Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Early childhood trauma is widely experienced and can lead to diverse outcomes. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) educators are expected to implement trauma-informed approaches as a strategy to reduce potential negative outcomes of trauma experiences. This requirement, however, assumes that there is agreement on meanings of trauma and that educators can implement trauma-informed approaches. As the first step to exploring this assumption, this article aims to identify how trauma is constructed in the international ECEC literature. The article reports findings from a scoping literature review that yielded 63 relevant sources. With analyses of the literature conducted thematically from a constructivist paradigm, constructions of trauma were found to be predominantly shaped by prevailing Western discourses from fields including medicine and child protection, with limited perspectives from early childhood education. Furthermore, trauma was constructed in five different ways across a spectrum of deficit- and strengths-based positionings: trauma as burden, trauma as risk, trauma as conditional, trauma as injustice and trauma as adaptation. The findings highlight under-recognised contestations in how trauma is conceptualised and provide insights into how constructions of trauma might align with trauma-informed education.

Keywords

constructions of childhood constructions of trauma discourse early childhood education early childhood trauma trauma trauma-informed education

Introduction

A growing body of literature across the health, education and social work sectors has identified trauma as an epidemic (Fidyk, 2019; Habal, 2022; Subramaniam and Wuest, 2021). Approximately two-thirds of participants in extensive studies identified having had traumatic experiences in childhood in Australia and the United States (US). For instance, an Australian study by Haslam et al. (2023) found childhood trauma experienced in 62% of participants, and international studies by Felitti et al. (1998) and Merrick et al. (2018) found experiences of childhood trauma in 67% and 61% of participants, respectively. Furthermore, over half of all children in the world are assumed to experience violence every year (Hillis et al., 2016). According to this literature, experiencing trauma in early childhood may lead to adverse outcomes that can persist over a lifetime, including increased risk of serious illness such as cancer and chronic lung disease, reduced attendance and concentration at school and poor relationships with peers (Bick and Nelson, 2016; Felitti et al., 1998).

These prevalence figures, however, stem from one framing of trauma – a biomedical construction. From the medical field, this construction takes a reductionist, determinist approach and frames childhood trauma as events that cause negative effects. These figures, therefore, do not represent constructions of trauma that are more holistic (Blehm, 2024). For instance, the role of the environment and structural injustices such as ‘racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and all forms of oppression’ (Venet, 2023: 13) are not explored as trauma experiences and simultaneous outcomes of trauma.

Attending high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) can counterbalance the negative impacts of early childhood trauma (Roseby and Gascoigne, 2021). Such services have been shown to support children's emotional, social and language development (Mortensen and Barnett, 2016). Despite the gains from attending ECEC, however, academic, social and developmental gaps persist between children who have experienced trauma and their peers (Mortensen and Barnett, 2016). Specific trauma-informed approaches in ECEC, therefore, could contribute to closing this gap. Indeed, the value of trauma-informed approaches in ECEC is recognised internationally. For instance, national early years curriculum frameworks in Australia and the US respectively require educators to ‘adopt trauma-informed practices’ (Australian Government Department of Education (AGDE), 2022: 44) and ‘understand and appropriately respond to prevalent child mental health concerns, including … trauma (US Administration for Children and Families, 2024: 46).

Despite the expectation that ECEC services provide trauma-informed interventions, educators are reported as feeling ill-prepared to do so. The limited research undertaken in ECEC has elucidated that ECEC educators worldwide are facing an increased prevalence of children who have experienced trauma (Berger et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2023), and that they generally feel unprepared to support them (Bilbrey et al., 2024; Chudzik, Corr and Wolowiec-Fisher, 2023; Sun, Skouteris, et al., 2024). While trauma-informed approaches are now expected in ECEC, identifying how trauma is constructed by educators warrants investigation. Within ECEC, reviews have identified what educators know about trauma and how they practice trauma-informed education, and the outcomes of trauma-informed approaches (Chudzik, Corr and Wolowiec-Fisher, 2023; Sun, Blewitt, et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2023). Thus far, however, no review has aimed to uncover the dominant discourses around trauma in ECEC. Understanding how trauma is constructed is vital given that prevailing discourses about it influence educators’ understandings and practices of trauma-informed education (Thomas et al., 2019).

In response to this research gap, this article aimed to investigate how trauma is constructed in the ECEC literature. Following is an outline of the study's methodology, including how social constructionism, discourse theory and constructions of children and childhood inform the study. Thereafter, the study's research design is presented.

Methodology

Theoretical approaches

The study was situated in a social constructionism paradigm and guided by discourse theory and constructions of children and childhood. Social constructionism views knowledge as shaped by an individual's interactions with the social world (Burr, 2015), which, in respect to the focus of the study, included dominant discourses about trauma and prevailing constructions of children and childhood.

Social constructionism and discourse

Social constructionist perspectives recognise that knowledge is subjective and influenced by social interaction and discourse (Burr, 2015). Discourse refers to both the dominant ideologies that inform individuals’ meaning making in larger society and the language used in interactions between individuals. Discourse, then, influences the individual as they construct a social model of the world, ultimately shaping how people see the world and how they interact within it. Furthermore, discourse at the macro level is constructed to suit the interests of dominant groups (Burr, 2015). Accordingly, constructions of trauma have been critiqued as being shaped by the relatively powerful and for silencing marginalised perspectives (Golden and Petrone, 2021). Exploring these constructions will expose the dominant discourses surrounding trauma that likely influence ECEC educators as they construct their knowledge of trauma and trauma-informed practices.

Constructions of childhood

Historically, constructions of childhood have been seen as taken for granted assumptions that reflect the shared values of families, education and schooling. For instance, in the Western world, childhood is generally positioned as an ‘oppositional binary’ to adulthood, and children are defined by what they cannot yet do in comparison to adults (K Robinson and Jones-Diaz, 2017: 52). Since the early 1990s, however, sociologists (James and Prout, 1990; Jenks, 1989) have explored and deconstructed these assumptions, with childhood now understood as rooted in ‘social, political, historical and moral context’ (Staiton Rogers, 2015: 116). Over the last few decades, focus shifted to whether these constructions ‘promote or constrain equity and equality [in how] they position the child’ (Woodrow, 1999: 7). For example, constructing children through Western discourses, like age and stage and what is developmentally the norm in that stage, has led to the creation of ‘globalized standards for judging other peoples’ childhoods’ (Woodhead, 2015: 21). These discourses lead to the Othering of any experience of childhood that does not fit the Westernised norm.

ECEC pedagogues and theorists argue that how educators construct childhood impacts their educational practice, such as the language they use when talking about children (Woodrow, 1999). For example, seeing the child as an oppositional binary to adults perpetuates the notion that adults have power and children should not. Through this positioning, an educator may see children in the ECEC setting through a deficit lens and give them limited agency. Education is therefore used as a vehicle to transfer knowledge that is privileged, thus leading to Othering and a continuation of oppression and marginalisation (hooks, 2014).

Methods and search strategy

To understand the constructions of trauma and childhood used in ECEC trauma literature, this study employed a scoping review method. A scoping review follows a systematic search process, although, unlike a systematic review, a critical evaluation of the literature is not undertaken as the aim is to identify and map the evidence rather than confirming the quality of it (Munn et al., 2018). A scoping review can be conducted to clarify key concepts and identify characteristics related to them in the literature (Munn et al., 2018). This approach was deemed appropriate given the aim of identifying how trauma is constructed in the ECEC literature.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018) were followed to identify the literature to be reviewed. Four relevant online databases were used: ERIC, PsycInfo, Sociology Source Ultimate and SCOPUS. Sources included peer-reviewed articles, books and chapters written in English, not including media outlets. Publication dates were limited to 2014–2024 with the various terms used in the search (refer to Table 1). Terms used in Search 1 were limited to include ‘trauma’ and did not include variations of this word (e.g. maltreatment, violence or abuse). Such terms were viewed as loaded and based on different epistemological assumptions regarding trauma. For instance, the term ‘maltreatment’ is often used to reflect biomedical understandings of trauma and limits the potential for further exploration. Therefore, to capture how trauma is constructed in the ECEC literature, the first search required the use of the word ‘trauma’.

Table 1.

Search strategy.

Search 1	‘trauma informed’ OR ‘trauma responsive’ OR ‘trauma sensitive’ OR ‘trauma aware’ OR ‘trauma-informed’ OR ‘trauma-responsive’ OR ‘trauma-sensitive’ OR ‘trauma-aware’
Search 2	‘early childhood’ OR ‘early childhood education’ OR ‘preschool’ OR ‘Kindergarten’ OR ‘early years education’ OR ‘childcare’ OR child care’ OR ‘nursery’ OR ‘pre-k-2’
Search 3	COMBINE search 1 AND search 2

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

First, the literature was required to explicitly focus on early childhood trauma in respect to ECEC. For example, sources that described, discussed or evaluated trauma-informed programmes, practices and approaches implemented by educators in ECEC were included. Contrastingly, literature that explored trauma-informed approaches for counselling, paediatrics and social work were excluded. This criterion was selected to ensure the findings were drawn from and of relevance to educators in ECEC. Second, during reading, the literature was screened to ensure it defined, conceptualised or explained trauma in some way, either directly or indirectly.

Review procedure

The initial search returned 578 publications. After removing duplicates, 414 publications were screened using title and abstract. Screening saw 331 publications removed, with 83 read in full to assess their eligibility. Following the full reading, 20 sources were removed, leaving 63 publications included in the review (see Figure 1). Screening was completed by the first author as part of a doctoral study.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart of sources.

Data extraction and analysis

The 63 publications were exported into NVivo qualitative data analysis software. The following data were extracted from all sources by the first author: source type (e.g. journal article, book chapter); method and participant information (if relevant); country; professional background of the first author; from whose perspective was trauma described; purpose of publication; and constructions of trauma. If a study included participants who were not ECEC educators or data not relevant to ECEC practices (e.g. primary school, mental health professionals), only data specific to ECEC were extracted.

Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) of all 63 publications was undertaken by the first author using extracted constructions of trauma data, while the second author independently completed thematic analysis on a subset of the articles. The authors then collaboratively reviewed and discussed any discrepancies and emerging themes until consensus was reached on the final themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Guided by a constructionist lens, the first author deductively analysed the data to discover ‘the ways in which … meanings … are the effects of a range of discourses operating within society’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 81). In this research, the meanings being examined were the ways in which trauma is constructed, and how these constructions aligned with images of children and childhood. Thematic analysis was appropriate as it allowed the authors to explore data at the latent level, identifying not only how trauma is constructed in ECEC but also underlying influences and, ultimately, how trauma-informed approaches might be practiced (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Findings and discussion

The 63 sources reviewed comprised 33 journal articles reporting empirical research, 13 conceptual journal articles, eight reviews, six book chapters, two books and one set of education guidelines. The literature was drawn from nine countries across the Americas, Australasia and Europe, reflecting constructions of trauma from the Western world.

The empirical research included 16 quantitative, 12 qualitative and five mixed-methods studies. While empirical research included families and professionals such as early childhood special education teachers who worked with prior-to-school-aged children, most of the data constructing trauma were extracted from conceptual sections in the literature. With only 38% (n = 24) of the first authors having professional backgrounds in ECEC, the constructions of trauma in this review largely showcase the discourses of trauma expressed in academia, often originating from the arguably higher status medical, welfare and broader education sectors. Furthermore, of the 63 sources that captured participant perspectives, only 17% (n = 11) included ECEC educator participants. Therefore, while ECEC educators are significant in shaping children's development and are expected to implement trauma-informed approaches, they have limited social power (Van Dijk, 2012) in shaping trauma discourse in ECEC literature.

Themes identified from the data and as presented in Table 2 showed that trauma is constructed in five ways. The most prevalent construction was trauma as conditional, identified in 100% of sources; followed by trauma as risk, found in 95%; then trauma as burden, evident in 73% of the literature; then trauma as injustice, found in 63%; and finally, trauma as adaptation, identified in only 35% of the sources. The themes are discussed in the sections below.

Table 2.

Extracted data and identified themes.

First author, year	Source type	Methods, participants	Country	Purpose	First author background	Perspective used intrauma construction	Trauma as burden	Trauma as risk	Trauma as conditional	Trauma as injustice	Trauma as adaptation
Bailey et al. ( 2024)	Review	Scoping	N/A	Evaluates TI programmes	Social work	C	C	C	C
Bartlett and Smith (2019)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Explains current TI approaches	IECMH	C	C	C	C	C
Berger et al. (2023)	Empirical	Qual.,ECPs	AUS	ECP perspectives and experiences	Educational psychology	C	C	C	C
Bilbrey et al. (2024)	Empirical	Quant.,educators	USA	Evaluating TI training	ECEC	C	C	C	C
Bonnett et al. (2024)	Empirical	Qual.,pre-service teachers	Canada	Educator preparedness	ECEC	B	B	C	B	C	P
Chudzik et al. (2024)	Empirical	Qual.,ECSE teachers	USA	Needs of educators	Trauma, ECEC, ECSE	B	B	B	C	C
Chudzik et al. (2023a)	Review	Scoping	USA	Educator perspectives and experiences	Trauma, ECEC, ECSE	B	B	B	B	B
Chudzik et al. (2023b)	Empirical	Qual., ECSE teachers	USA	Educator perspectives and experiences	Trauma, ECEC, ECSE	C		C	C	C
Chudzik, Corr and Wolowiec-Fisher (2023)	Empirical	Mixed,ECSE	USA	Exploring ECSE attitudes and experiences	Trauma, ECEC, ECSE	B	B	B	B	B	P
Conners Edge et al. (2024)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs	USA	Evaluating TI approach	Educational psychology	C	C	C	C	C
Cornelli Sanderson (2016)	Conceptual	N/A	USA and Haiti	Explains post-disaster TI partnership between foreign NGO and locals in Haiti	Child psychology	C		C	C	C	C
Cummings et al. (2017 )	Empirical	Mixed,CBSP	USA	Educator needs	Special education and under-represented children	B		C	B		P
Cummings and Swindell (2019)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Explaining TI knowledge	US Dept of Education funded	C		C	C	C
Dewhirst et al. (2023)	Empirical	Mixed,preservice teachers	USA	Educator preparedness	Child development, teacher preparation	C	C	C	C
Dierickx, Bisagno, et al. (2023)	Empirical	Qual.,ECEC experts	Latvia, Italy, Hungary, Belgium	Examine TI approaches	Clinical psychology, resilience	C	C	C	B
Dierickx, Malisse, et al. (2023)	Empirical	Mixed,ECEC experts	Latvia, Italy, Hungary, Belgium	Development of TI approach	Clinical psychology, resilience	B	C	B	C
Di Santo et al. (2024)	Book chapter	N/A	Across different countries	Explaining TI programme for implementation in refugee camps and war zones	Children's rights, ECEC environments	B			C	C
Douglass et al. (2021)	Empirical	Qual.,ECPs	USA	Explain TI approach	ECEC	C		C	B
Goldenthal et al. (2024)	Empirical	Qual.,ECPs and families	USA	Explain development of TI approach	Paediatrics, chronic illness and trauma	C		C	C	C
Grantham-Caston and Bankston (2023)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Explain TI approach	ECEC and advocacy	C		C	C		C
Guerrero et al. (2022)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs	USA	Partner with families	Paediatrics	C	C	C	C
Hatzichristou et al. (2022)	Book chapter	N/A	Greece	Explain TI approach for natural disasters	Psychology	C	C	C	C	C
Holmes et al. (2015)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Describe TI model for families and children	Social welfare	C	C	C	C	C
Howard et al. (2022)	Guidelines	N/A	AUS	Provide guidelines for trauma-aware education	Trauma-aware education	C	C	C	C	C	C
Lamb (2020)	Empirical	Qual.,families and ECPs	AUS	Identifying barriers and enablers for refugee families	ECEC and multi-culturalism	B	P	B	B	B	P
Le Brocque et al. (2017)	Empirical	Qual.,education: mainly school counsellors	AUS, NZ	Review TI resources for teachers to use with children aged 0–18 years	Social work	B	C		B	P
Lee and Markey (2022)	Empirical	Quant.,children from Head Start preschools	USA	Examine whether TI programme moderates outcomes of trauma	Social work	C		C	C	C
Lipscomb et al. (2019)	Empirical	Mixed,ECPs	USA	Explains TI training	Human development and psychology	C		C	C		C
Liu et al. (2024)	Empirical	Quant.,children and families	USA	Identify association between ACEs and attentional regulation	Social work	C	C	C	C	C
Loomis (2018)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Explains need for TI preschool programmes	Social work		C	C	C	C
Loomis and Felt (2021)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs	USA	Evaluate TI training	Social work	C	C	C	C
Loomis (2021)	Empirical	Quant., children, families, educators	USA	Explores relationship trauma and relationships with teachers for racially minoritised children	Social work	C	C	C	C	C
Loomis and Panlilio (2022)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs	USA	Relationship between teachers’ stress, TI attitudes and risk of expulsion	Social work	C	C	C	C	C
Loomis et al. (2023)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs	USA	Examines connection between TI attitudes and expulsion risk	Social work	C	C	C	C	C
Loomis, Coffey, et al. (2024)	Empirical	Qual.,ECPs	USA	Evaluate ECPs support	Social work	C	C	C	C	C
Loomis, Musson, et al. (2024)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs	USA	Evaluate collaborative cross-sector TI approach	Social work	C	C	C	C	C
Martin et al. (2021)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Suggest policy changes across ECEC	Psychology, IECMH	C	C	C	C	C
McClain (2021)	Empirical	Quant.,preservice teachers	USA	Educator preparedness	Adult education	B	C	B	B		B
McConnell et al. (2023)	Conceptual	N/A	NZ	Explain TI approach through music and movement	Music, movement therapy	C		C	C	C	C
Mortensen and Barnett (2016)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Examine TI approaches for infants and toddlers	Human development, family studies	C		C	C		C
Nicholson and Kurtz (2021)	Textbook	N/A	USA	Explain TI approach to working with families	ECEC, equity	C	C		C	C	C
Nicholson et al. (2021)	Textbook	N/A	USA	Explain TI leadership approaches	ECEC, equity, trauma specialists	C	C	C	C	C	C
Orapallo et al. (2021)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs and primary school	USA	Evaluate TI training	Psychology	C		C	C	C
HM Robinson and Andersen (2021)	Book chapter	N/A	N/A	Explain TI approach	Trauma-responsive education	C	C	C	C		C
Roseby and Gascoigne (2021)	Review	Systematic	N/A	Outcomes of TI programmes	Psychology	C	C	C	C
Sakr and O'Sullivan (2022)	Book chapter	N/A	N/A	Explain TI approach for pedagogical leaders	ECEC leadership	C		C	C		C
Sciaraffa et al. (2018)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Explain TI approach	Child and family studies, IECMH	C	C	C	C		C
Sellars et al. (2024)	Book chapter	N/A	USA	Explain TI approach for refugee children	ECEC and advocacy	C	C	C	C	C	C
Sheehan et al. (2023)	Review	Systematic	N/A	Provision of trauma awareness training	ECEC	C	C	C	C
Sheehan et al. (2024)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs	Ireland	Evaluate TI knowledge	ECEC	C	C	C	C	C
Shelton (2024)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Educator perspectives	ECEC	B	C	C	C		C
Stegelin et al. (2020)	Conceptual	N/A	USA	Impacts of suspension	ECEC and child development	C	C	C	C	C
Stephenson and Yost (2024)	Empirical	Qual.,ECPs	AUS	Evaluates effectiveness of TI approach	ECEC	B	B	B	B		C
Stone and Bray (2015)	Book chapter	N/A	N/A	Explains TI, play-based approach	Psychology	C	C	C	C	C
Sun et al. (2023)	Review	Systematic	N/A	Needs of educators	ECEC, health	B	B	C	C	C
Sun, Blewitt, et al. (2024)	Review	Scoping	N/A	The extent of TI literature	ECEC, health	C	C	C	C
Sun, Skouteris, et al. (2024)	Empirical	Qual.,ECPs, ECEC leaders, trauma education consultants	AUS	Barriers to implementing TI	ECEC, health	B	B	B	C	B	P
Tan et al. (2024)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs and mental health	USA	Explain TI approach	Psychiatry, public health	C		C	C	C
Tollan et al. (2023)	Review	Narrative	Canada	Explain early intervention approaches	ECEC	C		C	C	C
Tumlin et al. (2023)	Empirical	Quant.,children	USA	Identify characteristics of resilience building	Health	C		C	C	C	C
Whitaker et al. (2019)	Empirical	Quant.,ECPs	USA	Evaluate TI training	Medical: paediatrics	C	C	C	C	C
Wilson-Ching and Berger (2024)	Review	Systematic	N/A	Evaluate relationship building research within TI approach	Education	C	C	C	C
Wood (2024)	Conceptual	N/A	NZ	Explain importance of TI approaches	ECEC	C	C	C	C	C	C

Note. ACEs: adverse childhood experiences; AUS: Australia; CBSP: community based service providers; ECEC: early childhood education and care; ECPs: early childhood professionals; ECSE = early childhood special education; IECMH = infant and early childhood mental health; N/A: not applicable; NGO: non-governmental organisation; NZ: New Zealand; Qual.: qualitative; Quant.: quantitative; TI = trauma-informed; USA/US: United States of America.

C = conceptual; P = participants; B = both conceptual and participant perspectives.

Trauma as conditional

Trauma as conditional was the most prevalent theme, with all 63 authors discussing this construction, 10 of which included participant perspectives reflective of this theme (refer to Table 2). This theme highlights the role of the environment in shaping experiences of trauma, recognising that potentially traumatic events occur in context, and different contexts influence whether events are experienced as trauma. Effectively, viewing trauma as conditional sees events as akin to sitting on a set of balancing scales. Whether an event is experienced as trauma depends on the conditions in which it is experienced, and whether there are positive environmental factors to counterbalance potential adverse effects. In this construction, therefore, while trauma may occur, negative outcomes are not destined.

Six conditions that may contribute to or alleviate trauma were identified in the literature and spanned the context of the individual child, the child's family, the community and the ECEC setting. In the individual child's context, there were two conditions: the individual child's perceptions of trauma, for example, whether an event is novel, unpredictable or perceived as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening; and the child's developmental stage when an event occurs, for example, when an event ‘is powerful and dangerous in which a feeling of helplessness overwhelms the child's capacity to cope’ (Zindler et al., 2010, as cited in Mortensen and Barnett, 2016: 78). In the context of the child's family, two conditions were found: the quality of, or whether an event occurs in, the caregiving relationship (Dierickx, Bisagno, et al., 2023); and cultural perceptions and constructions of trauma, for example, ‘the diverse ways [people] make meaning of and describe [traumatic] experiences are influenced by culture and language’ (Nicholson et al., 2021: 208). In the context of the community, one condition was found: feelings of safety in the community, for example, acts of community violence ‘such as beating, shooting, stabbing, or robbery where the child was a victim or witness’ (Holmes et al., 2015: 1650) may directly or indirectly impact a child. Finally, in the context of the ECEC setting, the condition discovered was the quality of it, for example, trauma could be experienced due to education settings being ‘unsafe … reactive … rigid and inflexible’ (Nicholson et al., 2021: 54). Most notable in this theme was the recognition that relationally attuned and responsive ECEC educators may counterbalance the harm that may occur from experiences of trauma.

Constructing trauma as conditional reflects the perspective of ‘The Ecological Child’; that is, the view that each child develops in context. Viewing trauma as conditional means identifying the ecological conditions in a child's life that may not be sufficient for them to thrive in this society. Thus, the educator works within and across the child's current contexts, for example, beyond working with the individual child, the educator supports and partners with families and communities to mitigate the experience and outcomes of trauma.

Trauma as risk

Trauma as risk was evident in 95% of sources (n = 60), with the majority (n = 52) stemming from conceptual discussions of trauma, and the remainder from participant perspectives (n = 8; refer to Table 2). This construction focuses on the adverse effect(s) of trauma on the individual child. Across the conceptual sections of the literature, a range of adverse outcomes were discussed, including negative impacts on health, academic performance, social relationships, play skills and overall physical, emotional, spiritual and psychological well-being. Participants identified the same adverse outcomes, for instance, that trauma causes negative impacts on ‘executive functioning and social-emotional development’ (Chudzik et al., 2024: 118).

Additionally, literature drew on prevalence data to showcase the extent and significance of the risk. Generally, contextually relevant information was provided, as seen with Wood (2024) sharing that ‘ACEs [adverse childhood experiences] are common in Aotearoa New Zealand’ (2024: 33). The literature also highlighted that most trauma experiences occur in early childhood, with adverse effects potentially lasting a lifetime.

This construction of trauma as risk reflects an image of ‘the vulnerable child’ (Woodrow and Press, 2007). Since trauma is prevalent in Western society, attention is given to alleviating future potential negative outcomes rather than working with the present child. Further, in positioning the child as vulnerable, they are seen as impoverished and passive, so children are not afforded rights and agency (Read, 2015). Aligning with child protection perspectives, when transferred to ECEC, surveillance, reporting and reducing future negative outcomes are prioritised in the name of preserving childhood innocence. While reporting is certainly important, educators may falsely assume the risks are removed and they have saved the future child once the ‘abuse’ or ‘neglect’ are reported.

Trauma as burden

Constructing trauma as burden positions it through the load it places on others. Such strong, negative messages were identified in 73% (n = 46) of sources, including in the conceptual sections (n = 38), participant perspectives (n = 1) and both (n = 7; refer to Table 2). In the conceptual sections, reference to the burden trauma poses in a range of contexts was identified, for instance, the burden on the classroom, including for other children and educators; on the schooling system; on families of children who experience trauma; on communities; on economies; and even on the country. Terminology used ranged from general concern, with trauma framed as a ‘significant public health concern’ (Sun, Skouteris, et al., 2024: 1), to more evocative language such as ‘contributing to enormous societal costs’ and having ‘devastating consequences for … the country’ (Martin et al., 2021: 120) and to more powerful pejorative phrasing, including ‘troublesome conduct’ and ‘unacceptable behaviour’ (HM Robinson and Andersen, 2021: 7).

ECEC participants provided contrasting perspectives, with some explaining the burden through the challenges they faced when working with children who were experiencing trauma. In explaining trauma as challenging, educators – positioned in the literature as being ‘on the front lines’ (Shelton, 2024: 37) – provided accounts of the difficulties they were experiencing, thus highlighting the complexities and demands of the role. Sun et al. (2023), for example, found that educators shared that working with children who experience trauma had a ‘negative impact on their personal wellbeing, using words such as “emotional struggle”, “burnout”, “compassion fatigue”, “emotional burden”, “crying”, “frustration”, “hopeless”, and “despair”’ (2023: 5).

Seeing trauma as burden aligns children who experience it with the image of ‘the child as monster’ (Woodrow, 1999: 9), essentially dehumanising the child and decontextualising their experiences. While supporting children who experience trauma is not without its challenges, such language positions these children and their families as Others who pose a threat to society. Framings such as this can lead to a dangerous perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. Furthermore, constructing trauma as burden and the child as monster places the blame for behaviours aligned with trauma on the child, not on the conditions that enable such behaviours to flourish (Woodrow, 1999). Thus, the onus is placed on the child to adjust to the trauma (albeit with support), but this approach does not reduce nor confront the contextual or inequitable conditions that led to trauma in the first place (Venet, 2023). Ultimately, in this positioning, the educator is all powerful, maintains the social order and aims to protect the classroom from this monster (Woodrow, 1999).

Trauma as injustice

The theme of trauma as injustice recognises that institutional, historical and structural inequities create experiences that lead to daily stresses and adversities for the marginalised and oppressed, and which thus can be traumatic. This theme was less prevalent in the dataset, though it was still identified in a majority (n = 40; 63%) of sources. This literature included only one source with just participant perspectives reflecting this theme, and four sharing both participant and conceptual constructions (refer to Table 2). Groups impacted by inequities as identified in the participant perspectives were those experiencing disability, socioeconomic disadvantage and/or racism, and those from culturally and linguistically diverse and/or refugee or immigrant backgrounds. The conceptual sections of the literature identified the same groups, as well as families and children impacted by homelessness, discrimination and gender disparities.

The literature also explored the compounding nature of oppression and marginalisation – that belonging to one marginalised or oppressed group increases the likelihood of further trauma. For instance, children experiencing disability are more likely to experience early childhood trauma. Additional examples of the hardships experienced due to inequities included food insecurity, unemployment, incarceration, political unrest, deportation, displacement and immigration crises. In viewing trauma as injustice, the inequities ‘embedded in [the] structures … and institutions … and the policies’ provide conditions for adversities and trauma to flourish (Nicholson and Kurtz, 2021: 12).

This positioning of trauma reflects the image of ‘the child as a rights-bearing citizen’ (MacNaughton and Smith, 2015: 172). Viewing trauma in this way, the educator works toward socially just practices, ensuring that every child can participate as a valued member of society and that the harmful structures and systems in society, or at the very least in their ECEC setting, are destabilised. Their practice may also extend beyond the setting, for instance, they may engage in advocating for universal access to inclusive, high-quality ECEC.

Trauma as adaptation

Trauma as adaptation constructs trauma responses as adaptive strategies and recognises strengths within the child to survive trauma experiences. Present in only 35% of sources (n = 22), with five of these sources sharing participant perspectives only and one sharing both participant and conceptual constructions of trauma (refer to table 2), this positioning was the least prevalent theme. This positioning places the child in the present, without focussing on the future child, and observes and draws on the unique ‘coping strategies that a child intelligently develops’ (Vericat Rocha and Ruitenberg, 2019: 136). In constructing trauma as adaptation, children are not defined by the trauma they have experienced. Like diamonds, which are made under pressure, trauma is seen as ‘one thread in the fabric of someone's life’ (Nicholson et al., 2021: 196). Discussions of trauma are balanced with strengths-based, resilience-focussed conversations.

In contrast to the language used in constructing trauma as burden, trauma as adaptation explores the harsh realities of trauma while leaning towards optimism. The construction is characterised by hope, resilience and possibility. For example, participants shared that they understood children are ‘doing what they’re doing for a reason’ (Bonnett et al., 2024: 128), recognising ‘there is a lot of resilience’, which some participants described as ‘“remarkable”, “amazing” and “impressive”’ (Cummings et al., 2017: 2735). Conceptual framings positioned trauma responses as basic adaptive, survival strategies.

Educators whose perspectives align with this construction of trauma are likely to see ‘the child as agentic’. Educators draw on strengths-based approaches to working first and foremost with rather than for (MacNaughton and Smith, 2015) children but also with families and the community, including other professionals such as psychologists and allied health professionals. Educators not only work to redress the inequities that cause marginalisation and oppression, but they also ensure children have agency to do and say what they need, ultimately leading to child-centred, family-centred and community-centred approaches. Rather than aiming to fix children, educators see the child as capable and support them in healing from trauma (Nicholson et al., 2021).

Translation to practice

The five identified constructions can be reframed along a continuum from deficit- to strengths-based perspectives – trauma as burden, trauma as risk, trauma as conditional, trauma as injustice and trauma as adaptation – and be seen to align with a spectrum of images of children (see Figure 2). While constructing trauma as injustice or adaptation does not situate trauma as a positive experience, it does encourage viewing it as meaningful adaptive responses and fosters educators to adopt strengths-based perspectives when working with children in this situation.

Figure 2.

Alignment of constructions of trauma and childhood.

Educators are encouraged to reflect on the ways in which they construct trauma and how these constructions may influence the work they do with children, families and communities who have experienced it. As constructions impact practice, reflecting on them can support educators to consider a broader understanding of trauma and its complexities, potentially leading to more strengths-based, equity-centred, community-focussed practices. Further studies into how constructions of trauma translate into trauma-informed practice are recommended.

Limitations

While this review presents novel findings regarding ECEC constructions of trauma, it is not without its limitations. For instance, using a scoping rather than a systematic review method meant that the rigour of literature in the dataset was not analysed. While this is a limitation, it is, however, also a strength. As the aim of the review was to identify how trauma is constructed in the ECEC literature, engaging in a scoping review allowed a variety of sources, including textbooks and conceptual articles, to be included, thus presenting a wider scope of literature.

Much of the reviewed literature only discussed trauma within the conceptual sections of the respective sources, and the number that captured ECEC educators’ voices regarding constructions of trauma was limited. The limited inclusion of educator perspectives may be attributed to most of the literature being from the medicine and child protection fields, with limited perspectives from early childhood education. Evident across sources was that the literature was written for ECEC educators, not with them. This limitation is consistent with ECEC educators being often discursively positioned as carers rather than professionals, with less social power than professionals in other male dominated sectors such as medicine (Van Dijk, 2012). Despite the high level of training received, the role of the ECEC educator is considered to draw on tacit knowledge or the naturally occurring knowledge that comes with maternal and caregiving roles. Therefore, the ECEC educator is positioned as performing natural roles inhabited by females (Wu and Devine, 2024), rather than professional work grounded in scientific knowledge. Therefore, future research should aim to spotlight ECEC educators’ voices in recognition of the valuable role and specific knowledge they bring to the important discussions around trauma.

While the search strategy was thorough, using only four databases may have been a limitation. The databases were selected to capture sources from diverse sectors relevant to trauma and early childhood education: ERIC included education-related literature; PsycInfo shared psychology and related behavioural and health science sources; Sociology Source Ultimate produced social behaviour and interaction publications; and SCOPUS provided literature from various fields, including medicine, social sciences and humanities. Adding more databases to the search strategy could have yielded a broader spectrum of literature. It is therefore possible that the findings and constructions of trauma may not represent the full scope of the available literature.

The final limitation is that the intentional use of ‘trauma’ as a search term and the retrieval of ‘English only’ literature may have meant that culturally and linguistically diverse constructions of trauma were missed. For instance, in many cultures (including Malaysian, Pakistani and Mauritian), the term ‘stress’ is used rather than trauma, while in other cultures (including Haitian and Tanzanian), trauma may be considered a normal part of life and is therefore not generally discussed or seen as an issue (Nicholson et al., 2021). Furthermore, literature that uses new and strengths-based language around trauma, such as healing-centred approaches (Ginwright, 2018), instead of trauma-informed approaches were not captured in the search. Therefore, while this review aimed to identify how trauma is constructed in the ECEC literature, without capturing diverse constructions of trauma from various countries and cultures, the findings are mostly reflective of dominant Western perspectives. Despite the study highlighting that ECEC voices are missing from the literature on trauma, voices of the linguistically and culturally marginalised and oppressed also appear to be missing, which could potentially lead to further marginalisation and oppression. Therefore, investigating these constructions with broader search terms that capture the diverse language around trauma could shed light on more strengths-based and culturally diverse constructions of trauma.

Conclusion

This scoping literature review identified five constructions of trauma in the ECEC literature and showcased their alignment with constructions of children. Findings suggest that, in ECEC, trauma is constructed as conditional, risk, burden, injustice and adaptation, with each construction having implications for educators’ image of children experiencing trauma and thus potentially their practice of trauma-informed education.

Despite the limitations, as the first review to investigate how trauma is constructed in ECEC, the findings provide a strong foundation for further research into trauma-informed approaches in ECEC. Importantly, the review elucidated five contrasting constructions rather than one universally accepted positioning of trauma, with those adopting deficit images of children being prevalent. Further investigations into how trauma-informed education is constructed and whether the practices align with the constructions of trauma and corresponding images of children will shed light on how conceptual knowledge is translated into practice. Furthermore, with the most strengths-based constructions being the least common in the literature, and few educator-participant voices heard, studies into how trauma-informed education is constructed and practiced in ECEC can help redistribute power to ECEC and support educators to lean towards social justice, hope and joy while continuing this important complex work.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Associate Professors Emma Tseris and Cathy Little for their feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Lauren Bedford-Rolleston

Marianne Fenech

Author biographies

Lauren Bedford-Rolleston is a PhD Candidate at the University of Sydney. She has been an early childhood teacher for over 13 years and has research interests in early childhood education, trauma-informed education, play, and kaupapa Maori research.

Marianne Fenech (Professor) is Director of the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) at the University of Sydney. She publishes on early childhood governance and its impact on quality, accessible, and inclusive early childhood education. She is an advocate for quality early childhood education and early childhood teaching. She is leading a national longitudinal study aimed at attracting, developing, retaining, and sustaining a quality early childhood teacher workforce in Australia.

References

Australian Government Department of Education (AGDE) (2022) Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (V2.0). Available at: https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf (accessed 30 March 2025).

Bailey

Tabone

Smith

, et al. (2024) State of the evidence of Attachment Regulation and Competency Framework and adaptions: A rapid scoping review. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 17(2): 571–583. 10.1007/s40653-023-00575-5

Bartlett

Smith

(2019) The role of early care and education in addressing early childhood trauma. American Journal of Community Psychology 64(3–4): 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12380

Berger

O’Donohue

, et al. (2023) Early childhood professionals’ perspectives on dealing with trauma of children. School Mental Health 15(1): 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09551-0

Bick

Nelson

(2016) Early adverse experiences and the developing brain. Neuropsychopharmacology 41(1): 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2015.252

Bilbrey

Castanon

Copeland

, et al. (2024) Primary early childhood educators’ perspectives of trauma-informed knowledge, confidence, and training. The Australian Educational Researcher 51(1): 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00582-9

Blehm

(2024) What is trauma? A critique and definition. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 45(3): 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000274

Bonnett

Gould

Gratton

, et al. (2024) Trauma-informed practice: A self-study examining the readiness of pre-service early years professionals. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 45(1): 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2023.2257147

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

10.

Burr

(2015) Social Constructionism. Routledge.

11.

Chudzik

Corr

Fisher

(2024) Trauma-informed care: The professional development needs of early childhood special education teachers. Journal of Early Intervention 46(1): 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538151231164898

12.

Chudzik

Corr

Santos

(2023a) Trauma-informed care in early childhood education settings: A scoping literature review. Early Childhood Education Journal 53(2): 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01596-3

13.

Chudzik

Corr

Santos

(2023b) ‘…We’re not doing enough’: Trauma-informed care in an early childhood special education center. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 45(1): 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214231219282

14.

Chudzik

Corr

Wolowiec-Fisher

(2023) Trauma: Early childhood special education teachers’ attitudes and experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal 51(1): 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01302-1

15.

Conners Edge

Holmes

Wilburn

, et al. (2024) Fostering informed and responsive systems for trauma in early care and education (FIRST: ECE): A preliminary evaluation. Early Childhood Education Journal 52(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01390-7

16.

Cornelli Sanderson

Gross

Sanon

, et al. (2016) Building resilience in children and their communities following disaster in a developing country: Responding to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 9(1): 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-015-0077-5

17.

Cummings

Swindell

(2019) Using a trauma-sensitive lens to support children with diverse experiences. Young Exceptional Children 22(3): 139–149. 10.1177/1096250618756898

18.

Cummings

Addante

Swindell

, et al., (2017) Creating supportive environments for children who have had exposure to traumatic events. Journal of Child and Family Studies 26(10): 2728–2741. 10.1007/s10826-017-0774-9

19.

Dewhirst

Spivey

Jang

, et al. (2023) Early childhood education interns’ and cooperating teachers’ discussions on trauma-informed practices. Action in Teacher Education 45(3): 185–202. 10.1080/01626620.2023.2209040

20.

Dierickx

Bisagno

Varga-Sabján

, et al. (2023) Trauma-informed care in childcare organisations to support children exposed to child maltreatment: Joint conclusions of four European countries. Child Abuse Review 32(5): Article e2821. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2821

21.

Dierickx

Malisse

Bisagno

, et al. (2023) Care when it counts: Establishing trauma-sensitive care as a preventative approach for 0–3-year-old children suffering from trauma and chronic stress. Children 10(6): Article 1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10061035

22.

Di Santo

Scott

Leeder

(2024) Early years curriculum in practice: iACT’s Little Ripples Curriculum for Emergency Contexts. In: Trifonas

Jagger

(eds) Handbook of Curriculum Theory and Research. Springer, pp. 65–79.

23.

Douglass

Chickerella

Maroney

(2021) Becoming trauma-informed: A case study of early educator professional development and organizational change. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 42(2): 182–202. 10.1080/10901027.2021.1918296

24.

Felitti

Anda

Nordenberg

, et al. (1998) Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 14(4): 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8

25.

Fidyk

(2019) Trauma-sensitive practice for new teacher standards: Addressing the epidemic of our times. In Education 25(1): 51–76. https://doi.org/10.37119/ojs2019.v25i1.431

26.

Ginwright

(2018) The future of healing: Shifting from trauma informed care to healing centered engagement. Occasional paper 25, pp. 25–32. https://grandparents.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/OP-Ginwright-S-2018-Future-of-healing-care.pdf (accessed 14 February 2025).

27.

Golden

Petrone

(2021) Social production of risk and resilience. In: Lester JN and O’Reilly M (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Critical Perspectives on Mental Health. Springer, pp. 1–10.

28.

Goldenthal

Gouze

Raviv

, et al. (2024) The Ready to Learn Through Relationships (RLR) Program: Development, feasibility, and acceptability. Early Childhood Education Journal 52(3): 587–601. 10.1007/s10643-023-01472-0

29.

Grantham-Caston,

Bankston,

(2023) Children coping with stress in the early childhood classroom. Dimensions of Early Childhood 51(3): 11–13. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1410007

30.

Guerrero

Herman

Teutsch

, et al. (2022) Improving knowledge and attitudes about child trauma among parents and staff in Head Start programs. Maternal and Child Health Journal 26(11): 2237–2246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-022-03473-8

31.

Habal

(2022) Advances in trauma care today combine science and technology with a focus on subsequent quality of life that is as important as survival rate. The Journal of Craneofacial Surgery 33(4): 985–986. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000008793

32.

Haslam

Mathews

Pacella

, et al. (2023) The prevalence and impact of child maltreatment in Australia: Findings from the Australian Child Maltreatment Study: 2023 brief report. Queensland University of Technology. Available at: https://www.acms.au/resources/the-prevalence-and-impact-of-child-maltreatment-in-australia-findings-from-the-australian-child-maltreatment-study-2023-brief-report/ (accessed 30 March 2025).

33.

Hatzichristou

Lampropoulou

Lianos

, et al. (2022) University-linked school-based mental health services following a natural disaster. Challenges and critical considerations of an integrated approach. In: Keary

Scull

Garvis

(eds) Decisions and Dilemmas of Research Methods in Early Childhood Education. Routledge, pp. 167–188.

34.

Hillis

Mercy

Amobi

, et al. (2016) Global prevalence of past-year violence against children: A systematic review and minimum estimates. Pediatrics 137(3): Article e20154079. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4079

35.

Holmes

Levy

Smith

, et al. (2015) A model for creating a supportive trauma-informed culture for children in preschool settings. Journal of Child and Family Studies 24(6): 1650–1659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9968-6

36.

hooks

(2014) Teaching to Transgress. Routledge.

37.

Howard

L’Estrange

Brown

(2022) National guidelines for trauma-aware education in Australia. Frontiers in Education 7: Article 826658. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.826658

38.

James

Prout

(1990) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. Routledge, pp. 7–34.

39.

Jenks

(1989) Social theorizing and the child: Constraints and possibilities. In: Doxiadis S and Stewart S (eds) Early Influences Shaping the Individual. Springer, pp. 93–102.

40.

Lamb

(2020) Constructing early childhood services as culturally credible trauma-recovery environments: Participatory barriers and enablers for refugee families. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 28(1): 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1707368

41.

Le Brocque

De Young

Montague

, et al. (2017) Schools and natural disaster recovery: The unique and vital role that teachers and education professionals play in ensuring the mental health of students following natural disasters. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 27(1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2016.17

42.

Lee

Markey

(2022) Effects of adverse childhood experiences on developmental outcomes for Head Start eligible low income children. Journal of Social Service Research 48(1): 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2021.1951925

43.

Lipscomb

Hatfield

Lewis

, et al. (2019) Strengthening children’s roots of resilience: Trauma-responsive early learning. Children and Youth Services Review 107: Article 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104510

44.

Liu

Wang

Razza

, et al. (2024) Early adverse childhood experiences and preschoolers’ attentional regulation: A latent class analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect 149: Article 106703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106703

45.

Loomis

(2018) The role of preschool as a point of intervention and prevention for trauma-exposed children: Recommendations for practice, policy, and research. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 38(3): 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121418789254

46.

Loomis

(2021) The influence of early adversity on self-regulation and student–teacher relationships in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 54: 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.10.004

47.

Loomis

Felt

(2021) Knowledge, skills, and self-reflection: Linking trauma training content to trauma-informed attitudes and stress in preschool teachers and staff. School Mental Health 13(1): 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-020-09394-7

48.

Loomis

Panlilio

(2022) Trauma-informed attitudes, teacher stress, and expulsion decision risk in preschool classrooms. School Mental Health 14(4): 918–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09513-6

49.

Loomis

Coffey

Mitchell

, et al. (2024) Reflective supervision as a vehicle for trauma-informed organizational change in early childhood education settings. Reflective Practice 25(3): 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2024.2309884

50.

Loomis

Curby

Zinsser

(2023) Beyond the behavior: Teachers’ trauma-informed attitudes relate to lower expulsion risk among uninhibited preschoolers. Children and Youth Services Review 145: Article 106806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106806

51.

Loomis

Musson Rose

Mitchell

(2024) Closing gaps in care: Effects of CARE training on early childhood provider trauma-informed attitudes and collaboration. Journal of Child and Family Studies 33(3): 924–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-023-02720-y

52.

McClain

(2021) Teacher candidates’ perceptions of preparedness of teaching students who experience trauma. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators 10(1): 5–23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1310243

53.

McConnell

Rickson

Pureti

(2023) Mauri tui tuia: Dance movement therapist, music therapist, and early childhood teachers’ collaborative bi-cultural response to community trauma. Kairaranga 24(1): 71–85. https://doi.org/10.54322/kairaranga.v24i1.300

54.

MacNaughton

Smith

(2015) Children’s rights in early childhood. In: Kehily

(ed.) Introduction to Childhood Studies. McGraw-Hill Education, pp. 120–134.

55.

Martin

Russo

Goldenthal

, et al. (2021) Supporting young children exposed to potentially traumatic events: Implications for early care and education policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8(2): 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211033880

56.

Merrick

Ford

Ports

, et al. (2018) Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences from the 2011–2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 23 states. JAMA Pediatrics 172(11): 1038–1044. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2537

57.

Mortensen

Barnett

(2016) The role of child care in supporting the emotion regulatory needs of maltreated infants and toddlers. Children and Youth Services Review 64: 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.03.004

58.

Munn

Peters

Stern

, et al. (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18(1): Article 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

59.

Nicholson

Kurtz

(2021) Trauma-Responsive Family Engagement in Early Childhood: Practices for Equity and Resilience. Routledge.

60.

Nicholson

Leland

Kurtz

, et al. (2021) Trauma-Responsive Practices for Early Childhood Leaders: Creating and Sustaining Healing Engaged Organizations. Routledge.

61.

Orapallo

Grant

B-J

Baker

(2021) Examining the effectiveness of Trauma Smart® training: Staff satisfaction, knowledge, and attitudes. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 13(8): 891–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001075

62.

Read

(2015) Working with children: An integrated approach. In: Kehily

(ed.) Introduction to Childhood Studies. McGraw-Hill Education, pp. 135–152.

63.

Robinson

Andersen

(2021) Trauma-informed early childhood classrooms: A balanced approach to fuel resilience in the child and teacher. In: González K and Frumkin R (eds) Trauma Informed Classrooms: What We Say and Do Matters. Brill, pp. 1–25.

64.

Robinson

Jones-Diaz

(2017) Diversity and Difference in Childhood: Issues for Theory and Practice. McGraw-Hill Education.

65.

Roseby

Gascoigne

(2021) A systematic review on the impact of trauma-informed education programs on academic and academic-related functioning for students who have experienced childhood adversity. Traumatology 27(2): 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000276

66.

Sakr M and O’Sullivan J (eds) (2022) Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education: Conversations from across the World . Bloomsbury.

67.

Sciaraffa

Zeanah

(2018) Understanding and promoting resilience in the context of adverse childhood experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal 46: 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0869-3

68.

Sellars

Imig

(2024) Supporting Young Children of Immigrants and Refugees: The Promise and Practices of Early Care and Learning. Taylor & Francis.

69.

Sheehan

Butler

O’ Neill

(2023) The provision of trauma awareness training in the early childhood education & care profession: A systematic review. Early Childhood Education Journal 53(2): 373–391. 10.1007/s10643-023-01565-w

70.

Sheehan

Butler

O’Neill

(2024) What we don’t know really will hurt us: Examining trauma awareness knowledge, strategies, and training in Ireland’s early childhood education and care profession. Education Sciences 14(7): 704. 10.3390/educsci14070704

71.

Shelton

(2024) If I could turn back time: An educator’s reflective journey into trauma-informed care. Childhood Education 100(2): 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2024.2330304

72.

Staiton Rogers

(2015) Promoting better childhoods: Constructions of child concern. In: Kehily

(ed.) Introduction to Childhood Studies. McGraw-Hill Education, pp. 101–119.

73.

Stegelin

Leggett

Ricketts

, et al. (2020) Trauma-informed preschool education in public school classrooms: Responding to suspension, expulsion, and mental health issues of young children. Journal of At-Risk Issues 23(2): 9–24. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1286553

74.

Stephenson

Yost

(2024) Exploring the effectiveness and sustainability of Trust Based Relational Intervention (TBRI®) as a trauma-informed approach in two Tasmanian child and family learning centres. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 17(2): 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-023-00574-6

75.

Stone

Bray

(2015) Trauma and young children: How the problem plays out. In: Sutterby JA (ed.) Discussions on Sensitive Issues. Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 177–211.

76.

Subramaniam

Wuest

(2021) Trauma-sensitive physical education teacher education. International Journal of Physical Education 58(2): 2–14. https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-6073-2021-2-2

77.

Sun

Blewitt

Minson

, et al. (2024) Trauma-informed interventions in early childhood education and care settings: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 25(1): 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162967

78.

Sun

Skouteris

Bowden

, et al. (2024) ‘It takes reflection at all different levels, not just people on the floor’: A qualitative exploration of early childhood professionals’ experiences and perspectives towards trauma-informed early childhood organisations. School Mental Health 16(3): 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-024-09674-6

79.

Sun

Tamblyn

Morris

, et al. (2023) Early childhood and primary school teachers’ experiences and needs in working with trauma-impacted children: A systematic review and thematic synthesis. Children and Youth Services Review 156: Article 107344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107344

80.

Tan

Aralis

Ijadi-Maghsoodi

, et al. (2024) Advancing equitable access to high quality early childhood education through a trauma- and resilience-informed community schools approach. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 69: 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2024.06.004

81.

Thomas

Crosby

Vanderhaar

(2019) Trauma-informed practices in schools across two decades: An interdisciplinary review of research. Review of Research in Education 43(1): 422–452. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821123

82.

Tollan

Jezrawi

Underwood

, et al. (2023) A review on early intervention systems. Current Developmental Disorders Reports 10(2): 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-023-00274-8

83.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850

84.

Tumlin

Crowley

Turner

, et al. (2023) Detection of traumatic stress in the presence of traumatic experiences: The role of resilience factors in foster care children five years or younger. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 17(1): 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-023-00610-w

85.

US Administration for Children and Families (2024) Head Start Program performance standards. 45 CFR Chapter XIII. https://headstart.gov/policy/45-cfr-chap-xiii (accessed 24 May 2025).

86.

Van Dijk

(2012) Structures of discourse and structures of power. Annals of the International Communication Association 12(1): 18–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1989.11678711

87.

Venet

(2023) Equity-Centered Trauma-Informed Education. Routledge.

88.

Vericat Rocha

ÁM

Ruitenberg

(2019) Trauma-informed practices in early childhood education: Contributions, limitations and ethical considerations. Global Studies of Childhood 9(2): 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610619846319

89.

Whitaker

Herman

Dearth-Wesley

, et al. (2019) Effect of a trauma-awareness course on teachers’ perceptions of conflict with preschool-aged children from low-income urban households: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 2(4): Article e193193. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3193

90.

Wilson-Ching

Berger

(2024) Relationship building strategies within trauma informed frameworks in educational settings: A systematic literature review. Current Psychology 43(4): 3464–3485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04590-5

91.

Wood

(2024) Trauma informed early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work 21(1): 32–42. https://doi.org/10.24135/teacherswork.v21i1.623

92.

Woodhead

(2015) Childhood studies: Past, present, and future. In: Kehily

(ed.) Introduction to Childhood Studies. McGraw-Hill Education, pp. 19–33.

93.

Woodrow

(1999) Revisiting images of the child in early childhood education: Reflections and considerations. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 24(4): 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693919902400403

94.

Woodrow

Press

(2007) (Re)positioning the child in the policy/politics of early childhood. Educational Philosophy and Theory 39(3): 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00328.x

95.

Devine

(2024) The conundrum of care in the construction of professional identity: A Foucauldian lens. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work 21(1): 56–74. https://doi.org/10.24135/teacherswork.v21i1.599

From burden to adaptation: Evolving constructions of trauma in the early childhood education and care literature

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methodology

Theoretical approaches

Social constructionism and discourse

Constructions of childhood

Methods and search strategy

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Review procedure

Data extraction and analysis

Findings and discussion

Trauma as conditional

Trauma as risk

Trauma as burden

Trauma as injustice

Trauma as adaptation

Translation to practice

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References