THE PRESENT STUDY INVESTIGATES how Korean infant/toddler teachers define their role in centre-based childcare settings and how their attitudes and perspectives influence their professional identities and relationships with parents. The study utilised the interpretive science paradigm and individual interviews for data collection, and the qualitative data analysis method explored the experiences of 19 infant/toddler teachers. Participants defined their role as ‘teacher as mother’ and placed more emphasis on nurturing than educating despite their acknowledgement of the importance of the educational aspects of centre-based care. The consensus among infant/toddler teachers that it is best for mothers to care for children at home derives from 1) teachers' consideration of infants/toddlers' developmental characteristics, and 2) the limitations of centre-based programs to fulfill the developmental needs of infants and toddlers. This perspective affects their sense of professionalism and job satisfaction and can lower the quality of overall infant and toddler care.
BarnettW. S. (2010). Universal and targeted approaches to preschool education in the United States. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(1), 1–12.
3.
BourgeaultI. L., & KhokherP. (2006). Making a better living from caregiving: Comparing strategies to improve wages for care providers. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 43(4), 407–425.
4.
BurchinalM. R., RobertsJ. E., RigginsR.Jr., ZeiselS. A., NeebeE., & BryantD. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, 71, 339–357.
5.
ChoiY-K., & KimJ-W. (2012). Measures to improve the remuneration system of childcare teachers.Seoul, Korea: Korea Institute of Child Care Education.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
7.
EarlyD. M., & WintonP. J. (2001). Preparing the workforce: Early childhood teacher preparation at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 285–306.
HirstoL. (2010). Strategies in home and school collaboration among early education teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(2), 99–108.
11.
HolsteinJ. A., & GubriumJ. F. (1995). The active interview.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
HossainZ., NollE., & BarbozaM. (2012). Caregiving involvement, job condition, and job satisfaction of infant-toddler child-care teachers in the United States. Education Research International. Retrieved from www.hindawi.com/journals/edu/2012/676352/.
13.
IsenbergJ. P. (2000). The state of the art in early childhood professional preparation. In Horm-WingerdD., HysonM. & KarpN. (Eds.), New teachers for a new century: The future of early childhood professional preparation (pp. 17–52). Washington, DC: National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education, U.S. Department Education.
14.
IshimineK., & WilsonR. (2009). Centre-based child care quality in urban Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(3), 19–28.
15.
KontosS., & Wilcox-HerzogA. (1997). Teachers' interactions with children: Why are they so important?Young Children, 53(2), 4–12.
LeeM., SuhM-H., LimY., & LeeJ-H. (2012). An investigation of the current costs of standard childcare (Report No. 2012–15). Seoul, Korea: Korea Institute of Child Care and Education.
18.
LeitnerS. (2003). Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies, 5(4), 353–375.
19.
LokteffM., & PiercyK. (2012). ‘Who cares for the children?’: Lesson from a global perspective of child care policy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 120–130.
20.
MargettsK. (2005). Responsive caregiving: Reducing the stress in infant toddler care. International Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 77–84.
21.
MarshallC., & RossmanG. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
MaxwellK. L., LimC.-I, & EarlyD. M. (2006). Early childhood teacher preparation programs in the United States: National report. Chapel Hill, NC: the University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.
23.
National Audit Office. (2004). Early years: Progress in developing high quality childcare and early education accessible to all.London: The Stationery Office.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). Early child care and self-control, compliance and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development, 69, 1145–1170.
26.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71(4), 960–980.
27.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Non-maternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 457–492.
28.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Does quality of child care affect child outcomes at age 4(1/2)?Developmental Psychology, 39, 451–469.
29.
NorrisD. (2010). Raising the educational requirements for teachers in infant toddler classrooms: Implications for institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 146–158.
30.
OwensE., & RingG. (2007). Difficult children and difficult parents. Journal of Family Issues, 28(6), 827–850.
31.
PhillipsD., & AdamsG. (2001). Child care and our youngest children. The Future of Children, 11(1), 35–51.
32.
PratteR., & RuryJ. L. (1991). Teachers, professionalism, and craft. Teachers College Record, 93(1), 59–72.
33.
RecchiaS., & ShinM. (2010). ‘Baby teachers’: how pre-service early childhood students transform their conceptions of teaching and learning through an infant practicum. Early Years, 30(2), 135–145.
34.
RossmanG. B., & RallisS. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
SachsJ. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Educational Policy, 16(2), 149–161.
36.
SachsJ. (2003). Teacher professional standards: Controlling or developing teaching?Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(2), 175–186.
37.
SalazarM. (2012). Home-school collaboration for embedding individualized goals in daily routines. Young Exceptional Children, 15(3), 20–30.
38.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd edn). New York: Teachers College Press.
39.
ShonkoffJ. P., & PhillipsD. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
ShumanD. (1982). Policy analysis, education, and everyday life.Lexington, MA: Heath.
41.
StamopoulosE. (2012). Reframing early childhood leadership. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 42–48.
42.
YuenL. (2011). Enhancing home-school collaboration through children's expression. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(1), 147–158.
