MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414129181 · doi:10.3390/educsci15091193

Towards Coexistence? Navigating Interpretivism and Positivism in an Early Childhood Professional Development Program

2025· article· en· W4414129181 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gabriela Arias de Sanchez, Ling Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPositivismEarly childhoodReflexivityProfessional learning communityProfessional developmentEarly childhood educationFocus groupAction research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.200
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2000.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0200.152
Scholarly communication0.0310.027
Open science0.0060.026
Research integrity0.0040.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.387 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation SciencesSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207