Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report on how early years practitioners worked with the ORIM Framework to support work with parents to promote early literacy experiences.

Co-produced Knowledge Exchange (KE) was used to develop and evaluate work with parents to facilitate their young children’s literacy. Information was gathered in discussion groups, interviews with parents and practitioners and feedback from all the parties involved.

Practitioners and families engaged with each other in the further development of an established literacy programme, and families demonstrated “ownership” of the co-produced knowledge after the end of the project.

Project design in co-produced research and KE is necessarily flexible. The focus is on practitioners’ knowledge and ownership of the process, sharing knowledge with parents and enhancing children’s experiences.

Practices that can enhance parental engagement in their children’s early literacy are varied and multiple and ORIM can be used flexibly to plan, develop and evaluate innovative and community – (and family –) specific practices.

Where parents have more knowledge of children’s early literacy development they are in a better position to support them; for learning communities there are implications in terms of future development of work with families to support early literacy development.

This paper contributes an original approach to the co-production of research with early years practitioners. It also identifies specific issues around the ethics of ownership in co-produced research.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a response to Goldstein et al.’s (2017) attempted rebuttal of the authors’ prior paper in this journal (See and Gorard 2015).

The prior paper reported a systematic review of interventions to involve engaging parents more in their children’s education in order to raise school attainment. Goldstein et al. make a large number of unwarranted claims about its quality. They reproach the authors for using reports of unpublished evidence, for mis-labelling or mis-describing studies, and for denigrating studies by labelling them as “bad”. The authors were very surprised when first alerted to this response and went back to look at all of the research reports that Goldstein et al. claimed the authors mis-represented in the authors’ assessment.

The authors found that the Goldstein et al. claims are false and based on such a poor understanding of how evidence is reviewed that it was strange to see their paper in this journal.

In the authors’ reply, they look first at why unpublished material must be included in a review, and why the outlet for publication is not relevant, then at appropriate designs for causal questions, and at the confusion in Goldstein et al. between evaluation quality and intervention impact. The authors look at many examples where the confusion leads to Goldstein et al. making incorrect assertions about the authors’ paper, in order to make the point that their whole idea of how to conduct a systematic review is wrong.

Early childhood social studies students deserve to learn in a powerful, in-depth fashion about their interests with teachers who facilitate cognitive and affective growth. Humanistic teachers offer democratic learning experiences characterized by exploration and inquiry within a challenging and caring environment. Growth toward acceptance of all types of diversity and every classmate is featured. Through discussion about social studies topics, learners proceed to graphically represent what they learn. This powerful social studies learning is found in Reggio Emilia, Italy. The tenets, strategies, and approaches are easily transferable and modified to create powerful and exemplar early childhood social studies learning for social rights and social justice. Early childhood is the perfect place to set social justice learning in motion.