View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

What Are the Research Priorities of Australian Early Childhood Professionals? Results of a Delphi Style Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: What Are the Research Priorities of Australian Early Childhood Professionals? Results of a Delphi Style Study
Language: English
Authors: Eadie, Patricia (ORCID 0000-0001-5555-8325), Deery, Ben (ORCID 0000-0002-5313-1851), Murray, Lisa (ORCID 0000-0002-1751-031X), Levickis, Penny (ORCID 0000-0003-0534-733X), Page, Jane (ORCID 0000-0002-2310-4051), Elek, Catriona (ORCID 0000-0002-7941-9669)
Source: International Journal of Early Years Education. 2023 31(4):971-986.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Early Childhood Education, Preschool Teachers, Teacher Attitudes, Well Being, Mental Health, Networks, Faculty Development, COVID-19, Pandemics, Teacher Surveys, Foreign Countries, Action Research
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2022.2091980
ISSN: 0966-9760
1469-8463
Abstract: The aims of this study were to establish a Research Network of Early Childhood Professionals and to identity network members' top research priorities and preferred research methods. Australian early childhood education (ECE) professionals were invited to participate in a Delphi-style survey. In Stage 1, participants were asked to describe the most important issues in ECE that need addressing; from this, a 'top 20' list of the most common research priorities was generated. In Stage 2, respondents were asked to prioritise the top 20 research topics and to rate their interest in participating in various methods of research. A total of 182 ECE professionals completed the Stage 1 survey (pre-COVID-19), yielding 34 topics of research interest. Ninety-four respondents completed the Stage 2 survey (during the COVID-19 pandemic), ranking the top three most important research topics as: educator wellbeing and mental health, child wellbeing and mental health, and professional learning and development. Members of the network appear to be interested in participating in ECE research and their research priorities can help highlight real-world issues warranting further investigation. Facilitating research that addresses prioritised ECE areas is particularly timely given the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across the ECE sector.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1403904
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFYzjtrpmKDTvDq2rFL-5YrAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL6x_-5sFue97OZRJQIBEICBm3urt8olVsBwtrhpm7IHX58KKNf9keiXo0LASPHnLxediwKS8lifLAVqJuERBsHNWjX3-6C0OfOHj4kk52Rg0-f0kmgaTKd0c0OL3HXfqMvWm4DlZFvD325_k4F0i1mZWCfiPX3Vw95HjQxwAmdEZwZDZBjiKcOYEG8H5pPXHWKG8DquQP40EUvSN3AyxHtvKj_teoo61-uRQedr
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0173686654;54r01dec.23;2023Nov21.04:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0173686654-1">What are the research priorities of Australian early childhood professionals? Results of a Delphi style study </title> <p>The aims of this study were to establish a Research Network of Early Childhood Professionals and to identity network members' top research priorities and preferred research methods. Australian early childhood education (ECE) professionals were invited to participate in a Delphi-style survey. In Stage 1, participants were asked to describe the most important issues in ECE that need addressing; from this, a 'top 20' list of the most common research priorities was generated. In Stage 2, respondents were asked to prioritise the top 20 research topics and to rate their interest in participating in various methods of research. A total of 182 ECE professionals completed the Stage 1 survey (pre-COVID-19), yielding 34 topics of research interest. Ninety-four respondents completed the Stage 2 survey (during the COVID-19 pandemic), ranking the top three most important research topics as: educator wellbeing and mental health, child wellbeing and mental health, and professional learning and development. Members of the network appear to be interested in participating in ECE research and their research priorities can help highlight real-world issues warranting further investigation. Facilitating research that addresses prioritised ECE areas is particularly timely given the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across the ECE sector.</p> <p>Keywords: Early childhood education; research network; practice-based research; educator wellbeing; child wellbeing</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The evidence is clear that high-quality early learning experiences provided through early childhood education (ECE) can benefit all children (OECD [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref1">35</reflink>]; Shuey and Kankaraš [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref2">48</reflink>]) and can be particularly transformative for children experiencing higher levels of disadvantage (Goldfeld et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref3">19</reflink>]). Despite increased government investment and new policy initiatives designed to improve the quality of ECE provision across Australia, national data indicates the quality of ECE is highly variable (Pascoe and Brennan [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>]; Tayler [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref5">52</reflink>]). While there are multiple inter-related factors that impact ECE program quality, there is growing consensus that outside the home, educators have the greatest impact on children's developmental outcomes (Hamre [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]; Hatfield et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>]; Torii, Fox, and Cloney [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref8">55</reflink>]). The daily practice of early childhood professionals is influenced by multiple factors including their training, personal beliefs, and working conditions (Buettner et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]; Henry, Hatfield, and Chandler [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]; Schreyer and Krause [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref11">45</reflink>]). An international survey conducted with ECE professionals from nine countries (OECD [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref12">36</reflink>]) revealed that reducing group sizes, increasing salaries, having access to high-quality professional development, and receiving support for children with additional needs were top priorities for the workforce. In Australia, findings from a national ECE workforce survey conducted with 1200 educators (Irvine et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]) indicated numerous challenges impacting the practice of educators, including financial hardships, less favourable working conditions, long working hours, poor educator wellbeing, and lack of professional recognition. A longitudinal study of staff turnover with a sub-sample of this group showed a high annual turnover rate of 37%, which has further implications for program quality (Thorpe, Jansen, and Sullivan [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref14">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Knowing more about the priority issues for Australian ECE professionals may help to target possible avenues of change and indeed support efforts to improve ECE quality and stem the high levels of staff turnover. A potential limitation of past research into important factors that may improve ECE program quality is that much of this research is driven and conducted by researchers within tertiary academic settings, thus addressing targets of academic, research or clinical interest (Eisenberg [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]). Further, ECE interventions are often designed by researchers or other clinical professionals with little or rather post-hoc input from educators in the field, and relevant programs generated by universities may fail to reach large numbers of educators in the field. There is also a body of ECE research which is largely conducted in university early childhood centres or 'Laboratory Preschools' which may not accurately reflect everyday educational practices, or typical early childhood settings (File [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]). While these are not barriers per se to successful programs of research and developing effective practices, they do risk overlooking 'real-world' issues facing ECE professionals currently working with young children.</p> <p>A promising research innovation which has sought to overcome the potential overlooking of common community or practitioner issues by tertiary institutions is the development of 'practice-based research networks'. Previously successfully used by the medical field for general practice, primary care, and paediatric research (Rudolph et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>]; Thomas et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref18">53</reflink>]) practice-based research networks hold great potential as a powerful research tool for the field of education, and in this case early childhood education. If ECE professionals are expected to implement evidence-based strategies in their daily practice, future research must include their direct input. This study, therefore, aimed to establish a coordinated research network of Australian ECE professionals, and to identify their research priorities based on their real-word experiences in the field. By establishing a coordinated research network of early childhood professionals, this research aimed to elevate the voices of the profession, while supporting their agency, professional identity, and sense of contribution. The key research questions were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> what are the current research priorities of a network of Australian ECE professionals?</item> <p></p> <item> what are network members' motivations for joining a research network?</item> <p></p> <item> how interested are network members in participating in various research methods?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0173686654-3">The current study</hd> <p>Modelled on the Australian Paediatric Research Network (APRN) (Rudolph et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref19">43</reflink>]), the Research Network of Early Childhood Professionals (RNECP) was established in 2019 by ECE researchers with the aim of developing and strengthening collaborations with ECE professionals to generate highly topical research questions and real-world solutions. The network also provides an opportunity for ECE professionals who may have had scant opportunity previously to contribute to research. The network's first goal was to investigate the priority research issues for ECE professionals. Adopting the approach successfully used by the APRN (Rudolph et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref20">43</reflink>]), the project used a Delphi survey technique – a structured approach for eliciting anonymous opinions from a group of experts on a topic (Hasson, Keeney, and McKenna [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]; Jorm [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref22">33</reflink>]). The standard Delphi technique involves seeking the opinion of a group of experts on one or more questions, summarising their opinions to develop a survey for additional feedback, and concluding the process when there is a convergence of opinion (Hasson, Keeney, and McKenna [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]; Jorm [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]). This study used a modified Delphi approach by including new and original participants in the round two survey. Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the relevant Human Research Ethics Committee. A steering group comprising nine experts spanning research, teaching, and practice in ECE was established at the project outset and met quarterly to provide advice and support the direction of the RNECP.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-4">Methods</hd> <p>A Delphi-style online survey was used to bring together a network of ECE professionals' opinions about important ECE topics of interest. The Delphi-style process comprised two stages of sequential surveys; the first survey, distributed in October 2019, aimed to recruit ECE professionals to join the network and to elicit their research topics of interest. The second survey, distributed in May 2020, aimed to establish a priority ranking of the top twenty most commonly reported topics. The two stages of surveys were completed using the secure online survey tool, Qualtrics.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-5">Recruitment</hd> <p>Australian ECE professionals were recruited to the Stage 1 online survey by responding to advertisements on relevant websites and social media platforms and through ECE contacts that were known to the researchers. In some cases, an email including introductory information and a link to the survey was sent to ECE organisations or professionals who had expressed interest in participating in the research network. A snowballing technique also occurred whereby existing expert participants invited their colleagues to participate in the study. The Stage 2 online survey was emailed to network members and disseminated to other ECE professionals via social media. For the purposes of this research, the definition of ECE professionals aligns with the description outlined in the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>]) which includes all professionals working in education, research, higher education, and policy roles within the ECE sector.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-6">Delphi stage 1 survey</hd> <p>The Stage 1 online survey comprised multiple choice questions, as well as a small number of open-text items (e.g. 'please specify'). The survey asked ECE professionals about their education and employment background (e.g. qualifications, primary work role), their motivations for joining a research network and their preferred contact method for follow-up online surveys. The survey also posed the key question: 'Thinking about your professional practice, what are the most important topics/issues in early childhood education that need addressing?' In response to this question, participants were asked to list and describe, in free text form, up to five of the most important issues that need addressing in early childhood education. Using qualitative methods, respondents' responses were coded and grouped, and a 'top 20' list of the most common research topics was generated.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-7">Delphi stage 2 survey</hd> <p>The Stage 2 online survey asked respondents to rank the top twenty research topics identified in the Stage 1 online survey in terms of the importance to their practice, and to indicate their interest (on a 4-point scale from 'not interested' to 'extremely interested') in participating in various types of research projects.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-8">Data analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173686654-9">Stage 1 analysis</hd> <p>Qualitative analysis was used to identify the most commonly reported research topics. An inductive approach was employed, whereby coding and the development of themes was driven by the content of the open text comments (Braun and Clarke [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]). The data were initially analysed by one researcher who familiarised themselves with the data and generated potential codes by identifying recurring words or concepts. Initial analysis was completed by grouping similar items together, whereby codes which shared similar meanings were merged into sub-themes. A second researcher also familiarised herself with a random sample of the data and the researchers discussed the coded data and negotiated any discrepancies. To further structure the data, the researchers referenced concepts and terminology used in familiar educational policy documents, such as the EYLF. The subthemes were mapped into overarching themes (or topics) which were then reviewed and further refined to ensure they encompassed all the issues highlighted in the data. To determine the top twenty most prominent research topics (or themes), code frequencies for each theme were recorded. Respondents' motivations for joining the research network were ranked according to their mode, and the percentage of respondents rating each motivation as 'most' or 'least' important to their practice was calculated.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-10">Stage 2 analysis</hd> <p>In Stage 2, respondents were asked to rank the top twenty research topics identified in the first survey in order of importance, using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (not important), 2 (slightly important), 3 (moderately important), 4 (important), 5 (extremely important). This data was analysed to determine the percentage ratings (% of respondents rating each level of importance) for each topic. In addition, the optional free text responses were qualitatively analysed (Braun and Clarke [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]) to elicit the key themes in respondent's explanations of their ratings. The percentage of respondents who expressed interest in participating in different research designs was also calculated, from 'not interested' to 'extremely interested'.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-11">Results</hd> <p>A total of 182 ECE professionals completed the Stage 1 survey, and 94 completed the Stage 2 survey. Stage 2 survey respondents comprised 43 Stage 1 survey respondents and 51 additional respondents. Respondents included ECE centre directors, educational leaders, educators, family day care owners and research and policy professionals in the ECE field. A mix of private, not-for-profit, community and local government, metro and regional ECE services are represented in the sample. Table 1 presents descriptive data about the ECE professionals who participated in the surveys.</p> <p>Table 1. Survey respondent characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Respondent characteristics</td><td>Stage 1 respondents (<italic>n</italic> = 182) % of column total</td><td>Stage 2 respondents (<italic>n</italic> = 94) % of column total</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Gender</italic></td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">95.0</td><td char=".">95.2</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">4.5</td><td char=".">4.8</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td char=".">0.5</td><td char=".">–</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Years of experience in ECE</italic></td></tr><tr><td> <1 year</td><td char=".">4.5</td><td char=".">6.9</td></tr><tr><td> 1–10 years</td><td char=".">36.0</td><td char=".">32.2</td></tr><tr><td> 11–20 years</td><td char=".">28.0</td><td char=".">32.2</td></tr><tr><td> 21–30 years</td><td char=".">23.5</td><td char=".">20.7</td></tr><tr><td> 30+ years</td><td char=".">8.0</td><td char=".">8.0</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Highest qualification in ECE</italic></td></tr><tr><td> PhD</td><td char=".">1.5</td><td char=".">2.3</td></tr><tr><td> Masters</td><td char=".">33.5</td><td char=".">25.3</td></tr><tr><td> Bachelor</td><td char=".">32.0</td><td char=".">47.1</td></tr><tr><td> Diploma/Grad Diploma</td><td char=".">29.5</td><td char=".">17.3</td></tr><tr><td> Certificate</td><td char=".">1.0</td><td char=".">1.1</td></tr><tr><td> Other (non-ECE)</td><td char=".">2.5</td><td char=".">6.9</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Working hours</italic></td></tr><tr><td> Casual</td><td char=".">3.5</td><td char=".">3.5</td></tr><tr><td> Part-time</td><td char=".">32.0</td><td char=".">31.8</td></tr><tr><td> Full-time</td><td char=".">62.5</td><td char=".">64.7</td></tr><tr><td> Other (e.g. parental leave)</td><td char=".">2.0</td><td char=".">–</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Primary work role</italic></td></tr><tr><td> Centre Manager/Director</td><td char=".">19.0</td><td char=".">21.5</td></tr><tr><td> Educational Leader</td><td char=".">21.5</td><td char=".">16.1</td></tr><tr><td> Lead Teacher/Educator</td><td char=".">38.0</td><td char=".">31.2</td></tr><tr><td> Assistant Teacher/Educator</td><td char=".">8.5</td><td char=".">14.0</td></tr><tr><td> Other<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td char=".">13.0</td><td char=".">17.2</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Age group of children in room</italic></td></tr><tr><td> <2 years old</td><td char=".">1.5</td><td char=".">2.4</td></tr><tr><td> 2–3 years old</td><td char=".">5.5</td><td char=".">4.7</td></tr><tr><td> 3–5 years old</td><td char=".">34.5</td><td char=".">28.2</td></tr><tr><td> 4+ years old</td><td char=".">26.0</td><td char=".">29.4</td></tr><tr><td> Mixed ages (birth+)</td><td char=".">25.0</td><td char=".">27.1</td></tr><tr><td> Other (non-contact/primary/adult learners)</td><td char=".">7.5</td><td char=".">8.2</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Service type</italic></td></tr><tr><td> Childcare/LDC (council/community/non-profit)</td><td char=".">24.5</td><td char=".">22.4</td></tr><tr><td> Childcare/LDC (private/for profit)</td><td char=".">21.0</td><td char=".">24.7</td></tr><tr><td> Kindergarten/Preschool (community/non-profit)</td><td char=".">29.5</td><td char=".">30.6</td></tr><tr><td> Kindergarten/Preschool (private/for profit)</td><td char=".">3.5</td><td char=".">2.4</td></tr><tr><td> Kindergarten/LDC connected to a school</td><td char=".">7.5</td><td char=".">8.2</td></tr><tr><td> Family Day Care</td><td char=".">0.5</td><td char=".">1.2</td></tr><tr><td> Multiple service types</td><td char=".">3.0</td><td char=".">1.2</td></tr><tr><td> Other (e.g. playgroup)</td><td char=".">10.0</td><td char=".">9.4</td></tr><tr><td>Location</td><td>State total</td><td>Metro</td><td>Regional</td><td>Rural</td><td>State total</td><td>Metro</td><td>Regional</td><td>Rural</td></tr><tr><td> ACT</td><td char=".">1.5</td><td char=".">1.5</td><td char=".">–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">2.6</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td char=".">–</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td> NSW</td><td char=".">7.5</td><td char=".">6.5</td><td char=".">0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td char=".">12.5</td><td char=".">8.9</td><td char=".">3.6</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td> VIC</td><td char=".">79.9</td><td char=".">69.3</td><td char=".">7.5</td><td>3.0</td><td char=".">75.9</td><td char=".">56.9</td><td char=".">16.5</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td> QLD</td><td char=".">3.0</td><td char=".">1.0</td><td char=".">1.5</td><td>0.5</td><td char=".">2.6</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> SA</td><td char=".">1.5</td><td char=".">0.5</td><td char=".">1.0</td><td>–</td><td char=".">5.1</td><td char=".">3.8</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> WA</td><td char=".">5.0</td><td char=".">5.0</td><td char=".">–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td> TAS</td><td char=".">1.0</td><td char=".">0.5</td><td char=".">0.5</td><td>–</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">1.3</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Multiple states</td><td char=".">0.5</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td>–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td char=".">–</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Other: Management or consultancy role, research/teaching role, inclusion professional, policy role, playgroup leader, nanny.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-12">Delphi stage 1 survey</hd> <p>A total of 182 respondents indicated their research priorities, yielding 34 research topics of interest. The top 20 research topics identified by stage 1 respondents are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. The top 20 research topics identified by Stage 1 survey respondents.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Research topics of interest</td><td>% of respondents (<italic>n</italic> = 182)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Professional learning & development</td><td char=".">23.8</td></tr><tr><td>Program & curriculum planning</td><td char=".">22.7</td></tr><tr><td>Intentional and responsive teaching</td><td char=".">21.6</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusive practice</td><td char=".">21.1</td></tr><tr><td>Working conditions (workload, pay, ratios)</td><td char=".">20.5</td></tr><tr><td>Professional identity & status</td><td char=".">18.9</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment & documentation</td><td char=".">14.6</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge of research/evidence-based practice</td><td char=".">14.6</td></tr><tr><td>Child wellbeing and mental health</td><td char=".">14.1</td></tr><tr><td>Parental & community engagement</td><td char=".">13.5</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of initial teacher education</td><td char=".">13.5</td></tr><tr><td>Educational leadership</td><td char=".">12.4</td></tr><tr><td>Educator wellbeing and mental health</td><td char=".">12.4</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of educators' professional knowledge & practice</td><td char=".">12.4</td></tr><tr><td>Nature-based pedagogy</td><td char=".">11.9</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural competence</td><td char=".">10.3</td></tr><tr><td>Ethics, policies, and standards</td><td char=".">10.3</td></tr><tr><td>Trauma informed practice</td><td char=".">10.3</td></tr><tr><td>Reflective practice</td><td char=".">9.7</td></tr><tr><td>STEM-based pedagogy</td><td char=".">9.7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3 presents the mode ratings of respondents' motivation for joining the research network, from 1, (most important) to 6 (least important). Building knowledge of evidence-based practice was rated as the most important motivating factor by 46% of respondents. A further 10% of respondents described 'other' motivating factors for joining the research network. These responses included having a voice and advocating for the profession, being part of a professional learning community, learning about current research, giving back to the profession, participating in long-term change, and steering the direction of research that will benefit children and families.</p> <p>Table 3. Respondents' motivations for joining the research network (<emph>n</emph> = 182).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Factors that would motivate respondents to join the research network (rated in order of importance, 1–6)</td><td>Mode</td><td>Interest level (% of respondents)</td></tr><tr><td>Most important</td><td>Least important</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Building my knowledge of evidence-based practice</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">46.1</td><td char=".">0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Learning new skills</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">15.5</td><td char=".">0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborating with ECE colleagues and families</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">16.6</td><td char=".">1.6</td></tr><tr><td>A platform to express my professional needs & interests</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">14.5</td><td char=".">1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Personal satisfaction from contributing to research</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">5.2</td><td char=".">3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Other (please comment)</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2.1</td><td char=".">92.7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0173686654-13">Delphi stage 2 survey: top twenty research topics</hd> <p>The top twenty research topics, rated by stage 2 respondents on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important), are presented in order of their percentage ratings in Table 4 below. There was not a large differentiation between the ratings, with over two thirds of respondents rating all twenty research topics as either 'extremely important' or 'important' to practice. The top three research topics rated as 'extremely important' or 'important' by 97% of stage 2 respondents were: educator wellbeing and mental health, child wellbeing and mental health, and professional learning and development.</p> <p>Table 4. The top 20 research topics rated by stage 2 survey respondents (<emph>n</emph> = 94).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Topic (<italic>n</italic> = 94)</td><td>Extremely important/important</td><td>Moderately important</td><td>Slightly important/not important</td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>%</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Educator wellbeing & mental health</td><td char=".">96.81%</td><td char=".">2.13%</td><td char=".">1.06%</td></tr><tr><td>Child wellbeing & mental health</td><td char=".">96.81%</td><td char=".">2.13%</td><td char=".">1.06%</td></tr><tr><td>Professional learning & development</td><td char=".">96.81%</td><td char=".">3.19%</td><td char=".">0.00%</td></tr><tr><td>Educational leadership</td><td char=".">95.74%</td><td char=".">4.26%</td><td char=".">0.00%</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusive practice</td><td char=".">94.68%</td><td char=".">4.26%</td><td char=".">1.06%</td></tr><tr><td>Reflective practice</td><td char=".">92.55%</td><td char=".">6.38%</td><td char=".">1.06%</td></tr><tr><td>Intentional and responsive teaching</td><td char=".">92.55%</td><td char=".">6.38%</td><td char=".">1.06%</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of professional knowledge & practice</td><td char=".">92.55%</td><td char=".">6.38%</td><td char=".">1.06%</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge of research/evidence-based practice</td><td char=".">92.55%</td><td char=".">6.38%</td><td char=".">1.06%</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of initial teacher education</td><td char=".">89.36%</td><td char=".">8.51%</td><td char=".">2.13%</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural competence</td><td char=".">89.36%</td><td char=".">8.51%</td><td char=".">2.13%</td></tr><tr><td>Trauma informed practice</td><td char=".">88.17%</td><td char=".">8.60%</td><td char=".">3.23%</td></tr><tr><td>Ethics, policies & standards</td><td char=".">87.23%</td><td char=".">10.53%</td><td char=".">3.16%</td></tr><tr><td>Program & curriculum planning</td><td char=".">86.17%</td><td char=".">9.57%</td><td char=".">4.26%</td></tr><tr><td>Parental & community engagement</td><td char=".">84.04%</td><td char=".">12.77%</td><td char=".">3.19%</td></tr><tr><td>Working Conditions (workload, pay, ratios)</td><td char=".">81.91%</td><td char=".">14.89%</td><td char=".">3.19%</td></tr><tr><td>Nature-based pedagogy</td><td char=".">74.19%</td><td char=".">17.20%</td><td char=".">8.60%</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment & documentation</td><td char=".">73.40%</td><td char=".">23.40%</td><td char=".">3.19%</td></tr><tr><td>STEM-based pedagogy</td><td char=".">70.21%</td><td char=".">22.34%</td><td char=".">7.45%</td></tr><tr><td>Professional identity & status</td><td char=".">67.74%</td><td char=".">24.73%</td><td char=".">7.53%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0173686654-14">Delphi stage 2 survey: participant comments</hd> <p>Respondents were also given the option to comment on their ratings. Comments relating to the top three research topics of interest are elaborated here.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-15">Educator wellbeing and mental health</hd> <p>Comments relating to educator wellbeing and mental health highlight the importance of educator wellbeing in and of itself: 'without this you have nothing', as well as for supporting children's learning and development outcomes: 'Educators' wellbeing affects their work with children', 'educators need to be mentally healthy as well as physically healthy to deliver a good program', and 'educator mental health directly impacts on the mental health and wellbeing of children they work with'. In addition, comments underline the impact of stressful working conditions and the issue of burnout and turnover in the profession: 'Currently our profession is highly stressful', and 'Burn out is too common and teachers are not remaining in the profession'. Respondents also commented on the lack of recognition for the profession: 'teachers are pulling out of the profession in droves due to burn out and lack of recognition and respect', and 'Often our career is degraded or overlooked in the media or by government agencies'. One respondent also referenced the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to educator wellbeing: 'We already have a number of educators with poor mental health that we monitor and support. This has increased with COVID and with the experiences/situations educators are a part of or hear of with our more vulnerable families'.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-16">Child wellbeing and mental health</hd> <p>Comments relating to child wellbeing and mental health highlighted the importance of supporting children's wellbeing to achieve optimal learning and development outcomes: 'It is an ECT's first port of call; wellbeing and mental health impact child's growth, development and learning', and 'a focus on this will allow all areas of development to be nurtured'. Some respondents also commented on the prevalence of increased mental health issues for children in modern society: 'all population mental health is at an all-time low', and 'children are experiencing more stress with higher expectations, social media and global issues to contend with'. A small number of respondents also indicated there is a growing prevalence of child wellbeing issues and a deficiency of educator training in this domain: 'Training and education in this area is sadly lacking in the field and yet is a more prevalent thing that we are seeing across all age groups in the sector'.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-17">Professional learning and development</hd> <p>Respondents' comments in relation to professional learning and development emphasised the importance of educators continuously updating their knowledge and practice to ensure the best outcomes for children: 'It is imperative that Early Childhood Educators stay abreast of current research and practice', and 'to move the team forward, continually reflect on practice and see how we can improve based on new theories and developments in the field'. A small number of respondents also referenced the importance of high-quality professional development (PD) for career progression: 'not all Professional Development is created equally, so access to reputable, research-based PD is important', and 'we need to have ways of progression to the top that all can aspire to'.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-18">Delphi stage 2 survey: interest in participating in research</hd> <p>Stage 2 survey respondents indicated their level of interest in participating in different types of research (Table 5). Overall, it appears that EC professionals are interested in a variety of research methods, with a high proportion of respondents (79%) expressing at least a moderate level of interest in each type of research method, and approximately one-quarter to one-third 'extremely interested' in participating in research. Perhaps of note, a higher number of participants indicated that they were 'not interested' (12.1%) in focus groups (online or face-to-face) compared to other research designs; however, a similar number were 'extremely interested' in this method.</p> <p>Table 5. Respondents' interest in participating in different types of research (<emph>n</emph> = 91).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Type of research</td><td>Interest level (% of respondents)</td></tr><tr><td>Not interested</td><td>Extremely interested</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Multi-topic online surveys</td><td char=".">4.4</td><td char=".">27.5</td></tr><tr><td>Parent and educator completed surveys</td><td char=".">6.6</td><td char=".">21.9</td></tr><tr><td>Focus groups (online or face-to-face)</td><td char=".">12.1</td><td char=".">25.3</td></tr><tr><td>Longitudinal data collection projects</td><td char=".">6.6</td><td char=".">29.7</td></tr><tr><td>Randomised controlled trials – delivering interventions</td><td char=".">7.7</td><td char=".">26.4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0173686654-19">Discussion</hd> <p>Findings from this study suggest that current members of the RNECP (a sample of Australian ECE professionals working across a range of service types) are interested in contributing to research, highly motivated to build their knowledge of evidence-based practice and have research priorities that can provide direction for future collaborative research using different research methodologies. Overall, network members indicated that all twenty of the priority research topics identified in Stage 1 were important to their practice, with over two thirds of stage 2 survey respondents rating each topic as 'extremely important' or 'important'. While we have focused on the top three research topics of interest, we acknowledge that many more of the twenty topics are of interest to the RNECP. The top three research priorities rated by network members are discussed in more detail below.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-20">Educator wellbeing and mental health</hd> <p>Educator wellbeing and mental health was among the top three most important research priorities for Stage 2 network respondents – a higher priority than indicated by the Stage 1 survey respondents. This finding was likely influenced by the stage 2 survey being completed during the COVID-19 pandemic (May-August 2020), when the ECE workforce were required to navigate significant additional challenges (Quinones, Barnes, and Berger [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref28">41</reflink>]; Tate [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref29">51</reflink>]). However, the prioritisation of educator wellbeing and mental health correlates with studies showing a high prevalence of stress, depression and poor wellbeing among ECE staff prior to the pandemic (Cumming [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]; Hall-Kenyon et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]), suggesting that wellbeing is an important issue for educators notwithstanding the added stressors stemming from the pandemic.</p> <p>In their comments related to educator wellbeing, respondents articulated that educator wellbeing and mental health is intrinsically important for individuals, as well as for supporting educators' capacity to support the wellbeing, learning and development of the young children in their care. This is supported by international evidence linking educator wellbeing with the quality of educator-child relationships (Becker, Gallagher, and Whitaker [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>]; Seo and Yuh [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref33">46</reflink>]; Whitaker, Dearth-Wesley, and Gooze [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]) and consequentially children's developmental outcomes (Cassidy et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]; Jeon, Buettner, and Snyder [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>]; Pakarinen et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref37">38</reflink>]). Survey respondents also commented on stressful working conditions and a lack of professional recognition and respect, contributing to high levels of burn-out and staff turnover. This perspective correlates with studies reporting on elevated levels of work-related stress and depression among the ECE workforce (Corr et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]; Cumming [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref39">11</reflink>]; Smith and Lawrence [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref40">49</reflink>]), with the pressures of emotionally and physically demanding work compounded by incommensurate remuneration and lack of professional recognition (Boyd [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]; Jeon, Buettner, and Snyder [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref42">31</reflink>]; Roberts et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref43">42</reflink>]). This, in turn, can lead to significant difficulties attracting and retaining qualified educators, with implications for ECE program quality (Thorpe, Jansen, and Sullivan [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref44">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies suggest that positive collegial relationships and supportive working conditions can go some way to alleviating educator stress (Henry, Hatfield, and Chandler [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref45">27</reflink>]; Jones et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref46">32</reflink>]; Schreyer and Krause [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref47">45</reflink>]) and improving educators' overall job satisfaction (Hall-Kenyon et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]). As such, working with educators to foster supportive working environments may provide a much-needed support for educator wellbeing. In addition, studies suggest that raising the visibility of the complexities inherent in educators' work (Logan, Cumming, and Wong [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref49">34</reflink>]), and implementing interventions that improve educators' coping skills (Carson et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>]; Jennings et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref51">30</reflink>]; Seo and Yuh [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref52">46</reflink>]) could help to promote improved educator wellbeing.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-21">Child wellbeing and mental health</hd> <p>Child wellbeing and mental health was also deemed a priority research topic by network members, with respondents reflecting on the growing prevalence of child wellbeing concerns in modern society. Consistent with educator wellbeing, child wellbeing became a higher priority for Stage 2 survey participants, likely reflecting the impact of the pandemic in 2020. However, the prioritisation of child wellbeing also echoes a growing interest in children's wellbeing which has been steadily increasing across political, social, and educational contexts over the past decade (Early Childhood Australia [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref53">14</reflink>]; Human Rights Commission and Early Childhood Australia [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref54">28</reflink>]). In acknowledgement of the scale of the issue, the Victorian state government authorised a Royal Commission into Victoria's mental health system, with the inquiry concluding that system-wide reforms are required to meet the mental health and wellbeing needs of children (State of Victoria [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref55">50</reflink>]). In the current context, this task has been afforded even greater importance, with research indicating the wellbeing of young Australian children continues to be negatively affected by the threat and uncertainty of life during a global pandemic (De Young et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>]). Of particular concern, research shows that children living in disadvantaged communities have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic (The Front Project [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>The participants in this study clearly recognised the importance of their role in supporting children's holistic wellbeing, with calls for additional educator training to enable educators to support children's wellbeing and mental health more effectively. This is consistent with prior research that has identified the need for additional educator training and professional development to support both educator and child wellbeing (Gilliam [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]; Zinsser, Christensen, and Torres [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref59">58</reflink>]). Studies have identified the inextricable links between educator and child wellbeing (Smith and Lawrence [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref60">49</reflink>]), demonstrating that efforts to improve child wellbeing must also support educator wellbeing and educators' capacity to engage in emotionally supportive interactions with children (Gilliam [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref61">18</reflink>]; Sandilos et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref62">44</reflink>]; Zinsser, Christensen, and Torres [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref63">58</reflink>]). Studies suggest that promising approaches to support early childhood professionals' ability to address children's challenging behaviours and promote children's social and emotional development include professional development and consultation with mental health specialists (Brennan et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref64">6</reflink>]; Green et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref65">21</reflink>]), which, in turn, can improve educator confidence, and reduce stress and turnover (Ota, Baumgartner, and Austin [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref66">37</reflink>]; Sandilos et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref67">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-22">Professional learning and development</hd> <p>In relation to professional learning and development – which was rated a priority research topic in both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 surveys – respondents emphasised the importance of access to high quality professional development so that educators can stay abreast of current research and developments in evidence-based practice. This corresponds with the finding that 'building knowledge of evidence-based practice' was rated by members as the most important motivating factor for joining the research network. The prioritisation of professional development also aligns with findings from the OECD study ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref68">36</reflink>]), in which ECE staff indicated that having opportunities to participate in high-quality professional development was a top priority.</p> <p>The importance of providing sustained access to quality professional development programs is widely agreed, as this has been shown to positively impact the quality of educators' practice and children's learning and development outcomes (Pianta et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref69">40</reflink>]; Eadie, Page, and Murray [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref70">13</reflink>]). In particular, studies have shown that professional development that focuses on evidence-based, intentional teaching practices has the greatest impact on program quality and children's outcomes (Pianta et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref71">40</reflink>]; Eadie, Page, and Murray [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref72">13</reflink>]). In Australia, high quality professional development that supports intentional teaching has been recognised in policy and regulatory frameworks. For example, the EYLF (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>]) emphasises the importance of ongoing learning and reflective practice, and each state or territory's teacher accreditation authority details annual professional development requirements for early childhood educators.</p> <p>A small number of respondents in this study also referenced the importance of high-quality professional development for career progression. This perspective is supported by research suggesting that shortages of qualified early childhood educators are in part, symptomatic of low wages, lack of highly trained teaching staff, and limited opportunities for career progression (Thorpe, Jansen, and Sullivan [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref74">54</reflink>]; Whitebook and Sakai [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref75">57</reflink>]). In addition, respondents noted inconsistencies in the quality of professional development programs offered in Australia. Since the professional development of practicing early childhood educators is considered essential to the quality of early learning experiences afforded to young children (Sheridan et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref76">47</reflink>]), it is critical that all practicing educators have access to affordable and sustained professional development, that draws on evidence of the characteristics of effective professional development (Gomez, Kagan, and Fox [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]; Hamre, Partee, and Mulcahy [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref78">24</reflink>]; Sheridan et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref79">47</reflink>]). In addition to directly improving program quality, high quality professional development can also provide benefits in terms of improving educators' confidence, connections, and feelings of wellbeing (Smith and Lawrence [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref80">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-23">Strengths and limitations</hd> <p>A strength of the study was capturing the perspectives of a sample of ECE professionals working across a range of service settings and locations, in varied roles, and with diverse levels of experience and qualifications. However, the study also had some limitations. First, the sample was restricted to self-selected ECE professionals who expressed interest in participating in the network. In addition, the distribution shows a higher proportion of Bachelor or above qualified educators (67% compared to 12% in the field, Department of Education and Training [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>]), those working in lead educator roles, and three quarters based in Victoria. These features no doubt influenced the research priorities identified by the network. Given that only 24% of stage 1 survey respondents responded to the stage 2 survey, additional participants were invited to participate in the stage 2 survey; this was intended to both strengthen the stage 2 findings and to facilitate the growth of the network. Although there were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics between the stage 1 and stage 2 survey respondents, this meant there was some divergence from traditional Delphi methodology. Finally, the stage 2 survey was designed and disseminated during the pandemic in 2020, which impacted the range of types of research that were offered (Table 5). Given the limited range of research models offered, a next step for the research team will be to elicit network members' level of interest in more participatory models of research, for example using co-design methodology.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-24">Future directions for the network</hd> <p>By combining the industry-specific knowledge and skills offered by the network and the academic expertise of the University, we will build on our research to address the top three research priorities identified by the network. The need to prioritise research and practices that support educator and child wellbeing is particularly urgent considering the current impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the numerous additional stressors impacting the wellbeing of educators and young children. As such, research designs may also comprise practice-based interventions and professional development that can provide more immediate supports for educator and child wellbeing.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-25">Conclusion</hd> <p>The sample of Australian ECE professionals who participated in this study are interested in participating in a research network and are particularly motivated to build their knowledge of evidence-based practice. Network members have identified topical real-world ECE issues warranting further research and have expressed interest in participating in a variety of research methods. The top two research topics identified by the network – educator and child wellbeing and mental health – mirror growing Australian and international interest in the field, which has recently been amplified in light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Taken together, the top three research topics identified by the network provide a meaningful direction for relevant research that has the potential to make an important contribution to the practice of ECE professionals and the quality of early learning experienced by young children.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-26">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors are greatly appreciative of the time and effort donated by the steering group, and the members of the research network who contributed their time and expertise to inform and guide this research. This project was supported by the Research in Effective Education in Early Childhood (REEaCh) Research Hub, which was established in 2019 through the generosity of the Leaper Foundation.</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-27">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0173686654-28">Data availability statement</hd> <p>Requests to access the data supporting the results presented in this paper should be made directly to the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0173686654-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref25" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government Department of Education and Training. 2009. Belonging, Being & Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra : Commonwealth of Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref81" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government Department of Education and Training. 2016. ECEC National Workforce Census. Prepared by the Social Research Centre. https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/2016_ecec_nwc_national_report_sep_2017_0.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref32" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, B. D., K. Gallagher, and R. C. Whitaker. 2017. " Teachers' Dispositional Mindfulness and the Quality of Their Relationships with Children in Head Start Classrooms." Journal of School Psychology 65 : 40 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref41" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boyd, M. 2013. " I Love my Work But ... The Professionalization of Early Childhood Education." The Qualitative Report 18 (36): 1 – 20. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1470.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2019. " Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis." Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11 (4): 589 – 597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref64" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brennan, E. M., J. R. Bradley, M. Allen, and D. F. Perry. 2008. " The Evidence Base for Mental Health Consultation in Early Childhood Settings: Research Synthesis Addressing Staff and Program Outcomes." Early Education and Development 19 (6): 982 – 1022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Buettner, C. K., L. Jeon, E. Hur, and R. E. Garcia. 2016. " Teachers' Social-Emotional Capacity: Factors Associated with Teachers' Responsiveness and Professional Commitment." Early Education and Development 27 (7): 1018 – 1039. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2016.1168227.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref50" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carson, R. L., J. J. Baumgartner, C. L. Ota, A. P. Kuhn, and A. Durr. 2017. " An Ecological Momentary Assessment of Burnout, Rejuvenation Strategies, Job Satisfaction, and Quitting Intentions in Childcare Teachers." Early Childhood Educational Journal 45 (6): 801 – 808.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cassidy, D. J., E. K. King, Y. C. Wang, J. K. Lower, and V. L. Kintner-Duffy. 2016. " Teacher Work Environments are Toddler Learning Environments: Teacher Professional Well-Being, Classroom Emotional Support, and Toddlers' Emotional Expressions and Behaviours." Early Child Development and Care 187 (11): 1 – 13. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2016.1180516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corr, L., E. Davis, A. D. LaMontagne, E. Waters, and E. Steele. 2014. " Childcare Providers Mental Health: A Systematic Review of its Prevalence Determinants and Relationship to Care Quality." International Journal of Mental Health Promotion 16 (4): 231 – 263. doi: 10.1080/14623730.2014.931067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cumming, T. 2017. " Early Childhood Educators' Wellbeing: An Updated Review of the Literature." Early Childhood Education Journal 45 (5): 583 – 593. doi: 10.1007/s10643-016-0818-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Young, A., R. Paterson, S. March, E. Hoehn, V. Cobham, T. Donovan, T. Middeldorp, T. Gash, and M. Vasileva. 2021. COVID-19 Unmasked Young Children Report 2: Impact of the Second Wave in Australia on the Mental Health of Young Children and Parents. Brisbane : Centre for Perinatal and Infant Mental Health.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eadie, P., J. Page, and L. Murray. 2021. " Continuous Improvement in Early Childhood Pedagogical Practice: The Victorian Advancing Early Learning (VAEL) Study." In Quality Improvement in Early Childhood: Working to Enhance Children's Learning Outcomes, edited by S. Garvis, and H. Lenz Taguchi, 69 – 91. London : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Early Childhood Australia. 2016. Code of Ethics. Early Childhood Australia. <ulink href="http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/our-publications/eca-code-ethics/">http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/our-publications/eca-code-ethics/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, J. 1995. " The Limits of Educational Research: Why Most Research and Grand Plans in Education Are Futile and Wasteful." Curriculum Inquiry 25 (4): 367 – 380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> File, N. 2012. " Identifying and Addressing Challenges to Research in University Laboratory Preschools." Early Education and Development 23 : 143 – 152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Front Project. 2020. Families, Disadvantage & Early Childhood Education and Care in COVID-19. https://<ulink href="http://www.thefrontproject.org.au/images/downloads/Families%5fDisadvantage%5fand%5fECEC%5fin%5fCOVID-19%5fweb.pdf">www.thefrontproject.org.au/images/downloads/Families%5fDisadvantage%5fand%5fECEC%5fin%5fCOVID-19%5fweb.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilliam, W. S. 2005. Pre-Kindergarteners Left Behind: Expulsion Rates in State Prekindergarten Programs. New York : Foundation for Child Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldfeld, S., E. O'Connor, M. O'Connor, M. Sayers, T. Moore, A. Kvalsvig, and S. Brinkman. 2016. " The Role of Preschool in Promoting Children's Healthy Development: Evidence from an Australian Population Cohort." Early Child Research Quarterly 35 : 40 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gomez, R. E., S. L. Kagan, and E. A. Fox. 2015. " Professional Development of the Early Childhood Education Teaching Workforce in the United States: An Overview." Professional Development in Education 41 (2): 169 – 186. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2014.986820.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, B. L., M. Everhart, L. Gordon, and M. G. Gettman. 2006. " Characteristics of Effective Mental Health Consultation in Early Childhood Settings: Multilevel Analysis of a National Survey." Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 26 : 142 – 152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall-Kenyon, K. M., R. V. Bullough, K. L. MacKay, and E. E. Marshall. 2014. " Preschool Teacher Wellbeing: A Review of the Literature." Early Childhood Education Journal 42 (3): 153 – 162. doi: 10.1007/s10643-013-0595-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamre, B. K. 2014. " Teachers' Daily Interactions with Children: An Essential Ingredient in Effective Early Childhood Programs." Child Development Perspectives 8 (4): 223 – 230. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12090.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamre, B. K., A. Partee, and C. Mulcahy. 2017. "Enhancing the Impact of Professional Development in the Context of Preschool Expansion." AERA Open.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasson, F., S. Keeney, and H. McKenna. 2009. " Research Guidelines for the Delphi Survey Technique." Journal of Advanced Nursing 32 (4): 1008 – 1015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatfield, B. E., M. Burchinal, R. C. Pianta, and J. Sideris. 2016. " Thresholds in the Association Between Quality of Teacher–Child Interactions and Preschool Children's School Readiness Skills." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36 : 561 – 571. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.09.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry, A. J. L., B. E. Hatfield, and K. D. Chandler. 2021. " Toddler Teacher job Strain, Resources, and Classroom Quality." International Journal of Early Years Education. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2021.1892596.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Human Rights Commission, and Early Childhood Australia (ECA). 2015. Supporting Young Children's Rights: Statement of Intent (2015–2018). Canberra : ECA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irvine, S., K. Thorpe, P. McDonald, J. Lunn, and J. Sumsion. 2016. Money, Love and Identity: Initial Findings from the National ECEC Workforce Study. Summary Report from the National ECEC Workforce Development Policy Workshop. Brisbane : Queensland University of Technology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, P. A., J. L. Brown, J. L. Frank, S. Doyle, Y. Oh, R. Davis, D. Rasheed, et al. 2017. " Impacts of the CARE for Teachers Program on Teachers' Social and Emotional Competence and Classroom Interactions." Journal of Educational Psychology 109 (7): 1010 – 1028. doi: 10.1037/edu0000187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeon, L., C. K. Buettner, and A. R. Snyder. 2014. " Pathways from Teacher Depression and Child-Care Quality to Child Behavioural Problems." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82 (2): 225 – 235. doi: 10.1037/a0035720.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, C., F. Hadley, M. Waniganayake, and M. Johnstone. 2019. " Find Your Tribe! Early Childhood Educators Defining and Identifying Key Factors That Support Their Workplace Wellbeing." Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 44 (4): 326 – 338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jorm, A. F. 2015. " Using the Delphi Expert Consensus Method in Mental Health Research." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 49 (10): 887 – 897.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, H., T. Cumming, and S. Wong. 2020. " Sustaining the Work-Related Wellbeing of Early Childhood Educators: Perspectives from Key Stakeholders in Early Childhood Organizations." International Journal of Early Childhood 52 : 95 – 113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2018. Early Learning Matters. https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/education/school/Early-Learning-Matters-Project-Brochure.pdf">www.oecd.org/education/school/Early-Learning-Matters-Project-Brochure.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2019. Providing Quality Early Childhood Education and Care: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, Executive Summary. Paris : OECD Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ota, C. L., J. Baumgartner, and A. Austin. 2013. " Provider Stress and Children's Active Engagement." Journal of Research in Childhood Education 27 (1): 61 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pakarinen, E., N. Kiuru, M. K. Lerkkanen, A. M. Poikkeus, M. Siekkinen, and J. E. Nurmi. 2010. " Classroom Organization and Teacher Stress Predict Learning Motivation in Kindergarten Children." European Journal of Psychology of Education 25 (3): 281 – 300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascoe, S., and D. Brennan. 2018. Lifting Our Game: Report of the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools Through Early Childhood Interventions. Melbourne : Victorian Government.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R., B. Hamre, J. Downer, M. Burchinal, A. Williford, J. LoCasale-Crouch, C. Howes, K. La Paro, and C. Scott-Little. 2017. " Early Childhood Professional Development: Coaching and Coursework Effects on Indicators of Children's School Readiness." Early Education and Development 28 (8): 956 – 975.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinones, G., M. Barnes, and E. Berger. 2020. The Emotional Toll of COVID-19 Among Early Childhood Educators. https://lens.monash.edu/@education/2020/08/05/1381001/the-emotional-toll-of-covid-19-among-early-childhood-educators.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, A. M., K. C. Gallagher, A. M. Daro, I. U. Iruka, and S. L. Sarver. 2019. " Workforce Well-Being: Personal and Workplace Contributions to Early Educators' Depression Across Settings." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 61 : 4 – 12. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2017.09.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudolph, S., H. Hiscock, A. Price, D. Efron, J. Sewell, M. South, and M. Wake. 2009. " What Research Questions Matter to Australian Paediatricians? National Delphi Study." Journal of Paediatric Child Health 45 (12): 704 – 710.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandilos, L. E., P. Goble, S. E. Rimm-Kaufman, and R. C. Pianta. 2018. " Does Professional Development Reduce the Influence of Teacher Stress on Teacher-Child Interactions in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms? " Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42 : 280 – 290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreyer, I., and M. Krause. 2016. " Pedagogical Staff in Children's day Care Centres in Germany: Links Between Working Conditions, Job Satisfaction, Commitment and Work-Related Stress." Early Years 36 (2): 1 – 16. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2015.1115390.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seo, S., and J. Yuh. 2021. " Mindfulness and Resilience as Mediators in the Relationship Between Job-Related Stress and Teacher-Child Interaction Among Early Childhood Educators." Early Childhood Education Journal. doi: 10.1007/s10643-021-01250-w.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, S. M., C. P. Edwards, C. A. Marvin, and L. L. Knoche. 2009. " Professional Development in Early Childhood Programs: Process Issues and Research Needs." Early Education and Development 20 (3): 377 – 401. doi: 10.1080/10409280802582795.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shuey, E., and M. Kankaraš. 2018. The Power and Promise of Early Learning. <ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers">http://www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, S., and S. Lawrence. 2019. Early Care and Education Teacher Well-Being: Associations with Children's Experience, Outcomes, and Workplace Conditions. <ulink href="http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text%5f1224.pdf">http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text%5f1224.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State of Victoria. 2021. The Royal Commission into Victoria's Mental Health System: Final Report. https://finalreport.rcvmhs.vic.gov.au/download-report/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tate, E. 2021. The Pandemic was Disastrous for Early Childhood Education – and Both Kids and Adults are Feeling It. https://<ulink href="http://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-07-02-the-pandemic-was-disastrous-for-early-childhood-education-and-both-kids-and-adults-are-feeling-it">www.edsurge.com/news/2021-07-02-the-pandemic-was-disastrous-for-early-childhood-education-and-both-kids-and-adults-are-feeling-it</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tayler, C. 2016. Effectiveness of Early Childhood Education (E4Kids Study): Overview of Findings. Melbourne : University of Melbourne.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, P., J. Graffy, P. Wallace, and M. Kirby. 2006. " How Primary Care Networks Can Help Integrate Academic and Service Initiatives in Primary Care." Annals of Family Medicine 4 : 235 – 239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorpe, K., E. Jansen, and V. Sullivan. 2020. " Identifying Predictors of Retention and Professional Wellbeing of the Early Childhood Education Workforce in a Time of Change." Journal of Educational Change 21 : 623 – 647.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torii, K., S. Fox, and D. Cloney. 2017. Quality is Key in Early Childhood Education in Australia. Mitchell Institute Policy Paper (No. 01/2017). Melbourne : Mitchell Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitaker, R. C., T. Dearth-Wesley, and R. A. Gooze. 2015. " Workplace Stress and the Quality of Teacher-Children Relationships in Head Start." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 30 : 57 – 69. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.08.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitebook, M., and L. Sakai. 2003. " Turnover Begets Turnover: An Examination of Job and Occupational Instability Among Childcare Centre Staff." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (3): 273 – 293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zinsser, K. M., C. G. Christensen, and L. Torres. 2016. " She's Supporting Them; Who's Supporting Her? Preschool Centre Level Social-Emotional Supports and Teacher Wellbeing." Journal of School Psychology 59 : 55 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Patricia Eadie; Ben Deery; Lisa Murray; Penny Levickis; Jane Page and Catriona Elek</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref78"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1403904
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: What Are the Research Priorities of Australian Early Childhood Professionals? Results of a Delphi Style Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eadie%2C+Patricia%22">Eadie, Patricia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5555-8325">0000-0001-5555-8325</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deery%2C+Ben%22">Deery, Ben</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5313-1851">0000-0002-5313-1851</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Murray%2C+Lisa%22">Murray, Lisa</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1751-031X">0000-0002-1751-031X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Levickis%2C+Penny%22">Levickis, Penny</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0534-733X">0000-0003-0534-733X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Page%2C+Jane%22">Page, Jane</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2310-4051">0000-0002-2310-4051</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elek%2C+Catriona%22">Elek, Catriona</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7941-9669">0000-0002-7941-9669</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Early+Years+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Early Years Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 31(4):971-986.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Networks%22">Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Surveys%22">Teacher Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Action+Research%22">Action Research</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09669760.2022.2091980
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0966-9760<br />1469-8463
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The aims of this study were to establish a Research Network of Early Childhood Professionals and to identity network members' top research priorities and preferred research methods. Australian early childhood education (ECE) professionals were invited to participate in a Delphi-style survey. In Stage 1, participants were asked to describe the most important issues in ECE that need addressing; from this, a 'top 20' list of the most common research priorities was generated. In Stage 2, respondents were asked to prioritise the top 20 research topics and to rate their interest in participating in various methods of research. A total of 182 ECE professionals completed the Stage 1 survey (pre-COVID-19), yielding 34 topics of research interest. Ninety-four respondents completed the Stage 2 survey (during the COVID-19 pandemic), ranking the top three most important research topics as: educator wellbeing and mental health, child wellbeing and mental health, and professional learning and development. Members of the network appear to be interested in participating in ECE research and their research priorities can help highlight real-world issues warranting further investigation. Facilitating research that addresses prioritised ECE areas is particularly timely given the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across the ECE sector.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1403904
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1403904
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09669760.2022.2091980
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 971
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Action Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: What Are the Research Priorities of Australian Early Childhood Professionals? Results of a Delphi Style Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eadie, Patricia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deery, Ben
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Murray, Lisa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Levickis, Penny
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Page, Jane
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elek, Catriona
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0966-9760
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-8463
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Early Years Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1