Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Cognition research has demonstrated that babies, from birth, can detect numerical correspondences and abstract properties of objects and events. However, this limited existing research is often distant from educational practice, and thus, this information may be inaccessible to early childhood educators; most of whom hold pre-Bachelor level qualifications. This quantitative study reports on a survey of 466 Australian early childhood educators to examine what relationships may exist between educators’ qualifications and experience in the profession, and their beliefs about mathematics education for babies and toddlers. Findings show that although most educators have strong, positive beliefs about mathematics education for very young children, there are significant differences in beliefs about when mathematical ideas develop in children found between educators without Bachelor level qualifications and those with Bachelor and post-graduate qualifications. Our findings lend support to Australia’s sustained quality improvement agenda for the early childhood educator sector and point to the benefits of Bachelor level teaching qualifications for establishing strong foundations in mathematics education.

Keywords

early childhood mathematics education children beliefs qualifications birth to three

Introduction

Cognition research has demonstrated that babies, from birth, are capable of detecting numerical correspondences and abstract properties of objects and events (for example, Feigenson et al., 2004; Starkey et al., 1990). The ability to represent the numerosity of small sets appears to develop in the first week of life (Antell & Keating, 1983), and there is evidence to suggest that infants are able to represent and remember quantities of up to three or four, distinguish between quantities, match small sets of objects, notice changes in quantities and detect spatial changes (Geary, 1994; Lauer & Lourenco, 2016; Montague-Smith & Price, 2012; Starr et al., 2013). However, much of the limited existing research on babies’ and toddlers’ mathematical knowledge largely relies on clinical cognitive assessments, as opposed to considering mathematical development in the context of early childhood educational practice. Indeed, researchers in the areas of mathematics education, psychology and cognitive neuroscience typically research in isolation from one another, with comparatively rare collaboration and cross-citations (Alcock et al., 2016). Of concern for this study is the paucity of research which has specifically examined mathematics education for babies and toddlers (i.e. children under three years of age). MacDonald and Murphy’s (2021) systematic review of early childhood mathematics education peer-reviewed articles published in the last 15 years identified only nine articles focused on children under three years of age, and only three focused on children under two. Thus, the available evidence to suggest that children develop mathematical knowledge from birth is often distant from educational practice and may be inaccessible to early childhood educators. Consequently, early childhood educators may have limited awareness of mathematics development (Björklund & Barendregt, 2016; Phillips & Morse, 2011) or hold narrow views of what constitutes mathematics in their educational programs (Thiel, 2010). This may be compounded by early years curricula and frameworks, such as the Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (EYLF) (Australian Government Department of Education, 2022) which does not articulate specific mathematics teaching strategies or learning targets for children (Cohrssen et al., 2013). Furthermore, previous research has indicated a need for early childhood teacher preparation programs to include greater attention to mathematical content and instructional methods relevant to early childhood contexts (Parks & Wager, 2015). Research which examines the mathematical learning of very young children in the context of early childhood educational practice is required.

MacDonald and Murphy’s (2021) review also highlighted that very few studies have focused on educators’ beliefs about young children’s capabilities in mathematics. However, the available evidence suggests that this is an important area for examination. For example, Björklund (2012) posits that early childhood educators are not always aware of the importance of their teaching role, or their own beliefs and approaches to mathematics, which in turn impacts the learning opportunities for children. Findings from the studies of Browne and Wong (2017) and Knaus (2017) suggest that many educators underestimate children’s mathematical capacities, and that there are cultural or contextual factors that influence educators’ beliefs about children’s mathematical abilities (MacDonald & Murphy, 2021). According to Lee and Ginsburg (2009), some educators hold ‘significant misconceptions about teaching mathematics, including that mathematics education is only for some bright kids with “mathematics genes,” that simple numbers and shapes are enough, and that language and literacy are more important than mathematics’ (p. 38). Further, some early childhood educators may be reluctant to engage with intentional teaching of mathematics (Lee & Ginsburg, 2009), hold a very narrow view of what constitutes mathematics, focussing on numbers and shapes (Thiel, 2010), lack procedural and conceptual understandings in certain content areas (Linder & Simpson, 2018), or have limited awareness of the mathematics with which children engage as part of their everyday activity (Cohrssen et al., 2013). It should, however, be noted that a recent systematic review found clear distinctions between educators’ practices when comparing between countries (Linder & Simpson, 2018).

In this study, the term ‘educators’ is used inclusively to refer to employees in early childhood education and care settings. In Australia, as in many countries, early childhood educators have a diverse range of roles, backgrounds and qualifications (Jackson, 2021). Across the sector, early childhood educators hold qualifications ranging from certificate or diploma level (pre-Bachelor) to post-graduate level. Educators work across a range of settings, including preschools or kindergartens (sessional programs offered in the year prior to school); long day care services (full-day programs for children from birth to school age); or family day care (programs provided in educators’ homes) (Jackson, 2021; MacDonald, 2020). The workforce is highly mobile, with educators’ average length of tenure at their current service only 3.6 years (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority, 2021). This diversity in qualifications and professional experiences presents both opportunities and challenges for the early childhood education sector. On the one hand, the diversity of the workforce provides more inclusive early childhood education services; on the other, it poses challenges in raising the quality of early childhood education (Cumming et al., 2015; Jackson, 2021). Several studies (for example, Krieg et al., 2015; OECD, 2006; Warren & Haisken-DeNew, 2013) have shown a link between early childhood educators’ qualifications and children’s learning outcomes, suggesting that a high or increasing proportion of more qualified staff is desirable. The introduction of an early childhood education and care reform agenda in 2009 brought substantial changes to the Australian early childhood education sector, including a requirement for a proportion of educators to hold Bachelor level teaching qualifications (Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, 2012). However, despite this requirement, baby and toddler settings are consistently staffed by the least-qualified educators (Elliott, 2006; Stratigos & Salamon, 2019).

The Current Study

The current study was conducted as a part of a large-scale, five-year project examining mathematics education for babies and toddlers in Australia. Previous studies from the larger project have examined educators’ beliefs about mathematics education for children under three years of age, and their reported mathematics education practices (MacDonald, 2020; MacDonald & McGrath, 2022). The current study builds upon this work to examine early childhood educators’ beliefs about children’s mathematical development, and what relationships may exist between these beliefs and educators’ qualifications and experience in the profession. Although there is existing research that suggests that educators’ qualifications impact children’s learning outcomes, it appears that this relationship has not been examined in relation to mathematics education, specifically. Thus, this study seeks to address this gap by exploring the following research questions:

- Is there a relationship between a sample of early childhood educators’ professional qualifications and their beliefs about mathematical development in children and benefits of mathematical learning?

- Are there relationships amongst a sample of early childhood educators’ current professional roles, years in the profession, and their beliefs about mathematical development in children and benefits of mathematical learning?

Methodology

The current study reports on survey data that were gathered from a five-year project that sought Australian early childhood educators’ perspectives on early childhood mathematics education. The study was conducted under Charles Sturt University’s Human Research Ethics Committee Approval Number H18033.

Consistent with internationally accepted definitions of ‘early childhood’ (UNESCO, 2023; World Health Organisation, 2007), the larger project focused on educators of children aged from birth to 8 years. In acknowledgement of the high degree of mobility within the early childhood sector, the survey sample included those currently working with children under three years of age, as well as those who had done so in the past, or may do so in the future. The anonymous, online survey was distributed via a range of national early childhood networks during 2018. The full survey generated a sample of 506 respondents. For the purpose of the current study, we report on a sub-sample of 466 educators who provided complete data on two survey components: beginnings of mathematical development; and benefits of mathematics education.

Survey Instrument

The survey was adapted from Maier et al., (2013) Preschool Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs towards Science (P-TABS) questionnaire, with Likert scale items modified to focus on mathematics rather than science. In addition to the modified P-TABS items, the survey contained demographic and contextual questions, short-answer responses, and open comment prompts. For the purpose of this study, we report on the demographic data and two components of the extended survey: 1. Beliefs about the beginnings of mathematical development; and 2. Beliefs about the benefits of early childhood mathematics education. Findings from the full survey, including the qualitative data, are reported elsewhere (MacDonald & McGrath, 2022).

Beliefs About the Beginnings of Mathematical Development

Educators were presented with a list of mathematical ideas and were asked to indicate the age at which they believe children begin to develop these ideas about mathematics (Table 1). The list of mathematical ideas was informed by curriculum documents for the Australian early years education sector, and were thus using language which was contextually appropriate for the sample.

Table 1.

Beliefs About the Beginnings of Mathematical Development Instrument.

In your opinion, at which age do children begin to explore these maths ideas?
Numbers	Younger than 1	1-2 years	2-3 years	Older than 3
Counting
Patterns
Shapes
Location
Measuring
Matching

Beliefs About the Benefits of Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Educators’ beliefs about the benefits of early childhood mathematics education were identified through a scale adapted from Maier et al., (2013) Preschool Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs toward Science Teaching (P-TABS) questionnaire. Factor 2 of Maier et al.’s instrument included 10 items and was labelled ‘Child Benefit’ as it assessed teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward how preschool science fosters children’s interest in science and improves their school readiness skills (Maier et al., 2013, p. 370). Our adaptation of the scale consisted of seven Likert items which could be directly translated to mathematics education practice (Table 2). The original P-TABS scale had a reported reliability of .85; similarly, the seven Likert items comprising the Benefit Scale in our adapted instrument were reliable (α = .725).

Table 2.

Beliefs About the Benefits of Early Childhood Mathematics Education Instrument (Adapted From Maier et al., 2013).

How much do you agree or disagree with each of these ideas?
Preschool maths activities help children to be interested in maths when they go to school	5-Point likert scale Really disagree Kind of disagree Not sure Kind of agree Really agree
More maths should be explored with babies and toddlers
Maths activities help improve under 3’s language skills
Young children cannot learn about maths until they are able to read
Maths activities are too hard for babies and toddlers
Maths activities help improve under 3’s social skills
Children younger than 3 are curious about maths

Procedures

The study was approved by Charles Sturt University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (approval no. H18033). An invitation to complete the survey was distributed electronically through the researchers’ national early childhood networks. All respondents provided informed consent prior to completing the survey. Participants completed the survey anonymously and could withdraw from the survey at any point prior to submitting their response.

Sample

The data analysed for this study were gathered from a subset of 466 respondents who provided full responses to two sections of the survey. This represents a sampling rate of 1:143 of all Australian early childhood educators, based on current workforce data (Australian Government, 2022). Of the 466 respondents, 447 (95.9%) identified as female, 14 as male, 3 as gender diverse/non-conforming and 2 preferred not to answer. This gender distribution is consistent with the 2016 Early Childhood Education and Care National Workforce Census which showed that 91.1% of the workforce identified as female (Social Research Centre, 2017). Table 3 shows the ages and years of experience of the respondents. It can be seen that the majority of educators (31.3%) are aged 30–39 years; this is a variation in this sample compared to national data which indicates 20–29 years is the largest proportion of the workforce (Social Research Centre, 2017). The largest proportion of this sample (28.5%) have worked in early childhood education for 6–10 years; again, a slight deviation from national workforce data which shows that the majority of educators have worked in the sector for less than 6 years (Social Research Centre, 2017).

Table 3.

Educators’ Age Groups and Number of Years Working in Early Childhood Education (Frequencies) (N = 466).

Age	Number of years working in early childhood education
Age	<1 year	1–5 years	6–10 years	11–15 years	>15 years	Total
<18	—	2	—	—	—	2
18–21	—	14	—	—	—	14
22–29	7	39	47	4	—	97
30–39	7	31	48	41	19	146
40–49	5	18	28	23	44	118
50–59	2	4	8	6	42	62
≥60	—	1	1	—	19	21
Not disclosed	—	—	1	2	3	6
Total	21	109	133	76	127	466

As shown in Table 4, the majority of respondents (40.5%) work in long day care services, and Table 5 shows that the greatest proportion of respondents (20.2%) are employed as early childhood teachers. A total of 41.8% of respondents indicated they are currently employed in a role in which they are directly working with children under 3 years of age.

Table 4.

Educators’ Current Place of Employment.

Service type	N^a	%^b
Long day care	244	40.5
Preschool/Kindergarten	143	23.7
Primary school	78	12.9
Family day care	33	5.5
Outside of school hours care	26	4.3
Occasional care	12	2.0
Playgroup	10	1.7
Mobile service	4	0.7
Other	53	8.8

^aTotal N not equal to 466 as respondents could select multiple answers.

^bTotal not equal to 100% due to rounding.

Table 5.

Educators’ Current Role.

Role	N^a	%^b
Early childhood teacher	127	20.2
Room leader	112	17.8
Assistant educator	99	15.7
Educational leader	76	12.1
Director/Assistant director	62	9.9
Primary school teacher	52	8.3
Educator	16	2.5
Primary school leader	14	2.2
Trainee/student	11	1.7
Other	60	9.5

^aTotal N not equal to 466 as respondents could select multiple answers.

^bTotal not equal to 100% due to rounding.

It can be seen in Table 6 that among this sample, 53.5% of educators have attained a pre-Bachelor qualification (Certificate III, Certificate IV or Diploma) or have not attained a qualification yet, 37.7% have attained a 3- or 4-year Bachelor qualification, and 8.8% hold a post-graduate qualification (Masters or Doctorate). This distribution is consistent with national workforce data that indicates that the vast majority (72.1%) of early childhood educators hold a pre-Bachelor qualification (Social Research Centre, 2017). It should be noted that among this sample, 57.5% of respondents are currently studying for a higher qualification (Table 7). Of these, 84.0% are currently undertaking a 3- or 4-year Bachelor qualification, consistent with the 2009 reform agenda requirements (Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, 2012).

Table 6.

Educators’ Highest Qualification in Early Childhood Education (N = 466).

Qualification		N	%
Pre-Bachelor	Certificate III	19	4.1
	Certificate IV	3	0.6
	Diploma	216	46.4
	Other pre-Bachelor qualification	7	1.5
	No qualification yet	4	0.9
	Total pre-Bachelor level	249	53.5
Bachelor	3-year Bachelor degree	57	12.2
	4-year Bachelor degree	119	25.5
	Total Bachelor level	176	37.7
Post-graduate	Masters	32	6.9
	Doctorate	9	1.9
	Total post-graduate level	41	8.8

Table 7.

Educators’ Current Enrolment in Further Study (N = 268).

Qualification being pursued		N	%
Pre-Bachelor	Certificate III	2	0.7
	Certificate IV	1	0.4
	Diploma	8	3.0
	Other pre-Bachelor qualification	3	1.1
	Total pre-Bachelor level	14	5.2
Bachelor	3-year Bachelor degree	42	15.7
	4-year Bachelor degree	183	68.3
	Total Bachelor level	225	84.0
Post-graduate	Masters	22	8.2
	Doctorate	4	1.5
	Other post-graduate qualification	3	1.1
	Total post-graduate level	29	10.8

Data Analyses

For the ordinal mathematics development measures (Numbers, Counting, Patterns, Shapes, Location, Measuring and Matching) Kruskal–Wallis H tests were run to investigate group differences by highest qualification (Pre-Bachelor, Bachelor and Post-graduate) and Under 3s education status (Current and Non-current). As the highest qualification independent variable had three levels, a series of Mann–Whitney tests were run to evaluate differences between each of the groups. For the interval scores produced on the Benefits scale of the modified P-TABS instrument (Maier et al., 2013), parametric Analyses of Variances (ANOVAs) were conducted based on the high qualification groups and Under 3s education status (Coleman & Pulford, 2008; Pallant, 2020). The ANOVA of Benefits scale data by highest qualification level was supplemented by three T-tests to investigate potential differences amongst the groups. Post-hoc Bonferroni corrections were applied to reduce the likelihood of Type 1 errors. Hedge’s G effect sizes were calculated to ascertain the magnitude of between groups differences due to the varied number of participants within groups. Data level, independence and homogeneity of variance assumptions were not violated (Algina & Olejnik, 2003). Furthermore, the large sample (n = 466) strengthened the power and resilience to normality threats (VanVoorhis & Morgan, 2007). As the Years of Experience variable was categorical, non-parametric Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficients were used to determine its relationship with the mathematics development measures and the Benefits scale.

Results

The results presented here explore relationships among early childhood educators’ qualifications and professional experiences, and their beliefs about children’s mathematical development and the benefits of mathematics education for young children. We address each of our two research questions in turn.

RQ1

Is there a relationship between a sample of early childhood educators’ professional qualifications and their beliefs about mathematical development in children and benefits of mathematical learning?

Those within the sample generally believe that core mathematical concepts develop within children after their first year. Table 8 presents the descriptive statistics for the participants’ beliefs about the onset of key mathematical ideas (Numbers, Counting, Patterns, Shapes, Location, Measuring, and Matching). On these ordinal variables, a score of 1 represents ‘Younger than 1’, a score of 2 represents ‘1–2 years’ and so forth. As can be seen in Table 8, the median and mean data are closest to 2, which indicates a perceived onset between 1 and 2 years of age. The only exception was the Measuring data, which suggested that participants, to some extent, separated measurement from the other mathematics concepts as it was perceived to start developing more clearly between the ages of 2 and 3.

Table 8.

Descriptive Statistics for the Mathematical Development Variables (N = 466).

Variable	Mean	Standard Deviation	Median	Semi inter quartile range
Numbers	1.80	.80	2.00	.50
Counting	1.82	.72	2.00	.50
Patterns	1.85	.99	2.00	.50
Shapes	1.66	.75	2.00	.50
Location	1.87	1.07	1.00	1
Measuring	2.29	1.00	2.00	.88
Matching	1.95	.85	2.00	.88

There does appear to be a relationship between early childhood educators’ professional qualifications (Pre-Bachelor, Bachelor and Post-graduate) and their beliefs about the timing of the development of mathematical concepts in children, with the more qualified participants tending to nominate an earlier starting age for the development of mathematical concepts. Table 9 presents the output for the Kruskall–Wallis analyses of the mathematical concept development variables by participants’ highest current qualification. There were highly significant mean rank differences reported on the Counting, Patterns, Shapes, Measuring and Matching variables with a consistent pattern of the more educated participants believing these mathematical concepts commence development earlier. The same pattern emerged for the statistically significant differences in participants’ beliefs about the emergence of Numbers and Location.

Table 9.

Kruskal–Wallis Analyses of the Mathematical Development Variables by Highest Qualification Group.

Variable	Qualification group	N	Mean rank	Kruskal–Wallis H* (Sig.)
Numbers	Pre-Bachelor	249	248.48	8.91 (p = .012*)
	Bachelor	176	220.74
	Post-graduate	41	197.29
Counting	Pre-Bachelor	249	250.98	13.08 (p = .001**)
	Bachelor	176	219.58
	Post-graduate	41	187.09
Patterns	Pre-Bachelor	249	251.94	15.56 (p > .001**)
	Bachelor	176	220.41
	Post-graduate	41	177.71
Shapes	Pre-Bachelor	249	250.33	12.65 (p = .002**)
	Bachelor	176	220.62
	Post-graduate	41	186.60
Location	Pre-Bachelor	249	247.43	6.80 (p = .033*)
	Bachelor	176	218.10
	Post-graduate	41	215.02
Measuring	Pre-Bachelor	249	250.23	9.33 (p = .009**)
	Bachelor	176	216.84
	Post-graduate	41	203.41
Matching	Pre-Bachelor	249	251.49	13.65 (p = .001**)
	Bachelor	176	219.84
	Post-graduate	41	182.87

df = 2, *Denotes results significant at the .05 level, ** Denotes results highly significant at the .01 level.

With the significance of overall group differences on the mathematics development variables confirmed through the Kruskal–Wallis analyses, further Mann–Whitney U Tests were calculated to identify the statistically significant differences amongst the three groups (Pre-Bachelor, Bachelor and Post-graduate). Table 10 presents the statistical output for the Mann–Whitney U tests on the mathematics development variables by qualification groups. The analyses revealed statistically significant differences between the participants without a Bachelor level qualification and those with Bachelor and Post-graduate qualifications on all seven mathematics development variables; meaning that educators with at least Bachelor level qualifications were more likely to believe that all mathematical concepts commenced development earlier in children than their counterparts without Bachelor level qualifications. The only exception was the insignificant difference between the Pre-Bachelor and the Post-graduate participants on the Location variable that could possibly be attributed to the sample disparity. The only significant difference detected between the university-educated groups (Bachelor and Post-graduate) was on the Patterns variable.

Table 10.

Mann–Whitney U Tests of the Mathematical Development Variables by Highest Qualification Group.

Variable	Group 1	Group 2	Mean rank difference (1–2)	Mann–Whitney U	p values
Numbers	Pre-Bachelor	Bachelor	24.89	19346.00	.027*
	Pre-Bachelor	Post-graduate	33.05	3941.00	.011*
	Bachelor	Pre-Bachelor	−24.89	19346.00	.027*
	Bachelor	Post-graduate	9.65	3287.00	.333^ns
	Post-graduate	Pre-Bachelor	−33.05	3941.00	.011*
	Post-graduate	Bachelor	−9.65	3287.00	.333^ns
Counting	Pre-Bachelor	Bachelor	28.73	18950.00	.009**
	Pre-Bachelor	Post-graduate	39.53	3713.00	.002**
	Bachelor	Pre-Bachelor	−28.73	18950.00	.009**
	Bachelor	Post-graduate	15.39	3096.50	.121 ^ns
	Post-graduate	Pre-Bachelor	−39.53	3713.00	.002**
	Post-graduate	Bachelor	−15.39	3096.50	.121 ^ns
Patterns	Pre-Bachelor	Bachelor	29.03	18918.50	.010**
	Pre-Bachelor	Post-graduate	45.36	3507.50	.001**
	Bachelor	Pre-Bachelor	−29.03	18918.50	.010**
	Bachelor	Post-graduate	20.76	2917.50	.033*
	Post-graduate	Pre-Bachelor	−45.36	3507.50	.001**
	Post-graduate	Bachelor	−20.76	2917.50	.033*
Shapes	Pre-Bachelor	Bachelor	27.14	19114.00	.014*
	Pre-Bachelor	Post-graduate	39.55	3712.00	.002**
	Bachelor	Pre-Bachelor	−27.14	19114.00	.014*
	Bachelor	Post-graduate	15.95	3077.50	.096 ^ns
	Post-graduate	Pre-Bachelor	−39.55	3712.00	.002**
	Post-graduate	Bachelor	−15.95	3077.50	.096 ^ns
Location	Pre-Bachelor	Bachelor	26.87	19141.00	.016*
	Pre-Bachelor	Post-graduate	19.79	4408.00	.132 ^ns
	Bachelor	Pre-Bachelor	−26.87	19141.00	.016*
	Bachelor	Post-graduate	1.84	3547.00	.850 ^ns
	Post-graduate	Pre-Bachelor	−19.79	4408.00	.132 ^ns
	Post-graduate	Bachelor	−1.84	3547.00	.850 ^ns
Measuring	Pre-Bachelor	Bachelor	30.43	18774.00	.009**
	Pre-Bachelor	Post-graduate	29.22	4076.00	.031*
	Bachelor	Pre-Bachelor	−30.43	18774.00	.009**
	Bachelor	Post-graduate	5.16	3403.00	.552 ^ns
	Post-graduate	Pre-Bachelor	−29.22	4076.00	.031*
	Post-graduate	Bachelor	−5.16	3403.00	.552 ^ns
Matching	Pre-Bachelor	Bachelor	29.00	18921.00	.011*
	Pre-Bachelor	Post-graduate	42.43	3615.00	.001**
	Bachelor	Pre-Bachelor	−29.00	18921.00	.011*
	Bachelor	Post-graduate	17.63	3021.50	.082 ^ns
	Post-graduate	Pre-Bachelor	−42.43	3615.00	.001**
	Post-graduate	Bachelor	−17.63	3021.50	.082 ^ns

ns = not significant, *Denotes results significant at the .05 level, ** Denotes results significant at the .01 level.

The high mean scores on the Benefits subscale for the Pre-Bachelor, Bachelor and Post-graduate groups suggest that the majority of sampled early childhood educators felt mathematics learning in early childhood settings to be beneficial for children (see Table 11). However, an ANOVA of participants’ mean Benefits subscale scores by high qualification showed a statistically significant difference amongst the groups, F (2,463) = 6.149, p = .003. Table 11 presents the T-tests, with Bonferroni post-hoc tests, that were run to identify the specific point or points of difference. The Bachelor group did not differ significantly on the Benefits measure from either the Pre-Bachelor or Post-graduate. There was evidence of a statistically significant difference of moderate magnitude between the Pre-Bachelor and Post-graduate groups on the Benefits measure.

Table 11.

Benefits Subscale Descriptive Statistics, T-Tests and Effect Sizes by Qualification Group.

Group	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Comparison groups (2)	Mean difference (1–2)	p value	Hedges’ g
Pre-Bachelor	249	4.48	.51	Bachelor	−.10	.136	−.19
Pre-Bachelor	249	4.48	.51	Post-graduate	−.28	.003*	−.58
Bachelor	176	4.58	.55	Pre-Bachelor	.10	.136	.19
Bachelor	176	4.58	.55	Post-graduate	−.18	.124	−.35
Post-graduate	41	4.76	.30	Pre-Bachelor	.28	.003*	.58
Post-graduate	41	4.76	.30	Bachelor	.18	.124	.35

*Denotes results significant at the .05 level.

RQ2

Are there relationships amongst a sample of early childhood educators’ current professional roles, years in the profession and their beliefs about mathematical development in children and benefits of mathematical learning?

There was limited evidence from the current analyses to suggest the participants’ reported years of experience were associated with their beliefs about the onset of mathematical conceptual development in children and their perceptions of the benefits of mathematics education in early childhood settings. Indeed, no significant correlations were detected between participants’ years of professional experience and their data on the following variables: Numbers, r (465) = −.009, p = .848, Patterns, r (465) = −.029, p = .538, Shapes, r (465) = .002, p = .071, Location, r (465) = −.011, p = .812, Measuring, r (465) = −.070, p = .131 and Matching, r (465) = −.014, p = .768. There was, however, a statistically significant, yet small negative correlation between participants’ years of experiences and their beliefs about when counting skills begin developing, r (465) = −.122, p = .008, meaning that more experienced educators were slightly more likely to believe counting develops earlier in children. Curiously, there was a significant, but very small positive correlation between early childhood educators’ years of experience and their mean scores on the Benefit scale, r (465) = .100, p = .030. However, the practical application of this finding is limited as years of experience only explains 1% of the variance in participants’ mean scores on the Benefits scale.

Participants’ beliefs about the learning commencement of most of the mathematical concepts surveyed in this paper did not appear to be influenced by whether they were currently in a role with children under three years of age (Under 3s). Table 12 presents the output from a series of Kruskal–Wallis analyses to determine differences in the mathematics development variables by participants’ status as Under 3s early childhood educators (Current and Non-Current). No statistically significant differences were detected on the measures of Numbers, Patterns, Shapes, Location, Measuring and Matching. A significant difference was detected on the Counting variable.

Table 12.

Kruskal–Wallis Analyses of the Mathematical Development Variables by Current Under 3s Status.

Variable	Under 3s group	N	Mean rank	Kruskal–Wallis H* (Sig.)
Numbers	Non-current – Under 3s	271	236.93	.644 (p = .422)
Numbers	Current – Under 3s	195	227.56	.644 (p = .422)
Counting	Non-current – Under 3s	271	242.82	4.112 (p = .043*)
Counting	Current – Under 3s	195	219.40	4.112 (p = .043*)
Patterns	Non-current – Under 3s	271	239.58	1.797 (p = .180)
Patterns	Current – Under 3s	195	223.89	1.797 (p = .180)
Shapes	Non-current – Under 3s	271	240.73	2.570 (p = .109)
Shapes	Current – Under 3s	195	222.30	2.570 (p = .109)
Location	Non-current – Under 3s	271	241.87	3.320 (p = .068)
Location	Current – Under 3s	195	220.72	3.320 (p = .068)
Measuring	Non-current – Under 3s	271	239.79	1.785 (p = .181)
Measuring	Current – Under 3s	195	223.60	1.785 (p = .181)
Matching	Non-current – Under 3s	271	235.78	.313 (p = .576)
Matching	Current – Under 3s	195	229.15	.313 (p = .576)

df = 1, *Denotes results significant at the .05 level.

An ANOVA showed that beliefs about the benefits of mathematics in early childhood settings did not differ by current or non-current Under 3s experience, F (1,463) = .12, p = .729. Furthermore, the similarities in the Benefits mean scores and standard deviations between the Non-Current Under 3s group (M = 4.55, SD = .52) and the Current Under 3s group (M = 4.54, SD = .52) suggest near consensus levels of appreciation for the importance of mathematics learning in the early years.

Discussion

The provision of mathematics education for babies and toddlers is an under-researched area of inquiry. This study contributes vital new understandings by examining the relationships among early childhood educators’ qualifications and experience in the profession, and their beliefs about when mathematical understandings develop and the benefits of mathematics education for very young children.

In regards to our first research question, the data for the ‘Beginnings of mathematical development’ items indicate that, despite contrary evidence to suggest that educators underestimate children’s mathematical development (for example, Browne & Wong, 2017; Knaus, 2017), most of the participants believe that children begin to develop core mathematical concepts from one year of age. The similar mean scores for these variables could suggest that the participating educators acknowledge the intersections among these core concepts, such as number sense, counting, pattern recognition and matching. Alternatively, and more consistent with prior research (for example, Björklund & Barendregt, 2016; Phillips & Morse, 2011), the participants may be somewhat limited in their capacity to identify and understand these mathematics concepts as they develop in preverbal babies and toddlers, particularly in demanding educational settings where an educator’s attention must be divided amongst multiple children. It may be beneficial for early childhood teacher education programs to place greater emphasis upon the specific mathematical concepts and processes developed in the early years (Parks & Wager, 2015). Professional learning programs such as the Let’s Count early numeracy program (Gervasoni & Perry, 2015) have demonstrated how additional engagement with mathematics content can have positive benefits for early childhood educators’ mathematics education practices, subsequently enhancing mathematical outcomes for children. Perhaps more importantly, more specificity regarding early childhood mathematics learning also should extend to sector-wide frameworks and guiding documents, such as the Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (EYLF) (Australian Government Department of Education, 2022), to enhance consistency and coherence across the early childhood sector. It was interesting to note that measurement was the only mathematical idea that participants believed began developing more clearly between the ages of two and three. This finding is consistent with curriculum documents which tend to position measurement concepts as developing later than concepts associated with, for example, number, shape and space. However, previous research has found that many young children demonstrate complex measurement understandings, often beyond curriculum expectations (Cheeseman & McDonough, 2019; Downton et al., 2020; Szilágyi et al., 2013). Further research could probe the reasons why measurement is seen as developing in children later than other mathematical areas, and why it is separated from other concepts.

A statistically significant relationship was found between early childhood educators’ professional qualifications (grouped into Pre-Bachelor, Bachelor and Post-graduate levels) and their beliefs about the timing of the development of mathematical concepts in children, with greater numbers of the more qualified participants indicating a belief that mathematical concepts begin developing earlier in life. There were significant differences found in relation to beliefs about the development of counting, pattern, shape, measurement and matching. Significant differences were also found for number and location, though these differences were not as large as for the other concepts. It could be speculated that the educators, consistent with the research literature, perceive these two concepts as more foundational and concrete (Antell & Keating, 1983; Geary, 1994; Montague-Smith & Price, 2012), and are thus they are more broadly recognised among very young children’s repertoires of mathematical knowledge. This is a nuanced finding that warrants further investigation.

Taken as a whole, analyses revealed statistically significant differences between the participants without a Bachelor level qualification and those with Bachelor and post-graduate qualifications on all seven mathematics development variables; a possible indication that early childhood educators with tertiary qualifications believe that most mathematics concepts begin developing earlier in children’s lives. It could be worth investigating how early childhood mathematics concepts are positioned and taught as part of Bachelor level Early Childhood degrees to better understand the differences between qualification levels highlighted in this article. There was also a statistically significant difference between the Pre-Bachelor and Post-graduate groups on the ‘Benefits of mathematics education’ measure. Curiously, the only significant difference detected between the university-educated groups (Bachelor and Post-graduate) was in relation to development of pattern concepts, suggesting that the attainment of post-graduate early childhood qualifications may not shift early childhood educators’ perceptions about when mathematical learning begins in children. Rather, it appears to be the case that Bachelor studies help early childhood educators to understand when mathematical development commences, and further post-graduate study helps them to appreciate the benefits of mathematics education more fully in early childhood settings. However, the proportionally low number of participants with post-graduate level qualifications may have made this research less sensitive to any potential differences. This appears to be a worthwhile area for further investigation in order to ascertain how educators’ beliefs about mathematical development and the benefits of mathematics education are influenced by post-graduate study.

In regards to our second research question, we found limited evidence to suggest the participants’ reported years of experience as an early childhood educator were associated with their beliefs about the onset of mathematical conceptual development in children and their perceptions of the benefits of mathematics education in early childhood settings. Indeed, it appears that experience as an early childhood educator alone does not necessarily result in altered beliefs about the development of mathematical concepts in children. However, there was a very small negative correlation between years of experience and the development of counting, specifically, with more experienced educators believing that counting develops earlier in children. A similar relationship was also detected for counting and current Under 3s status, with current Under 3s educators believing that counting commences earlier than non-current Under 3s educators. When considered alongside the small negative correlation between educators’ Counting mean scores and their years of experience in the early childhood profession, it could be postulated that counting is a unique concept for its association with years and type of experience. This finding may be indicative of the prevalence of counting activities and expressions in everyday play and learning experiences in early childhood settings (Lee & Ginsburg, 2009; Thiel, 2010).

Our analyses found that educators’ beliefs about the benefits of early childhood mathematics education did not differ by current or non-current experience with Under 3s. Indeed, we found near consensus levels of appreciation for the positive benefits of early mathematics learning. Taken with the high mean scores on the Benefits subscale for the entire sample, it appears that the majority of early childhood educators, regardless of qualification, years of experience and Under 3s status, have strong beliefs about the positive impacts that early mathematics education can have on children. At the very least, early childhood educators are likely to be receptive to innovations and changes within the early childhood sector that seek to enhance mathematics learning for children. Perhaps expanded professional development opportunities could offer to further enhance early childhood educators’ mathematics beliefs, understandings and practices.

Limitations and Opportunities for Further Research

We acknowledge the limitations of a volunteer sample. It could be the case that the sample reported here have volunteered to participate in a study of early childhood mathematics education as they are positively inclined towards mathematics education. However, as the sample compares favourably with national workforce data (Australian Government, 2022; Social Research Centre, 2017), it could be argued that there is a degree of transferability, if not generalisability, to the findings reported here.

Methodologically, a move to interval-ratio data for the ‘Beliefs about the beginnings of mathematical development’ instrument, which could be achieved through asking participants to estimate the age in months they believe development of mathematical concepts begins, would permit parametric analyses that enable the magnitude of potential differences to be ascertained.

Conclusion

The findings of this study have shown that the majority of the early childhood educators in this study, regardless of qualification and experience in the profession, have strong, positive beliefs about mathematics education for very young children. However, there does appear to be variation in beliefs about when mathematical ideas develop in children, with statistically significant differences found between educators without a Bachelor level qualification and those with Bachelor and post-graduate qualifications; an indication that tertiary qualifications support educators to understand that most mathematics concepts begin developing very early in children’s lives. Our findings lend support to Australia’s sustained quality improvement agenda for the early childhood educator sector and point to the benefits of Bachelor level teaching qualifications for establishing strong foundations in mathematics education, beginning with babies and toddlers. Further, our research has shown the great potential for examining very young children’s mathematical development within the context of early childhood education practice. Future research should examine the exactment, through teaching practice, of the beliefs about mathematical development and benefits of mathematics education reported here.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [grant number DE180100399].

ORCID iD

Amy MacDonald

References

Alcock

Ansari

Batchelor

Bisson

M.-J.

De Smedt

Gilmore

Gobel

S. M.

Hannula-Sormunen

Hodgen

Inglis

Jones

Mazzocco

McNeil

Schneider

Simms

Weber

(2016). Challenges in mathematical cognition: A collaboratively-derived research agenda. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 2(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v2i1.10

Algina

Olejnik

(2003). Conducting power analyses for ANOVA and ANCOVA in between-subjects designs. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 26(3), 288–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278703255248

Antell

S. E.

Keating

D. P.

(1983). Perception of numerical invariance in neonates. Child Development, 54(3), 695–701. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130057

Australian Government . (2022). Education and training. https://web.archive.org/save/https://labourmarketinsights.gov.au/industries/industry-details?industryCode=P#2

Australian Government Department of Education . (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (V2.0). https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority . (2021). Workforce snapshot. https://snapshots.acecqa.gov.au/workforcedata/index.html

Björklund

(2012). What counts when working with mathematics in a toddler-group? Early Years, 32(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2011.652940

Björklund

Barendregt

(2016). Teachers’ pedagogical mathematical awareness in Swedish early childhood education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066426

Browne

Wong

K. S.

(2017). Transnational comparisons of teacher expectation of mathematical functional ability in early years and Key Stage 1 pupils – a study undertaken in Hong Kong and England. Education 3-13, 45(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1140798

10.

Cheeseman

McDonough

(2019). Coding young learners’ pictorial responses to an open-ended assessment task. In Hine

Blackley

Cooke

(Eds), Mathematics education research: Impacting practice (pp. 99–116). Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. MERGA. https://merga.net.au/Public/Publications/Annual_Conference_Proceedings/2019-MERGA-conference-proceedings.aspx

11.

Cohrssen

Church

Ishimine

Tayler

(2013). Playing with maths: Facilitating the learning in play-based learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(1), 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911303800115

12.

Coleman

Pulford

(2008). A crash course in SPSS for windows (4th ed.). Blackwell Publishing.

13.

Cumming

Sumsion

Wong

(2015). Rethinking early childhood workforce sustainability in the context of Australia’s early childhood education and care reforms. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 9(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40723-015-0005-z

14.

Downton

MacDonald

Cheeseman

Russo

McChesney

(2020). Mathematics learning and education from birth to eight years. In Way

Attard

Anderson

Bobis

McMaster

Cartwright

(Eds), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2016–2019 (pp. 209-244). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4269-5_9

15.

Elliott

(2006). Early childhood education: Pathways to quality and equity for all children. ACER Press.

16.

Feigenson

Dehaene

Spelke

(2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002

17.

Geary

D. C.

(1994). Children’s mathematical development: Research and practical applications. American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/10163-000

18.

Gervasoni

Perry

(2015). Children’s mathematical knowledge prior to starting school and implications for transition. In Perry

MacDonald

Gervasoni

(Eds), Mathematics and transition to school: International perspectives (pp. 47–64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-215-9_4

19.

Jackson

(2021). Developing early childhood educators with diverse qualifications: The need for differentiated approaches. Professional Development in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1876151

20.

Knaus

(2017). Supporting early mathematics learning in early childhood settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(3), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.3.01

21.

Krieg

Curtis

Hall

Westenberg

(2015). Access, quality and equity in early childhood education and care: A south Australian study. Australian Journal of Education, 59(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944115588789

22.

Lauer

J. E.

Lourenco

S. F.

(2016). Spatial processing in infancy predicts both spatial and mathematical aptitude in childhood. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616655977

23.

Lee

J. S.

Ginsburg

H. P.

(2009). Early childhood teachers’ misconceptions about mathematics education for young children in the United States. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693910903400406

24.

Linder

S. M.

Simpson

(2018). Towards an understanding of early childhood mathematics education: A systematic review of the literature focusing on practicing and prospective teachers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(3), 274–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949117719553

25.

MacDonald

(2020). Mathematics education beliefs and practices of under 3s educators in Australia. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(5), 758–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1817246

26.

MacDonald

McGrath

(2022). Early childhood educators’ beliefs about mathematics education for children under three years of age. International Journal of Early Years Education, 30(4), 847–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2022.2107493

27.

MacDonald

Murphy

(2021). Mathematics education for children under four years of age: A systematic review of the literature. Early Years, 41(5), 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2019.1624507

28.

Maier

M. F.

Greenfield

D. B.

Bulotsky-Shearer

R. J.

(2013). Development and validation of a preschool teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward science teaching questionnaire. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.09.003

29.

Montague-Smith

Price

A. J.

(2012). Mathematics in early years education (3rd ed.). Routledge.

30.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing

31.

Pallant

(2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Allen & Unwin.

32.

Parks

A. N.

Wager

A. A.

(2015). What knowledge is shaping teacher preparation in early childhood mathematics? Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 36(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2015.1030520

33.

Phillips

Morse

(2011). Family child care learning environments: Caregiver knowledge and practices related to early literacy and mathematics. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(3), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0456-y

34.

Social Research Centre . (2017). 2016 Early childhood education and care national workforce census. Department of Education and Training. https://www.dese.gov.au/download/3840/2016-national-early-childhood-education-and-care-workforce-census-report/18520/document/pdf

35.

Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood . (2012). Early years workforce strategy: The early childhood education and care workforce strategy for Australia. Education Services Australia Ltd.

36.

Starkey

Spelke

E. S.

Gelman

(1990). Numerical abstraction by human infants. Cognition, 36(2), 97–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90001-Z

37.

Starr

Libertus

M. E.

Brannon

E. M.

(2013). Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical abilities in childhood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(45), 18116–18120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302751110

38.

Stratigos

Salamon

(2019). “What are babies meant to do with clay!?” Interwoven identities and their impact on quality pedagogy with infants and toddlers. In Salamon

Chng

(Eds), Multiple early childhood identities. Routledge

39.

Szilágyi

Clements

D. H.

Sarama

(2013). Young children’s understandings of length measurement: Evaluating a learning trajectory. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(3), 581–620. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.3.0581

40.

Thiel

(2010). Teachers’ attitudes towards mathematics in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930903520090

41.

UNESCO . (2023). Early childhood care and education. UNESCO. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from. https://www.unesco.org/en/early-childhood-education

42.

VanVoorhis

C. W.

Morgan

B. L.

(2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043

43.

Warren

Haisken-DeNew

(2013). Early bird catches the worm: The causal impact of pre-school participation and teacher qualifications on Year 3 National NAPLAN Cognitive Tests. University of Melbourne.

44.

World Health Organisation . (2007). Early child development: A powerful equaliser. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/early-child-development-a-powerful-equalizer-final-report-for-the-world-health-organization-s-commission-on-the-social-determinants-of-health

Relations between early childhood educators’ qualifications and experience and their beliefs about mathematics education for babies and toddlers

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The Current Study

Methodology

Survey Instrument

Beliefs About the Beginnings of Mathematical Development

Beliefs About the Benefits of Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Procedures

Sample

Data Analyses

Results

Discussion

Limitations and Opportunities for Further Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References