Preprimary Project

International comparisons show that when it comes to preschool education there isn’t just one way to effectively support children’s learning and growth. The International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) designed the Preprimary Project in the mid-1980s to try to identify core elements of high-quality programming for preschool age children (Montie et al., 2006). In other words, are there any program characteristics, in diverse countries and various preprimary settings, which are always associated with later cognitive and language gains?

In the first of three phases, the researchers analyzed national documents and conducted a household survey in order to identify the preprimary programs typically used by families with 4-year-old children. In Phase 2, the researchers did observations in selected preschool settings to describe the processes and characteristics of different early childhood settings. They looked at process and structural characteristics and also assessed 4-year-old children’s cognitive and language skills. Also in Phase 2, researchers interviewed families and teachers to discover attitudes about what is important for children to be learning. Three years later, in Phase 3 when the children were 7 years old, the researchers again assessed children’s cognitive and language skills (Bracey et al., 2007; Montie et al., 2006, National Research Council, 1995).

According to a Montie et al. (2006), researchers in North America, Europe and Asia collaborated for this project. Complete data sets for Phases 2 and 3 are available from 10 countries: Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Spain, Thailand, and the United States. Over the course of project, 17 countries participated in at least one phase of the research (National Research Council, 1995).

Important core elements in preprimary settings: In each of the ten countries studied in Phases 2 and 3, researchers identified four preprimary setting factors (in Phase 2) as being important for later cognitive language scores (in Phase 3):

1. When preprimary teachers mainly offer children free choice activities, children’s language development is better than when teachers provide many personal care and/or group social experiences.
2. The more years of higher education that preschool teachers have the better children’s language skills at age 7.
3. When preprimary teachers suggest few whole group activities (when everyone in the classroom is doing the same activity), children’s cognitive development at age 7 is better than when whole group activities are more frequent.
4. The greater the number and variety of materials and equipment available to children in their preprimary setting the better their cognitive development at age 7.

Montie et al. (2006) suggest the following possible reasons for these findings:

1. The importance of free choice activities to language development – the authors speculate that when children choose their own activities they usually have to have conversations with others to decide roles and rules and make plans. This gives children a chance to explore with language and expand their vocabulary. Children also are likely to choose activities that they find interesting, with an appropriate level of difficulty whereas a teacher’s choice may be too easy, too hard or simply not engaging, thereby doing little for children’s language development.
2. The positive association between preschool teachers’ education and children’s language development – the authors point out that this finding is consistent with research that shows that the more education parents and teachers have, the more they talk to children using complex, varied words. This use of advanced language facilitates the children’s language development.
3. The negative association between whole group activities and children’s cognitive development – the authors suggest that when a teacher offers a whole group activity it likely is not suited to each child’s individual abilities, interests, or skills. Thus, children may not find whole group activities challenging and these activities may not do as much for cognitive development as more individualized exploration.
4. The positive association between children’s cognitive development and the variety of materials and equipment available in the preprimary setting – the authors explain this finding by referring to the literature on the importance of providing children with many activities for hands-on exploration and learning. Having a large number and variety of materials will facilitate children’s opportunities for problem-solving and discovery.

Factors that varied from country to country: Montie et al. (2006) point out that while they found four core elements for successful preprimary education in each country, there are other elements that varied across countries. These variable effects relate to country level program factors identified in Phase 1. Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of these differential effects.

Table 1: Differential relationships between amount of adult-child interaction and age 7 scores

More interaction between adults and children is related to higher:	When the country’s preprimary programs have:
Age 7 language scores	Less adult-centred teaching Fewer whole group activities
Age 7 cognitive scores	Teachers who offer lots of free choice activities

Table 2: Differential relationships between amount of child-child interaction and age 7 scores

More interaction among children is related to higher:	When the country’s preprimary programs have:
Age 7 language scores	Fewer whole group activities More teachers who consider language skills among the most important skills

To explain these findings, Montie et al. (2006) point out that the nature of teacher-child interactions is quite dependent on who has chosen the activity and who is directing it. For example, when a teacher proposes a group activity the children usually give rote responses rather than being active participants in the learning process. Contrast this with children having many opportunities to choose engaging, interesting activities. When this is the case, adult-child interaction will be more supportive of children’s individual learning and more likely to facilitate children’s expressive skills. Similarly, child-child interaction depends on the nature of the activities in which they are participating. Large group activities do less to promote conversation, questioning and planning than do smaller groups that form naturally as children explore their individual interests.

Conclusion: The literature on quality early learning strategies suggests that a variety of preschool educational models can support children’s development. Overall, the Preprimary Project data confirm that within diverse program models there are some key characteristics of high quality programming that are associated with positive child development outcomes. Bracey et al. (2007) suggest that governments should pay close attention to these factors and ensure that public educational policies address these key program characteristics. Specifically, the authors recommend:

• Teacher education policies that encourage retraining of existing teachers and teacher education that is focused on promoting teaching practices that are linked to positive child outcomes.
• Governments should mandate free choice and small group activities and monitor programs to ensure that teachers are implementing these practices. This should include adult-child interactions that encourage children to solve problems, express their ideas and ask questions.
• Programs should provide abundant, varied materials for children to explore. They point out that this should include materials that are locally available and plentiful rather than commercial materials.

The results of this large scale, international study affirm the importance of paying attention to early environments for successful growth and development in later years. This study identified early childhood education practices that are associated with positive development, in diverse settings. This serves as a reminder to early childhood professionals to advocate for teaching methods that encourage children to reach their potential.

References

Bracey, G. M., J.E., Xiang, Z. & Schweinhart, L. J. (2007). The IEA preprimary study: Findings and policy implications. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/IEA_PPP_Findings_and Policy_Implications.pdf

Montie, J. E., Xiang, Z., & Schweinhart, L. J. (2006). Preschool experience in 10 countries: Cognitive and language performance at age 7. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 313-331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.007

National Research Council. (1995). International comparative studies in education: Descriptions of selected large-scale assessments and case studies. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9174/international-comparative-studies-in-education-descriptions-of-selected-large-scale