Abstract
Professional standards increasingly call for early childhood educators to hold a bachelor’s degree as one measure of educator quality. This has prompted many educators to return to college, creating both a need and an opportunity to better understand the factors that support educators to complete their degree and apply what they learn to their teaching practice. This qualitative study examined the higher education experiences of early educators enrolled in a public urban university early childhood teacher education program. Using a theoretical lens grounded in relational theory, this study explored how relationships in the university and the workplace influenced educators’ progress toward degree completion and their application of learning into practice. Data included in-depth individual interviews with educators and their workplace supervisors. This study shows how positive relationships with university faculty, staff, peers, and workplace colleagues and supervisors can support educators as they work toward earning their bachelor’s degree. The results revealed four characteristics of these relationships that influenced educators, as well as key barriers and challenges. In particular, the findings show how several negative relational dynamics may act as a barrier to educators’ efforts to apply new learning in the workplace. The paper concludes with implications for research and practice, and calls for increased attention to the relational contexts in which educators pursue their degree and make improvements in their teaching practices.
Keywords
Improved professional development for the early care and education (ECE) workforce is a high priority for local, state, and national efforts to enhance ECE quality. Professional standards increasingly call for ECE teachers to hold a bachelor’s degree as one measure of educator quality (Hyson, Horm, & Winton, 2012; Institute of Medicine & National Research Council, 2015). This mandate, for example in Head Start, has prompted many early educators to return to school (Huss-Keeler, Peters, & Moss, 2013; Whitebook et al., 2009b). Until recently, 4-year higher education institutions have not played a major role in teacher education for those working in the birth-to-five sector. Little is known about early educators’ higher education experience and its impact on their professional practice (Hyson et al., 2012; Zaslow & Martinez-Beck, 2006). Understanding how to improve the quality and the impact of higher education programs that serve the ECE workforce is especially timely with the 2015 release of the Institute of Medicine’s major report on the early childhood workforce and educator credentials (Institute of Medicine & National Research Council, 2015).
The purpose of this study is to increase understanding about how educators’ relationships at work and in college influence their higher education experience and their capacity to apply what they learn to improve their teaching practice. The research on higher education for the ECE workforce typically focuses on technical and structural design elements of higher education programs, with little mention of relational factors (Schilder, 2016). For example, studies have focused on important structural factors influencing degree completion such as financial supports. “Softer” factors, such as the quality of relationships students experience in the university, have received far less attention. Yet, the organizational science literature shows that relationships are a key predicator of many kinds of outcomes, and that organizations can enhance and improve relationships in systematic ways (Gittell, 2016). Thus, understanding if and how relationships might play a role in early educator professional development can guide new research and inform efforts to improve policy and practice.
Using a theoretical framework grounded in the relational theory literature, this article explores a developing hypothesis that positive relationships (between and among early educators, higher education personnel, and ECE program directors) may support early educators to complete their college degree and apply new learning to the early childhood classroom. I sought to understand the ways in which relationships might play a role and focused my inquiry on the following research questions:
Higher Education and the ECE Workforce
Research indicates that the education and specialized training of early childhood educators can be an important factor in ECE program quality and children’s learning and healthy development (Schilder, 2016; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Winton & McCollum, 2008). Currently, no state requires a BA degree across the board for early childhood teachers working in licensed child care and preschool settings. Some specific types of ECE programs and funding streams have implemented a BA degree requirement for lead teachers working in those settings. Head Start requires that lead teachers have a BA and over half of all states require the BA for public school pre-K teachers, but not for those working in community-based or home-based preschool and child care settings (Whitebook & McLean, 2017).
In 2015, the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council issued an expansive and groundbreaking report, Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation. The report puts forth broad recommendations to strengthen the connection between the science of early learning and ECE professional development systems and practices to increase the capacity of the early education workforce to effectively support children’s development. Among its 13 major recommendations, the report calls for a transition toward a minimum qualification of a bachelor’s degree for all lead educators in classrooms, family child care. and ECE programs (Institute of Medicine & National Research Council, 2015).
In 2016, the national collaborative initiative called Power to the Profession was launched to develop professional standards and guidelines. This prompted lively debates and discussions about the bachelor’s degree credential in ECE (https://naeyc.org/our-work/initiatives/profession). This dialogue has drawn attention to ECE workforce diversity, and the importance of ensuring that early educators, across the spectrum of professional roles, which have access to professional development. Although the ECE workforce is the most racially and linguistically diverse sector of the overall education workforce, racial disparities exist when it comes to credentials (Ullrich, Hamm, & Herzfeldt-Kamprath, 2016). For example, far more White and Hispanic early childhood educators have a bachelor’s degree compared with African American educators (Ullrich et al., 2016). As the Foundation for Child Development (2018) recently argued, “children in the greatest need deserve early care and education provided by professionals with the highest qualifications—yet they are least likely to get them” (p. 2). As the ECE field strives to strengthen its teaching workforce, it is important to understand how to design and implement higher education programs and policies that support equity and the field’s diverse workforce.
Research evidence offers some support for the notion that the BA degree plays some role in teaching quality. Most, but not all, studies find that a bachelor’s degree is one of the several key factors associated with higher teaching quality and better child outcomes (Vu, Jeon, & Howes, 2008). Yet, the impact of the bachelor’s degree on early childhood teaching quality is not fully understood, resulting in the call to better understand the relationship between earning a degree, teaching practices, and ultimately child outcomes (Bredekamp & Goffin, 2012; Horm, Hyson, & Winton, 2013; Hyson et al., 2012; Whitebook et al., 2009a). Although more research is needed, existing research offers several insights about the higher education experiences of early childhood educators.
For early educators who are working toward a BA degree, completion of the degree is an important outcome. Earning a college degree is an important part of the professional development goals in the lives of many early educators, yet, research suggests that educators may face multiple barriers to earning a degree (Exposito & Bernheimer, 2012; Sakai, Kipnis, Whitebook, & Schaack, 2014). Full-time working adult learners often need to study part time, take time off, or “stop out” during their pursuit of a college degree, resulting in a longer, slower path to degree completion. Adult students often struggle to stay in school while balancing the demands of work, family, and school. There is a need for new research that can help increase understanding about supports for degree completion among early educators who are often nontraditional students, including low-income students and nontraditionally aged and working adults (Buell, 1999; Winkler-Wagner & Locks, 2014). In addition, research suggests that many educators who return to college are motivated, at least in part, by a desire to be a more effective teacher (Douglass, Benson, Hodges-Hunter, Wiles, & Stardrum, 2015; Huss-Keeler et al., 2013). More research is needed to understand the processes through which early educators’ higher education experiences positively influence the quality of their teaching practices.
Researchers, policy makers, and professionals all have a stake in gaining knowledge about higher education programs and their role in the professional development of the ECE workforce (Deutsch & Riffin, 2013; Horm et al., 2013; Huss-Keeler et al., 2013; Hyson et al., 2012; Institute of Medicine & National Research Council, 2015). Improving the potential for early educators to complete a degree and apply what they learn to their teaching practice is considered a critical factor underlying the potential benefit of the bachelor’s degree requirement for those already working in the field. Baker (2018) calls for more process-related research on early childhood educator professional development to better understand the processes through which early educators develop and change as professionals. In contrast to impact or outcomes studies, process studies focus on the underlying processes and mechanisms that may influence the outcomes of interest. As higher education takes on a greater role in the professional development of the ECE workforce, it is increasingly important to understand how higher education can best achieve these outcomes with the early educators they serve. This study draws on relational theory to explore one such process—the relational dynamics in higher education and ECE work settings—to better understand how relationships might influence early educators’ experiences in college and at work.
Relationships in Work and Higher Education Settings
An emerging body of research across multiple disciplines provides strong evidence that positive relationships in work and educational settings are associated with better outcomes, such as learning and improvement, organizational performance, and worker well-being and retention (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Gittell, 2016). Relational coordination theory comes from the management literature and suggests that mutual respect and caring are the foundation for positive relational dynamics that are associated with optimal outcomes in organizational systems (Gittell, 2016; Gittell & Douglass, 2012). Relational coordination research shows how these relationships of mutual respect, shared goals, and shared knowledge work to strengthen organizational effectiveness and outcomes. Furthermore, this research suggests that rather than leaving relationships to chance, organizations can implement specific types of structures and processes to systematically cultivate caring relationships (Douglass & Gittell, 2012; Gittell, 2016). Until relatively recently, it was widely thought that organizations cannot readily influence or improve “soft” factors, such as workplace relationships and caring behaviors. This may have contributed to the limited research on relationships as a factor that might influence outcomes in higher education or work settings. A key contribution of relational coordination research is the finding that organizations can employ a set of strategies and structures to improve the quality of relationships that ultimately may enhance organizational outcomes and impact (Douglass, 2011; Douglass & Klerman, 2012; Gittell, 2016). Relational coordination theory has now been widely used to study the influence of relationships in the business and health care sectors and is beginning to be applied in education settings (Douglass, 2018).
This article’s relational framework also draws on the ethic of care literature that defines caring as a relational practice in the organizational context (Fine, 2007; Gilligan, 1982; Held, 2006; Noddings, 2002; Waerness, 1996). Caring as a practice refers to the qualities of relationships. Caring relations are characterized by trust, connectedness, and a shared interest in mutual well-being (Fine, 2007; Noddings, 2002). Caring relationships are mutual, attentive, responsive to others’ needs, and embody a “sense of responsibility for the well-being of others, a concern for specific human relations, rather than abstract or rarefied principles” (Fine, 2007, p. 54).
What is known about caring relationships in early educator professional development in higher education settings? In educational settings, positive relationships appear to be an important factor in students’ feelings of connectedness in college (Goldstein, 2002; Sakai, Kipnis, Whitebook, et al., 2014). Relationships and the ethic of care have been explored in the context of teacher education as a way to enhance outcomes with college students, as well as to model caring teaching practices for future teachers (Goldstein & Freedman, 2003). Goldstein and Freedman (2003) argue that “the core of caring teacher education lies in the nature of the interactions between the teacher educator and her students” (p. 442). Goldstein (2002) further theorizes that a core element of caring teacher education is meeting the particular needs of individual students, rather than delivering a one-size-fits-all approach. Doing so requires the development of caring relationships in the higher education context, consistent with relational coordination theory (Douglass, 2018).
ECE research on higher education degree completion has noted the benefits of the cohort model, designed to embed social and relational supports into the program design (Sakai, Kipnis, & Whitebook, 2014). For example, some studies of degree completion cohort programs have found that the cohort model created a sense of belonging. Educators reported that their cohort was an important factor for success in their program (Kipnis, Whitebook, Almaraz, Sakai, & Austin, 2012; Sakai, Kipnis, Whitebook, et al., 2014). Although not focused specifically on early educators, Capps’s (2010) study of community college students found that student connections and relationships with faculty members were key factors supporting students to complete their degree.
Relationships beyond the walls of higher education institutions may also matter. For example, Hamilton (2016) studied parent engagement during the college years and found that certain types of parental supports contributed to college students’ persistence and degree completion. In their study of early educators in associates degree programs, Huss-Keeler et al. (2013) found that early education center directors played a major role in motivating and supporting teachers to go back to school, and also played an important supportive role while educators were in college.
Relationships in ECE Work Settings
This research and theory on relational work systems also offers insights about how these positive relationships might facilitate the application of new knowledge from the college classroom to the early childhood classroom. Several recent studies highlight the important and under-recognized influence of workplace relational and social contexts on educators’ ability to put what they have learned in training into practice in the classroom (Ackerman, 2008; Bardzil & Slaski, 2003; Borko, 2004; Dickinson & Brady, 2006; Douglass, 2011; Douglass & Gittell, 2012). For example, when teachers feel respected by colleagues and supervisors, and feel safe enough to try out a new idea or strategy in their classroom, they may be more likely to successfully apply their new knowledge into their teaching practices (Douglass, 2011; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2012; Whitebook et al., 2009a; Whitebook & Ryan, 2011). This feature of the workplace context is called psychological safety, and research shows it is a key relational factor that is associated with organizational improvement (Edmondson, 1999).
Another workplace relational factor is the quality of relationships within teaching teams. Positive and collaborative team dynamics can facilitate learning and improvement in practices, whereas team dysfunction can impede improvement (Douglass, 2011; Douglass & Klerman, 2012; Edmondson, 1999). The work context of ECE is quite different from K-12 education settings. ECE teachers typically work in teaching teams, with two to five adults sharing responsibility for a group of children over the course of the day. This makes the relationships with team members essential if changes are to be made in what is highly interdependent, shared, and collaborative practice (Douglass & Gittell, 2012; Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009).
In sum, a large body of evidence points to two key ingredients for learning and improvement in relation to early educator professional development: (a) high quality relationships, characterized by mutual respect and caring and (b) a collaborative work culture characterized by psychological safety and shared knowledge and goals (Gittell, Seidner, & Wimbush, 2010; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2012). Research suggests that positive relationships create the conditions essential for learning and improvement, and thus may play a crucial role in degree completion and in the capacity of educators to apply new learning to practice.
Research Methods
This descriptive study explored how relational dynamics function in the context of early educators working on their bachelor’s degree and applying new learning to their practice. It used qualitative interview methods to examine early educators’ relationships in the university and workplace settings from the perspectives of early educators and their workplace supervisors.
Study Context
The program where I work provided a unique opportunity to study the experiences of early educators returning to college. This bachelor’s degree program launched in 2009 in response to calls from the local ECE community for an accessible, public, higher education option for urban early educators seeking to complete their bachelor’s degree. Most bachelor’s degree programs in early education in this state focused on preparing teachers for public school pre-K to second grade classrooms, rather than birth-to-five settings. This program was thus designed to be responsive to the needs of early educators working in settings serving children birth to 5 years of age. All courses were offered in the evenings, as well as during the day, and educators completed their required supervised teaching practicum where they worked, rather than in one of the university’s formal “partnership” placement sites so they did not have to leave their jobs. The university established articulation and transfer policies to facilitate the transfer of credits from community colleges toward degree completion. The program’s home is a public urban university with over 12,000 undergraduates, over half of whom are minorities, and a high percentage of nontraditional students many of whom are the first in their family to go to college. Minority-serving and public urban universities like this one can play an important role in supporting the professional advancement of diverse early educators.
Because the local ECE community advocated for flexibility in course schedule options, the program was set up to enable students to design a schedule each semester to meet their needs, rather than employing a cohort model in which students start the program and take courses together at the same time. Much of the prior research on higher education for early educators has examined programs that used a cohort model described above to foster social supports and relationships. Therefore, this study offers new insights on the role of relationships within an alternative model for degree completion where early educators are integrated with other students, selecting the courses they choose to fit their schedule, rather than grouped into a cohort.
I serve as the program director for this BA degree program. I conducted this study both to inform the development of higher education models for the early education workforce and to inform continued improvement in my own program. This research project was approved by my institution’s institutional review board (IRB), and participants gave informed consent to participate. The informed consent made it clear that participation was voluntary and would have no impact on educators’ status at the university, and that a trained research assistant would be conducting the interviews.
Study Participants and Sources of Data
Up to three sources of data were collected for each educator participating in the study: (a) in-depth interviews with 18 early educators, (b) in-depth interviews with 11 of these educators’ workplace supervisors, and (c) all 18 early educators’ academic records. Interviews utilized a semistructured qualitative interview protocol (one for educators, one for supervisors), lasted approximately 45 min to 60 min, and were audiorecorded and later transcribed by a research assistant.
To obtain this sample, the early education academic advisor staff member identified 30 early education majors (out of a total of 78) who reported working in the ECE field at the time of the study. Because the academic advisor was not able to successfully obtain work information from all 78 students, there may have been additional students who worked in ECE, but were not identified as such and, therefore, were not invited to participate in this study. Of the 30 identified students who were invited to participate, 18 of them accepted the invitation to participate and completed the interview process with a research assistant. These study participants were racially diverse, all female, and ranged in age from 20 years to 57 years (Table 1). Interviews were also conducted with the workplace supervisors/directors of the educators who were interviewed. Sixteen of the 18 early educators identified a workplace supervisor; two of the early educators were family child care providers and did not have a supervisor. All 16 of the workplace supervisors were contacted by a research assistant, and 11 agreed to participate and completed the full interview.
Early Educator Participants.
The qualitative interviews focused on relationships in the higher education and workplace contexts. The educator interview protocol asked about students’ experiences and relationships at the university and in their workplace, and about their influence on degree completion and the application of new learning into their teaching practice. The program director interview protocol asked about the directors’ relationship with the educator and the university, their perspectives on their teacher’s professional development and the application of the teacher’s learning into practice.
Early educator academic records were reviewed at the end of the semester in which the educators were interviewed to determine demographic characteristics as well as academic factors such as the number of credits completed and status as a student or a graduate of the program. The demographic characteristics of the educators’ directors were not collected as part of this study.
Data Analysis Procedures
I analyzed the interview data using a three-step qualitative coding process informed by the relational framework for this study (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). All analytic procedures were conducted using ATLAS.ti software (Muhr, 2004). First, a priori descriptive codes were assigned to the data, based on the key variables in the study (examples include relationships with faculty, supervisor support, degree completion, director’s role, trying new practices, barrier/facilitator of change). Then, analytic codes derived from the theoretical framework were assigned (examples include caring, compassion, responsiveness, lack of caring/disrespect). These codes were generated from the theoretical frameworks guiding the study that identified key factors thought to influence the higher education experience of educators and the application of learning. For these a priori and analytic codes, detailed code definitions were developed by the author prior to analysis, and refined during the initial round of analysis, to confirm the consistent application of the codes to the data. Then the data were recoded with the refined list of codes. Next, an inductive analytic strategy was employed. This allowed for new themes to be identified from the data, which was important due to the exploratory nature of the study. This was especially relevant for identifying themes about how relational processes influenced early educators’ experiences, such as the emergent codes mentoring and role model. Given that this study explored topics that are not yet fully developed in the literature, the use of this three-step coding methodology enabled the analysis both to build on existing theoretical frameworks, as well as to offer new insights for ongoing theorizing (Miles et al., 2014). The educators’ academic records data were evaluated to document each educator’s status at the university, their coursework completed, and their progress toward degree completion.
Findings
The findings show that four types of positive relational processes influenced educators’ experience learning and working toward degree completion. The findings also show how three relational processes in the ECE workplace may have limited some educators’ capacity to apply new learning to their practice. Table 2 summarizes these key findings, which are described in the sections below. First, I present the findings about relational processes in educators’ higher education experience, followed by the findings about educator’s application of new learning to their practice at work.
Summary of Findings.
The Influence of Relationships on the Higher Education Experience of Educators
Four key relational processes influenced educators’ experiences in the higher education program: (a) mutual respect and caring, (b) believing in educators, (c) flexibility and responsiveness, and (d) mentoring and role modeling. The analysis also identified how these relational processes may have worked to support educators’ progress in the BA degree program.
Mutual respect and caring
Educators described several ways in which caring and respectful relationships with faculty and staff at the university and in the workplace fostered their progress in the degree program. The most prominent theme identified was that the core program staff and faculty members knew educators as individuals and provided support, encouragement, and advocated for them. The educators described these relationships as caring and compassionate. According to many of the educators, these relationships mattered, and “kept me going” in the face of many challenges and obstacles. One educator spoke about the professor in her early childhood math and science course who, Really held my hand the whole semester. The whole way. She went above and beyond. Maybe that is just her nature to help, and I know it wasn’t only me. She would pull other people aside. I don’t know what they discussed, but she was very compassionate and very willing to hold my hand and take baby steps with me.
Educators explained that these caring and respectful relationships helped them to be more engaged in classes, to overcome barriers they confronted, and to persist in their efforts to complete their BA degree.
Believing in educators: “yes you can do it.”
Another key finding about educators’ relationships focused on the power of people believing in educators’ capacity to succeed in college. This theme highlighted the central importance of educators’ relationship with their university academic advisor, who was a full-time staff member responsible for advising the early education students. In her role, she was the first and primary point of contact for educators at the university. She was described by almost all of those interviewed with terms such as “my counselor,” a “savior,” “my go-to-person,” and “a big part of my success.” One educator, who was at the time of the interview just 1 year away from graduation, explained, I actually sat down at her desk four years ago and cried and told her, you know, I don’t know if I can do this. And if it wasn’t for her help I don’t think I would be here today.
Another educator described how her advisor “gave me confidence,” and “they don’t set you up to fail and because they believe that we can do it, it helps me know that I can do this.” They also described ways that this advisor relationship helped buffer the negative impact of less positive relational experiences at the university. For example, several students described impersonal, inflexible, and negative interactions with university personnel outside of the early education department, which resulted in frustration and their questioning whether to stay in the program. Some students reported feeling isolated or “out of place” in general education classes that were sometimes filled with younger undergraduates or nonearly education majors. However, when confronted with these experiences, many explained how they turned to their advisor for support and this helped them to stay on track.
Relationships in the workplace can also offer this kind of positive and affirming support. For example, as one educator explained, her supervisor “is the one who saw potential in me and pushed me harder and harder. She is the one who is telling me ‘yes you can do it.’”
Flexibility and responsiveness
Educators confronted many challenges professionally and personally in their pursuit of a college degree, and they described how the respect and flexibility faculty offered them was important to their persistence in the program. For example, educators described struggling with finances and parenting, workplace instability, and battling major health crises. Completing a bachelor’s degree is a long process, especially for students attending part time over many years as most of these educators did. Many educators explained how faculty offered them flexibility by making accommodations to be responsive to their complex individual life circumstances. For example, one educator described undergoing cancer treatment during her time as a student and how her professors were flexible about assignments and class attendance: I’m a serious student, I think they take me seriously, and then they give me the benefit of the doubt, you know? Which matters tremendously, because if you feel like people don’t care, then why would you bother [to complete your degree]?
Workplace supervisors also played an ongoing supportive role for many educators, for example, by offering flexible work hours so educators could get to classes, providing time to study during the workday, providing tuition support, and providing encouragement and helping with homework. As one educator described, “I had an exam and she [supervisor] saw me studying on my lunch break, and she was like ‘take an extra lunch. I know this is your only study time.’” Because so many directors found ways to provide flexible work schedules and support for homework, educators reported benefiting from the flexibility to take some classes during the day rather than at night when it interfered more with their family commitments. This helped them balance the many demands on their time and energy. In some cases, coworkers also provided support during the workday. For example, several educators described doing their homework with the help of a coworker at naptime or the end of the day. In one case, two coworkers were attending college and taking classes together. This kind of collegial interactions created “an atmosphere of learning” in the workplace, according to one educator.
Mentoring and role modeling
Educators also spoke about faculty members as mentors who had deep knowledge of ECE due to their own current or previous experiences working in birth-to-five ECE settings. Educators saw these faculty members as mentors and role models. In the words of several educators, faculty are “peer leaders,” and “you can go to them for advice. If you’re having issues at your job you can consult them and get advice to better the situation.” As one educator described, the faculty “make me proud to be in the field, seeing the professors go above and beyond. And then I say someday, maybe, after I finish school maybe I can do a little more.” This sense of shared professional commitment and mentoring strengthened the alignment many educators experienced between the college classroom and their work settings. As described by several educators, this mentoring relationship increased their engagement in their classes and motivated them to keep working to complete their degree.
I also explored how educators’ relationships with fellow students might have influenced their experiences working toward degree completion. Only a few educators identified relationships with peers as an important influence, whereas others described being commuter students who did not get to know many peers in college. For those educators who did talk about peers, we found a similar theme about role modeling that we found in relationships with faculty. Referring to relationships with other students at the university, one educator explained that she was motivated by peers to be a better student: Because so many of the other [early childhood education] students are so committed to bettering themselves and the community and it kind of rubs off. It’s a good feeling to finally be doing well in school and have other people that want to do well in school.
They saw other educators working hard, committed to learning, and completing their degree. These educators served as peer role models influencing them to do well and work harder.
Interviews with directors revealed their perspectives on their role as mentors with their teachers who had gone back to school. One director told this story: I think my role is most of all to motivate people, encourage them, be there to offer my support, and to help the other teachers understand why as a team we should be supporting each other . . . I had this teacher, she’s from Jamaica, and she didn’t . . .want to go back [to school] . . . I encouraged her to go back. She went back and got her associate’s. When she started doing research at home to see what this associate’s would do for her, she was so motivated she said, “I’ve got to do better than that,” and then she went for her bachelor’s.
Directors talked about the many benefits they saw in their programs as a result of mentoring educators as they worked on their college degree, such as bringing back to the center new knowledge, and serving as role models for other staff. Directors stated that having staff in college and earning a bachelor’s degree raised their program’s profile and recognition by funders, the state Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), and with parents.
The Influence of Relationships on Educators’ Application of Learning in the Workplace
The second major area of the study examined if and how educators tried to apply new learning to their practices at work. All of the educators in the study were able to describe one or more ways they applied new strategies and knowledge in their work settings, such as changing specific teaching practices (literacy, concept, and language development) and using the university supervisor’s observation feedback to make specific practice changes. For example, one educator described how she learned and applied new skills for understanding and responding to challenging behaviors in her classroom, moving from blaming the child to looking for and responding to the underlying causes for the behavior.
In analyzing educators’ experiences trying to improve, we found three relational barriers that some confronted in this process: (a) a lack of shared goals and knowledge, (b) the absence of psychological safety, and (c) communication challenges. It was the negative experience or low quality of these three relational factors that educators and/or directors described as barriers to educators successfully being able to apply new learning to their practice.
Several educators reported barriers to trying new practices because coteachers were “not on the same page” with the desired change. They did not share these goals about best practices. For example, an educator who worked as an ECE program director, described, The only barrier that I had in all this, and I’m not ashamed to say it, is that sometimes when I do meet with my teachers and I’m trying to teach them, share with them something new, they’re looking at me . . . because they’re not there yet. You know what I mean? They’re not there yet.
In this example, while the educator learned new knowledge and skills, she did not know how to teach these new practices to her employees, or to engage teaching teams in a learning and improvement process around these practices. In another example, one educator talked about her efforts to implement a math project she developed for her course on early childhood math and science instruction: We did the Very Hungry Caterpillar and we did it on Math and Science. But it’s kind of hard doing a lesson in my room. The [lead] teacher, she’s a real professional, so . . . she doesn’t want to give up control. I don’t know what she thinks. I’m not going to say what she thinks, but she’s very “it has to be this way and has to be done that way.” But she’s very controlling so it’s hard for me to do a lesson. But when I do one, she doesn’t give up all control. But she micromanages, so it’s kind of hard. I feel intimidated by her, even though she’s young enough to be my child. But I still feel intimidated by her.
In this example, not only did the educator and her lead teacher not share the same goals and knowledge about teaching math, but the educator expressed a feeling of intimidation. She did not feel safe or empowered to try new ideas. This lack of psychological safety was a barrier to her efforts to try out new practices she had learned in school.
Several directors explained that they found it hard to support educators’ application of new practices because of a lack of communication between them and the higher education program faculty or staff. Most directors reported not knowing anyone on the university faculty or staff and not knowing exactly what their educator was learning about in college. As a result, they lacked knowledge they felt they needed to effectively support and facilitate the application of new practices. Directors wanted more information such as course schedules for the upcoming semester, course descriptions and syllabi, a list of all the resources at the university that might support their educators, and a stronger partnership with the university ECE program that would improve their capacity to support educators to apply learning into practice.
Discussion
This study shows how positive relationships with university faculty, staff, peers and workplace colleagues, and supervisors can support educators as they work toward earning their bachelor’s degree. The results revealed four characteristics of these relationships that influenced educators, and also point to several barriers and challenges faced by educators and ECE program directors. In particular, the findings show how several negative relational dynamics can act as a barrier to educators’ efforts to apply new learning in the workplace.
Although structural components of higher education (such as course schedules and content, and financial supports) are often the focus of ECE research and policy, this article suggests that relational factors might play an equally important role and one that deserves greater attention. The finding that positive relationships influenced the success of early educators aligns with prior research (Goldstein & Freedman, 2003; Huss-Keeler et al., 2013; Van Schagen Johnson, La Paro, & Crosby, 2017). If the quality of relationships matters, then relationships may need to be included as a focus of higher education program design and evaluation. Institutions can support, measure, and reward positive relationship practices. Relationships in learning organizations and the workplace are often invisible in research and practice. Once they are made visible, they can become a focus for research, intervention, and improvement. Organizational science research tells us that positive relationships are a core aspect of organizational effectiveness and outcomes (Gittell, 2016). This article highlights the relational contexts in which educators pursued their degrees and tried to make improvements in their teaching practices. Attention to these relational dynamics should be included, both in higher education program evaluation and in ECE research.
This study also identified several relational challenges when it comes to enhancing the application of learning in higher education into teaching practice. First, ECE workplace conditions may act as a barrier to educators transferring their new knowledge into practice. When coworkers do not share that knowledge base, they may stand in the way of trying something new. Although educators in a BA degree program may fully understand the new teaching practices they wish to implement, they may not have the skills to share that knowledge and collaboratively try new practices with their colleagues and coteachers. Higher education institutions can strengthen the potential for the application of new learning by including instructional leadership and continuous quality improvement competencies in the curriculum (Berg, Carver, & Mangin, 2014; Pacchiano, Klein, & Hawley, 2016). These competency frameworks address collaborative and team-learning strategies that can help educators share and spread new practices effectively in the work context. This is especially important in ECE settings, where educators almost always work in teams. A second challenge we found was a disconnect between the university and the ECE program administrators. Strengthening this connection and communication may strengthen the supportive relational context for professional learning and quality improvement in ECE. Insights from organizational science research can inform these efforts to improve higher education programs for the ECE workforce and enhance coordination between higher education and ECE workplaces.
Limitations
This exploratory descriptive study sought to identify educators’ and directors’ perspectives on how relationships influenced educators’ experience in school and at work in the context of one urban public university bachelor’s degree program. A limitation of its methodology is both its small sample size and the fact that it did not include multiple sources of data from within the higher education context and within the ECE workplace context, such as the perspectives of higher education staff and faculty. To build a theoretical basis for further research, we attempted to identify which relationships and relational processes might be important factors to examine and explore in relation to educator and teaching quality outcomes. This study set the stage to better understand the relational dynamics that may be of interest, which could then be incorporated into a next phase of this inquiry that could include observational data of early educators in their classrooms, interviews with the higher education faculty and advising staff, and with teaching teams in the ECE programs, for example.
Conclusion
This article contributes to the research literature on the experiences of adult early educators who have returned to college to complete the bachelor’s degree. It highlights the potential importance of the relational contexts in which educators pursue their degrees and make improvements in their teaching practices. If further research confirms the importance of these relational dynamics, they should be given greater attention both in higher education programs and in the ECE workplace. In the context of widespread attention to a bachelor’s degree requirement for early educators, more research is needed to increase knowledge about how to most effectively promote degree completion and the application of learning into improved practices with young children and families.
Footnotes
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 author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
