Early Childhood Education

Society and Culture

Angela Anning, Joy Cullen, Marilyn Fleer

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781446242452
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación infantil

?The authors who have contributed to this book bring a wealth of expertise and a wide range of research findings. This gives the reader the opportunity to link theory with practice in a helpful and illuminating way? - Early Years Update

Praise for the first edition:

`...represents an enormously rich body of research and expertise focused on the objective of taking into account the social, historical and cultural dimensions of everyday activities in order to better understand children. …will undoubtedly be of interest and value to anyone with a similar concern? - Early Years Journal

`...an international state-of-the-art early childhood education publication that sets out research-based evidence and critically links this with theory and practice. It is pitched at the graduate level and beyond. Readers will gain more from the book if they have a thorough base understanding of relevant learning and social-cultural theories and an open-mind to appreciate the perspectives presented in this book? - Childforum, New Zealand

This fully revised and up-to-date edition examines sociocultural and historical approaches to current theories of learning in early childhood education. It sets out research-based evidence linking theory and practice in early childhood settings.

Written by leading figures in the field, the book extends a strong and traditional theme - the importance of the child?s perspective and respect for each child?s individual background.

Within the context of early years settings, the book is structured around four overall themes:

-the dynamics of learning and teaching

-the nature of knowledge

-assessment

-evaluation and quality.

This book is essential reading for undergraduate and advanced courses in early childhood studies.

---

CHAPTER 1

RESEARCH CONTEXTS ACROSS CULTURES

Angela Anning, Joy Cullen and Marilyn Fleer

---

In the first edition of Early Childhood Education: Society and Culture we argued that ‘early childhood education has been challenged by a theoretical sea change that has seen individualistic developmental explanations of learning and development replaced by theories that foreground the cultural and socially constructed nature of learning’. In 2008 the continuing evolution of theory has increasingly highlighted the significance of cultural-historical explanations of learning and development and accordingly we have altered our theoretical framework of socio-cultural theory to use the more explicit term of ‘sociocultural-historical theory’, for the second edition. We argue that foregrounding historical contexts in this revised term represents a natural progression as the early childhood field is now more conversant with sociocultural theory. The book uses sociocultural-historical theory as an umbrella term that incorporates the various theoretical developments that reflect Vygotskian and post-Vygotskian explanations of development and learning. These include: sociocultural, social constructivism, cultural-historical, activity theory, cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) as well as aspects of postmodernism/post-structuralism that have highlighted the significance of shared discourses and practices in early childhood education.

This second edition maintains the cross-national focus of the first edition to explore the different ways of constructing learning in early childhood settings in the United Kingdom, Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. These analyses are situated in each country against the historical dominance of the play-based, developmental tradition in early childhood education. Variation in each country’s response to the challenges posed by sociocultural-historical theory to early childhood practice is itself an indicator of the importance of acknowledging culture and history within societies and educational systems. The cross-national focus further illustrates the embeddedness of learning in current early childhood practices and policies. The second edition comments on the development of such influences since 2004.

The following sections introduce sociocultural-historical theory as a framework for the subsequent chapters. We argue that an in-depth understanding of theory is necessary to minimise superficial interpretations of sociocultural-historical theory by practitioners that can serve to maintain the dominance of practices grounded in individualistic developmental perspectives. This analysis is followed by an overview of early childhood policies, research and practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, within the four broad themes of the book that are pivotal to understanding early childhood practice from a sociocultural-historical perspective:

• conceptualisation of learning and pedagogy in early years settings;
• the nature of knowledge in early years settings;
• assessment in early years settings;
• evaluation and quality in early years settings.

Psychology’s legacy in guiding early years education – a sociocultural-historical reading

---

One of the reasons that so many Western psychologists are reading the writings of a long-dead Russian may be that they are seeking to extend the insights of the so-called cognitive revolution and yet are painfully aware of the shortcomings of so many of its products (e.g. Hirst and Manier, 1995; Sampson, 1981). The research practice of experimentation in artificial situations has provided valuable insights but incurred significant costs. Context, however defined, remained under-theorised and its efforts remained under-researched. (Daniels, 2001: 7)

Daniels (2001), in discussing the field of psychology, points directly at problems within the field of early childhood education. Much of our profession is grounded in the research products of the field of psychology. Foundational to our field is the concept of child development. The observational and child study approaches that have been so highly valued and seen to make the field distinct from other areas of education, have been developed and normed by psychologists. Further, these tools have been consistently used in Australia, New Zealand and in the UK for generating knowledge about children so as to inform practice within the field. The theoretical frameworks that have guided our views on how children think, learn and develop also come directly from psychology. How we conceptualise pedagogy, what we look for in terms of expected developmental trajectories or what constitutes knowledge in early years education, have been traditionally framed using the tools and theories from psychology. Similarly, how we measure these is guided by the worldview that has been bequeathed to us from previous early years professionals/researchers who formed their knowledge from their readings of traditional psychology. Importantly, the paradigm in which we work has been built by and maintained through a psychological tradition.

It is timely that we take stock of how we have come to ‘know and do’ within the field and to critically examine pedagogy, knowledge construction, assessment and evaluation with the ‘context lens’ in mind. As discussed above ‘Context, however defined, [remains] under-theorised and its efforts [remain] under-researched’ (Daniels, 2001: 7). This book seeks to foreground context and to put forward research that has been framed from a sociocultural-historical perspective from within the field of early years education. Many prominent researchers from Australia, New Zealand and the UK have contributed to this book, and their writings provide rich examples of how the conceptual base guiding practice is slowly changing.

We can extend Daniel’s (2001) argument, and suggest that many early years researchers from Australia, New Zealand and the UK are also reading the writings of a long-dead Russian because they too are looking for insights into dealing with the limitations of the existing theories and practices used in early years education. Much of the discontent has come from the limitations inherent in the interpretations and developments of Piaget’s theories. For example, constructivist thinking focuses attention on the individual, and the individual’s construction of the world and of knowledge itself. Many researchers and teachers steeped in cross-cultural contexts will argue that learning and knowledge construction is not an individual process. There are many examples within cross-cultural research of how knowledge is collectively and not individually framed and considered (see Rogoff, 2003 for an expansive argument on this with a range of supporting examples). It is interesting to note that in this volume no author claims to be using a constructivist view of learning or has framed their research and writings following the theories of Piaget. This is reflective of the developments in the field of early years education generally.

In the evolution of theory use in the early years, some researchers and practitioners have moved forward and adopted a social-constructivist approach to pedagogy. In many respects this development appears to be a transition away from focusing simply on the individual and in working towards being able to take account of the social and cultural context of the learner. For instance, Tymms and Merrell (Chapter 9), in their presentation and discussion of data gathered across cultural communities in different countries, acknowledge culture as something that researchers and practitioners must pay attention to in their analysis of pedagogical and curriculum planning. However, to simply ‘add culture’ to the set of variables being explored could universalise complex and diverse cultural communities into a single category, leading to inappropriate conclusions and ultimately to positioning many children and their families into deficit (see Gutierrez and Rogoff, 2003 for a full discussion of this problem). Similarly, MacNaughton (Chapter 4) moves the theory lens beyond constructivism and uses a critical constructivist perspective in order to cast the lens from a simple reading of the individual to engage critically in how the individual has appropriated (or not) the social discourses which surround them. MacNaughton argues that ‘Critical theorists reject the idea that meaning, knowledge and, therefore, learning is a uniquely individual, value-free cognitive pursuit’.

Researchers and practitioners in the early years interested in capturing ‘context’ have looked to sociocultural theory (later to become known as cultural-historical theory) in order to help them think and act differently about their work. For example, Fleer and Richardson (Chapter 10) have used sociocultural theory with practitioners in order to document how sociocultural assessment moves away from documenting the individual and captures the dynamic relations between the individual and the social context. Both Podmore (Chapter 12) and Cowie and Carr (Chapter 8) give examples of national curriculum and assessment approaches in New Zealand which draw upon sociocultural theory. Hill and Nichols (Chapter 13) and Williams-Kennedy (Chapter 7) provide similar examples of more localised curriculum development in Australia which has been informed by sociocultural theory. Anning (Chapter 5), in using activity theory for shaping the directions of a curriculum for the childcare sector in the UK, demonstrates another important theoretical development. Activity theory, discussed fully in Anning’s chapter, treats the context as an activity system, and seeks to understand the motives, goals and needs of the participants as they work towards specific outcomes (agreed or unarticulated).

Running in parallel with the theoretical evolutions that have been adopted and briefly discussed has been a keen interest in the role of the adult in children’s learning. Once again, the legacy of child development theory (notably Piaget) has seen the de-emphasising of the role of the adult in children’s learning. With a move away from simply studying or observing children’s development, and on to studying children’s learning, we have seen a focus on researching how adults interact with children (see Jordan, Chapter 3) and how professionals construct knowledge about learning (see Cullen, Chapter 6). Theoretically different ways of framing research and methodologically different approaches were needed for this renewed attention on the practitioner as pedagogue (see Siraj-Blatchford, Chapter 11). In line with this evolution, many researchers and practitioners have adopted a sociocultural-historical approach for informing their work. This is exemplified in this book. Others have blended across theories; for example, Wood (Chapter 2) uses post-structuralist theory to examine the cultural implications of play, but does so with a view to building a new pedagogy of play. Through her interest in pedagogy and culture, she brings together both post-structual theory and elements of sociocultural-historical theory in order to deconstruct, understand and re-build new pedagogical approaches.

Sociocultural-historical theory offers one way of addressing the limitations that our profession has inherited because it specifically deals with context. In order to appreciate the complexity of the chapters that follow, the next section will examine Vygotsky’s theoretical ideas in relation to foundational knowledge of early years education, with the view to building a new basic framework for pedagogy, knowledge, assessment and evaluation – the four themes that contributing chapter authors have researched from within the field of early years education. The final chapter in this book, takes up this challenge more explicitly. Taken together, the chapters presented here provide the basis for the much-needed theorisation of ‘context’ as outlined by Daniels (2001), but specifically for the early years of education.

Vygotsky’s legacy in relation to recent developments in early years education

---

Child development

The assessment of learning and development, and the evaluation of early years programmes have traditionally been designed on the premise of ‘child development’ principles focused on the ages of children and a correspondingly linear set of stages for progression. That is, assessments are benchmarked against the expected norms for children. This has traditionally been framed in relation to the age of a child – as an indicator or point of progression to be expected. In his time Vygotsky (1998) argued against this kind of developmental trajectory which relied upon the child’s chronological age. He suggested that age ‘cannot serve as a reliable criterion for establishing the actual level’ of a child’s development (Vygotsky, 1998: 199). This critique is exemplified in the work of Jordan (Chapter 3), who examined teacher interactions with children, noting the differences and the interplay between teacher scaffolding and teacher co-constructing with children in order to determine children’s actual level of development for informing the teaching–learning process. The children’s chronological age was not discussed, but rather the focus of attention was on how the teacher and the children interacted and what types of intersubjectivity were being built through a focus on children’s interests. Although Jordan’s focus of attention was indirectly on the assessment of actual developmental levels, her sociocultural-historical framework represents a significant move away from a traditional view of child development, where development is seen as a naturally evolving process. Mapping interactions has also been featured in the work of Podmore (Chapter 12), who nicely shows how evaluation models in early childhood education can be reconceptualised in relation to child-focused questions. That is, teachers projecting their minds to the interests, activities and interactions of the children, through questions such as Do you engage my mind? Can I trust you? – generating a new framework for evaluation. This approach, they argue, creates a new space for the evaluation of children’s learning in relation to teacher-initiated programmes. Once again the sociocultural-historical approach that Jordan and Podmore draw upon marks a significant change in teacher thinking and assessment of children’s development from that traditionally used in early childhood education.

Vygotsky suggested that the dominant concept of child development sees ‘development as nothing other than realisation, modification, and combination of deposits. Nothing new develops here – only a growth, branching, and regrouping of those factors that were already present at the very beginning’ (Vygotsky, 1998: 190). A linear path is generated which positions children who do not meet the development expectations in deficit; or as Vygotsky stated, they are viewed as ‘“diseases” of development’ (1998: 191). Cullen (Chapter 6), has explored in her research the tension that arises when different theoretical orientations of staff working with children come together. She states that ‘it is in this area of professional knowledge that differences in the perspectives of early childhood teachers and EI [Early Intervention] professionals can most clearly be seen. Although they share a common philosophy of authentic assessment, the more specialised professional knowledge of the speech language therapist, physiotherapist or psychologist can be in conflict with the holistic interests-based planning of the early childhood programme’ which is reliant upon a more sociocultural-historical framework. Cullen’s research demonstrates that whilst a sociocultural-historical curriculum is clearly being promoted and used, teacher professional knowledge needs to move beyond simply creating a community of practice to generating a community for improving practice. In using sociocultural-historical theory to frame her research, Cullen has been able to identify two significant problems in early y...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on contributors
• 1 Research contexts across cultures
• Part 1  Conceptualisations of Learning and Pedagogy in Early Years Settings
• Part 2 The Nature of Knowledge in Early Years Settings
• Part 3 Assessment in Early Years Settings
• Part 4 Evaluation and Quality in Early Years Settings
• Part 5 Conclusion
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index