EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (ESCC) COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT ‘INTERACTING WITH BABIES UNDER 18

MONTHS’

FINAL REPORT WITH RESEARCH REFERENCES

1 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

1: OVERVIEW, BACKGROUND AND PROJECT FOCUS

2 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

Table of contents:Introduction1.1 Background1.2 Project Focus

2.1 Method2.2 Ethical considerations

3 Setting’s Focussed Research questions:3.1 The use of song as an interaction3.2 Quality of adult-child interactions3.3 Adult skills needed to support children’s communication through interactions3.4 Understanding the different types of communication3.5 Working with families to support communication and literacy through ongoing interactions3.6 Sustained shared interactions3.7 How the internal and external environment affects interactions3.8 Supporting and understanding interactions between infants and peers3.9 The impact of a child’s sense of security on interactions and communication.

4 Main aims of the project and impact:4.1 Improve practice and an enhanced understanding of how to interact and communicate with our youngest children.4.2 Introduce the ethos of research to practitioners4.3 Increase an ethos of reflective practice by examining research and applying it to practice4.4 Raise the profile of the importance of baby room practice4.2 Create opportunities to network with other baby room professionals

5 Additional analysis5.1 Parent participation5.2 Comparison to research of Goouch and Powell5.3 Setting statistics 5.4 Analysis of wider impact beyond participating settings5.5 Learning for ESCC project leads5.6 Additional impact beyond the scope of the research questions

6 Conclusion7 References

1.1 Overview:

Overall 36 settings participated and finished the project. A total of 146 practitioners were involved reaching nearly 600 children and families.

This breaks down as follows:

Phase 1 - 13 settings, 53 staff and 200 children/families. Phase 2 - 12 settings, 50 practitioners and 200 children/families. Phase 3 – 11 settings, 43 practitioners, 198 children/families

Phase 1 was launched in November 2017 for the duration of 5 months. Phase 2 started April 2018 and lasted nine months due to a number of participants opening term time only and the period covering the long summer holiday. Phase 3 started in February 2019 and again finished after nearly nine months.

All participating settings were very different; from rural to town based, school academy, private and voluntary run. Some have a separate baby room/s, and some have an enclosed area within a room. Some have a separate garden for babies and others share a large space with older children. They were located in a mix of affluent and less affluent areas. This is broken down further in the end analysis.

1.2 Project background:

In the year 2018/19 there were approximately 80 settings on non-domestic premises in East Sussex caring for children under the age of two years. Research has identified that baby room practitioners face unique challenges and opportunities. Dr Kathy Goouch and Professor Sacha Powell (2013) conducted a national review which identified the following:

The majority of baby room practitioners are qualified to level 2 or 3. Higher qualified practitioners are usually placed with pre-school children.

Baby room practitioners often feel neglected and isolated from other practice in settings, especially if they are in separate rooms.

The majority of baby room practitioners nationally are aged 18-25 years. There is little or no training available nationally which specifically focuses on birth to

two years and there is a clear need for this to be addressed (Osgood report, 2017). This means that possibly neither practitioners nor managers have a clear understanding of good practice in this very specific area and are sometimes may be unable to meet Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (2017) requirement 3.31. This states that ‘at least half of all staff must have received training that specifically addresses the care of babies.’

The East Sussex County Council (ESCC) collaborative research project ‘Interacting with babies under 18 months’ was designed to improve practice, provide the opportunity for professional reflection and to raise the self-confidence of baby room practitioners. Baby room practitioners are working with the youngest and most vulnerable children whose development should be progressing at an astounding rate. Children’s experiences in baby rooms are the foundation to all that follows and can have either a very positive or negative

3 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

2: METHOD AND ETHICS

effect on children. They are as important as teachers of other ages and not at the bottom of a perceived hierarchy (Goouch and Powell, 2013)

Page, Clare and Nutbrown (2014:13) recognised that “Practitioners must be ready to respond to change but, more importantly than ever before, practitioners must understand the research and theory which underpins their day to day work and decisions; for without such theoretical knowledge what they do can lack rigour and a rationale. It is like a building without foundations. Practice without theory, though it might look acceptable on the surface, is empty of a fully justified basis for what happens, and thus carries the danger of doing things ‘because we do’ rather than adopting (or rejecting) practices because there is a clearly understood basis for that decision.”

The project was designed and led by two Early Years Support and Intervention Officers (EYSIOs) Laura Piper and Verity Green from East Sussex County Council and implemented with the support of other members of the Early Years Improvement Team. Academic support and guidance were provided initially by Dr Kathy Goouch from Canterbury Christ Church University following attendance at the 8th Baby Room Conference in 2017.

1.3 Project focus

There were many different reasons why the project focussed on interactions. The National Literacy Trust has identified that the communication environment for babies and toddlers during the first 24 months influences their language acquisition. “A focus on relationships places interactions with others at the very heart of the learning process, with the view that learning is socially and collaboratively constructed through mutually responsive interpersonal exchanges” Degotardi, 2015. Interactions affect brain development and it is assumed that the better these interactions are the better connections and development of communication skills the babies will make. The Effective Provision of pre-school Education Project (EPPE, 2004) identified the importance of the quality of interactions between staff and children in settings. Children made more progress where staff showed warmth and were responsive to the individual needs of children. This is not surprising – it makes sense that young children will want to be with adults who respond as if they like them and behave positively towards them (Page et al, 2013). Zeedyk, 2019 reflects that babies are born as engaged, relational beings. They don’t develop social skills later on, such as when they begin to talk or become pre-schoolers, their social skills are present from birth. “How we treat them shapes how they develop, right down to the biological level”.

These aspects alongside our own observations through our work as advisors led us to focus on interactions in settings. This would address both communication and language development (CL) alongside personal, social and emotional development (PSED) and the importance of attachment with baby room practitioners.

4 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

[Sidebar Title]

“Babies and toddlers are learners from birth; sensitive responsive caregiving and emotionally attuned interactions in low stress environments open up their brain for learning” Dalli (2014)

2.1 Method:

The setting managers were fully involved from the start and during enrolment agreed to support their lead practitioner on their journey. We provided meetings for managers throughout the project so that they had the opportunity to discuss the project with their peers.

We held a launch event for each phase, which was compulsory for both the setting manager and lead practitioner to attend. This allowed the ESCC project leads to share some initial thinking about interactions alongside renowned key note speakers. Each setting provided information and photographs of their baby room/ setting which were used to start conversations. Each event after the initial launch combined a celebration of the previous phase event with the attendance of the settings from the next phase. This enabled them to share case studies and talk to each other. The final event was a celebration for all 3 phases to attend together.

We asked each setting to identify a lead practitioner from within the baby room for their project. In all but two cases this was the baby room lead.

The lead practitioners from settings received self-confidence and self-esteem training from an external expert. This helped them identify their concerns about researching and leading a project.

We provided support and guidance on research methods and how to start choosing a question. It was important that participants chose their own questions within the umbrella of interactions to allow ownership and to ensure that their research was relevant to their own individual setting and practitioners.

We helped them to review their individual research question and break it down into more manageable chunks.

We encouraged practitioners to observe interactions, providing an example tally chart to clarify whether non-verbal communication was being recognised.

We held regular network meetings over the course of each project for the leads. These provided professional dialogue, critical reflection and assistance where needed. As these were held in participating settings this also allowed opportunity to view each other’s environments.

We provided the opportunity to borrow books related to baby room practice and child development and signposted to various research articles and websites.

We set up an email group to share interesting research (this group was for the practitioners only not the managers) as we wanted a safe space for them to ask questions without a manager wondering why they don’t understand that.

Lead practitioners were asked to:

Complete reflective journals recording their reading, relevant information, observations etc.to support information processing and discussions at network meetings.

Complete the self-evaluation tool at the start and end to evaluate gained knowledge, progress and impact.

Complete a case study. This showed their focus, starting point, what they found and implemented plus the impact of their changes.

5 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

3. SETTING’S FOCUSSED RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

2.2 Ethical considerations

Ethic of respect – as ESCC project leads we acknowledged that the practitioners working in baby rooms were the professionals in practice. We have tried at every step of the journey to encourage practitioners to take ownership of their practice. The lead practitioner in each setting has been chosen from within the setting.

Informed consent was sought from all participants, initially from owners, managers and practitioners during the enrolment process. Settings were informed during initial sessions that we would be disseminating information from the project and that we would be researching them while they researched. Lines of responsibility and accountability were clearly defined.

Informed parental consent on the behalf of the children was negotiated in settings using ESCC provided information sheets and the contact details of the ESCC leads was shared, should parents wish to ask further questions. Parents selected from a range of permissions, starting with their children being observed in the setting as part of the project. Further permission was requested from parents for practitioners to share images of children during network meetings should they wish to. It was made clear that if anything personal was to be disseminated by ESCC further permission would be sought. Data protection needed to be implemented by the setting e.g. safe storage of video, sound recordings, photographs and notes.

All participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any stage of the project. Two settings withdrew from the project after starting due to changes in staffing and their data is therefore not included in this report.

Throughout the research process, the researchers were encouraged to be alert to the children’s wellbeing. Children’s willingness to participate was monitored with particular attention being given to their visual cues.

During this report and other dissemination no names of individuals and settings have been shared. Throughout the project ESCC leads have always sought specific permission to share information about settings as need arises, alongside photographic permissions for events.

Each setting chose an individual focus under the umbrella of interactions. The decision on the focus generally came from EYSIO observations, practitioner observations or self-evaluation. These have been linked to an area of the self-evaluation activity for this report.

6 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

3.1 THE USE OF SONG AS AN INTERACTION

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SONG THAT ADULTS CAN SING TO BABIES AND TO WHAT EXTENT DO DIFFERENT STYLES OF MUSIC IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF BABIES UNDER 24 MONTHS?

CAN WE ENHANCE OUR BABIES LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH SONGS AND LULLABIES?

DO INTERACTIONS WHEN SINGING SONGS WITH CHILDREN IMPROVE WITH THE USE OF MAKATON?

HOW CAN WE INCORPORATE MORE SINGING IN THE BABY ROOM TO IMPROVE INTERACTIONS AND ENCOURAGE CHILDREN’S LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT?

WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF SINGING AND RHYMES ON EARLY COMMUNICATION AND HOW CAN WE IMPROVE ON THESE MOMENTS?

There are some overlaps where the question could go in other areas, so this division is not 100% accurate.

It was interesting that many practitioners had not heard of the musical quality of speech known as ‘motherese’ (Trevarthen, 1997). Several participants later identified that they knew what it was just not the term. One setting particularly identified this lack of knowledge of language used around interactions in research and professional articles, however when observed interacting with the babies they were demonstrating their knowledge of these principles and showing these skills.

Many practitioners did not find out about preferred songs from families or how they were sung as part of their settling in process but now do this and use this knowledge during intimate care such as nappy changing, feeding, settling to sleep etc. Some settings have tried playing different types of music to see how children respond. Many participants looked at the work of Vanessa Young’s song project in conjunction with Christ Church University in Canterbury (2017). In more recent phases Musical Development Matters (2018) has been widely used. Practitioners have looked at the use of lullabies when settling children and how this creates comfort and a bond by hearing the familiar comforting voice singing. We have also talked about how Froebel’s songs were designed to develop body, limbs and senses through finger play in songs

7 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

3.2 QUALITY OF ADULT-CHILD INTERACTIONS (FOR BABY ROOM PRACTITIONERS)

IS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BABIES AND BABY ROOM STAFF OF GOOD QUALITY AND THEREFORE AS BENEFICIAL TO THE BABIES AS IT COULD BE?

HOW DO I IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ADULT INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN? WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF OUR ADULT/CHILD INTERACTIONS?

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF ADULT/CHILD INTERACTIONS, WHAT MAKES THEM QUALITY INTERACTIONS AND WHEN IS THE BEST TIME TO INTERACT?

HOW DO OUR BABIES RECEIVE THE INDIVIDUAL INTERACTIONS, CARE AND ATTENTION THAT THEY NEED?

3.2 Quality of adult-child interactions.

Quality of interactions has been divided into two sections. Some settings focussed on baby room practitioners and others on non-baby room practitioners who may spend time covering in the room or who share routines and spaces at certain points of the day.

Quality is complex to define and covers many different aspects. Inspired by Degotardi et al’s (2018) research into infants’ experience with ‘near and clear’ educator talk and its relationship to indicators of quality (heard at the 8th baby room conference at Canterbury Christchurch University in March 2017), practitioners were asked to think about what a child is doing and the purpose of interactions. Are they providing meaningful talk or interrupting a child’s thought/play? Are they close to the child and ensuring they know the practitioner is interacting with them? How much of their communication is task orientated?

At the start of phase 1 approximately half of practitioners felt that that they considered what a child is doing before interacting or thought about purpose of their interaction. At the end they were 100% sure they were considering the child in their conversations and actions building trust and cooperativeness. For example, by waiting for a response such as a child putting their arms up after being told they are going to lift them. Practitioners no longer pick up children from behind or wipe their nose from behind without warning. They are confident that they watch to see if a child is highly involved in an activity before interrupting them.

Practitioners were encouraged to make lots of observations on whether other practitioners were picking up and returning interactions or missing them. Anecdotal information suggests that it was this permission to stand back and observe as part of the project has had a profound impact on practitioners thinking. One setting considered whether all babies had equal opportunities for interactions. Did those children who are more verbal or who display

8 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

3.2 QUALITY OF ADULT-CHILD INTERACTIONS (FOR NON-BABY ROOM PRACTITIONERS)

IS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BABIES AND NON- BABY ROOM STAFF OF GOOD QUALITY AND THEREFORE AS BENEFICIAL TO THE BABIES AS IT COULD BE?

HOW TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN BABIES AND OTHER NURSERY STAFF?

HOW DO WE IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF INTERACTIONS WITH NON-BABY ROOM STAFF?

IS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BABIES AND NON-BABY ROOM STAFF OF GOOD QUALITY AND THEREFORE AS BENEFICIAL TO THE BABIES AS IT COULD BE?

HOW SKILLED ARE OUR MAIN ROOM STAFF TEAM AT INTERACTING WITH BABIES EITHER WHEN WORKING IN THE ROOM OR WHEN COMING IN AND OUT ON OTHER TASKS?

3.3 ADULT SKILLS NEEDED TO SUPPORT CHILDREN’S COMMUNICATION THROUGH INTERACTIONS.

more happiness receive more frequent interactions? Several settings commented that they realised they did not allow babies enough time to respond.

Goouch and Powell (2013) identified that it has often been assumed that young women will intuitively engage in maternal interactions with babies but that this is often not the case. Reasons vary from embarrassment and self-consciousness, a lack of understanding that, although babies are unable to talk, they still need to be talked to, or they may have no model of such practice in their own experience. Our conversations in settings showed this often to be the case for those settings focusing on non-baby room practitioners who were not experienced with baby practice.

Three settings found through observation that non-baby room practitioners were often

coming into the baby room for no particular reason. They did not routinely interact with the babies when they came through but did with the practitioners. These non-baby room practitioners tended to interact with babies they were familiar with or older children who were more verbal. Seven other settings reported similarly that practitioners would come to the door of the baby room and talk across the room to the practitioners but not interacting with the babies. They all reduced the reasons for these interruptions by moving resources and focussed on ensuring practitioners understood how to interact with babies, including non-verbal communication. Another setting found that some practitioners were coming into the baby room for a respite from their roles.

9 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

3.4 UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMUNICATION.

WHAT ARE ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT BABIES COMMUNICATE?

DO WE UNDERSTAND DIFFERENT TYPES OF NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION AND GIVE ALL CHILDREN A VOICE?

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION AND HOW CAN WE SUPPORT THIS?

WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF ADULT’S NVC IN DEVELOPING CHILDREN’S COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND UNDERSTANDING?

3.3 ADULT SKILLS NEEDED TO SUPPORT CHILDREN’S COMMUNICATION THROUGH INTERACTIONS.

In phase 2 half of practitioners felt they understood how to effectively support communication at the different stages of child development. At the end this was nearly all practitioners. We reflected on how before babies understand words, they understand tone of voice (Gerson, Gattis and Weinsten, 2017). Practitioners researched how language develops in babies such as the research by Casasola (2018) and read Clare’s book (2016). We discussed how researchers at the University of Cambridge have concluded that eye contact with babies is likely to support communication (Leong et al 2017) as they are “signalling their availability and intention to communicate with each other”

In this area we looked at non-verbal communication. At the start of Phase 2 only a third of practitioners were confident that they knew what children’s individual sounds, words and gestures meant. At the end this had risen to three quarters. In phase 3 this area was the lowest scored area at the start. Practitioners were encouraged to observe nonverbal communication in their settings using tally charts. Were practitioners noticing and responding? Were babies communicating with each other? Froebel argued that observation was vital to the adult’s understanding of the individual child, enabling sensitive and

10 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

3.6 SUSTAINED SHARED INTERACTIONS

HOW DO WE EMBED SUSTAINED SHARED INTERACTIONS INTO PRACTICE AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

DO CHILDREN RECEIVE SUSTAINED SHARED INTERACTIONS AND DO WE KNOW HOW TO SUPPORT THIS?

3.5 WORKING WITH FAMILIES TO SUPPORT COMMUNICATION AND LITERACY THROUGH ONGOING INTERACTIONS.

meaningful interactions, supporting the teacher’s own learning, and informing their teaching (Cowan, 2018) and this was certainly the case with this area. Practitioners regularly commented how stepping back and observing interactions had been beneficial and enlightening. One setting shared their findings on the development of the different types of babbling (Hoff, 2001). A common theme identified through observations was that practitioners gave less consistent interactions to pre-verbal children. One setting observed that adults’ non-verbal communication impacted on children and focussed their project on this.

None chose this question – roughly three quarters of participants across all phases said they would confidently explain to parents about the importance of talking to babies and sharing books with babies. The amount of project sharing with parents has varied depending on the question that the setting chose.

In phase 1 two thirds said that opportunities for sustained shared interactions were missed but only one chose this area as a question. However, during network meetings for all phases conversations have followed about serve and return (Harvard University website) and whether practitioners notice the ‘serves’ when initiated by children. Practitioners considered sustained shared thinking and how supporting children by gently promoting and encouraging their interests, was gradually helping them to develop their creativity and critical thinking. The skill of a highly competent practitioner who is attuned to the needs of children enables them to carefully prepare and plan an appropriate enabling environment to facilitate deep

11 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

3.7 HOW THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT AFFECTS INTERACTIONS (INSIDE)

HOW TASK ORIENTATED IS OUR BABY ROOM? HOW WE CAN CHANGE DIFFERENT TASKS SO THAT WE SPEND MORE TIME INTERACTING WITH THE CHILDREN? HOW CAN INTERACTIONS DURING NAPPY TIME AND OTHER ROUTINES BE IMPROVED?

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PRACTITIONERS AND BABIES DURING NAPPY CHANGING ROUTINES?

HOW CAN INTERACTIONS DURING NAPPY TIME AND OTHER ROUTINES SUCH AS FEEDING BE IMPROVED?

WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERACTING WITH CHILDREN AT

level learning, well-being, excitement, interest and involvement (Page, Clare and Nutbrown, 2013). Other discussions included considered companionable learning and attention (Roberts, 2010).

Froebel believed that the outdoors environment was very important and that when outdoors, many opportunities open up for listening, touching, smelling the outdoors which can extend vocabulary and language (Gouldsboro, 2018). In phase 1 the question of whether babies have equal opportunity to communicate both indoors and outdoors led to two thirds of settings recognising that some practitioners feel confident interacting in certain areas or activities over others. This observation was borne out by another three settings in phase 2 although only two settings made outdoor interactions their focus. A further setting in phase 3 also chose this focus. One setting referred to Vygotsky’s theory on the zone of proximal development with the practitioners and older children as the higher skilled partners that can help educate and teach the babies new skills. In all three settings who chose this focus the garden is shared with older children and different practitioners. None had realised how little some non-baby room practitioners were interacting with the babies but saw great improvements after sharing research and coaching.

The other common aspect practitioners focussed on was interaction during routine tasks and whether these gave children time to interact and communicate.

As part of the environment discussion we also looked at the impact of the emotional environment. Goouch and Powell‘s research (2013) identified that practitioners feel that a

12 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

3.9 THE IMPACT OF A CHILD’S SENSE OF SECURITY ON INTERACTIONS AND COMMUNICATION.

ARE OUR INTERACTIONS WITH BABIES AND THEIR FAMILIES DURING THE SETTLING IN PROCESS EFFECTIVE?

3.8 SUPPORTING AND UNDERSTANDING INTERACTIONS BETWEEN INFANTS AND PEERS (SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS).

WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF PEER TO PEER INTERACTIONS? DO WE NOTICE THEM AND ENCOURAGE THEM?

HOW CAN WE ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE CHILDREN?

task focused environment does not enable the development of close interactions or opportunities to just be with the babies and connect with them. Interactions during routine tasks such as nappy change and snack have been the focus of three questions. Additionally, it is an area that created a lot of discussion during network meetings and 90% of settings reviewed whether routines such as mealtimes can be used as pedagogical experiences (Degotardi et al, 2016). One setting identified that opportunities for interactions during baby led weaning were less than when feeding the baby.

Following discussion practitioners thought about how to fine tune routines according to children’s needs and preferences so that routines are no longer a one-size fits all (Lindon,2012). Nappy changes are built for intimacy and mind-sets can be changed from it being a difficult, dreaded chore that needs to be completed as quickly as possible into a mutually gratifying experience (Connected Baby, 2016).

Every child is born a social being who wants to communicate and other children play an important role in this. Shin (2010) identified that the subtle signs of communication between peers can often be overlooked. These questions both came from the self-evaluation activity as an area not previously thought about. In phase 2 under half of practitioners identified that they looked for signs of communication between children at the start of their projects. At the end three quarters were confident that this was now recognised. One setting who focused on this area identified that older children did not see babies as competent learners in their own right and helped them see what babies are learning.

13 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

4: MAIN AIMS OF THE PROJECT AND THE IMPACT

One setting decided to focus on the importance of the relationship between parents and practitioners and how a better knowledge of the children and families would help interactions during settling in.

In phase 1 two thirds of practitioner self-evaluation identified that they only had some knowledge of their key children and felt they could spend more time with key children to know them better. Conversely three quarters said they could recognise the individual communication signals of children that they feel secure with them. This is interesting as both figures cannot be true. In phase 3 only a just over a third of practitioners felt they knew their key children really well. However, we know that “emotionally attuned interactions help infants learn about emotions and provide them with cues on how to modulate their own responses” (Dalli, 2014). Many settings borrowed or discussed Sabre tooth tigers and Teddy Bears; the connected baby guide to attachment’ by Dr Susan Zeedyk and how new research has improved their understanding of attachment.

Jools Page has identified the difficulty for those who work in early years settings in expressing the “affectionate and caring behaviours which the role demands of them as in loco parentis, and which very young children need in their development of healthy attachments.”

What has become clear is that parents and practitioners are working together to improve key worker’s knowledge of each child so that they can then respond appropriately. Additional knowledge during settling in such as signs of sleepiness or hunger anecdotally lead to quicker attachment behaviours with key workers as needs are met quicker and frustration is less.

4.1 Improve practice and an enhanced understanding of how to interact and communicate with our youngest children.

Although this project provides mainly qualitative research rather than quantitative, we identified two key ways to measure progression and impact:

Observations – The project leads visited each setting at the start and end of each phase to observe practice. To ensure consistency the two leads observed together and decided on the score together. These observations were scored on a scale based on ITERS-R Interaction and Listening and Talking subscales. Other research conducted by the ESCC leads was used for discussion. The subscales used included how babies were encouraged

14 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

to interact with each other, how practitioners interacted with babies, the language used, whether they were responding to non-verbal communication, how children are helped to understand language, supporting of peer interactions, how children are helped to use language and staff-child interactions. The observation feedback was shared with each setting and then scored by percentage to provide quantitative data. 14 out of 36 settings directly based their question on the discussions following these initial observations.

Observation Scores – Phase 1

The percentage results improved from 68.50% to 92.31%. The biggest improvement was 42.86%, the lowest was 11.91%. However, their initial observation was the highest of all settings.

Setting Score at Start (out of 42)

Score at End (out of 42)

Percentage increase

Score one year on (out of 42)

1 24 37 +30.96% 40.52 28 41 +30.95% 38.53 34 41 +16.67% 40.54 28 40 +28.57% 41.5

5 36 41+11.91% lowest 41.5

6 20 38

+42.86% highest increase 35.5

7 27 36 +21.42% 33.58 28 39 +26.19% 36.5

9 30 40+23.81%

N/A10 28 38 +23.81% 40.511 32 40 +19.05% 4112 27 35 +19.04% N/A13 32 38 +14.29% 39

Phase 1 revisit of settings.

In summer 2019 the ESCC project leads started visiting phase 1 settings again to see if the emphasis on communication and interactions had been sustained. Two settings have since stopped taking children aged under 18 months so were not revisited. Seven out of eleven scored higher than their first and second observations or were roughly equivalent (within 0.5 points). Through discussion it was clear that these settings had maintained their focus on the project. The four settings who scored lower during the third observation had not maintained their focus on the project to the same degree as the others due to other challenges such as high turnover of staff. However, they still scored much higher than in the initial observation. Only one setting had no staff changes in the baby room since the project.

15 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

Three settings had different managers, although all of these had previously been involved in the project either as manager of a different setting or as project lead within the setting.

Three settings had taken on additional staff due to increased demand for baby spaces

Four settings had changed staff within the baby room, either for maternity leave or moving between rooms within the setting.

The project leads also asked if the setting’s cohort tracking showed any improvement in communication and language (CL) or personal, social and emotional development (PSED). This proved to be quite hard to pinpoint using this method as the children who took part in the project had to be identified and then compared to the current or previous cohort of children. Most of the detail given to us was anecdotal from manager’s and practitioner’s knowledge of their groups of children. However, all settings clearly identified that babies moved into the next room either at the expected stage or higher within CL and PSED. The majority commented on how improved interactions between non baby room staff and babies had led to easier transitions within the nursery. We can therefore anecdotally confirm that there are stronger relationships between practitioners and children, increased practitioner understanding of communication and a higher level of children’s communication skills.

Observation scores - phase 2

The overall percentage results improved from 70% to 87%. The biggest improvements were 38% and 37%. There were 2 minus scores during observation the lowest with a decrease of 3%. In one setting this was partly due to staffing changes (both manager and lead practitioner) and other age group practitioners not interacting with the baby when outside together. The second setting with a decrease also had a new manager, new deputy and several other staff changes during the project. The score should however not negate from the positive impact the project has had on both of these settings, which we have seen through discussion, self-evaluation and their case studies. The EYSIOs looked for what had been identified as weakness the first time and in both settings the weakness was no longer seen on the second visit despite the scores. This phase has been very difficult in general to effectively evaluate with figures due to many staff and manager changes. Four of the original observation scores reflected good practice at the start so their increase is less.

Setting Score at Start (out of 42)

Score at End (out of 42)

Percentage increase

1 24 40 +38% highest increase

2 26 35 +21%3 33.5 39 +13%4 27 25.5 -3% lowest5 30 29 -2%6 36 39 +7%7 37.5 41.5 +10%8 25.5 37.5 +28%9 33 37 +9%10 30 41.5 +28%11 35 40.5 +13%12 14.5 30.5 +37%

16 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

Observation scores – phase 3

Overall percentage scores moved from 75.97% to 95.13% which is a 19.16% increase. Incidentally this is our highest overall scoring group with seven settings scoring 40 or above which equates to 64%. In the lowest scoring setting the baby room practitioner who worked independently in the room left before the end of the project and her knowledge was lost.

Setting Score at start (out of 42)

Score at end (out of 42)

Percentage increase

1 35.5 39.5 +9.52%2 30 39 +21.433 17 41 +57.14% highest

increase4 31.5 35 +8.33% lowest5 35.5 41.5 +14.29%6 34 41.4 +17.86%7 36.5 41.5 +11.91%8 31 41 +23.81%9 34 37.5 +8.3410 33.5 41.5 +19.05%11 32.5 40.5 +19.05

Across all 3 phases the areas that were seen least by the project leads during observations were in the peer interaction section of ITERS.

Self-evaluation –This tool covered many different aspects of communication/interaction and was developed by the ESCC project leads following their own research. This was completed at the start and end of the project by each baby room practitioner and the setting manager. In some settings where other staff regularly covered in the baby room these practitioners also completed this. The self-evaluations were designed with a dual purpose; to help settings to break down their thinking and for data use. Analysis of this tool helped lead practitioners to think about areas which their practitioners were not sure about. 11 settings directly based their questions on gaps in their self-evaluations. This tool was again designed to allow quantitative data and enabled the project leads to identify whether knowledge in general increased e.g. not just knowledge related to the individual project questions. The EYSIOs scored the no, some and yes answers to provide data.

Phase 1 Before After % Increase

Use of song 46.18% 89.65% +43.47%

Adult-child interactions 59.09% 96.55% +37.46%

Adult skills 38.64% 77.59% +38.95%

17 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

Understanding different types of communication 52.27% 87.93% +35.66%

Working with families to support communication and literacy

58.79% 89.66% +30.87%

Sustained shared interactions 25.82% 71.72% +45.9%

How the external/internal environment supports communication

44.36% 82.07% +37.71%

Supporting and understanding interactions between infants and their peers

45.45% 79.31% +33.86%

How a child’s sense of security affects communication

63.18% 86.21% +23.03%

Phase 2 Before After Impact

The use of song 41.1% 79.2% +38.1%

Adult-child interactions 56.4% 88.5% +32.1%

Adult skills 34.5% 71.2% +36.7%

Understanding different types of communication 42.7% 79.8% +37.1%

Working with families to support communication and literacy

50.9% 80.8% +29.9%

Sustained shared interactions 32% 64.6% +32.6%

How the internal and/or external environment supports communication (including time to talk)

47.6% 78.5% +30.9%

Supporting and understanding interactions between infant and peers

34.5% 71.2% +36.7%

Does a child’s sense of security affect communication?

58.6% 81.7% +23.1%

Phase 3 Before After % Increase

Use of song 36.25% 78.38% +42.13%

Adult-child interactions 57.03% 91.89% +34.86%

Adult skills 31.64 % 64.86% +33.22%

Understanding different types of communication 41.80% 83.11% +41.31%

18 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

Working with families to support communication and literacy

53.65% 81.08% +27.43%

Sustained shared interactions 24.69% 67.57% +42.88%

How the external/internal environment supports communication

35.94% 86.49% +50.55%

Supporting and understanding interactions between infants and their peers

33.59% 70.27% +36.68%

How a child’s sense of security affects communication

68.75% 88.51% +19.76%

Adult skills and sustained shared interactions were consistently the lowest initial scores in all phases.

Impact of aim 1 - both the observations and self-evaluations show improved practice and an enhanced understanding of how to interact and communicate with our youngest children. The data and our discussions with practitioners show us that there was consistently increased knowledge across all areas – not just those related to their focus question. This was also evident during our network meeting discussions where practitioners reported increased confidence in their skills. The project leads have observed a significant increase in respectful and individualized interactions with a greater understanding of non-verbal communication and how to support children to communicate. One setting has told us that they are using the self-evaluation as an indication of practitioner knowledge when recruiting practitioners and another uses it as part of induction.

4.2Introduce the ethos of research to practitioners

Case studies have shown that settings have embraced research. In our revisit of phase 1 we found that:

In 90.9 % of settings the changing of staff had led to knowledge being shared with newer practitioners ensuring continuing knowledge

90.9 % had continued with the actions identified at the end of their project 100% had continued to review their baby rooms and make changes 100% of settings continue to use research as a form of continuous professional

development.

The usefulness of giving practitioners permission to stop and observe cannot be understated. Practitioners often felt that being given the permission to observe purely interactions opened their eyes to the way babies were communicating and whether they were responding. All settings completed observations, although the focus was sometimes different depending on their question. Many found that they sometimes focused on task related language or that they did not always follow children’s non-verbal cues. Participants

19 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

report more individualised interactions following from better observation and response. It is obvious from discussions at network meetings and by looking at reflective journals that learning was applied to practice and changes analysed. In phases 2 and 3, 20 out of 23 settings expressed explicitly that they would continue to use research and reflection as a form of CPD. This approach has also been implemented within different aged rooms in 85% of settings across all three phases focussing on areas more informally. They have researched why areas might need changing and the benefits rather than just buying resources. For example, developing the outside area and changing to natural, open-ended and authentic resources. One setting allows practitioners across the whole nursery set research times each week.

“You’re more likely to use in practice when you find out for yourself” - “Doing research has given the nursery a reason for making changes and a basis for

justifying those changes to the owners” “As a team we are talking more about pedagogy. For example, we all watched the

BBC program ‘Babies their wonderful world’ and discussed afterwards” “I became aware that I sometimes didn’t know the terminology. For example, I

thought I didn’t know what motherese was but once I had researched it, I realised I did”

“Research has been a good way of furthering knowledge and we have developed a culture of reflection. It has been eye opening to use this method and we now have a more reflective practice”.

4.3 Increase an ethos of reflective practice by examining research and applying it to practice

Throughout the project the lead practitioners completed reflective journals. Each setting completed a case study at the end of their project analysing starting point, what they did and found, the impact and future plans. The network meetings have shown us that practitioners are now questioning previous assumptions and ways of working which were previously part of their everyday practice.

They are also critically examining what they have researched while being aware of different practitioner’s viewpoints. Practitioners told us that they are thinking more about what they are providing in general and how that helps develop the brain. There has also been more research into physical development, particularly the work of Emmi Pikler and Magda Gerber. Settings are ensuring children have more opportunities for movement and less time being constrained in chairs. The project leads have been impressed by the level of reflection within teams and during network meetings:

20 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

PARTICIPANT QUOTE

“To see the baby room project help others to learn to research, both by finding articles and research and by testing their own ideas through observation of our babies coupled with reflection on what they were seeing within the setting and then see them apply that learning to make their own improvements has been a real joy to me and I believe this will have a lasting impact on the staff who have participated and the babies they care for. It has supported staff to truly take ownership of the environments (both physical and emotional) they create for the babies here and express their own ethos in harmony with that of the whole nursery”.

“We have linked missing non-verbal communication with missing play cues in older ages and are now focusing on this”

“That we were not doing enough to support English as additional language babies. We are now getting key words and songs from families”

“I really enjoyed the project. When you have been in childcare for a long time you get a bit stale. It has really made me think.”

“Toward the end of the project I started to look into the use of song. At the beginning I felt that the use of song was one of my stronger qualities but after doing the research I realised there are so many more ways I could learn and develop in this area”.

“Our research and the changes we’ve made to our practice have hugely impacted the moods of both the babies and practitioners throughout the day as a whole. The babies have become less anxious and stressed during daily routines and overall

seem a lot happier, especially during nappy changing.”

4.4 Raise the profile of the importance of baby room practice

At the start and end of each phase we held an event for the setting’s baby room lead practitioner and manager. This was designed to inspire participants and to start them questioning their practice with the help of key note speakers. These events were also a celebration of what the settings had achieved, and several participants spoke about their projects. These events were advertised on our Early Years Team Facebook page to a wider audience. All settings have identified an increase in confidence of the lead practitioner. The majority of lead practitioners shared their progress with the whole setting and have identified that practitioners in other age ranges have more knowledge of baby room practice. One project lead has been made room lead due to her increased knowledge and confidence and another deputy manager.

At the end of the phase 2 we asked managers if their views of baby room practice have changed and if they had any prior experience of working in baby rooms. This was an attempt to identify why some settings were keen to sign up for the project and others were not. Those who had prior experience of working with babies totalled 70%. Perhaps this meant that they had more reason to join the project than those who were not interested in joining? Participating managers without experience in baby rooms were mainly degree qualified so perhaps this also had an impact.

4.5 Create opportunities to network with other baby room professionals

21 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

PARTICIPANT QUOTE

“We have designed own self-evaluation tool which practitioners across whole setting completed. It has been discussed in staff meetings and INSET days. The next INSET will continue a focus on babies neurological and language development”

5: ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS

We held a total of eleven evening networks across the county for baby room practitioners over the course of the project. These have been highly successful, and we have seen the confidence of the leads increase as they share ideas and challenge ideas. All of the lead practitioners questioned who attended network meetings said that they found them beneficial:

“I enjoyed the chance to get feedback from the EYSIOs and being able to talk specifically about baby practice. I liked going to the different nurseries for these”.

“It was good to listen to other findings. What I found really helpful was talking about practice with others and acknowledging that they have the same issues. I found Kathy Goouch at networks highly beneficial and felt valued as a practitioner when I spoke.”

“I found the networks beneficial as I enjoy learning from others”

Manager meetings were also well attended. We held seven over the three phases. The project enabled some managers to see babies and baby practice through the eyes of practitioners in the nursery, especially those who did not relish their time in the baby room. They were then able to address this.

“Practitioners didn’t used to want to cover in the baby room but once they had spent a bit of time in there their feelings are much more positive. They are all now more open to being in different age ranges. This has also helped with transition. Makaton had been done previously but wasn’t being used. This has been a focus not just in the baby room but across all ages and is now being used much more effectively”

“I found manager meetings extremely useful and well worth the effort. It was good to meet with managers all coming from different backgrounds and settings. It was also reassuring to know that we are already doing some things that came up for others to address.”

We asked the managers whether they felt the project had a positive impact. All said yes:

“Absolutely – it was tricky at the start to get all the practitioners involved. However, as the project progressed it has encouraged to them to take ownership.”

“Yes – younger children’s efforts are more respected. It has also made us reflect on settling in and how new children of all ages need quality interactions to feel secure”

22 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

PARTICIPANT QUOTE

“It was good to see that everyone was on the same page. Everyone has challenges and it was good to hear how they approached this”

5.1 Parent participation

Although permissions to participate in the project were obtained from parents, the depth of involvement seemed to depend on the question that the setting chose. For example, information was sought about nappy changing routines, non-verbal communication, more details about feeding/sleep routines and singing.

“One parent admitted she didn’t sing at home and was given song words. This then led to a conversation about tooth brushing troubles. We have reflected on this and feel that parents are now more open in general as they know they are valued”.

Parents in another setting realised that they were unaware of nonverbal communication and were helped by practitioners to identify this in their children. Another setting invited parents in at lunch time to model communication during routines. One setting sent two different questionnaires to parents the first a more generic; how do you know what they are requesting and how do you communicate to them what you are doing? This then brought on questionnaire two as parents were unsure how to answer. The second questionnaire asked exact questions, for example, how do you know if your child is: hungry … tired … sad... wanting to engage … etc. This was identified as being much more beneficial to identifying each child as unique and how they individually express and communicate with us.

Many of those settings who had limited parent involvement have expressed the desire to further develop this partnership next, for example, by sharing songs and Makaton signs with parents. Some will be updating parent support materials such as sleep policies and guidance and ensuring they find out more about how parents interact with their babies at home and what their individual gestures and sounds mean for that child.

5.2 Did our research match that of Goouch and Powell’s (2013)? (see 1.2)

148 practitioners participated in the ESCC project.

“The majority of baby room practitioners are qualified to level 2 or 3. Higher qualified practitioners are usually placed with pre-school children”. Overall 134 practitioners were unqualified or qualified at level 2 or 3. This breaks down as 9 unqualified or undertaking apprenticeships, 16 level 2 practitioners and 109 level 3 practitioners. There were also 5 level 4 practitioners, 6 at level 6 and 3 Early years professionals/teachers.

“Baby room practitioners often feel neglected and isolated from other practice in settings, especially if they are in separate rooms”. Through conversations it was clear that those who worked on their own in small baby rooms/areas felt most isolated. Approximately a quarter of baby room practitioners indicated that they felt isolated from general practice in the rest of the setting.

“The majority of baby room practitioners nationally are aged 18-25”. This is mainly in line with the research by Goouch and Powell (2013) although the age of practitioners slightly varied with East Sussex project having 58 practitioners in their 30s and older.

23 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

5.3 Setting statistics – 36 settings

10 participating settings were privately run and part of a larger chain of settings. 17 were individual private settings. 4 were individual charity run settings while a further 2 charity run settings were part of larger chains. 2 school academy nurseries took part along with 1 ESCC nursery.

17 settings had one separate baby room while 9 had 2 baby/toddler rooms. 9 settings had an enclosed area within a larger room. One setting included babies and other aged children all together in one room.

21 settings had a separate baby garden while 15 share the garden with older ages.

The youngest age that babies would be accepted from was 6 weeks. However, the vast majority of babies joined settings between the ages of 6 and 9 months old. Hours greatly varied but the average amount of time a baby attended was 3 full days.

16 settings had only white British families. Many languages were spoken by families across the other settings: Algerian, Bulgarian, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Lithuanian, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Slovakian, Spanish, Tamil and Vietnamese. It was interesting that a handful of practitioners were initially unsure of languages families used and had to check with families after we queried this. For example, practitioners cited that they spoke Chinese but didn’t know whether this meant Cantonese, Mandarin or another language. Another cited Indian but again not the actual language such as Malayalam or Hindi. Many settings were not using key words in the home language for babies although they were for older children. We discussed why they felt it was important for one age range but not the younger children and this appeared to change perceptions that this was not needed for babies. Two settings spoke to us about the extra work they had done with English as an additional language parents as a result of the project such as asking parents to record singing in their language.

5.4 Has the project had a wider impact beyond participating settings?

We know from discussion and analysis that the project raised the profile of baby room practitioners not only within their own settings but also:

across other settings in ESCC. The project has featured on the Improvement Teams Facebook Page and information has been shared during ESCC conferences;

across settings in other counties. The project has been shared with settings in chains across counties and shared during peer working cross county borders;

within East Sussex County Council, with internal staff articles. The project leads received an Outstanding Children’s Services Award from Children’s Services;

nationally and internationally due to an article published in Nursery World, two published articles in the Impact Journal by the Chartered College of Teaching.

The project won the Nursery World Award in the category of Working with Babies and Toddlers in September 2019.

24 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

The project leads have kept in touch with Professors Kathy Goouch and Sacha Powell. They have also updated local universities of progress. The project leads spoke about the project at an alumni Early Years Professionals meeting at Brighton University which representatives from two other local authorities attended.

There has been general sharing of the project when members of the ESCC team are networking.

5.5 Learning for ESCC project leads

Across all phases there have been a high number of staff changes; lead practitioners, managers and baby room staff. This was most significant during Phase 2. The setting leads identified that it was hard to find time to research alongside day to day work. Sometimes they found it hard to engage other staff. Sharing the research among the other baby room staff worked well to address both these issues. However, many lead practitioners also spent time researching at home as they became more involved in their project.

As project leads, we have learnt that it is hard to get a response to everyone via email and that contact by phone or face to face works better.

Some Phase 1 practitioners found it daunting to identify their focus and project question. In further phases as we had identified this, we tried to help them find their focus through more discussion. The case studies also helped further phases to see how other settings had identified their question. We had some phase 1 practitioners attend the first phase 2 network meeting to talk about their process. Practitioners and managers from phase 1 also compiled some top tips for future participants which were added to by phase 2.

5.6 Additional impact beyond the scope of the research questions

The ESCC project leads have been overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of the settings for the project and their determination to continue, despite their own ongoing challenges. Seeing the changes in setting when we have returned at the end of the project and hearing the practitioners speak knowledgably and enthusiastically have been inspiring. The whole ethos of many baby rooms appears to have changed. Although not officially part of the project the environments have also improved as information is gained. Looking back at the photographs from the start of the project at the end of the phase 2 project celebration event, 3 settings commented how different their rooms looked now. One practitioner commented that she had been inspired to research different baby room environments online; another said “It is interesting to see how things are set up in other places and to see how settings of different sizes do this”

25 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

PARTICIPANT QUOTE

“The baby room project has been amazing! It has inspired us to continue the idea into other areas and we are planning to take groups of children to a local care home to do story and singing sessions with the elderly residents. We are exploring the benefits of interactions with different generations. this has really built a new dimension into the team as now everyone is excited about improving their own knowledge and understanding whilst improving the outcomes for children.”

6: CONCLUSION

7: REFERENCES

Nappy changing areas have been improved with the addition of items including; song mobiles, wipe able books and pictures on the wall to communicate about. Black and white areas have been developed along with treasure baskets, heuristic play, sensory items and musical resources. Settings have developed spaces that encourage communication such as tepees and other enclosed areas both indoors and outdoors. The development of the environment was supported by each participating setting receiving a small grant from ESCC to spend on resources to support communication and interactions. The impact of this will continue to be monitored by the project leads.

Practitioners have commented that looking at articles online works better than reading books time wise. It is hard to access most research without being a current university student and this hindered our initial research as did the fee for short term access to research on some sites. This has also been an issue for practitioners with most of their research coming from books, websites, university websites, TED talks, online articles disseminating research and free to access papers. The lack of access to full research papers therefore makes it hard for research to have an impact on practice for everyday practitioners.

This project has identified that practitioners of all qualification levels can express themselves, question, assert, challenge, defend, explore and examine their behaviour, motivations and practice when supported to become researchers in their field. (Piper, 2019) It is clear that this increased knowledge has improved the understanding of the ways in which our youngest children interact. Improvements have clearly been seen in the participating baby rooms with a greater understanding of how babies, speak and develop language through interactions.

We acknowledge the benefit of the support and knowledge of Dr Emerita Kathy Goouch and Professor Sacha Powell formerly of Christ Church University, Canterbury who encouraged us to challenge our thinking and run this as a research project. This project would not have happened in the same way without their support and guidance.

26 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

BERA (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (Fourth Division). Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018

Burke.N (2018) Musical Development Matters, Early Education https://www.early-education.org.uk/sites/default/files/Musical%20Development%20Matters%20ONLINE.pdf

Casasola. M. (2018) Research Sheds Light on How Babies Learn and Develop Language, Cornell University. Accessed on http://3d5t3q1mzaay3etj951e0g0a-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Research-Sheds-Light.pdf

Clare. A. Communication and Interaction in the Early Years, Sage Publications Ltd, London, 2016

Connected baby, dance of the nappy video https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dance+of+the+nappy+suzanne+zeedyk&&view=detail&mid=DF82CAFA4CF4EDC51D9EDF82CAFA4CF4EDC51D9E&&FORM=VRDGAR

Cowan, K. (2019). Valuing Young Children's Signs of Learning: Observation and Digital Documentation of Play in Early Years Classrooms. Final Report: The Froebel Trust.

Cryer D, Clifford RM et al. (2017) The Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-3), New York: Teachers' College Press

Dalli, C. OCCASIONAL PAPER 4 (2014) Quality for babies and toddlers in early years settings. Accessed at https://tactyc.org.uk/occasional-papers/

Degotardi, S. OCCASIONAL PAPER 7 (2015) Relationship-based pedagogies with babies and toddlers: Issues for teaching and implications for learning. Accessed at https://tactyc.org.uk/occasional-papers/

Degotardi S, Han F and Torr J (2018) Infants’ experience with ‘near and clear’ educator talk: individual variation and its relationship to indicators of quality. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(3), 278-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1479632

Degotardi, S. Torr, J. Nguyen, N (2016) Infant–toddler educators’ language support practices during snack-time.

Department for Education (2017) Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five.

Dyke. J (2017) A Froebelian Approach- songs, rhymes and finger plays. The Frobel Trust https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwj2gKuBp5roAhVkmVwKHW-LDd4QFjACegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.froebel.org.uk%2Fapp%2Fdownload%2F16831488%2FFT%2BSongs%252C%2BRhymes%2Band%2BFinger%2BPlays%2BPamphlet.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1KWIQljPr7eyGcy7x9nfyc

27 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

EPPE cited in Page J, Clare A and Nutbrown C (2013) Working with babies and children (2nd edition) from birth to three, London: Sage publications p46

Gerson, S. Gattis, M. and Weinstein, N (2017) Before babies understand words, they understand tones of voice. Accessed via https://theconversation.com/before-babies-understand-words-they-understand-tones-of-voice-81978

Gouldsborough JM (2018) The Voice of the child. How to listen effectively to young children Routledge p9

Goouch K. and Powell S (2013) The Baby Room - Principles, Policy and Practice, Maidenhead: Open University Press

Harvard University, Serve and Return https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/serve-and-return/

Hoff, E. (2001) accessed at https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/developmental-psychology/language-development/babbling/

Leong V, Byrne E, Clackson K, Georgieva S, Lam S, and Wass S (2017) Speaker gaze increases infant-adult connectivity. Accessed at https://www.pnas.org/content/114/50/13290.abstract

Lindon.J What does it mean to be one? What every practitioner needs to understand about the development of one year olds, Practical Pre-school Books, London, 2012

Malloch, S. David B. Sharp, D. Campbell, A. Trevarthen, C. (1997) MEASURING THE HUMAN VOICE: ANALYSING PITCH, TIMING, LOUDNESS AND VOICE QUALITY IN MOTHER/INFANT COMMUNICATION

Osgood J, Elwick A, Robertson L et al. (March 2017) Early Years Teacher and Early Years Educator: A scoping study of the impact, experiences and associated issues of recent early years qualifications and training in England, Middlesex University, UK. Available online at: http://tactyc.org.uk/research/

Page, J. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/professional-love-early-years-1.543307

Page J, Clare A and Nutbrown C (2013) Working with babies and children (2nd edition) from birth to three, London: Sage publications p135

Piper. L (2019) Creating Researchful pedagogy for baby room practitioners in Early Years Settings. Impact Journal

Roberts R (2010) cited in Clare, A (2016) Communication and Interaction in the Early Years. Sage Publications Ltd, London p31

Shin (2010) cited in Page J, Clare A and Nutbrown C (2013) Working with babies and children (2nd edition) from birth to three, London: Sage publications p36

Trevarthen, C et al (1997) MEASURING THE HUMAN VOICE: ANALYSING PITCH, TIMING, LOUDNESS AND VOICE QUALITY IN MOTHER/INFANT COMMUNICATION

28 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0

http://www.co-bw.com/Music%20Articles%20Technical/Measuring%20the%20human%20voice%20%20Analysing%20pitch,%20timing%20and%20voice.pdf

Vygotsky.L (1978) https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html

Young, V. Powell, S. and Goouch, K. The Babysong Project, research centre for families, children and communities. Canterbury Christ Church University http://www.ragdollfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/BabysongBooklet_CCCU_Feb2017.pdf

Zeedyk, S (2019) http://connectedbaby4.net/babies/

Zeedyk, S. Dance of the nappy video available at http://connectedbaby.net/babies/

Zeedyk,S. Sabre tooth tigers & Teddy Bears; The connected baby drive to attachment,Connectedbaby.net

29 | P a g e L a u r a P i p e r J u l y 2 0 2 0