In-service professional development to enhance interaction – staffs’ reflections, experiences and skills

ABSTRACT This article analyses ECEC staffs’ perspectives on the in-service professional development (PD) process aimed at improving the quality of interaction in ECEC, inspired by the Caregiver Interaction Profile (CIP) scales. The study draws on theories and research on PD and ECEC quality and falls within a pragmatic paradigm, using qualitative individual interviews, thematic analyses and external observations. Main findings: staff found the process highly useful, their motivation increased during the process, they experienced improved autonomy, self-confidence and well-being and became more conscious about different interactional aspects. Staff experienced changes in practice regarding three interactional aspects of the CIP scales, sensitive responsiveness, respect for autonomy and verbal communication. Staffs’ reflections are compared to their growth in interaction skills. The findings suggest that the PD process enhanced staffs’ interaction competence although significant change only was found for verbal communication three months after the PD process. Implications for practice, limitations and further research are considered.


Introduction
Staffs' (e.g.teachers and assistants) professional development (PD) is viewed as crucial for quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC), particularly regarding process quality (staff-child and child-child interactions) and children's learning opportunities (OECD 2018;Vandell et al. 2010).Interactions between staff and children are viewed as the 'primary engines of development' (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006, 797-798).However, recent research shows staff-child interaction quality at a moderate level in many countries (Vermeer et al. 2016), including Norway, where the current study is conducted.Bjørnestad and Os (2018) found quality at a moderate level in toddler groups measured with Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scales.In another study using Caregiver Interaction Profile (CIP) scales, Bjørnestad et al. (2020) found that the quality of staffs' interaction skills varied highly with regard to the type of interaction, and that average quality scores were within moderate or adequate-to-good level for interactions considered as basic (sensitive responsiveness, respect for autonomy and structuring and limit setting), but mostly at inadequate level for interactions considered as educational (verbal communication, developmental stimulation and fostering positive peer interactions).Also, Bjørnestad et al. (2020) found that ECEC teachers' interaction skills were significantly higher than the assistants' with regard to respect for autonomy, verbal communication and developmental stimulation, but the differences were small.Since nine out of 10 children between the age of 1 and 5 are enrolled in ECEC full-time (40 h or more each week; Monday to Friday) (SSB 2021), it is important to focus on how staff-child interaction can be improved through PD.
High-quality ECEC is high up on the political agenda in Norway, and funding for inservice or workplace-based PD for all staff is increased through several programmes (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2018).ECEC institutions are viewed as learning organisations 'in which all staff must reflect on professional and ethical issues, keep up to date … , oversee the relationships between children in groups, between children and staff … ' (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2017, 15).Joint reflection is viewed as necessary to enhance the quality.
Several recent in-service PDs are based on instruments considered valid and reliable to assess the quality of interactions.The CLassroom Assessment Scoring System, Manual Pre-K (CLASS Pre-K; Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre 2013) developed in the U.S. to assess teacher-child interaction quality, has been widely used for in-service PD, mostly in the U.S. and also in Europe (Egert, Dederer, and Fukkink 2020).The Caregiver Interaction Profile (CIP) scales (Helmerhorst et al. 2014), developed in The Netherlands to assess individual caregiver's interaction skills, have also been used as the basis for inservice PD, but mainly in The Netherlands and Bangladesh so far (cf.Helmerhorst et al. 2017Helmerhorst et al. , 2021)).CLASS and CIP focus on two key interaction domains assumed to be important for children's development; emotional supportive/basic (care) interactions and instructional/educational interactions.The main difference between them is that CLASS focuses on classroom quality and teacher-child interactions aiming to promote children's language and cognitive development in line with a 'school-readiness' approach (cf.La Paro, Hamre, and Pianta 2012), whereas CIP focuses on individual caregiver's interaction skills and interactions aiming to promote children's well-being and allround development (Helmerhorst et al. 2014).Evertsen, Størksen, and Kucirkova (2022) explored educational professionals' perceptions of CLASS after using CLASS as the basis for in-service PD in Norway and found that professionals were very satisfied with CLASS as a structure for individual and collective learning.Professionals experienced becoming more confident in their job, more aware of children's signals and improved their stimulation of children's language.Buøen et al. (2021) who implemented and examined the effect of a 10-month inservice PD model in Norwegian toddler classrooms, based on CLASS Toddler (La Paro, Hamre, and Pianta 2012), also found significantly higher interaction quality on both CLASS domains, Emotional and Behavioral Support (EBS) and Engaged Support for Learning (ESL) after the training and the largest effect on ESL.They found significant effects of the training already halfway into the programme.
The Caregiver Interaction Profile (CIP) scales, which form the frame of content in the PD initiative in the current study, have been used for in-service PD in The Netherlands and Bangladesh, with positive results (Helmerhorst et al. 2017(Helmerhorst et al. , 2021;;Jilink, Fukkink, and Huijbregts 2018;Werner et al. 2018).Helmerhorst et al. (2017) found a significant training effect on six interaction skills after a 5-week video feedback in-service training based on CIP in Dutch childcare.Three months after the post-test, the effect was still there for sensitive responsiveness, respect for autonomy, verbal communication and fostering positive peer interactions.Jilink, Fukkink, and Huijbregts (2018) found that a 16-week video feedback training in Dutch childcare based on CIP increased caregivers' fostering of positive peer interactions, while a 10-month programme without video feedback increased caregivers' verbal communication and developmental stimulation.
CIP is considered valid to assess interaction quality in ECEC (Helmerhorst et al. 2014).While we are aware that it is difficult to transfer one instrument developed in one context to another context (cf.Ishimine and Tayler 2014), the Dutch childcare context and the Norwegian ECEC context share characteristics which makes it interesting to look to The Netherlands (Johansson 2020).CIP is also found stable and applicable to assess interaction quality in Norwegian ECEC (Bjørnestad et al. 2020).Even though research has found CIP applicable to the Norwegian ECEC context, we cannot assume that staff in the Norwegian ECEC find PD initiatives inspired by CIP meaningful.Whether staff find a PD initiative meaningful or useful will also most likely influence their motivation for PD (Day 2017;Guskey 2002).
The current study has, for the first time, piloted an in-service PD process in a Norwegian context, based on CIP.The main aim was to explore and share staffs' reflections and perspectives on the PD process and examine possible links between their perspectives and progress in observed interaction skills.The research questions are (1) How do staff conceive of and experience the PD initiative?(2) How does the PD initiative influence their interaction with children?

Professional development and quality in ECEC
PD can be defined as systematic efforts to ensure that staff are adequately qualified to work with children and their families, and such efforts should be designed to reinforce and enhance staffs' knowledge, skills, attitudes, consciousness and practices to achieve high-quality learning experiences for children in ECEC (Buysse, Winton, and Rous 2009;Sheridan et al. 2009).'In-service PD' can be understood as systematic efforts offered to all staff working in ECEC, onsite or offsite (Egert, Fukkink, and Eckhardt 2018) or as authentic professional learning (Webster-Wright 2009).
Within the 'structure→process→outcome' quality paradigm, effective PD (understood as structural quality indicators) should enhance staffs' or classroom' interaction (identified as process quality indicators) and influence positive on children's functioning (Brunsek et al. 2020, 219).Three components are highlighted with regard to PD in ECEC; who (characteristics and organisational contexts of participants and the learners), what (knowledge, attitudes or skills in focus) and how (approaches and methods used to support learning) (Buysse, Winton, and Rous 2009).To better understand the mechanisms by which PD affects ECEC staff, … 'researchers are beginning to delve into these components' (Brunsek et al. 2020, 219).In this study we focus most on what and how.
Meta-analyses of PD in ECEC revealed that coaching linked to individual practice and feedback in workplace settings and group training can be effective for PD aimed at enhancing the quality of interaction (Egert, Fukkink, and Eckhardt 2018;Isner et al. 2011;Werner et al. 2016;Zaslow et al. 2010).Coaching can include judgement, feedback, guidance and reflection (Lejonberg and Tiplic 2016) and video feedback is found to be particularly effective for improving staff-child interactions (Eurofond 2015).
Video feedback building on the concept of the reflective practitioner (Schön 1983) allows for questioning and challenging present knowledge, attitudes and skills, and has been used for PD in many professions where staffs' communicative and interactive skills are important (Fukkink, Huijbregts, and Todd 2015).Unique for videos is that they allow participants to 'step back' and look at themselves 'from a distance', something that helps them reflect on their situations or their own actions (Fukkink, Trienekens, and Kramer 2011;Tripp and Rich 2012).When videos are used in small groups, they allow participants to see the same situations and/or actions, something that enables all to relate, support and give constructive feedback to each other (Tripp and Rich 2012) and can be a strong catalyst for PD (Fukkink, Huijbregts, and Todd 2015;Tripp and Rich 2012).Reflective practice is considered a key component for improving teacher quality and changing practice (Schön 1987;Tripp andRich 2012), andSchön (1983) argues that reflection should involve more than understanding a situation, it should also lead to action.However, fewer studies have so far focused on how reflection can be practised among ECEC staff, compared to studies focusing on reflection among teachers and pre-service teachers (Cherrington 2018).

Current study
The current study is part of the national longitudinal study 'Better provision for Norway's children in ECEC' [BePro] where one objective was to investigate process quality, including staff-child interaction, in Norwegian ECEC.CIP was translated into Norwegian in close collaboration with the original Dutch developers.The current study is further part of an in-depth study focusing on the quality of interaction in Norwegian ECEC (see also Baustad and Bjørnestad 2020;Baustad, Rønning, and Bjørnestad 2018) and was designed as a pilot project to study if CIP could inspire in-service PD aimed at increasing interaction quality in the Norwegian context.

Participants
Staff were recruited from ECEC institutions in a region in Norway already participating in BePro.Staff were sampled if all staff working with a group of children agreed to participate.This resulted in a sample of 22 staff working with seven groups of children in two public ECEC institutions; four groups with children aged 1-3 and three groups with children aged 3-5.Due to different circumstances, three participants withdrew their consent, so the study is based on data from 19 staff members.Most participants were female (95%), all had a full-time position at the institution and worked 5 days each week with the same child group, and had worked in ECEC for an average of 13 years.58% had a Bachelor's degree in ECEC and 21% held certificates as child and youth workers (upper secondary education).Group sizes were in line with what is common in Norway; three staff members (including a qualified teacher) working with approx.10 children under the age of three or 20 children above the age of three.

Procedures
The goal of the process was to enhance staffs' interaction competencies, and the six interactional key aspects in CIP (Helmerhorst et al. 2014) formed the analytical framework for the quality of interaction.Sensitive responsiveness concerns caregivers' recognition of children's emotional and physical needs and their response to children's signals.
Respect for autonomy focuses on how the caregivers meet children's intentions or respect their perspectives.Structuring and limit setting refers to how caregivers prepare children for a situation, how they structure a situation and how they guide children's behaviour.Verbal communication concerns both quantitative and qualitative aspects of caregivers' verbal communication with children.Developmental stimulation relates to how caregivers promote children's broad development.Fostering positive peer interaction focuses on caregivers' promotion and guidance of positive interactions between children (Baustad and Bjørnestad 2020;Baustad, Rønning, and Bjørnestad 2018;Helmerhorst et al. 2014).The first three are considered basic interactions, while the last three are educational interactions.
The pilot took place during one term (from September 2016 to December 2016/ January 2017) and consisted of one 3-hour group session with all staff from each of the two institutions (including managers) and three 1 ½-hour small group sessions with ECEC teachers, childcare-and youth workers and/or assistants who worked together in teams with a child group.The manager of the institution was also invited to the small group sessions.Between the sessions (on average three weeks), staff were asked to practise the interaction aspects in focus.The schedule for the sessions and the process was planned together with the staff due to organisational and personal issues (individual planning time for teachers, team meetings, personal meetings, vacation, etc.), and aimed at preventing extra workload.Flexibility was offered for the scheduled sessions (due to sick leave etc.) to include all staff in all sessions.

Set-up
The set-up was inspired by CIP in-service training developed by Helmerhorst et al. (2017), adjusted to the Norwegian ECEC context with a focus on joint reflection (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2017).During the first group session a general introduction to the training was given, including the conceptual framework and theoretical background of the CIP aspects, the goal of the PD and the different components included.This included gaining new knowledge, observing and applying new knowledge to real situations, being videoed, engaging in shared reviews of videos, receiving individual feedback in groups and taking part in individual and shared reflections.The six interaction aspects were presented and discussed.After this, sensitive responsivity and respect for autonomy were discussed in-depth by viewing three video excerpts showing moderate-to-high quality of a model teacher interacting with a group of children during routine situations and free play.Staff also received written descriptions of high-quality interactions for sensitive responsivity and respect for autonomy.At the end of the session, they were asked to focus on sensitive responsivity and respect for autonomy in their interaction with the children before the next session (three weeks later).One to three days before the next session all staff were videoed in one or two situations, and short excerpts were chosen by the researcher for shared review, individualised feedback and reflection.During this part of the training, staff member in 'focus' was asked to (1) comment on the situation (what happened), ( 2) describe what went well (positive focus) regarding sensitive responsivity and respect for autonomy, (3) reflect on how this influenced the children involved and (4) reflect on what could have been done differently to meet children's needs and interests.Colleagues and researchers gave feedback and reflected on the situation, following stages 2-4.Finally, all staff participated in a shared reflection phase led by the researcher.All staff members were in focus in all group sessions.The set-up was identical for all sessions and practice periods, but the content changed to the other four aspects of CIP.

Individual interviews
To capture staffs' reflections and experiences, open-ended, individual interviews employing the principles of hierarchical focussing (Tomlinson 1989) were conducted.Content and questions vary from the more general to the more specific, and staff were asked to reflect on pre-defined topics.If needed, follow-up questions were used to stimulate staff to articulate their experiences.See Appendix.Using a hierarchical interview approach compares results across different groups of respondents (see also Baustad, Rønning, and Bjørnestad 2018).The interviews were audio-recorded, lasted between 30 and 40 min and were conducted in a separate room and were transcribed for analysis.

Video observations
Approximately two weeks before the PD process started and three months after, all participants were videoed during their interactions with children in everyday activities and routine situations.The Norwegian CIP manual was later used to assess and rate individual staff's interaction skills on a single seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = moderate/low, 4 = moderate, 5 = moderate/high, 6 = high and 7 = very high) on 10 min video episodes during free play, mealtimes and transitions (30 min in total).The CIP manual consists of six caregiver interactive skills described as high (6,7), moderate (3,4,5) and low (1,2).The manual provides a thorough description for each of the scale points (1-7).The quality is considered as 'adequate-togood' with scores of 4,5 and higher, as 'moderate' with scores between 3,5 and 4,5 and as 'inadequate' with scores below 3,5 (Baustad and Bjørnestad 2020;Helmerhorst et al. 2021).Both authors who rated staff's interaction skills were adequately trained and certified by the original Dutch developers of CIP.To complete the training it was required to reach a score within-1-point agreement of 80% compared to the expert score for five videos.For half of the videos blind rating was employed (author2), while the other half were rated by the researcher (author1) who also video-filmed the staff.Interrater reliability was calculated for 10% of the videos; the absolute agreement was 83% and within 1-point agreement 98% (see also Baustad and Bjørnestad 2020 for the training and the interrater reliability).

Analysis
Thematic content analysis was employed (Bratberg 2017;Edwards 2010) to analyse the interview transcripts.Transcripts were read several times by the first author, searching for thematic segments of texts and fine-grained meaning units (Bratberg 2017;Edwards 2010) about staffs' positive and negative experiences.During the analysis, three broad areas emerged, supported by theoretical concepts and research questions.To reduce bias, the second author coded a random sample of the transcribed interviews independently.Only a few deviations were found and discussed, and the authors agreed on three main categories: (1) Well-being, confidence (2) consciousness and attitudes/knowledge (3) behaviour and practice.Both authors then searched independently for immediate responses in line with CIP interaction aspects.Deviations were discussed and themes were agreed upon.Staffs' immediate responses on 'good relationships and interactions' were linked to CIP to see how conscious they were about different interaction quality aspects.Interpretations and categorisations were based on our understanding of the empirical data and theoretical perspectives, combining an inductive and deductive approach.During the analysis we searched for variations in staffs' responses due to their education, years of experience from ECEC and the age of the children in their groups.Since very little variation was found, data are presented for the full sample using the terms Teachers and Assistants.
For the quantitative analysis of video observations, each of the six CIP scales was tested for deviation from a normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.Teachers' and assistants' profiles were pooled before the analysis due to the low sample size.Pre-and post-distributions were tested separately.Pre-and post-distributions which did not deviate significantly from normal were then tested by the Student's paired t-test.Pre-and post-distributions which deviated significantly from normal were tested by the non-parametric rank test Mann-Whitney U-test.P-values < 0.05 are considered significant, and the p-values are two-tailed.

Ethical considerations
The study follows ethical standards and privacy policies approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Service and the Norwegian Data Protection Authority.Written consent was collected from staff and parents, who were informed about their rights to withdraw their consent at any time, without giving any reason.Both staffs' and children's well-being and confidentiality were foregrounded during data collection and training sessions.Data are anonymised in line with ethical standards and privacy policies.

Staffs' well-being and self-confidence
All staff responded that it was meaningful and useful in participating in the group sessions, watching videos, receiving individual video feedback and participating in joint reflection.Using videos was a specific moderator: 'It was exiting, and gave me new ways of seeing things and it was a nice way to analyse practice … I was also able to transform feedback to practice' (Teacher8).The majority (14 out of 19), both ECEC teachers' and assistants', responded immediately that their motivation had been high during the process, and that their motivation and confidence increased during the process.Even though some of them were anxious about being videoed, which was new to all, they found participation meaningful: It was very exciting to participate in the program … I was a little worried about the filming, but it became better after a while.During the process I felt how incredibly wonderful it was to participate, and to become more conscious.(Assistant 2) The process led to an increased feeling of autonomy and self-confidence and they also found speaking in front of colleagues less risky: In the past I was afraid to make a fool of myself in front of the others, now I have become tougher and it no longer bothers me that other adults are together with me during for instance the assembly.(Assistant 1) They also highlighted the positive effects of learning together: 'We have learned from each other, we have become more confident with each other, we dare to speak out and ask questions, and are more direct with each other' (Assistant 7).

Barriers
There were fewer responses to barriers or negative experiences.A minority (5 out of 19), both ECEC teachers' and assistants' responded that they had been less motivated than expected.They linked it to practical and organisational issues, such as lack of staff, lack of time, own sickness or other private challenges which made it difficult for them to find time and energy to try out things in practice.Three respondents linked it also to watching themselves on videos.

Staffs' consciousness, attitudes and knowledge
All staff found CIP relevant.Although the labels of the interaction aspects were new to them, they recognised all as relevant and highly important to their work.The aspects provided staff with a new perspective on the quality of interaction: 'Some of the words are new, and to focus on it is new, it is a new way to think about it [quality of interaction], and to articulate it' (Teacher 2).Using the CIP aspects helped them clarify important parts of their work: 'CIP has clarified what we actually did before now, they have clarified it even more and it is a helpful tool' (Teacher 6) and also increased their feeling of autonomy: ' [CIP] underlines that what we are doing is important' (Teacher10).What staff recognised as relevant and important interaction aspects can further be illuminated by staffs' immediate responses to 'good relationships and interactions'.See Table 1.

Staffs' behaviour and skills
Most staff (16 out of 19) believed that the process influenced positively their behaviour, particularly related to communicating with children.They became more active, played more, talked differently, used more words and concepts, explained more and expanded children's talk.I explain what I am doing, and I maybe ask children more.I use the language more for the children to learn more' (Assistant 7).While some said that they had changed how they talked with children during play, others said that they had changed how they talked with children during mealtimes.Most staff believed also they had become more attentive, sensitive and responsive; they were more together with children, and saw and listened more to them, compared to before.'I feel I have got better contact with some of the children than I had earlier.I have used more time with the children, and CIP has been in the front when I am together with the children' (Assistant 3).They believed also that the process changed them collectively, as how they thought and behaved as a team, something that subsequently could lead to better interactional experiences for children (Teacher 7).
In addition to staffs' reflections and perspectives on the process, descriptive statistics for pre-and post-observations for each of the six interaction skills derived from CIP are shown in Table 2.
Only one of the six interaction skills, verbal communication turned out to be significantly improved in the post-test (p = <.001).A non-significant trend for improvement was found for structuring and limit setting (p = 0.070).The highest average score was for structuring and limit setting (basic), whereas the lowest average score was for fostering positive peer interactions (educational).

Discussion
The focus of this study was to investigate how staff conceived of and experienced a piloted in-service PD process, and how it influenced their interaction with children.
The findings suggest that staff (both ECEC teachers and assistants) conceived the PD process as both important and interesting.With regard to the support for learning, the majority appreciated reviewing videos together, to receive and give individual video feedback and participate in shared reflection (Fukkink, Trienekens, and Kramer 2011;Tripp and Rich 2012).Staff found it influential to receive both positive feedback and guidance related to what could have been done alternatively, and experienced video as a helpful tool for dialogue and reflection-on-action (Fukkink, Huijbregts, and Todd 2015;Schön 1983).Using CIP as a framework helped also staff narrow down the focus, feedback and reflection (Fukkink, Huijbregts, and Todd 2015).
The process was related to staffs' own practices (Webster-Wright 2009) and staff experienced that focus and the content were in line with their interests, values and goals, something considered crucial for PD (Schachter, Gerde, and Hatton-Bowers 2019).While Evertsen, Størksen, and Kucirkova (2022) found that professionals were very positive to CLASS, staff in this study was very positive to CIP.Staff readily related the six interactional aspects to their own practices and felt that CIP was both meaningful and useful.While teachers are known to be quite pragmatic (Guskey 2002) and prefer to learn something they can relate to or use in own practice, this was most likely the case also for staff in this study.In line with Evertsen, Størksen, and Kucirkova (2022) staff seemed to obtain a new common, professional language through using CIP as a basis for feedback and reflection, something that led to a common understanding of the quality of interaction and strengthened them as teams (Schachter, Gerde, and Hatton-Bowers 2019).A new idea, in terms of CIP, seemed to contribute to a new focus in their reflections (Schön 1983) and increased well-being and self-confidence were considered as strong factors for staffs' professional identity, or beliefs and attitudes (Day 2017).
While professionals in the study of Evertsen, Størksen, and Kucirkova (2022) reflected that they became more aware of children's signals, and improved their stimulation of children's language, staff in this study reported similar outcomes.During the interviews staff reflected particularly on how they changed their communication with the children, became more sensitive and responsive together with children and increased their focus on children's initiatives.This supports Helmerhorst et al. (2021) who suggest that staff need to be tuned in to children and be sensitive, responsive and respectful to receive high scores for verbal communication.Higher significant average scores for verbal communication after the project compared with staffs' responses during the interviews and their average high scores for sensitive responsiveness, respect for autonomy and structuring and limit setting (both before and after) suggest that they are closely related to each other, particularly after staff became more aware of this.Since verbal communication seems to be closely related to staffs' sensitivity and respect for children, the finding might also reflect the Norwegian (Nordic) ECEC tradition (Wagner and Einarsdottir 2006) where care, warm relationships and children's right to participate have been valued more than educational aspects.That staff both experienced growth related to communication and scored significantly higher on verbal communication is an interesting and positive finding, especially because previous studies in Norway suggest that staff face challenges with using stimulating language during routines and free play (Bjørnestad et al. 2020;Karlsen and Lekhal 2019;Klette, Drugli, and Aandahl 2018).Finding a way to strengthen staffs' verbal communication with children is considered important in the Norwegian context.
Little attention to, and low average scores on developmental stimulation and fostering positive peer interaction can also be related to the Norwegian ECEC tradition, where free play has been valued above the education of children (Johansson 2020).On the other side, low attention to, and low average scores on developmental stimulation do not mean that staff not provided any developmental stimulation to children.Instead, it might indicate that staff missed 'teachable moments' or struggled with promoting appropriate developmental stimulations (see also Helmerhorst et al. 2021).

Conclusion
Staff conceived of and experienced the PD process as highly relevant with regard to both the content and the support for learning.This is interesting since training framed by CIP, using video feedback, mainly have taken place between a trainee and a trainer, in one-toone sessions (Helmerhorst et al. 2017;Jilink, Fukkink, and Huijbregts 2018;Werner et al. 2018).Another conclusion is that the process led to significantly higher interaction quality with regard to staffs' verbal communication.Staff increased though also their awareness about different staff-child interaction aspects and seemed to obtain new perspectives, e.g. about their own roles.This is promising given this short-time PD process.It might be that a longer process would have given other results.However, there is an inconsistency in the field with regard to the duration of effective PD.Werner et al. (2016) suggest that 10 h can be equally effective as 10 h or more, while Egert, Fukkink, and Eckhardt (2018) suggest that 45-60 h can be more effective than both shorter and longer PD.

Limitations of the study
This study has several limitations.The fact that the interviewer and provider of the PD was the same individual, might have had an impact on staffs' responses during the interviews.Staff may have focused on what they believed the interviewer wanted to hear, or they were reluctant to provide negative (or even minimal impact) feedback in this situation.However, that staff knew the interviewer through the project (group sessions and videoing) also made the situation more safe and positive for them, and hopefully led to honest responses.Due to the limited sample it is not possible to generalise from the findings, and data from other participants in Norway might have provided different results.

Implications for practice and further research
Considering the high number of children between 1 and 5 in Norwegian ECEC (nine out of 10) it is important to ensure that their interactional experiences are of high quality.Focusing on developing interactions between staff and children in ECEC should be of interest to all stakeholders in ECEC, especially those involved in in-service PD organised by the government.Future studies could have examined the in-service PD process with a larger sample of participants over a longer time, with more attention on educational interactions.It is also interesting that staff in this study seemed to experience much of the same as the participants in the study by Evertsen, Størksen, and Kucirkova (2022).It can be questioned if it is the instrument, the content, the support for learning or the form of PD (authentic professional learning) which leads to staffs' positive experiences.There is a need for more in-depth analysis.
Usually, I do not talk so much, but I have become more confident in my role, I am more verbal and I am more aware of what I am saying and how I talk with children or how I communicate, for instance during mealtimes.(Teacher 7) 'I have become wiser … I talk more with the children, for example when I change diapers.

Table 1 .
Staff's immediate responses to basic and educational interactions in CIP.A number of staff and responses are in parentheses.Example of responses observed in the data.

Table 2 .
Descriptive and test statistics for pre-and post-observations of the full sample (N = 19).Interaction skills which were normally distributed a were tested using Paired Student's t-test.Interaction skills which were significantly different from normally distribution b were tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test.