Educational Change in International Early Childhood Contexts

Crossing Borders of Reflection

Linda R. Kroll, Daniel R. Meier, Linda R. Kroll, Daniel R. Meier

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317908388
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Co-published with the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI), Educational Change in International Early Childhood Contexts: Crossing Borders of Reflection examines the role of teacher reflection in a variety of educational contexts worldwide. Using a case study approach that integrates research, theory, policy, and practice, international contributors show how, in some settings, local traditions and values are honored while, in others, international educational ideas and programs become modified to suit local needs. Cases from Japan, China, Palestine, South Africa, Kenya, Finland, Italy, and New Zealand are discussed, as well as models from the United States.

Through its thorough investigation into teacher reflection practices throughout the world, Educational Change in International Early Childhood Contexts: Crossing Borders of Reflection focuses on the transformative value of these practices to promote change in early childhood education. Framing commentary from Linda R. Kroll and Daniel R. Meier provides context and places the case studies in conversation with one another, allowing for productive international comparisons in this dynamic collection.

PART I
Inquiry, Reflection, and International Early Childhood Education

1
INQUIRY AND REFLECTION TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING

Linda R. Kroll

In her first year of teaching in a privately owned preschool, Rachel was teaching toddlers for the first time. At this school, teachers looped with their children, meaning that Rachel had three more years to look forward to teaching this group of children. She was particularly puzzled and challenged by one little girl. Sari would sometimes be very attached to Rachel and sometimes be angry with her. Rachel could not attribute these sudden mood changes to any particular context, so she decided to put the inquiry and reflective skills she had learned in graduate school to work and try to understand what was happening in her interactions with Sari. Rachel wrote in a journal daily, focusing her reflections on what the child had done during the day and how she and the child had interacted. She also took photos throughout the day of what children (including Sari) were doing with each other and with the other two teachers in the classroom. As Rachel thought, wrote, and examined her photos, she realized that it was not the little girl who was having difficulty, but that she, for some reason, was looking for approval from this child and that she was having difficulty developing a strong relationship with Sari.

This realization came about mostly because Rachel was using different media as tools for reflection about what was happening. In addition, this understanding was supported by her participation in discussions with fellow graduates and faculty of her Masters in Early Childhood Education program in a series of meetings organized to examine how documentation and inquiry were influencing their practice. Rachel’s experience is a good example of how inquiry, reflection, and collaboration around practice can provide support for early childhood educators and encourage improved teaching and greater satisfaction among them.

Reflection, reflective practice, and inquiry into teaching are common terms among teacher educators, among professional development institutions, and within a growing number of international educational institutions. Zeichner (1994) and Zeichner and Liston (2014) describe the growth of the international movement that has burgeoned over the last 25 years under the title of reflection as the result of a reaction against the view of teachers as technicians who enact prescribed methods and curricula. Loughran (2002) traces the genesis of reflective practice and notes the importance of the identification of a problem in enacting effective reflection that will lead to better practice and, simultaneously, help support the teacher’s ongoing curiosity and passion about his or her practice. He examines “the value of reflection as a meaningful way of approaching learning about teaching” (Loughran, 2002, p. 33). He defines effective reflective practice in this way: “Effective reflective practice is drawn from the ability to frame and reframe the practice setting, to develop and respond to this framing through action so that the practitioner’s wisdom-in-action is enhanced and, as a particular outcome, articulation of professional knowledge is encouraged” (Loughran, 2002, p. 42). Thus, reflection can lead to learning and professional knowledge, contributing to other practitioners’ and researchers’ understanding of the teaching and learning process.

In this chapter, following on these giants of reflective practice, we consider why inquiry and reflection can promote effective teaching practice in early childhood settings. Next, we look at how a reflective stance helps teachers manage the uncertainty of teaching amidst a context where the myth of certainty dominates recommendations for practice. We then examine how reflective practice is enhanced by and enhances collegiality among teachers, parents, and communities. The chapter proposes that teaching is research and, thus, that inquiry and reflection should contribute to educational theory, practice, and public policy. Next, the chapter suggests that such a stance can enable the creation of a democratic forum where the building of sound local educational practice is discussed among all stakeholders, extending the power and efficacy of educators and the families they serve and influencing governance and policy around early childhood education on a local and global basis. Finally, we look at reflective practice from a global perspective to consider how inquiry and reflection contribute to an international research conversation on early education.

Why Inquiry and Reflection are Good Practice

Although most of these authors (e.g. Loughran, Zeichner & Liston) are writing about K-12 teacher reflection, the use of inquiry in early childhood settings is well known and supported in many international contexts (as illustrated in this book). Early childhood educators come to the field with a variety of educational backgrounds and experiences. In California, for example, they have educational backgrounds that range from minimal training to advanced degrees (Whitebook, Kipnis, & Bellm, 2008). Yet, no matter how much “training” they have had, they will not know exactly what to do in every context and in every circumstance. Although the outside world promotes a myth of certainty that a quality education is made up of the right curriculum and the right teaching methods, in reality questions, puzzles, and required instant decision making make the act of teaching one of disequilibrium and imbalance. Unlike some professions where one can learn to solve problems by following a set of guidelines or procedures, the road map for teaching is strewn with byroads, boulders, lane changes, dead ends, and other unexpected events. Thus, the stance that early childhood educators must adopt has to include a questioning curiosity and acceptance of this stance in their work. Using inquiry and questioning about his or her own practice allows a teacher to have a system for addressing the problems inevitably raised on a daily basis.

A stance that encourages such a perspective, that allows one to step back from one’s practice and think about what one is seeing in a systematic and organized way, gives one greater control of what one is doing. Thus, when a teacher wonders why something she¹ does may or may not work, she is beginning to develop an attitude that is beyond the minimal “I’m effective” or “I’m not effective.” This development allows her to go beyond a set of routines or methods to begin thinking about what things are working (or not) in certain circumstances. She begins to develop some generalizations about her practice in her own particular context with her own group of students. It allows her to begin to develop a personal set of theories about teaching and learning informed explicitly by personal practice and experience. Because inquiry is systematic and reflective, the teacher is not reacting at a holistic or gut level or an emotional level (although what your instinct tells you is very important). By employing a systematic look at her practice, she begins to develop habits or routines or schema that allow her to make connections across contexts. Korthagen and Kessels (1999) describe this process of teacher learning as “level reduction,” with three particular stages of development that are constantly renewed by and the result of systematic inquiry and reflection.

Rachel, for example, employed several inquiry and reflection processes to make sense of her question. The impetus behind her questioning was not simply that she was puzzled by the child she was working with. Rather, the opportunity to engage in discussion with her former classmates and instructors inspired her to think about a problem that, until the chance presented itself, had gone “under the radar.” Her frustration with herself and this child was manifesting itself in doubt about her efficacy as a teacher, particularly as one for toddlers. As she put it, she had “never worked with little ones before,” despite her previous two years of experience in the College laboratory school with children aged 2–5 and her two years of experience in an international preschool before attending graduate school. The chance to participate once again in an organized inquiry and reflection process gave her the support she needed as a beginning teacher to look at her practice from an inquiry stance.

The Uncertainty in Teaching

Teaching is filled with uncertainty. Being an early childhood educator involves juggling many aspects of classroom and center life. These include working with young children who may not be very communicative about their needs; working alongside other teachers; ensuring that everyone’s (children’s and teachers’) needs are met some of the time and that no one’s needs are neglected all of the time; negotiating with families, other teachers, and other children in the center; dealing with the demands of site directors and program directors; and handling constraints placed on early childhood educators by laws, regulations, and policy makers. Each classroom, center, program, or neighborhood constitutes its own culture, which is created by those who participate in each of the contexts. The uncertainties created by these constraints are common to every teaching position at nearly every level of education. Teaching in early care settings involves particular kinds of uncertainty as early childhood education and care are managed by numerous agencies at both the state and federal level in the United States. Depending on the nature of the program, there can be special funds that must be allocated, more diverse populations that have their attendant diverse strengths and needs, and more likelihood that the students and their teacher will not share a common culture. These factors contribute to greater uncertainty, which is inherent in schools in any case.

How teachers regard the existence of uncertainty and manage it is instrumental in determining whether and how they remain in the profession. Gu and Day (2007) discuss resilience and the factors that lead to teachers in the K-12 arena to stay in teaching. They found that “the nature of resilience is determined by the interaction [italics in the original] between the internal assets of the individual and the external environments in which the individual lives and grows (or does not grow)” (p. 1314). Thus, the uncertainty factors that lie in the teachers’ work context as well as personal context have a great effect on whether they stay in the teaching profession.

Helsing (2007) writes about uncertainty in teachers, attributing the uncertainty to “its lack of a knowledge base or technical culture” (p. 1317). She implies that the lack of consensus about the goals or methods of good teaching is the result of this missing knowledge base. She continues, “Teachers also experience uncertainties due to the complex nature of their work, which is centered on human relationships and involves predicting, interpreting, and assessing others’ thoughts, emotions, and behavior” (p. 1317–18). The juxtaposition of a lack of knowledge base with a context that is centered on human relationships (and the changing uncertainty of such a context) demonstrates the complexity that uncertainty contributes to the profession. The requirement for “a knowledge base” implies that there is yet to be found the right way to teach, one that will work in most circumstances, a positivist and prescriptive belief. Such an implication contradicts our understanding that human relationships are highly idiosyncratic and depend entirely on the individuals involved in the cultural context in which the relationship exists. Thus, looking for a knowledge base in a context that will prove particular is unrealistic and probably quite unproductive. Helsing (2007) discusses further the different characteristics of uncertainty. On the one hand, there is uncertainty that disables the teacher, causing anxiety, frustration, and burnout because the conflicts and dilemmas that confront the teacher seem unable to be reconciled. On the other hand, there is uncertainty about whose recognition can lead to improved practice; accepting the existence of uncertainty and using the questions and dilemmas its existence raises to improve practice is a more positive outcome. This kind of uncertainty does contribute to a knowledge base on how to enact and improve practice.

Early childhood teachers are familiar with the uncertainties that underlie both their classroom practice and their working contexts. In the United States, for instance, public early childhood programs have a variety of funding streams that are regulated and controlled by different agencies, including in some cases the federal government’s Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services, the particular state department of education, and the local county or municipal health and human services agencies. The uncertainty in funding can leave centers and the families that need the care scrambling for financial support. But in addition to financial uncertainty, early care and education centers are subject to changes in standards, the continual development of new standards, and expectations, mostly without much input from the teachers or even the directors. Thus, in addition to the daily uncertainty of working in a situation where human relationships are at the core, teachers and directors are subject to political and social uncertainties that are outside much of their control. Such circumstances mitigate against the establishment of a community of teachers, children, and families together investigating their own learning and establishing a reflective community.

Despite the clear existence of uncertainty, a dominant myth of certainty surrounds the profession. The search for quality early childhood education implies that there is one right way that, if we could only discover it, would ensure that we would know exactly what to do in our classrooms. In the media, effective early childhood education is being touted as the most efficient path to reducing the achievement gap between different socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic groups in the United States. Again, the notion of “effective” early childhood education (ECE) implies that there is one right way that will solve the identified problem.

Hilda Borko’s presidential address at the American Educational Research Association in 2004 gives us a way of thinking about the uncertainty of teaching and classroom practice by using a situative perspective to understand what happens in classrooms (Borko, 2004). She shows us clearly how teachers become the experts on their classrooms. Learning can be conceptualized as “changes in participation in socially organized activities, and individuals’ use of knowledge as an aspect of their participation in social practices” (p. 4). The situated nature of learning in classrooms applies to teachers and students alike. As Paul Cobb explained it, “[L]earning should be viewed as both a process of active individual construction and a process of enculturation into the … practices of wider society.” (Cobb, 1994, p. 13, as quoted in Borko, 2004, p. 4). Therefore, teachers’ learning and their expertise are developed in multiple contexts through multiple methods. However, teachers must have a stance of curiosity about their practice to find such uncertainty inspiring rather than daunting. As Ball and Cohen (1999) point out, “Teachers have to learn how to frame and explore conjectures, how to bring evidence to bear on them, how to weigh the often-conflicting information they get, to make well-supported judgments” (p.16). Learning to learn in particular contexts with many uncertainties is essential to building one’s knowledge as a teacher. Those teachers who welcome this opportunity thrive in a context of uncertainty. Learning to welcome disequilibrium and to use this sense of imbalance to explore one’s practice is essential to enacting an inquiry and reflective stance. Rachel’s participation in the discussion with fellow teachers and her willingness to openly explore that which she found confusing illustrates such a stance.

How Inquiry is Supported by Collegiality

Rachel’s experience demonstrates how, working together, teachers can inspire inquiry into one another’s practice. This principle of collegiality to promote the learning of all involved is complicated. In many contexts, teachers, on the one hand, feel the need to appear as experts in their fields—and indeed they are experts. But, on the other hand, they need to consider multiple perspectives on their practice to understand more fully what is occurring and what questions might be raised. With a few notable exceptions, teachers are rarely regarded as experts. Instead, they are seen as recipients of the more important knowledge developed by researchers; education experts in policy; and, often, the general public, who believe that having experienced school (as they all have), they are experts in it. In thinking about the education of the youngest members of society, outside agencies frequently focus on safety and care as the most important aspects of early childhood education, often ignoring the educational possibilities and potential of young children.

Collegiality promotes discussion about the uncertain aspects of the classroom. Collegiality among teachers in a classroom or center supports the educat...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Contributors
• Introduction
• PART I Inquiry, Reflection, and International Early Childhood Education
• PART II Power of Reflection: The Perspectives of Teachers in Cross-National Contexts
• PART III International Views on the Practice of Reflection and Inquiry
• PART IV Reflection and Professional Learning and Growth
• Epilogue
• Index