Identifying and evaluating teachers’ knowledge in relation to child abuse and neglect: A qualitative study with Australian early childhood teachers

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Identifying and evaluating teachers’ knowledge in relation to child abuse and neglect: A qualitative study with Australian early childhood teachers Kerryann Walsh, Ann Farrell School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove 4059, Queensland, Australia Received 10 January 2007; received in revised form 6 July 2007; accepted 18 July 2007

Abstract Child abuse and neglect are serious social problems that make extraordinary demands on teachers’ knowledge and professionalism. Yet the field of education has been slow to develop a discipline-specific knowledge base about child abuse and neglect for teachers and teacher education programmes and there is a paucity empirical research into teachers’ knowledge in relation to child abuse and neglect. This paper describes a qualitative study of eight purposively selected early childhood teachers. To identify and evaluate their child abuse and neglect knowledge, Grossman’s [(1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press; (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 20–24). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon] typology of teachers’ knowledge is used as an analytic framework on which to map the teachers’ interview data. Findings reveal that, in the absence of preservice and inservice education specifically about child abuse and neglect, early childhood teachers held and deployed knowledge in resourceful ways. They used, as a basis, their existing early childhood knowledge and adapted this knowledge by augmenting it with a range of personal and professional knowledge resources to fit their particular challenges and situations. This approach, however competent and innovative, also reveals shortfalls in knowledge. Implications of this research are drawn for child abuse and neglect curriculum development in initial and continuing teacher education including the case for specialist knowledge needed to establish teachers’ professional reputation for dealing capably with cases of child abuse and neglect. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Child abuse and neglect; Child protection; Safeguarding children; Teachers’ roles; Teachers’ knowledge

1. Introduction and background A large body of predominantly psychological and medical research has identified serious physical, cognitive, social, emotional, and health conseCorresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3138 3174; fax: +61 7 3139 3989. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Walsh).

quences of child abuse and neglect (CAN). Importantly, this body of research has established that these consequences vary according to the type of CAN (physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse or neglect), the severity and duration of CAN, the age of the child, the relationship of the child to the perpetrator, the child’s family structure, and the type of intervention or support available to assist recovery (for rigorous reviews of this research

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.07.003

ARTICLE IN PRESS 586

K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

see, for example, Macdonald, 2001; Veltman & Browne, 2001). Broadly, across the various types of CAN and apart from physical injuries, negative effects manifesting in early childhood can include poor self-image (Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998), difficulties forming peer and other relationships (Cicchetti, Carlson, Braunwald, & Aber, 1987; Darwish, Esquivel, Houtz, & Alfonso, 2001; Dukewich, Borkowski, & Whitman, 1999; Rowe & Eckenrode, 1999; Solomon & Serres, 1999), fearful, aggressive, disruptive and antisocial behaviours (Bousha & Twentyman, 1984; Fagot, Hagan, Youngblade, & Potter, 1989; Kolko, 1992) and cognitive, speech, language, play and learning problems (Culp et al., 1991; Eigsti & Cicchetti, 2004; Oates, Gray, Schweitzer, Kempe, & Harmon, 1995; Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001). Significantly for educators, children who have experienced abuse and neglect are less likely to achieve well at school and are more likely to leave school at an earlier age, missing the skills, knowledge and qualifications they need for effective participation in society (CREATE Foundation, 2001). Official notifications to child protection authorities confirm that CAN is not an isolated or uncommon problem. For example, the overall CAN rate for children in Australia ranges from 2.3 per 1000 children in the state of Western Australia to 14.1 per 1000 in the state of Queensland (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2006). Australian rates are comparable to those in the USA with 11.9 in 1000 children (US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 2006) and Canada with 21.7 in 1000 children (Trocme´ et al., 2003). The UK, however, has much lower rates with 2.7 in 1000 (Department for Education and Skills, 2006), reflecting jurisdictional differences in data collection, legislation, policy and practice. In most jurisdictions, younger children are more likely to be the subject of substantiated child protection notifications (i.e., after investigation by child protection authorities it was concluded that a child had been, was being or was likely to be abused or neglected) and substantiation rates generally decrease with increasing age of children (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2006). Educators, especially those working in early childhood settings, are therefore likely to encounter CAN in their professional careers, and, as Macdonald (2001) asserts, knowing the relative frequency of something occurring can and should inform the work of the educator.

Because of its prevalence and grave effects, teachers have a professional responsibility to safeguard children and to address CAN. Addressing CAN, however, makes extraordinary demands on teachers’ knowledge and professionalism: demands that have intensified with increased public awareness of CAN. Such intensification is encapsulated well by Ruth, a teacher whose work was the catalyst for this paper. In an interview with the first author she explained: y to be able to cope with all that is required of us we have to be very professional. We have to build up that professional standing. We have to make people aware that we are professionals. We can cope with this. Ruth’s declaration attests to the challenge of establishing teachers’ professional reputation for dealing competently with cases of CAN. As professional educators having most contact with children’s families, teachers like Ruth working in early childhood settings (including the early years of formal school, preschools, kindergartens and long day care centres) are particularly well placed to intervene. It is imperative, therefore, that they are well prepared for this role. By her own admission, however, Ruth had not been well prepared for her role in dealing with CAN. Dealing with CAN had not been addressed in her preservice teacher education or professional development since graduation. To be able to ‘‘cope’’ and to build her ‘‘professional standing’’, in the absence of specialist professional preparation, Ruth had to find her own ways of working effectively with children at risk of or experiencing CAN. In doing so, she used her early childhood knowledge as a basis, cobbling together new information and experiences, and crafting new responses to the difficult circumstances arising from CAN. While Ruth’s approach showed outstanding dedication and problem solving, as we will see, there were gaps in her knowledge. As researchers in the field of education, we were challenged by Ruth, to find a way of evaluating teachers’ knowledge about CAN that would affirm what teachers knew without labelling them as having the gross knowledge deficits so often cited in the CAN literature (see for example Abrahams, Casey, & Daro, 1992; Hazzard & Rupp, 1986; Volpe, 1981; Wurtele & Schmitt, 1992). In this paper, we describe a qualitative study of eight purposively selected early childhood teachers.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

To identify and evaluate the CAN knowledge held and deployed by the teachers in their everyday practice with children at risk of or experiencing CAN, we use the categories of knowledge proposed by Grossman (1990, 1995) as a framework against which to map and assess their knowledge. Analysing teachers’ knowledge using this framework advances theory, research and practice by providing direction for future curriculum development. 2. Literature review Despite their potential to fulfil a crucial role in preventing and addressing CAN, teachers and teacher education programmes have been slow to develop a discipline-specific knowledge base for CAN (Sinclair Taylor & Hodgkinson, 2001). In a survey of Australian tertiary institutions providing teacher education, Watts and Laskey (1997) found that 40% of programmes offered no CAN content. In programmes where CAN was addressed, the specific content, time allocated and professional background of presenters differed widely, even amongst institutions in the same jurisdiction. Such inconsistencies are indicative of the lack of consensus on what constitutes the most necessary categories of content, and the most effective approaches for delivering CAN content in teacher education programmes. Similar findings have been reported in the UK. In a survey of UK teacher education programmes in the late 1990s, researchers found that, although most courses complied with basic government requirements to provide technical information about professional duties in relation to CAN, the coverage was superficial and often limited to chance encounters with the content. Teacher educators were uncertain about what should be covered, and not surprisingly, none had evaluated the effectiveness of the content provided (Baginsky & Hodgkinson, 1999; Baginsky, 2000). In a later survey, Baginsky and Macpherson (2005) found that 83% of teacher education programmes included some CAN content, mostly around procedures, legislative duties and detecting indicators of CAN. Content was delivered in the form of lectures, workshops, discussion forums and seminars, with most courses devoting only 2–3 h to this content. Such variation in content and the limited time allocated suggests that although institutions were generally willing to address CAN, they were far from having a discipline-specific knowledge base for preparing

587

future teachers, and had a limited understanding of the most effective ways to teach this CAN content in teacher education programmes. Handling CAN issues in teacher education has been critiqued in the UK, leading Sinclair Taylor and Hodgkinson (2001) to argue that initial teacher training should include certain ‘‘baseline knowledge’’ (p. 81) relating to CAN that should, in turn, be further developed in continuing professional education. They see this progression as a ‘‘wedge of content’’ (p. 82) from topics essential for student survival through to coverage of more specialised issues and reflection in greater depth. Baginsky and Macpherson (2005) describe this as progression from foundational understandings to consolidation. This approach has been implemented in the UK’s Learning to protect resource package developed by the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2003) for use in teacher education programmes. In the published literature, it stands out as the only training material for teachers wherein successive iterations of the package have been evaluated and improved (based on the research) (Baginsky & Macpherson, 2005; Hodgkinson & Baginsky, 2000; Sinclair Taylor & Hodgkinson, 2001). In the context of the US, Alvarez, Kenny, Donohue, and Carpin (2004) point out, most existing CAN training programmes ‘‘lack empirical support’’ (p. 575). In Australia, the only training programme to be empirically investigated and published in the literature was South Australia’s mandatory notification training (Department for Family and Community Services, 1997), now known as Child safe environments: Reporting child abuse and neglect (Department for Families and Communities, 2006). In their evaluation of this 1-day course of instruction, Hawkins and McCallum (2001a, 2001b) noted that it was successful in raising teachers’ awareness of the signs of CAN and in improving their willingness to report. They also found, however, that the effects of training decreased over time. This finding highlights an important temporal dimension yet to be considered in CAN education for future and present teachers. On balance, therefore, there is a paucity of research about the content and teaching and learning approaches best suited to the design and delivery of effective CAN education for teachers. In the absence of an established direction for the development of CAN knowledge in teacher education and professional development, or agreement on

ARTICLE IN PRESS 588

K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

how this knowledge should be structured, how has teachers’ CAN knowledge been researched to date, and what are the limitations of this research? First, previous studies have tended to focus, narrowly, on assessing teachers’ familiarity with signs and symptoms of different types of CAN, and their understanding of reporting procedures, including statutory knowledge. Studies of teachers conducted through the 1980s and early 1990s in the US revealed low levels of awareness of the indicators of different types of CAN (e.g., Hazzard & Rupp, 1986; Levin, 1983; McGrath, Cappelli, Wiseman, Khalil, & Allan, 1987) and uncovered teachers’ lack of understanding of legal reporting obligations, and of institutional policies and procedures (see for example Abrahams et al., 1992; Levin, 1983; McGrath et al., 1987; Randolph & Gold, 1994; Wurtele & Schmitt, 1992). It is significant that, during that period, teachers were not receiving adequate professional preparation for their role (Abrahams et al., 1992; Briggs & Heinrich, 1985) and that, after training, teachers generally showed changes in their attitudes to CAN, and increased their knowledge scores (Hazzard & Rupp, 1986; Kleemeier, Webb, Hazzard, & Pohl, 1988; Levin, 1983; McGrath et al., 1987; Randolph & Gold, 1994). Although diagnostic and statutory knowledge is crucial (Mathews & Walsh, 2004a, 2004b), there is a scarcity of empirical research identifying or evaluating the broader dimensions of teachers’ knowledge in relation to CAN, for example the knowledge utilised in day-to-day teaching practice with children experiencing the effects of CAN. Another limitation in the research relates to the types of teachers who have been studied and the methodologies employed. Little research has been undertaken with early childhood teachers who, arguably, have the greatest potential for identifying CAN and intervening to prevent it (see for example Briggs, 1986). Earlier studies were mainly quantitative and there is little in the way of in-depth qualitative research. Exceptions to this include Duncan’s (1999) study of New Zealand kindergarten teachers and child sexual abuse policies using life history interviews, and Bishop, Lunn and Johnson’s (2002) study of early years teachers in the UK and their role as change agents in child protection initiatives. In capturing emergent concepts in teachers’ work with children at risk of or experiencing CAN, qualitative studies can generate practice-based insights that may assist in future curriculum development.

3. A framework for examining teachers’ knowledge of CAN In the absence of a discipline-specific knowledge base relevant to addressing CAN in teacher education, our search for a framework against which to evaluate teachers’ CAN knowledge led us to the literature on typologies (or categories) of teachers’ knowledge (Grossman, 1990, 1995; Shulman, 1986; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987) previously used to describe and evaluate teachers’ discipline-specific knowledge. One of the hallmarks of a profession is a specialised knowledge base. Professionals are accorded status arising from attaining, holding and transforming their specialised knowledge into complex judgements and actions (Grossman, 1995; Hoyle, 1995; Shulman, 1998). Teachers’ knowledge—what they know, how they hold knowledge and how they use it to inform practice—has been scrutinised for its influence on the quality of teaching. Numerous typologies of teachers’ knowledge have been proposed, beginning with the germinal work of Shulman (1986) and Wilson et al. (1987). This work has been applied by researchers such as Grossman (1990, 1995) who, in turn, proposed six categories of teachers’ knowledge in her study of English teachers. Grossman’s knowledge categories (or domains) included knowledge of content; knowledge of learners and learning; knowledge of general pedagogy; knowledge of curriculum; knowledge of context; and knowledge of self. These knowledge categories were considered as overlapping rather than discrete, reflecting the integrated and dynamic nature of teaching. Grossman obtained multiple measures of teachers’ English knowledge via self-reports, guided interviews and classroom observations to better understand the relationship between professional knowledge and professional preparation (Grossman & Schulman, 1994). Categories of teachers’ knowledge have also been applied to studying teachers’ knowledge of mathematics (Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004), science (Avraamidou & Zembal-Saul, 2005) and history (Turner-Bisset, 1999). In the field of early childhood education, however, studies using knowledge categories are rare. A recent exception is the research of Hedges and Cullen (2005) investigating beliefs held by early childhood teachers, parents and children about subject content knowledge, and the influence of these beliefs on early childhood curriculum and

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

pedagogy. Hedges and Cullen’s (2005) case study using observations and interactions recorded during a preschool excursion, and interviews with children and their teachers, revealed that teachers underestimated the importance of discipline-specific subject or content knowledge even though they used it spontaneously to add depth to children’s learning. This is important in the current study because, as we will see, content knowledge is the only knowledge category that is missing in our data. The current research, too, examines teachers’ knowledge, albeit about a more specific aspect of their practice—working with children who were at risk of or experiencing CAN. We adopted Grossman’s (1995) categories of teacher knowledge as an analytic tool for two reasons. First, Grossman focused on describing knowledge domains as well as explaining how each domain informed professional practice—this is important for any future development of a CAN knowledge base. Second, in view of the paucity of research into teachers’ knowledge in CAN, we consider using categories of knowledge as a useful analytical framework to identify and evaluate teachers’ CAN knowledge without resorting to a deficit approach. Taking an alternative to a deficit approach allows researchers to highlight teachers’ strengths, abilities and efforts.

4. Research methods 4.1. Participants This was a qualitative study of eight early childhood teachers, part of a larger multi-method doctoral project undertaken by the first author and supervised by the second. Data collection for the study began in Child Protection Week, in September 1997. Participants were purposively selected, university-qualified female early childhood teachers. The potential participant pool was limited to those with expertise in working with children at risk of or experiencing CAN. Potential participants were identified by word of mouth, over a period of several weeks. For example, following a field experience supervision visit, a liaison academic referred to the researcher a teacher who was dealing regularly with children and families at risk of CAN. On another occasion, a colleague delivering teacher professional development referred a centre director who had made sweeping adaptations to her day care programme to cater for children experiencing CAN.

589

The eight participants worked in a variety of early childhood settings. All had spent time working in areas identified as having a high incidence of CAN. None had received formal training in CAN as part of their preservice or inservice teacher education. It should be noted that compulsory child protection training for state school staff was introduced the year following data collection (Education Queensland, 1998), and training for those teachers working in before-school settings such as day care centres remains voluntary. Amidst changing legislation and policy in many jurisdictions, teachers working in early childhood settings, particularly those in the non-government long day care sector in Queensland, continue to have limited CAN training opportunities, making this study as relevant today to this professional group as it was at the time of data collection. 4.2. Data collection Each potential participant was initially contacted by telephone: the study was introduced, data collection procedures were outlined and teachers were invited to participate. All who were contacted agreed to participate in the study. The participants were briefed about an interview, which would take place at their convenience. In preparation for the interview, participants were asked to consider situations, people, resources, preparation and experiences that helped them to carry out their professional responsibilities in relation to CAN. In-depth, open-ended interviews lasted approximately 11222 h. Informed voluntary consent was obtained from the teachers at the interview and they were assured of the ethical conduct of the research. Interviews began with a consistent set of questions eliciting demographic data about the teachers and their teaching context (i.e., years of teaching experience, number of children in the programme). After this, teachers were prompted to talk about what they did on a daily basis to support and manage maltreated children with a focus on situations, people, resources, preparation and experiences. As the teachers spoke, it was sometimes necessary to interject with reflective comments and questions such as ‘‘I wonder how you knew to do that?’’, which seemed a logical way to elicit the sources of their knowledge. Where possible, the interviews were augmented by detailed field-note observations taken in the participants’ workplaces, paying careful attention to the contextual features

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

590

evaluate the teachers’ knowledge. These initial datadriven categories appear in Table 2. The second wave of analysis focussed on evaluation of teachers’ knowledge, transcripts using Grossman’s (1995) categories of teachers’ knowledge as an analytical framework on which to map the data. In this theory-driven approach, we used Grossman’s knowledge domains as a priori categories into which teacher comments were coded. Table 3 presents the fit of Grossman’s domains with corresponding CAN knowledge domains identified in the data. This analysis enabled us to evaluate the teachers’ knowledge against an established framework to critically answer ‘‘What knowledge is absent?’’. Five of the initial categories seemed to map neatly onto Grossman’s domains of teachers’ knowledge, one category (i.e., knowledge of the importance of self-esteem and caring) did not fit into a category of its own and one of Grossman’s categories (i.e., knowledge of content) was absent from the data as detailed in Table 3.

of the setting. Interviews with six participants were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, while two participants elected to have live transcriptions taken in lieu of audiotaping. Table 1 provides a list of participants with pseudonyms used to conceal their identities along with basic demographic and interview details. 4.3. Data analysis The data have been analysed twice. First, data were analysed inductively, using the constant comparative method of Glaser and Strauss (1967) in which transcripts of interview data were read and re-read for meaning until themes or categories emerged and similar ideas could be grouped together. This data-driven analysis identified six subcategories of knowledge reported in previous work (Walsh, 2002). This first analysis enabled us to answer ‘‘What knowledge is present?’’. It did not, however, provide a means by which we could discover gaps in the teachers’ knowledge or test the scope of their knowledge against a curriculum model or standard, or a set of core understandings agreed to be essential for teacher education. Hence, the initial analysis allowed us to identify, but not to

5. Findings Selected data from the secondary analysis are presented here using Grossman’s (1995) knowledge

Table 1 Participants, position, teaching context, years of experience and interview details Name

Position

Teaching context

Years experience

Interview location

Audiotape

Ruth Simone Marg Helen Laura Kate Tamara Paula

Director Director Teacher Director Teacher Teacher Director Director

Private long day care centre Community long day care centre State preschool Private long day care centre Special needs unit state school State primary school Private long day care centre Community long day care centre

410 410 410 410 o10 o10 o10 410

Own centre Own centre Own centre University Own centre Coffee shop Own centre Own centre

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Table 2 CAN knowledge domains identified by each teacher CAN knowledge domain

Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge

of of of of of of

risk factors for CAN special needs arising from CAN working with parents the importance of self-esteem and caring personal safety curricula personal limits and help-seeking

Teacher Ruth

Simone

Marg

Helen

   

     

     

  



 

Laura

Kate

Tamara

Paula

    







 



 

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600 Table 3 CAN knowledge domains mapped against Grossman’s domains of teacher knowledge Teachers’ CAN knowledge domains

Grossman’s domains of teacher knowledge

Knowledge of risk factors for CAN Knowledge of special needs arising from CAN and knowledge of the importance of self-esteem and caring Knowledge of working with parents

Knowledge of context Knowledge of learners and learning

Knowledge of personal safety curricula Knowledge of personal limits and help seeking

Knowledge pedagogy Knowledge Knowledge curriculum Knowledge

of general of content of of self

domains as data categories. Each category begins with a definition of the knowledge domain according to Grossman (1995), is followed by a brief description of the corresponding CAN knowledge domain and is supported by excerpts from the interview transcripts. 5.1. Knowledge of context This category includes knowledge of the multiple and embedded situations and settings within which teachers work, including the school, district, or area, and state or region. Knowledge of context also includes teachers’ knowledge of their students and their families, as well as the local community (Grossman, 1995, p. 20). The example we fit into this category is teachers’ knowledge of risk factors for CAN. The early childhood teachers (Ruth, Simone, Marg, Helen and Tamara) held knowledge about their community’s context and its relationship to risk factors for CAN. In explaining their community context, it was common for the teachers to demonstrate respect for children and families in the way they spoke about difficult social circumstances. Ruth, a director of a private (for-profit) long day care centre, was typical in her description. She noted: about 65% of our population here in this community come from public housing y Parents in a lot of low socio-economic areas feel that they want something better for their children y [for

591

it] to be better than what they had at school y The families have difficulty coping with just normal daily life. Tamara, also a director of a private (for-profit) long day care centre, was compassionate and respectful in explaining that, in her area, parents were well-intentioned, but lacked resources to deal with social problems: They love their children very dearly, a lot of them. It’s just that they haven’t got the resources to do anything about [their situation]. For these teachers, risk factors for CAN were described in global rather than specific terms. They described their awareness of signs and symptoms of CAN in terms of ‘‘seeing’’ problems within families. They were also aware that they were ‘‘seeing’’ risk factors that other teachers may overlook and that this was related to their experience in high-risk communities. Simone, a director of a community (not-for-profit) long day care centre put it this way: I’m involved with children from abused backgrounds and it has opened my eyes. It’s not until you’re involved, that you see what else is involved in having children at risk and families at risk y I mean we see them y when you have a child who comes from a neglected or abused background, you see the emotional trauma that they go through, they withdraw into themselves. There were also instances where risk factors were not identified or linked. Marg detailed a specific case in which she did not associate domestic violence towards a mother from her partner with increased risk of physical abuse for the child. She was visibly emotional when she described her mistake in believing the mother’s story that it was she, and not her partner, who was beating the child. Despite these insights, the teachers did not view CAN as confined only to communities such as theirs. Their existing knowledge was that CAN occurred across socio-economic groups and this was a common reflection, exemplified by Ruth when she said: It does happen right across the board. It just doesn’t happen in this type of area. It happens right across the board. And it it’s quite frightening. There was a level of reassurance in this knowledge—the notion that CAN happened in all

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

592

communities, not just in theirs. This was paradoxical given their daily observations of the impact of socio-economic factors on parenting, as Simone implied when she made the link between social disadvantage and the potential for CAN: A lot of the lower income families are sometimes the ones that have the problems, I’m not saying that the upper incomes don’t, but it’s sometimes the lower ones that are struggling and trying to make ends meet that have problems with their children. In summary, although the early childhood teachers readily identified the contexts of their communities, and were able to identify families experiencing problems, they were tenuous in making the association between conditions of poverty or disadvantage and CAN because of their desire to demonstrate respect for children and families. Further, they used global terms to describe the indicators of CAN: the warning signs and symptoms they were able to ‘‘see’’ in families, rather than specific terms such as domestic violence or mental health concerns, which have been associated with higher risk of CAN. They did not immediately tie interpersonal, individual, family, social and economic conditions to the prevalence of CAN in their communities or identify these conditions, overtly, as risk factors for CAN. 5.2. Knowledge of learners and learning This category includes knowledge of learning theories; the physical, social, psychological, and cognitive development of students; motivational theory and practice; and ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender diversity among students (Grossman, 1995, p. 20). The example we fit into this category is teachers’ knowledge of special needs arising from CAN. In determining this knowledge category, we found that teachers’ understandings of the characteristics of learners, who had experienced CAN, resulted in their application of specific teaching strategies designed to assist the children’s learning by building their self-esteem. In this way, knowledge of the importance of self-esteem and caring is subsumed into this category. In our original analysis, we were unable to identify this link.

The early childhood teachers, in particular, Ruth, Simone, Marg, Helen, Laura and Paula, held knowledge about abused and neglected children as learners. They also had ideas about how to foster their learning. They knew that children who had experienced CAN would display observable effects in their behaviour. They readily observed aggression, unusual play, developmental delay, smelly and dirty clothing, and hunger. Deployment of this knowledge prompted them to intervene. Aggression was one of the effects Ruth considered distinctive in children who had experienced CAN. She stated: children who have been abused tend to be very aggressive to the people they are very close to. And it’s the same with the staff. They’re very aggressive to the staff. She also distinguished unusual play characteristics such as their apparent need for space outdoors when they arrived for the day. She explained: we found that the children who were abused started off always wanting to be outside. They wanted to run. They wanted to get rid of their anger outside. They would want to stay outside no matter what we did. Ruth took radical steps to address the children’s needs and manipulated the physical and emotional environment to create multi-age rooms at her centre because she considered that children with a history of CAN would learn better with children of their own developmental rather than chronological age. The teachers relied on their existing knowledge of the relationship between special needs and selfesteem to know when to intervene. Intervening in practical ways, Paula, a director of a community (not-for-profit) long day care centre, surreptitiously provided additional care for some children—she shampooed dirty hair, or sent home extra clothing in a child’s bag, so that the children would not be unduly isolated because of their physical appearance and/or smell. Those teachers who were directors of long day care centres had also introduced centre-prepared meals to address hunger and other nutritional problems they observed in the children, reasoning that all children would benefit from this initiative. The teachers used their knowledge to ‘‘build’’ children’s self-esteem, believing that this would enable the children to care for others and be cared for. Simone and Ruth had the strongest views about

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

creating environments to enhance children’s selfesteem. Simone explained: You just start working on the basics of building up their esteem and their self confidence and getting them there y Give them an environment that is secure, trusting, high quality, nurturing and try to build their self esteem up and get them there. And it’s great to see when they have little moments of achievement. Ruth held the strong view that abused and neglected children’s self-esteem could be enriched by others modelling caring behaviours. Children with a history of CAN may not have personal experience of giving or receiving care, she reasoned. By altering her centre from traditionally separate age-based teaching rooms to multi-age rooms where children of all ages could play together, she aimed to provide opportunities for older children to witness caring for younger children and to join in. For example, she invited older children to help with feeding the babies and toddlers at the centre under the supervision of staff. She explained: you’ve got to get to the stage where you can show them the caring part of it, the sharing part of it, and this program tends to do that. Because, to me, a child can’t learn to share and care [as easily] y when they have not experienced that first. They tend to learn better with the younger children. To summarise, the teachers relied on their wellhoned observational skills to identify special needs. They easily observed physical characteristics and externalising behaviour problems such as aggression or poor physical hygiene, and were more likely to respond to these issues than other, more subtle special needs arising from CAN such as cognitive, speech or language problems. Importantly, they did not seem to distinguish between the consequences of different types of CAN, for example, the difference in symptomatology for physical or sexual abuse. Despite this, they implemented successful techniques for guiding behaviour, and orchestrated opportunities for children to experience success at an appropriate level with the aim of enabling them to grow in confidence. They used the many learning opportunities at their disposal to enhance children’s self-esteem, regardless of the type of CAN they had experienced. Beyond all, they cared and valued caring as a motivator for learning.

593

5.3. Knowledge of general pedagogy This category includes knowledge of classroom organization and management and general methods of teaching (Grossman, 1995, p. 20). The example we fit into this category is teachers’ knowledge of working with parents. General methods of teaching in early childhood involve working in partnership with parents. For early childhood teachers, the importance of working alongside parents is firmly embedded in the ways in which classrooms are organised and managed, particularly in long day care. Although this component of early childhood teachers’ work involves working with adults, it is viewed as a general pedagogical skill with flow-on effects to children. Without exception, all teachers in this study had a steady, yet structured approach to engaging parents. Generally, they began with universal strategies such as making information available to all parents. For example, in the foyer of Tamara’s centre, there was a common sight: a vast array of well-organised information pamphlets and cards about a range of community services and child health issues. These were available for parents and visitors to the centre to browse or to take. Next, there were purposeful engagement strategies requiring particular resources and organisation. Each of the teachers used these strategies to draw parents in, to have them feel welcome, to make connections with them, to gain their trust and to advance an atmosphere in which parents would feel free to talk. For example, one teacher described: we have tea and coffee facilities the whole time. Anybody new coming into the centre is taken around to the kitchen. The kitchen at this centre was an oasis of social support. It was away from the general teaching areas in the building, yet integrated enough to be accessible and safe. Also, targeting parents who may be in need of help, the teachers watched for parents showing signs of distress. Conceiving of her director’s office as a haven for parents, where they could really be listened to, Simone knew how important it was to seem open and approachable.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

594

She explained her strategy: so you start [sending] those messages to them. And hopefully, if they’re really desperate they’ll come and talk to you y it just [takes] those messages ‘‘if you have a problem and need someone to talk to, my office is always open, just come and have a talk’’. We just start with those little things. Her office was a vantage point from which to observe the daily traffic of parents, and a place from which judgements about the need for assistance could be made, for example when a stressed parent might be struggling with children, bags and artwork in the car park she recounted: I’ll say, ‘‘Here, I’ll give you a hand, you’ve got your hands full’’. So you’re not saying that they’re silly or that they’re not coping or not capable of what they’re doing. You’re just saying, ‘‘Look, how about I give you a hand, you’re having a hard time here’’ y you know and go from there. In this way, the teachers created a kind of buffer zone for parents by normalising the stress of parenting. The teachers seemed well aware of the need to reduce social isolation and increase opportunities for parents to share insights about their children, their families and their parenting. They recognised the need to interact with parents while being sensitive to signs that a parent may not be coping or may need additional support. In summary, these teachers demonstrated outstanding commitment to working with parents. They understood that work with parents was preventive and would have flow-on effects to the children. Without formal training, they had each deduced that parents who had been abused themselves may be challenged in finding the personal resources for effectively parenting their own children. 5.4. Knowledge of content This category includes both subject matter knowledge and more explicitly pedagogical content knowledge of the subject matter, termed ‘‘pedagogical content knowledge’’ (Grossman, 1995, p. 20). There are no examples of teachers’ knowledge to fit into this category.

We viewed knowledge of the subject matter of CAN to include its causes, incidence and prevalence, short- and long-term consequences, history, definitions, laws and policies. None of these topics was discussed by the teachers. This is a significant finding that has been uncovered by the use of the Grossman’s (1995) categories. Yet, it is not surprising given the lack of CAN-based preservice and inservice education reported by the participants. 5.5. Knowledge of curriculum This category includes knowledge of both the processes of curriculum development and of the school curriculum within and across grade levels (Grossman, 1995, p. 20). The example we fit into this category is teachers’ knowledge of personal safety curricula. The early childhood teachers (Marg, Helen, Laura, Kate and Paula) knew to use child abuse prevention curricula, but not all were committed to it, and they used the curricula in different ways than originally intended. Laura, a special needs teacher in a state primary school, introduced a personal safety video when a child who had been sexually abused began to touch other children. Being able to embed the material in the junior primary curriculum enabled her to justify its use to other parents. She said: I was actually doing some work as well on appropriate touching, personal space, more generally, good touching and bad touching y which actually fit quite nicely with the (curriculum) program that was being offered for the year ones at that time. This also enabled her to protect the privacy of the abused child. Also in response to the sexualised play of one child, staff at Helen’s centre used personal safety picture books because they felt other children were being victimised by his actions. She said: so we implemented that into our group situation so that we were teaching, because the other children were feeling a little bit upset, or quite a lot upset about the fact that he was doing these things. We needed to educate, not only the child that was the instigator, but also the other children.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

595

Using a whole class intervention, as Laura and Helen had done, was also taken up by Simone, but in relation to personal hygiene for neglected children. By using a whole-group approach she hoped to target the needs of an individual child without that child feeling targeted. She explained:

integrated family service—a great asset. When teachers felt unsupported in their immediate context, they created their own support from within private networks. Laura spoke regularly with a friend who was an experienced social worker: she explained this contact as:

you’re not isolating it just on one child but you’re doing it for a reason, for a particular child y your objective or aim is there for a particular child but you’re doing it for the group too.

debriefing y because it was quite a stressful time, and I needed that y because she is a good friend and she is a support to me. And I was probably also checking for anything else I should be doing.

Simone’s approach exemplifies the common early childhood practice of extrapolating the needs or interests of an individual child to include the whole group (Grieshaber, Halliwell, Hatch, & Walsh, 2000). To summarise, the teachers shared anxieties about this aspect of their work and they questioned the suitability of content in these programmes, yet they did not seem to have criteria in place to discern the most contextually suitable programmes from the range on offer. They tended to use child abuse prevention curricula in reactive rather than proactive ways and did not have strategies for incorporating protective ideas and concepts into their everyday curriculum. 5.6. Knowledge of self This category includes teachers’ knowledge of their personal values, dispositions, strengths, and weaknesses, and their educational philosophy, goals for students, and purposes for teaching (Grossman, 1995, p. 20). The example we fit into this category is teachers’ knowledge of personal limits and help-seeking. All of the early childhood teachers knew the limits to their own knowledge and they were resourceful enough to seek knowledgeable others to help. These knowledgeable others had particular characteristics. They were in authority, in roles such as school administrators. They held specialist knowledge in roles such as guidance officers or educational advisors. Their advice was sought for reporting cases of suspected or known CAN, ways of supporting children in the classroom, and strategies for engaging families. Beyond their own workplaces, the teachers consulted trusted colleagues. Simone had access to allied-health experts as her centre was located in the grounds of an

All teachers sought advice from child protection authorities on procedural and diagnostic issues. Ideally, they wanted these professional relationships to be supportive, to occur on equal footing and to remain intact over time. This is exemplified by Helen, who described her relationship with child protection authorities as supportive to the point where: whatever concern I may have had and I have been in childcare nine years y They have worked very closely with me and I have worked very closely with them and, in times of crisis, I have always been able to contact them. Helen’s long association with particular staff enabled her to build up a reliable reputation. In recent times, these long associations have become less common with high staff turnover in both child protection authorities and child care settings. Ruth had already noted the effect of high staff turnover leading to instances where she felt that she was not treated as a professional. Simone had personal experiences providing her with knowledge she would not otherwise have. She pointed out: I’m also a foster parent y. it’s just given me another side, [to understand] what children go through. Kate, a teacher in a state primary school who was a former telephone counsellor, drew upon past professional experience and training, and Laura drew upon her past professional experience as a social worker. Even within well-functioning groups, there was evidence of conflict around specialist knowledge and expertise. This conflict was seen in Ruth’s impassioned plea quoted in the introduction to this paper. The teachers felt undervalued by child protection authorities especially with respect to information sharing. They were rarely granted information about the outcome of child protection

ARTICLE IN PRESS 596

K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

matters, or apprised regarding the progress of investigations. In summary, early childhood teachers’ use of collegial and personal networks as sources of knowledge and support provided them with immediately useable procedural and intervention knowledge. Consulting others afforded them alternative perspectives from which they could learn, and be heard. Their previous experiences appeared to interact with their existing knowledge to provide opportunities for these teachers to create new practice-based insights for intervention. 6. Discussion Our secondary analysis using Grossman’s (1990, 1995) typology of teachers’ knowledge as an analytical framework enabled us to move beyond simply identifying teachers’ CAN knowledge (what was present) to critically, yet sympathetically, evaluating the gaps in their knowledge (what was absent). Instead of focusing narrowly on assessing teachers’ diagnostic and statutory knowledge, we looked more broadly at a range of types of knowledge that may be required for working effectively with children at risk of, or experiencing, CAN. Using this typology, of course, had strengths and weaknesses. A strength was that it enabled us to distinguish different types of knowledge: this is important in considering the design content, structure and approaches for the delivery of preservice and inservice teacher education. A weakness was that it risked forcing complex and somewhat overlapping categories of knowledge into discrete domains and privileging knowledge over other dimensions of skilled practice such as attitudes, beliefs or values. As stated in the introduction, this analysis using Grossman’s framework advances theory, research and practice by providing insights into and direction for future CAN curriculum development in teacher education. This study advances theory by introducing, to the field of child protection, the concept of teachers as both consumers and creators of CAN knowledge. Such a concept is hitherto unexplored in the CAN literature, yet relatively well established in education discourse, particularly in constructivist perspectives (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988; Elbaz, 1983; Richardson, 1997; Schon, 1987). This study revealed that although the eight teachers were insufficiently trained, they did not lack knowledge. They held and deployed knowledge using their early childhood

knowledge as a basis. This general early childhood knowledge was shaped by what they learned in preserivce teacher education programmes, read and heard about in the literature and popular culture, discussed with their colleagues and gleaned from self-directed professional education sessions. Where there were gaps in their knowledge, they adapted what they already knew and sought information, advice and reassurance from those they regarded as reliable and/or well informed. The families and children in their care were also a source of knowledge, providing them with valuable experiential know-how. The knowledge that guided them was, therefore, a synthesis of practically driven sources oriented to their particular teaching context. Such emphasis is consistent with constructivist perspectives on learning and knowledge. From constructivist perspectives, teachers (as learners) are considered to be actively involved in their own education, and the ways in which they confront and resolve problems shape their learning (Richardson, 1997). Ruth’s work on children’s self-esteem is a clear example. She applied an intuitive type of knowledge forged from what she already knew, not crafted from any CAN-specific knowledge. Yet, it was remarkably effective and surprisingly similar to what CAN researchers, Aber and Allen (1987), referred to as ‘‘secure readiness to learn’’ (p. 411)—a state in which safe, secure relationships with adults are established and balanced with the promotion of freedom to engage in exploration of the world. Aber and Allen (1987) proposed that this secure base is necessary for abused and neglected children to develop confidence to explore their world, and approach learning tasks, necessary for academic success, without feeling inhibited or in danger. Ruth was unaware of this literature, yet she created new knowledge about how to deal with this problem in children at her centre. Future research may further investigate the concept of the teacher as consumer and producer of CAN knowledge, and explore the outcomes of constructivist approaches to teacher education about complex and sensitive issues such as CAN. This study also advances the understanding of teaching practice with children with a history of CAN and progresses research into teachers’ CAN knowledge and knowledge application. The study revealed that the teachers’ limited preparation resulted in the application, in some instances, of incomplete or inaccurate ideas (for example, the teachers’ reluctance to associate poverty and

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

disadvantage with a greater risk of CAN) and the presence of some gaps that were unable to be filled, despite their best efforts (for example, the teachers’ overlooking differences in symptomatology between different types of CAN). In some instances, potentially faulty decisions were made (for example, not recognising that domestic violence from a live-in boyfriend was placing a child at risk of physical abuse). In respect to the teachers, and their lack of formal training specifically about CAN, we stopped short of describing these gaps as knowledge deficits. Instead, from a position of advocacy, we consider three broad directions for teaching and teacher education. First and foremost, teachers cannot and should not be expected to develop their own CAN knowledge by chance or coincidence. Teacher education programmes must deliberately include CAN-specific knowledge and approaches. Second, CAN curriculum designers and developers must consider identifying and building on teachers’ existing knowledge. Teachers should not be viewed as empty vessels and their future preparation must include a combination of formal training and experiential knowledge. Third, when teachers hold misunderstandings arising from popular rather than empirical bases, these must be challenged and corrected in effective yet respectful ways. Reliable, factual information about CAN will help teachers make more informed decisions and create the potential for effective interventions with better outcomes for children. A major finding of the secondary data analysis using Grossman’s (1990, 1995) domains was the absence of teachers’ content knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the causes, incidence, prevalence, short- and long-term consequences, history, definitions, laws and policies relating to CAN). Although affirming teachers’ initiative, dedication and problem solving when confronted with CAN was one of the goals in conducting the initial data-driven analysis, it is evident that discipline-specific CAN knowledge is essential. A clear example relates to teachers’ descriptions of the prevalence of CAN in their communities: the teachers were reluctant to make the association between poverty and disadvantage and a greater risk of CAN. CAN content knowledge may have helped them to understand that, although single parents and welfare recipients are disproportionately represented in CAN notifications and substantiation data (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2006), most researchers now concede that this is attributable to the real material

597

differences created by poverty and social isolation, particularly in relation to neglect, and that economic hardship, combined with social and environmental factors increases the likelihood of CAN in certain homes in certain communities (Garbarino, 1992; Vinson, Baldry, & Hargreaves, 1996; Vinson & Baldry, 1999). Addressing the absence of this type of content knowledge offers potential benefits for several interest groups concerned with child protection intervention: for teachers (in terms of their ability to intervene in educationally appropriate ways), for children (in terms of enhanced educational and social outcomes brought about by more informed teaching practices) and for child protection authorities (in terms of their reliance on and cooperation with teachers delivering such interventions). We can begin to address lack of content knowledge in at least two ways. First, by better disseminating CAN research findings in the education literature—both academic and popular sources. Second, by developing a comprehensive CAN curriculum for teacher education and identifying pedagogical approaches most effective for teaching current and future teachers about CAN. In applying Grossman’s framework to evaluate teachers CAN knowledge, we find that a CAN curriculum and associated pedagogy for teacher education is long overdue. Researchers, policy makers, curriculum developers and practising teachers, therefore, must collaborate in future research to develop and map core knowledge, understandings and skills required to prepare teachers for their role in confronting CAN. Such a curriculum, once developed and implemented, should be subjected to a regular cycle of review: evaluation, modification and improvement based on sound empirical research. Using Grossman’s (1990, 1995) typology progressed our understanding of the importance of both what and how discipline-specific CAN content might be taught and learned. First, as Baginsky and Macpherson (2005) maintain, initial teacher education about CAN must be followed by, and linked to, continuing professional education: that is, CAN content must be coordinated and sequenced. Second, preservice and inservice teacher education could be enhanced by emphasis on disciplinespecific CAN knowledge: this must be explicity taught and not left to chance. Third, from a pedagogical perspective, any enhancements to teacher education must also legitimate the important role of teachers in CAN intervention by recognising their existing knowledge—underlining

ARTICLE IN PRESS 598

K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

what Ruth described as their professional standing and their ability to cope—but also moving them forward in terms of building on their existing knowledge and challenging misconceptions. To this end, future research might examine in finer detail how CAN knowledge from a range of sources is translated into practice by teachers. Future research might also include longitudinal studies of teachers’ knowledge development or, as Baginsky (2003) has done, track graduating teachers into the field to study their application of foundational CAN knowledge in their work.

7. Conclusions This was a small, purposive sample of early childhood teachers who were experienced in dealing with CAN. The teachers in this study may be exceptional and it would be unrealistic and unjustified to suggest that their patterns of confronting and resolving CAN problems from existing knowledge would always result in the same levels of dedication and problem solving in other teachers in other contexts. Despite their obvious competence, these teachers would likely have benefited from specialist knowledge of, and more adequate preparation for, this complex dimension to their work. Although the findings from a small-scale purposive study of teachers such as this are not easily replicable nor can be generalised to other settings, it is important to heed their main messages. The early childhood teachers in this study demonstrated that they were able to cope with CAN by adapting their existing knowledge, yet it is clearly unacceptable for them to rely purely on their general early childhood knowledge in working with children and families who have complex issues arising from CAN. Working with children with a history of CAN requires that early childhood teachers, who have been dedicated in applying their general knowledge, also have the specialist knowledge needed to fulfil the complex role of safeguarding children. This research has provided insight into teachers’ knowledge and how they use this knowledge to deal with a contemporary issue for which they may have been inadequately trained. This research also opens up possibilities for future study with teachers viewed as not only recipients of CAN knowledge but also producers and mediators of CAN knowledge.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the early childhood teachers who contributed their time so willingly to participate in interviews. This study was part of a multimethod Ph.D. project undertaken by the first author as a recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) scholarship and an Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee (AVCC) Incentive Award. The second author was principal supervisor of the thesis in the latter part of the candidature and her research leadership is warmly acknowledged. Ethical approval was obtained for this research from the University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref. no. QUT 1179H) and all participants provided informed consent.

References Aber, J. L., & Allen, J. P. (1987). Effects of maltreatment on young children’s socioemotional development: An attachment theory perspective. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 406–414. Abrahams, N., Casey, K., & Daro, D. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about child abuse and its prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(2), 229–238. Alvarez, K. M., Kenny, M. C., Donohue, B., & Carpin, K. M. (2004). Why are professionals failing to initiate mandated reports of child maltreatment, and are there any empirically based training programmes to assist professionals in the reporting process? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 563–578. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2006). Child protection Australia 2004– 05. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher’s specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965–986. Baginsky, M. (2000). Child protection and education. London: NSPCC. Baginsky, M. (2003). Newly qualified teachers and child protection: A survey of their views, training and experiences. Child Abuse Review, 12(2), 119–127. Baginsky, M., & Hodgkinson, K. (1999). Child protection training in initial teacher training—A survey of provision in institutions of higher education. Educational Research, 41(2), 173–181. Baginsky, M., & Macpherson, P. (2005). Training teachers to safeguard children: Developing a consistent approach. Child Abuse Review, 14(5), 317–330. Bishop, A., Lunn, P., & Johnson, K. (2002). ‘I would just like to run away and hide, but I won’t!’ Exploring attitudes and perceptions on child protection issues with early years teacher trainees on the threshold of their careers. Westminster Studies in Education, 25(2), 187–199.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600 Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer relationships and self-esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69(4), 1171–1197. Bousha, D. M., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). Mother–child interactional style in abuse, neglect and control groups: Naturalistic observations in the home. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93(1), 106–114. Briggs, F. (1986). The response of teacher education curriculum to teachers’ needs relating to child abuse. Journal of Teaching Practice, 6(2), 5–15. Briggs, F., & Heinrich, P. (1985). Student teachers view of child abuse. Pivot, 12(4), 41–44. Cicchetti, D., Carlson, V., Braunwald, K. G., & Aber, J. L. (1987). The sequelae of child maltreatment. In R. Gelles, & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 277–298). New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College Press. CREATE Foundation. (2001). Australian children and young people in care: Education report card 2001. Retrieved 9 November 2004, from /http://svc250.bne115v.server-web. com/create_world/ctw_html/pubs.htmlS. Culp, R. E., Watkins, R. V., Lawrence, H., Letts, D., Kelly, D. J., & Rice, M. L. (1991). Maltreated children’s language and speech development: Abused, neglected, and abused and neglected. First Language, 11, 377–389. Darwish, D., Esquivel, G. B., Houtz, J. C., & Alfonso, V. C. (2001). Play and social skills in maltreated and nonmaltreated preschoolers during peer interactions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1), 13–31. Department for Education and Skills [DfES]. (2006). Statistics of education: Referrals, assessments and children and young people on child protection registers: Year ending 31 March 2005. Norwich: HMSO. Department for Families and Community Services. (2006). Child safe environments: Reporting child abuse and neglect. Retrieved 19 March, 2007, from /http://www.familiesandcommunities. sa.gov.au/Default.aspx?tabid=838S. Department for Family and Community Services. (1997). Reporting child abuse and neglect. Mandated notification training manual (3rd ed.). Adelaide: South Australian Child Protection Council. Dukewich, T. L., Borkowski, J. G., & Whitman, T. L. (1999). A longitudinal analysis of maternal abuse potential and developmental delays in children of adolescent mothers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(5), 405–420. Duncan, J. (1999). New Zealand kindergarten teachers and sexual abuse protection policies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(3), 243–252. Education Queensland. (1998). Child protection training package. Brisbane, Qld: Queensland Government. Eigsti, I., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). The impact of child maltreatment on expressive syntax at 60 months. Developmental Science, 7(1), 88–102. Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm. Fagot, B. I., Hagan, R., Youngblade, L. M., & Potter, L. (1989). A comparison of the play behaviors of sexually abused, physically abused and non-abused preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9(2), 88–100.

599

Garbarino, J. (Ed.). (1992). Children and families in the social environment (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyther. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Grieshaber, S., Halliwell, G., Hatch, J. A., & Walsh, K. (2000). Child observation as teachers’ work in contemporary Australian early childhood programmes. International Journal of Early Years Education, 8(1), 41–55. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 20–24). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon. Grossman, P. L., & Schulman, L. S. (1994). Knowing, believing, and the teaching of English. In T. Shanahan (Ed.), Teachers thinking, teachers knowing: Reflections of literacy and language education (pp. 3–22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Hawkins, R., & McCallum, C. (2001a). Mandatory notification training for suspected child abuse and neglect in South Australian schools. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(12), 1603–1625. Hawkins, R., & McCallum, C. (2001b). Effects of mandatory notification training on the tendency to report hypothetical cases of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Review, 10(5), 301–322. Hazzard, A., & Rupp, G. (1986). A note on the knowledge and attitudes of professional groups toward child abuse. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(2), 219–223. Hedges, H., & Cullen, J. (2005). Subject knowledge in early childhood curriculum and pedagogy: Beliefs and practices. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(1), 66–79. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30. Hodgkinson, K., & Baginsky, M. (2000). Child protection training in school-based initial teacher training: A survey of school-centred initial teacher training courses and their trainees. Educational Studies, 26(3), 269–279. Hoyle, E. (1995). Teachers as professionals. In W. L. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 11–15). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon. Kleemeier, C., Webb, C., Hazzard, A., & Pohl, J. (1988). Child sexual abuse prevention: Evaluation of a teacher training model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(4), 555–561. Kolko, D. (1992). Characteristics of child victims of physical violence: Research findings and clinical implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(2), 244–276. Levin, P. G. (1983). Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, and reporting of child abuse/neglect. Child Welfare, 62(1), 14–20. Macdonald, G. (2001). Effective interventions for child abuse and neglect: An evidence-based approach to planning and evaluating interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Mathews, B., & Walsh, K. (2004a). Queensland teachers’ new legal obligation to report child sexual abuse. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Law and Education, 9(1), 25–40. Mathews, B., & Walsh, K. (2004b). Issues in mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse by Australian teachers. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Law and Education, 9(2), 3–17. McGrath, P., Cappelli, M., Wiseman, D., Khalil, N., & Allan, B. (1987). Teacher awareness program on child abuse: A

ARTICLE IN PRESS 600

K. Walsh, A. Farrell / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 585–600

randomized controlled trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11(1), 125–132. National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. (2003). Learning to protect: A child protection resource pack for teacher training. London: NSPCC. Oates, K., Gray, J., Schweitzer, L., Kempe, R. S., & Harmon, R. J. (1995). A therapeutic preschool for abused children: The keepsafe project. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(11), 1379–1386. Randolph, M. K., & Gold, C. A. (1994). Child sexual abuse prevention: Evaluation of a teacher training program. School Psychology Review, 23(3), 485–495. Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings. London: Falmer. Rowe, E., & Eckenrode, J. (1999). The timing of academic difficulties among maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(8), 813–832. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shonk, S., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Maltreatment, competency deficits, and risk for academic and behavioral maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 3–17. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 511–526. Sinclair Taylor, A., & Hodgkinson, K. (2001). Subjecting the initial teacher training curriculum for England and Wales to the test of child protection. Teacher Development, 5(1), 75–86. Solomon, C. R., & Serres, F. (1999). Effects of parental verbal aggression on children’s self-esteem and school marks. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(4), 339–351. Trocme´, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T., et al. (2003). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect—2003: Major findings. Retrieved 3 July 2006, from /http://www.mcgill.ca/crcf/publications/ cis2003/S.

Turner-Bisset, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 39–55. US Department of Health and Human Services, A. o. C., Youth and Families. (2006). Child maltreatment 2004. Retrieved 3 July 2006, from /http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ statistics/can.cfmS. Veltman, M., & Browne, K. (2001). Three decades of child maltreatment research: Implications for the school years. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 2(3), 215–239. Volpe, R. (1981). The development and evaluation of a training program for school-based professionals dealing with child abuse: The University of Toronto Interfaculty Child Abuse Prevention Project. Child Abuse & Neglect, 5(2), 103–110. Vinson, T., & Baldry, E. (1999). The spatial clustering of child maltreatment: Are micro-social environments involved? Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice Series, Australian Institute of Criminology, 119, 1–6. Retrieved 10 January, 2007, from /http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi119.htmlS. Vinson, T., Baldry, E., & Hargreaves, J. (1996). Neighbourhoods, networks and child abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 26, 523–543. Walsh, K. (2002). Early childhood teachers and child abuse and neglect: A critical study of their work and knowledge. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Watts, V., & Laskey, L. (1997). Where have all the flowers gone? Child-protection education for preservice teachers in Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2), 171–176. Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell. Wurtele, S. K., & Schmitt, A. (1992). Child care workers’ knowledge about reporting suspected child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(3), 385–390.