‘It is not that we decide that now we do that’: A case study on preschool teachers´ didactical leadership as expressed during collegial meetings

ABSTRACT

During the last few years, the Swedish preschool curriculum has undergone several changes. Among those changes is the introduction of the concept of teaching as a goal-oriented activity. Preschool teachers have been given a specific responsibility for leading the teaching in preschool. This study aims to explore how preschool teachers’ didactical leadership can be understood in relation to the didactical questions expressed during collegial meetings. The empirical data consist of audio recordings of 17 meetings. The participants were five qualified preschool teachers, a pre-service preschool teacher and an unqualified preschool teacher. The audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using some of the key concepts of Bernstein’s theory of pedagogical practice. The results show that preschool teachers’ didactical leadership is established in a pedagogical discourse where children’s social development and learning is at the foreground while content knowledge is often implicit. Furthermore, the child as a guide is expressed as a core idea, whilst preschool teachers position themselves mostly in the background. The results of the study point to a didactical leadership embedded in an invisible pedagogy.

KEYWORDS:

• Preschool teachers
• didactical leadership
• teaching
• pedagogical discourse
• bernstein

Introduction

This article presents results from a study on how preschool teachers´ didactical leadership can be understood in relation to the didactical questions that are expressed during collegial meetings. More precisely it sheds a light on what didactical questions are highlighted by the preschool teachers during their collegial meetings and how those can be related to the preschool teachers´ didactical leadership.

Thus, the overall aim is to give a contribution in the research field of didactics as it encompasses the practice of teaching. In the European tradition, the term didactics focuses on both the content and the aim of teaching in relation to education as a broader democratic mission (e.g. Biesta 2017). From a didactics perspective, a shift from the focus on learning to the practice of teaching can help to shed light on the delicate work that teachers are called upon to carry out in their daily practice, work that requires acknowledging the learners with their experiences and ideas, the curriculum as an expression of societal views and the challenges of an unknown future (Biesta 2013).

In the Swedish context, the preschool curriculum has been aligned with the rest of the educational system (The Education Act, SFS 2010, 800) with the concept of teaching now seen as central to preschool practice. Most recently, the preschool teachers’ responsibility for leading the teaching in preschool has been written into the revised preschool curriculum (SNEA 2018) where teaching is defined as a goal-oriented activity under the leadership of qualified preschool teachers. The curriculum goals should then be used as a starting point for planning for children’s learning while at the same time, the child’s interests should always be considered together with the child’s perspective. Furthermore, the democratic values of the Swedish preschool stress the importance of participation, including the child's right to influence both the content and the daily life in preschool. The importance of working within a democratic atmosphere is stressed as pivotal. To strengthen children’s capacity to relate to others in a respectful and accepting manner is one of the main tasks for the preschool. The other interrelated task involves working with content knowledge such as maths, science, literacy and so on. Both the social and the cognitive growth of children, in a nurturing environment, are thus part of the Swedish preschool’s pedagogical task.

The changes in the Swedish preschool curriculum (SNEA, 2018) follow international trends that emphasise the importance of good-quality provision for the youngest children, both to improve social equality and as a means of economic growth (Heckman 2011; OECD 2017).

Previous research on teaching in preschool

In the growing research field on teaching in preschool, there are also several contributions attempting to harmonise preschool pedagogy with the teaching task. One of the key dimensions that has been explored is how a play-based pedagogy can be reconciled with teaching. For instance, both in Australia and New Zealand, the concept of teaching as a purposeful activity has begun to be established in traditionally child-centred pedagogies. The concept of intentional teaching is now inscribed at the core of preschool practice and calls for preschool teachers to adopt a more active role (Lewis, Fleer, and Hammer 2019). Different studies have highlighted the opportunity to harmonise play and teaching (Cohrssen, Church, and Tayler 2016; Pyle and Danniels 2017; Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, and Golinkoff 2013). Pyle and Danniels (2017) show how a majority of the preschool teachers in their study recognised their role in children’s play as important in order to promote children's learning. Moreover, the Cohrssen, Church, and Tayler (2016) study shows that when preschool teachers observe children’s play with a specific focus on mathematical issues, their own confidence and abilities to teach in that area tend to grow. Thus, without taking over or disrupting children’s play, preschool teachers can still have a real impact on children's learning. Thus, there is a growing consensus on the importance of creating, through teaching, learning opportunities which can also make an impact on children’s future learning (Pollitt, Cohrssen, and Seah 2020; Wickstrom, Pyle, and DeLuca 2019).

The topic of teaching in preschool is also a growing research field in Sweden. Research shows that a strong perception of preschool practice as being deeply different from practice in compulsory school, and consequently a fear of ‘schoolification’ is present (e.g. Eidevald and Engdahl 2018; Otterstad and Braathe 2016). Preschool teachers and educators tend to express the idea of preschool practice as being fundamentally different from compulsory school practice (Due et al. 2018) and position themselves as co-explorers, rejecting the idea of a more prominent position, which they seem to associate with compulsory school and a more authoritarian teaching style (Due et al. 2018).

Two studies conducted in a Swedish context show the possibility of creating teaching activities and learning opportunities, for example in mathematics, during children’s play (Björklund, Magnusson, and Palmér 2018; Pramling et al. 2019). Björklund, Magnusson, and Palmér (2018), show how the opportunities for children to learn in the content area of mathematics could vary to a high degree, mostly due to the preschool teachers’ responsiveness to children mathematising during play. Teaching strategy based on confirming the child’s interest did not expand the child’s learning, while other approaches such as providing children with more suitable strategies, introducing new concepts or challenging the meaning of concepts used during play could have an impact for children’s learning in mathematics (Björklund, Magnusson, and Palmér 2018).

What appears to be fundamental is the preschool teachers’ responsiveness. Responsiveness is also a key concept in the research of Pramling et al. (2019), in which the concept is further developed as play-responsive teaching. Their research sheds light on the importance of preschool teachers being able to create and maintain an inter-subjective space during play as well as being able to use new elements and clues that are introduced during play (which they define as alterity, from Bakhtin’s dialogical theory) to further challenge the children.

Thulin and Jonsson (2018) show that Swedish preschool pedagogy is based on an educational ideal where the development of the child’s personality is foregrounded, while the acquisition of content is in the background. However, the study shows that it is possible to acknowledge the perspective of the child while at the same time promoting children’s learning through teaching by creating new connections between the different experiences of the child and the potential learning contents (Thulin and Jonsson 2018).

Other studies show how teaching, although not acknowledged as a legitimate practice in preschool, is at the same time incorporated in a traditional understanding of preschool pedagogy (Hildén, Löfdahl Hultman, and Bergh 2018), which leads to a blurred understanding of the relationship between teaching and learning (Vallberg Roth 2018). In a study on preservice preschool teachers’ didactical dilemmas in relation to teaching for sustainability, Hedefalk et al. (2020) found that a common dilemma was about balancing a given content with children’s own ideas and initiatives. Also, from the starting point of a didactic perspective, Vallberg Roth and Holmberg (2019) shed light on how teaching in preschool can be understood in relation to learning and care. The results of their study show how preschool teachers make use of what Roth and Holmberg describe as didactical tact: tact can be understood both as a form of sensitivity, as in tactfulness, but also a musical term. It can then be understood as keeping pace. Tuning in with children, showing care and creating learning opportunities that are suitable for each child, is a form of didactical tact. On the other hand, a lack of didactical tact was identified in situations where preschool teachers create safe situations with few or no learning challenges. Caring and learning can thus appear as dimensions of teaching when didactical tact is used (Vallberg Roth and Holmberg 2019). Furthermore, Jonsson (2013) shows how the preschool curriculum is restricted when preschool teachers mostly rely on children’s interest.

Olsson, Lindgren Eneflo, and Lindqvist (2020) found that the didactical dimension of what is taught was related both to more traditional school subject-oriented teaching and to value-oriented teaching. Subject-oriented teaching was expressed as teaching content such as mathematical concepts, while value-oriented teaching was expressed as the teaching of content such as social competencies. When it comes to the didactical dimensions of how and who and when, preschool teachers seem to search for a fine balance in which their professional judgment must be used to tune in with the children’s perspective (Olsson, Lindgren Eneflo, and Lindqvist 2020).

As shown above, the didactical starting point of the present study is shared with other research contributions conducted in the Swedish context. However, previous research has not focused on the central place of preschool teachers’ didactical leadership in the teaching mission. Therefore, the present study aims to fill this gap by focusing more specifically on preschool teachers’ didactical leadership as expressed by the didactical underpinnings that are discussed during collegial meetings. Didactical leadership is here defined as ‘a leadership aiming to lead, coordinate and organise teaching’ (Vallberg Roth et al. 2019, 40, translation mine)

Theoretical framework

To create a theoretical understanding of teachers’ didactical leadership, some of Basil Bernstein’s main theoretical concepts related to the field of pedagogy and teaching are used. Bernstein defines the pedagogical discourse as follows: ‘We shall define the pedagogical discourse as the rule which embeds a discourse of competence (skills of various kinds) into a discourse of social orders in such a way that the latter always dominates the former.’ (Bernstein 2003, p. 174–175).

In other words, the pedagogical discourse implies not only a given content knowledge but also the competencies that are valued as well as the approaches used to convey the content. The social order that is always present in the pedagogical discourse is what Bernstein calls the regulative discourse (RD) while the instructional discourse (ID) is related to the skills and competencies to be acquired in relation to a given content. As Bernstein points out, the regulative discourse is the dominant one, conveying the societal values as well as the values of the specific pedagogical context (Bernstein 2003).

Furthermore, the instructional discourse is related to the concept of classification, while the regulative discourse relates to the concept of framing (Peterson 2020; Emilson 2008). Basically, classification refers to the boundaries that are put in place between contents. Classifications do not define the content itself but rather the relationship between contents. The stronger the classification, the stronger the boundaries. Weak classification, on the other hand, results in blurred boundaries between different contents and it is characteristic of an integrated type of curriculum (Bernstein 2000, 2003).

According to this definition, the preschool curriculum in Sweden represents an integrated type, with low boundaries between different areas. This is commonly embraced in many countries: the younger the children, the weaker the classification. The concept of classification can be considered as related to the didactical dimension of what (Peterson 2020). The concept of framing focuses on the level of communication and can be considered as related to the didactical dimensions of how and who (Petersson, 2020; Emilson 2008). It focuses on the relationship between the teacher and child and on how power is distributed among those actors.

Low framing enables the child to have, at least apparently, more control of the selections of meanings. A strong framing, on the other hand, gives the teacher more control in selecting the relevant meanings in a pedagogical relationship as well as the pacing of learning (Bernstein 2000, 2004). Although it is possible to have pedagogical practices that are based on both strong classification and framing or, on the contrary, weak classification and framing, this is not necessarily the case. The degree of strength, low or strong, of classification and framing can vary in time and space and they can be combined in different ways.

Related to the concept of classification and framing are what Bernstein defines as the recognition and realisation rule. Classification enables recognition of what content is considered legitimate in a specific practice. Framing enables realisation by privileging meaningful ways of communication in a pedagogical practice (Bernstein 2004). Thus, recognition can be seen as a prerequisite for realisation.

When it comes to preschool practice, which is the focus of this study, it is more likely to have both low classification and low framing, although the degree of framing can vary among different practices (e.g. Emilson 2008). Bernstein conceived preschool practice as a form of invisible pedagogy (Bernstein 2003). Invisible pedagogy is characterised both by low framing and low classification. Furthermore, invisible pedagogy tends to be implicit and with a high degree of child-centeredness. Moreover, it lacks explicit criteria for evaluation. On the other hand, evaluation can take place more subtly and rather than be focused on the acquisition of specific contents it can be directed towards the whole child (Bernstein 2003). The child is then visible for the teacher not so much through the extent of acquisition of a specific content but rather by being engaged in doing things.

Taken together, these concepts are used to shed light on the didactical dimension that the participating preschool teachers discuss during collegial meetings as an expression of the pedagogical discourse that is at work in their pedagogical practice. Preschool teachers’ didactical leadership is then understood in relation to that discourse.

Method and data production

Design

A case study design has been used (Merriam 1998) to understand preschool teachers’ didactical intentions expressed with reference to the actual setting. The strength of the case study design lies in the opportunity to study a phenomenon in depth. The weakness of a case study lies in the impossibility to generalise the results outside the studied context (Bassey 1999). However, following Lincoln and Guba (2000), a generalisation by analogies is possible in relation to similar contexts.

In the following section, a description of the context and data production is provided. The analytical steps will be accounted for and the ethical considerations discussed.

The context of the study

Seventeen collegial meetings by a group of preschool teachers were attended during the autumn of 2019. These collegial meetings were held with the explicit goals of strengthening the preschool teachers’ role as pedagogical leaders for teaching in preschool. The collegial meetings were also supposed to be a forum for reflection and further development of pedagogical practice. These goals were articulated by the principle. The participants in the study were five qualified preschool teachers, a pre-service preschool teacher already working at one of the preschools, and an unqualified preschool teacher. At the time of the study, the participants worked at two different preschools run by the municipality under the leadership of the same preschool principal. Both the preschools embrace the municipality’s pedagogical philosophy as described by the council’s pedagogical guidelines. In addition to the preschool teachers, some of the meetings were attended by a pedagogista and by the preschool principal.

Data production and analytical procedure

The empirical data consist of recordings of 17 weekly collegial meetings recorded with a digital dictaphone. Approximately 16 hours were recorded. The role of a non-participant observer was used (Kawulich 2005). During the collegial meetings, the participants discussed their own practices and what was important to them, using the pedagogical guidelines from the municipality, the national curriculum as well as different kinds of pedagogical documentation as sources of topics of discussion

All the recorded meetings were then transcribed in a basic transcription that could account for the content of the dialogues during these meetings (e.g. Nikander 2008). Like unfocused transcription, this approach is useful when the researcher is primarily interested in what has been said rather than how it has been said (Gibson 2010). The amount of transcribed text was approximately 300 pages. The recordings were listened to both during transcription and after, and the transcriptions were read several times. To analyse the results some sensitising questions have been used to make meaning of the dialogues (Gillespie and Cornish 2014) and to shed light on the didactical dimensions that are focused on during the collegial meetings.

Figure 1 Sensitising questions employed in analysis of the material

Figure 1. Sensitising questions employed in analysis of the material.

The results have been organised around the didactical dimensions that the sensitising questions helped to shed light on. Finally, the results have been analysed by using the concepts of Bernstein (2000, 2003) as described above.

Ethical considerations

The present study follows the Swedish Research Council´s ethical guidelines (2017). The participants were informed both orally and through written information about the study’s aim. A letter of consent was then distributed and collected by the researcher, with the right for the participants to withdraw at any time clearly stated in it. Furthermore, the integrity of the participants was protected through anonymisation. In the presentation of the results, all the names are fictitious.

Trustworthiness and authenticity

Some of the participants had previously been my colleagues when I worked as a preschool teacher. I therefore thoroughly discussed with senior colleagues at my department the ethical challenges that could be caused by my closeness to the participants. Finally, I came to the decision to carry on the study on the premise that the participation was voluntary, and that consent could be withdrawn at any time. The ethical challenges described also have implications for the trustworthiness of the study. To reduce the possibility that my experience and preconceptions could invalidate the result, I used a log as a tool for self-reflection and to monitor myself during data collection (Marshall 2006). During the analytical process, the transcripts were read several times and I actively looked for data that could either contradict or balance previous interpretations. To increase the trustworthiness of the study, quotations are used to show how the findings are supported by the data.

Empirical data and results

The didactical questions regarding what, how and who, presented below, are related to one another and are not separated in practice; in fact they overlap. Nevertheless, they are presented separately in the results to provide easier access for the reader. Preschool teachers´ didactical leadership is understood in relation to the different didactical questions that were discussed during the collegial meetings.

What

The didactic question of what encompasses the two interrelated tasks of the pedagogical mission, as expressed in the Swedish preschool curriculum (SNEA, 2018). The data from my study show that content, the question of What, seems to be embedded in the daily life at the preschool when the preschool teachers in the study discuss their teaching. The child’s social growth is put in the foreground, while different areas of content knowledge such as maths or science are placed in the background. In the following section, under the headings social competencies and content knowledge, results are presented that show the way preschool teachers discuss the question of What in their teaching.

Social competencies

When preschool teachers talked to each other about what they focus on when reflecting on pedagogical activities, the importance of children acquiring social competencies repeatedly emerged. Social growth as a content area incorporates children learning to be kind and helpful, to be a resource in the group and to develop acceptance of others. An example of that is given in the following quote where Tina describes how some of the children have been using mattresses to build a tent. The focus that Tina seems to retain as the most important dimension of the learning situation is how the children show their willingness to include others:

And then it was another boy who came in and asked to be part of the play, but the other answered “no, you see, there is just room for the two of us. There is no room for you”. Then a pedagogue come along, and she asked, “but how can you solve this? He really wants to play too. Can you do something in order to make room for him or is there really no more room?” and then they started to discuss “but we can do it in this way” (…) it was the pedagogue who asked, “how can you think?, how can this child get some room in the tent?” and then they started to discuss and made the tent bigger so the other boy could get room in it, and I thought it was really nice of them!

As this quote shows, the preschool teacher’s didactical choice is to ask questions that open up opportunities for children to learn how to cooperate and negotiate with one another. Thus, the didactical dimension ofwhat is focused on social competencies is central. Preschool teachers in this study value highly the importance of supporting children in the development of a sense of positive awareness and confidence in themselves. My interpretation is that the preschool teachers approach their practice through what Bernstein (2003) describes as a regulative discourse. The regulative discourse is always presented as a part of the pedagogical discourse, and it forms the criteria for what is considered desirable. In this study, the regulative discourse is visible through a focus on the child’s behaviour and competencies, such as being a good and sensitive friend or a curious and active child.

Content knowledge

The curriculum goals, focusing on content knowledge from different areas, are also mentioned by the preschool teachers but in a rather implicit manner. Some of the preschool teachers point out that the connection between the activities at the preschool and curriculum goals is unclear. Others describe this connection as an unfolding process. Some of the preschool teachers also express hesitation about basing planning for teaching connected to the curriculum goals. Rather, they want to observe the activities that are taking place and try to connect the activities to the curriculum goals while doing so. Mary puts it this way:

And then as a member of staff you connect it [the content in play] to the curriculum and see what they have learnt through play. It doesn’t need to be goal-oriented all the time (Mary)

When discussing how the goal orientation of the curriculum influences their didactical choices, Tina and Mary express their thoughts as follows:

We do an activity. (Then) What was that? what did we do?

I mean what goals did we achieve here? (Tina)

We have it at our fingertips (Mary)

As the quotes show, the curriculum goals become visible for the preschool teachers after the event, so to speak. However, some uncertainty about what the different curriculum goals really mean is also revealed. In the following quote, Jane observes that she is not certain about the meaning of the curriculum goal of being able to play with words. She sees it as problematic that they are not sure what opportunities the child should be given to learn by playing with words:

how do you play with words? What does it mean in concrete terms? what kind of ability are the children supposed to develop? We don’t really know that.

My interpretation is that since the preschool teachers are not used to planning their teaching based on curriculum goals, they are also not familiar with interpreting them.

The preschool teachers also express the idea that they should not provide children with answers or knowledge that may challenge the children’s own ideas. Tina describes a situation where she chooses not to interfere when children are discussing content they have been working on at the preschool.

And then about those planets we have been crafting. There were many children who asked questions about them: What planet is the yellow one? Or the big one? The yellow one is the sun, they concluded, but then it was some of the boys saying “no, the big one that´s the sun, the yellow one is our planet”. And I, “ok” just like this (Tina).

As the quote shows, the children are left with their own answers. The preschool teacher does not share her thoughts nor in any way gives the children facts that can challenge their own views.

Thus, the content knowledge is more implicit in preschool teachers´ discussions since the curriculum goals are embedded in the ongoing activities rather than being the focus for planning. The thematic project approach is a way of integrating different content areas and is also in line with the preschool curriculum, where integration rather than division into different subjects is advocated. However, in relation to the didactical question of what, the child’s interest is more often discussed as being central, with the child as the initiator of activities, both during free play and in relation to the project approach.

How

The question how represents the strategies the preschool teachers say that they use in exploring content together with the children. One strategy is first to observe what the children are doing and support them when needed. Observing and supporting implies taking a step back. Another strategy is to ask and encourage children to think by themselves rather than offering solutions or answers. By these strategies, the preschool teachers emphasise the importance of children finding their own answers and also that they are expected to be curious and active in their own learning.

For instance, when it comes to social competencies, preschool teachers describe the importance of giving children opportunities to find out how to cooperate or resolve conflicts by themselves before intervening:

How can they find a solution to move on. Of course, you need to challenge the children further but, on many occasions, I think they can challenge themselves. They can help one another to get further (Carole).

Additionally, when it comes to teaching content knowledge, observing and supporting is the strategy that is most commonly expressed and is put forward as the most appropriate strategy. However, waiting for the children to find their own answers can sometimes be problematic and result in a lack of support. Some of the preschool teachers expressed their concerns about this:

It feels like many children need a lot of help to be able to construct a marble run by themselves that works as they wish. And then they get frustrated because they wanted it to work but it doesn´t, they haven´t understood the different steps for it to work. And then the question is, should I intervene as an adult and tell them how it should be or should they discover it by themselves? You must have a balance in this? Show and tell them or [let them] explore and find out by themselves (Jane).

A third strategy that the preschool teachers discuss is that of arranging the pedagogical environment to enable children to explore freely. To carefully design the environment is considered pivotal for creating opportunities for children’s learning and can also be considered as a form of support. There is a joint understanding that a carefully designed environment creates opportunities for children to autonomously choose activities. On the other hand, the preschool teachers also voice some concerns about limitations that they see in the design of the pedagogical environment. These limitations are related to the preschool teachers´ thoughts on what children should have the opportunity to be engaged with.

Thus, regarding how to explore content knowledge and develop social competencies, preschool teachers in this study describe their role as being that of a co-explorer and observer. Furthermore, it can be argued that preschool teachers employ a realisation rule that is meaningful to their practice. This implies at times avoiding challenging children’s understandings in favour of including children’s own suggestions. However, as they point out, this may also be problematic as it limits the possibility to create a deeper understanding of a given content.

Who

When it comes to the didactical question of who, two common interrelated ideas are expressed by the preschool teachers participating in this study. One is the importance of following the child’s interest and so letting the child be a guide. As the excerpt below shows, the didactical question of who is also connected to what and how, framing the role of the preschool teacher as that of a co-explorer who follows and to some extent expands the guiding child, for instance through a thematic approach.

It is quite clear that the children are guiding us in some way. They’re guiding us in how we should work out. It’s not like we’ve decided. We start from the children’s interest, and we go on from there (Tina).

One child’s interest is also put forward as a catalyst for other children in the group. While focusing on the children’s interest as a starting point, the preschool teachers also express the possibility of creating a common path by working with a thematic approach. For instance, they describe how they can develop and expand some of the children’s interests by creating a common focus. Furthermore, they describe this approach as more flexible, allowing the preschool teachers and the children to explore different themes together. Mary says:

I’ve thought about this thing when you work with projects and when you’re going to choose projects and when you observe what the children are investigating and what it is that excites them. How nice it is, feeling that you’re choosing the path together (Mary).

The role of the preschool teacher is framed mainly to follow the active, interested, and guiding child. Low framing implies, according to Bernstein (2000), that the learner has both more power when it comes to choosing the content as well as more freedom when it comes to both how it is approached and the pace of acquisition. The preschool teachers frame their own role accordingly. Giving the child the opportunity to find out solutions by themselves makes it important for the teachers not to take over. It implies being supportive and attentive and at the same time letting children express their thoughts and feelings, which is characteristic of the democratic tradition of the Swedish preschool (e.g. Bennet 2010). For instance, seeing the child as a guide can be considered as an expression of low framing.

Discussion and implications

The aim of the study was to investigate how preschool teachers’ didactical leadership can be understood in relation to the didactical questions expressed during collegial meetings. The participants shared experiences and reflected on their own role as preschool teachers. While doing so, they expressed both shared views and uncertainties about how they should lead children in learning processes and how teaching should be enacted.

Within a social pedagogical tradition, preschool teacher’s didactical leadership is directed mainly to social learning with a strong belief in the right of children to develop a positive awareness of themselves (Bennet 2010). Thus, the didactical leadership that is established when preschool teachers discuss their practice in collegial meetings is related to a particular pedagogical discourse, where low framing and classification modalities are used. The preschool teachers in this study hold the view of the child being at the core of their practice and seem to avoid a stronger framing. One of the reasons for this could be a concern about becoming instructional and reducing the apparent freedom of the child. As the findings of Due et al. (2018) indicate, my study shows that the fear of embracing what is perceived as an authoritarian teaching style can be an obstacle for preschool teachers. Preschools are embedded in a strong who you should become tradition rather than what you should know tradition (Thulin and Jonsson 2018). As such, the invisibility of preschool pedagogy can lead to weak didactical leadership. Previous research has also shown that when preschool teachers mostly rely on the child’s interest, the realisation of the preschool curriculum does not lead to development of knowledge and abilities based on explicit didactical positions (Jonsson 2013). Rather, what Jonsson describes as the didactic of the present tends to create a restricted curriculum (Jonsson 2013). My study shows that not taking the lead in relation to children’s learning can in fact result in a restricted curriculum (Jonsson 2013), because potential learning areas are not expanded (e.g. Vallberg Roth and Holmberg 2019).

However, the results also show that some problematic issues were discussed. My interpretation is that preschool teachers are paying attention to the necessity for developing their didactical leadership in the light of their responsibility for teaching in preschool. This problematisation sheds light on some of the key challenges that preschool teachers may need to resolve to enact their didactical leadership in relation to their responsibility for teaching, for instance their own role in leading the children’s learning processes, their awareness of the content knowledge as well as their concerns about teaching as an instructional practice.

However, the present study does not advocate either for an implementation of instructional teaching strategies or for a teacher-centred pedagogy, where children’s influence and agency are greatly reduced. Rather, by using some of Bernstein’s main concepts, it is possible to shed light on the potential consequences of a teaching approach where children are too often requested to find out their own solutions and answers by themselves. This can result in less freedom in the long run, especially for children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds (Bernstein 2003). The implications for practice and policy imply the need for establishing a didactical leadership where both the learner and the curriculum goals are considered simultaneously. The compensatory task of preschool (SNEA, 2018) could then be realised more fully.

Limitations and further research

The findings of this study are limited to a few participants and the data are not extensive, with a restricted number of hours that have been recorded during a limited period. Thus, the results cannot be generalised to other contexts. A further limitation is that the participants in this study have been working together for a long time and can therefore be expected to share views and beliefs that can be hard to question within the group. Future research could be conducted by using other strategies for recruiting, to ensure a wider variation of participants from different settings. Using other methodologies, such as interviews, for data-production could help to get closer to preschool teachers’ own understanding and perspective on their didactical leadership.

Disclosure statement

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