Regardless of what your service chooses to implement, as a teacher its very useful for you to know and have an understanding of the differences in Part A and Part B of the Curriculum Framework. Te Ara Māori or Te Ara Whānui.
Early Childhood Educators’ Workplace Well-being
FULL REFERENCE: Jones, C., Hadley, F., Waniganayake, M. & Johnstone, M. (2019). Early childhood educators’ workplace well-being: A case for using self-determination theory to understand and support workplace well-being in early childhood services. NZ International Research in Early Childhood Education Journal. 22(2), pp. 9 – 17.
Log-in to read the full research paper below. Or order a pdf copy of the article from the main NZIRECE Journal page.
ABSTRACT: Current conceptualisations of Early Childhood (EC) educator workplace well-being are problematic due to large gaps in the workplace well-being literature. Gaps include a dearth of research examining healthy well-being, limited qualitative studies to understand the complexity of workplace well-being and a focus on hedonic well-being (happiness at work) without the inclusion of eudaimonic well-being (meaningful work). Moreover, attention in the literature is mainly given to external conditions influencing well-being such as poor pay and working conditions. This article begins with a critique of EC workplace well-being literature and then provides an argument that asserts Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has the potential to provide a more suitable conceptualisation of EC educator well-being. Key principles of both SDT and Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) are provided to highlight the suitability of using SDT to understand and also support the healthy well-being of those working in prior to school settings in the Australian ECEC context.
KEY WORDS: Self-determination theory, well-being, work-place stress, job satisfaction.
INTRODUCTION: Defining early childhood workplace well-being
Defining Early Childhood (EC) Educator workplace well-being is problematic. Well-being is a broad and complex concept and hence difficult to define. The need for a clearer definition of well-being and a greater understanding of how stressors emerge and why certain conditions act as buffers to poor well-being is needed (Corr, Davis, LaMontagne, Waters, & Steele, 2014; Cumming, 2017; Hall-Kenyon, Bullough, MacKay, & Marshall, 2014) to support EC educator wellbeing.
The majority of studies on EC educator well-being have focused on a deficit model of physical and psychological health that has concentrated predominantly on stress and burnout (Cumming, 2017; Hall-Kenyon et.al., 2014). However, there is evidence in the EC well-being literature of the potential benefits of a more positive focus on well-being (through the lens of positive psychology theorists) in terms of understanding and supporting workplace well-being (Hur & Buettner, 2016; Nislin et al., 2015; Nislin et al., 2016).
This is a member/subscriber only post. To access it, please see the message below for details on access and joining.
