A participatory approach to embedding evidence in practice to support early language and communication in a London nursery school

The tradition of school–IOE partnerships

When the London Day Training College (now known as IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society) was established in 1902, one of the prime purposes of the college was to provide ‘well-trained teachers for service to London’s elementary school’ (Alrich and Woodin, 2021: 12). The link between the IOE and London schools has been at the heart of the IOE since its inception. Over time, partnerships have evolved and taken on different forms. First, the IOE provides academic courses for teachers, ranging from short courses to postgraduate levels. Placements for teachers in Postgraduate Certificate in Education programmes have also been provided by a network of London schools. Professional development opportunities are also available – for example, through National Professional Qualifications in Leadership and the Early Career Framework, which supports early career teachers and their mentors. The connection between schools and the IOE in these cases provides a physical context in which learning can take place, either within the university or in the school, and offers an avenue for knowledge exchange and learning from each other. This type of relationship fosters the bringing together of university and school-based expertise to create and embed knowledge and theory to evidence-based practice. At the IOE, this relationship has been built over many decades through the many research–practice partnerships that exist between academics, schools, teacher educators and school leaders nationally and from around the world to develop a rich experience of translating evidence into practice.

Initiatives to improve education

Improving life chances through education is a common aim of both schools and universities. There have been various initiatives in recent years which aim to fund innovative programmes (for example, the Investing in Innovations [i3] funds in the United States) at various points of their development (pilot, validation or scale-up), and which aim to improve student outcomes (Centre for Public Impact, 2019). In the United Kingdom, the Educational Endowment Foundation (EEF, 2022) is part of the government’s What Works Network and aims to identify, fund and evaluate projects that will raise attainment of children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Despite the movement towards establishing what works in practice, the interventions or knowledge in question tend to lose their efficacy when they move beyond the pilot stage. Sheard and Sharples (2016: 669) argue that ‘sometimes the knowledge reaches educators, sometimes the educators might use the knowledge’, but that ‘overall, the relationship between research evidence and educational provision and practice is tenuous and controversial’. Oates and Bignell (2019) suggest that the partnership between school and university is critical for facilitating collaborative learning and enquiry, and improving educational practice for student teachers, but this can be fraught with difficulties and tensions in practice. Part of the challenge for organisations such as the EEF is to find pragmatic solutions to bridging the research to practice gap. Bridging the gap between research and application is a complex problem, and Carnine (1997: 513) argues that these gaps occur for many reasons, including, but not limited to: no direct application of research to practice, researchers’ pursuit of ‘esoteric topics with limited anchoring in the real world’ and little to no involvement of practitioners in research decisions. Often, the ‘linearity’ of the research process (conducting research prior to dissemination results) can obstruct researchers learning from organisations about what they need to know and organisations from learning about how researchers could usefully inform their professional development and practice. It is important, therefore, to explore the possibilities for research and problem solving when researchers and organisations engage together. This research–practice partnership lies at the heart of our project, Manor Park Talks.

Socio-economic context of the study

The partnership between our school and IOE emerged from a collaborative project between researchers and a leading teaching and research school in Newham, London, to provide evidence-informed professional development for early years practitioners working with young children to support their early communication and language development. The project partners were two researchers from IOE, the head teacher of the school and the early years practitioners working with children, both in Sheringham Teaching and Research School and in other early years settings in the borough of Newham. The socio-economic context of the local community is a distinct feature of the project. The London Borough of Newham is the third-largest borough in London, with a rich and diverse community including minority ethnic groups making up 73 per cent of the local population. The majority of children are from Indian (14.9 per cent) and Bangladeshi-heritage (12.5 per cent) families with English as an additional language (Newham Council, 2022). Of the neighbourhoods in Newham, 8 per cent are described as highly deprived, and the borough is ranked 20th in the United Kingdom in terms of local authorities with the highest levels of unemployment and income deprivation (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015).

Research context

It has been well established by extant empirical research that language development in the early years for children of two to five years old is associated with cognitive development and later educational attainment (Law et al., 2017). The development of communication skills is mediated by the environment to which children are exposed, both in and outside the home (Weigel et al., 2007). Understanding the quality of engagement and input that children receive in early years settings, and how this is applied in practice, is therefore vital in supporting language development and communication. There have been various initiatives in recent years that aim to translate research evidence about strategies to support language development to improve education outcomes (Centre for Public Impact, 2019).

The socio-economic and research context outlined above informed the overarching objective of the research, which was to embed evidence-based practices in supporting language into action, with the specific intention of improving the life chances and educational outcomes of disadvantaged children. The research drew on a practice-focused participatory approach in the co-production of the research design, methodology and application of the findings in a close collaboration between the IOE researchers and practitioners in the East London research school.

The aims of the project were:

• to improve the outcomes of disadvantaged two-year-olds accessing free early education entitlement and to take a research-informed approach to ‘weigh up the evidence’ of what works to support early language and communication

• to enhance the professional development of local education practitioners to translate this research into practice. The evidence from the systematic review was used to inform bespoke, context-specific professional development materials.

The initial overarching research question that guided the enquiry between researchers and practitioners was: What strategies are associated with positive outcomes in teacher practices and children’s early communication and language development?

Manor Park Talks: a participatory approach

Weight of evidence review

The project team of researchers and school partners engaged in regular meetings and correspondence about the review process as we reflected collectively on the key themes. As a collaborative project, we maintained continuous dialogue throughout the research process to explore and agree the scope and focus of the research. We narrowed the scope of the review as the project partners identified that they intended to focus on the ‘managing interactions and conversational responsiveness’ strategy as the key focus of the project, as a means to support young children’s language and communication. The refined review question was then derived: What strategies for managing interactions with young children are associated with positive outcomes in teacher practices and children’s early communication and language development?

We then focused on the 72 articles on managing interactions and conversational responsiveness (see Figure 1 for a full summary of the process). We used the ‘weight of evidence’ (WOE) technique as suggested by Cordingley in Basma and Savage (2018) to address the jointly decided refined research question. In a weight of evidence review, the studies are rated on three WOE criteria, and then assigned an overall rating.

WOE D: overall rating 

What is the overall quality of the paper in terms of how it provides evidence to answer the review question (Gough, 2007)? Based on the judgements of WOE A, B and C, the studies were then assigned an overall rating of high, medium or low. The decision to assign an overall rating was based on the combination of results from all three areas. There were 21 studies that were assessed to meet high ratings and included in the final review (see Figure 1), and we divided the findings into three themes (see Table 2).

Figure 1

Review flow diagram (Source: authors) 

Table 2

Key themes from review findings (Source: authors) 

Theme 1: attend to social and emotional development	An overarching finding was that attending to children’s social and emotional well-being has positive effects in promoting language and communication. As [Bierman et al. (2008: 1812)] suggest, language skills and social and emotional skills are intertwined, and ‘language skills enhance the child’s capacity to regulate emotions’.
Theme 2: adults as active partners in the conversation process	A large proportion of the studies reviewed examined how adult caregivers can effectively shape conversations to promote language development. The adult needs to be an active partner in the conversation process – modelling, scaffolding, listening and creating spaces for joint engagement.
Theme 3: value the complexity, diversity and duration of language experience	We found that a proportion of studies described the complexity of language (in terms of vocabulary and conversation), the diversity of language (in terms of context) and the duration or time spent involved in language lessons or intervention. Density and diversity of language including, but not limited to, vocabulary for prolonged periods matters.

In applying the weight of evidence ratings, we used the following criteria:

• those practices which are explicitly documented with clear outcome measures by which efficacy is established

• those practices which show promise – lack a clear outcome measure, but articulate why this approach might work and contribute to theory building or improving practice in this way

• those practices which do neither of the above

• those practices which provide information and data from a primary study, not from a literature review.

At the end of the analysis, we rated 26 studies as low overall, 25 as medium and 21 as high. Figure 1 provides a synopsis of the search process. These results were shared in a report (Ang and Harmey, 2019) with the project partners, and used to inform a poster of teaching strategies that formed the basis of professional development for early years education practitioners (see Figure 2).

The project in action: the school context

Sheringham Nursery School and Children’s Centre is a maintained nursery school serving the communities in the Manor Park and Little Ilford areas of Newham. Sheringham leads a network of early years settings in the neighbourhood: private and community nurseries, which are generally small, under-funded and housed in non-purpose-built accommodation such as church halls or former shop units. As a maintained school, Sheringham has a larger budget for professional development. The school made a strategic decision to allocate part of the budget for joint professional development, so that projects could be on a larger scale and reach more children. As part of this strategy, the school, in collaboration with the IOE, made a successful funding application for Manor Park Talks. The funding was awarded from the EEF, and the project was externally evaluated by NatCen (see EEF, 2020 for the full evaluation of the project).

In Manor Park and Little Ilford, the housing crisis is particularly acute. On home visits, nursery school staff regularly meet families crammed into very small flats, often with four or more children in each bedroom. The high rate of child poverty, and the extreme stress on parents trying their best in very difficult circumstances, can combine to make the home environment less than optimal for children’s language development. Research suggests that in areas of social and economic disadvantage, between 40 per cent and 56 per cent of children start school with language delay (Law et al., 2011; Locke et al., 2002).

Figure 2

Poster 2 (Source: authors) 

The initial conception of the project to inform a professional development programme was premised on an ethic of community development: that the school would work collaboratively with parents and practitioners to enhance children’s early development. The project was also conceived on the shared understanding that supporting children’s language development is not only the responsibility of parents and families, some of whom live in harsh and difficult social and economic conditions, but also the responsibility of education practitioners and educators in the early years settings. As such, the project design took the approach that a model of ‘disseminating’ effective practice in the nursery school to the smaller nursery settings in the local area had to be delivered in a collaborative partnership with researchers, education practitioners and the research school.

In designing the study, we drew on the following key principles:

• taking responsibility for all local children in the borough, not just the minority who attend Sheringham Nursery School

• positioning the teaching team at Sheringham as learners, working alongside other local early years educators to improve practice together

• working with IOE research partners to use the best available evidence, maximising the likelihood of success

• contextualising that evidence through professional dialogue with the participants, drawing on their expertise

• working with researchers to review practice and generate improvements together, rather than merely providing a site for academic research

• using evidence to inform, not dictate, changes in practice (see Nelson and O’Beirne, 2014).

The project focused on promoting a list of evidence-informed pedagogical strategies as part of a professional development programme for education practitioners to employ when playing and interacting with children. The target population was children between two and three years old from low-income families who were accessing a free nursery place. The programme focused on:

• promoting children’s language development

• applying evidence-informed pedagogical strategies that could be rehearsed in the education practitioners’. professional development training, and then used regularly in the education practitioners’. interactions with the children in order for the strategies to become embedded as part of everyday practice.

Conclusion

The project and implementation of the professional development programme showed that there is clear evidence of the importance of supporting early language and communication (Law et al., 2017). Research indicates that instructional practices, implemented with fidelity, can potentially improve children’s academic and social progress (Castro et al., 2017). Through a systematic review, we identified key instructional practices that have been described in well-designed, rigorous empirical studies. As a school–university partnership, the project reinforced the importance of adopting a methodological approach that involved stakeholders from the conception of the enquiry to the application of the findings to inform a practice tool for education practitioners in an iterative manner. The project also offered an opportunity for critical reflection for both researchers and school partners in the collaborative process of translating and embedding evidence into practice. It sparked discussions around what counts as evidence and embedding research-informed strategies to support children’s learning, which in turn revealed the opportunities, as well as the challenges, encountered in the research cycle.

We argue for a conceptual, theoretical model that breaks through the ‘linearity’ of research in favour of a participatory approach where the researchers and participants co-construct, collaborate and engage in a community of research, practice and shared enquiry to improve practice, rather than just to disseminate or impart knowledge.

Research ethics statement

The authors declare that research ethics approval for this article was provided by UCL Research Ethics Committee Office for the Vice Provost Research Project ID 10611/004.

Consent for publication statement

Not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the authors during peer review of this article have been made. The authors declare no further conflicts with this article.