Early childhood professionals’ pedagogical decision making

ABSTRACT

The present study sought to determine how and where pedagogical decisions are made, as well as how such pedagogical decisions construct pedagogy, in the early childhood education context. The data was collected through interviews conducted with 46 early childhood education professionals, both teachers and practical nurses. The questions focused on the participants’ perceptions of the children’s learning and their own role in the process. Both data-based and theory-driven analyses were employed. The theory-driven analysis was based on the ecological dimensions introduced by Bronfenbrenner [Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1976. “The Experimental Ecology of Education.” Educational Researcher 5 (9): 5–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005009005] and Sheridan (Sheridan, Sonja. 2007. “Dimensions of Pedagogical Quality in Preschool.” International Journal of Early Years Education 15 (2): 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760701289151, 2009. “Discerning Pedagogical Quality in Preschool.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 53 (3): 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902917295). We found that teachers and practical nurses generally make pedagogical decisions based on their knowledge of child development. Moreover, they use their knowledge of pedagogy and learning theories when making decisions as they make plans for the child or a group of children in advance.

KEYWORDS:

• Early childhood education
• decision making
• early childhood professional
• pedagogical decision
• qualitative analysis

Introduction

Early childhood education (ECE) in the Nordic countries is based on play and the wellbeing of children (Broström 2017), although the role of learning-based pedagogy has been strengthened in recent years, for example, in the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (Finish National Agency for Education [FNAE] 2017). The focus of this national-level document is on supporting the development of each child’s personality and individuality as well as strengthening their readiness for academic learning (Niikko and Havu-Nuutinen 2009). However, in Finland, the national core curriculum is implemented locally, even at the level of day care centres, which results in teachers having a lot of responsibility regarding the role of their pedagogical solutions in achieving the aims of education (FNAE 2017). Although the idea of a teacher being both a curriculum user and a curriculum leader (Ho 2010) is not new, the emphasis has recently shifted towards pedagogical planning and documentation (FNAE 2017).

Finnish ECE centres are usually organised in groups comprised of children, ECE teachers and practical nurses. After completing their primary education, practical nurses must complete a three-year occupational training course, while ECE teachers must complete their higher education in either a university of applied sciences (socionom) or an academic university (bachelor’s degree). ECE teachers have pedagogical qualifications, and they are responsible for pedagogical planning, implementation and assessment both at the group level and in the case of each individual child. The national core curriculum requires ECE authorities to prepare a tailored ECE curriculum for every child in cooperation with that child’s guardian(s) (FNAE 2017). In practice, the planning of the curriculum is led by ECE teachers, while it is implemented by the entire staff of each early childhood education centre (ECEC). Finish ECE teachers are accepting of this responsibility, and it has been recognised that ECE teachers are interested in teaching and setting goals concerning children’s development (Niikko and Ugaste 2012). Niikko and Ugaste (2012) also found that the teachers emphasise social skills and wellbeing as the aims of education and play as the method for implementing pedagogical actions, which is an approach recognised in Nordic and many other European countries (Broström 2017).

The pedagogical quality of ECE can be assessed through four dimensions derived from Bronfenbrenner’s (1976) ecological theory, as introduced into the ECE context by Sheridan (2007, 2009). These four dimensions—society, teacher, child and learning context—consist of the structure, content and outcomes in which the pedagogical quality is deconstructed. Societies differ in terms of how they set expectations concerning ECE as well as the kinds of theoretical frameworks that ECE is built on (Barnett et al. 2020; Broström 2017). Differences regarding the formal qualifications of teachers also have an impact on the quality of the pedagogy implemented in the ECE context (Szkolak-Stępień 2017). A teacher’s qualifications affect the way s/he communicates with children (Szkolak-Stępień 2017), as do other actions undertaken to pay attention to children and their development (Li et al. 2017; Mahony et al. 2015). ECECs serve as a context for both learning and the holistic development of children. Niikko and Havu-Nuutinen (2009) found that preschool teachers must be flexible and methodologically adaptable when planning pedagogy. ECE professionals tend to recognise the benefits of versatile activities and child–adult interactions when it comes to enhancing children’s learning (Li et al. 2017). They also tend to think reflexively when making pedagogical decisions and take pains to introduce their knowledge concerning the phenomena at hand as well as the child (Mahony et al. 2015). Thus, ECE teachers generally appreciate learning activities that involve stories, songs and playful activities (Niikko and Havu-Nuutinen 2009).

Agbenyega (2012) investigated the pedagogical decision making of ECE teachers as a component of good-quality education and assumed a theoretically rich understanding of both teaching and learning to be necessary for a teacher to deliver good-quality teaching. However, Agbenyega (2012) found that pre-service ECE teachers did not appreciate the theoretical background of learning; instead, they relied on teaching strategies to support their work. Additionally, Broström (2017) emphasised the importance of knowledge concerning learning processes when planning ECE. A child-centred orientation and knowledge of individual child development are not sufficient, as theoretical knowledge regarding teaching and learning is also required to formulate good-quality pedagogy in relation to ECE (Agbenyega 2012; Broström 2017).

As the whole personnel of the ECECs takes part in the implementation of the curriculum the implementation of the curriculum we find it important to find out where and when the pedagogical decisions are made and what kind of knowledge they are based on. The present study sought to determine 1) how and where pedagogical decisions are made, as well as 2) how such pedagogical decisions serve to construct pedagogy, in the ECE context.

Method

The data of this study was collected in ECECs in eastern Finland. The permission for the data collection was given by local authorities and all the ECPs of each ECEC were invited to voluntary interviews. The interviews were carried out by researchers themselves and both theory-driven and data-based analysis were brought into use.

Participants

The participants in this study were 46 professionals who worked in six different ECECs in a rural area of Eastern Finland. Each ECEC was organised into 4–6 teams, and each team included both ECE teachers and practical nurses. Some of the ECECs also had a centre director. Among the participants, 24 worked as ECE teachers, while 22 were practical nurses. Some teachers (n = 4) also held staff positions that involved responsibility for the administrative work of their centre. To anonymise the participants, the background information concerning their working years has been categorised, while the term early childhood professionals (ECPs) will be used going forward to collectively refer to the practical nurses and ECE teachers. The participants were quite homogeneous in terms of their working years, although almost half of the ECPs had worked in the respective ECEC for more than ten years.

Data collection

The interview technique was chosen as the means of data collection in this study because it is well suited to the exploration of perceptions regarding sensitive issues and enables the probing of participants for more information and clarification (King and Hugh-Jones 2018). The interviews were used to map the current state of the ECE environment and to search for information about the participants’ perceptions of the learning, teaching and pedagogical decision making that takes place in the ECE context.

The research was conducted during the spring of 2019, and the interview data were collected over a period of three weeks in April in six ECECs. The interviews were conducted during the ECPs’ working hours. The interviews were each scheduled to last for half an hour, although they tended to last from 10–26 min. Sometimes, the ECPs were busy with their daily routines at the point at which they were asked to attend their interviews, even though the support of administrative personnel had been secured. That could be a reason for quite short interview in some cases. The interviews took place within the ECECs in rooms that were not in use at the time. All the interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed. Two researchers conducted the interviews, which involved 14 questions drafted in accordance with a semi-structured interview protocol.

In phenomenographic research, the concepts used in interviews play a key role, while the interviewers may inadvertently influence the concepts that the interviewees end up using. To increase the reliability of such research, researchers need to explain the meanings of the terms they use to their subjects (Kvale 1996; Sin 2010). Rather than the concept of the operational environment being chosen for the theoretical framework of the present study (see Raittila 2013), the concept of the learning environment was used in the interviews because it seemed to be in common use among the ECPs (see also Vlasov 2018). The research material was collected by experienced interviewers, and an agreement between the interviewers and the interviewees regarding the meanings of the utilised concepts was sought and confirmed several times throughout the interviews.

Analysis

To identify the main themes within the data, the content analysis method (Krippendorff 2013) was chosen to analyse the ECPs’ perceptions. The analyses were conducted in two independent phases. First, the ways and places related to pedagogical decision making were searched inductively based on the data. The researcher responsible for the analysis initially read the interview transcripts to formulate a tentative understanding and, during a subsequent reading, attempted to confirm what had been understood earlier. Three main ways of making pedagogical decisions in the ECE context were identified: 1) planning in advance 2) changing plans consciously and 3) changing plans unconsciously. Planning in advance refers to situations in which ECP is preparing his/her pedagogical work. Changing plans consciously refers to situations in which the ECP found out the plans made in advance would not work and made new plans immediately during the day or activity. Changing the plans unconsciously refers to situations in which the ECP makes quick decisions to change the plans in the middle of an activity After these main decision-making approaches were identified, the analysis continued in terms of the contents of the three decision-making approaches to define the situational contexts and the basis for the solutions. The decisions were found to be based on either the curriculum and the individual features of the child or the intention to pursue certain targets. The process of analysis is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Places and spaces of pedagogical decisions of educators, an example of the analysing process.

Way of making decisions	Situations	Basis	Example
Planning in advance	Teacher working alone in the office ECPs planning together	Curricula (national and individual) Knowledge on the child	‘As the teacher I plan the educational units.’ ‘She didn’t want to get dressed herself. We decided to start learning that.’
Changing plans consciously	Situations planned by adult beforehand Situations that pop up in the middle of daily routines	Feed-back Finding a way to solve tricky situations	‘When we were walking in the forest and children wanted to know the names of the plants’ ‘When the child started to crank while he was dressing up and I had time to go to another space with him’
Changing plans unconsciously	ECP conducting plans and reacting to children’s initiatives ECP spending time with children without plans	Feed-back and children’s reactions	‘When you realize that you have given the child an opportunity to be creative’ ‘When you realize that you have been curious together with the child’

The contents of the situations, basis and example cells presented in Table 1 constitute the target for further analysis. The second phase of the analysis comprised a theory-driven content analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994) that focused on the four dimensions of the construction of pedagogy: society, teacher, child and context (Sheridan 2007; 2009). The decision was made to concentrate on the decisions made within each dimension. The framework of the analysis is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. An example of the analysis of the four dimensions of pedagogical decisions.

Dimension	Content	Outcomes
Society	Writing documents Discussions with parents	Planning Good-quality decisions
Teacher	Discussions with colleagues Professionalism	Common decisions Flexibility
Child	Arranging opportunities to learn	Child-centred planning
Context	Building a context that encourages learning	Tranquil and safe space

Table 2 indicates that official documents (i.e. individual curricula) are placed at the society level, as are discussions with parents or guardians. The ECPs experienced how these processes led to planning and improved the quality of decisions. At the teacher level, discussions and cooperation with colleagues strengthened the ECPs’ common goals, decisions and professionalism, which enabled flexibility in the workplace. At the child level, the ECPs considered that their task involved arranging opportunities to learn, which led to child-centred planning. This corresponds to the context level, in which a tranquil space is assumed to encourage learning. Table 2 presents the process of analysis in relation to the second research question.

Findings

How and where are pedagogical decisions made?

The first research aim was to determine how and where pedagogical decisions are made. During the data analysis process, attention was paid to the interviewees’ descriptions of their pedagogical planning processes, and the data-based analysis revealed that changes to plans played a significant role in the ECPs’ descriptions. Three different forms of pedagogical decision making were identified in the pedagogical planning processes: 1) decisions made in advance for a certain child or activity, 2) decisions consciously made in the middle of an activity and 3) decisions made unconsciously in the middle of an activity.

As the ECPs described pedagogical decisions that are made in advance in the ECE context, it was possible to identify four different types of occasions that plans are made for, namely daily routines, children’s play, trips to nearby environments and actual educational units (i.e. sessions planned for learning specific items of information or skills mentioned in national curriculum). The actual educational units appeared to be the most obvious objects for planning, and such planning seemed to be taken for granted by all the interviewees.

Planning in advance took place in the office or around the coffee table, and it was based on the curriculum as well as on the child’s individual and age-dependent preferences. Aims were established in terms of the fluency of daily routines, social and emotional skills (e.g. cooperation, getting into play, participation, dealing with disappointments) and special skills such as cutting with scissors or learning numbers.

´We concentrate on how the child can feel that he/she is a part of the group. We practise those skills. How to get into play, how to solve problems with friends … It all requires repetition.´ (ECP 4)

In relation to their conscious decision making, the ECPs focused on arranging play areas and spaces for transitions from one activity to another in order to provide the children with opportunities to express their feelings and practise their social skills in safe environments. It was also considered important to share common targets and rules with other adults in the day care centre; therefore, the decision-making processes were decided upon and shared by all the teachers. The ECPs mainly based their planning in advance on their knowledge and experience concerning child development as well as on the individual children in their groups. They also used their knowledge of general ECE pedagogical principles as the basis for planning, although such an approach was only rarely mentioned during the interviews.

The pedagogical decisions made consciously in the middle of an activity were usually reactions to the child’s or children’s own reactions in specific situations. Such decisions were generally considered to be urgent. Obviously, these decisions were made anywhere in the ECEC or outdoor environments in which the activities took place. The decisions were related to daily routines, social and emotional skills, or special skills (e.g. becoming familiar with the alphabet or nature, learning physical skills such as jumping or doing somersaults). It was found to be typical of these situations that the ECPs aspired to interpret the expectations or disappointments of the children and to change their plans according to the messages received.

During the summer, we were walking outside, and there were plants growing by the trench. They [the children] were extremely interested in the plants, and so we identified them and learned a lot. (ECP 11)

The ECPs felt that they needed the ability to be sensitive and flexible in order to react quickly and appropriately to the needs of the children. It was possible to identify four features that characterised such decisions: one) the presence of an adult is essential, two) the decisions always aim to ensure a safe and comfortable environment, three) the adult knows every individual child, and four) the adult values all the children’s interests. The ECPs made equal use of their knowledge concerning pedagogy and child development when making conscious pedagogical decisions in the middle of day-to-day activities within the ECECs.

The third type of decision was made unconsciously in the middle of an activity. The ECPs were only able to recognise and evaluate such decisions with hindsight as they needed to consciously identify the occasions during which the decisions were made. ‘Go with the flow’ was the most common expression used when the ECPs described the situations in which such decisions were made. The ECPs felt that they needed sensitivity and courage to engage in genuine interactions with the children, which led to cooperation, common interests and good-quality decisions in terms of guiding both the situation and the child. Having a genuine presence, facing the child and creative thinking were all highlighted as requirements for this kind of decision making.

We should aim to answer every question as soon as it is asked. Of course, that is not always possible … but every time we should react … If they [the children] ask where the space ends … we should somehow be present, there. (ECP 22)

The ECPs used their pedagogical knowledge when analysing their unconscious decisions, and they were able to provide examples of those decisions. Interestingly, reasons connected to developmental theories or knowledge about the child were rarely mentioned in this context.

How do pedagogical decisions construct pedagogy?

The second research aim was to determine how pedagogical decisions construct pedagogy in the ECE context. To address this issue, the pedagogical decisions and actions described by the interviewees were placed within the ecological framework of pedagogical quality (Sheridan 2009). This framework consists of four dimensions: society, teachers, children and learning environment. A personal curriculum is supposed to be prepared for each child who attends the ECEC (FNAE 2017). An ECP prepares this document in cooperation with the child’s parents or guardians, which is why pedagogical discussions with parents/guardians were placed in the dimension of society, thereby representing the child’s micro-society. Cooperation with parents/guardians is considered one of the key dimensions when constructing a pedagogical environment for a child (Balcin et al. 2021). The ECPs felt that, during related conversations, both the parents/guardians and the ECPs were able to deepen their knowledge and understanding of the life of the child, which led to better-quality pedagogical solutions. One critical factor in relation to such decision making was the number of ECPs working with a particular group of children. The ECPs reported that they only had the opportunity to make good-quality decisions if they were not solely responsible for too many children.

… she [a child] started to scream and be cranky again, but I was able to take her aside. I commented that she seemed angry and that I wondered why, and she started to wonder along with me. We found words for her feelings. I hope I’ll have the time and opportunity to do that more often. (ECP 22)

New technologies and applications for administrative tasks, such as reporting the number of children in the group each day, were perceived as allowing the ECPs to spend more time with the children. Having sufficient time to spend with the children was considered essential in relation to being able to make pedagogical decisions that support each individual child and his/her needs. Of course, learning to use such new technologies and applications was not always easy, although it was an accepted aspect of working within an ECEC. The documentation itself was not seen as decision making; rather, it was seen as a daily routine.

The ECPs considered cooperation with other ECPs and with parents/guardians to be essential with regard to their decision making. They also appreciated the input of other professionals (e.g. public health nurses and psychologists) when planning pedagogy for the children. The ECPs’ attitudes towards the children and their learning could be described to be curious. This implies learning to know each child sufficiently well to be able to find appropriate solutions for him/her, in addition to supporting the ECPs’ own curiosity and eagerness to observe and analyse the phenomena discussed with the children.

You need sensitivity to get to know the child, to know the phase of development … In order to decide what we could next reach for together. (ECP32)

The ECPs also considered flexibility to be a core criterion for working in a professional manner. They appreciated the ability to change their plans according to the needs of the children, and they tended to evaluate their own actions in relation to that criterion.

The ECPs defined one of their core tasks as arranging situations and circumstances in which children have opportunities to learn. This gave rise to the third dimension of pedagogical quality, that is, the dimension of children. Play was considered the main context for learning, and the ECPs planned the play area and the artefacts available in it in such a way as to support multifaceted and long-lasting play. They aimed to be present if the children needed support, encouragement or some other kind of help participating in and developing the play. They recognised the relevance of repetition and rehearsal in relation to learning processes, and they encouraged the children to be persistent in their learning. The ECPs also recognised the importance of daily routines in terms of developing different kinds of academic, motoric and social skills.

Peaceful, tranquil and safe, rather than restless and rushed, were all listed as features considered desirable in a learning context. The former features were also seen as preconditions for learning. Thus, it was considered the ECPs’ task to provide an environment characterised by such qualities. The learning context dimension also had connections with the society dimension, that is, discussions concerning adequate amounts of personnel and space. Well-equipped buildings enable multifaceted actions, while good-quality furniture and equipment represent sustainability. The ECPs assumed that well-functioning cooperation among the staff of ECECs was more important than the actual physical spaces or limitations when designing the learning context.

If we have a good team here, we don’t need to worry if it’s a bit noisy or cramped. (ECP 6)

The ECPs were also found to consider the learning context to be a space built in cooperation and through relationships among the staff as well as between the children and the staff.

Discussion

The present study sought to determine how and where pedagogical decisions are made, as well as how such pedagogical decisions construct pedagogy, in the ECE context. We interviewed 24 ECE teachers and 22 practical nurses who worked in six ECECs and asked them about the pedagogical decisions they make in the workplace. We determined that it was justifiable to analyse the ECE teachers’ and the practical nurses’ interviews together because we could not identify any differences between the two groups’ viewpoints. This represents an interesting finding because the responsibility for identifying pedagogical solutions belongs to the ECE teachers, while the practical nurses are more involved with daily routines and care. However, it seems that the ECPs cooperate and communicate openly, with everyone being welcome to suggest ideas for enhancing the children’s learning and development.

Based on our review of the literature, we expected the analysis to reveal something concerning the background knowledge upon which the ECPs base their decisions. Agbenyega (2012) and Broström (2017) both found that ECPs use their knowledge of child development as the basis for their work, rather than their knowledge of learning theories. Our results mainly indicate the same, although we also found that the ECPs use their pedagogical knowledge when changing their plans during sessions and when making decisions related to the child dimension. The plans that were made in advance and directed the dimension of learning context were made based on the ECPs’ knowledge of child development. This represents an important finding if we want to encourage ECPs to broaden the basis of their pedagogical decision making and to become more aware of different aspects of their rationale.

The ECPs emphasised the important role of play in relation to children’s learning. They also considered learning to be an action on the part of the child, which gives the ECP a role as the organiser and enabler of the successful learning processes included in the play. This is in accordance with the idea of child-centred learning enshrined within the Finnish national core curriculum (FNEA 2017).

Prior to conducting an interview, the researcher must ‘situate’ themselves (King & Hugh-Jones 2018). During the interviews conducted in the present study, the researcher asked questions and guided the discussion. The atmosphere during interviewees was positive and, although the interviewer was a stranger, the ECPs revealed many trustful things.

The results of this study cannot be generalised, although they could be utilised in planning environments. In the present study, to increase both the internal validity and the authenticity, the research context was described in detail (cf. Elo et al. 2014). The plausibility and integrity of the research were made explicit by gathering authentic data and then interpreting these data in a transparent manner (see Tables 1 and 2). The study was conducted in six ECECs, which could have impacted the generalisability of the results. The results may well be transferable to other ECECs in Finland because the education of the ECPs was found to be quite similar to that identified in previous studies (Niikko and Havu-Nuutinen 2009). This indicates that the perceptions of the ECPs are by nature quite general. In this study, it was possible to use triangulation to increase the credibility and validity of the research.

At both the national level (macrosystem) and the local level (exosystem), the ECPs talked about existing national and local curricula, laws and time management guidelines. Such instructions serve to instruct the ECPs during the decision-making process. The ECPs’ pedagogical decision making was not found to differ based on their educational background, work experience or workplace. For example, the curriculum-related goals of the ECECs were quite similar. At the personal level (microsystem), the practices were quite homogenous. Challenges were identified within all the system levels of the ecological theory. To ensure good-quality pedagogy in the ECE context, proper time management and consistent guidance developed in cooperation among different professions are required.

It is very important that the in-service education of ECPs considers the theoretical aspects of child development. ECPs need to undergo experiences that help them develop strategies for resolving problems. They need safe situations in which they can reflect on different means of problem solving and pedagogical decision making. Yet, we still require further information on the pedagogical decisions made in relation to different dimensions (society, teacher, child, context) to identify ways of enhancing the pedagogical quality in ECE contexts. Teacher education in Finland is research based and one of the concepts used throughout the education is reflection (Metsäpelto et al. 2020). According to findings of this study skills of reflection are needed to develop the quality of pedagogical decision making and being aware of the basis of the decisions.

Disclosure statement

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