health outcomes measured decades later (Muennig, Schweinhart, Montie, & Neidell, 2009 , Nores et al., 2005 , Ramey et al., 2000 ). More recently, meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental studies primarily targeting disadvantaged children have shown that ECEC participation has positive effects across a range of short, medium and long-term outcomes (Aos et al., 2004 , McCoy et al., 2017 ).

There is also a growing body of literature demonstrating positive effects of universal ECEC participation (Van Huizen & Plantenga, 2018 ). Major longitudinal studies in the United Kingdom (e.g., the Effective Provision of Preschool Education study: Sammons et al., 2008 , Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2004 ), United States (e.g., Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2004 ) and Australia (e.g., Longitudinal Study of Australian Children: Sanson et al., 2002 , Warren & Haisken-DeNew, 2013 ) consistently demonstrate positive associations of preschool attendance with academic performance and some also show positive effects on social-emotional development outcomes. In Australia, population-level cross-sectional research has shown that compared with other forms of ECEC (e.g., family day care), preschool attendance in the year before starting school is associated with significantly lower odds of developmental vulnerability across a range of domains including physical health and well-being; social competence; language and cognitive skills, and communication skills and general knowledge (Goldfeld et al., 2016 ).

Despite the well-recognized benefits of participation in high quality ECEC, a significant proportion of children miss out (O’Connor et al., 2016 ). These children are disproportionately from culturally and linguistically diverse families (e.g., indigenous or migrant, non-English speaking backgrounds), those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage, and less stimulating home learning environments (Baxter & Hand, 2013 , Biddle & Seth-Purdie, 2013 , Coley, Votruba-Drzal, Collins, & Miller, 2014 , Gilley, Tayler, Niklas, & Cloney, 2015 , Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2005 , O’Connor et al., 2016 , Sylva et al., 2004 ). For example, studies have shown that the percentage of children enrolled in preschool in the year before starting school is lower among children from families with: a single-parent; non-English speaking background; lower levels of education; both parents unemployed; Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) descent; residency in rural or remote areas or socioeconomically disadvantaged communities (AIHW, 2015 , Biddle & Seth-Purdie, 2013 , O’Connor et al., 2016 , Warren et al., 2016 ). Similar trends have been observed in studies of attendance rates (ABS, 2020 , Gilley et al., 2015 ). That is, even when children from disadvantaged groups enroll in preschool programs, they typically attend for fewer hours than their non-disadvantaged counterparts.

Yet, the number of preschool hours received (that is exposure to preschool as an effective intervention) is important. Reviews of previous research show from 2–3 years of age, part-time attendance is beneficial for the general population, and that disadvantaged children may benefit from more hours or full-time attendance (AIHW, 2015 , Melhuish et al., 2015 ). For example, there is evidence that 15–30 h ECEC per week significantly predicts higher reading and mathematics skills among children from high-income families, but that at least 30 h per week is required before a significant association emerges for children from low income families (Loeb, Bridges, Bassok, Fuller, & Rumberger, 2007 ). Other evidence indicates 2 years of high quality ECEC for 15 h per week has a protective effect equivalent to having a tertiary-educated mother (Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010 ). Though there is also some evidence that formal ECEC is associated with increased behavioral problems (Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007 , Magnuson et al., 2004 ), the relationship is likely moderated by a variety of factors including family background, program quality, intensity and duration or starting age (Biddle & Seth-Purdie, 2013 , Loeb et al., 2007 , Magnuson et al., 2007 ).

Recognizing the positive effects of formal ECEC participation, several governments have developed national commitments to universal access in the year or 2 years prior to school commencement. In Australia, the 2008 National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education introduced a commitment to preschool access for all children with an entitlement of 15 h per week, 40 weeks a year in the year before starting school (Harrington, 2014 ). The entitlement to free ECEC for all 3- and 4-year-old children is 15 h per week in England and 20 h per week in New Zealand (AIHW, 2015 ). A global benchmark set by the United Nations Children’s Fund similarly encourages preschool attendance for at least 15 h per week among 4–5 year old children (AIHW, 2015 ). Throughout this paper, we, therefore, refer to families with children receiving at least 15 h per week of formal ECEC (i.e., preschool or kindergarten or long day care) as recommended-attendance families. We use the term limited-attendance families for those not enrolled or not attending at least 15 h per week. However, as noted above, some research suggests that 15 h per week may not be sufficient to improve child development outcomes among the most disadvantaged children (Loeb et al., 2007 , Warren et al., 2016 ).

Despite recognition of the advantages afforded by good quality ECEC, and international support for policy reform aiming to increase quality and access (Barnett, 2010 , Harrington, 2014 ), there is little published research exploring the factors that facilitate or impede ECEC participation. Broad reviews of the literature on ‘hard-to-reach’ families document a wide range of barriers to accessing health, social, and education services (Boag-Munroe & Evangelou, 2012 ), and comprehensive investigations of the factors associated with selection of center-based ECEC models have been conducted (Coley et al., 2014 ). Yet, relatively few publications have specifically focused on (a) ECEC participation barriers and facilitators per se, or (b) the relative importance of different factors, as perceived by parents and providers.

In the United States, qualitative studies with disadvantaged families from ethnically diverse and particularly Hispanic or African American communities have identified a range of barriers to ECEC participation (Ansari, Pivnick, Gershoff, Crosnoe, & Orozco-Lapray, 2020 , Susman-Stillman, Englund, Storm, & Bailey, 2018 ). These include issues related to access, ethnic or racial discrimination, child illness (e.g., chronic health problems, medical appointments), demands of family life (e.g., balancing work and school schedules; housing instability; caring for sick or disabled relatives), transport access and reliability, additional childcare needed to enable attendance at short-day programs, and social isolation. In New Zealand, interviews with parents and providers indicate that cost (e.g., fees, transportation), accessibility (e.g., location, hours of operation, placement capacity) and cultural relevance (e.g., language and program content) of ECEC programs are the main barriers experienced by low income indigenous communities (Mitchell & Meagher-Lundberg, 2017 ). Similar barriers were identified in interviews conducted with families from several disadvantaged communities in New South Wales, Australia. Specifically, prominent themes related to cost, quality of services, transport, and a perception that young children should be cared for by mothers exclusively (Grace, Bowes, & Elcombe, 2014 ).

Previous research findings indicate that multi-faceted and interactive effects of personal and environmental factors influence ECEC participation (Coley et al., 2014 , Susman-Stillman et al., 2018 ). One theoretical framework that recognizes such complexity in human behavior and may be useful for understanding ECEC participation is the Social-Ecological Model (SEM; CDC, 2020 ). This model identifies four nested, hierarchical levels of influence. Factors may be understood to operate at the level of the individual (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), interpersonal relationships (e.g., families, friends), program or service (e.g., staff competence, accessibility), and policy-enabling environment (e.g., funding, policy, laws). Categorization of factors at these levels should facilitate identification of critical leverage points to increase ECEC participation. Despite the potential utility of applying this theoretical framework to ECEC participation research, it has not yet been tested.

Another limitation of the existing literature is that there has been little within-study exploration of the views held by different stakeholders. Few of the studies cited above systematically explored the perceptions of both service providers and parents, and where both views were canvassed (e.g., Mitchell & Meagher-Lundberg, 2017 ), analysis was not conducted separately. Similarly, within-study comparison of different parent group perspectives (i.e., views among those with low versus high ECEC participation rates) was lacking. Stakeholders from each of these groups may have had different experiences and unique perspectives that have shaped their views. It is important to consider views from multiple perspectives to develop a comprehensive understanding of ECEC participation. Advantages include (a) reducing the likelihood that particular barriers or facilitators will be missed; (b) cross-validation of common barriers and facilitators; and (c) potential to diagnose divergences in views that may be contributing to unsatisfactory ECEC participation rates.

The extant literature is also predominantly qualitative in nature, drawing on interviews and focus groups. As the presence of a researcher and concerns with self-presentation may influence participant responses to interview questions, it is important to supplement such research with other methodologies (e.g., anonymous surveys). In addition to minimizing social pressures to respond a particular way or within a relatively short timeframe, questionnaires afford quantitative exploration of the relevant issues. In the case of ECEC participation research, quantitative investigation can extend the literature beyond identification of various barriers and facilitators to an understanding of which factors stakeholders most consistently rate as important. Mixed methods investigations are needed to more thoroughly investigate the complex issues affecting ECEC participation.

The aim of the present mixed methods study was to investigate various stakeholder views on formal ECEC participation in three Australian communities. More specifically, the study addressed the following research questions:

Which potential barriers, previously identified in the research literature, are most consistently rated highly important by (a) limited-attendance families, and (b) ECEC providers?
Which potential ECEC participation facilitators are most consistently rated highly important by (a) limited-attendance families; (b) recommended-attendance families; and (c) formal ECEC providers?
Which specific issues underly the barriers and facilitators most consistently rated as highly important, and at what levels of the social-ecological model do barriers and facilitators operate?
Do parents and providers have similar perspectives on ECEC participation barriers and facilitators?

Research Design

The approach to inquiry was question-driven and conducted pragmatically, utilizing a convergent (i.e., concurrent) mixed methods data collection strategy (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015 ) comprising an online questionnaire and interview with an overlapping sample of participants. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected in parallel such that the analysis of one data set did not inform the development of the other. The analytic strategy included quantitative analysis of descriptive statistics from questionnaire responses and a codebook-based thematic analysis of interviews (Braun, Clarke, Hayfield, & Terry, 2019 ). Quantitative analyses measured the extent to which parents and providers considered a range of potential barriers and facilitators important while interview data provided more detailed insights into how barriers and facilitators were experienced, and why some were considered especially important. Differences in parent and provider perspective were explored. The investigation was part of a larger project that included a parallel study of participation in parenting programs (Molloy et al., 2020 ). The methodological approach for both studies was similar, and studies were jointly approved by the [institution omitted for blind review] Human Ethics Committee (#2019.016).

Researcher Description

The project was designed and conducted by a team comprising predominantly Caucasian Australian female researchers with formal tertiary qualifications in psychology and pediatrics, and previous experience conducting both quantitative and qualitative research with marginalized populations. Additionally, significant input from Caucasian Australian males with formal business qualifications and experience in the private and not-for-profit sectors contributed significantly to the conceptualization of the study.

Researcher-Participant Relationship

Relationships between the research team and key stakeholders were established in an earlier study of ECEC quality in three target communities. Whereas the study coordinators had established prior relationships with key stakeholders, most researchers conducting interviews had not.

Participants

Primary caregiver and provider participants were drawn from three Australian local government areas including two metropolitan and one regional jurisdiction (Brimbank, Wyndham and Central Goldfields, respectively). Population statistics indicate higher rates of unemployment and lower levels of education among communities in these areas, relative to the broader Australian population (ABS. 2016 ( 2016 )). Previous research (Molloy et al., 2020 ) indicates a substantive proportion (up to 70%) of children attending preschool or kindergarten in these areas do not receive at least 15 h per week in the year before school, and that the proportion is even higher among children with indicators of disadvantage (e.g., disability, parent welfare, non-English speaking background).

Primary caregiver participants were predominantly biological parents, though the study was open to others (e.g., grandparents, step-parents, foster parents, or other carers). For brevity, the term “ parent ” is used. Parents were eligible to participate in the questionnaire if they had a child aged 2–5 years who was not yet attending primary school. Parents were also eligible to participate in the interview , if their child was either not enrolled in a formal ECEC program (defined as long day care or kindergarten program for the year before starting school, or 3-year-old kindergarten program), or attended the ECEC program less than 15 h per week. That is, parents were eligible to participate in the questionnaire regardless of ECEC attendance amount but interviews were restricted to those who received less than 15 h ECEC per week. In total, 45 parents completed the questionnaire and 21 completed the interview. Though some parents completing the interview also completed a questionnaire, not all did so. Table Table1 1 describes the demographic profile of parent questionnaire respondents.

Demographic characteristics of parent questionnaire respondents

a For seven families, the eligible child was either not enrolled or currently received no formal ECEC service; b The main form of disadvantage was low income ( n = 3). All other forms were selected by two or fewer respondents. Only two respondents indicated experiencing two forms of disadvantage, and two others experienced three or more forms of disadvantage; c Only one participant had more than two children between 2–5 years. d Nine participants indicated two children between 2–5 years; e Item presented to participants with more than one child only. Therefore, descriptive statistics are based on four responses in the <15 h group and nine responses in the 15+ group; f Other types included family day care, relative or friend care, occasional care, out of school-hours care, playgroup and other; g Calculation based on low-attender subsample ( n = 8)

Interviewees shared similar characteristics: 91% were mothers, 53% were 26–36 years of age, 33% had a Non-English-Speaking Background, 91% did not identify as a refugee or asylum seeker, and 95% indicated they were not of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander decent. Approximately half of all parent interviewees were from regional Victoria (52%).

A range of professionals with experience and/or expertize in early childhood services were invited to participate. Questionnaires were restricted to those indicating that they currently worked in a preschool, kindergarten or long day care service, but interviews were open to a wider range of providers (e.g., Maternal and Child Health nurses, supported playgroup facilitators, family day care providers, occasional care workers, parenting program facilitators). In total, 63 providers completed the questionnaire and 16 completed the interview. See Table Table2 2 for the demographic profile of providers completing the questionnaire. Interviewees comprised a mix of professionals who had direct contact with families ( n = 9) or administrative roles ( n = 7), and worked in regional ( n = 9) or suburban ( n = 7) communities.

Demographic profile of providers the completing questionnaire

a Examples of specialized or targeted services referred to Culturally or Linguistically Diverse (CALD), Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) backgrounds, and children with disabilities. b Due to technical error, this item was not administered to the first 10 participants

Recruitment Procedures

Consultations with peak bodies (i.e., professional and advocacy organizations such as Early Childhood Australia, Early Learning Association Australia) and early childhood services were leveraged to recruit participants. Primary contacts employed within ECEC services were asked to promote the study among clients and the ECEC workforce using a variety of strategies (e.g., dissemination through professional networks, intranet, emails, flyers, announcements at meetings, word-of-mouth). Subsequently, a snowball sampling method was used whereby participants were encouraged to invite others who might be eligible and interested in participating. The questionnaire link was advertised in the Childhood Early Learning Australia newsletter and Facebook page. Browser cookies were not used to prevent participants from completing the questionnaire multiple times. The rationale for this was to ensure that providers could participate at work on shared devices, and parents without internet access or electronic devices at home could also use shared resources (e.g., friends’ devices, public library computers). Eligible participants who finished questionnaires were also invited to complete interviews. As approved by the ethics committee, interview parents received a $20 supermarket gift card as a token of appreciation. Recruitment took place between April 2019 and October 2020, however, almost all parent questionnaire respondents ( n = 42, 93%) participated prior to the emergence of COVID-19 or disruptions to accessing ECEC as a result of the global pandemic. In contrast, most providers participated after March 2020 ( n = 53, 84%).

Quantitative Instruments

English-language questionnaires were constructed to assess the extent to which various factors were considered barriers to, or facilitators of, ECEC participation. Separate versions were constructed so that parents considered how their personal circumstances affected ECEC participation whereas providers considered the factors with reference to families in their community (see online supplementary file). Questionnaires were also tailored so that parents who indicated their child received at least 15 h of formal ECEC per week were asked about facilitators only. All questionnaires included screening and demographic items, questions regarding disadvantage, and a list of potential barriers and facilitators. In cases where families had multiple children aged 2–5 years, parents were instructed to answer with reference to their eldest child. Questionnaires were constructed to take less than 15 min and were primarily web-based though paper versions were also available. Online versions were hosted using RedCap software (Harris et al., 2019 ), and utilized the compulsory question function for eligibility screening items only. Usability was tested prior to going live, confirming participants were able to navigate back and forth through the 7–13 web pages.

Eligibility screening

To assess participant eligibility the parent questionnaire asked “Are you a parent or guardian or caregiver of a child aged 2–5 years who has not yet started school?”. To assess provider eligibility respondents indicated the type of ECEC service in which they were involved. Check-boxes were used (for long day care, family day care, occasional care, supported playgroups, schooling, maternal and child health) and a free response option was available to expand on any other type of early childhood or family service.

Demographic profile

All questionnaires included respondent gender and education items. Parent versions also included items to indicate: age, family income, language, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) heritage, and refugee status. Gender, ATSI, and refugee items included “prefer not to answer” options. Following the main demographic items, respondents were asked whether they considered their own (parents) or some family clients (providers) “current living circumstances as disadvantaged, vulnerable, and/or living in adversity”. Those answering affirmatively were asked to select the forms of disadvantage most relevant from the following list: unemployment, low income, poverty, low education, homelessness or unstable housing, youth, rural or remote location, lack of social support or help, ethnicity or culture, refugee or asylum seeker, immigrant, physical health or disability issues, mental health concerns, family violence, drug or alcohol issues, and ‘other’.

ECEC participation status

To determine formal ECEC participation status and separate limited-attendance from recommended-attendance families, several items concerned enrollment and attendance. More specifically, these asked whether the child was formally enrolled in a preschool or kindergarten service and/or a long day care service, the number of hours enrolled per week for each service, and the number of hours the child typically attended each service. Following previous research, other models of ECEC were considered informal.

Barriers and facilitators

To determine the perceived importance of factors thought to influence participation in formal ECEC services, respondents were presented with a list of potential barriers and facilitators. Item development was informed by analysis of themes previously identified in the research literature (Ansari et al., 2020 , Coe, Gibson, Spencer, & Stuttaford, 2008 , Grace et al., 2014 , Mitchell & Meagher-Lundberg, 2017 , Susman-Stillman et al., 2018 ) and consultation with experts in the field. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘not at all important’ or “not very important” through “somewhat important” to “very important” or “extremely important”. Example barrier items from the parent questionnaire include: “problems with the childcare service location” and “the cost of services”. Example facilitators include: “free transport to/from the service” and “having information about the likely benefits of my child attending the service”.

Item construction was tailored so that wording and selection was appropriate and relevant for each respondent group. For example, those indicating that their child did not attend a formal ECEC service were asked whether there were no places available at their preferred service, whereas those indicating that their child attended less than 15 h were asked whether there were not enough spaces for their child to attend for more hours. Parents who had not enrolled their eligible child in ECEC services were asked to consider barriers to enrollment, whereas parents of limited-attenders rated the extent to which each potential barrier impacted attendance. Provider items referred to “families” whereas parent items were presented in the first person. For facilitators, all parents were instructed to consider the extent to which each factor was or would be important ‘to whether or not (and how much) your child attends kindergarten/preschool and/or long day care’.

Qualitative Interviews

The purpose of qualitative interviews was to explore in depth how barriers and facilitators were experienced by families, and how providers perceived family experiences. Mean duration was 21 min ( SD = 11, range 6–38 min) for parents and 41 min ( SD = 13, range 24–71 min) for providers. The majority were conducted in person ( n = 9 parents, 13 providers) with the remainder by telephone (for participants who indicated this would be more convenient). All commenced with an assessment of participant consent and screening items to confirm eligibility (i.e., parent respondents had a child 2–5 years of age not currently receiving 15 h or more ECEC or enrolled at school, and providers worked in child or family services). Demographic information for parents covered age, relationship to- and living situation with- the child, education, postcode, indigenous background, and refugee or asylum seeker status.

Interviews were semi-structured and conducted reflexively so that questions were appropriate to the ECEC status of respondents. Interviewers first asked whether the family used preschool or kindergarten, long day care services, or any other forms of care. They then asked open-ended questions to ascertain why eligible children received the type and amount of care reported (or lack thereof), and whether families (a) faced any difficulties in accessing services, (b) found participation challenging in any ways, (c) had considered in what circumstances participation might increase, or (d) if anything could be done to ensure children received the amount of ECEC parents would like. More detailed information about the schedule used to guide interviewers is available from the corresponding author upon request. All responses were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis

Survey data were imported into STATA and checked for consistency and response bias. Descriptive statistics were prepared separately for providers and parents. Parent responses were further separated by ECEC participation status so that families with limited attendance (i.e., non-enrollment or less than 15 h per week) could be compared with recommended-attendance families. Although it is possible to differentiate limited-attendance families who had enrolled their child(ren) from those who had not, these sub-samples were small and data was combined.

Interview transcripts were uploaded to NVivo for thematic analysis. The unit of analysis was individual comments (i.e., a single sentence could contain multiple themes and each was coded). Comments were categorized according to the four levels of the SEM framework (individual; relationship-interpersonal; program-service; policy-enabling environment). As sub-categories emerged within each level, these were added to the coding guide. The guide was initially developed by three researchers who coded all transcripts. When uncertainty arose around coding data or creating new codes, discussions were held by the team to resolve these issues. Data was then double-coded by two trained researchers. Themes and sub-themes were analysed separately for provider and parent interviews.

The strategy adopted to integrate findings from quantitative and qualitative methods involved identifying the barriers and facilitators most consistently rated highly important and mapping these to corresponding themes emerging in the qualitative analysis.

Questionnaire participation rates were acceptable and completion rates were high (Eysenbach, 2004 ). Of 63 consenting parents, 45 (71%) participated (i.e., progressed beyond the demographic section of the questionnaire) and, of these, 44 (98%) completed all but the final section of the questionnaire. Of 88 consenting providers, 63 (72%) participated with all but 1 (98%) answering items on the final page of the questionnaire.

Quantitative Analyses

Table Table3 3 shows the percentage of respondents rating each potential barrier very or extremely important, by respondent group. For brevity, we refer to the collapsed responses as highly important and the provider version of items is listed; references to ‘family’ were presented in the first person for parents. Barriers are presented in order of importance (according to providers), not order of presentation in the questionnaire.

Barriers rated very or extremely important by respondent type

Notes: All analysis excludes missing cases. ^items presented only to parents indicating that their child did not attend a formal ECEC service; #item presented only to parents indicating that child did attend a service; a One parent skipped all barrier items; b missing data for 1 case; c missing data for 2 cases; d missing data for 3 cases; e missing data for 11 cases (item was not presented due to technical error)

Overall, providers were more inclined than parents to rate each of the potential barriers as highly important, with one exception (relating to maternal role beliefs). Of the 17 items presented to providers, 12 were endorsed as highly important by at least half the sample, and all but one by more than a third. In contrast, only one of the items presented to parents was rated highly important by at least half the participants (service costs), and one other (maternal role) by at least a third of the participants. One in five parents rated more than two barriers as highly important.

Among limited-attendance families, the barriers most consistently rated highly important were: (a) cost of services (50%) and (b) a view that it is a mother’s role to educate and care for her young children (42%). For providers, the barriers most consistently rated highly important related to: (a) the benefits of formal ECEC being unclear to families (89%), (b) families not knowing how to access services (79%), and (c) the cost of services (73%).

Table Table4 4 shows the percentage of respondents rating each potential facilitator very or extremely important, by respondent group. Among limited-attendance families, the potential facilitators most consistently rated highly important were: (a) knowing that educators and/or staff are professionally trained (73%), (b) having food provided at the service (60%), and (c) having information about the likely benefits of ECEC attendance (50%). The potential facilitator next most consistently rated highly important related to provision of all-day sessions rather than shorter blocks spread over the week (33%). For recommended-attendance families, the potential facilitators most consistently rated highly important were: (a) knowing that educators and/or staff are professionally trained (93%), (b) having good communication about what is involved in ECEC (93%), (c) having information about the likely benefits of ECEC (76%), and (d) feeling that educators understood their child (70%). Among providers, the potential facilitators most consistently rated highly important were: (a) ensuring that families feel educators understand their child (97%), (b) having good communication about what is involved in ECEC (90%), and (c) families having information about the likely benefits of ECEC (82%). A large percentage of providers also rated as highly important: (d) knowing that educators and/or staff are professionally trained (80%). Thus, two of the top four facilitators as rated by providers were also among the top three facilitators as rated by parents.

Facilitators rated very or extremely important by respondent type

^ The parent version of this item was: “Service including activities that relate to my culture/background”; a The provider version of items is listed in the table but parents viewed equivalent items presented in the first person; b One provider did not answer any facilitator items and another missed 9 items; c data missing for 3 cases; d data missing for 1 case; e data missing for 2 cases; f missing data for 12–13 cases due to technical error Note: Analysis excludes missing cases

Consistent with the barrier ratings, providers were generally more inclined than parents to rate each of the potential facilitators highly important, with only two exceptions; though both groups rated educator training and provision of food at services important, parents were more inclined to do so. Of the 17 items administered, 11 were rated highly important by more than half the providers, 7 by recommended-attendance families, and 3 by limited-attendance families.

Qualitative Analyses

Of the 31 parents who consented to participate in the interview, 21 met eligibility criteria. Of the 16 consenting providers, all were eligible and completed the interview. Drawing on the SEM, interview responses were coded with emergent themes mapped to the four levels of the framework: individual, interpersonal-relationship, program-service, or policy-enabling environment. Detailed results are shown in Supplementary Tables A.1 , A.2 . The number of respondents citing factors at each level may be less than the sum of respondents coded for each sub-theme. This is because multiple sub-themes were coded where participants discussed more than one issue.

Overview of barriers and facilitators

As shown in Table A.1 (online only), analysis of qualitative interviews revealed almost all parents identified barriers operating at the individual and program-service level. About half discussed issues at the policy-environment level, and just over a quarter raised interpersonal-relationship level themes. A similar pattern was observed for providers: all discussed barriers at the individual and program-service levels, whereas fewer (about two thirds) discussed issues at the policy-environment level. In contrast to parents, most providers also discussed interpersonal-relationship issues.

Table A.2 (online only) shows almost all parents and all providers identified facilitators at the program-service level. About half the parents discussed individual and policy-environment level facilitators, and just under a quarter discussed interpersonal-relationship level themes. Almost all providers also discussed policy-enabling environment themes. Fewer (about a third) discussed individual and interpersonal-relationship level facilitators.

Individual level barriers and facilitators

At the individual level, the most common barriers discussed by parents related to logistics, economic disadvantage, and child health or behavioral issues. The most common themes to emerge in interviews with providers related to parent disadvantage, parent attitudes or beliefs, and logistics. Sub-themes relating to disadvantage and logistics were similar for parents and providers. Respondents from both groups noted that low incomes and unemployment made it difficult for parents to afford service fees or transportation costs incurred to access ECEC services (e.g., fuel, fare, vehicle registration, and maintenance). Logistics sub-themes were also similar across groups with both discussing competing demands (for work and family schedules), and problems with transport (e.g., due to not owning a car, not having a licence to drive, or living too far from services to walk). Where parents discussed child health, most focused on children contracting illnesses at ECEC services and the harms this caused the family, either physically and/or financially. For families who are self-employed or in casual positions, the effects of ECEC participation on health may be critical. Medical appointments or treatments and physical stamina were also discussed, though to a lesser extent. With regard to parent attitudes and beliefs, both parents and providers discussed concerns about child readiness. As one parent put it: “They are only little; they still need time with their family”. Providers also focused heavily on parents not appreciating the value of ECEC participation. This often related to misconceptions about play-based learning and seeing services as merely (expensive) babysitting arrangements.

At the individual level, the main facilitator themes to emerge concerned parent beliefs or attitudes. Both parents and providers discussed the opportunities afforded by ECEC participation for social skills development with peers, school readiness (e.g., toilet training, listening to educators etc.), and parent respite.

Interpersonal-relationship level barriers and facilitators

Whereas few parents discussed barriers at the interpersonal-relationship level, a substantive proportion of providers discussed several ways in which family dynamics and complex issues could impede ECEC participation. For providers, the most common sub-theme related to family violence. In contrast, both parents and providers noted facilitating aspects of the social environment. Several respondents stated that knowledge of ECEC services had been facilitated by discussions with family members, or friends and acquaintances from community service settings (e.g., playgroups, schools) and facilities (e.g., parks, playgrounds).

Program-service level barriers and facilitators

At the program-service level, the most common barrier theme to emerge in interviews for both parents and providers related to accessibility. Within this theme, the most common sub-theme related to service fees, though difficulties with service location and limited places or long waitlists were also discussed. Other major themes emerging for both parents and providers related to program formatting (particularly inconvenient session timing and duration) and service procedures (e.g., confusing or complex enrollment processes). As one parent observed: “your local center offers three short days, but you work and need long days”. Though accessibility, program formatting, and service procedures emerged as the major themes for both parents and providers, barriers relating to ECEC staff skills (e.g., rapport building and sensitive engagement with families) were discussed by a substantive proportion of providers but relatively few parents.

Consistent with barrier themes, the main facilitator themes emerging for parents related to accessibility, program formatting and services procedures. For providers, the main facilitators concerned staff, service procedures, and accessibility. Thus, service accessibility and service procedures were among the main sub-themes to emerge in both parent and provider interviews. Among both parents and providers, accessibility sub-themes included affordability, location, and transport. Respondents noted that participation was or would be facilitated when fees were heavily subsidized or waived, services were within walking distance of family residences, or able to facilitate transportation of children in some way. Suggested transportation arrangements included utilization of a school bus, and access to fuel vouchers.

The main service procedure facilitation sub-themes focused on inter-agency collaboration and easing enrollment processes, with the two often interlinked. For example, several respondents indicated that maternal and child health nurses are well-positioned to promote ECEC enrollment, providing timely information at routine check-ups about how, when, and where to enroll in ECEC services. Other opportunities for cross-promotion included partnering with libraries, primary and allied health providers, and human services. Strategies for assisting families to complete enrollment procedures included simplified registration, data linking to immunization and birth records, and personalized assistance to overcome challenges presented by both online and paper-based systems. One service provider noted: “we will quite often sit down with the families, fill out the forms with them”.

In addition to facilitating service accessibility and procedures, program formatting was a prominent sub-theme for parents. Several indicated greater flexibility in session timing, duration, or frequency to better co-ordinate with other responsibilities (e.g., work, care for school-age or infant siblings), could increase participation. Some also suggested greater flexibility in session timing and duration was needed to better suit their child’s health or development (e.g., shorter days for 3-year-old children). For providers, staff skills emerged as a prominent facilitator sub-theme. Comments mainly focused on the critical importance of educator competence in building rapport and respectful relationships with families.

Policy-environment level barriers and facilitators

At the policy-environment level, approximately two thirds of all parent and provider interviewees discussed barriers relating to government policies. These mostly concerned eligibility criteria for accessing subsidized ECEC, particularly relating to family income, but also to restrictions to eligibility based on child age and citizenship or visa-type. Another theme that emerged for both parents and providers concerned funding to better support children with additional health care or developmental needs. Difficulties with inadequate infrastructure were raised less frequently but both parents and providers suggested the quantity and capacity of existing ECEC services, and availability of public transport, was inadequate in their geographic location.

In terms of facilitation , both parents and providers discussed aspects of government policy and infrastructure that would increase ECEC participation. Most discussion of government policy related to heavily subsidized or free ECEC, though two providers suggested legislation making ECEC participation mandatory would increase service use. With regard to infrastructure both parents and providers indicated a need for (a) more ECEC centers or increased service capacity within the local area, and (b) public transport options for families who do not have access to a car or driver license or cannot walk to the nearest ECEC service.

Summary of Key Insights Emerging from the Questionnaire and Interviews

Table Table5 5 shows how the qualitative interviews drew out specific issues underlying the barriers and facilitators identified as important in the questionnaire. It also shows where the interviews identified critical issues that did not emerge as strongly in the questionnaire. Overall, the three main messages to consistently emerge from the questionnaire and interviews pertained to ECEC costs, awareness of benefits, and staff skills or training. The one theme that appeared more salient in interviews than questionnaires concerned ECEC program scheduling and how this interacts with the various other competing demands families encounter. In contrast, it was the questionnaire that identified the importance of maternal roles, and although not discussed at length, interviews provided key insights into factors that might underpin endorsement of this factor. The selected quotes suggest, for example, that the maternal role barrier may be underpinned by parent perceptions of child development, feelings of anxiety, and prescriptive views about legitimate uses of parent time.

Key insights from the questionnaire and interviews

Previous research has shown substantive variation in the proportion of children accessing ECEC in the year before school (Goldfeld et al., 2016 , O’Connor et al., 2016 ), but limited exploration of the barriers and facilitators experienced by and most important to Australian families. This study contributes to existing ECEC participation research in several important ways. First, it simultaneously investigates both parent and provider perspectives. Second, it not only identifies key barriers and facilitators, but also provides an indication of relative importance of these factors for different stakeholders. Third, it utilizes a theory-based approach to form a structured and policy-relevant understanding of the ecological complexity that shapes ECEC participation. Finally, the mixed methods approach draws out specific details of how Australian families experience major barriers and facilitators to suggest specific strategies that hold promise for increasing ECEC participation.

Consistent with prior research where Australian parents frequently raised themes related to cost and maternal role perceptions (Grace et al., 2014 ), the present study similarly found these were especially pertinent barriers to ECEC participation. These barriers were most consistently rated highly important by parent questionnaire respondents, and issues with costs were especially salient in interviews. Almost three quarters of providers and half the parent questionnaire respondents in this study rated cost as highly important, and issues relating to costs were discussed in many of the interviews. These findings suggest that cost may be the largest barrier to parents accessing the recommended ECEC dose, despite national policy statements that ECEC should be accessible to parents “in a manner that ensures cost does not present a barrier” (Harrington, 2014 ).

The importance of cost is consistent with previous research, which shows preschool attendance is typically higher in jurisdictions where preschool programs are government-funded (Baxter & Hand, 2013 , Bennett & Tayler, 2006 , O’Connor et al., 2016 ). This barrier must be addressed if participation rates are to increase. Interviews suggest strategies to address ECEC costs will need to consider broadening eligibility criteria for accessing subsidized care, particularly for those with no health care card or visa-based residency. Additional strategies could explore ways to reduce: indirect costs associated with transport (e.g., fuel, car maintenance); cumulative fees for families with multiple children; and hidden costs such as having to take time off paid work when children contract illnesses at ECEC services. The problem with illness may be exacerbated in a post-COVID environment, until wide-scale full-dose vaccination is possible. As it is common for children to experience multiple illnesses each year and common cold symptoms (e.g., cough) can linger for months, families may be unable to justify paying for ECEC places when children are frequently unable to attend for extended periods.

The finding that maternal role perceptions were rated highly important by more than a third of both parents and providers is also consistent with previous research. Indeed, this emerged as a major theme in interviews conducted with another Australian sample - parents from disadvantaged communities in NSW (Grace et al., 2014 ). Interviews in the present investigation suggested both maternal rights and responsibilities are at play here. Responses reflected both (a) views that families have an inherent right to care for and educate their young children, enjoying this short and precious period in life, and (b) societal norms and prescriptive expectations (e.g., that if a mother is not working, children should be at home). Tied to both views, and consistent with previous Australian research (e.g., Hand, Baxter, Sweid, Bluett-Boyd, & Price-Robertson, 2014 ), was a clear and consistent perception that young children are not developmentally ready to attend formal ECEC settings and that family-based care is more appropriate. Understanding these nuances is important for formulating strategies to address the ‘maternal role’ barrier.

Extending findings from prior research, the study found providers were generally more inclined than parents to rate each of the potential barriers (and facilitators) as highly important. This likely reflects differences in perspective and the framing of questionnaire and interview questions; parents were instructed to consider personal experiences, whereas providers considered collective experiences. It is likely that providers also had in mind populations experiencing more intense and varied forms of disadvantage than those experienced by the parent sample. This is important to consider as the data from providers suggests that in addition to prohibitive costs, low ECEC participation may also be driven by poor or ineffective promotion of the benefits ECEC provides children and their families, and how families can access ECEC services. Consistent with this, interviews with parents suggested there may be some misconceptions about the benefits of play-based learning, and confusion or difficulty with enrollment processes. Our findings suggest a need to address beliefs that play-based learning is not ‘educational’ and provide practical assistance with enrollment processes (e.g., language translation, finding immunization information).

It is interesting that the sole barrier not endorsed by a larger proportion of providers than parents related to maternal roles. It may be that providers underestimate this barrier and need to better promote within communities a view that it is normal, acceptable and beneficial for mothers to share care and education responsibilities with formal ECEC services. The importance of promoting the benefits of ECEC participation is well appreciated by providers but may be more effective if coupled with initiatives to address maternal role barriers. Although several limited-attendance families indicated an ability to visit or attend to their children while at a service would facilitate participation, further research is needed to identify other specific strategies providers could implement to better acknowledge maternal role beliefs and support family priorities.

Overall, the analysis of ECEC barriers indicates that the barriers considered most important by parents and providers are similar. The findings suggest a need to (a) reduce service costs, (b) more effectively promote the benefits of ECEC participation, and (c) change attitudes about maternal roles.

Facilitators

The investigation of potential facilitators showed substantive alignment in the factors most parents and providers considered particularly important. Consistent with prior research (Grace et al., 2014 ), parents considered staff training an especially important facilitator. Questionnaire responses showed educator and staff training was consistently rated highly important by both parents and providers. Though few parents expanded on the importance of staff skills in the interviews, providers indicated that skills in establishing sensitive and supportive relationships with families are critical to facilitating ECEC participation. Parent responses to questionnaire items assessing the importance of good communication, and perceiving that educators understand their children, were also consistent with this view. Indeed, these were among the top four facilitators endorsed by parents whose children received the recommended ECEC dose, and among the top five for parents whose children did not. For limited-attendance families, communication and understanding were rated highly important by almost half the sample. Given the smaller sample size this should be interpreted cautiously, but may indicate that for these parents, such facilitators may not be sufficient to increase ECEC participation. For example, it may be that other factors need to be addressed first (e.g., cost, maternal role beliefs). Alternatively, it could be that problems with communication and perceptions of educator understanding at local ECEC services hindered full participation for these parents. However, this seems unlikely given few parents in this group indicated in either the questionnaire or interview that a lack of staff skills or disrespectful educators were barriers to participation.

Across all respondent groups, having information about the likely benefits of one’s child attending a formal ECEC service was also consistently rated highly important and was among the top four facilitators in the questionnaire. Interviews indicated that parents appreciated the opportunities ECEC afforded school readiness and social-emotional skills development, though these appeared less salient to those who had not yet enrolled their children in kindergarten or LDC. Interviews also illustrated a variety of strategies that could better communicate and directly demonstrate the benefits of attendance. These included disseminating pamphlets, hosting open days, and running activities for children at local markets where educators can talk with parents and display the types of learning resources and opportunities on offer at local services. Providers also recognized the outreach opportunities afforded by such strategies for building relationships with families in their community, and assisting parents to overcome specific barriers associated with enrollment procedures.

In contrast to the general alignment across groups regarding the facilitators most consistently rated highly important (i.e., staff training and understanding, good communication, benefits of attendance), there was notable variation in the relative ranking of having food provided at ECEC services. This facilitator was the second most important for limited-attendance families, but eleventh for providers, and one of only a few potential facilitators more consistently rated highly important by parents than providers. This may suggest providers underestimate the importance of food as a potential facilitator. Interestingly, the importance of food was not discussed in interviews by many parents or providers. Rather, the main focus was on strategies that increase service availability (e.g., having enough services or service capacity) and accessibility (e.g., low or no cost, transportation). Nevertheless, the finding that more than half of all respondent groups rated it highly important suggests providing food at services may be a useful strategy for increasing participation. This may especially be the case for families experiencing food insecurity.

Broad Implications

Overall, the findings indicate that ECEC participation is shaped by multiple factors operating across a range of social-ecological levels and this is consistent with previous research (Grace et al., 2014 , Hand et al., 2014 ). For each family, there are likely to be multiple barriers and facilitators operating at various levels. As such, multi-tiered approaches may be needed to effectively increase ECEC participation. Though some program-service level barriers might be addressed directly by program providers (e.g., better promotion of benefits and local staff skills), efforts to address issues at the policy-enabling environment level (e.g., access to free care, funding to increase service capacity) are probably needed to have a substantive effect on ECEC participation.

Barriers to ECEC participation occur within a broad social context and interact with national issues such as housing affordability, food insecurity, and inequitable access to workplace entitlements. Within this context, many families may struggle to overcome barriers that might be considered mere inconveniences (e.g., program formatting, service location, children contracting common illnesses): depending on family circumstances, such barriers can be insurmountable at the individual family and program-service levels. Without strategies to address barriers operating at the highest levels of the social-ecological model, ECEC participation may remain infeasible and incompatible with the demands of daily living for many families. However, reform at the policy-enabling environment level, coupled with the implementation of program-service level efforts at the frontline, could significantly improve ECEC participation.

Limitations

Consistent with previous research (Ansari et al., 2020 , Grace et al., 2014 , Hand et al., 2014 , Susman-Stillman et al., 2018 ), the results rely on a convenience sample, and this may introduce some bias. It is unclear how many potential participants viewed but did not submit a questionnaire. However, questionnaire and interview completion rates were very high among those who consented to participate, and demographic data indicated the socio-economic status of parent participants was reasonably diverse. As anticipated, there were challenges in recruiting a large sample of families who had not enrolled their children in ECEC services. Nevertheless, approximately half the limited-attendance group comprised families who had not enrolled their children at all, and the identification of facilitating factors among families with higher attendance rates provides useful direction for the development of practices and policies to increase participation.

Along a similar line, few parent participants considered themselves disadvantaged, vulnerable, or experiencing adversity. As such, the findings from parent participants may underestimate the importance of many ECEC barriers for such groups. On the other hand, almost all providers indicated that their ECEC organization served some disadvantaged families. Having canvassed the views of providers partially offsets the risk of underestimating the importance of potential barriers.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that experimental research is needed to test causal relationships between barriers (or facilitators) and ECEC participation levels. However, canvassing parent and provider perspectives promotes a comprehensive and deep understanding of the complex issues at play. This groundwork is crucial for ensuring that the development of initiatives to boost ECEC participation is informed, efficient and acceptable. It provides services with specific ideas for diagnosis of local barriers and possible solutions to trial within their specific context.

Directions for Future Research

This study has documented a range of barriers hampering ECEC participation, the perceived importance of those barriers, and a variety of strategies thought to facilitate ECEC participation among families from a range of socio-economic backgrounds (in terms of education and income). However, further research is needed to explore the factors affecting ECEC participation among more specific sub-groups such as rural and remote versus urban populations, and families experiencing different forms of disadvantage (e.g., single-parent families, relatively young parenthood, extreme poverty, disability, or health issues). Such work is needed not only to determine the extent to which the factors identified in the current research influence ECEC participation among these groups, but to check for additional barriers and facilitators. Along a similar line, there is also a need to conduct research with fathers. Current methods of enlisting parents in ECEC research inadvertently target mothers as they are typically more engaged in all ECEC service types. The experiences, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of fathers have been neglected in early childhood research (Ames, Glenton, & Lewin, 2017 , Ancell, Bruns, & Chitiyo, 2016 ), but are likely very important for understanding how family dynamics might influence ECEC participation. This information could be particularly instructive for the development of strategies to address maternal role beliefs that block ECEC participation.

Further research is also needed to identify and test specific strategies for addressing ECEC participation barriers. For each barrier, there are likely to be solutions operating at different levels of the social-ecological model. For example, strategies to reduce participation costs, or promote the benefits of ECEC participation, can be applied at both program-service and policy-environment levels. At the program-service level, indirect transportation costs could be reduced by the operation of kindergarten buses (potentially in partnership with primary schools) or facilitation of family car-pooling. At the policy-environment level, costs could be reduced by providing free public transport to and from ECEC services, expanding government eligibility criteria for access to subsidized ECEC, or providing incentives for services to reduce fees. Likewise, strategies to promote parent awareness of ECEC benefits may operate at different levels (e.g., government-funded national media campaigns, employment of outreach coordinators, grassroots advertising by providers). Future research should also explore the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of various strategies to increase ECEC participation.

Overall, this study shows considerable convergence across parent and provider views on the importance of various ECEC participation barriers and facilitators, and highlights specific divergences. Findings indicate the need to: (a) reduce both direct and indirect service costs; (b) increase flexibility in program formatting so participation can be coordinated with the demands of work and other family responsibilities; (c) more effectively promote the benefits of play-based learning in formal ECEC settings; and (d) change attitudes about maternal roles and child readiness to participate in ECEC. Application of the SEM framework to interview data demonstrates the ecological complexity of ECEC participation, and illustrates the importance of both addressing barriers and harnessing facilitators across multiple levels. As such, the study provides a valuable resource for policy development and decision-making that could substantively increase ECEC participation, and by extension reduce both the individual and societal economic burdens associated with missed ECEC opportunities.

Supplementary Information

Acknowledgements.

We thank Caitlin Macmillan, Janine Lam, Adrian Laughlin, Shona Cawley, Deb Osborne, and Ifrah Abdullahi for assistance collecting and coding the data.

Author Contributions

C.M.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, supervision, methodology, validation, writing-review & editing; R.B.: formal analysis, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing; Z.F.: investigation, formal analysis, writing-review & editing; C.H., N.P. & S.G.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing-review & editing.

This work was supported by the Paul Ramsay Foundation, Eureka Benevolent Foundation, Commonwealth Department of Social Services, and the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program and Department of Education and Training. Prof Goldfeld is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship [APP1155290].

Data Availability

Compliance with ethical standards.

The authors declare no competing interests.

The study was approved by the Royal Children’s Hospital Human Ethics Committee and performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Ruth Beatson, Carly Molloy.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10826-022-02274-5.

ABS. (2016). 2016 Census QuickStats. Retrieved from https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036 . Accessed 9 September 2021.
ABS. (2020). Preschool Education Australia 2019. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/preschool-education-australia/latest-release#data-download . Accessed 9 September 2021.
AIHW. (2015). Literature review of the impact of early childhood education and care on learning and development: working paper, Cat. no. CWS 53 . Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Ames HM, Glenton C, Lewin S. Parents’ and informal caregivers’ views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017; 2 :CD011787. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011787.pub2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ancell K, Bruns D, Chitiyo J. The importance of father involvement in early childhood programs. Young Exceptional Children. 2016; 21 :22–33. doi: 10.1177/1096250615621355. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ansari A, Pivnick L, Gershoff E, Crosnoe R, Orozco-Lapray D. What do parents want from preschool? Perspectives of low-income Latino/a immigrant families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2020; 52 :38–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.08.007. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth . Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Barnett WS. Universal and targeted approaches to preschool education in the United States. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2010; 4 :1–12. doi: 10.1007/2288-6729-4-1-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnett WS, Masse LN. Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and its policy implications. Economics of Education Review. 2007; 26 :113–125. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.10.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baxter, J., & Hand, K. (2013). Access to early childhood education in Australia (Research Report no. 24) . Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Bennett, J., & Tayler, C. P. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care . Paris, France: OECD.
Biddle, N., & Seth-Purdie, R. (2013). Development risk exposure and participation in early childhood education: How can we reach the most vulnerable children? Canberra: HC Coombs Policy Forum & Social Policy Institute, Australian National University.
Boag-Munroe G, Evangelou M. From hard to reach to how to reach: A systematic review of the literature on hard-to-reach families. Research Papers in Education. 2012; 27 :209–239. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2010.509515. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 843-860). Singapore: Springer Nature.
CDC. (2020). The Social Ecological Model: A framework for prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/publichealthissue/social-ecologicalmodel.html . Accessed 9 September 2021.
Coe C, Gibson A, Spencer N, Stuttaford M. Sure start: voices of the ‘hard-to-reach’ Child Care Health Development. 2008; 34 :447–453. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00816.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Coley RL, Votruba-Drzal E, Collins MA, Miller P. Selection into early education and care settings: Differences by developmental period. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014; 29 :319–332. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2004; 6 :e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fetters M, Freshwater D. Publishing a methodological mixed methods research article. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2015; 9 :203–213. doi: 10.1177/1558689815594687. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gilley, T., Tayler, C., Niklas, F., & Cloney, D. (2015). Too late and not enough for some children: early childhood education and care (ECEC) program usage patterns in the years before school in Australia. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy , 9 . 10.1186/s40723-015-0012-0.
Goldfeld S, O’Connor E, O’Connor M, Sayers M, Moore T, Kvalsvig A, Brinkman S. The role of preschool in promoting children’s healthy development: Evidence from an Australian population cohort. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2016; 35 :40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.11.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grace R, Bowes J, Elcombe E. Child participation and family engagement with early childhood education and care services in disadvantaged Australian communities. International Journal of Early Childhood. 2014; 46 :271–298. doi: 10.1007/s13158-014-0112-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hand, K., Baxter, J., Sweid, R., Bluett-Boyd, N., & Price-Robertson, R. (2014). Access to early childhood education in Australia: Insights from a qualitative study (Research Report No. 28) . Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Harrington, M. (2014). Universal access to early childhood education: A quick guide . Canberra: Australian Department of Parliamentary Services.
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Minor, B. L., Elliott, V., Fernandez, M., O’Neal, L., Duda, S. N. (2019). The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics . 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Heckman, J. (2006). The economics of investing in children . Retrieved from http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/policybriefings/geary_report1.pdf .
Loeb S, Bridges M, Bassok D, Fuller B, Rumberger RW. How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive development. Economics of Education Review. 2007; 26 :52–66. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.11.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Magnuson K, Ruhm CJ, Waldfogel Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and performance? Economics of Education Review. 2007; 26 :33–51. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.09.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Magnuson, K., Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and performance? Cambridge Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Magnuson K, Waldfogel J. Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children. 2005; 15 :169–196. doi: 10.1353/foc.2005.0005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCoy DC, Yoshikawa H, Ziol-Guest KM, Duncan GJ, Schindler HS, Magnuson K, Shonkoff JP. Impacts of early childhood education on medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher. 2017; 46 :474–487. doi: 10.3102/0013189X17737739. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Melhuish, E., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K.,… Leseman, P. (2015). A review of research on the effects of early childhood Education and Education and Care (ECEC) upon child development; CARE project curriculum quality analysis and impact review of European Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Retrieved from http://ecec-care.org/resources/publications/ .
Mitchell L, Meagher-Lundberg P. Brokering to support participation of disadvantaged families in early childhood education. British Educational Research Journal. 2017; 43 :952–967. doi: 10.1002/berj.3296. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Molloy, C., Lam, J., Laughlin, A., Quinn, P., Beatson, R., Harrop, C., . . . Goldfeld, S. (2020). Participation in early childhood education and care: Barriers and facilitators. A Restacking the Odds Solutions Report. Melbourne: Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. Royal Children’s Hospital, Human Ethics Committee (#2019.016)
Muennig P, Schweinhart L, Montie J, Neidell M. Effects of a prekindergarten educational intervention on adult health: 37-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial. Research and Practice. 2009; 99 :1431–1437. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nores M, Belfield C, Barnett SW, Schweinhart L. Updating the economic impacts of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis. 2005; 27 :245–261. doi: 10.3102/01623737027003245. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
O’Connor M, Gray S, Tarasuik J, O’Connor E, Kvalsvig A, Incledon E, Goldfeld S. Preschool attendance trends in Australia: Evidence from two sequential population cohorts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2016; 35 :31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
PwC. (2014). Putting a value on early childhood education and care in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/early-childhood-education.html .
PwC. (2019). A Smart investment for a smarter Australia: Economic analysis of universal early childhood education in the year before school in australia . Melbourne: PriceWaterhouseCooper.
Ramey C, Campbell F, Burchinal M, Skinner M, Gardner D, Ramey S. Persistent effects of early childhood education on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied Developmental Science. 2000; 4 :2–14. doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0401_1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Hunt, S., & Jelicic, H. (2008). Effective pre-school and primary education 3-11 project (EPPE 3-11): Influences on children’s cognitive and social development in year 6 . United Kingdom: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Sanson, A., Nicholson, J., Ungerer, J., Zubrick, S., Wilson, K., Ainley, J., Wake, M. (2002). Introducing the longitudinal study of Australian children: LSAC discussion paper No. 1 . Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Susman-Stillman A, Englund MM, Storm KJ, Bailey AE. Understanding barriers and solutions affecting preschool attendance in low-income families. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) 2018; 23 :170–186. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2018.1434657. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2010). Early childhood matters: Evidence from the effective pre-school and primary education project . London: Routledge.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) Project: Findings from pre-school to end of key stage 1 . Nottingham, United Kingdom: Department of Education and Skills.
Van Huizen, T., & Plantenga, J. (2018). Do children benefit from universal early childhood education and care? A meta-analysis of evidence from natural experiments. Economics of Education Review, 66 , 206–222. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.08.001.
Warren, D., & Haisken-DeNew. (2013). Early bird catches the worm: The causal impact of pre-school participation and teacher qualification on Year 3 national NAPLAN cognitive tests . Melbourne: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.
Warren, D., O’Connor, M., Smart, D., & Edwards, B. (2016). A critical review of the early childhood literature . Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

University Library

Research Guides

Early Childhood Studies

Find Books & Scholarly Articles
Find Children's Literature
Find News Articles This link opens in a new window
Find Videos
Find Data and Statistics
Find Teaching Standards, Plans, and Tools
Citations This link opens in a new window

About this Guide

This research guide focuses on Early Childhood Studies. It includes print, multimedia, and online resources owned or subscribed to by Sonoma State University Library as well as resources freely available on the Web. This research guide is not a comprehensive portal, but it is intended to be a useful place to start.

If you need/want further research help, please contact us . We are always happy to help!

Recommended Databases

Don't have time to read this full guide? These databases and e-resources will help you complete most Early Childhood Studies research assignments at Sonoma State. For more detailed recommendations and instructions, please review the other pages in this guide or ask your instructor or one of the librarians.

This bibliographic and full text database covers scholarly research and information relating to all areas of education, including early childhood through higher education, multilingual education, health education, testing, curriculum instruction, administration, policy, funding, and related social issues.

ERIC This link opens in a new window Provides access to citations and abstracts to periodicals, documents and research reports in education. Some full-text is available.
Next: Find Books & Scholarly Articles >>
Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 3:26 PM
URL: https://libguides.sonoma.edu/earlychildhoodstudies

High-quality early child care and education: The gift that lasts a lifetime

Subscribe to the center for universal education bulletin, andres s. bustamante , andres s. bustamante assistant professor of education - university of california, irvine @bustamante_as eric dearing , eric dearing professor, applied developmental & educational psychology - boston college henrik daae zachrisson , henrik daae zachrisson professor, department of special needs education - university of oslo deborah lowe vandell , and deborah lowe vandell professor, school of education - university of california, irvine kathy hirsh-pasek kathy hirsh-pasek senior fellow - global economy and development , center for universal education @kathyandro1.

November 4, 2021

Debate continues on Biden’s “ Build Back Better” social infrastructure bill offering a historic expansion of child care and universal preschool. Early childhood education is a socially popular endeavor with strong bipartisan support and impressive evidence for meaningful impacts in the short and long term . Economic research examining the return on investment for early education suggests tremendous value ranging from $4 to $13 in return for every $1 spent from impacts on educational attainment, employment, health, truancy, and criminality.

Much of the data used in these projections come from classic “gold standard” interventions like the Abecedarian and Perry preschool studies. These were highly resourced projects that provided high-quality early education experiences to families from under-resourced communities. Can the findings from these studies be generalized to large-scale modern programs with children from a range of economic backgrounds? This is what is proposed in the new infrastructure bill as a universal pre-K model.

A new study published in Child Development strongly suggests that sustained high-quality early education can have long-lasting impacts. Using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study of early child care and youth development as its base, this research followed 814 subjects of the original sample until the young adults were 26 years of age. These young adults had attended a variety of child care and preschool settings that varied widely in their quality of care. As this was a study of development of everyday children in everyday environments, it included families from low-, middle-, and high-income backgrounds in several locations around the country with access to high, middling, or lower quality of care when they were in early childhood. Remarkably, children from low-income backgrounds who had access to 24 months or more of high-quality early childhood education in their first five years were more likely to graduate from college and had higher salaries at age 26. In fact, the outcomes for these young adults who experienced sustained high-quality care were statistically indistinguishable from their higher-income peers.

Community-based early care and education, delivered at scale, can provide lasting impacts, and may serve as a catalyst for children’s success later in life—particularly for those from less resourced environments. Importantly, high quality was necessary for achieving these long-term outcomes. Recent findings from a study by University of Virginia Professor Bob Pianta and his colleagues make a similar point. High-quality early child care increases children’s readiness for school and narrows the so-called achievement gap by half. This means access to early education is not enough. Warm, safe, supporting environments that are rich with language and conversations, and offer many opportunities to play and engage in hands-on exploration are key. Sustained access is also critical in predicting long-term outcomes. Higher salary and college graduation rates were only evident for children who had two or more years of high-quality care.

The data are clear. Early childhood programs that are sustained and high quality can have long-lasting impacts on children, preparing them for formal schooling and beyond with the added factor that early education paves the way for parents to be in the workforce.

The data are clear. Early childhood programs that are sustained and high quality can have long-lasting impacts on children, preparing them for formal schooling and beyond with the added factor that early education paves the way for parents to be in the workforce. This is a win-win-win for society. But access alone and custodial care will not sow the benefits provided by high-quality early care programs.

As we continue the debate, let us keep the science of early learning clearly in mind. We need high-quality early childhood care to set children on trajectories that will enable them (and society) to thrive. The new research suggests that this goal is within our grasp and that it is scalable within everyday contexts.

Meta-thematic synthesis of research on early childhood coding education: A comprehensive review

Open access
Published: 24 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Mehmet Başaran ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1871-520X 1 ,
Şermin Metin ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5984-6359 2 &
Ömer Faruk Vural 3

77 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The growing significance of coding in 21st-century early childhood education extends beyond technical proficiency, encompassing cognitive development, problem-solving, and creativity. Coding is being integrated globally into educational curricula to prepare students for the digital era. This research examines coding’s potential impact on cognitive and socio-emotional development and emphasizes the need for evidence-based analysis. A meta-thematic analysis synthesizes qualitative data from various studies in a study on coding’s effects on preschool children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development. It focuses on two themes: cognitive contributions and socio-emotional contributions. Thirteen suitable studies were identified from 942 visualized using the PRISMA flow diagram. Coding education enhances cognitive and socio-emotional skills in preschoolers, with implications for curriculum integration. In summary, coding’s holistic benefits in early childhood education are explored, and a meta-thematic analysis investigates its influence on cognitive and socio-emotional domains in preschoolers, emphasizing the need for rigorous evidence-based research.

Play-Based Learning: Evidence-Based Research to Improve Children’s Learning Experiences in the Kindergarten Classroom

How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others.

Ethical Considerations of Conducting Systematic Reviews in Educational Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Technological developments require new generations to acquire specific skills (P21). As technology has become an integral part of our lives, understanding basic computing structures and applications has become essential knowledge required in the 21st century (Czerkawski, 2015 , October). Therefore, it is widely recognized that digital literacy is essential in today’s information society (Barendsen & Stoker, 2013 ). Beyond digital literacy, coding, which refers to using languages that enable computing, is increasingly recognized as a new literacy (Bers, 2020 ; Burke et al., 2016 ; Vee, 2013 ).

When Papert ( 1980 ) developed LOGO, the first programming language to support children’s mathematical skills, he firmly believed that it influenced children’s thinking and led them to think, build, and design in new ways (Papert, 1980 , 2000 , 2005 ). Interest in Papert’s views, which draw attention to the basic concepts of computer science, has increased. This interest has led to the need to enable individuals to take an active and creative role in the use of new cognitive skills and technologies, such as code literacy, and the promotion of programming skills in the early years as essential educational support (Muñoz-Repiso & González, 2019 ). Lin and Weintrop ( 2021 ) stated that computing and the technologies it enables are reshaping the world, and they emphasized that every aspect of our lives is influenced by technology, from how we work and learn to how we play and socialize. Given this increasing presence in our lives, providing opportunities and tools to help people understand how technologies work and train them to control them is becoming an increasing focus of computer education efforts.

Coding is being promoted as a new literacy for all students at all levels of education, including very young children, and is seen as a necessity of the 21st century (Bers, 2019 ; Lye & Koh, 2014 ). For this reason, in recent years, efforts to teach coding and computational thinking, the basic concepts of computer science, in early years and to integrate them into educational processes have increased. These efforts have also accelerated classroom practices and research in this field. However, the studies focus on children’s coding and computational thinking skills (Macrides et al., 2022 ; Papadakis et al., 2016 ; Popat & Starkey, 2019 ). However, Papert ( 1980 ) stated that children’s building using technology and writing code is a new way of thinking for children and that children develop many skills while writing code. For this reason, it is necessary to examine and support the effects of coding on children’s developmental areas in preschool.

Coding is defined as an essential 21st-century skill and literacy that affects all areas of life (Bers et al., 2019 ; McLennan, 2018 ; Monteiro et al., 2021 ; Vee, 2013 ), which is defined as the process of writing the correct syntaxes in a ruleful and sequential manner using command sets and developing applications in order to solve problems, provide human-computer interaction, and enable computers to perform a specific task (Bers et al., 2019 ; Demirer & Sak, 2016 ; Fesakis & Serafeim, 2009 ; Kalelioğlu et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020; McLennan, 2018 ; Vorderman, 2019 ; Wing, 2006 ). Coding is the process of developing systematic ways to solve problems by creating algorithms, which are a set of instructions used to describe each step to perform a specific task or solve a problem (Campell & Walsh, 2017; Ching et al., 2018 ; Lee & Junoh, 2019 ; Lee & Björklund Larsen, 2019 ; McLennan, 2017 ; Vorderman, 2017). The thinking style in coding is seen as the process of numerical thinking, solving problems using algorithms and developing a logical approach, analyzing and organizing data, dividing problems into small and manageable parts, transforming them into specific algorithms, and transforming and organizing them into programming languages (Arabacıoğlu et al., 2007 ; Bers et al., 2019 ; Futschek, 2006 ; Futschek & Moschitz, 2011 ; Gibson, 2012 ; Li et al., 2020; Sullivan et al., 2017 ; Van-Roy & Haridi ( 2004 ).

2.1 Coding in preschool

Coding, a new form of literacy, has become a fundamental tool for reading and interpreting data and communicating with others in a digital society, providing an opportunity to connect children with technology. Thus, coding goes beyond algorithmic thinking and offers children a symbolic language to read and write (Bers, 2018a , 2018b; Mclennan, 2017 ). Despite different conceptual approaches, coding, which is seen not only as a set of technical skills but also as a social and cultural issue involving different fields of knowledge, basically involves thinking like a computer scientist (Grover & Pea, 2018 ), creating and collaborating (Kafai & Burke, 2014 ), and using computing languages, which are especially important for future generations (Monteiro et al., 2021 ). Bers ( 2019 ) argues that, similar to natural languages, children should be introduced to and familiarized with these new artificial languages from an early age. Monteiro et al. ( 2021 ) emphasize that this artificial language should develop children’s perceptual, expressive, and creative skills and lay a strong foundation for developing critical and functional competencies. They also cite understanding “artificial languages” used to create digital structures and transformations as a fundamental skill. In this context, Rushkoff ( 2010 ) states that being able to use the language of computers is emerging as an inevitable skill that allows us to participate fully and effectively in the digital reality that surrounds us. González ( 2015 ) and Bers ( 2019 ) state that individuals will join the new world as code literate when they can read and write in the language of computers and other machines and think numerically.

The literature emphasizes that coding as literacy in preschool education enables the development of personal and social skills that enable children to express, share, and create using computer science languages, ways of thinking, and creativity (Bers, 2020 ; Grover & Pea, 2018 ; Kafai & Burke, 2014 ; Monteiro et al., 2021 ; Resnick & Rusk, 2020 ; Vee, 2013 ). Coding is increasingly recognized as a new literacy that should be encouraged at the right age (Monteiro et al., 2021 ). In recent years, countries and scholars have emphasized the importance and necessity for children to develop the fundamental understandings, skills, and thinking approaches emerging in computer science, such as coding, programming, and computational thinking (García-Valcárcel et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017 ; Webb et al., 2017 ; Wilson et al., 2010 ). Education stakeholders have begun to emphasize that coding, like mathematics and literacy, is essential for everyone. On January 17, 2018, the European Commission presented a new “Digital Education Action Plan” for Europe to help educational institutions and education systems better adapt individuals to live and work in an era of rapid digital change (Bocconi et al., 2018 ; Webb et al., 2017 ; Wilson et al., 2010 ). The European Commission has also taken an active role in this regard and started to promote coding as today’s literacy (Moreno-León et al., 2015 ).

When the studies on coding skills are examined, it is emphasized that coding provides children with an essential skill necessary for participation in the digital society and contributes to developing all children into computational participants (Kafai & Burke ( 2014 ). In addition, while coding develops children’s critical and creative thinking skills, it also supports their computational competencies (Grover & Pea, 2013 ). The coding process develops problem-solving, reasoning, acquisition of mathematical concepts, meta-cognitive skills (Akyol-Altun, 2018 ; Baytak & Land, 2011 ; Clements & Nastasi, 1999; Çiftçi & Bildiren, 2019; Fessakis et al., 2013 ). (Israel et al., 2015 ; Lai & Yang (2011) Lambert & Guiffre, 2009 ; Sengupta et al., 2013 ); creative thinking skills (Kim, Chunk, & Yu (2013). As Papert ( 1980 ), one of the pioneers of computer science education, emphasized, coding can be generalized for children’s lifelong learning and development, giving them a valuable intellectual structure. In the last decade, numerous research and policy initiatives have focused on the conceptual and technical aspects of introducing coding to young children and the cognitive and social aspects underlying this trend (Monteiro et al.)

Studies on coding in early childhood show that intensive efforts are being made to teach coding skills to children in their early years. It is seen that there have been significant developments in areas such as how to teach coding, instructional approaches, and the assessment of these skills. However, it is necessary to reveal how children and educators conceptualize coding in early childhood and their views on its contribution to development.

When studies on coding skills are examined, coding provides a fundamental skill necessary for participation in the digital society and significantly contributes to children’s developmental areas. According to Papert ( 1980 ), one of the pioneers of computer science education, coding can be generalized for children’s lifelong learning and development. It can equip them with a valuable intellectual structure. In the last decade, numerous research and policy initiatives have focused on the conceptual and technical aspects of introducing coding to young children and the cognitive and social aspects underlying this trend (Monteiro et al.).

2.2 The effect of coding on development

Many countries have incorporated coding education into school curricula (Heintz et al., 2016 ; Hsu, 2019 ). The United States, 16 European countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Malta, Malta, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom), as well as New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, and Nordic countries have integrated coding into the curriculum at the national, regional, or local level (Bers 2018b; Bocconi et al., 2018 ; Digital News Asia, 2015 ; European Schoolnet, 2015 ). This effort has made coding a new focus of instructional processes starting from early childhood (Bers, 2018a , 2018b; Barron et al., 2011 ; Bers, 2018; CSTA, 2020 ; Grover & Pea, 2013 ; ISTE, 2019 ; NAEYC, 2012 ; US Department of Education, 2010 ; K-12 CSframework, https://k12cs.org/ ).

In recent years, the widespread use of innovative coding platforms, especially screenless programmable robots, has made it possible to integrate coding into early childhood education (Su et al., 2023 ), but classroom applications have not gained momentum. However, Macrides et al. ( 2022 ) and Papadakis et al. ( 2016 ) revealed that these studies were primarily aimed at supporting coding and IS skills. Popat and Starkey ( 2019 ) stated that the revival of coding in the school curriculum promises to prepare students for the future beyond just learning to code. In their review, Popat and Starkey ( 2019 ) found that various other educational outcomes, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, social skills, self-management, and academic skills, can also be learned through teaching coding.

2.3 Effects on cognitive development

There is still a limited understanding of the effects of learning to code on the cognitive development of young children. Although more studies are needed in this area (Relkin et al., 2021 ), studies prove the positive effects of coding on children’s cognitive attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Bers et al., 2014 ; Çiftci & Bildiren, 2020 ; Sullivan & Bers, 2016 ). Coding contributes to developing these skills involving analysis, problem-solving, concept development, transforming problems into specific algorithms and programming languages (García- Peñalvo et al., 2016 ), and spatial reasoning and logic (NAEYC, 2012 ). García- Peñalvo et al. (2016) argued that since children develop their thinking skills through language, learning to use a programming language involving logical sequencing, abstraction, and problem-solving also supports their analytical thinking skills. In a rapidly changing digital society, coding is thought to be useful for children to develop computational thinking skills (Bers et al., 2014 ; Chou, 2020 ), mathematical thinking (Goldenberg & Carter, 2021 ), problem-solving, critical thinking, and higher order thinking (Ackermann, 2001 ; Bers et al., 2002 ; Bers, 2010 ; Bers & Horn, 2010 ; Clements & Gullo, 1984 ; Clements & Meredith, 1993 ; Kazakoff & Bers, 2012 ; Lee et al., 2013 ; Popat & Starkey, 2019 ; Portelance et al., 2016 ; Strawhacker et al., 2015 ).

Coding helps develop cognitive abilities such as systematic thinking, problem-solving, relationships between events, and creative thinking (Fesakis & Serafeim, 2009 ). For this reason, studies are showing that coding practices contribute significantly to children’s cognitive development (Grover & Pea, 2013 ; Kazakoff & Bers, 2012 ; Kazakoff et al., 2013 ; Papadakis et al., 2016 ). Recent studies on this subject have examined cognitive development (Flannery et al., 2013), sequencing skills (Caballero-Gonzalez et al., 2019; Kazakoff et al., 2013 ; Kazakoff & Bers, 2014 ), problem-solving skills (Akyol-Altun, 2018 ; Bers et al., 2014 ; Fessakis et al., 2013 ; Koç, 2019; Saxena et al., 2020 ), executive functions (Di Lieto et al., 2017 ), creativity (Flannery & Bers, 2013; Resnick, 2006 ; Siper-Kabadayı, 2019 ; Sullivan & Bers, 2017, 2019 ; Wang et al., 2011 ), and computational thinking (Batı, 2022; Bers et al., 2014 ; Bers et al., 2019 ; Caballero-Gonzalez et al., 2019; Kalogiannakis & Papadakis, 2017 ; Kazakoff et al., 2013 ; Papadakis et al., 2016 ), and visuospatial skills (Bers et al., 2014 ; Flannery et al., 2013).

2.4 Effect on social-emotional development

Bers ( 2020 ), who sees coding as another language and a new literacy and presents its general framework, refers to coding as “expressive symbolic systems” and “computational thinking tools.” However, she emphasizes that focusing only on information processing ignores the symbolic language aspect of coding, an expressive tool and that a language can be a language when it has a social and a mental side. Moreover, she emphasizes that coding as literacy should include not only thinking like a natural language but also expression and communication or social interaction, which involves doing, creating, and bringing into being. Bers ( 2008 ) states that coding, like writing, is a tool for human expression and emphasizes that in this process, children seek new ways of thinking and expressing new ideas and develop new thinking, feeling, and communication skills through this impressive process.

Coding provides the necessary motivation for children to learn programming in more detail and supports their emotional aspects by enabling them to transform ideas into products (Heikkilä, 2020 ; Toh et al., 2016 ). Machines have become a part of our lives, and we communicate with them just as we do with other individuals. For this reason, García- Peñalvo et al. (2016) stated that coding enables children to collaborate better with machines.

Fox and Farmer ( 2011 ) state that children not only manipulate objects and learn rules while creating concrete products through coding but also write codes, build artifacts in virtual environments, and review, share, and revise them. For this reason, it is emphasized that coding activities allow students to cooperate with their peers and provide highly sustainable participation in problem-solving and reasoning (Fox & Farmer, 2011 ). Studies have found that computers can act as a catalyst for social interaction in early childhood education classrooms (Clements, 1999 ) and that children have twice as much social interaction in front of computers as in other activities (Svensson, 2000 ) and speak twice as many words as in non-technology-related activities (New & Cochran, 2007 ). Coding education, whether provided through block-based applications or robotic tools and activities, can improve children’s peer collaboration, communication, and social relations (Bers et al., 2019 ; Lee et al., 2013 , 2017 ; Sullivan & Bers, 2018 ; Wartella & Jennings, 2000 ), social development and socially oriented development (Bers, 2012 ; Caballero-Gonzalez et al., 2019; Critten et al., 2022 ; Fessakis et al., 2013 ; Flannery et al., 2013; Pugnali et al., 2017 ; Strawhacker & Bers, 2015 ) and self-regulation skills (Kazakoff, 2014 ).

The findings of this study provide evidence that coding contributes to some children’s developmental areas. In addition, the opinions and perceptions of the participants regarding coding are also seen as a factor that will contribute to the field. The views of children who receive coding education and teachers who work with children on the effects of coding on development are considered necessary to guide the studies conducted in this field and the practices and curricula to be developed.

2.5 Review studies on coding

Many systematic analysis studies have been conducted on coding at the K-12 level. Lye and Koh ( 2014 ), who conducted one of these studies, revealed that empirical studies on early childhood are lacking. However, since Lye and Koh ( 2014 ) drew attention to the deficiency in the field of early childhood, it is seen that studies in this field have increased rapidly. With this increase, the studies conducted in this field have started to be analyzed. There are a limited number of review studies conducted for preschool children. Papadakis et al. ( 2016 ) present a literature review including 18 studies on how the ScratchJr application affects children’s CT, coding, and general literacy skills in preschool. The study emphasized that ScratchJr seems to be a helpful application that positively affects children’s IT and coding skills. Popat and Starkey ( 2019 ) included 11 studies in their review study to analyze the educational outcomes of children learning coding at school. Of these studies, only one was on the problem-solving skills of 5-6-year-old children. Other studies are primarily studies for primary school children. Popat and Starkey ( 2019 ) stated that the studies show that students can learn coding and that they can learn several other educational outcomes (such as mathematical problem-solving, critical thinking, social skills, self-management, and academic skills) through coding instruction.

Sulistyaningtyas et al. ( 2021 , September) reviewed 9 studies on coding for early childhood children between 2015 and 2020. This review includes two main objectives: coding practices in early childhood and the impact of coding on early childhood development. In the study, unplugged and plugged activities were used in early childhood, and Children’s planning and inhibition skills in communication, collaboration, and creativity were stated as learning outcomes. Macrides et al. ( 2022 ) analyzed the studies on programming in early childhood education. This review study analyzed 34 studies for children aged 3–8 years. Of these studies, 5 were conducted with children over 6. These findings show that there has been a significant increase in studies on preschool children in recent years. The intervention programs examined in these studies primarily focus on teaching coding (11 studies) and IT skills (11 studies), with limited attention given to supporting children’s overall development. Among the studies targeting developmental areas, the emphasis is mainly on cognitive aspects, particularly problem-solving and creativity. Zurnacı and Turan ( 2022 ) reported that, in Turkey, there were 30 studies on preschool coding, consisting of 11 qualitative, 11 quantitative, and 4 mixed-methods studies. These studies predominantly address coding and IT skills but also address academic, cognitive, language, and social skills.

Su et al. ( 2023 ) reviewed 20 studies on early childhood coding curricula published in 2012–2021. In this study, educational practices for children were examined in depth. In this review, how the curricula in educational practices for children are designed, which coding platforms or applications are used, what pedagogical approaches are used, research methods, and findings obtained from these studies were examined in depth. In recent years, educational approaches to support preschool children’s coding skills have increased, and robotics, Web 2.0 tools, and web-based applications have been developed to support children’s coding skills. These studies have revealed that children can acquire coding skills early on. However, it is essential to examine how coding skills contribute to children’s other developmental areas and to develop research and applications in this field. This review of coding has contributed significantly to the current state of the art in this field, as well as the needs and future research. Resnick and Rusk ( 2020 ) note that over the past decade, they have seen that it is possible to extend coding experiences to millions of children worldwide. At the same time, they emphasize that there are extraordinary challenges, that coding has been introduced in ways that undermine its potential and promise in many places, and that educational strategies and pedagogies to introduce coding must be carefully discussed. For this reason, in addition to the quantitative data on coding, it is thought that knowing how teachers and children interpret coding can shed light on similar future studies. For this reason, this study aims to shed light on future studies by comprehensively examining qualitative studies on preschool children and the effects of coding on children’s developmental areas in these studies.

3 Methodology

3.1 research model.

This research endeavors to ascertain the impact of coding instruction on preschool-aged children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development. The primary objective of this investigation is to undertake a systematic analysis of qualitative primary data, discerning recurring themes and topics elucidating the effects of coding education on children’s development. This analytical process culminates in synthesizing these identified themes and topics, ultimately facilitating the derivation of comprehensive conclusions. In the context of this research, the meta-thematic analysis approach is recurrently utilized to meticulously dissect the primary qualitative data (Thomas & Harden, 2008 ). Specifically, this study adopts a meta-thematic framework to synthesize qualitative studies concerning preschool children and their engagement with coding education. Within the purview of the meta-thematic analysis, three overarching themes are meticulously examined:

Theme 1: “What are the cognitive ramifications of incorporating coding education in preschool settings?”

Theme 2: “What are the socio-emotional implications stemming from integrating coding education in preschool contexts?”

Theme 3: “ What are the comparisons of theses data and research articles data ?”

These themes provide the structural foundation for the comprehensive investigation into the multifaceted impacts of coding education on preschool-aged children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development.

3.2 Studies included in the study

In this study, studies on coding education at the preschool education level were investigated within the scope of meta-thematic analysis. The criteria for the inclusion of the study in the meta-thematic analysis were determined as follows:

Being at the level of preschool education (0–6 years),

Aiming to measure the effects and limitations of coding education on students’ cognitive, emotional, and social context,

Scientifically qualified and sufficient,

Including direct participant views,

Being an experimental study,

Being a thesis or article,

The studies were selected according to these criteria.

In the study, seven databases, including “Science Direct-SD,” “Taylor and Francis-TF,” “Higher Education Council Thesis Center (YokTez-YT),” “Dergipark,” “ProQuest-PQ,” ERIC-E,” and “Web of Science-WOS,” were utilized. The databases were searched with the keywords “preschool coding,” “early childhood coding,” “computer-free coding,” “preschool programming,” and “early childhood programming.”

The articles and theses searched in the database were selected based on the above criteria. At the end of this study, 942 studies had been reached. Based on the criteria at the end of the evaluation, 13 articles were included in the meta-thematic analysis. The number of included and excluded studies in the meta-thematic analysis is presented in Fig. 1 using the PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al., 2009 ).

Flow diagram of the studies included in the meta-thematic analysis

According to the criteria presented in the PRISMA flow diagram in Fig. 1 and 942 studies examining the research topic were reached. Based on the evaluation according to the research criteria, some studies were eliminated by not being included in the meta-thematic analysis. Two of the studies scanned in the databases were eliminated due to duplication. Another 653 studies were eliminated from the remaining studies due to irrelevant topics. Of the remaining 287 studies, 182 studies were eliminated because they were not suitable for the primary purpose as a result of abstract screening. Of the remaining 105 studies, 88 were eliminated due to qualitative evaluation. Of these studies, 62 were eliminated because there was no qualitative interview data, and 26 were eliminated because there was no experimental study. Among the remaining 17 studies, as a result of the research conducted at the level of the findings, it was determined that the data of four studies needed to be sufficient and appropriate in terms of content and were eliminated. Thus, 13 studies were reached as a result of the screening. This study is limited to 13 studies accessed during the meta-thematic analysis process and included in the analysis. Although this situation is considered a limitation of the study, it follows the nature of meta-thematic studies (Batdı, 2017 , 2019 ).

The reasons for not including the studies that were not included in the meta-thematic analysis are shown in Table 1 . Accordingly, 942 studies were collected from 7 databases, and 929 were eliminated for the reasons shown in Table 1 . 13 studies were included in the meta-thematic analysis.

General information on the articles and the theses used in this study is given in Table 2 below.

The provided sources offer a diverse range of perspectives and insights on the integration of coding into education. Despite this diversity, the common thread across all sources is their emphasis on the importance and benefits of integrating coding into educational settings. They highlight how this integration can address various challenges educators face, such as teaching abstract concepts, fostering creativity, and enhancing problem-solving skills among students. Moreover, the sources underscore the significance of providing resources and support for educators to incorporate coding into their teaching practices effectively. However, differences emerge in the themes explored and the depth of analysis offered. For instance, some sources delve into the practical challenges educators face in implementing coding activities (E1, SD), while others focus on the pedagogical benefits and implications of such integration (WOS, PQ). Overall, while the sources vary in their approach and emphasis, they collectively advocate for integrating coding as a valuable tool for enhancing education and preparing students for the demands of the digital age.

The codes obtained in the meta-thematic analysis related to coding education in preschool were grouped under three themes. In this context, the titles “Contributions of coding education in preschool to the cognitive domain,” “Contributions of coding education in preschool to a social-emotional domain,” and “Comparision of theses data and research articles data” were accepted as themes.

In the current study, the theme created by the researcher related to the research topic and the codes that make up the theme were discussed separately and presented with the findings. At the same time, in interpreting the findings, the sources from which the codes were referenced were directly quoted and supported by the presentation of the themes and codes.

4.1 Contributions of coding education in preschool to the cognitive domain

In the meta-thematic analysis, the sub-problem of the research, “Contributions of coding education in preschool to the cognitive domain,” was taken as a theme. Participant opinions were analyzed in the studies, and codes were created regarding their statements. Codes were created for features such as coding education in preschool, developing students’ intelligence, developing cognitive skills, and reinforcing what is learned.

Contributions of coding education in preschool to the cognitive domain

As a result of the meta-thematic analysis, three sub-categories and ten codes were reached under the theme “Contributions of Coding Education in Preschool to Cognitive Domain.” These codes are shown in Fig. 2 ; Table 3 with the frequency and percentage values. Two experts (academicians) from the field of educational sciences worked on the codes and grouped them into three sub-themes.

The skills development sub-category covers the skills that students are expected to develop, especially those widely referred to as 21st-century skills. During the coding process, it was observed that students especially developed these skills. The codes in the learning enhancement sub-category cover the skills that need to be acquired in daily life and learning towards the permanent learning process. In this case, it is an essential skill that emerges in the final learning process. Interdisciplinary contribution is an important dimension in education that is becoming increasingly important today. In this study, it emerged as a sub-dimension, albeit a very small one.

Table 3 shows that the codes are grouped around three sub-categories. Among these sub-categories, skills development has the highest rate, with 75.3%. Learning enhancement is the sub-category with the second highest rate of 23.6%. Interdisciplinary contribution is the sub-category with the lowest rate of 1.1%. In this context, it can be said that coding education develops skills in preschool children in general.

These codes belong to the skills development sub-category. The contribution of coding education in the cognitive dimension was to develop problem-solving skills with 26.4% and directing (commanding) skills with 24.7%. This skill can also be expressed as a computational thinking skill. This code emerged from the statements about students giving commands to the robot or computer and directing it. In the thesis coded YT3-p.73, the statement “ Then it would be like this. First, I program it to turn silently, then play a birthday song, and then turn it off .” “ It is to teach ways to tell tools such as computers and phones what to do. ” In the article coded E3-p.10, the statement “ I need to stick the arrows in the right direction and take this character to dinner by following the path… ” can be shown as an example.

The code for problem-solving skills was found 47 times in the studies. Some of the statements referenced in this code are “ I believe that it will contribute to the development of children’s abilities in areas such as thinking skills, logic development, problem-solving, etc .” in the article coded E2- p.753. In the thesis coded YT2-p.55, the statement “ It is an approach that provides problem-solving, creativity and analytical thinking skills. ” can be given as examples.

For the code related to the development of creativity: in the thesis coded YT6-p.117, the statement “ They did not have difficulty in applying the new rule as before, they created new rules themselves and turned this situation into a new game ” in the thesis coded YT1-p.68, the statement “ We adjust those things when we press it, it does the coding we want, it does the coding according to our imagination .” and in the article coded PQ-p.304, the statement “ It develops creative thinking and improves cooperative learning. It was collaborative training because we carried out the activities in two groups.”

These codes serve as crucial indicators of the impact of coding education on cognitive dimensions, showcasing its role in enhancing problem-solving skills, directing abilities (such as computational thinking), and fostering creativity among students. They are supported by specific statements and instances extracted from the qualitative research studies, demonstrating real-world applications and observations.

These codes belong to the learning enhancement sub-category. The references related to the code of transferring to daily life: in the thesis coded YT4-s.119, the statement “ There were touches about life-related to the general program. In other words, you always tried to associate it with life rather than sitting down and doing fashion mode robotics training…” and in the thesis coded YT3-p.76, the statement “ They reach places that we cannot reach… For example, lifting large items… ” can be given as examples.

Regarding the effective learning code: In the article coded E1-p.63, the statement “ Taking some concepts through disconnected activities that they already had some experience with and using them to apply them with technology helped them respond quickly and understand better .” can be given as an example.

Codes related to permanent learning: In the thesis coded YT6-p.115, statements “ They did not forget the order of events in the story. Each child made small changes in the story for his/her next friend, and the other child had no difficulty remembering or practicing .” Regarding the code of facilitating learning: In the thesis coded YT4- p.120, the statement “…They had much difficulty in the activities we did about graphics. At the end of the training process, they were able to do such activities much more easily. ” can be given as an example. Regarding the statement in which the code for being comprehensive was revealed: In the article PT4- p.119, the statement “ The activities in the implemented education program were very comprehensive and numerous. Turkish language, art, science, mathematics, drama, play, etc. activities in the preschool program were all included, . .” can be given as an example.

These codes collectively illustrate how coding education transcends theoretical learning, promoting practical application in daily life, improving learning efficacy, supporting long-term knowledge retention, enhancing skill mastery, and contributing to a comprehensive educational experience across different subject areas.

These codes belong to the interdisciplinary contribution sub-category. For the code of contributing to different disciplines: in the article coded PQ-p.311, the statement “ For example, I can use it in animals, colors, shapes, internal organs, and mathematics activities. ” can be given as an example. Regarding the code for the development of intelligence and manual skills: in the article coded E2-p.755, the statement “ I think it was beneficial for the development of intelligence. Being careful helped a lot in the development of manual skills. I also believe using the materials will improve the sensory organs .” can be shown as an example.

These codes emphasize the broad spectrum of benefits associated with coding education. They show how coding contributes to diverse subject areas and is pivotal in enhancing cognitive abilities, fostering manual dexterity, and potentially improving sensory perception through materials and hands-on experiences.

4.2 Contributions of coding education in preschool to the social-emotional domain

In the meta-thematic analysis, the sub-problem of the study, “ Contributions of coding education in preschool to the social-emotional domain ,” was taken as a theme. The participants’ opinions in the articles and theses obtained from the research were examined, and codes were created regarding their statements. Codes such as motivating, fun, and cooperative learning were created for coding education in preschool. As a result of the meta-thematic analysis, eight codes were found under the theme “Contributions of coding education in preschool to a social-emotional domain.” These codes are given in Fig. 3 . In addition, Table 4 below shows the frequency and percentage values of the codes.

Contributions of coding education in preschool to the social-emotional domain”

As a result of the meta-thematic analysis, two sub-categories and eight codes were reached under the theme “Contributions of Coding Education in Preschool to Social-Emotional Domain.” These codes are shown in Fig. 3 ; Table 4 with the frequency and percentage values. Two experts (academicians) from the field of educational sciences worked on the codes and grouped them into two sub-themes.

These sub-categories encompass crucial facets of comprehensive growth. Social and behavioral development entails the acquisition of proficiencies indispensable for efficacious engagement, collaboration, and adjustment in diverse social contexts. Personal development and empowerment concentrate on individual advancement, nurturing resilience, self-assurance, and self-governance to empower individuals to navigate life with certitude. In unison, these categories epitomize manifold dimensions of human maturation and skill enhancement.

Table 4 shows that the codes are grouped around two sub-categories. Social and behavioral development has the highest rate among these sub-categories, with 76.5%. Personal development and empowerment is the sub-category with the second highest rate of 23.5%. In this context, it can be said that coding education develops social-emotional aspects in preschool children in general.

These codes belong to the social and behavioral development sub-category. The code with the highest percentage value was the code of being fun, with 25.9%. Codes related to being fun: In the thesis coded YT6-p.118, the statement “ They had much fun in the game of reaching the nest through obstacles. They put the obstacles in different places and continued to play. ” and in the article coded PQ-p.309, the statement “ It should be included in the school curriculum. It provides cognitive thinking as it both entertains and provides problem-solving skills and even cooperation… ” can be given as an example.

The codes related to supporting cooperative learning and communication can be referenced as follows: “ In the field of social-emotional development, the fact that children look for solutions together, communicate and help each other during programming activities supports the development of collaborative attitude in children .” in the thesis coded YT2- p.64 and “… The fact that group activities were given much space and the groups were mixed strengthened their communication .” the thesis coded YT4- p.120 can be given as examples. Regarding the curiosity code: In the thesis coded YT5- p.78, the statement “ I want to place the cubes immediately for my character to move. ” can be exemplified.

These codes underscore how coding endeavors impart technical proficiencies and yield considerable benefits towards cultivating intangible skills, such as collaboration, proficient communication, and inherent drive and intellectual inquisitiveness, among students.

These codes belong to the personal development and empowerment sub-category. In the present study, 9.9% was found for the code of increasing motivation. The statement “ They were also eager to put the blocks together to create different dances .” In the articles WOS- p.341 and SD- p.142, the statement “… KIBO was an extraordinary source of motivation for our students” can be cited as examples. About the code related to gaining responsibility: In the article SD- p.141, the statement “…Progress was made in supporting values such as respect for a partner and their ideas, the ability to wait, the development of responsibility and autonomy, and the care of materials… ”. Regarding the code for increasing self-confidence: In the article PT2- p.64, the statement “… Learning new things makes children feel good and increases their self-confidence. They express that they are happy after the activity. ” can be given as an example. Referring to the codes related to providing focus: In the article coded E2- p.754, the statement “ The application contributed to the development of children in areas such as cooperation, sharing, focusing and attention… ” can be exemplified.

These codes highlight how coding education transcends technical skills, fostering personal growth by enhancing motivation, instilling a sense of responsibility, boosting self-confidence, and refining essential behavioral attributes like focus and attention.

4.3 Comparision of theses data and research articles data

When the studies are classified as theses and articles and analyzed in terms of similarities and differences, similarities and differences in Target Age Group, Learning Focus, Main Tools, Activities, Benefits, Challenges, Educational Impact, and Teacher Involvement are given in the table in detail (Table 5 ).

The data of research articles delves into the educational application of robotics and coding activities, primarily aimed at young children in preschool and early elementary school. The emphasis is on hands-on learning experiences integrating technology tools such as KIBO and Bee-Bot into the classroom environment. These tools are designed to introduce children to foundational concepts of programming and computational thinking playfully and interactively.

One of the key observations from the research articles’ data is the positive impact of these activities on various aspects of child development. Through engaging with robotics and coding, students demonstrate enhanced teamwork by collaborating with peers to solve problems and complete tasks. The iterative nature of these activities encourages perseverance and determination as students persist in their efforts to achieve success, boosting their confidence along the way.

Teachers and researchers also note the benefits of using structured materials, such as wooden blocks, in conjunction with technology tools. These materials provide tangible, hands-on experiences that help students develop spatial reasoning, problem-solving, and fine motor skills. Moreover, using concrete materials ensures that learning activities are accessible and engaging for all students, regardless of their prior experience or background knowledge.

However, integrating robotics and coding into the curriculum presents its own set of challenges. Educators highlight the importance of starting with unplugged, concrete activities to build foundational understanding before introducing technology-based tools. They also stress the need for adequate teacher training and resources to support effective implementation, particularly in designing developmentally appropriate activities and scaffolding learning experiences to meet the diverse needs of students.

In summary, the data from the research articles underscores the potential of robotics and coding activities to foster critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity among young learners. By providing hands-on experiences with technology tools, educators can help students develop essential skills for success in the digital age while promoting a positive attitude towards learning and exploration. However, achieving these goals requires careful planning, ongoing support, and a commitment to inclusive and equitable education for all students.

Theses data centers around educational activities promoting active participation, problem-solving skills, and curriculum integration. Teachers engage students in diverse activities that target various learning outcomes, including motor skills and cognitive development. These activities are adaptable for different age groups and subjects, allowing for flexibility in implementation.

Teachers reflect on the effectiveness of these activities, considering factors such as student engagement, comprehension, and skill acquisition. While the specific nature of the activities is not detailed, they likely involve hands-on experiences, group collaboration, and exploration of different concepts.

Overall, theses’ data highlight the importance of engaging students in interactive and multidimensional learning experiences that cater to their developmental needs and enhance their understanding of various subjects.

5 Discussion

The fact that computer science is seen as a skill that all individuals should acquire in the early years has increased interest in coding. In addition, innovative coding platforms such as screenless programmable robotics, which have increased in importance in recent years to support 21st-century skills and STEM skills, have increasingly entered children’s early years (Macrides et al., 2022 ). This growing interest in the necessity of coding has increased the efforts of countries to integrate coding into their educational curricula. This increase has also accelerated research in this field. The view that coding is not only about teaching computer science concepts to children but also about skills and literacy has started to gain importance. The view that coding is a skill that provides children with a new perspective, way of thinking, and behavior has been emphasized. However, Popat and Starkey ( 2019 ) and Su et al. ( 2023 ) emphasize that recent studies on coding in early childhood have mainly focused on children’s coding or computational thinking. Su et al. ( 2023 ) pointed out that there are limited studies on the effects of coding on development and that studies should be conducted in this field. Therefore, in this study, qualitative studies on coding were examined to reveal the effects of coding on development. This study has analyzed qualitative studies, considering that they will contribute significantly to this emerging field by examining the work done in this area, what needs to be done in the future, and what kinds of gaps exist.

The meta-thematic analysis aimed to answer the primary research question: “What are the contributions of coding in early childhood education to the cognitive domain?” The findings indicate opinions that coding contributes to directive (command-giving) skills, problem-solving abilities, and fostering creativity. Cognitive-weighted learning outcomes such as transferring knowledge to daily life, effective and lasting learning, and facilitating learning have been highlighted, emphasizing their contributions to various disciplines. Quantitative studies have demonstrated that coding affects sequencing (Kazakoff & Bers, 2012 ; Kazakoff et al., 2013 ; Muñoz-Repiso & Caballero-González, 2019), problem-solving (Akyol-Altun, 2018 ; Bers et al., 2014 ; Çiftci & Bildiren, 2020 ; Fessakis et al., 2013 ), and executive functions (Di Lieto et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, coding and robotics education have significantly supported early mathematical reasoning skills in children (Blanchard et al., 2010 ; Caballero-Gonzalez et al., 2019; Di Lieto et al., 2017 ; Flannery et al., 2013; Kazakoff et al., 2013 ). Canbeldek and Işıkoğlu (2023) observed that coding and robotics education programs positively affected preschool children’s cognitive development, language skills, and creativity. Mısırlı and Komis (2014) found that their implemented program supported the development of mathematical concepts such as sequencing and repetition, algorithmic thinking, measurement, and spatial orientation in children.

Popat and Starkey ( 2019 ) highlighted those researchers mentioned that the inclusion of coding in school curricula provides a range of learning outcomes applicable beyond computer science. Meanwhile, Su et al. ( 2023 ) reviewed studies on coding in early childhood and emphasized that it is a new field focusing on imparting coding skills. The authors suggested evaluating the effects of coding curriculum on holistic learning outcomes in early childhood, such as school readiness skills (e.g., literacy, numeracy, spatial, and social skills). They emphasized the need to assess more critical child developmental outcomes like language, self-regulation, and metacognitive skills to understand the impact of coding curriculum. Zurnacı and Turan ( 2022 ) reviewed studies on coding in preschool education in Turkey, revealing that the most addressed topic was cognitive skills such as problem-solving abilities (in 7 studies), attention, sequencing, and analysis. The findings of this study also demonstrate an emphasis on the limited skills of cognitive development as a multidimensional process related to coding.

The study sought to address the question of “What are the contributions of using coding in early childhood education to the socio-emotional domain?” as the second sub-problem of the research. The study’s findings indicated that coding contributes to the socio-emotional domain by enhancing enjoyment, increasing motivation, fostering collaborative learning, improving communication skills, promoting personal development, empowering through increased motivation for responsibility, enhancing self-confidence, and facilitating focus. Bers ( 2008 , 2012 ), who studies coding in early childhood, states that children should be motivated while using technology and that working in a social and collaborative environment should support social and emotional skills along with these skills. Based on the positive youth development approach, he developed the PTG approach in programs and applications to be developed for children and applied this approach to his applications. In unplugged and block-based applications, he has drawn the framework of learning environments where children can be motivated while coding and develop their social skills by working collaboratively. He presented a road map to change the perspectives that technology negatively affects children’s social and emotional development and to support these areas of development.

Similar studies, like the results of this study, also indicate that coding supports socio-emotional development. Applications focused on coding demonstrate support for children’s peer collaboration, communication, and social relationships (Bers et al., 2019 ; Caballero-Gonzalez et al., 2019; Critten et al., 2022 ; Fessakis et al., 2013 ; Flannery et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013 ; Sullivan & Bers, 2016 ; Pugnali et al., 2017 ). Studies have shown that coding supports children’s self-regulation skills (Canbeldek and Işıkoğlu, 2023; Di Lieto et al., 2017 ; Kazakoff, 2014 ). Heikkilä ( 2020 ) observed that robotics applications supporting coding generated significant interest in children, increased their patience and enthusiasm, and reduced gender-biased perspectives.

The study sought to address the question of “What are the comparisons of theses data and research articles data?” as the third sub-problem of the research. Theses data, which focus on LEGO-based education, primarily target elementary and middle school students, offering activities that foster creativity, problem-solving, and engineering skills. Students build structures, mechanisms, and robots using LEGO bricks, motors, and sensors. This approach benefits learners by developing their spatial reasoning and engineering abilities, although it can present challenges in the complexity of designs and motor programming. Teachers in this context typically serve as facilitators, guiding students through exploration and experimentation.

In contrast, the data of research articles revolves around robotics and coding education for preschool and early elementary school students. It emphasizes computational thinking, coding skills, and teamwork, often using tools like KIBO and Bee-Bot. Students participate in sequencing, programming, and interactive storytelling, which promote collaboration, critical thinking, and fine motor skills. However, integrating technology and ensuring age-appropriateness can be significant challenges for educators in this domain. Teachers play a more active role in designing activities and scaffolding learning experiences to suit the developmental needs of young learners.

While both topics aim to enhance students’ learning experiences and skills development, their target age groups, learning focuses, main tools, and teacher involvement differ. LEGO-based education leans towards older students and emphasizes hands-on building and engineering, while robotics and coding education cater to younger learners and prioritize computational thinking and programming skills. Despite these variances, both approaches contribute to fostering creativity, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills essential for success in the 21st century.

Due to the nature of meta-thematic research (Batdı, 2019 ), the data used in this study consisted only of articles and theses that presented experimental studies and direct participant views. Therefore, the comparison of articles and thesis studies was limited to these articles. A more detailed comparison is recommended to contribute to the field.

Reviews conducted on coding in early childhood (Lye & Koh, 2014 ; Macrides et al., 2022 ; Papadakis et al., 2016 ; Su et al., 2023 ) have revealed significant findings. These studies have indicated that intervention programs primarily focus on children’s coding and computational thinking skills, with a limited number examining their impact on developmental domains. The present study, however, has demonstrated an understanding of coding’s influence on cognitive and socio-emotional development. Furthermore, a significant finding of this study indicates a focus on a few foundational skills within cognitive and socio-emotional development through coding.

Previous review studies have contributed significantly to coding practices, approaches, methods, techniques, materials, and assessments used in these interventions. They have also outlined a framework for studies centered around coding. Additionally, it is believed that identifying views, thoughts, and trends in the field will provide substantial contributions from practitioners or researchers regarding their perspectives on coding, ultimately strengthening and enhancing studies.

This study suggests a trend indicating that coding contributes to cognitive and socio-emotional domains. However, coding is proposed to support various cognitive and socio-emotional development aspects. It is essential to empirically validate and confirm these views concerning the impacts of coding on development through empirical studies.

Data availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What is the difference. Future of Learning Group Publication , 5 (3), 438.

Google Scholar

Akyol-Altun, C. (2018). Okul öncesi öğretim programına algoritma ve kodlama eğitimi entegrasyonunun öğrencilerin problem çözme becerisine etkisi (Master’s thesis), Ankara University, Ankara.

Arabacıoğlu, T., Bülbül, H. İ., & Filiz, A. (2007). Bilgisayar programlama öğretiminde yeni bir yaklaşım. Akademik Bilişim , 193–197.

Barendsen, E., & Stoker, I. (2013, November). Computational thinking in CS teaching materials: A pilot study. In Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 199–200). https://doi.org/10.1145/2526968.2526995 .

Barron, B., Cayton-Hodges, G., Bofferding, L., Copple, C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Levine, M. H. (2011). Take a giant step: A blueprint for teaching young children in a digital age . Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Batdı, V. (2017). The effect of multiple intelligences on academic achievement: A meta-analytic and thematic study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice , 17 (6), 2057–2092.

Batdı, V. (2019). Meta tematik analiz örnek uygulamalar . Anı Yayıncılık.

Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development , 59 (6), 765–782.

Article Google Scholar

Bers, M. U. (2008). Civic identities, online technologies: From designing civics curriculum to supporting civic experiences . MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative.

Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice , 12 (2), n2.

Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground . OUP USA.

Bers, M. U. (2018a). Coding and computational thinking in early childhood: The impact of ScratchJr in Europe. European Journal of STEM Education , 3 (3), 8.

Bers, M. U. (2019). Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education , 6 (4), 499–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00147-3 .

Bers, M. U. (2020). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom . Routledge.

Bers, M. U. (2018b, April). Coding, playgrounds, and literacy in early childhood education: The development of KIBO robotics and ScratchJr. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2094–2102). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363498 .

Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood. High-tech tots: Childhood in a Digital World , 49 , 49–70.

Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, C., Viera, A., & Schenker, J. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual , 2002 (1), 123–145.

Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education , 72 , 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020 .

Bers, M. U., González-González, C., & Armas–Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education , 138 , 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013 .

Blanchard, S., Freiman, V., & Lirrete-Pitre, N. (2010). Strategies used by elementary schoolchildren solving robotics-based complex tasks: Innovative potential of technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2 (2), 2851–2857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.427 .

Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., & Earp, J. (2018). The Nordic approach to introducing Computational Thinking and programming in compulsory education. Report prepared for the Nordic@ BETT2018 Steering Group , 42 .

Burke, Q., O’Byrne, W. I., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Computational participation: Understanding coding as an extension of literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 59 (4), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.496 .

Caballero-Gonzalez, Y. A., Muñoz-Repiso, A. G. V., & García-Holgado, A. (2019, October). Learning computational thinking and social skills development in young children through problem-solving with educational robotics. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 19–23). https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362874 .

Campbell, C., & Walsh, C. (2017). Introducing the new digital literacy of coding in the early years. Practical Literacy , 22 (3), 10–12.

Canbeldek, M., & Isikoglu, N. (2023). Exploring the effects of productive children: Coding and robotics education program in early childhood education. Education and Information Technologies , 28 (3), 3359–3379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11315-x .

Ching, Y. H., Hsu, Y. C., & Baldwin, S. (2018). Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners. TechTrends , 62 , 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0292-7 .

Chou, P. N. (2020). Using ScratchJr to foster young children’s computational thinking competence: A case study in a third-grade computer class. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 58 (3), 570–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119872908 .

Çiftci, S., & Bildiren, A. (2020). The effect of coding courses on the cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills of preschool children. Computer Science Education , 30 (1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1696169 .

Clements, D. H. (1999). The future of educational computing research: The case of computer programming. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual , 1999 (1), 147–179.

Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology , 76 (6), 1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1051 .

Clements, D. H., & Meredith, J. S. (1993). Research on Logo: Effects and efficacy. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education , 4 (4), 263–290.

Critten, V., Hagon, H., & Messer, D. (2022). Can preschool children learn programming and coding through guided play activities? A case study in computational thinking. Early Childhood Education Journal , 50 (6), 969–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01236-8 .

CSTA, & K-12. (2020). Computer science standards. Computer Science Teachers Association , 12.

Czerkawski, B. (2015, October). Computational thinking in virtual learning environments. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1227–1231). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Demirer, V., & Sak, N. (2016). Programming education and new approaches around the world and in Turkey. Eğitimde Kuram Ve Uygulama , 12 (3), 521–546.

Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dell’Omo, M., & Dario, P. (2017). Educational Robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior , 71 , 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.018 .

Digital News Asia (2015). IDA launches S $1.5 m pilot to roll out tech toys for preschoolers.

European Schoolnet (2015). Programming & coding policies: Where are we at European level? http://www.eun.org/news/detail?articleId=649724

Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with scratch on future teachers’ opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin , 41 (3), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1145/1595496.1562957 .

Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem-solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education , 63 , 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016 .

Flannery, L. P., Silverman, B., Kazakoff, E. R., Bers, M. U., Bontá, P., & Resnick, M. (2013, June). Designing ScratchJr: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485785 .

Fox, R. W., & Farmer, M. E. (2011). The effect of computer programming education on the reasoning skills of high school students. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS) (p. 1). The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp).

Futschek, G. (2006). Algorithmic thinking: the key for understanding computer science. In International conference on informatics in secondary schools-evolution and perspectives (pp. 159–168). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Futschek, G., & Moschitz, J. (2011). Learning algorithmic thinking with tangible objects eases transition to computer programming. In Informatics in Schools. Contributing to 21st Century Education: 5th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives, ISSEP 2011, Bratislava, Slovakia, October 26–29, 2011. Proceedings 5 (pp. 155–164). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

García-Peñalvo, F. J., Rees, A. M., Hughes, J., Jormanainen, I., Toivonen, T., & Vermeersch, J. (2016, November). A survey of resources for introducing coding into schools. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 19–26).

García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, A., & Caballero González, Y. A. (2017). Development of computational thinking and collaborative learning in kindergarten using programmable educational robots: A teacher training experience. https://doi.org/10.1145/3144826.3145353 .

Gibson, J. P. (2012). Teaching graph algorithms to children of all ages. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 34–39). https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325308 .

Goldenberg, E. P., & Carter, C. J. (2021). Programming as a language for young children to express and explore mathematics in school. British Journal of Educational Technology , 52 (3), 969–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13080 .

González, M. R. (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In EDULEARN15 Proceedings (pp. 2436–2444). IATED.

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher , 42 (1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051 .

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School , 19 (1), 19–38.

Heikkilä, M. (2020). What happens when the robot gets eyelashes? Gender perspective on programming in preschool. STEM Education across the Learning Continuum: Early Childhood to Senior Secondary , 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_3 .

Heintz, F., Mannila, L., & Färnqvist, T. (2016). A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science, and computing in K–12 education. Teoksessa 2016 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE).

Hsu, T. C. (2019). A study of the readiness of implementing computational thinking in compulsory education in Taiwan. Computational Thinking Education , 295–314.

Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education , 82 , 263–279.

ISTE (2019). International Society for Technology in Education [Conference presentation]. Philadelphia.

Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming . MIT Press.

Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2017). Pre-service kindergarten teacher’s acceptance of ScratchJr as a tool for learning and teaching computational thinking and Science education.

Kazakoff, E. R. (2014). Cats in Space, Pigs that Race: Does self-regulation play a role when kindergartners learn to code? (Doctoral dissertation, Tufts University).

Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 21 (4), 371–391.

Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 50 (4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.f .

Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal , 41 , 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0554-5 .

Lai, A. F., & Yang, S. M. (2011, September). The learning effect of visualized programming learning on 6 th graders’ problem solving and logical reasoning abilities. In 2011 International Conference on Electrical and Control Engineering (pp. 6940–6944). IEEE.

Lambert, L., & Guiffre, H. (2009). Computer science outreach in an elementary school. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges , 24 (3), 118–124.

Lee, F., & Björklund Larsen, L. (2019). How should we theorize algorithms? Five ideal types in analyzing algorithmic normativity’s. Big Data & Society , 6 (2), 2053951719867349. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719867349 .

Lee, J., & Junoh, J. (2019). Implementing unplugged coding activities in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal , 47 , 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00967-z .

Lee, K. T., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social interaction in kindergarten. Computers in the Schools , 30 (3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.805676 .

Lee, J., Jung, Y., & Park, H. (2017). Gender differences in computational thinking, creativity, and academic interest on elementary SW education. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education , 21 (4), 381–391.

Lin, Y., & Weintrop, D. (2021). The landscape of Block-based programming: Characteristics of block-based environments and how they support the transition to text-based programming. Journal of Computer Languages , 67 , 101075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cola.2021.101075 .

Liu, H. P., Perera, S. M., & Klein, J. W. (2017). Using model-based learning to promote computational thinking education. Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking , 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_10 .

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior , 41 , 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012 .

Macrides, E., Miliou, O., & Angeli, C. (2022). Programming in early childhood education: A systematic review. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , 32 , 100396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100396 .

Mclennan, D. P. (2017). Creating coding stories and games. Teaching Young Children , 10 (3), 18–21.

McLennan, D. P. (2018). Code breaker: Increase creativity, remix assessment, and develop a class of coder ninjas. Journal of Teaching and Learning , 12 (1), 51–52.

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Misirli, A., & Komis, V. (2014). Robotics and programming concepts in early Childhood Education: A conceptual framework for designing educational scenarios. Research on e-learning and ICT in education: Technological, pedagogical and instructional perspectives (pp. 99–118). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6501-0_8 .

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group*. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine , 151 (4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 .

Monteiro, A. F., Miranda-Pinto, M., & Osório, A. J. (2021). Coding as literacy in preschool: A case study. Education Sciences , 11 (5), 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050198 .

Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Román-González, M. (2015). Dr. Scratch: análisis automático de proyectos Scratch para evaluar y fomentar el pensamiento computacional. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED) , (46).

Muñoz-Repiso, A. G. V., & González, Y. A. C. (2019). Robótica para desarrollar El pensamiento computacional en Educación Infantil. Comunicar: Revista Científica Iberoamericana De Comunicación Y Educación , 59 , 63–72.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (DRAFT). Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/content/technology-and-young-children .

New, R. S., & Cochran, M. (Eds.). (2007). Early childhood education: An international encyclopedia (Vol. 4). Greenwood Publishing Group.

Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization , 10 (3), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2016.077867 .

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms Children . Computers and powerful ideas.

Papert, S. (2000). What is the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal , 39 (3.4), 720–729.

Papert, S. (2005). Teaching children thinking. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education , 5 (3), 353–365.

Pila, S., Aladé, F., Sheehan, K. J., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. A. (2019). Learning to code via tablet applications: An evaluation of daisy the Dinosaur and Kodable as learning tools for young children. Computers & Education , 128 , 52–62.

Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education , 128 , 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.005 .

Portelance, D. J., Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Constructing the ScratchJr programming language in the early childhood classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 26 , 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9325-0 .

Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education Innovations in Practice , 16 , 171.

Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Computers & Education , 169 , 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222 .

Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society. Play learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth, 192–208.

Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2020). Coding at a crossroads. Communications of the ACM , 63 (11), 120–127.

Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for a digital age . Or Books.

Saxena, A., Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Wong, G. K. W. (2020). Designing unplugged and plugged activities to cultivate computational thinking: An exploratory study in early childhood education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 29 (1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00478-w .

Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies , 18 (2), 351–380.

Siper-Kabadayı, G. (2019). The effects of robotic activities on pre-school children’s creative thinking skills. (Master thesis). Hacettepe Unıversity, Ankara.

Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). I want my robot to look for food: Comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 25 , 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9287-7 .

Strawhacker, A., Portelance, D., Lee, M., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Designing tools for developing minds: the role of child development in educational technology. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children.

Su, J., Yang, W., & Li, H. (2023). A scoping review of studies on coding curriculum in early childhood: Investigating its design, implementation, and evaluation. Journal of Research in Childhood Education , 37 (2), 341–361.

Sulistyaningtyas, R. E., Yuliantoro, P., Astiyani, D., & Nugraheni, C. (2021, September). A Literature Review of Coding for Early Childhood In Proceedings of the 2nd Borobudur International Symposium on Humanities and Social Sciences, BIS-HSS 2020, November 18 2020, Magelang, Central Java, Indonesia.

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 26 , 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5 .

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 28 , 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9397-0 .

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Computer science education in early childhood: The case of ScratchJr. Journal of Information Technology Education Innovations in Practice , 18 , 113.

Sullivan, A. A., Bers, M. U., & Mihm, C. (2017). Imagining, playing, and coding with KIBO: Using robotics to foster computational thinking in young children (p. 110). Siu-cheung KONG The Education University of Hong Kong.

Svensson, A. K. (2000). Computers in school: Socially isolating or a tool to promote collaboration? Journal of Educational Computing Research , 22 (4), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.2190/30KT-1VLX-FHTM-RCD6 .

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 8 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 .

Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I. M., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 19 (2), 148–163.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 (Accessed 12 June 2023).

Van Roy, P., & Haridi, S. (2004). Concepts, techniques, and models of computer programming . MIT Press.

Vee, A. (2013). Understanding computer programming as a literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies , 1 (2), 42–64. http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/21695 .

Vorderman, C. (2019). Computer coding for kids: A unique step-by-step visual guide, from binary code to building games . Dorling Kindersley Ltd.

Wang, D., Zhang, C., & Wang, H. (2011). T-Maze: A tangible programming tool for children. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children , 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1145/1999030.1999045 .

Wartella, E. A., & Jennings, N. (2000). Children and computers: New technology. Old concerns. The Future of Children , 31–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602688 .

Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y. J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., & Sysło, M. M. (2017). Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies , 22 , 445–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9493-x .

Wilson, C., Sudol, L. A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik, M. (2010). Running on empty: The failure to teach k–12 computer science in the digital age . ACM.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM , 49 (3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215 .

Zurnaci, B., & Turan, Z. (2022). Türkiye’de okul öncesinde kodlama eğitimine ilişkin yapılan çalışmaların incelenmesi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi , 5 (1), 258–286.

Download references

Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Sciences, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

Mehmet Başaran

Department of Preschool Teacher Education, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Turkey

Şermin Metin

Department of Educational Sciences, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey

Ömer Faruk Vural

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Başaran .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Başaran, M., Metin, Ş. & Vural, Ö.F. Meta-thematic synthesis of research on early childhood coding education: A comprehensive review. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12675-2

Download citation

Received : 01 October 2023

Accepted : 02 April 2024

Published : 24 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12675-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Coding education
Early childhood development
Cognitive growth
Socio-emotional development
Preschool curriculum integration
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Child Care and Early Education Research Connections

Exploring how early childhood exclusionary practices persist for multiply marginalized children.

The purpose of this study was to critically examine 14 early educators’ descriptions of their classroom discipline policies and procedures. A DisCrit lens was utilized to investigate if and how multiply marginalized young children may still experience exclusion. Participants described the use of discipline policies and procedures that were exclusionary, such as suspensions and ‘soft’ expulsions. Teachers also reported that they continued to be overwhelmed and frustrated by students’ behavior they found challenging, and felt they needed additional supports to effectively meet children's needs. These findings help us understand the need for more comprehensive policy reform, and continued support for teachers so that as we work to eliminate exclusionary practices, we provide teachers with a toolkit of inclusive, anti-biased, proactive, and preventative strategies they can use in its place to promote social emotional competence and prevent 'challenging' behavior. (author abstract)

- Related Resources

Related resources include summaries, versions, measures (instruments), or other resources in which the current document plays a part. Research products funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation are related to their project records.

Exclusionary discipline in early childhood

- you may also like.

These resources share similarities with the current selection.

Reducing exclusionary discipline practices in early childhood education: Perspectives from practitioners in Illinois and Colorado

Pyramid model resource collection: addressing exclusionary discipline practices in early childhood programs, eliminating exclusionary practices in early childhood education in nevada.

Half of new state spending on preschool was backed by COVID aid last year, new report finds

Young children sit side by side at their desks in a classroom.

After preschool enrollment took a nosedive during the pandemic, a new report offers some encouraging news. A record share of young children enrolled in preschool last school year, and state spending on preschool reached an all-time high.

New universal preschool initiatives in several states contributed to those increases, but federal COVID relief funding also played a crucial role, according to a report released Thursday by the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University.

Half of the new spending on state preschool programs last year was backed by pandemic aid, the researchers found.

That money helped improve access — preschool enrollment was up in nearly every state — but it also raises real questions about whether states will be able to sustain their investments after that federal funding runs out this fall. Some of the 26 states that spent COVID aid on preschool last year have plans to bridge the gap, but others do not.

“It’s important to make sure that they all do, so we don’t move backwards,” said Steven Barnett, the director of the research institute and a co-author of the report. Already, “the nation remains very far away from providing a high-quality preschool education to every child at age 4, much less at age 3.”

The problem of the fiscal cliff isn’t unique to early education — K-12 schools are also grappling with how to fill budget holes left by expiring pandemic aid. State officials and school leaders nationwide are making difficult decisions about whether they can afford to keep many kinds of pandemic-era investments, including school mental health staff , intensive tutoring programs , and expanded summer school. Some districts, such as Chicago and New York City , also expanded preschool access with COVID dollars.

Earlier in the pandemic, COVID aid helped keep preschool teachers employed and child care providers open . But last school year, much of the money was spent to get more kids into preschool. Those strategies included recruiting and training preschool teachers, raising pay for preschool teachers at community-based providers, which typically pay less than schools, and doing more outreach to parents.

States spent at least $571 million in COVID aid on their preschool programs during the 2022-23 school year, the report found, though it’s likely more, as not all of the 26 states were able to say how much pandemic aid they used. That made up a small share of the overall $11.7 billion that states put toward their preschool programs that year. But it accounted for half of the $1.2 billion in new state spending on preschool.

Some states put a large chunk of their COVID dollars toward preschool expansion, but have come up with a plan to at least partially fill that gap.

North Dakota, for example, paid for its Best in Class program for 4-year-olds entirely with COVID relief funds last year. But state lawmakers recently approved putting $12 million in state money toward that program over the next two years, which will more than cover the gap left by expiring pandemic aid.

In Michigan, officials spent $83 million in COVID relief dollars on the state’s Great Start Readiness program , which offers free preschool to 4-year-olds primarily from low-income families. That made up a quarter of all state spending on preschool last year, and helped the program enroll an additional 2,200 children.

For this school year, Michigan lawmakers approved spending an extra $74 million in state funds to help make up for the loss of COVID funding. That investment comes as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer works to fulfill her pledge to make preschool free for all 4-year-olds.

Matt Gillard, the president and CEO of Michigan’s Children, a nonprofit that works on early education policies, said he’s not surprised that Michigan is one of the states that put a lot of COVID aid toward increasing preschool access, and now is using that investment as a springboard to get closer to a universal preschool program.

Head to The Starting Line.

Sign up for our free monthly newsletter The Starting Line to get the latest news on early childhood education delivered to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Notice and European users agree to the data transfer policy. You may also receive occasional messages from sponsors .

“Pre-K has been a priority with bipartisan support in Michigan for a long time,” he said. “We have a lot of need in communities, and the COVID relief dollars provided an opportunity for the state to expand that.”

But the picture is less clear elsewhere. Virginia spent around $16.3 million in COVID money last year on the state’s mixed-delivery program, which funds preschool at community-based providers and in other non-school settings. COVID funds make up the bulk of the spending for that program again this school year. Whether the state can sustain that spending will be determined by future budget negotiations, the report notes. (The Virginia Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.)

That states led by both Republican and Democratic governors used federal COVID aid to expand preschool suggests there could be bipartisan support for the federal government to offer more money for this work, Barnett said. That could be especially important as gaps in preschool access and quality continue to grow between states.

“New state initiatives for universal preschool have already started to reshape the preschool landscape,” said Allison Friedman-Krauss, an assistant research professor at Rutgers and the report’s lead author. “Which states will be left behind as all these other states move forward?”

Kalyn Belsha is a senior national education reporter based in Chicago. Contact her at [email protected] .

Otters, bees and watershed health: How this Colorado science teacher helps students become changemakers

Yajaira Fuentes-Tauber’s students have won $13,000 through a contest aimed at improving watershed health.

School board says goodbye, approves millions for new curriculum and asbestos abatement

The new school board, nominated by Mayor Cherelle Parker, will be seated on May 1 and have its first action meeting May 30.

Chicago Public Schools’ new budgeting formula is ‘important milestone’ says CEO Martinez

Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez said the district’s new budget formula is an “important milestone.” But at some schools, parent and educator concerns are starting to percolate.

School 87 parents demand accountability as board announces task force to review culture in IPS

After hearing from parents, the board passed a resolution to create a special task force to review each school’s health and culture.

Gov. Bill Lee says he’ll sign bill to let some Tennessee teachers and staff carry guns in schools

“Districts have the option to choose,” Lee said.

The newest foe of Colorado’s proposed school funding overhaul? The state’s largest teachers union.

The Colorado Education Association says it’s concerned about whether there’s enough sustainable funding for the new formula, but indicated that it’s open to further talks.

IMAGES

Report on Early Childhood Studies by Penn State College of Education
(PDF) Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care
😊 Early childhood education topics research paper. Education Research
(PDF) PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FOR FAMILY
Research Methods for Early Childhood Education: : Bloomsbury Research
Buy Journal of Early Childhood Research Subscription

VIDEO

Engaging Families in the Assessment Process and Use of Data: An Early Childhood Example
Studying Research in Civil Engineering
Data Collection and Use: An Early Childhood Perspective
Survey Methods Workshop Developing A Survey Part 1
My Work and My Life
The Opportunities and Challenges of Early Child Care and Education

COMMENTS

Journal of Early Childhood Research: Sage Journals
The Journal of Early Childhood Research is a peer-reviewed journal that provides an international forum for childhood research, bridging cross-disciplinary areas and applying theory and research within the professional community. This reflects the world-wide growth in theoretical and empirical research on learning and development in early childhood and the impact of this on provision.
Homepage
Every child deserves high-quality early education. Every child deserves. high-quality early education. We improve the learning and development of young children through research that transforms policy and practice. Explore the State of Preschool 2023 Yearbook.
Early Childhood Education: Academic and Behavioral Benefits of
One often-discussed topic is the optimal age to begin early childhood education. Barnett (1995, 2008) reviewed more than 30 studies and found that early childhood education to be positive for children living in poverty. Most individuals realize that the benefits of early childhood education exist, but the extent of those benefits and benefit ...
Early Childhood Education: The Long-Term Benefits
Results. The results section is divided into three areas for analyses: (1) academics, (2) social skills, and (3) attitudes toward school. All three areas are deemed important because past research has indicated that the long-term benefits from a quality preschool program are academic, social, and attitudinal.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
About the journal. (ECRQ) publishes research on and from birth through 8 years of age. ECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research (quantitative or qualitative methods) on issues of interest to early childhood development, theory, and educational practice. The journal also occasionally publishes practitioner and/or policy perspectives and ...
Taking Early Childhood Education and Young Children's Learning
Two years before I was born, Teachers College Record published a special issue on early childhood education in 1972 (Volume 73 Issue 6) titled "The Why of Early Childhood Education." The issue included 22 authors, five of whom were women. The theorists named in the articles conceptualized young children's learning from a broad range of disciplines, including anthropology, developmental ...
InBrief: The Science of Early Childhood Development
The science of early brain development can inform investments in early childhood. These basic concepts, established over decades of neuroscience and behavioral research, help illustrate why child development—particularly from birth to five years—is a foundation for a prosperous and sustainable society.
Comparative studies of early childhood education and care: beyond
Introduction. With Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Footnote 1 gaining momentum as a policy priority in the Global South and North, there is a well-stablished consensus around the need for systems research, and for systemic perspectives in early childhood research in general. Systemic approaches acknowledge that ECEC does not exist in a vacuum, but rather in a system that connects ...
Ambitious Harvard study aims to discover how children grow, learn
In early childhood education, the most influential research includes the Perry Preschool Study, conducted in the mid-1960s at a Michigan preschool, and the Abecedarian Project, conducted in the 1970s in North Carolina. Both studies, which followed children into their adult years, found that the children who received preschool education thrived ...
Complexity and change: Contemporary research in early childhood
This special issue celebrates selected papers from the 2021 AJEC Symposium, Complexity and Change: Contemporary Research in Early Childhood, held in the second year of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The stressors caused by the pandemic have been felt across the early childhood sector and a growing body of research explores the challenges facing ...
Nature-Based Early Childhood Education and Children's Social, Emotional
This systematic review synthesised evidence on associations between nature-based early childhood education (ECE) and children's social, emotional, and cognitive development. ... To improve the evidence base and thus enhance our ability to draw stronger conclusions, research must improve the study quality, description of exposure, and ...
Early Education Pays Off. A New Study Shows How
The study is part of an ongoing research project tracking the long-term effects of early-childhood education. The next study in the project will focus on differences in college-going among these ...
A top researcher says it's time to rethink our entire approach to preschool
Dale Farran has been studying early childhood education for half a century. ... No study is the last word. The research on pre-K continues to be mixed. In May 2021, ...
MIT Study Reveals Long-Term Benefits of High-Quality Early Childhood
The findings of this study add to the ever-growing arsenal of research and data that show the undeniable short- and long-term benefits of high-quality early childhood education. Preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds is an important element in a continuum of high-quality early learning and care opportunities that are proven to help children ...
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
The European Early Childhood Education Research Journal (EECERJ) is the publication of the European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA), an international organisation dedicated to the promotion and dissemination of research in Early Childhood Education throughout Europe and beyond. CREC is the UK base for the European Early ...
Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care
Governments around the world have boosted their early childhood education and care (ECEC) engagement and investment on the basis of evidence from neurological studies and quantitative social science research. The role of qualitative research is less understood and under-valued. At the same time the hard evidence is only of limited use in helping public servants and governments design policies ...
Research
Our research studies enable us to serve as a model for early childhood education. As early as 1932, our researchers have been publishing in peer review journals and writing dissertations and books spanning many academic disciplines. ... Families are notified ahead of time when there will be a research study or survey in their child's ...
Early Childhood Education Participation: A Mixed-Methods Study of
Extending findings from prior research, the study found providers were generally more inclined than parents to rate each of the potential barriers (and facilitators) as highly important. ... Access to early childhood education in Australia: Insights from a qualitative study (Research Report No. 28). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family ...
Key Research and Studies: Early Childhood Development
The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (also known as the Dunedin Study) is a detailed study of human health, development and behavior, founded by Dr Phil A. Silva. The Dunedin Study has followed the lives of 1037 babies born between 1 April 1972 and 31 March 1973 at Queen Mary Maternity Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand.
National Center for Education Research (NCER) Home Page, a part of the
The National Center for Education Research (NCER) supports rigorous, scientifically based research that addresses the nation's most pressing education needs, from early childhood to postgraduate studies. NCER supports research through competitive grants to research and development centers, candidates for doctoral training in the education sciences and small businesses.
Home
This research guide focuses on Early Childhood Studies. It includes print, multimedia, and online resources owned or subscribed to by Sonoma State University Library as well as resources freely available on the Web. This research guide is not a comprehensive portal, but it is intended to be a useful place to start.
High-quality early child care and education: The gift that lasts a
Early childhood programs that are sustained and high quality can have long-lasting impacts on children, preparing them for formal schooling and beyond with the added factor that early education ...
Exploring the Effects of Teachers' Practices in the Early Childhood
The primary focus of this study is to explore the relationship between the early childhood literacy classroom environment and teachers' practices to promote an understanding of their influence on Arabic-speaking children's acquisition of literacy skills. This study utilizes a quantitative methodological approach, whereby null and alternative hypotheses were formulated to examine the ...
Journal of Early Childhood Research
Athina Angeli. Panagiota Alexiou. Evaggelia Diamantaki. Preview abstract. Restricted access Research article First published August 5, 2023 pp. 136-148. xml GET ACCESS. Table of contents for Journal of Early Childhood Research, 22, 1, Mar 01, 2024.
Meta-thematic synthesis of research on early childhood coding education
The growing significance of coding in 21st-century early childhood education extends beyond technical proficiency, encompassing cognitive development, problem-solving, and creativity. Coding is being integrated globally into educational curricula to prepare students for the digital era. This research examines coding's potential impact on cognitive and socio-emotional development and ...
Exploring how early childhood exclusionary practices persist for
The purpose of this study was to critically examine 14 early educators' descriptions of their classroom discipline policies and procedures. A DisCrit lens was utilized to investigate if and how multiply marginalized young children may still experience exclusion. Participants described the use of discipline policies and procedures that were exclusionary, such as suspensions and 'soft ...
COVID aid fueled preschool expansion, report finds
A new report from the National Institute for Early Education Research finds that half of new state preschool spending was backed by pandemic assistance. Not all states are prepared to sustain ...
PDF The Importance of Early Education
At the same time, the period of childhood can be presented as composed of several unique stages. 2. Goals and Objectives of Early Education. Early education is a vital part of every person's education. It has a crucial meaning for a) formation of personality; b) further education; c) development of society as a whole.
ERIC
In 2023, Wilder Research in St. Paul contracted with the Minnesota departments of Education (MDE) and Human Services (DHS) in partnership with the Minnesota Children's Cabinet to conduct an Early Care and Education (ECE) Workforce Survey. The purpose of the study is to describe characteristics of the ECE workforce, assess educators' economic well-being, and describe their motivations for ...
Inside IES Research
Dr. Shire, associate professor of Early Childhood Special Education at the University of Oregon, focuses her current research on young children with autism and their families. In this interview, she discusses this project as well as her prior experiences in early intervention and special education and advice for other early career researchers.

Every child deserves high-quality early education

The State of Preschool 2023

State of Pre-K Data Explorer

NIEER Research

Universal PreKindergarten Mixed Delivery Quality and Access

What does it take to provide professional development focused on DLLs?

State(s) of Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education

Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs and Child Development in Indiana, from 2021-2022

Including Family Child Care (FCC) Programs in Publicly-Funded Pre-K

State Preschool in a Mixed Delivery System

Join the Conversation

Policy Landscapes

NIEER Developed Tools

International Journal of Childcare & Education Policy

Technical Assistance

Partnership with New Jersey

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

InBrief: The Science of Early Childhood Development

Content in This Guide

Step 2: How Does Early Child Development Happen?

Step 3: What Can We Do to Support Child Development?

Brains are built over time, from the bottom up.

The interactive influences of genes and experience shape the developing brain.

The brain’s capacity for change decreases with age.

Cognitive, emotional, and social capacities are inextricably intertwined throughout the life course.

Toxic stress damages developing brain architecture, which can lead to lifelong problems in learning, behavior, and physical and mental health.

Policy Implications

Related Topics: toxic stress , brain architecture , serve and return

Featured Topics

Explore the Gazette

Remember Eric Garner? George Floyd?

Lawyers reap big profits lobbying government regulators under the radar

Younger votes still lean toward Biden — but it’s complicated

Ambitious Harvard study aims to discover conditions under which they do best

Unprecedented scope

Already in the works

Share this article

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

When math is the dream

Three will receive 2024 Harvard Medal

Early Education Pays Off. A New Study Shows How

Better attendance habits later on for preschool participants

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Sign Up & Sign In

A top researcher says it's time to rethink our entire approach to preschool

The Tennessee Pre-K Debate: Spinach Vs. Easter Grass

Why it's a bad time for bad news

What went wrong in Tennessee

Do kids in poverty deserve the same teaching as rich kids?

A Harsh Critique Of Federally Funded Pre-K

5 Proven Benefits Of Play

Putting a bubble in your mouth

Preschool Suspensions Really Happen And That's Not OK With Connecticut

MIT Study Reveals Long-Term Benefits of High-Quality Early Childhood Education

Subscribe to FFYF First Look

Lack of Access to Child Care Impacts Child Well-Being

How States Are Using PDG B-5 Systems Building Grants to Support Infants and Toddlers

FFYF’S 2023 State Fact Sheets

Stay Updated

Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation

Introduction

Qualitative Research-WhatIs It?

Qualitative Research and Early Childhood Education and Care

Challenges of Early Childhood Education and Care

Implementation Science in Early Childhood Education and Care

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

A Classroom of Inquiry

Gopnik Cognitive Development Lab

Language & Cognitive Development Lab

Berkeley Early Learning Lab

Early Childhood Education Participation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Parent and Provider Perceived Barriers and Facilitators

Carly Molloy

Zoe Fehlberg

Christopher Harrop

Sharon Goldfeld