Language, Learning, and Culture in Early Childhood

Home, School, and Community Contexts

Ann Anderson, Jim Anderson, Jan Hare, Marianne McTavish

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317416203
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Literacy
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Complex factors affect young children and their families in today's increasingly diverse world characterized by globalization, the transnational movement of people, and neo-liberal government policies in western and industrialized countries. This book focuses on three of these factors—culture, language and learning—and how they affect children's development and learning in the context of their communities, families and schools. Taking an ecological perspective, it challenges normative and hegemonic views of young children's language, literacy and numeracy development and offers examples of demonstrated educational practices that acknowledge and build on the knowledge that children develop and learn in culturally specific ways in their homes and communities.

The authors highlight issues and perspectives that are particular to Indigenous people who have been subjected to centuries of assimilationist and colonialist policies and practices, and the importance of first or home language maintenance and its cognitive, cultural, economic, psychological and social benefits. Links are provided to a package of audio-video resources (http://blogs.ubc.ca/intersectionworkshop/) including key note speeches and interviews with leading international scholars, and a collection of vignettes from the workshop from which this volume was produced.

1

LANGUAGE, LEARNING, AND CULTURE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD

Home, School, and Community Contexts – An Introduction

Ann Anderson, Jim Anderson, Jan Hare, Marianne McTavish, and Tess Prendergast

Introduction

This book is about the changing landscape of early childhood and early childhood education in a diverse, globalized world that is daily becoming more connected by advances in communication technology and characterized by the increasing transnational movement of people. This increasing diversity and the changing demographics have called into question universalist assumptions about teaching, learning, and development reflected in much of the official discourse and many of the policies that lean toward Eurocentric, middle-class orientations to early childhood education and development. Problematizing the status quo has opened up spaces for educators, scholars, and policy makers to discuss, and in some cases to disrupt and to resist, the dominant worldviews/discourses, including the hegemonies of normalcy, colonization, power, and deficiency. Within these spaces, it is increasingly apparent of the need for all those associated with and interested in early childhood to develop a broader view that takes into account children’s and families’ funds of knowledge, including their cultural practices, home languages, and sociocultural contexts, and assists us in carefully traversing the intersection of languages, cultures, and learning within inclusive early childhood education.

In this chapter, we first review contemporary scholarship in early childhood that questions commonly held assumptions and dominant perspectives in the early childhood field. In recognition of the discordance in the early childhood field, we then attend critically to the powerful discourse of brain research, which has greatly influenced government policy in many countries. Next, we examine some of the theoretical perspectives that frame much of the work in this volume and three foci of learning in the early years – first-language maintenance and loss, literacy, and mathematics – which are interwoven throughout the book. We then briefly describe the genesis and organization of this volume, and its significance in terms of knowledge, practice, and theory, and its contribution to scholarship in early childhood and early childhood education. We conclude with an overview of the organization of the book and a brief synopsis of each chapter.

Contemporary Perspectives in Early Childhood

Like Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999), we recognize that “[y]oung children are of and in the world; their lives are constructed through interaction with many forces and in relationship to many people and institutions” (p. 10). This perspective is consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s notion of the macro-structure in his influential bio-ecological model of children’s development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). That is, we agree that children’s immediate environment and their families and significant others in their daily lives, interacting with their individual make-up, proclivities, and personalities, have significant effects on their development and learning. We also acknowledge that other factors or phenomena outside the contexts of their families and communities, such as government policies, cultural beliefs and practices, and ideologies, also help shape their environment and their experiences.

Given this increasing recognition of the importance of children’s cultural and social backgrounds in their development and learning, it is somewhat ironic that in the last decade or so, neurobiological research – brain research in some of the literature and much of the popular discourse – has had a profound effect in shaping policy, and indirectly practice, in early childhood education (e.g., McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000). Despite the prominence afforded the neurobiology research in government policy and official documents, it is necessary to maintain a critical stance in interpreting and generalizing from studies in this area. For example, there are cautions within the neurobiological, or brain research, literature itself (e.g., Hackman, Farah, & Meaney, 2010; McNaughton, 2004) reminding us that many of the inferences about young children’s development are drawn from stress-induced and deprivation studies with animal models (Twardosz, 2012). Furthermore, advancements in neuroplasticity demonstrate the ability of the human brain to adapt and change to a much greater extent than is sometimes implied in, or inferred from, some of the literature. Indeed, Merzenich, Nahum, and Van Vleet (2013) described the more recent insights in neuroplasticity as a “sea change” (p. xxi) in our understandings of the degree to which the brain is capable of changing.

Notwithstanding these cautions and the need for a more nuanced understanding of the early years’ brain research, the use it or lose it in the early years discourse has become firmly entrenched in the parenting advice literature, in early intervention programs, and in the public domain generally. Influenced by brain research and the discourse that accompanies it, governments have become increasingly interested in, and have invested heavily in, early childhood development and education (Einboden, Rudge, & Vance, 2013). Framed by human capital and neo-liberal perspectives, these early childhood education initiatives are seen as an area where funds invested in the early years will “pay off” in terms of a better educated, healthier, more productive population, and result in individuals who would make fewer financial demands on the state over the life course (e.g., Dahlberg & Moss, 2006; McTavish, 2012). As Einboden et al. put it, “Child development is tied to Western narratives of progress and framed in terms of contributions to the prosperity of populations and to social, economic and political stability” (p. 551). Of course, although many early childhood educators, researchers, and theorists welcome the attention and recognition that is finally being afforded young children and their families, they also raise questions about and critique what they (and we) see as narrow, deterministic, and decontextualized views of children, families, and communities constructed within Western, empiricist epistemologies. We next examine some of the critiques of the empiricist traditions in early childhood scholarship and practice, and highlight some alternative perspectives.

Reconceptualist Perspectives

As noted, a growing number of educators, researchers, and theorists have called for a reconceptualization of early childhood education and research away from the empiricist, modernist, rationalist perspective that is informed by logical positivism (e.g., Cannella & Soto, 2010; Dahlberg & Moss, 2006; Souto-Manning, 2013). For example, writing through a Foucaldian lens, Dahlberg et al. (2006) posited,

Central to modernity has been a view of the world as knowable and ordered, and of the individual as an autonomous, stable, centred subject. Just as there is a real world to be revealed, so too there is an inherent and preordained human nature, existing independently of context and relationships, that can be fully realized through the transmission of a pre-constituted body of knowledge, assumed to be value-free, universal and offering a true account of the world and ourselves. To be fully realized is to be mature and adult, independent and autonomous, free and self-sufficient, and above all rational, an individual whose other qualities all serve reason. The closer individuals come to reason the closer they come to themselves, to their true nature or essence. Realized individuals can reflect on themselves and the world, arriving at true understanding by the personal application of reason, knowledge and self-consciousness. (p. 20)

They propose that this modernist epistemology has shaped conceptions of young children and of early childhood education in several ways. First, providing care, education, and support for young children has become institutionalized and dominated by experts, even though in some cultures and contexts, families provide their own care for young children. For example, as we reported elsewhere (Anderson, Anderson, Hare, & McTavish, 2014), when a graduate student with whom we worked asked First Nations or Indigenous families in a remote community of British Columbia about early childhood education programs, some of them had difficulty imagining how a formal program could improve upon, or replace, the ways in which they enculturated their children into the knowledge and the ways of being and living that had served them and their community very well over the millennia (Mashon, 2010). Second, the view of children as normative subjects, passing through predetermined fixed stages, has become ingrained in some of the early childhood discourse and literature, and cultural and social differences across contexts have been ignored. Third, within the modernist view, the child is seen as a “ unified, reified and essentialized subject – at the centre of the world – that can be viewed and treated apart from relationships and context” (Dahlbergh & Moss, 2006, p. 46). And finally, these views of children and families, of teaching and learning, are often imbued with middle-class, Western, and/or Eurocentric values and ideologies, and the cultural practices of young children and their families are often examined (and monitored) through this lens (Anderson & Gunderson, 1997; Cannella & Virau, 2004; Einboden et al., 2013). For example, Anderson, Streelasky, and Anderson (2007) examined a representative sample of images of families and of family literacy depicted on the websites of family literacy programs in the provinces and territories of Canada. They found that a Caucasian mother reading a storybook to her child was the dominant image, although storybook reading is not a universal family literacy practice, Canada is an increasingly diverse, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society in which significant others, in addition to mothers, play supportive roles in young children’s learning, and many families engage young children in a wide range of language and literacy activities, not just storybook reading.

Regarding these last points, cultural psychologist Barbara Rogoff and others have contributed greatly to our understanding of cultural differences in children’s development and learning in different communities (Rogoff, 2003; López, Correa-Chávez, Rogoff, & Gutierrez, 2010). As Rogoff (2003) pointed out, “human development is a cultural process” but “[t]o date, the study of human development has been based largely on research and theory coming from middle class communities in Europe and North America” (p. 4). Likewise, she demonstrates that there are vast differences in the expectations that adults have of children: in some communities, children are caregivers, looking after younger children at an age when in other communities, an older caregiver would be looking after and carefully supervising them. We therefore argue that that sociocultural theory, which foregrounds the importance of context and recognizes differences across individuals, families, and communities, is a valuable lens through which to examine childhood in these new times. We now turn to an examination of that perspective.

Sociocultural Perspectives

Researchers interested in the cultural dimension of learning have shown the different ways that adults and significant others in diverse social and cultural groups mediate learning and support young children (e.g., Anderson & Morrison, 2011; López et al., 2010). For example, López et al. (2010) reported that in many Indigenous communities in the south, children are expected to pay attention to the various activities and events that are occurring around them in their homes and communities and to learn from them, even when they are only peripherally involved in the activity. This approach differs from what more typically happens in Western, middle-class families, where adults (or significant others) provide focused, directed, one-on-one guidance to children. In their study with 19, 6 to 11-year-old sibling-dyads, López et al. found that the group of US-Mexican pueblo children, whose parents had little formal schooling, paid considerably more attention to instructions being provided to their older siblings than did children whose US-Mexican parents had attended school for a number of years. They also found that the US-Mexican pueblo children needed significantly less support when asked to complete the task that their older sibling had been instructed on than did the US-Mexican children whose parents had been schooled. López et al. concluded that the US-Mexican pueblo children had been acculturated to learn through more “peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991), consistent with the Indigenous cultural practices of their families and communities.

Just as the US-Mexican pueblo families encouraged and supported their children’s learning by directing and reminding them to pay attention and learn from the daily activities and events that occur around them, in other communities, families encourage, guide, and support their children’s learning quite differently. For example, Anderson and Morrison (2011) documented how within a family literacy program, South Asian parents and grandparents with whom they worked guided the 4- and 5-year-old children, hand-over-hand, as the children painted in an art activity – an action that many Western teachers would view as antithetical to the child centered, “risk taking” pedagogy they tend to favor (Dahlberg & Moss, 2006) and an anathema to the notion of children’s unfettered creativity. And Li (this volume) explained that some Chinese families lend instrumental support to their children by providing resources, such as books and other learning materials, while having high expectations of them and expecting them to excel academically, but without being intricately involved or participating in the various activities in which their children engage.

In response to the often divergent expectations for and perceptions of young children held by educators and by families and communities, the literature about diversity in education frequently points to the importance of home–school relationships, and ways to help children and families traverse the two settings. Indeed, being able to bridge them is seen as paramount to student success. For example, Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992) conducted their foundational studies of household and classroom practices in working-class Mexican-American communities in Tucson, Arizona. Their aim was to learn ways to capitalize on the cultural and social resources of homes and communities to help educators “fathom the array of cultural and intellectual resources available to students and teachers within these households” (p. 132). They believed this to be particularly important in the Mexican-American community, as students were frequently viewed as both economically and educationally disadvantaged. However, in a recent study that examined relationships among early childhood educators and families, De Gioia (2013) noted that the divergent cultural backgrounds of the staff and parents contributed to their mutual misunderstandings of their roles and practices. De Gioia “emphasizes respect for the values and expectations of families and the need for greater dialogue” in child-care settings if families and staff are to build more mutual understandings of their roles (p.120). Likewise, in a cross-case analysis of three Asian-Canadian children’s home–school literacy connections, Li (this volume) concluded that despite the emphasis in the research literature and in public discourse on the importance of home–school relationships, the families had minimal communication with their children’s schools. Similar to Taylor, Bernhard, Garg, and Cummins (2008), Li suggested that another avenue for educators to take to help fortify home–school connections is to involve families in meaningful activities in school and to bring families’ cultures into the classroom.

In other words, studies about diverse families and early childhood education suggest that simply inviting the participation of diverse families into school practices is not sufficient for the devel...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Language, Learning, and Culture in Early Childhood
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Language, Learning, and Culture in Early Childhood: Home, School, and Community Contexts – An Introduction.
• 2 Young Children’s Emerging Identities as Bilingual and Biliterate Students: The Role of Context
• 3 Halq’eméylem Language Revitalization
• 4 Speaking English Isn’t Thinking English: Exploring Young Aboriginal Children’s Mathematical Experiences Through Aboriginal Perspectives
• 5 “Now He Knows That There Are Two Kinds of Writing, Two Kinds of Reading”: Insights and Issues in Working with Immigrant and Refugee Families and Communities in a Bilingual Family Literacy Program
• 6 Social Class, Culture, and Asian Children’s Home - and School Literacy Connection: The Case for Cultural Reciprocity in Early Literacy Education
• 7 Considering Place for Connecting Mathematics, Community, and Culture
• 8 Culture and Mathematical Learning: A Case Study of South Asian Parents and Children Playing a Board Game
• 9 Reconceptualizing “Parent-and-Child-Together Time” in Family Literacy Programs: Lessons Learned from Refugee and Immigrant Families
• 10 What Is Involved in Modeling the World with Mathematics
• 11 Indigenous Pedagogies in Early Learning Settings: Linking Community Knowledge to School-Based Learning
• 12 Sailing the Ship While We Study It: Culturally Responsive Research Strategies in Early Childhood Contexts
• 13 A Critical Analysis of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Community Participation in Canadian Early Childhood Education: Power Relations, Tensions, and Possibilities
• 14 Looking Back, Looking Ahead: Reflections on the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Learning in Early Childhood
• List of Contributors
• Index