The Diffusion of the Reggio Emilia Approach Among Early Childhood Teacher Educators in South

293 Pages·2017·3.41 MB·English

Clemson University
TigerPrints
All Dissertations Dissertations
12-2007
The Diffusion of the Reggio Emilia Approach
Among Early Childhood Teacher Educators in
South Carolina
Julie Hartman
Clemson University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations
Part of thePre-Elementary, Early Childhood, Kindergarten Teacher Education Commons
Recommended Citation
Hartman, Julie, "The Diffusion of the Reggio Emilia Approach Among Early Childhood Teacher Educators in South Carolina" (2007).
All Dissertations. 141.
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/141
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by
an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please [email protected].
DIFFUSION OF THE REGGIO EMILIA APPROACH AMONG EARLY
CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATORS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

A Dissertation
Presented to
the Graduate School of
Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Curriculum and Instruction

by
Julie Hartman
December 2007

Accepted by:
Dr. Dolores Stegelin, Committee Chair
Dr. Elizabeth Edmondson
Dr. Gail Everett
Dr. Suzanne Rosenblith
ABSTRACT

Growing numbers of U.S. educators are traveling to the northern Italian town of
Reggio Emilia to study the innovative, arts-based approach to early education developed
in the town‘s municipal infant-toddler and pre-primary programs now commonly referred
to as the Reggio Emilia Approach. And though there is no way of knowing exactly how
many educators and early childhood programs across the U.S. are currently making use
of the approach, increasing numbers of U.S. colleges and universities are including the
approach in both their ECE teacher preparation as well as campus child development
programs, suggesting the Reggio Emilia Approach (REA) is diffusing into mainstream
American early education.
A concurrent mixed methods study was used to examine and describe the
diffusion of REA among early childhood teacher educators in one southern state
relatively late in including the approach in its ECE teacher preparation programs. Data
was collected using a Web-based survey and semi-structured interviews and was framed
in Rogers‘ (2003) model of Diffusion of Innovation‘s theory. Fifty-one early childhood
teacher educators in 2- and 4-year post-secondary institutions in the state participated in
the survey and eight educators provided interviews.
Adopter distribution frequencies showed a slow but increasing rate of
implementation or adoption of the approach in the state‘s ECE professional preparation
programs in both 2- and 4-year institutions, with almost all (90%) survey participants
reporting they had knowledge of the approach and about 60% of participants reporting
they adopted REA or provided explicit instruction about the principles and practices of
ii
REA in their ECE courses. REA was predominantly described as a curriculum model,
included in ECE curriculum courses, and presented to students through formal lectures,
textbook reading assignments, and class discussions. Qualitative findings showed
participants who stated they were nonadopters or did not did not implement REA in their
courses, included at least some information about REA in their courses even though
nonadopters also reported having the least amount of knowledge about the approach,
suggesting some prospective early childhood educators may be getting little or
misinformation about REA in their teacher preparation programs.
Further, chi-square tests of independence showed two professional development
experiences, namely attending conferences about REA and taking tours of REA
programs, were each significant in influencing participants‘ decisions to adopt the
approach for use in their work. Also investigated were participants‘ perceptions of the
approach as suggested by diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003). Participants
perceived potential advantages as well as high costs were associated with implementing
the approach in both teacher education and early education programs. They also
perceived REA as highly incompatible with the current structure and direction of
education in the state and that the approach was complex, difficult to understand, and
difficult to observe because too few REA programs exist in the state.
iii
DEDICATION

I dedicated this work first and foremost to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who
redeemed me and gave my life purpose and an eternal focus (II Corinthians 3:5). And to
my husband, Marty, and our children, Jake and Emma, who made the journey, every step
of it, with me. Thank you for all for the sacrifices you made for me and for your patience
through this process. I love you more than words can say.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Dolores Stegelin, for all her help and
guidance over these past few years. Dr. Stegelin, your encouragement and dedication to
excellence have inspired me to work harder, reach higher, and invest in my own students
the same way you have so selflessly invested in me. I would also like to thank Dr.
Suzanne Rosenblith, Dr. Elizabeth Edmondson, and Dr. Gail Everett for their willingness
to serve on my committee and for their kind support and assistance throughout this
project. Special thanks to Dr. Everett for reading and reading so many drafts of this work.
I owe a special debt of gratitude to the many teacher educators in South Carolina
who so graciously agreed to participate in this study, especially to Darla, Mary, Judy,
Ben, Barbara, Fran, Rhonda, and Alison (not their real names) who took time from their
busy schedules to share their insights with me about REA.
I would also like to thank Dr. Jim Witte of the Clemson University Sociology
Department for his help in developing the online survey and Dr. Brent Igo for his advice
regarding the construction of survey items. I would also like to thank Dr. Sonia Johnson
for reviewing my qualitative data and Dr. Gary Guthrie for his assistance with the
statistical analyses as well as for his many kind words of encouragement.
I wish to also thank my family and friends for their love and support. To my
parents, Frank and Judy Nicolazzo and my aunt and mentor, JoAnne Daigneault—thank
you for your love and for teaching me early on the benefits of hard work and dedication
to whatever God puts before me. And to my life-long friends, the Blucases and the
Fitzgeralds, for their patience, love, and watch care over me and my neglected family
v
these several years. I would also like to thank my colleagues at BJU, especially my
former dean, Dr. Jim Deuink, who smoothed the way for me so I could work on my
degree. Thanks to Jane Smith and Vicki Peek for their words of encouragement, and to
my office mate and fellow graduate student Marlene Reed, for all the many ways she has
helped over the years. Special thanks, too, to Erin Hutton for helping me with the survey
database and for knowing just when I needed a coffee break.
And finally, I wish to thank my Pastor and friends at Bethel Calvary Baptist
Church, especially Michelle Corlette, for their faithful prayers and kind support for me
and my family these many years. I look forward to having new and more interesting
things to pray with you about.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ......................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... iii

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ vii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

Background of the Study ............................................................1
Statement of the Problem ..........................................................11
Purpose of the Study .................................................................12
Research questions ....................................................................16
Significance of the Study ..........................................................17
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study ..............................18
Definition of Terms...................................................................21

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................30

Overview of ECE and ECE Teacher Education in the U.S. .....30
Overview of the Reggio Emilia Approach................................45
REA in the United States ..........................................................55
Philosophical Underpinning of REA ........................................56
Core Pedagogical Elements of REA .........................................63
Review of REA in the Literature ..............................................73
Diffusion of Innovations Theory ..............................................75
Diffusion Research in Education ..............................................76

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ..........................................80

Research Design........................................................................80
The Population ..........................................................................81
vii
Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

Procedures .................................................................................83
Mixed Methods Research .........................................................86
Mixed Methods Design and Visual Model ...............................88
Data Collection .........................................................................90
Data Analysis ..........................................................................101

4. RESULTS ..........................................................................................108

Overview .................................................................................108
Response Rate .........................................................................109
Demographics .........................................................................110
Research Question One and Subquestions ..............................114
Research Question Two and Subquestions .............................171
Research Question Three ........................................................193

5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .............................................200

Overview .................................................................................200
Major Findings ........................................................................202
Study Limitations ....................................................................228
Conclusions .............................................................................229

APPENDICES............................................................................................... ....238

A: Permission to Reprint................................................................ ....239
B: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter............................. ....240
C: Survey Instrument (Main Study) ............................................. .... 241
D: Alignment of Survey Items with Constructs from Diffusion of
Innovation Theory .....................................................................245
E: SC Colleges and Universities Offering Degrees in Early
Childhood Education................................................................. 248
F: Letter to Deans/Department Chair............................................. ....250
G: Initial Invitation Letter................................................................ ...251
H: Pilot Study Feedback Form........................................................ ...252
I: Interview Protocol....................................................................... ..253
J: Frequency Distributions and Descriptive Statistics for Scaled
Items.................................................................................... ..........255

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................266

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Cronbach‘s Alpha Coefficients for Pilot Survey Scaled Items ..................97

2. Participant Demographic Information (N=51) ........................................111

3. Frequency Distribution of Program Types ..............................................113

4. Self-Reported Knowledge of REA ..........................................................115

5. Levels of Knowledge of REA by Institution Types.................................116

6. Frequency Distribution of Reported Use of REA ....................................117

7. Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables by Adoption
Groups ................................................................................................118

8. Adoption Groups by Institution Types ....................................................119

9. Reported Levels of Knowledge by Adoption Groups..............................120

10. Frequency Distribution Range of Years REA Used by Adopters............121

11. Initial Communication Channels for Learning about REA (N=49).........133

12. Initial Communication Channels by Adoption Groups ...........................134

13. Participants‘ Professional Development Activities about REA ...............137

14. Adoption Groups‘ Professional Development Activities about
REA ...................................................................................................138

15. Frequency Distribution of Professional Development Activities ............140

16. Professional Development Activities by Adoption Groups .....................141

17. Adoption Groups‘ Perceptions of REA‘s Relative Advantages ..............151

18. Adoption Groups‘ Perceptions of REA‘s Compatibility .........................152

19. Adoption Groups Perceptions of REA‘s Complexity ..............................154

ix