Editorial

Over the years, EECERA has created unprecedented opportunities to spend time in the company of our leading specialists and interact with our heroes. So many memories to recall and reminisce about. A dream come true was meeting Carla Rinaldi in Dublin, 2006. While some of the ideas and principles of Reggio Emilia were familiar to some of the audience, listening to her keynote was a joy and an inspiration to all. How rich and poetic her words were and remain.

The cornerstone of our experience, based on practice, theory, and research, is the image of the child as rich, strong, and powerful. The emphasis is placed on seeing the children as unique subjects with rights rather than simply needs. They have potential, plasticity, the desire to grow, curiosity, the ability to be amazed, and the desire to relate to other people and to communicate. (Carla Rinaldi)

Sustaining and satisfying as that keynote was, there were others that unquestionably caused disruption even dismay. This happened at the 2000 EECERA conference in London with a resulting state of disequilibrium that placed many delegates in a state of flux. Erica Burman (2000) gave a keynote presentation, titled ‘Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater’. She proceeded to deconstruct the knowledge that was essential to practice. The Piagetian active child appeared to be thrown out along with the baby. Burman challenged our fundamental notions of childhood and child development. She interrogated the assumptions and practices surrounding psychology of child development. Yet her criticisms of these conventional theories which underpinned our daily work triggered my desire and that of many others to explore and investigate more deeply. Arguably this keynote generated enormous learning, exciting and transformative. Her book ‘Deconstructing Developmental Psychology (1994)’ was appealing and was followed by many more in that vein, including Canella (1997), Rogoff (1990), Hultquist and Dahlberg (2001) to name but a few. Once the mind has been opened there is no turning back.

Following on a few years later at the EECERA conference in Stavanger 2008 we met Hilleva Lenz Taguchi. Her keynote was titled ‘Justice in Early Childhood Education? Justice for Whom and for What?’ From Lenz Taguchi we learned more about deconstructing, how it is about disrupting, destabilising and challenging the taken-for-granted pedagogy. She presented new approaches to learning in ECEC, shifting attention to the force and impact which material objects and artefacts can have in learning. Drawing upon the theories of feminist physicist Karen Barad and philosophers Gille Deleuze and Félix Guattari, she discussed how pens, paper, clay and construction materials can be understood as active and performative agents. Matter, it seems, cannot be thought of as passive. She challenged conventional and long established binary divides such as theory/practice, discourse/matter and mind/body in teaching and learning. At the time this felt remarkably strange, almost bizarre. Subsequently, like Burman’s, her presentation was powerful in excavating oppressive discourses and constructing knowledge in ways that intensified interest.

The social construction of the child has gained increasing attention in recent years: the idea that our image or understanding of the child is socially constructed within particular contexts and, further, that these constructions shape policies, provisions and practices. We are creating new understandings of children, constantly crystallising our construct. The accompanying theoretical positions have also shifted our focus from understanding practice to making our practice more complex. Taguchi urges, now more than ever, that power, inclusion and justice need to be continually monitored. We need to strive and push ourselves to complexify practice to maintain an open disposition. As Taguchi explains further:

One way of understanding the educational arena in a wider perspective today is that there are two strong contradictory movements at work; one is complexity and diversity increase, and one of complexity and diversity reduction … The more we seem to know about complexity of learning, children’s diverse strategies and multiple theories of knowledge, the more we seek to impose learning strategies and curriculum goals that reduce the complexities and diversities of learning and knowing. (Taguchi 2008)

Critical pedagogy advocates for understandings of power among all marginalised groups. It incorporates investigations of injustice in multiple categories: race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and more rather than focusing on a local marginalised community. Critical pedagogy examines the ways that everyday ECEC practices create and sustain both marginalised and privileged identities.

The image of the child is explored once again on this occasion from the posthuman ontology and epistemology. Posthuman concepts contest institutionalised and ageist practices in both ECEC and teacher education. This perspective questions positioning the child as epistemically and ontologically inferior Murris (2016). There are many implications as the child is reconfigured as rich, resourceful and resilient through relationships with human and non-human others. This kind of thinking along with complexifying practice could provide the vigour and vitality to transform boundaries, that blur the edges between research, policy and practice. One way or the other, research must be in there to continue to confront dominant ways of being, knowing and doing.

The compendium of research articles in this issue typifies some substantial considerations taking place in universities, institutions and centres all over the world. Yet this work represents a small fraction of the entirety that relates to the realm of ECEC with all its various players, agents, paradigms and theories. Topics such as Non-Digital Games (NDG), children’s rights, particularly in research, professionalism, oral language and assessment, transition, preschool behaviour, school readiness, literacy, transition and the ‘Wonder Project’.

A wealth of research has been conducted over the years on children’s play. Here in this first article by Ngan Kuen LAI, Tan Fong ANG, Lip Yee POR and Chee Sun LIEW from Malaysia, is a study that focuses on non-digital games (NDGS). The introduction appears to reverse the usual order of things with its groupings. Based on a review of the literature the study then proceeds with an exacting selection process. The multi-dimension analysis and comparisons among the inter-variables (type of play, age group, research method, and learning outcome) provides useful information for educators, game developers and researchers. The findings indicate that non-digital games can stimulate the cognitive development of preschool age children. The authors suggest the analysis on research methods used for specific types of play and learning outcomes could be used as a reference when designing research regarding children and their games, for data gathering and analysis.

Following decades of discussion and discourse, a surprisingly high percentage of research articles still exclude children from participation. Appealing as it is, the concept of children as co-researchers nonetheless demands careful thought. Fiona Mayne, Christine Howitt and Léonie J. Rennie from Perth have developed a hierarchical model of children’s research participation rights. They have brought together Hart’s well-known ladder of participation with the four UNCRC participation rights established in Article 12 ‒ information, understanding, voice, and influence - to contribute to the discussion. While it is not clear why researchers have been slow to shift their style of research to more participatory methods, it is time to expect more from those who plan new research projects that involve young children. This ingenious resource has great potential for researchers who plan to integrate children in their studies. Overall this participation model will contribute to a compelling and significant paradigmatic shift within the early childhood research community.

ECEC professionalisation and the challenges of developing professional standards is the subject of the next article. Anton Havnes based at the Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, investigates professionalism, exploring what he describes as a paradox. Professionalism per se is intrinsically linked to a relatively high degree of professional autonomy and control over one’s work, whereas the reality of those working in the ECEC sector is that they have only minor roles in setting ECEC quality and standards. In this innovative research project, the author positions professionalism in a triangular relationship between policy, research and the profession itself, each of which has specific values, priorities and approaches. It established dialogue between higher education and research, while still paying close attention to the voices of ECEC teachers to articulate their knowledge and skills. The project generated many insights as well a wealth of material far exceeding the space apportioned in this journal. The project achieved its purpose through discussions that strengthened and sharpened understandings, supporting ECEC teachers articulate for and among themselves what is essential in their pedagogical practice.

Staying with the theme of ECEC teachers but with different researchers on a different continent, Jane Kirby, Anne Keary and Lucas Walsh from Victoria asked this research question: how do ECEC teachers understand their role in children’s oral language learning in response to an Allied Health screening process? This research, analogous to the previous one, draws on data obtained from interviews and focus groups with ECEC practitioners and managers. The context for this study is the familiar introduction of multiple policies for quality standards and curriculum outcomes. Practitioners from many countries will identify with these top-down measures to improve sector performance. The findings allay fears and confirm the complexity of nurturing young children, the necessity for a foundation of deep knowledge. Intentional teaching and assessment for learning rather than encouraging compliance require effective skills in communications and a rich, integrated approach to teaching.

Another article, one of three in this edition, addresses transitions. The transition from one educational institution to another is recognised internationally as an important time in children’s lives and has gained prominence in recent years and is the research subject of Jenny Wilder and Anne Lillvist of Stockholm University. This research aims to discuss and unravel the theoretical concept ‘learning journey’. Wilder and Lillvist developed a ‘Conceptual Framework for Analysing Children’s Learning in Educational Transitions’. They explore the term ‘learning journey’ and enter the ‘borderland’. They bring together five key transition processes: - learning, continuity/ discontinuity, change, collaboration and time. The proposed framework and suggested usages during practice could be a means to achieve greater insight into each child’s learning journey during educational transitions. Inspired by Bronfenbrenner’s Process–Person–Context–Time Model (PPCT), Wilder and Lilvist have created an optimal learning tool to support children.

The sixth piece of research comes from Portugal and considers emotional and behavioural problems (BP) in young children using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). Researchers Sofia Majors and Maria Joao Seabra-Santos viewed the LPA of a large representative sample of children rated both by parents and teachers. Fundamentally, they wondered about agreement between these groups. They note that behavioural problems are more correlated in early childhood and overall behaviour problems are not independent of one another. These problems are clustered and evident in the multidimensional data matrix. The researchers then asked the following questions: How many clusters of children may be identified based on parents and teachers reports for behaviour problems? Are there differences between parents and teachers assessments? Accordingly, the authors point out they provide information that should be helpful in finding the children, families, and teachers who need special help. Correspondingly, in guiding or indicating the kinds of additional assessments or interventions that are likely to be most useful, particularly given the recent increase in reported behavioural problems, the research is a meaningful addition to the literature on emotional and behavioural problems and as such a mechanism for parent-teacher agreement.

From the USA we have an article that takes another though different focus on transitions. Building a structural model for understanding school readiness is the title from Dominic Gullo and Michel Miller of Drexel University in Philadelphia. They use structural equation modelling (SEM), a multivariate statistical analysis technique to analyse structural relationships. In this study, SEM was used to evaluate a number of individual and home environment variables that may mediate children’s academic and socio-behavioural readiness for school. Their research is based on a large sample size that both appropriates and complements data from two waves of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort (ECLS-B). (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Findings indicate school readiness as a constellation of skills and behaviours related to intellectual, physical, and social competence. Also identified was the structural equation framework as a strength. While previous studies have recognised and acknowledged factors that have been shown to impact indicators of school readiness in children, this study clarifies a synergistic effect. Accordingly, understanding school readiness is complex. Some factors directly affect school readiness while others have a mediating effect on school readiness. Thus, by contemplating these factors, gaining a better understanding of them and the relationships between them, the authors say we can better inform both practice and policy.

The next article is a study of the teaching practice involved in the teaching of reading and writing to mainly 3-4-year-old year olds. Inés Rodriguez, Maria Clemente, Elena Ramírez and Jorge Martin-Domínguez from Spain analyse how seven teachers in early childhood education first introduce the teaching of literacy. They aim to understand and reflect upon the form that initial literacy practices take. Taking note of the increase of research exploring the way in which the process of teaching reading and writing happens, they focus on how real teaching practices are organised and how they are shaped into specific tasks, the nature of the relationship that can be established between the practice itself and the scientific knowledge. By way of introduction to this well-researched area, the researchers give an overview. However, as Rodrigues and colleagues affirm, this wealth of research originating from many perspectives and interests lacks the cohesiveness that drives understanding. They concentrate more on the teaching practices involved in teaching initial literacy within the classroom. The findings enabled certain conclusions about how that is addressed and notes how the teachers involved focus mainly on teaching the code. Interestingly they mention a preference to tell stories rather than read them to children, a finding that contradicts many other research results. The authors draw attention to the scant presence of tasks related to symbolic play (2.20%), especially considering that all the early childhood classrooms observed had an area specifically set aside for this purpose. A finding worthy of further contemplation.

Transition research is the focus of the ninth article. From Chile, Daniela Sofía Jadue Roa, David Whitebread and Benjamín Gareca Guzmánc consider methodological issues in representing children’s perspectives in transition research. Their research demonstrates a relationship between the rights perspective, the listening approach and participatory research with children, specifically, the contribution of visual participatory research to early years transitions. The research aims to introduce children’s perspectives into this field, resonating with the second article about increasingly prominent exploration in research of this topic. Pursuing this approach, implying a holistic, dynamic and inclusive way of enabling children to express themselves, can be challenging. After evaluating existing terms and procedures the authors propose methodological strategies for integrating children’s perspectives, proposing a framework as a tool for analysis that allows for an iterative process of constructed meanings. Two pieces of research provoke us to reflect on the multiple ways that the participatory and rights approach can be developed in research with children. Moreover, the researchers claim justifiably the important contribution these findings make regarding our understanding of children as learner agents the research process.

The Wonder Project, the last article, is a collaborative early-years music and visual arts programme developed in partnership with Traveller children and their mothers, involving artists, Fingal County Childcare Committee, Fingal Travellers’ Organisation and the Arts Education Research Group in Trinity College Dublin. Researchers Carmel O’Sullivan, Jacqueline Maguire, Nóirín Hayes, Seoidín O’Sullivan, Lucie Corcoran and Grainne McKenna from Dublin, Ireland, present this qualitative study which aimed to create an artistic space for very young children (aged 0–5 years) and mothers from the Traveller community. In Ireland this small indigenous ethnic group share a rich cultural history and face severe discrimination on a regular basis. It was reported from the outset that the Traveller community did not engage in mainstream early years education provision such as the universal Free Pre School Year (FPSY) – an Early Childhood Care and Education programme introduced in 2010. The project presented an ideal model to engage with this ethnic minority group. The project was different from other early years programmes because of its parental involvement and its focus on working through the arts with the Traveller community directly. Working within a Freirean framework, the study explores the potential of art education to impact on relationships. Increased access to the arts, outdoor play and well-being among Traveller children and mothers was documented through audio recordings, still photographs, artists’ evaluations and semi-structured interviews. These participatory and collaborative processes mirrored previous findings that mothers were motivated and positively engaged in their children’s learning when alternative educational spaces and interactions were employed. Reflecting the Reggio Emilia approach in design, the approach sees the child as active and competent, a collaborator with many modes of expression and the environment as the third teacher. The success of The Wonder Project illustrates the importance of non-mainstreamed arts interventions for marginalised minority groups.

Innovations as Rinaldi says ‘shake up’ our frames of reference because they force us to look at the world with new eyes. They open us up to what is different and unexpected. We all like maintaining the status quo, staying with that which we know and have already tried out. Where and how can we find the strength and the courage for change? The articles in this issue of EECERJ show what is possible. These articles contribute to our understanding of current concerns within ECEC with some innovative approaches - specifically, about giving a voice to, and genuinely listening to children, thinking about their transitions and the quality of their day. The articles represent an array of interests with the potential to demonstrate the transformative power of research on practice and theory. To conclude, innovations are so difficult to accept and appreciate yet fundamental in driving perception, participation, and praxis forward. Encapsulating the powerful potential inherent in research, the last word to Rinaldi:

Children can give us the strength of doubt and the courage of error. They can transmit to us the joy of searching and researching  …  the value of research, as an openness toward others and toward everything new that is produced by the encounter with others.