Children’s particpation: focus on dialogical patterns in early childhood education/kindergartens

1. Children’s particpation: focus on dialogical patterns in early childhood education/kindergartens Dr. Philos Berit Bae Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway Email: Berit.bae@lu.hio.no

2. Introduction-overview Societal context:changes on the political level, Research context: Different approaches My focus: aspects in dialogical patterns based on findings from empirical research Questions : 1)What are salient aspects in dialogical patterns which differ in quality ? 2)How does children’s participation differ in dialogical patterns of varying quality?

3. Norwegian-political context Kindergarten Act, Section 3: Children in kindergartens shall have the right to express their views on the day-to-day activities of the kindergarten. Children shall regularly be given the opportunity to take active part in planning and assessing the activities of the kindergarten. The children’s views shall be given due weight according to their age and maturity.

4. Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens(2006) “ Staff must listen to and attempt to interpret their body language, and must be observant in relation to their actions, aesthetic expressions and eventually their verbal communications. Kindergartens must allow for the different perspectives of different children, and must respect their intentions and realms of experience. Children’s right to freedom of expression shall be ensured, and their participation must be integrated in work on the content of kindergartens”. (The Norwegian Ministry of Education and rRsearch 2006,page 9.)

5. A research context Theoretical views: Implementing article 12,13, and 14 in the UN Convention in practical situations, challenges familiar views on adult-child relationships and requires a new adult role Empirical approaches: interviewing children observing decisionmaking routines and childrens’ choices various forms of documentation , observing interactions in pedagogical activities

6. My research focus Theoretical perspectives: a critical stance towards the one-sidedness and reductionism Dunne(2006: 13) “ .. argue that in early childhood education the need now is to move beyond deconstruction towards reconstruction” descriptive and interpretive research that aims at identifying salient processes and communicational aspects inspired from different fields, notably micro-ethnography and clinical psychology. concepts like mutual recognition and intersubjectivity have proved to be important theoretical tools

7. methodology • micrcroanalytic design • 2 teachers in interaction and their groups of children(3-6years), • everyday interactions between teachers and children were video-filmed from Sept. to May • in three different situations: mealtime, circle-time and free play period • 730 secquences analyzed

9. Findings: relationship themes • Relationship themes that oserved in all 3 contexts(mealtime, circletime,freeplay) • a) conversation, • b) practical co-operation, • c)play/humour • d)setting of limits.

10. Analyses/findings: contrasting patterns • spacious dialogical patterns • narrow dialogical patterns, • both spacious and narrow patterns were observed in all three observational contexts ( mealtime, circletime and free play) • and with regard to the 4 different relationship themes

11. Spacious patterns: the teacher’s participation an attentive and focussed presence of mind aware of the child's metacommunicative signals such as tone of voice, facial expressions, bodily posture and the like, focussed on where the children have their attention tolerant of mistakes or incorrect ways of expressing things recompose herself, self-reflexive

12. Spacious patterns: children’s participation share thoughts/experiences/ feelings tell stories ask questions invite the teacher into playful episodes bring forth a wide range of the teacher's communicational repertoire come across as competent dialogue partners,able to take turns and contribute from their own horizon.

13. Narrow patterns: the teacher’s participation • scattered attention, unfocussed • emotionally distant(“flat”) • responds primarily to the verbal content and not to the metacommunicational cues • the dialogue is more controlled by the teacher’s initiatives • serious mode, less playfulness and humour • ask many questions and especially of a closed or rhetorical kind. • "Yes-but…” answers • evaluative comments, much praise • degrading comments when setting limits

14. Narrow patterns: children’s participation • try to find satisfying answers • ask few questions • often rounded off by a withdrawal on the part of the child, communicated by looking down or away, sometimes with an irritated or embarrassed look on the face • predictable but not very spontaous dialogue partners

15. Individual differences-profiles • interactional differences based on the 14 target children, across themes and over time • mutual interest and humour • changing qualities in the interaction • troublesome interactions. • Conclusion: creating conditions for all children’s participation is a very complex matter.

16. Conclusion • Salient aspects promoting childrens’ participation on their own terms seem to be: • teacher responsiveness to childrens’ initiatives, • a focussed attention combined with emphatic responses, which support a joint involvement, • along with an opneness to playful qualities • and the teachers’ abilities to take the childres’ perspctives on what happens.

17. Problematizing - deconstructing narrow patterns • patterns that are often found in educational settings do not enhance childrens participation • what is stated in national documents at the political level, needs to be problematized and critically discussed

18. Reconstruction emirpically based descriptions show that it is possible to establish some kind of mutuality between childen and adults, even though it may only lasts for a few seconds such moments are characterized by: joint attention, mutuality,playfulness, and selfreflexivity on such grounds dialogues and adult child relationships can be reconstructed

19. References • Bae, B.(1996) det interessante i det alminnelige, Oslo: Pedagogisk Forum • Bae, B.(2004). Dialoger mellom førskolelærer og barn- en beskrivende og fortolkende studie. Høgskolen i Oslo, (Nettbokhandelen), HIO rapport nr. 25, 2004 • Bae, B. (2005a). Troubling the identity of a researcher: Methodological and ethical questions in co-operating with teacher-carers in Norway. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Education, 6(3),283-291 www.wwwords.co.uk/ciec • Bjarnadottir, G. (2004). ”Jeg er løve som også kunne være lege”. Valgstund –en ramme rundt barns lek og sosiale prosesser i barnehagen, (hovedfagsoppgave i barnehagepedagogikk) Oslo: Høgskolen i Oslo, avd. for lærerutdanning. • Buzzelli, C. A. (1995). Teacher -child discourse in the early childhood classroom: A dialogical model of self-regulation and moral development. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Social contexts of early developmental & education. Advances in early education and day-care (Vol. 7, pp. 271-294). London: Jai-Press. • Buzzelli, C. A. (1996). The moral implications of teacher - child discourse in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 515-534. • Dunne,J.(2006). Childhood and Citizenship: A Conversation across Modernity, i European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, vol.14,no1, pp5-19 • Clark, A.(2005). Ways of seeing: using the Mosaic approach to listen to young children’s perspectives, n A. Clark, A T. Kjørholt and P. Moss (eds) Beyond Listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services, University of Bristol: Policy Press.pp29-50 • Eide, B. and Winger, N. (2005) From the children’s point of view: methodological and ethical challenges. In A. Clark, A T. Kjørholt and P. Moss (eds) Beyond Listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services, University of Bristol: Policy Press. pp. 71-90. • Emilsson,A. & Folkesson,A-M(2006) Children’s participation and teacher control, Early Child Development and Care, vol 176,nos 3-4,pp 219-238 • Formosinho J. & Araujo, S.B(2004). Children’s Perspectives About Pedagogical Interactions, I European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, vol12, no. 1,s.103-114 • Formosinho J. & Araujo, S.B(2006)Listening to Children as a Way to Reconstruct Knowledge about children: Some methodological implications, European Early ChildhoodEducation Research Journal, vol14,no1,21-32 . • Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens, Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006 • Geekie, P., & Raban, B. (1994). Learning language at home and school. In C. Gallaway & B. Richards (Eds.), Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition (pp. 153-180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20. Hughes, M., & Westgate, D. (1998). Teachers and other adults as talk partners for pupils in nursery and reception classes. In M. Woodhead & D. Faulkner & K. Littleton (Eds.), Cultural worlds of early childhood (pp. 214-222). London: Routledge, The Open University. • Haug,P.(1992): Educational Reform by Experiment, Stockholm: HLS Førlag. • Kindergarten Act,- Act no 64 of june 2005 relating to Kindergartens, Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research • Kjørholt, A.T, (2001) “The Participating Child”: A vital pillar in this century ? Nordisk Pedagogik, 21, s. 65-81 • KjørholtA.T.(2005). The competent child and ’the right to be oneself’: reflections on children as fellow citizens in an early childhood centre, I A.Clark, A.T.Kjørholt & P.Moss(eds). Beyond listening. Children’s perspectives on early childhood services.Bristol: The Policy Press,151-173 • Løvlie, A.-L(same as Schibbye) (1982a). Part process analysis: toward a new method for studying interaction. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 4, 261-273. • Sheridan,S. & Pramling Samuelsson,I.(2001) Children’s conception of Participation and Influence in Pre-school: a perspctive on pedagogical quality, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Education, vol.2,no 2,2001 • Schibbye, A-L Løvlie(1993): "The Role of "Ackowledgement" in the Resolution of a Specific Interpersonal Dilemma", art. i Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, nr.2, s. 75-189. • Schibbye, A.-L. L. (2002). En dialektisk relasjonsforståelse i psykoterapi med individ, par og familie. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. • Schultz Jørgensen,P.(2000). Børn er deltagere –i deres eget liv, i P.Schultz Jørgensen og J.Kampmann (red). Børn som informanter, Antologi, København:Børnerådet,s.9-21 • Seland, M.(2004). Barnesamtalen – Narrative gruppeintervju med barn som en vei til medbestemmelse og nye erkjennelser i barnehagen. Trondheim: Hovedoppgave i førskolepedagogikk, Dronnings Mauds Minne/Institutt for pedagogikk NTNU • Seland,M.(2006)Det moderne barn og den fleksible barnehagen, paper, BIN-Norden konferanse., Lysebu 20-22.oktober 2006 • Smith, A.(2002). Interpreting and supporting participations rights: Contributions from sociocultural theory, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, vol.10, pp73-88 • Stern, D.( 1985):The Interpersonal World of the Infant, New York: Basic Books. • von Wright, M. (2000). Vad eller vem? En pedagogisk rekonstruktion av G H Meads teori om människors intersubjektivitet. Göteborg: Daidalos. • Woodhead,M. (2005).Early childhood development: A Questions of Rights ? • I International Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 37, no3, s. 79-98