Visible Learning in Early Childhood Education – Germany 2025

This report expands upon my presentation 'ECE Germany 2025' by weaving together international evidence, German early childhood education (ECE) studies, and the framework of Visible Learning. The central purpose is to contextualize the role of ECE in building equitable and effective educational systems while connecting findings from meta-analyses, German monitoring systems, and classroom practices.

Visible Learning provides an evidence-informed lens through which we can evaluate the impact of practices, policies, and pedagogies. It is based on a synthesis of over 2,500 meta-analyses relating to the various influences on achievement (Hattie, 2008, 2023).   Overall, the 50 specific meta-analyses on ECE yield an overall effect similar to that for all students (.41 vs .40). What is of much interest, however, is the variation among the influences (See end for an extract from VL: The Sequel, interpreting these effects).

Perhaps the most cited and debated study in early childhood education is the Hart and Risley (1995) research, which coined the phrase the '30 Million Word Gap'. They found that by age three, children from professional families had heard about 30 million more words than children from welfare families. Beyond quantity, the type of language also mattered: affluent homes provided more affirmations and curiosity-expanding talk, while lower-SES homes provided more prohibitions and directive speech.

In the German context, research has similarly shown that social class differences strongly influence the quality of early interactions. The National Study on Education, Care, and Upbringing in Early Childhood (NUBBEK, 2010) highlighted significant differences in the quality of care provision, especially in language-rich interactions. The BiKS longitudinal study (2006 onwards) also demonstrated how early disparities compound across the school years. Low-SES centers were particularly weak in intentional teaching practices. These findings highlight the urgent need for interventions that foster quality interactions across all socioeconomic strata.

One of the persistent challenges in early childhood education is the so-called 'fade-out effect'. This refers to the pattern where academic and cognitive gains made in pre-school diminish over time, often becoming negligible by the end of Grade 3 (Cooper et al., 2010; Durkin et al., 2022).

Fade-out, however, is not inevitable. It is mediated by the continuity of learning environments, the alignment between pre-school and primary curricula, and the instructional quality sustained through the first years of formal schooling. In Germany, where the transition from Kindergarten to Grundschule can be abrupt, this alignment challenge is particularly salient. Counter-strategies include embedding explicit success criteria across phases, ensuring teacher clarity, having longitudinal tracking dashboards of success in early learning, and sustaining high expectations throughout the early years. It is crucial that we counter any fading effects and remain vigilant in our long-term monitoring of students as they transition from ECE to early elementary schooling.  

Play and talk are the two central vehicles of early childhood learning, although we will argue that one is more critical than the other. Gilkerson et al. (2018) demonstrated that conversational turns between 18 and 24 months predict IQ and comprehension skills into adolescence. Similarly, Romeo et al. (2018) found strong neural correlates of conversational exposure, showing that the brain literally wires itself differently depending on early language environments. Coupled with the findings from the 30-million word gap, the three essential core ideas of ECE are language, language, and language.

At around ages 2-4, children begin to develop a theory of mind. This refers to the ability to attribute mental states, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions, to oneself and others. Onishi and Baillargeon (2005) demonstrated that 15-month-old infants can anticipate an actor's actions based on the actor's beliefs, even when those beliefs conflict with reality. This has led researchers to propose a dual-systems account: an early, implicit system evident in infancy that supports sensitivity to others' goals and perceptions, and a later, explicit system that emerges around age four and enables the metacognitive reasoning captured by traditional false-belief tasks.

Longitudinal studies reveal that growth in executive functions—particularly inhibitory control and working memory—predicts advances in Theory of Mind, as children must suppress their own knowledge to reason about another's perspective. At the same time, linguistic scaffolding, such as the use of mental state verbs ("think," "believe," "want"), provides representational tools for reflecting on invisible psychological constructs. These converging strands of evidence position early theory of mind as both a cognitive achievement and a socially mediated skill, foundational to later competencies in empathy, moral reasoning, and cooperative problem solving. Without this early development of a theory of mind, children are left behind by their peers, have difficulties in executive processing, working with others, and making sense of their world.  

Language development is critical for the emergence of theory of mind because it provides children with the conceptual and representational tools to think and talk about mental states. Mental states such as "beliefs," "thoughts," "hopes," and "desires" are not directly observable. Without a linguistic framework, children struggle to distinguish between what they know themselves and what others may or may not know. Numerous studies have consistently demonstrated that children's exposure to mental state language—words such as think, know, want, and remember—predicts earlier and more accurate performance on false-belief tasks. When adults in ECE settings frequently discuss feelings, intentions, and perspectives in everyday interactions, it helps children construct an explicit understanding that minds can represent reality in different ways. This scaffolding, often referred to as "mental state talk," provides children with symbolic labels and syntactic structures (e.g., complement clauses, such as "She thinks it's in the box") that enable them to represent multiple perspectives simultaneously.

For German educators, the implication is clear: intentional and positive talk matters. ECE professionals must go beyond directive and corrective speech to create authentic conversational feedback loops, attend to helping children make sense of their world and of the 'other',  and feel safe to explore that which they do not know or understand. The role of dialogic reading, storytelling, and curiosity-expanding questions is critical in ensuring that play is not only joyful but cognitively enriching. Play is a mechanism, and can be a powerful mechanism, but it is the opportunity to engage in language—hearing new language, exploring their own grasp of language, and stretching into unfamiliar linguistic and conceptual territory—that transforms play into a catalyst for theory-building, perspective-taking, and the development of higher-order thinking.

Seven Big Ideas for effective ECE emerge from the synthesis of evidence: 

1. Co-evaluators of learning: When children and educators jointly evaluate progress, the effect size exceeds (d = 1.3). Young learners become aware of their progress, which fuels motivation and resilience.
2. High expectations: When educators communicate that all children can achieve at the highest levels, outcomes are significantly improved (d = 0.90). This challenges deficit thinking, especially with low-SES and immigrant families in Germany.
3. Explicit success criteria: Children learn more when they know what mastery looks like (d = 0.77). This requires child-friendly language and visual anchors.
4. Appropriate challenge: Too easy leads to boredom, too hard leads to disengagement. The 'Goldilocks principle' embodies this balance (d = 0.74).
5. Errors as opportunities: When mistakes are reframed as learning moments, learners develop perseverance (d = 0.72).
6. Feedback-seeking educators: Professionals who seek and respond to feedback about their impact foster continuous improvement (d = 0.72).
7. Balance of surface and deep learning: Early years classrooms need both foundational skills (surface) and conceptual exploration (deep), with opportunities for transfer (d = 0.69)
    

High-quality ECE is inherently collaborative. This involves at least four partnership domains (instruction, assessment, communication, leadership) and five professional roles (general educators, special educators, para-professionals, specialists, and families). 

ECE educators are responsible for whole-class instruction, but they must collaborate with specialists to differentiate instruction. Special educators design adaptations and coordinate supports. Para-professionals often provide direct assistance, while specialists integrate cross-disciplinary knowledge (such as music and language therapy). Families, framed as first learners (and not first teachers; Hattie & Hattie, 2023) are co-constructors of learning environments.

Teacher clarity (d = 0.85) is one of the strongest predictors of student success. Clarity emerges when teachers and students alike can answer three questions: What am I learning? Why am I learning it? How will I know I've learned it? In practice, this translates into co-created learning intentions and success criteria charts. In German ECE, anchoring such clarity visually and linguistically can bridge diverse linguistic backgrounds.

Intentional alignment requires mapping teaching methods and strategies to cognitive levels: knowing that (surface), knowing how (deep), and knowing with (transfer). This ensures that instructional approaches, such as direct instruction (surface) and problem-based learning, as well as self-regulation strategies (deep), are each deployed where they have the most impact.

Engagement is not binary but ranges from disrupting and avoiding to striving and driving learning. The Jenkins curve illustrates how learners transition from passive disengagement to active, self-regulated investment. ECE centers must create climates of belonging, affirm diverse identities, and actively disrupt bias. German demographic shifts—particularly rising numbers of multilingual and immigrant children—make belonging and equity central. Educators must both affirm cultural identities and challenge inequitable structures. A focus on belonging (inviting, valuing, and collaborating) and equity (correcting inequities, embracing diversity, and disrupting bias) builds the foundation for lifelong learning.

Feedback is only impactful when it is heard, understood, and actionable. In ECE, this involves child-friendly feedback loops: teachers listen to children, children reflect on their own learning, and peers engage in co-assessment. The teachers need to ensure that the students hear and understand their feedback – giving is not enough, listening is key. Error management is central: instead of seeing mistakes as embarrassments, learners need to be taught that errors are opportunities to learn, and be taught strategies to detect, analyze, and correct errors. This builds metacognition and resilience. 

Parental expectations (d = 0.70) have a strong influence on achievement outcomes. Visible Learning reframes parents as first learners—modeling curiosity, persistence, and engagement—rather than first teachers who must replicate school at home. In German ECE, this reframing is particularly valuable in engaging diverse families. Families bring different cultural models of learning; positioning them as learners rather than instructors honors their identities while inviting partnership. Strategies such as co-evaluative conferences, parent learning workshops, and authentic communication practices can transform home–school relationships.

ECE in Germany, and globally, stands at a crossroads. The evidence is clear: when implemented with clarity, high expectations, and collaborative efficacy, ECE can produce significant long-term benefits. The challenge lies in sustaining these benefits and scaling practices equitably across contexts, particularly when learners transition to elementary school.

Visible Learning provides a framework and a language for this work. By identifying what works best and deliberately aligning roles, strategies, and expectations, an early learning system can be strengthened. ECE must be understood as a social investment that reduces inequities, boosts achievement, and lays the foundation for lifelong learning.
 

Pre-school intervention effects

There have been 50 meta-analyses on pre-school programs, based on 3,033 studies involving approximately 721,719 students and 15,875 effects, with an overall d = .38. The effects are somewhat larger for pre-school programs with at-risk students. The benefits of early intervention are evident over various outcome variables (including IQ, motor skills, language, and academic achievement) and across a wide variety of children, conditions, and types of programs. The best early predictors of achievement in these meta-analyses are teaching students not to be so distracted, addressing behavior problems, developing language, and enhancing cognitive functioning (including executive functions).

Early intervention programs are more effective when they are structured, involving approximately 15 or more children, and the children participate in the program for up to 13 hours a week. This effect accrues similarly for regular and at-risk, disabled, and special education students. The effects, however, diminish over time (by age eight, it can be challenging to determine who did or did not attend preschool programs). Thus, there is a need for systematic, sustained, and constant attention to enhancing learning if these early gains are to be maximized (Casto & Mastropieri, 1986; Cooper et al., 2010). For disadvantaged populations, the immediate benefits diminish quickly and largely vanish within 60 months of starting school (Casto & Mastropieri, 1986; Kim, Innocenti, & Kim, 1996; White & Casto, 1985). Gilliam and Zigler (2000) synthesized the effects of pre-school attendance across 13 American states and claimed there were sizable effects (d = 0.20–0.30) on achievement by the end of pre-school, although these effects were not evident by the end of first grade. This lack of longer-term effect is greater for pre-school programs that over emphasize play and social and emotional development but far less for those programs that also focus on developing language (e.g., concepts about print), numeracy (ordering, patterning), and the skills of learning (attending, reducing distractions, and working with other peers) – all can be developed using play. 

Care is needed not to imply that a low correlation between pre-school and later learning necessarily means that pre-school is not predictive or powerful. Instead, the sustaining hypothesis claim is that the long-term effects can be a function of the lack of success of teachers and environments subsequent to the child leaving pre-school, which hinders the capitalization on the head starts of ECE. 

One exemplar study illustrates the typical findings. The Effective Early Educational Experiences (E4Kids) project was a five-year longitudinal study that examined the impact of everyday, approved early childhood education and care programs on the learning and developmental outcomes of approximately 2,500 children aged 3 to 8 (Tayler et al., 2013). The study did not identify a clear, independent effect of individual structural factors—such as adult–child ratios, physical space, personal care and hygiene routines, or available materials—on children’s outcomes (such as adult-child ratios, physical space, personal care/hygiene routines, and materials) but did confirm the importance of intentional teaching that focused on the development of children's language and thinking: developing vocabulary, engaging in language-rich back-and-forth interactions between adults and children, and fostering children’s expressive language use.

Overall, the study found that too many early childhood programs delivered small effects on children once they started school, and there remained large gaps in quality and outcomes related to SES. These gaps were not narrowed by attendance at early childhood settings, unless there were high levels of intentional teaching with high-quality adult-child engagement in Years 1 and 2. Only 13% of settings met the high-quality bar in 2015, and there were few to no quality services in the low SES areas (Cloney et al., 2016). This study led to nationwide quality standards for settings, services, and staff (see www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard), and this has massively improved the quality and impact of the centers. By 2020, over 75% of all services met the National Quality Standards based on educational programs and practices, children's health and safety, physical environment, staffing arrangements, relationships with children, collaborative partnerships with families and communities, and governance and leadership.

Type of pre-school program

The type of pre-school seems to be a significant moderator. Chambers et al. (2016) reviewed 28 early childhood programs and found six with the highest impact (d>.20): Curiosity Corner, Direct Instruction, ELLM, Interactive Book Reading, Let's Begin with the Letters, and Set Leap!) and argued that the common denominator was that they all focused on language, literacy, and phonological awareness. Head Start programs were reasonably systematic in finding higher effects (d = .33). For example, Mares and Pan (2013) analyzed 24 reports on the impact of Sesame Street, with an overall d = .29: cognitive .28, learning about the world .24, social reasoning and attitudes .19) and much higher for those watching from low-SES populations (.41).

Nelson, Westhues, and MacLeod (2003) reported that the effects of these preschool programs were greater when students participated for at least a year and were particularly higher for minority students. Performance on standardized mathematics assessments (d = 0.25) and reading assessments (d = 0.20) was higher for participating than for non-participating children. Fusaro (1997) found that children attending full-day kindergarten showed greater achievement (d = .18) than those attending half-day kindergarten (Cooper et al., 2010), and this was the case for both boys and girls (McCoy et al., 2017). Cooper et al. (2010) found an effect on achievement in full-day kindergarten compared to half-day kindergarten, but this effect fades by the end of third grade. By the upper grades (grades 7–11), a slightly higher percentage of underachieving students who had participated in pre-school intervention programs did not need special education and were not held back a grade (Goldring & Presbrey, 1986). 

Brunsek et al. (2017) were more interested in how a well-established scale of classroom quality (ECERS) could help understand the more salient influences in early childhood settings. The ECERS assesses both structural quality (e.g., staff–child ratios, physical environment) and process quality (e.g., interactions within the child’s environment), but neither showed a significant relationship with child outcomes. The only subscale identified as influential was that which measured the quality of language used in the classroom, rather than the availability of materials. Accordingly, “encouraging children to communicate and use language to develop their reasoning skills” emerged as a core predictor of success in ECE settings.

There is little support for the widely held belief that the involvement of parents leads to more effective early intervention (Casto & Mastropieri, 1986; Casto & White, 1984), except that there is support for the claim that those most in need (disadvantaged students, for example, students from lower socioeconomic areas, or minority students) had higher impacts when parents were more involved (Collins, 1984; Harrell, 1983). 

Focusing on developing language is the core skill to provide children with the best start to learning. This means developing their facility to hear, decode, understand, and use language, language, and language. Play does not appear in these studies as critical unless it involves language (see Chapter 13). Lillard et al. (2013) conducted a comprehensive systematic review of pretend play and its impact on the development of young children. They concluded that "existing evidence does not support strong causal claims about the unique importance of pretend play for development" (p. 1). There is little convincing evidence for showing that play affects creativity (there is some support for play in developing solving problems that involve construction), conservation, theory of mind, or social skills. Their conclusion: "Taken together and examined closely, these studies present a dim view for the oft-made claim that pretend play importantly enhances cognitive development," and their 'truth" is "that we do not have a good basis of evidence from which to claim that pretend play is crucial to development."

While these effects demonstrate the advantages of pre-school learning experiences, they may not be as substantial as they should be – especially for students who most need language, theory of mind, and concepts related to numeracy, among others. There is also the effect of the early years in school, which can dissipate any early gains made in early childhood. For example, Chetty et al. (2011) estimated that there could be decays of over 75% in these first few years of schooling.