ECE as an educative and multifaceted practice for growth: to assess and evaluate teaching and learning by documenting children’s actions and re-actions

ABSTRACT

Preschool teachers in Sweden are expected to document children’s learning and assess their learning outcomes, for the purpose of long-term evaluation and to develop the educational preschool practice. Previous research shows that the tools for documenting individual learning are particularly focusing on children’s cognitive knowledge, while the tools for evaluating the preschool practice are developed for standardized assessment and teachers’ self-reflection. The purpose of this study is to present and illustrate an action-based tool that (i) facilitates documentation and assessment of children’s multifaceted learning and (ii) combine and interweave individual learning with situated teaching approaches and evaluation of the preschool practice at institutional level. The action-based methodological framework takes a starting point in John Dewey’s pragmatism, transactions and functions of education including qualification, socialization and person-formation. Two analytical approaches; Practical Epistemology Analysis (PEA) and Epistemological Move Analysis (EMA) are used to clarify and illustrate individual, social and institutional dimensions of learning from four sequences of one preschool activity including four children and one teacher talking about a fairy tale. We argue that this tool for assessment and evaluation facilitates action-based reflection and discussion about relations between children’s individual learning and institutional norms and values.

KEYWORDS:

• Documentation
• evaluation
• assessment
• transaction
• methodology

Introduction

Preschools in Sweden have since 1998 been included in the national educational system and preschool teachers are, according to the Curriculum for the Swedish preschool 2018, expected to use preschool pedagogy in terms of participatory teaching approaches appropriate for children’s learning (Skolverket 2018). These approaches comprise e.g. combining education and care, listening to children’s voices and creating opportunities for children to learn about themselves, playing together with other children as well as discovering, exploring and experiencing the world around them. However, teachers’ documentation and assessment of young children’s learning tend to take a starting point in predefined curriculum-goals, measuring individual, conceptual content knowledge in a more summative way (Krechevsky and Stork 2000; MacDonald 2007; Formosinho and Formosinho 2016). This leads to a risk of not taking other, more formative, aspects of teaching and learning into account.

One reason for the individual and merely cognitive focus, when documenting and assessing learning, is that the available tools for assessment and evaluation have been developed to measure cognitive learning and intellectual development (see for example Christ and Wang 2011). These tools are less effective when it comes to evaluating teaching and learning processes, because they neither say much about situated learning processes and content, nor do they contribute to critical reflections on diverse aspects of learning and teachers’ teaching processes. Thus, there is a risk that the preschool teaching practice applies a pedagogical approach where teachers are planning for a one-way mediation of knowledge that the children, according to the tests, seem to lack. When using this kind of transmissive pedagogy approach there is a risk that a more participatory form of pedagogy, which includes thematic work and combines education and care, is left behind (Formosinho and Formosinho 2016).

In addition, when it comes to Swedish preschool practice, the teachers are also expected to document children’s learning and assess their learning outcomes, for the purpose of long-term evaluation and to develop the educational preschool practice (Skolverket 2018). Combining documentation and assessment of individual learning with evaluation of education in this way has turned out to be a difficult task for preschool teachers (Svärdemo Åberg and Insulander 2019). Besides the fact that the documentation and assessment that teachers perform is shown to merely focus on individual children and individual learning, the tools for assessment and evaluation on a structural level are merely constructed to evaluate the educational practice in terms of systematic quality through quantitative investigations of how well the preschool activities match with the goals in the curriculum.

In sum, the individual and cognitive knowledge assessment, and the quantitative tools for systematic evaluation at an institutional level, highlight the problems with documentation, assessment and evaluation in preschool practices. One problem concerns the risk of losing other modes of teaching and learning besides the cognitive mode, and the other problem concerns the combination of the different levels of evaluation. Thus, there is a need for evaluating tools that open up the black box, showing what teaching and learning actually entails (Ryan and Goffin 2008; Lave 1993), and at the same time, emphasizing the relations between individual learning, teachers teaching and the institutional dimension in terms of preschool as an educational practice (see also Alasuutari and Kelle 2015).

The overarching purpose with this article is to present and illustrate an action-based tool that facilitates documentation and assessment of children’s multifaceted learning. The tool also makes it possible to combine and interweave individual learning with situated teaching approaches and evaluation of the preschool practice at institutional level.

The action-based tool takes a starting point in John Dewey’s pragmatism and his use of a transactional approach Dewey and Bentley 1949[1991]; (See also Biesta and Burbules 2003; Garrison 2001), with a specific focus on institutional and individual habits and actions in situated educational practices. We will show how this transactional approach makes it possible to assess and evaluate both children’s learning and the preschool practice, taking into account children’s diverse ways of learning, different teaching approaches as well as the preschool environment.

Purposes with documentation and assessment

The documenting, assessing and evaluating of preschool practices can be performed for different purposes. In this article these are referred to as: (i) a purpose to clarify children’s individual learning content and (ii) a purpose to scrutinize and critically reflect on teaching approaches and preschool pedagogy.

Documenting learning from an individual perspective

Early Childhood Education research on documentation and assessment in Sweden generally focuses on children’s learning from an individual perspective (Emilsson and Pramling Samuelsson 2014; Svärdemo Åberg and Insulander 2019). In line with this Bjervås (2011) shows how the children’s competences and skills are placed inside the child, not taking sufficient account of the preschool context. In a similar way, Vallberg-Roth (2012) clarify how children’s maturity and development tend to be central aspects when teachers document and assess in Swedish preschools, with a main focus on children's individual development. This is, however, not unique to Sweden. A similar approach to children's learning based on developmental psychological ideas is found in a number of European countries (Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence 1999; Bjervås 2011; Formosinho and Formosinho 2016). An example of a more participating approach when documenting individual development is to evaluate children’s behaviors, interests and personalities by using Learning Stories, where teachers write short interpretive child-centered texts focusing on children’s strengths and competencies. (Knauf 2018, 2020).

Documenting cognitive learning

However, when focusing on children’s individual achievements it is primarily cognitive knowledge that is assessed and evaluated. Christ and Wang (2011) have for example conducted a literature review including thirty international studies with the purpose of identifying the methods used to support children's language learning. The empirical studies included in the review were conducted in English language classrooms. The review shows that the effects of the language-stimulating teaching methods are usually measured using pre- and posttests, where changes in children's vocabulary are measured. Broström, Einarsdottir, and Pramling Samuelsson (2018) also show that in the Nordic countries, cognitive knowledge (language) is mostly focused on the individuals and is often measured in diagnoses and evaluations. Apart from measuring knowledge development, other materials, e.g. children’s drawings can be used for assessment (see Emilsson and Pramling Samuelsson 2014), sometimes with the purpose of establishing normality and age-appropriate development (Åsen and Vallberg Roth 2012). Thus, pretests-posttests of different kinds measure cognitive development, leaving situations where children encounter and experience their environment and learn together in situated practice, which is impossible to see and evaluate.

In addition, education and care is sometimes presented as a dichotomy (Ryan and Goffin 2008), where certain learning contents, often with cognitive learning goals, like language and communication, mathematics or scientific conceptual development, is included in teaching and learning. While other contents, like having meals and handling conflicts are counted as care, and do not include teaching and learning.

We argue that Early Childhood Education needs tools for assessment and evaluation that can deconstruct ‘transmissive ethos of mainstream pedagogy’ (Formosinho and Formosinho 2016, 22), embrace a diversity of learning modes and make teaching and learning processes visible. These tools should open up for a variety of approaches in assessment (Vallberg-Roth 2017) promoting a more participatory pedagogy that focuses on plural identities, diverse learning contents and experienced-based teaching strategies. In line with these varieties of assessment, teachers can get larger opportunities to listen to children’s voices and desires and at the same time challenge each and every child.

Documenting for the purpose of evaluating the preschool practice

Documenting, assessing and evaluating teaching and learning can also be done for the purpose of evaluating the preschool practice at an institutional level. This is a difficult task for preschool teachers in Sweden, since they are expected to use the assessment of children’s learning at the individual level to evaluate education at an institutional level (Skolverket 2018). Svärdemo Åberg and Insulander (2019) highlights how individual, processual and structural dimensions need to be included and intertwined when documenting and assessing children’s learning and development. It is a difficult challenge for teachers to evaluate the preschool practice and teachers’ teaching by documenting and assessing individual learning. When it comes to evaluation and the measurement of quality in preschool practices ECERS (Early Childhood Education Rating Scale) is sometimes used for standardized assessments. The results can be used to compare the quality of preschools or as a tool for teacher’s self-evaluation (Sheridan, Williams, and Garvis 2020; see also Åsen and Vallberg Roth 2012). However, the connection with situated learning and teaching, and the diversity of modes of learning is not highlighted in this standardized practice-oriented evaluation, and there is a risk that teaching and learning will remain hidden in the black box behind expectations, assumptions and opinions.

In sum, research about children’ learning and development has directed its attention to investigating cognitive development and conceptual learning using pre-test and post-test (Formosinho and Formosinho 2016; Christ and Wang 2011; Klaar and Öhman 2012). Hence there is a risk of neglecting other modes of learning, for example social learning and learning about oneself as an individual person. Early childhood research seldom concerns teaching and learning activities in practice (Ryan and Goffin 2008). We argue for the need to open up the ‘black box’ showing what teachers do when they are teaching, and the processes and content of children’s meaning making in situated practice.

Our specific purpose is to illustrate a tool for documentation, assessment, and evaluation that can handle the challenges with contemporary Early Childhood Education when it comes to broadening the view on learning and development and interweaving individual learning with social and institutional dimensions on teaching together with learning processes and content.

Methodology

The first challenge is to broaden the view on learning so as to include more than cognitive learning and intellectual development. We handle this challenge by turning to pragmatic theory on teaching and learning with a specific focus on educational functions (Van Poeck and Östman 2019; see also Biesta 2009). In order to organize education in a multifaceted and inclusive way, three functions should be included. These overarching functions are:

1. qualification, which concerns knowledge and understanding

2. socialization, which concerns values, norms and caring for others

3. personal development and formation, as expressing one’s own desires and feelings, negotiating and making judgements

Even though we are dealing with the functions separately we strongly emphasize that they have to be seen as integrated and simultaneous within educational practices. If the focus on transmissive pedagogy (Formosinho and Formosinho 2016) is too dominant, there is a risk that the function of education will turn out to be a mainly summative evaluation of skills and knowledge; i.e. qualifications. With a teacher-planned and predetermined education, there is also a risk that the educational function that focuses on children’s personal development and formation is left behind. Finally, there is a risk with transmissive pedagogy that the social, inclusive and participatory function is forgotten when teachers are seen as transmitters in the preschool practice. In sum, we argue for the need of a pluralistic view on educational content in preschool practices. This does not just mean documenting, assessing and evaluating cognitive learning, but also involves learning about values and socializing processes as well as feelings, and aspects of personal development and formation.

The second challenge is interweaving individual learning with the social and cultural environment and understanding them as mutually affecting each other. In order to handle this challenge, we turn to John Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy and his use of transaction (Dewey and Bentley 1949[1991]) and customs (Dewey 1922/2005; See also Klaar and Öhman 2014a). Using transaction instead of interaction is a way of overcoming the dualism that tends to prevail when using interaction, where the individual and the social, cultural and physical environment interact and define a whole as the sum of its parts (Ryan 2011). Instead, with a transactional approach the situation as a whole defines and changes both the individual, and the environment; i.e. both the individual and the environment become someone in the situation. Thus, using a transactional approach involves understanding individual learning as meaning-making, not as internal mental processes, but as mutual and coordinated encounters with the environment, where both the individual and the environment change in the encounter (Dewey and Bentley 1949[1991]).

The social and cultural environment refers to historically established traditions and customs within the preschool practice (Almqvist et al. 2008). According to Dewey (1922/2005) individual habits are always contextualized and thus interwoven with cultural habits and customs. Dewey (1922/2005) describes customs as a mutual set of individual habits, shared by people within a social and cultural practice. In this study these customs are understood as norms, rules and values established in the investigated local preschool practice and visualized in children’s and teachers’ verbal and non-verbal actions. By observing actions and changed actions, as doing and undergoing consequences of action in functional coordination (Garrison 2001), and by observing teachers’ guidance in these processes, it becomes possible to say something about local preschool customs as well as children’s learning as meaning-making processes and content in the situation. In the following, the two analytical approaches that appear most fruitful to use will be presented in closer detail.

Two analytical approaches – one tool

The methodological framework based on functions of education and transactions, is the starting point for analyses of teaching and learning situations in preschool practice. In this work we use and combine two analytical approaches: (i) Practical Epistemology Analysis (PEA), developed by Wickman and Östman (2002) and (ii) Epistemological Move Analysis (EMA) developed by Lidar, Lundqvist, and Östman (2006).

PEA makes it possible to investigate meaning-making processes and content at an individual level. Meaning making is analyzed as a process where a child acts from habit and experiences that the actions do not work in desirable ways. The initial, habitual action is defined as the ways of acting that stands fast for the learner; an action that has worked before in previous situations (see Klaar and Öhman 2012; Wank 2021). When this habitual action does not work, the child needs to act differently to handle the situation and change the outcome. In this way the child extends and refines the possibilities of acting in the current situation as well as in the future (Dewey 1938[2015]).

Obviously, the teacher’s guidance in this process becomes important for the meaning that the child creates. EMA makes it possible to investigate situated teaching moves that guide the child in the process. In previously performed research, Lidar, Lundqvist, and Östman (2006) and Klaar and Öhman (2014b) have identified epistemological moves as: confirming, re-orienting, re-constructing, instructional, generating, challenging and admonishing. The teacher’s actions are analyzed with a focus on their functional nature and, the actions are in this way part of the meaning-making process. We will present and illustrate how the teacher guides the child in different directions through the use of epistemological moves.

When studying the observed sequences as a whole we can also identify collective habitual actions; customs (see Klaar and Öhman 2014a). These are actions that no one questions and that are carried out without hesitating. These actions show norms, rules and values on an institutional level, which can be helpful in clarifying possibilities for children’s meaning making. Since the illustrations include four sequences from the same activity, we are able to identify customs shown through all sequences.

Our analysis, using PEA and EMA, is characterized by at least three steps including an encounter with the social and physical environment.

1. the child acts (verbal or physical)

2. the teacher, a friend or the environment re-acts and

3. the child re-acts once more

By studying the child’s changing actions during the process, we can clarify the teacher’s guidance and the epistemological moves that are being used. In addition, when we study all the sequences together, we can also clarify local preschool customs; what is done without hesitation or questioning. We can also clarify the meaning-making contents. This is done through the use of different functions in teaching in the analyzing process.

Empirical material

The study’s empirical material consists of close and thorough video observations of children’s and preschool teachers’ verbal and nonverbal actions when interacting in preschool activities. Video observations allow the capturing of complex, nuanced and detailed recordings of social interactions (Heath and Hindmarsh 2002; Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff 2010). The video observations were carried out at a Swedish multicultural preschool section in a medium-sized town in the spring of 2016. The preschool has a marked language profile and the participating children were five years of age. Our study follows the Swedish Research Council's (2017) ethical rules and guidelines for good research practice. This requires careful ethical consideration, since it involves young children and ensuing ethical problems. All parents/guardians have given their written consent to their children participating in the study. The children have also been informed about the study and their active consent was also requested (Einarsdóttir 2007; Larsson 2016). In studies involving the youngest age-groups power relations between researchers and children are of special interest (Quennerstedt 2012). There is always an ethical balance to be kept when a child is in a subordinate position in relation to the researcher. Throughout the research process we were particularly sensitive to non-verbal expressions of whether the children wanted to participate or not, looking out for the best interests of the children from their perspective.

Illustrations

From the transactions in encounters described in the following illustrations we interweave the individual, the social and the institutional dimension of meaning making, to show how PEA and EMA can be used for assessment and evaluation in preschool practice. We present the analysis of the first sequence in a detailed table, but all four sequences are analyzed in the same way, using the same analytical steps and questions.

The three Billy Goats Gruff

The activity starts with the preschool teacher and four children sitting on the floor in front of a flannel board. The story about the three Billy Goats is well known and the children are well acquainted with what happens. They use pictures that can be placed on the flannel board when telling the story. The teachers have made pictures of different kinds. Some pictures are scarier than others, but all include a lot of details (Table 1).

Table 1. Analysis presented in detail.

Dimension	Analytic steps	Analytical questions	Result from analysis
Individual	Child’s first action (STEP 1) A Gap	What is problematic for the child in the situation? What makes the child hesitate or doubt?	The pictures will not stick to the flannel board, and Zana complains and asks questions about it.
Social	The functions of teacher’s actions (STEP 2)	How does the teacher re-act on the child’s action?	The teacher uses an instructional move, when she shows Zana to handle the pictures and the flannel board more carefully and without leaning back on the board
Individual	Child’s response Bridging the gap (STEP 3)	How does the child re-act to the teacher’s action?	Zana follows the teacheŕs instructions and manages to get the picture to stick
Individual	Meaning- making process and content	What kind of meaning has been created?	At first, she is leaning on the board and not being careful enough, but in the end, Zana handles the board and pictures more gently and expresses her satisfaction. Through practice Zana has learned how to act to make pictures stick and she is now more qualified at putting pictures on the flannel board.

Non-stick pictures

When the activity begins the teacher presents the pictures to the children. The children are encouraged to tell the story on their own, and Zana takes the opportunity to tell the story to her friends. However, Zana has got a problem with the pictures since they will not stick to the flannel board in the way she wishes.

Zana: It was the little Billy Goat Gruff and he wanted to eat some grass. Why do they fall down all the time? Are they not able to stay put?

Teacher: Maybe you have to be a little bit careful when you put them up [on the flannel board]. If you don’t lean on the board, but instead take one character at a time, gently and carefully, then maybe it will stick.

Noor: On your hand.

Zana: Which one?

Teacher: The character you are reading about, the one you are talking about.

Zana: Mm.

Teacher: If you hold on to it and pretend that it is walking over the bridge.

Zana: Walking?

Teacher: And be a little bit careful, then it might stay, I think.

Zana: Mm. There.

Teacher: Mm.

Small eyes and curly horns

In the following sequence the children and their teacher discuss the goat’s eyes and horns.

Zana: Why does it have its eyes closed?

Teacher: It looks happy. Sometimes when you smile, you peer and your eyes get a little bit small.

Zana: This one looks the same! [Points at the troll]

Teacher: Mm, it is Middle Billy Goat Gruff, isn’t it?

Alfred: Ah.

Teacher: With “medium-size” horns, and the little one who has got small horns, and the great big one has got big horns which curl up. Have you noticed that? [The question is for all the children]

Zana: Why is that?

Teacher: They have grown and become long and they bend while they grow. Have you seen it Hilda?

Hilda Yes

Teacher: The horns are so big that they bend backwards. The troll has got red horns.

Zana: Why?

Teacher: Good question. What do you think?

Zana: Because he can … Dinosaurs have got horns like that.

Teacher: Dinosaurs?

Zana: Mmmm, but they also have ears like that, they have.

The result of the analysis shows that Zana has questions about the eyes and the horns of the goats. The teacher guides Zana by using a generating move, explaining about eyes and horns. She also reconstructs Zana’s knowledge about horns and asks a question where Zana can use her previous knowledge about horns and their colors. Zana re-acts by comparing the eyes of the goat and the troll, and she compares the horns of the goats with horns of a dinosaur. The analysis shows how Zana creates meaning about eyes and horns of goats and trolls, how they both have eyes that look the same, but different form of horns. At the end of the sequence Zana also compares the horn of the troll with what she knows about dinosaurs. Thus, through practice Zana has learned more about different eyes and horns.

In the following sequence they use pictures that look a bit scarier than the previous pictures.

Scared but brave

Teacher: Shall we read the story together once, and we can have these ones [shows some pictures in a plastic map], we haven’t used them for a long time. These are the ones who are a little bit scary too.

Zana: Yes, Ah! [She yells and put her hands in front of her eyes].

Teacher: These scary pictures. You can hold on to each other and snuggle up close.

Zana: Oh no, I got all … [Sounds scared]

Teacher: You can handle it! You are so brave.

Zana: Brave, can I see the troll?

Teacher: Yes, look at him a little before we start, and you won’t be as scared then. [Gives Zana the plastic map with the picture of the troll]

Zana: Laughs.

The result of the analysis shows that Zana is afraid of looking at the scarier pictures, and the teacher confirms Zana’s fear but challenges the children to be brave by sticking together. Zana is still scared but listens to the teacher when she says ‘brave’. Zana repeats the word ‘brave’ and asks for the picture of the troll. The results from the analysis show how Zana creates meaning about herself as a person, she has learned more about how to handle fear and act more bravely. At the beginning of the sequence Zana is closing her eyes but after a while she asks to see the troll and she laughs.

Hungry and angry – or lonely and sad

Teacher: Here is the lush meadow that they were heading for. Do you want me to put it on that side? [Puts up a picture of a meadow] That is the place that they wanted to go to, and here is the bridge [Puts up a picture of a bridge], you know they have to cross the bridge [points at the bridge] to get there, and here we have the troll [puts up a picture of a troll under the bridge] and here we have the Big Billy Goat Gruff [puts up a picture of the largest goat].

Zana: And this [Zana puts up a picture with stones].

Teacher: And that, yes that is the stones. Where is Little Billy Goat Gruff? Where is the little one? [Looks in the plastic pocket] Here, he is so tiny, he has run away to hide.

Zana: [laughs] He was afraid of this troll [points at the troll]

Teacher: Noooww.

Zana: I think that one is the child [points at the Little Billy Goat Gruff] and that one is the mom [points at the middle Billy Goat Gruff] and that one is the dad [points at Big Billy Goat Gruff]

Teacher: Yes, that is what you usually say. Maybe it is a family out walking.

Zana: [points at the troll]. And who is he?

Teacher: Maybe he, he is so lonely and sad and hungry, is what we usually say, isn’t it [talks with an imagined sad voice and makes a sad face using the mouth] maybe he wants to have a small family to spend time with as well, maybe that is why he is so angry [continues to sound sad and makes a sad face].

Zana: And sad.

Teacher: I tend to get angry when I am hungry [talks with an angry voice] how do you usually feel when you are hungry?

Zana: I want FOOD!

Teacher: Yes, then you become like that [makes an angry face] you don’t have the strength to talk to anyone and you become angry and you have got to have food [talks with an angry voice and hits with both hands on her lap] Yes, maybe that is how he feels when he has eaten stones.

The analysis shows that even though all the goats seem to be a family, according to Zana, she doesn’t know how to relate the troll to the goat-family. The teacher generates new knowledge about how you can be sad and angry when you don’t have a family and when you are hungry. Zana tells the teacher that the troll is sad, not just angry, and Zana relates this to her previous knowledge about being angry when she is hungry. Zana has learned more about social relationships in terms of sadness when you are without a family and she has also learned more about personal development in terms of her feelings in relation to hunger. At first Zana was not able to relate the troll to the goats but in the end, she talks about the troll as sad and angry because of hunger.

Institutional customs

The overarching analysis of the whole activity signifies customs of a participatory practice in terms of allowing the children to tell the story and letting the children influence the story. The analysis shows an activity which is open to children’s ideas and it becomes important for the teacher to listen to the children and talk about the story, rather than telling it from the beginning to the end. The story about the three Billy Goats is a Norwegian folk tale that reflects a Nordic heritage, and the use of a flannel board makes it possible for the children to tell, change and easily follow the story when someone else is telling it. The detailed pictures inspire the children to talk about a variegated content, e.g. feelings, colors and body parts. Since the preschool is intercultural, there is a possibility for the children to practice the Swedish language and learn new words and concepts. However, this participatory approach does not give extended opportunities for everyone. During the activity we can note how Zana is allowed to relate and ask, while other children tend to be quiet.

Discussion

With John Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy as a starting point, the ambition has been to illustrate an action-centered analyzing tool, which facilitate reflection and discussion about children’s meaning-making processes and content and can be helpful when evaluating the educational practice.

Qualification, socialization and person-formation in ECE

In order to handle the cognitive challenges, which tend to be in focus when teachers assess childreńs learning, our analyzing tool opens up for diverse learning contents. Instead of telling the parents, or other care-givers, that their child is ‘good enough’, e.g. has passed a test, the teachers can use the documentation to talk about learning processes and contents of various kinds. Even though the purpose with teaching might have been to practice language and learn to tell a story, the activity may well comprise social and personal functions as well. Van Poeck and Östman (2019) talk about these functions as companion meanings: ‘Every teaching activity has a certain function in the forefront – for instance, qualification through the transfer of knowledge – but other functions are always at play in the background’ (59). In this way qualification, socialization and person-formation accompany each other through teaching and learning processes (see also Roberts and Östman 1998; Östman 2008).

Initially, we asked for methods that make it possible to document children’s learning from a holistic perspective, including care as well as development and learning. The illustrated tool for analysis in this article is helpful for teachers to visualize what teaching and learning actually entails, and open up for a participatory and child-centered pedagogy, promoting different roles for children and teachers (Formosinho and Formosinho 2016). In their everyday practice preschool teachers are listening and talking to children, and they also observe children together with peers or other teachers. In their work the teachers can document verbal and non-verbal actions, e.g. when children investigate the environment, when they play or when they talk about their experiences with each other or with a teacher. These documentations can be used for further analysis and reflections, highlighting teaching and learning processes as changes in actions, teachers’ different epistemological moves and the functions of preschool education. Thus, the focus on situated actions can deepen the reflections and contribute to teachers’ analyses and critical examination of the teaching and learning that is made visible in the process. The teacher becomes someone who guides by challenging, instructing and confirming, but also generates new knowledge. The child takes an active part in creating meaning even though it is not always in the way that the teacher has planned. Highlighting children’s interests and their multiple voices, extends the possibilities of understanding more about children’s perspectives of the world (Pramling Samuelsson, Sommer, and Hundeide 2011).

Thus, we agree with Lave (1993) when she illuminates meaning making as an integrated and constantly present process with a content that needs to be clarified to be able to say something about education. Even though no method or analyzing tool can cover all aspects of teaching and learning, our focus on situated action makes a significant complement to tools for assessment and evaluation from pre- and posttests. As the tool opens up to see the unexpected and teaching and learning functions that are not usually documented, it can contribute to a more holistic and critical perspective.

Individual, social and institutional dimensions of learning

There is a need for critical reflections, not only focusing on the individual learner, but also on the institutional norms, values and rules. The transactional approach gives us an opportunity to focus on the situation and clarify meaning making from actions and re-actions in functional coordination (Dewey and Bentley 1949[1991]; Garrison 2001). The transactional approach also illuminates that the relationships between individual learning, social interaction and the institutional environment, i.e. all aspects of the learning process, need to be included and understood as mutually interdependent (see also Wank 2021). Thus, by using the documentations of teaching and learning in situated practice the teachers can make rules and norms visible and ask themselves if their teaching approaches turn out to be what they want or expect. What will happen if they choose to use another teaching approach? Is there anything that they want to change? Will the children learn what the teachers are expecting?

Even though the tool contributes to the teacher’s ability to scrutinize and critically reflect on teaching approaches and the preschool pedagogy, it is important to notice that these critical reflections do not per se lead to conclusions about which approach to choose. We cannot, as an example, immediately evaluate the participatory approach shown in the illustrations as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’; this depends on what is required, desired and possible. Thus, when one teaching approach or a preschool pedagogy creates possibilities to learn a certain content, there are other contents with less opportunities for the children to create meaning from. However, the presented tool for transactional analysis makes it possible both to show and critically reflect over desirable and undesirable consequences with education.

Acknowledgements

This work has previously been presented by the authors on EECERA conference in Zagreb, 1–17 September 2021 (Klaar and Wank 2021), with the same title, ECE as an educative and multifaceted practice for growth – To assess and evaluate teaching and learning by documenting children’s actions and re-actions.

Disclosure statement

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