Action research examines the influence of interpretivism and positivism on professional development experiences of ECEs, suggesting new learning frameworks.
Over the past 30 years, early childhood education has emerged as a critical program and policy initiative of Canadian provincial governments and jurisdictions. With the recent announcement by the Government of Canada regarding plans to create and implement a national childcare system, tensions have been on the rise regarding early childhood educators’ (ECEs’) professional development. Informed by socio-constructivist and socio-cultural theories, this study examines the experiences of 18 ECEs and 10 coaches while being trained to use the Pyramid Model (PM) for promoting social-emotional competence in early childhood education. The study investigates the tensions and coexistence of two distinct educational philosophical paradigms—interpretivism and positivism—within the project implementation process, particularly how these paradigms influenced ECEs’ professional development. An action research methodology was utilized, and six focus group interviews were conducted with ECEs and coaches between 2023 and 2025. Findings reveal a perceived conflict between the PM’s positivist approach and the interpretative lenses that ground the early learning framework used in the province. However, as implementation progressed, participants began merging practices from both paradigms while engaging in meaningful professional reflexive processes. This study contributes to a broader understanding of how professional learning unfolds in complex, multi-paradigmatic contexts. The study highlights the need to create professional learning spaces where ECEs can collectively become participants and agents of change. By exploring the interplay between philosophical paradigms and professional development practices, this research aims to inform future efforts in ECEs’ professional development initiatives and to shed light on the complex dynamics at play when contrasting paradigms become explicit within professional learning opportunities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sanchez et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: