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

Abstract

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.

1. Introduction

In Canada, provinces and territories have jurisdiction over early learning and childcare programs. Despite the rich cultural differences this federal system cultivates, concerns exist nationally regarding early childhood educators’ (ECEs’) levels of qualification, training, and ongoing professional development (Arias de Sanchez et al., 2021; Menon et al., 2024). Addressing this gap has been the primary focus of a plethora of initiatives that, during the last few decades, have been intended to improve training policies and opportunities for those working in the Canadian early childhood system. One major shift was the creation of provincial curriculum guidelines aimed at fostering pedagogical consistency while supporting educators’ professional development (Arias de Sanchez et al., 2021). Often written as curriculum frameworks for teaching and learning, these curriculum guidelines follow a social pedagogical design (Bennet & Newman, 2004) rooted within interpretive philosophical paradigms (Punch & Oancea, 2014). With a focus on children’s holistic development, curriculum frameworks typically considered broad learning goals and embrace the narrative of educators’ professional decision-making power, reflexive interpretation, and professional meaning making (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Langford, 2010). The emphasis on ECEs’ reflexive interpretations implies greater flexibility for contextualizing the curriculum and accommodating children’s interests (Irving & Carter, 2018; Keary et al., 2023). According to Iannacci and Whitty (2009), “curriculum frameworks, invite educators to act in ways that are responsive to children and educators’ socio-cultural contexts” (p. 9).

Research on the impact of curriculum frameworks is limited. Two decades ago, Bennet and Newman (2004) pointed out that the broad and holistic approach proposed by curriculum frameworks requires ECEs with strong and consistent professional development programs; yet, the authors recognized that many early childhood communities did not have that level of professional development. A recent investigation on the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (Keary et al., 2023) pointed out that ECEs experienced “uncertainty and apprehension” (p. 350) towards curriculum frameworks, particularly regarding unfamiliar narratives and discourses. Similarly, an investigation conducted with Canadian ECEs (Arias de Sanchez et al., 2021) found out that even though ECEs agreed that a curriculum framework is a strength of the early childhood system, “there remains a disconnect between the pedagogical demands of working with an early learning framework and with the supports made available to ensure professional reflexivity” (p. 162).

The present study took place in a Canadian province where, for more than a decade, ECEs working in the jurisdiction have used a provincial curriculum framework to guide their pedagogical practices. Like the rest of the country, professional development offered to ECEs working in the jurisdiction usually aligned with the curriculum framework interpretive philosophical approach. However, in 2023, ECEs from this jurisdiction were invited to pilot the implementation of an evidence-based professional development tool grounded in a different philosophical lens: the Pyramid Model for Promoting Social-Emotional Competence in Infants and Young Children (hereafter referred to as the Pyramid Model; Hemmeter et al., 2006; Hemmeter & Fox, 2009). The Pyramid Model (PM) is a multi-tiered framework designed to promote young children’s social-emotional development and address challenging behaviours through a structured, data-informed approach. It is organized into three tiers: Tier 1 emphasizes universal promotion practices such as building nurturing relationships and creating high-quality, supportive classroom environments; Tier 2 focuses on targeted social-emotional strategies for children at risk; and Tier 3 offers individualized intensive interventions for children with persistent behavioural challenges. Implementation involves standardized tools such as behaviour screening checklists, progress monitoring systems, and fidelity checklists, reflecting the model’s strong alignment with evidence-based, positivist educational paradigms. Supported by a positivist philosophical paradigm (DeCarlo et al., 2021; Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017), the PM uses predetermined intervention guidelines for educators to reach fidelity through a prevent-teach-reinforce positive behaviour approach, which is markedly different from programs grounded in interpretive philosophical paradigms. Previous studies have stressed the efficacy of the PM, indicating that it has served as an educator professional tool across various educational settings (Fox et al., 2003; Fox & Hemmeter, 2009; Hemmeter et al., 2016, 2021; Ohl et al., 2013; Snyder et al., 2015; Strain & Joseph, 2006; Swalwell & McLean, 2021).

Working in partnership with the provincial PM leaders, our research team had two main roles: (1) to conduct an independent, third-party evaluation of the PM implementation program, and (2) to use the insights and findings from this evaluation to support its implementation across the province. As the project evaluation commenced, we soon identified the emerging growth of philosophical tensions between the “contrasting stories” (Moss, 2014, p. 3) presented in the narratives of the provincial curriculum framework and the Pyramid Model. The proposed study investigated the tensions a group of ECEs and educational coaches faced as they engaged with both educational philosophical paradigms. Specifically, this research explored how the interplay between interpretivism and positivism paradigms influenced the PM implementation process and impacted ECEs’ professional development. The following questions guided the study: (1) In what ways does the dynamic interplay between interpretivist and positivist paradigms unfold throughout the PM project implementation process? And (2) how has ECEs’ professional development evolved through the interplay between interpretivist and positivism paradigms?

The study is informed by socio-constructivist and socio-cultural theories, which propose that meaning is created within context (Vygotsky, 1978; Rogoff, 2003). From this perspective we understand that it is within the intrinsic relationship between social practices and context, that individuals’ ways of talking, knowing, and believing take shape. Accordingly, we contend that there is no single form of early childhood education practice; rather, such practices vary across social, cultural, and historical contexts (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Cannella, 1997; Mac Naughton, 2005).

As early childhood researchers, we acknowledged the fragile tensions permeating the Canadian early childhood system (Iannacci & Whitty, 2009) and decided to “walk and experiment” with them (Moss, 2014, p. 12). Lauriala (2013) has noted that positivist and interpretivist paradigms have historically shaped educators’ understandings, practices, and professional development programs. However, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding the specific impact of paradigm conflicts on ECEs’ professional development programs. While previous studies have discussed philosophical tensions in early childhood education, few have examined how educators actively navigate these tensions in real-time professional development settings. This study addresses this gap by using an action research design that captures the evolving, situated experiences of ECEs and coaches as they encounter, resist, and eventually reconcile contrasting paradigms. The study sheds light on the enabling conditions that support such reconciliation—namely, collective inquiry through focus groups, ongoing reflective dialogue, and a context-responsive approach embedded within iterative cycles of implementation. By focusing on the process of meaning-making and adaptation across iterative cycles, this research offers a nuanced understanding of how paradigm conflict plays out as both a challenge and a catalyst for professional growth. It also extends existing theories on professional learning by illustrating how reflective and dialogic conditions can support educators in bridging philosophical divides, rather than being limited by them.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Philosophical Paradigms

According to Masterman (1970), a paradigm, from a philosophical perspective, is a “problem-solving device,” “a concrete ‘picture’ used analogically,” and “a way of seeing” (p. 59). In other words, a paradigm functions as a multifaceted construct that can serve as a methodological toolkit for inquiry, a conceptual framework for analogical understanding, and a perceptual lens through which one interprets one’s area of study or practice.

In education (and many other fields), two dominant philosophical paradigms have significantly shaped approaches to understanding and improving learning and teaching processes: interpretivism and positivism (Punch & Oancea, 2014). These paradigms differ fundamentally in their ontological, epistemological, methodological, and axiological assumptions (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020; Carson et al., 2001; also see

Table 1. Key Differences Between Positivism and Interpretivism.

Dimension	Positivism	Interpretivism
Ontology	Belief in a single, objective reality—Direct access to the real world	Reality is multiple and subjective—No direct access to the real world
Epistemology	Knowledge is objective and can be measured—Generalizable findings	Knowledge is perceived and contextual—Understanding the specific context
Methodology	Focus on description and explanation—Detached observer role	Focus on interpretation and understanding—Immersed researcher role
Techniques	Quantitative, statistical, and structured methods	Mainly qualitative, non-quantitative methods

Note: Adapted from (Carson et al., 2001).

). Grounded in conflict philosophical lenses, interpretivism posits that reality is subjective and socially constructed, emphasizing qualitative methods to understand the complexities of educational experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In contrast, positivism is rooted within a social order philosophical paradigm and adheres to the belief in an objective reality, favouring quantitative methods to measure and predict educational outcomes (D. C. Phillips & Burbules, 2000). The tension between these paradigms is particularly evident in educational programs, where the interpretivist approach might focus on the rich, contextual understanding of participants’ experiences, while the positivist approach might prioritize standardized measurements of program effectiveness (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Usually presented as opposite lenses, it is undeniable that both interpretivism and positivism significantly influence educational contexts and the educational activities within them. Their ongoing impact shapes how educators approach teaching, learning, and assessment in diverse educational settings.

2.2. Professional Development

Professional development programs (PDPs) in the education landscape are commonly designed to assist educators in expanding or improving their skills. Research has identified various factors that impact the effectiveness of these programs. For instance, Ingvarson et al. (2005) highlighted content focus, active learning opportunities, and follow-up support as key elements that positively affect educators’ knowledge and practice. Watson and Manning (2008) emphasized the importance of alignment between educators’ perceived needs and PDP offerings. Similarly, P. Phillips (2008) further contributed to this discourse by identifying factors such as the potential for workplace change, understanding of adult learning principles, subject specificity, and relevance of presented material as crucial for PDP success.

Extensive scholarly work on the professionalization of ECEs has emerged both in Canada and internationally (Cannella, 1997; Dahlberg et al., 2013; Langford et al., 2016; Menon et al., 2024; Osgood, 2006; Urban, 2013; Urban et al., 2012; Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2017; Pacini-Ketchabaw & Pence, 2005; Vintimilla, 2014). This scholarly work provides distinctive paradigmatic standpoints expanding within a theoretical continuum where, on one end, neoliberal narratives embrace the need for measuring, accountability and accreditation, and on the other end, critical, reconceptualist, and post-humanist approaches advocate for a reflexive educator in a constant state of becoming (Pacini-Ketchabaw & Pence, 2005). However, despite scholars’ advocacy, cohesive and relevant training for ECEs remains challenging in most Canadian provinces (Beach et al., 2023; Langford & Richardson, 2019) and although ECEs’ participation in PDPs is required to maintain certification, the assessment of professional development is not regulated, except in Ontario (OECD, 2021), with PDPs focusing “on the number of hours of professional development, rather than the content” (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2021, p. 37).

With the recent announcement by the Government of Canada (2021) regarding plans to create and implement a national childcare system, tensions have been on the rise regarding the improvement of ECEs’ professional development. These tensions stem partly from the increased demand for standardized practices across provinces and pressures to align PDPs with measurable outcomes challenging a decade of provincial commitments to working with interpretive early childhood curriculum frameworks.

2.3. Contrasting Paradigm Stories of PDPs

As stated earlier, this study took place in one of the Canadian provinces that has long used a curriculum framework that serves as a foundational document for ECE training and practice. The curriculum framework of this province establishes detailed guidelines and expectations for early childhood education, encompassing crucial areas such as developmental milestones, educational approaches, and assessment methodologies. Supporting sections within the document provide extensive resources, including practical implementation strategies, reflective questions for professional development, and detailed examples of best practices in early childhood settings. Rooted within interpretive lenses, the framework outlines a holistic methodology for early childhood education from infancy to school entry, emphasizing play-based learning and the significance of relationships, environments, and experiences in shaping children’s development.

This interpretivist alignment is evident in several key aspects: the framework’s emphasis on socially constructed learning processes, its recognition of play as a subjective and meaningful experience, and its incorporation of qualitative assessment methods such as learning stories. More importantly, as is the case with curriculum frameworks, the document acknowledges educators’ crucial role in interpreting and facilitating children’s learning within specific contexts. From this philosophical lens, the document comprehensively addresses educator roles, inclusive practices, and assessment strategies, while providing practical guidance through learning principles, strategies, and reflective questions for educators. The framework values emergent, play-based learning, multiple ways of knowing, and qualitative documentation such as learning stories and pedagogical narration. In contrast to the early learning framework, the Pyramid Model reflects a positivist paradigm, grounded in the belief that educational practices can and should be based on measurable, generalizable evidence. It emphasizes fidelity to prescribed intervention strategies, structured data collection, and standardized assessment tools to track children’s behaviour and progress. This orientation assumes that effective teaching practices are universal and can be systematically implemented across contexts. The model’s profound alignment with positivist philosophy is evidenced through multiple dimensions: its foundation in empirical research and quantifiable data validation, implementation of systematic hierarchical interventions that can be objectively measured, emphasis on observable behavioural outcomes rather than subjective interpretations, and utilization of standardized assessment metrics. This positivist orientation is particularly reflected in the model’s assumption of universal applicability across different contexts, mirroring positivism’s core belief in generalizable truth. At the same time, its prioritization of scientific measurement and standardized observation methods over interpretive approaches further demonstrates its commitment to positivist epistemological principles in understanding child development.

3. Materials and Methods

This study is embedded within a larger research project that employs a mixed-methods approach to data collection (Morse, 2016) and is grounded in an action research methodological framework, which “combines action and reflection with the intention of improving practice” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 297). The overall project was designed to implement three iterative cycles of the action research process—plan, act, observe, reflect (Kemmis et al., 2014; Stringer, 2014; Riel, 2010; McNiff, 2016; Reason & Bradbury, 2008)—between 2023 and 2025. These cycles draw on multiple data sources to inform both research and practice. While the overarching project utilizes both qualitative and quantitative methods, the present study draws specifically on qualitative data from three waves of focus group interviews (Krueger & Casey, 2014). These interviews were conducted with PM coaches and ECEs, enabling an in-depth exploration of their perspectives and lived experiences within the broader implementation process. The research design and data collection process are summarized in

Table 2. Overview of Research Design and Data Collection.

Phase	Year	Action Research Cycle	Data Source Used
Cycle 1	2023–2024	Plan–Act–Observe–Reflect	Focus Group Interview 1 (ECE session + Coach Session)
Cycle 2	2024	Plan–Act–Observe–Reflect	Focus Group Interview 2 (ECE session + Coach Session)
Cycle 3	2024–2025	Plan–Act–Observe–Reflect	Focus Group Interview 3 (ECE session + Coach Session)

.

Research has shown that educational innovation strengthens when educators are involved as co-creators and agents of change (Franke & Kazemi, 2001; Keys & Bryan, 2001). In this study, the cyclical nature of action research ensured that key stakeholders engaged in continuous learning from each data cycle, contributing to a sustainable professional learning space where the Pyramid Model was co-constructed and studied by those embedded in early childhood practice. In addition to the continuous learning and iterative improvement through their repeated involvement in the process, all collected data are systematically analyzed upon the completion of each cycle. The findings are compiled into a comprehensive report submitted to key stakeholders. This report outlines the analytical results and identifies the project’s strengths and limitations up to the data collection point. The insights generated serve as formative feedback for implementers, supporting evidence-based adjustments to improve the effectiveness of ongoing and future implementation efforts.

3.1. Sampling and Participants

The study received ethics approval from the university Ethics Board in August 2023. All participants received an information letter outlining the purpose of the study, procedures, potential risks, and confidentiality measures. Written informed consent was obtained prior to participation. Participation was voluntary, and individuals were informed of their right to withdraw at any time without consequences. All data were anonymized and stored securely on password-protected servers. After receiving ethics approval, participants’ recruitment occurred in 2023 through the provincial association’s educators and staff list. Using purposive sampling (Patton, 2015), coaches and ECEs from different provincial early years centres were invited to participate. Selection criteria included ECEs from across the province’s counties and educational coaches who have received PM training. Recruitment of ECEs ensured diverse perspectives from educators representing rural and urban areas, encompassing English and French-speaking communities. All invited coaches (N = 10) and ECEs (N = 18) agreed to participate. Supported by the PM practice-based coaching approach (Snyder et al., 2015), the partner organization assigned each PM coach to work with one to five ECEs. Ethics renewal was granted in August 2024, and participants were re-consented to continue their involvement in the follow-up phases of the study. The same 10 PM coaches and 18 ECEs were invited to continue participating in the subsequent phases of the study. The number of participants remained consistent during the first and second waves of data collection. However, there was some staff turnover in the mid-to-late stages of the program. By the time of the third wave, eight ECEs and two coaches had left the program for various reasons, though new coaches and ECEs came to fill these positions. To investigate changes in ECEs during the implementation process, the focus group interviews for the third wave only invited participants who had participated in the previous two focus group interviews. Consequently, the number of participants invited to the third wave of focus group interviews was reduced.

Table 3. Actual Attendance in Each Wave of Focus Group Interviews.

Wave	ECEs Attended	Coaches Attended
One	16	8
Two	18	9
Three	8	8

summarizes the actual attendance in each wave of focus group interviews.

3.2. Data Source(s)

Separated focus groups (Krueger & Casey, 2014) for ECEs and coaches were conducted at the end of waves one, two, and three of action research cycles, each following the completion of an action research cycle. The first-round interviews lasted approximately 2.5 to 3 h; the second and third rounds were shorter, lasting between 60 and 90 min. All interviews were semi-structured and were conducted separately for ECEs and coaches. The interview questions were designed to explore participants’ experiences during each implementation cycle, focusing on perceived strengths, limitations, and the practical application of the PM. Several prompts were adapted or refined based on emerging findings from previous cycles. For instance, the research team identified philosophical tensions between the PM and the provincial curriculum framework in the first round. As a result, follow-up interviews in the second and third cycles included more targeted prompts to further examine participants’ perceptions of these paradigmatic differences. Additionally, interviews were designed to remain flexible and responsive to participants’ input. Interviewers used follow-up and probing questions to explore emerging themes in real time, allowing participants to reflect more deeply on their evolving professional practices and pedagogical interpretations.

3.3. Data Analyses

Focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed (Naeem et al., 2023) by two researchers. The analysis followed an iterative process of open coding, categorization, and theme development to identify patterns and relationships in participants’ perspectives on the PM implementation. To ensure analytical rigour, two researchers independently conducted initial rounds of open coding. A shared coding framework was then developed collaboratively, based on recurring patterns and interpretive insights from the first transcripts. Discrepancies in coding were discussed in regular peer debriefing sessions and resolved through consensus. The coding framework was refined iteratively as additional transcripts were analyzed, allowing for emerging themes to be integrated and previously identified categories to be re-evaluated when necessary (Naeem et al., 2023).

Through cross-case analysis, emergent themes were compared and synthesized across different waves of data, generating comprehensive insights about theoretical paradigm intersections. The cross-case analysis enabled us to track how participants’ understandings and professional reflections evolved over time. While each wave provided insights into the immediate reactions to PM implementation, the comparative analysis across cycles revealed key shifts in participants’ language, confidence, and paradigm positioning. For example, initial expressions of discomfort and perceived conflict (Cycle 1) gradually led to more integrative language and reflective reframing (Cycles 2 and 3), suggesting a movement toward multi-paradigmatic thinking that would not have been as visible through single-wave analysis alone.

Table 4. Evolution of Key Themes Across Focus Group Cycles.

Theme	Cycle 1	Cycle 2 & 3 (Combined)
Perception of PM	“Clinic-like”, rigid, foreign	“It works”, “It’s complementary”, adapted to context
View on Paradigmatic Tension	Polarized, incompatible	Move toward coexistence and strategic integration
Professional Confidence	Expressed anxiety, uncertainty	Increased clarity, agency, and confidence
Role of Reflexivity	Emerging awareness, limited application	Deepened self-reflection and active pedagogical shifts

presents a summary of how key themes evolved across the three cycles.

4. Findings

Both participants (ECEs and coaches) held professional backgrounds in early childhood education and worked with children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years who attended regulated provincial childcare centres. In alignment with previous studies (Denham & Brown, 2010; Jones et al., 2015; Raver, 2002), participants recognized ECEs’ fundamental role in providing healthy and supportive conditions for young children’s socio-emotional development. Although we did not collect data regarding the participants’ specificity of their college training, both groups indicated that understanding children’s socio-emotional development was a fundamental ECE competence; as one participant noted, “If you think about training, that’s a basic” (p#10). However, participants also pointed out that ongoing professional development opportunities in this area have been limited, if not scarce, in the province.

In the six focus group interview sessions, ECEs and coaches expressed a strong appreciation for holistic and emergent curriculum approaches that follow children’s interests. At the same time, they also described using pedagogical practices rooted in developmentalism, highlighting a multifaceted training background that values diverse paradigms and curriculum models. To further explore these perspectives, we conducted a cross-case analysis of the six focus groups. The analysis revealed three emerging themes: (a) Shifting experiences without a shift; (b) Paradigmatic tensions; and (c) Reflexivity: resistance and professional growth.

Table 5. Themes and Reflections from Focus Group Discussions on Pyramid Model Implementation.

Theme	Subthemes	Key Participant Quotes
Shifting Experiences Without a Shift	- Integration of PM within holistic curriculum - Initial resistance and paradigm conflict - Gradual attempts to reconcile approaches - Observable benefits of PM support integration	- “They’re super different. You have a holistic way… and you have a developmental clinic way…” - “I do feel that they match together.” - “She’s seeing the changes and the growth.”
Paradigmatic Tensions	- Predictable vs. unpredictable practices - Professional interpretation vs. compliance - Authenticity vs. forced practice - Ongoing struggle between paradigms (holistic vs. structured)	- “It defines who we are as educators.” - “The PM just gives us the thinking of what exactly you’re doing…” - “So, I struggled to see choice and real free play…”
Reflexivity: Resistance and Professional Growth	- Reflection on professional practice - Vulnerability and learning from discomfort - Coconstruction of new pedagogical understandings - Emergence of multiparadigmatic perspectives	- “I have become more vulnerable because I accept what was wrong with my practice.” - “It’s not that you did it wrong, but what can we do differently?” - “[The PM] is a change in perspective, not a change in how we’re doing everything.”

provides an overview of the themes that emerged from the focus groups.

4.1. Shifting Experiences Without a Shift

ECEs and coaches in the province have utilized a provincial early childhood framework as its curriculum foundation, hence adopting a holistic and emergent approach grounded within interpretive lenses. Implementing the PM project resulted in introducing a developmental approach within the existing holistic and emergent early childhood curriculum practices, creating an intersection between two distinct paradigms—interpretivism and positivism.

The implementation process itself reflected this paradigmatic complexity. Rather than following a straightforward professional development model, ECEs and coaches experienced non-linear professional learning cycles that allowed for the concurrent negotiation and reconstruction of meanings over time. This ongoing professional development process included active learning opportunities and follow-up discussions (Ingvarson et al., 2005), enabling participants to move back and forth through dynamic learning spirals (Hedges, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978). In this section we share participants’ experiences as the PM implementation moved along across three waves of focus group interviews.

Before the project was launched, coaches and ECEs received professional development training about the hows of the Pyramid Model (PM), particularly its data collection and reporting methods. Implementation started shortly after the initial training and focused on observing and using specific strategies to respond to and target children’s behaviour during specific daily routines. After six months of PM implementation, ECEs and coaches came together in the first focus group. The discussions centred around the stark differences between the PM and the discrepancies between the two models manifested as a conflict between their well-known holistic pedagogies and what they described as a “regimented” approach. As one ECE indicated, “They’re super different. You have a holistic way of seeing children here, and you have a developmental clinic way of seeing here with the PM, it is a different way of seeing also learning, how learning happens, because they come from different lenses” (p#20). Moreover, serious concerns were manifested regarding the PM narrative and the language participants needed to use to assess children’s behaviours and to provide targeted interventions: “The questions are wordy. They’re not worded nicely; one educator speaks five languages…. She doesn’t speak that type of English” (p#24).

Over time, the paradigm clash became less pronounced. Interestingly, this resolution did not result in a paradigm shift but rather a participant’s effort to create integration by questioning prior assumptions, collaboratively interpreting paradigm tensions, and re-evaluating what constituted effective practice in their settings. In the second wave of focus group discussions, ECEs and coaches discussed how integrating elements from both the PM and curriculum model could enrich their pedagogical practices. For example, educators described blending PM’s structured, evidence-based tools—such as visuals, action plans, emotion language, and problem-solving sequences—into their play-based, child-led practices. This integration allowed them to keep the flexibility of the Early Learning Framework while using PM strategies to support social-emotional learning, resulting in a contextually adapted, child-responsive approach. Further, they stressed how their pedagogies could benefit from the merits of each approach. Statements provided below are examples of these manifestations: “I do feel that they match together” (p#6) “I think you need both... they work together and they’re like complementary” (p#16).

In their efforts to reconcile the two paradigms, participants did not compromise on leaving behind their pedagogical values and understandings—for instance, the value of emergent curriculum in early childhood education. Yet, the observable improvements in children’s behaviour provided a compelling rationale for exploring integration between the two models. This process also fostered a growing sense of empowerment among ECEs, as they identified how the systematic action plans developed through PM interventions positively influenced classroom dynamics:

“It’s [the PM] working…like it works… she [the educator] keeps saying to me because she’s achieving the action plans, and then it becomes her practice. And she’s seeing it in the [classroom]. She’s seeing the changes and the growth. And I think that encourages her to keep going, and she’s enjoying the process” (p#18).

The last focus group session took place 18 months after the start of the project, following the completion of the third round of data collection and reporting. The analysis shows that tensions surrounding the possibility of the models’ coexistence remained a key issue in the professional discussions, “I think it’s just… it would be about how you’re intentionally connecting them; I’m checking the box for [the curriculum framework] and the box for Pyramid. I’m growing this practice for myself” (p#9). Efforts to create coexistence were shared in a few attempts to develop systematic integration between the models, such as combining structured behavioural strategies with emergent, child-led responses. One coach shared, “We went through the curriculum framework and highlighted every indicator that connected to the pyramid model, and it was almost every page or two where we found like that this, you know, outcome could be met by this pyramid model indicator” (p#12).

4.2. Paradigmatic Tensions

During the PM implementation, participants engaged in unique pedagogical practices where they had to use two different teaching models: the PM and the provincial early learning framework. Even though participants argued for the possibility of coexistence between these models, their differences were consistently discussed as dichotomies. For example, educators described PM action plans as overly segmented and procedural, with steps that did not always align with the fluid, changing realities of their classrooms. They also felt that quantifying tool use—such as recording how many times the visual schedule was referenced each day—was inauthentic and disconnected from the natural flow of play and relationships. In some cases, they expressed frustration at having to follow the prescribed sequence of goals even when, in their professional judgment, children were ready to move ahead, which they felt reduced flexibility and slowed progress.

Our analysis indicates that while participants were learning and implementing distinctive pedagogical paradigms, some of the long-debated tensions that have impacted early childhood education over decades surfaced in the focus group. In resemblance with the literature (Fleer, 2015; Samuelsson, 2023; Walsh et al., 2017; Wallerstedt & Niklas, 2012; E. A. Wood, 2013, 2014), unresolved conflicts and discussions about child-led versus teacher-lead pedagogies, goals versus outcomes, and play versus work were at the core of the debates. Our study expands these ideas by identifying coexisting tensions between additional distinctive constructs: (a) predictable versus unpredictable early childhood practices; (b) professional interpretation versus professional compliance, and (c) being authentic versus forced.

Predictable versus unpredictable early childhood practices: Participants recognized that the provincial early learning curriculum framework’s strength was its openness, providing a space to create emergent learning opportunities for young children. ECEs highlighted in many discussions, “It defines who we are as educators” (p#5). Yet, in alignment with previous research (Mannion, 2019), they also stressed that due to its openness, the curriculum framework lacked structured and specific guidance. ECEs pointed out that the ambiguity of broad socio-emotional goals was a challenge and discussed their fears and limitations of working within unpredictability. Educators agreed that unpredictability was not enough when the need to provide socio-emotional guidance in the classroom arose. ECEs stressed that the PM allowed them to fill the unpredictability gap and to be “A step ahead of the child” (p#6) and “a lot more strategic in my [their] thinking and planning” (p#7). An example of how the PM structured guidelines enhanced ECEs’ planning is shared in the following quote

“I feel more confident approaching a challenging situation. So, before the pyramid model, if a child had a tantrum, I would have just, you know, dealt with it, which was like, ‘Okay, we can’t do this; there are other people here.’ [it was like having] a little anxious feeling…but now, [I think] ‘okay, what are they trying to tell me with this behaviour?’… I feel more confident in what I need to give them” (p#6).

The analysis shows that within the complex processes of guiding children’s behaviours, the systematic step-by-step approach that grounded the PM intervention allowed educators to grow their confidence while enriching their repertoire of knowledge-based practices. Participants highlighted, “More knowledge is power; we have more knowledge and more ways to resolve socio-emotional behaviours” (p#14). Findings also stressed that without clarity for understanding how to connect broad written goals with practical applications to support children’s behaviours, professional autonomy became jeopardized, thus encouraging ECEs’ partial agreement with a more systematic approach that provided details and reassured observable behaviour improvement.

Professional interpretation versus professional compliance: At the centre of the paradigmatic discussions was also the ECEs’ role, which was positioned at the intersection of professional interpretation versus professional compliance. The choices and interpretations encouraged through the curriculum framework vs. the passive acceptance of the PM “scientific evidence” became a recurrent theme throughout the analysis:

“It’s so broad [the curriculum framework] …I think when we look at the pyramid model, we have more focus because there are limited things that we can do” (p#2).

“The PM just gives us the thinking of what exactly you’re doing versus [working within] improvisation and chance” (p#14).

“It’s a framework, so it’s very open. While the pyramid model is very structured, right, and you’re confronting two different models” (p#8).

Allowing professional decision-making versus permitting external control were iterative discussions; sometimes, navigating this process was disconcerting, and agreements could not be reached. What participants held as truth concerning their professional role was challenged, and the search for a trustworthy and authentic understanding of their role was questioned in the collective.

Being authentic versus forced: While coexistence was justified in terms of a balanced pedagogy that could allow ECEs to choose between practices, resistance against coexistence emerged once more when participants brought up the discussion of authenticity. Being authentic was perceived as being “real,” “emergent,” and “connected” with their classroom contexts. On the contrary, the rating scales, measures, norms, and stages presented through the PM were seen as “forced,” thus conceived as less authentic and disconnected from their early childhood practices and pedagogies. Data shows that while participants uncovered what truths and forms of knowledge they valued and not valued, their struggles to compromise with the “rigidness” of the PM fully moved back and forth between polarised paradigmatic pressures that posed challenges to professional values, perceptions and beliefs.

4.3. Reflexivity: Resistance and Professional Growth

Although focus groups were oriented to assess the PM implementation, participants’ comparison between the PM approach and what they knew was the best early childhood practice (a holistic curriculum framework) emerged as a consistent theme of discussion. The comparison between these models implied deep engagement and careful thought about pedagogical practices, children’s socio-emotional growth, and the meaning of their professional roles. During the discussions, participants took the time to deconstruct what they knew and verbalized feelings and professional understandings: “I have become more vulnerable because I accept what was wrong with my practice” (p#2), “The reflection piece has been huge in that cycle in my brain” (p#6). At their own pace, participants shared how, despite these tensions, engaging in continuous reflection allowed them to experience growth and professional learning. Participants described how they have improved at their jobs and how that reflective process permitted them to experience a sense of pride and increased engagement. The following quotes summarize some of these ideas:

“I like what I’m learning. And I like that. It’s making it more real as if it were reflected in my practice. And I think it’s improving the quality that I’m offering” (p#2).

“It’s giving you other strategies… like things you might not have ever thought of to help your practice.”

“Something I look forward to going over my week and everything that happened and setting that growth mindset of, well, it’s not that you did it wrong, but what can we do differently” (p. 14).

Processes of reflexivity were manifested while participants questioned and self-examined their assumptions. In some scenarios, the discussions were unsettling; feelings of confusion and uncertainty were explicitly discussed:

“The curriculum framework does not respond to how can I apply things… There’s not, there’s no words there to be able to kind of highlight strategies…Working with the pyramid model captures those examples of the goal we’re working on, but how does it relate to the [curriculum] framework?” (p#5).

“Like the structured instructional teaching, they [the PM guidelines] call teacher-led versus free choice…but to me still felt like teacher-led. So, I struggled to see choice and real free play…because it still felt teacher led a little bit to me based on my values” (p#5).

Participants’ intentions to create pedagogical practices that fitted within what they described as “the middle” or “between the broad and the specific” might imply the acceptance of a multi-paradigmatic perspective that suspends questions of philosophical truth and focuses more on how different philosophies, theories, and methods can be used strategically to provide a multidimensional view of a topic (DeCarlo et al., 2021). Most importantly, the urge for “coexistence” stressed the explicit recognition that certain levels of disruption between previous and new knowledge and ideas happened through the focus group discussions. We contend that it was within these disruptions that professional learning occurred. Deconstructing and co-construing “bridges between the familiar and the new to solve problems” (Rogoff, 1990, p. 66) became an act of critical thought that allowed for meanings to be shared and challenged, re-created and created again. Undoubtedly, the iterative cycles of the focus groups permitted participants’ agency to flourish and, most importantly, to continue to compromise with the needs of their professional contexts. As they indicated, “[The PM] is a change in perspective, not a change in how we’re doing everything; it’s given us another solid piece of the puzzle” (p#25).

5. Discussion

Educational paradigms are intrinsically related to epistemological positions that ask what knowledge is or how knowledge is understood. As researchers, we root our epistemological roots in socio-constructivist and sociocultural theories (Vygotsky, 1978; Rogoff, 2003) and agree that knowledge is situated within the socio-historic and sociocultural contexts where thinking takes place. Our research paradigm follows a philosophical orientation that is framed within interpretivism. Hence, the methodological choices we have used for this investigation, including an action research design and focus groups as data sources, speak of our interests in exploring participants’ perceptions of their realities and embracing the understanding that meaning, or knowledge, is socially constructed. Undoubtedly, our interpretive paradigm also frames our worldviews about best practices for early childhood education. As such, our thinking aligns with curriculum frameworks that place ECE professionals as knowledge creators with agency over their educational contexts (Keary et al., 2023; Menon et al., 2024; Langford & Richardson, 2019).

Disclosing our researchers’ biases is essential, particularly because our initial surprise and discomfort- with paradigmatic coexistence challenged our philosophical lenses. This discomfort prompted us to re-examine our own interpretive assumptions during the early stages of data analysis. Initially, we were primarily focused on understanding how participants resisted positivist elements. However, as we engaged more deeply with the data, we began to notice moments of negotiation, adaptation, and even appreciation of structure—especially when participants described the PM as “working.” These findings challenged our original assumptions and led us to expand our analytic lens to include the possibility of paradigmatic coexistence, rather than conflict alone. This shift also influenced the refinement of our second research question and informed the inclusion of prompts in later focus groups that explicitly explored participants’ evolving views on both philosophical approaches. As the project unfolded, we walked with the participants through a conflictive space and, just like them, engaged in deep reflections (perhaps our professional development practice) that allowed us to immerse ourselves in an interpretation process (Creswell & Miller, 2000; DeCarlo et al., 2021; Guba & Lincoln, 2005) where we asked, What counts as knowledge in early childhood practices? How can we co-construct and make meaning of multiple early childhood realities?

Participants in this study understood that ECEs’ knowledge of young children’s socio-emotional growth was central to their practice. They also acknowledged that supporting children’s socio-emotional behaviours has become complex in their classrooms and that they tended to respond in reactive ways when dealing with issues that require emotional support and guidance, “if a child had a tantrum, I would have just dealt with it [and said] ‘Okay, we can’t do this; there are other people here.” Similar to previous research (Gilliam, 2005; Hemmeter et al., 2021; Powell et al., 2007; Raver, 2002; Swalwell & McLean, 2021), ECEs participating in this investigation agreed about the little impact of their socio-emotional practices and recognized certain levels of professional anxiety when dealing with the complexity of children’s socio-emotional behaviours, “[it was like having] a little anxious feeling.”

Even though curriculum frameworks are developed under the epistemological assumption of professional interpretation, our study shows that broad curriculum goals, which in most cases are decided by policymakers, could become vague when ECEs must deal with specific situations and classroom dynamics. Our participants made this issue explicit and manifested that the curriculum framework approach and its narrative did not assist them during specific teaching moments.

Searching for cause-and-effect relationships and interpreting facts through observations distinguishes positivism (Fadhel, 2002). Positivism is grounded on the idea that we can come to know facts about the world through our experiences. It argues that systemizing these experiences and our empirical analysis permits us to generalize relationships and what counts as true (DeCarlo et al., 2021; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Overall, our analysis indicates that ECEs’ opportunities to collect and observe facts that showed improvement in class dynamics and children’s behaviours resulted in partially accepting the positivist methods underlying the PM. This desire for objectivity, stability, and rationality (Moss, 2016) resembled E. Wood and Hedges (2016) arguments about how “structured pedagogic approaches and assessment regimes may appear to be safer options” (p. 394) for educators working within the complex contexts of early childhood practices. DeCarlo et al. (2021) have pointed out that paradigm changes tend to occur when a problem cannot be solved within existing paradigm views. Although participants in this study did not fully compel a paradigm shift, they did engage in a back-and-forth process that transitioned from no consensus to acceptance of the PM positivist epistemological views, particularly when they realized that “it was working.” Research has indicated that a radical change occurs when new paradigmatic lenses become dominant and supplant old ones (Schneider, 2009; as cited in DeCarlo et al., 2021). On the contrary, our cross-case analysis shows how participants argued for paradigmatic coexistence and acknowledged an overlapping of ideas in consistent competition (DeCarlo et al., 2021) between theoretical and practical constraints. An example of how participants embraced coexistence was the manifested discomfort with unpredictability. Unpredictability and navigating the fluidity of the unknown support current post-developmental early childhood pedagogies that propose thinking with indeterminacy and challenge a goal-driven education (Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2014; Pacini-Ketchabaw & Pence, 2005; Vintimilla & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2020). Our data shows how, despite participants’ advocacy for the fluidity of emergent learning, they also urged for what they describe as a predictable pedagogy that could put them “ahead” of the child and support socio-emotional growth intentionally. As discussed in this paper, ECEs’ previous knowledge about the value of emergent pedagogy and holistic approaches to teaching and learning was not abandoned but instead strategically considered to provide a multidimensional approach and a “change in perspective.” Realizing that they could become agents of this change became a source of empowerment and professional growth, “it’s not that you did it wrong, but what can we do differently.” This process of professional growth through discomfort can be further understood through Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Within the structured yet collaborative setting of the focus groups and the PM implementation, educators were supported in engaging with unfamiliar ideas that extended beyond their existing comfort zones. The presence of coaches and peers acted as scaffolding, enabling participants to experiment, reflect, and internalize new ways of thinking. Likewise, Rogoff’s (2003) notion of guided participation helps explain how these paradigm tensions were navigated not individually, but through socially mediated dialogue, where knowledge was jointly constructed in practice-rich contexts.

Grounded in interpretivism, sociocultural theorists reject the idea of generality. Hence, the theoretical conception about predetermined stages guiding development, similar to the PM approach, is rejected by sociocultural theorists who consider this a “deficit model that only serves to segregate children and individuals” (Rogoff, 2003, p. 8). Key to the interpretive perspective is also the idea that social context and interactions frame our realities (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Sided within interpretative views and the belief that people’s experiences and previous knowledge matter Vygotsky’s (1978), we navigated focus groups recognizing participants’ knowledge and perceptions of their realities, even if they challenged our researcher’s assumptions. Our reflective process took a keen interest in how ECEs and coaches came to socially agree or disagree while engaging in profound reflection and professional learning processes. Further, ECEs’ participation in facilitated focus groups enabled shared sense-making and gradual integration of conflicting paradigms, rather than abrupt shifts or binary choices. Driven by sociocultural ideas (Vygotsky, 1978; Rogoff, 2003), we contend that to understand participants’ thinking, we must also understand the sociocultural contexts where thinking takes place. The complex and diverse contextual scenarios of Canadian early childhood practices, the scarce opportunities for professional development about socio-emotional guidance, and the strong presence of an early curriculum framework that guided provincial practices where the study took place were always at the core of our interpretation processes.

As previously stated, professional development for educators tends to be framed within a particular philosophical paradigm (OECD, 2021) that recognizes one way of seeing the world and one philosophical truth. On the contrary, our study took place within a unique professional development context where participants explored individually and collectively opposite theoretical and practical approaches situated within opposite educational paradigms. Collective comparisons of conflicted views provided a professional alternative for engaging in problematic conversations and asking questions about early childhood practices’ nature, context, and narratives. In the search for answers and the desire for coexistence, meaning about previous and new professional practices were not discovered, but instead socially constructed (Rogoff, 2003), “More knowledge is power; we have more knowledge.” We argued that the conflicting experience of deconstructing and debating interpretivist and positivist tensions permitted in-depth professional development learning. Tensions became explicit; as previously indicated in this paper, they were sometimes unsettling. Rogoff (2003) explained that for change and learning to happen, it is necessary to feel dissatisfaction with current understandings (p. 142). This idea of dissatisfaction implies a disruption and a state of paradigm crisis (DeCarlo et al., 2021) that an individual may experience about current knowledge, “I have become more vulnerable because I accept what was wrong with my practice.” Our study provides evidence about how professional development learning became meaningful at the intersection of participants’ paradigm dissatisfactions. Most importantly, participants’ individual and collective conflicted experiences with the professional development events remained at the core of their professional learning opportunities.

Significant to our study was also the possibility to expand professional development over time. The data indicates how learning happened in a continuous and dynamic pathway that permitted the initial meaning-making process to lead into more complex ones, “I look forward to going over my week and everything that happened and setting that growth mindset.” As Vygotsky (1978) stressed, authentic learning “proceeds in a spiral, passing through the same point many times, while advancing to a higher level” (p. 56).

6. Limitations and Future Research

While this study offers valuable insights into the interplay between philosophical paradigms in early childhood professional development, several contextual limitations should be considered. The findings are based on a small, localized sample of ECEs and coaches within one Canadian province and may not fully reflect the diversity of experiences in other regions or professional development contexts. In addition, participant turnover during the study may have influenced the continuity of voices across the three action research cycles.

Future research will build on the three cycles of data already collected and focus on further investigating the reasons behind participant attrition. Understanding why some ECEs and coaches left the program may shed light on additional structural or contextual factors influencing engagement, learning, and professional growth within paradigm-diverse initiatives. Also, future research could address those limitations above through broader, comparative studies across multiple provinces or national contexts to examine how differing curriculum frameworks and professional development systems shape paradigm interactions. Longitudinal designs or mixed-methods approaches—including quantitative components that measure shifts in practice or professional beliefs—could also provide more robust evidence of impact.

7. Conclusions

This study has shown how a group of ECEs and their educational coaches engaged in professional development while navigating different philosophical paradigms. The investigation of the dynamic interplay between interpretivist and positivist paradigms in early childhood professional development revealed how contrasting views served as a source of discussion, engagement, and self-reflection while participants searched for a trustworthy narrative that could serve their practices. Our study sheds light on how, while participants got immersed in the discomfort of the unfamiliar, what was known became questioned but also valued. ECEs and coaches’ unique experiences and perceptions were not replaced; instead, they remained at the core of the professional discussions. While these philosophical differences could be discussed in abstract terms, participants repeatedly emphasized that they were rooted in the realities of their daily work. These theoretical differences were not abstract—they manifested in everyday professional practice. For instance, educators were encouraged by the curriculum framework to interpret children’s behaviour within a relational and cultural context, while the PM required them to apply standardized behaviour checklists and follow scripted plans. As a result, ECEs often found themselves navigating tensions between professional judgment and procedural compliance, between contextual responsiveness and fidelity to program design.

As socio-cultural researchers, we reject the idea of generality and argue that there is no one way of doing early childhood, nor is it possible to convey one way of doing professional development for those working in the field. What counts as truth varies; one-way discourse may be temporary or permanent. Hence, professional development should provide space for challenging and questioning rather than replicating the status quo. One-way truth in early childhood professional development also raises concerns about professional displacement and identity. In this study, learning and professional development happened through confronting tensions and through the examination of claims of truth. Trading paradigms’ discourses was not an option, and it was the professionals who decided what counted as knowledge in early childhood practices. Engagement happened in the collective of the focus groups, providing a sense of professional identity, belonging, and empowerment.

This study happened within unique contextual situations as it expanded professional development over time, permitting iterative cycles of learning and growth. We recognize that this scenario could also imply a study’s limitation as it is not a common approach to professional development training. We also acknowledge that the investigation represents the responses from a small sample of educators who live in Canada. Readers from elsewhere must read this research with their context in mind to determine if the results might apply to their practices.

To support educators navigating diverse pedagogical frameworks, this study highlights the importance of designing professional development models that are flexible, responsive, and contextually grounded. Rather than prescribing singular approaches, PDPs’ initiatives should create space for reflection, dialogue, and local adaptation—acknowledging that educators bring varied epistemologies, values, and classroom realities to their professional growth. Given the increasing focus and discussions about early childhood professional development (Arias de Sanchez et al., 2021; Beach et al., 2023; Keary et al., 2023; Menon et al., 2024; Langford & Richardson, 2019), we must ask, how can professional development create spaces that spark dialogue beyond a one-way approach? How can we reimagine professional development that creates spaces for challenging the situated concerns early childhood communities are experiencing? What possibilities emerge when educators are immersed in the discomfort of the unfamiliar?

To move beyond reactive approaches to paradigm tensions, future PDPs’ initiatives should be intentionally designed to support epistemological dialogue and integration. Policymakers and program designers can consider embedding structured opportunities for reflective practice and critical inquiry into PDP models—such as ongoing focus groups, collaborative inquiry cycles, and facilitated cross-paradigm discussions. These spaces should position educators not only as implementers of prescribed tools but as active co-constructors of knowledge who can bring interpretive insights into dialogue with evidence-based frameworks. Additionally, training materials and implementation guidelines should explicitly acknowledge the existence of multiple paradigms, and offer flexible, context-sensitive strategies that allow educators to adapt tools while maintaining core values from both perspectives. Proactively addressing these tensions—rather than allowing them to surface only during implementation—may contribute to more sustainable, reflective, and empowering professional learning environments.