Young children's curriculum experiences

Previously, I have written about early childhood pedagogies (Murray 2018). In introducing this exciting extended issue of International Journal of Early Years Education, I focus on another key feature of early education, regarded as ‘a foundational fulcrum on which quality pedagogy rests’ (Kagan, Kauerz, and Junus 2022): curriculum. The wide range of manuscripts focused on curriculum that we receive at International Journal of Early Years Education are testament to the prominence of curriculum in the work of those who research in our field; alongside this focus in recent years, we have seen an exponential rise in centralised curriculum frameworks. In this paper, however, I argue that the key actors in any early childhood curriculum that secures learning most likely to be meaningful to young children are those who are directly engaged in its implementation: the learners and their teachers. In building this argument, I consider some definitions and components of curriculum, the potential of curriculum for reproducing or reducing inequalities, its role in an uncertain and dynamic global landscape, merits of an holistic approach, children’s agency in curriculum, and the teacher’s role in reifying a curriculum with value and relevance for young learners whose lives as adults we cannot yet imagine (Wiliam 2011).

When the term ‘curriculum’ was originally linked to education in the C16th Europe, it denoted an ordered systematic framework for what is taught and learned (Hamilton 1989). Four hundred years later, curriculum was still being defined as ‘All the learning which is planned and guided’ (Kerr 1968, 16). However, it is important to note that these descriptions refer to the explicit curriculum, as distinct from the ‘hidden curriculum’, which is instrumental in the implicit reproduction of values and behaviours in schools (Jackson 1968). In C21st early childhood provision, the explicit curriculum may be described at its most prescriptive as the ‘organised framework that delineates the content children are to learn, the processes through which children achieve the identified curricular goals, what teachers do to help children achieve these goals, and the context in which teaching and learning occur’ (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE 2009). Yet UNESCO proposes a more holistic view of curriculum that encompasses formal and informal curricula: the ‘totality of what children learn while at school – including what they learn through classroom activities; in interdisciplinary tasks; across the school, for example, in the playground, at lunch time when eating (civic responsibilities, etc.)’ (Stabback 2016: 9). Moreover, the early childhood curriculum has been defined as ‘everything children do, see, hear or feel in their setting, both planned and unplanned’ (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and Department for Education and Employment (QCA and DfEE) 2000:1).

That which is taught is culturally influenced: a process that was in evidence as long ago as ancient Greece. Whereas the Spartan curriculum minimised intellectual education in favour of rigorous physical education, the classical Athenian curriculum inspired by philosophers, including Plato, Pythagoras and Aristotle, balanced physical education with academic subjects including grammar, logic, rhetoric, music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy (Beck 2014; Habyarimana, Tugirumukiza, and Zhou 2022; Tubbs 2014). A broad balance of curriculum components was also at the heart of the ancient Roman liberal arts education – ‘ars liberalis’ – and this model extended across contemporary western civilisations (Kirby and van der Wende 2016). However, liberal arts education has tended to be afforded to more privileged students (Anders 2017; Ferrero 2007). When universal education is invoked, a narrower basic curriculum is often the offer, as utilitarian preparation for the labour market that secures investment return (Bulaitis 2010; Hillman and Jenkner 2004; UNESCO 2022). Indeed, framing curriculum as preparation is evident in the first global education target for early childhood development ‘to ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education’ (United Nations 2015, 4.2).

In recent years, education policymakers in England and the USA have lionised ‘knowledge of the powerful’ – ‘knowledge authorised by those in power’ – as a principle element of curricula for children from five years (Beck 2013; Muller and Young 2019; Pondiscio 2019). However, what counts as legitimate knowledge worthy of a curriculum – and who decides – is a contested issue in a highly dynamic, hyper-technological C21st global context (Savage 2015). Curriculum can be a tool for either reproducing or reducing inequalities from an early age, including those concerning coloniality, class, poverty, gender and age (Blossfeld et al. 2017; Christie 2020; Farini and Scollan 2019; Kozlowski 2022; Nxumalo 2019). Yet a narrow basic curriculum predicated on static ‘knowledge of the powerful’ is unlikely to enrich young children’s lives now or in their future lives (Fan and Zou 2010; Mann and Huddleston 2015). ‘Powerful knowledge’ is posited as an alternative with potential to address inequalities: an accessible, provisional curriculum approach that purports to interconnect with pedagogy to enable students to move beyond their immediate experiences to think critically as active citizens (Muller and Young 2019; Wheelahan 2007; Young et al. 2014; Young and Muller 2013). However, the ‘powerful knowledge’ curriculum risks disregarding potential contributions to learning that other curricular characteristics such as skills could offer (Hordern 2018). To this end, the Organisation for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD) (2022) proposes a dynamic model featuring not only knowledge, but also skills, attitudes and values with the aim of fulfilling students’ potential while enabling them to ‘contribute to wellbeing of others and the planet’. Alongside literacies and numeracy, Learning Compass 2030 emphasises the importance of physical and mental health, social and emotional foundations and students’ agency as curriculum keystones (OECD 2022). This OECD (2022) proposal aligns with UNESCO’s view that a quality curriculum should be ‘relevant to students’ current and future lives, experiences, environments and aspirations’ (Stabback 2016, 11).

The relevance of a curriculum to students is indeed an important factor, since students judge the value of new information by assessing its relevance to what they already know, understand and believe (Nuttall 2007). Moreover, young children ‘do not separate their learning into different subjects or disciplines’ (Ball 1949: 54). To this end, attempts to compartmentalise early learning into discrete subject silos are likely to be less successful than an holistic approach to early learning based on the interests of each student that ‘are key to the developing mind, to persistence and curiosity, to enjoyment and wonder’ (Gammage 2007, 50). An effective early childhood curriculum design promotes learning by providing ‘an interpretive framework that spreads across domains’ (Clyde 1995, 115), linking experiences and concepts to extend understanding holistically and meaningfully from children’s prior knowledge and interests: the ‘very “hooks” of motive and attraction’ (Alexander 2010; Gammage 2007, 50; New Zealand Ministry of Education 2017).

Schemas and dispositions are two ways that young children reveal their interests (Athey 2007; Carr 2001; Katz 1993; Nutbrown 2006). Different from knowledge and skills, both schemas and dispositions may also be regarded as curricular components. When young children engage in one or more of these varied patterns of behaviour, especially in play, they are also leading their own curricula, so they are agentic in their learning, and intentionally self-regulating the activities they have chosen (Bandura 2006). OECD (2022) emphasises the value of student agency as well as co-agency with peers, parents and educators who support them as factors in a C21st curriculum that promotes and future proofs learning. Equally, self-regulation is widely recognised as foundational for the cognitive, social, and emotional development as well as motivation that underpin successful learning (Sylva et al. 2010; Whitebread 2012). What is more, the patterned behaviours that constitute young children’s schema and dispositions make their emotional, social and cognitive functioning visible so they can act as starting points for educators to operate with professional autonomy by extending young children’s early learning and designing curricula that are attuned powerfully to young children’s learning needs and preferences (Nutbrown 2006).

In order to recognise features of young children’s agency and co-agency in curriculum leadership, early childhood educators must acquire and apply their own pedagogic subject knowledge alongside their knowledge of the children with whom they work. In addition, they need to be able to draw on rich funds of their own subject knowledge across multiple disciplines and domains to leverage young children’s learning in a context of co-agentic curriculum leadership. There is no doubt that these requirements have implications for early childhood workforce education, given that many early childhood workers are not educated to the levels of their colleagues in the school sector (Organisation for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD) 2019). However, an alternative is for policymakers to impose early childhood curricula on children and their educators. If the latter option is adopted, it is imperative that efforts are made to avoid prescriptive detail because the imposition of a prescriptive centralised curriculum decontextualises learning and teaching for learners and teachers (Gammage 1999; 2003). The prescriptive centralised curriculum is immutable, so it lacks meaning, value and relevance for young learners ‘whose lives as adults we cannot yet imagine’ (Wiliam 2011). Additionally, it risks diminishing children’s agency and educators’ professional autonomy which, as we have seen, are such valuable features of curricula developed within early childhood settings.

To summarise, then, the key actors in an early childhood curriculum that secures learning most likely to be meaningful to young children are those who are directly engaged in its implementation: the early childhood students and their teachers. Curriculum is a fundamental feature of early learning requiring numerous considerations. These include – but are not limited to – defining curriculum and identifying its components, the potential of the early childhood curriculum for either reproducing or reducing inequalities, the value of an holistic curricular approach, the roles of children’s agency and the early childhood educator’s autonomy. Together, these considerations characterise a curriculum likely to have value and relevance for young learners whose futures we cannot yet imagine (Wiliam 2011).

This issue opens with two articles concerned with curriculum generally. Maria Birbili and Helen Hedges invite us to consider ‘Curriculum as (re)culture(d): Early childhood policy documents in Greece and New Zealand’, while Eman Al-Zboon, Ali Oliemat and Kholoud Al-Dababneh focus on ‘The importance of and barriers to using reading pictures in the kindergarten curriculum: teachers’ perspectives’.

All remaining articles in this issue address specific curriculum subject area, suggesting that much contemporary discourse in the field of early childhood education is concerned with subject specific curricular knowledge, despite global recognition of the value of holistic learning in the early years (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2020). Four articles addressing literacy come first, starting with ‘Learning to read in a shallow orthography: the effect of letter knowledge acquisition’, from Menelaos Sarris and ‘Evaluating Storytelling Activities for Early Literacy Development’ by Irena Y. Maureen, Hans van de Meij and Ton de Jong follows. Next, Melike Yumus and Figen Turan bring us ‘Shared book reading in early literacy and language development in infancy: A pilot study’, then finally in this section the article ‘Nordic Preschool Student Teachers’ Views on Early Writing in Preschool’ is authored by Sofia Jusslin, Maria Magnusson, Hilde Hofslundsengen, Elisabeth Mellgren, Ann-Katrin Svensson, Ria Heilä-Ylikallio and Bente Hagtvet.

Mathematics is the focus of the next collection of articles. The first, from Maria Papandreou and Maria Tsouli, is entitled ‘Noticing and Understanding Children’s Everyday Mathematics during Play in Early Childhood Classrooms’. Next, Caterina Wästerlid focuses on ‘Low-Achieving Grade K-3 Children’s Early Numeracy Competences: a Systematic Literature Review’. Two further articles then highlight early mathematics education in Japan. Marcruz Yew Lee Ong, Carrie Ka Lee Ho, Manabu Kawata, Mayumi Takahashi and Kumpei Mizuno bring us ‘Understanding of base-10 concept and its application: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and Singapore’, then we welcome Peter Cave’s article ‘Young Children’s Mathematical Activities in Japan’. Next, Kelly Johnson and Sheila Degotardi share research from Australia in ‘More than “more”: Educator use of mathematical language in mealtimes with very young children’, then Chris Speldewinde and Coral Campbell look at ‘Mathematics learning in the early years through nature play’. The penultimate article in this section – ‘Swedish year-one children’s parent-initiated mathematics activities: Age-appropriate complements to school?’ – is from Paul Andrews, Jöran Petersson, Judy Sayers and Eva Rosenquist, then Amy MacDonald and Samantha McGrath complete the section focused on early mathematics with ‘Early childhood educators’ beliefs about mathematics education for children under three years of age’.

Four articles about early science follow. First, Gregor Torkar, Špela Klofutar and Janez Jerman bring us ‘Direct versus Vicarious Experiences for Developing Skills of Observation in Early Science Education’, followed by ‘Young Chefs in the Classroom: Promoting Scientific Process Skills and Healthy Eating Habits through an Inquiry-Based Cooking Project’, authored by Kyoung Jin Kim, Jiyoon Yoon and Min-Kyung Han. Iskender Gelir’s article ‘Preschool Children Learn Physics, Biology, Chemistry and Forensic Science Knowledge in Teacher-led Activities’ is next, followed by ‘Cognitive style, motivation and learning in inquiry based early-years science activities’ from Maria Kallery, Angelos Sofianidis, Popi Pationioti, Kalliopi Tsialma and Xristina Katsiana.

Three articles about arts and creativity are next. Karen Wickett brings us ‘Arts and Early Childhood Education and Care collaborations: an exploration of what leaders believe are the challenges and the opportunities’, followed by ‘To teach creativity (or not) in Early Childhood Arts Curriculum: A Case Study in Chinese Beijing Kindergartens’ by Yan Jin, Susan Krieg, Amy Hamilton and Jing Su, then Emel Tok’s article is next: ‘Early childhood teachers’ roles in fostering creativity through free play’.

An article about computing in early years from Diana Perez-Martin, Raquel Hijón-Neira and Celeste Pizarro follows: ‘Coding in Early Years Education: which factors influence the skills of sequencing and plotting a route, and to what extent?’, then ‘Physical education and its influence on emotional and mental development of preschoolers’ by Anna Berestova, Alexei Yumashev, Ilya Medvedev and Alla Philippova is the last article for this issue.

Our feature ‘Education Research Abstracts’, edited by Elizabeth Coates, completes the issue. The increasing availability of open access articles makes it easier than it has ever been for our readers to access research reports in other Education Journals other than International Journal of Early Years Education, so from 2023, we will no longer be carrying this feature in our Journal. For their sterling service to the Journal as our three Education Research Abstracts Editors in recent years, we extend grateful thanks to Elizabeth Coates who was also founder co-editor of International Journal of Early Years Education, Bert van Oers and Nikolay Veraksa. Thank you all. I am delighted to report that Elizabeth, Bert and Nikolay will remain valued members of our Editorial Board.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).