Teaching responsive to play and linguistic diversity in early childhood education: considerations on theoretical grounds

ABSTRACT

The present article takes on the contemporary challenge of equalizing early childhood education (ECE). Research has particularly highlighted this in relation to children having the majority language as an additional language during the early years. The purpose here is to create knowledge regarding how multilingual interaction, teaching, and learning can be seen as a unit in ECE by drawing on the concept of play-responsive teaching and a dynamic perspective on bilingualism. This encompasses teaching as an activity responsive to play, children’s agency, and language use as critical to promoting learning and thereby social justice in ECE. On theoretical grounds, commonalities between play-responsive teaching and a dynamic perspective on languaging are considered. Merging the frameworks, the concept of play-responsive teaching is extended toward also being responsive to all semiotic resources in the group in order to increase children’s experiential basis and thereby to counter social injustices. The study contributes to grounding a pedagogy acknowledging and promoting extended linguistic repertoires for theorizing teaching and learning. Understanding multilingualism in ECE as something that cannot be separated from the context and teaching responsive to play, is discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Agency
• early childhood education
• inequal learning opportunities
• play-responsive teaching
• translanguaging

The contemporary challenge of equalizing ECE

Institutions such as early childhood education (ECE) serve several functions for different stakeholders. One of the functions of ECE is to counter social injustices among children, due, amongst other things, to minorized languages (García and Sylvan 2011). A challenge taken on in the present article, on theoretical grounds, is to consider and contribute to equalizing ECE from the point of multilingual learning opportunities. That is, working toward a situation where a child is not disadvantaged in learning opportunities and support due to her/his language experience. The challenge of equalizing ECE refers here to multilingual interaction in García’s (2018) terms: ‘the ways in which users of language engage in communicative encounters with others whose semiotic resources have gaps with their own’ (881). Today, children’s languages, other than the majority language, are acknowledged, even legally in some countries, through the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. I argue that the repertoire of children’s semiotic resources is a blind spot, or at least shadowed by the use of majority language, in conceptualizations of teaching in ECE. A reason behind this is the long-standing dominance of an additive perspective on language learning stressing one language (cf. García and Otheguy 2020). The present article emphasizes, instead, multilingual practices for countering social injustice in and through ECE.

Here, increasing the experiential basis of children is conceptualized as a way of countering social injustices in and through ECE. That is, that all children have access to and are supported in familiarizing themselves with important cultural practices and tools (Kultti and Pramling 2016; Wells 2007). An aspect of this is accounting for the linguistic (and other) resources of individual children, in line with García and Wei’s (2014) argumentation, which is linked with a concept of language as a cultural tool mediating the world (Wertsch 2007). Diverse ways of mediating, through cultural tools, add to children’s ways of seeing the world. Grounded in Vygotsky’s (1987) theory, developing one’s language and one’s thinking are seen as inherently related. With language, people coordinate perspectives, make sense, remember, and understand the world, its phenomena, themselves, and each other. What tools children are introduced to and scaffolded in appropriating, that is, gradually taking over, is crucial for their learning and participation in cultural practices (Wells 2007), and highlights the importance of teaching in ECE. Teaching being responsive to children’s modes of participation, is from this theoretical point of view premised to be critical for an education fostering members of society perceiving themselves as participants and as being capable of participating in democratic processes. Opportunities for extended language use and knowledge through teaching are decisive for all children but, I argue, crucial if ECE is the primary or only arena for learning the majority language.

Multilingual ECE practices need to engage children, for example, through play. Play has been argued to be an important practice for promoting children’s agency (Cutter-Mackenzie et al. 2014; Gray 2013; Lagerlöf, Wallerstedt, and Kultti 2019). Agency here refers to the individual’s possibility to distance him/herself from a situation, taking a reflective stance (Mäkitalo 2016). However, in such discussions, play is, implicitly or explicitly, viewed as an activity without adult/teacher involvement (Cutter-Mackenzie et al. 2014; Gray 2013). In contrast, teaching tends to be seen as the teacher’s project, putting children in the background. This is evident in research findings showing, for example, classroom talk as commonly occurring through the interaction pattern in which the teacher is in the center, minimalizing space for communication of and between children (Cazden 2001; Mehan 1979; Nassaji and Wells 2000).

For the purpose of this article, children’s agency in education is grounded in the view of teaching as a mutually constituted activity, also responsive to play (Pramling et al. 2019). Thereby, learning of and through an additional language in ECE is seen as an aspect of teaching related to the content such as communication, mathematics, science, and the arts, and to processes of socialization and play. In other words, children’s agency, both in play and when participating in teaching activities requires, I argue, merging insights from theorizing on multilingual interaction, teaching, and learning. The ensuing synthesized conceptualization is understood as contributing to issues of multilingualism becoming part of teaching and learning in ECE generally. This stance stands in opposition of dealing with them as separate issues concerning some of the children and a part of the practice (e.g. a specific activity offered for specific children). This is a gap in knowledge that the present article aims to fill through theoretical elaboration on how teaching responsive to play can build upon all participating children’s repertoire of experience and knowledge and promote diversity.

Aim and research questions

The aim of the present article is to create knowledge regarding how multilingual interaction, teaching, and learning can be seen as inherently intertwined in ECE, drawing on concepts of play-responsive teaching and a dynamic perspective on languaging. The research questions the article aims to theoretically elaborate upon are:

• − How can conceptualizations of bilingualism be understood from the perspective of children’s equal learning opportunities through participating in teaching in multilingual ECE contexts?

• − How can dynamic frameworks on languaging contribute to play-responsive teaching through acknowledging the sociolinguistic reality of (individual) children and ECE for and with participants with a great number of languages in a group?

• − How can insights gained from combining these perspectives contribute to equal learning opportunities in ECE?

Conceptualizing teaching responsive to play

In this section, I will introduce parts of a recent conceptualization of teaching as responsive to play (Pramling et al. 2019) within the field of education research. This concept of teaching is grounded in a sociocultural perspective on learning and communication (see the theoretical reasoning about mediation and cultural tools in the section above). By encompassing a set of practices, such as playing, and organizing for children’s learning and development in holistic themes, a question of how teachers can support children’s learning without transforming play into non-play is raised and conceptualized.

First, play is understood as initiated and developed through participants being responsive to each other’s contributions (Pramling et al. 2019). That is, teaching cannot be reduced to what one part, the teacher, does. Second, participants signal shifting between speaking and thus contributing in terms of as is (i.e. culturally established forms of knowledge) and as if (imagination, transforming reality to fantasy) are identified and responded to without transforming play into non-play. This shifting is mediated by different meta-signals. Decisive for such teaching is the teacher’s intention of making play inclusive and developing for all participants (through responding also to acting as if) and of widening the repertoire of play and characters while, at the same time, supporting children in learning something that also goes outside the play world (as is). For this, the teacher is seen as a participant together with children in the sense-making processes in and outside play, instead of, for example, giving instructions or proposals outside play. In other words, noticing the variation in ways of understanding something or doing something, as an asset for all children, is done through making children aware that not everyone in the group understands or does in the same way. This is also a fundamental insight in order to develop a democratic society. Through making children aware of the variation of understandings, every child also encounters and can become aware of additional ways of understanding and doing something. Every child’s repertoire is in this way expanded. Hence, play-responsive teaching allows children with different experiences and knowledge to contribute to mutual activities. This makes children aware of the value of different experiences and the development in each child of a wider repertoire.

In sum, from the perspective of equal learning opportunities, teaching by supporting children to contribute to mutual activities is seen as a ground for including varied linguistic repertoires, experiences, and knowledge. However, hitherto, multiple linguistic resources have not explicitly been stressed, focused, or analyzed in the conceptualization of play-responsive teaching. In addition, despite that children’s agency is acknowledged, I argue that there is a need to develop the concept in relation to educational contexts with multiple (minoritized) languages. The present study intends to contribute to these lines of theoretical development.

Conceptualizing bilingualism

In the following section, I will present conceptualizations of bilingualism and their consequences for education from the overarching ambition to contribute to knowledge regarding children’s equal learning opportunities in ECE.

Monoglossic ideology on bilingualism and education

The turn from monolingualism to bilingualism concerns languages as linear and separate entities (García and Sylvan 2011; Grosjean 1989), expressed as: ‘the bilingual is (or should be) two monolinguals in one person’ (Grosjean 1989, 4). From this perspective, language use should be close to the native speaker and equal level of language proficiency as the ideal (García and Sylvan 2011). The concept of language interference has directed the focus of interest on correcting errors as a tool in language teaching (García and Otheguy 2020). A second language is seen as additive to the first (García and Sylvan 2011). An illustration of this perspective given is bicycling, symbolizing individuals balancing between the languages. In contrast, subtractive bilingualism is illustrated as a unicycle, symbolizing bilingual individuals becoming dependent on the knowledge of and communication in only one of their languages. Taken together, despite dealing with two languages, knowledge in one language (monoglossic ideology) is the core in this perspective.

Monoglossic bilingual education is characterized by a strict language policy (Cummins 2014; García and Otheguy 2020). For example, immersion programs have traditionally claimed the importance of only using the target language. Additional variants of separating the languages are dependent on time, space, or personal claims. Yet, in immersion programs, the teachers often know both languages, and the children can make themselves understood irrespective of the language they use or their knowledge of the target language.

An immersion program as an educational context is most often a choice of the parents/children (García and Otheguy 2020). In contrast, when it comes to minoritized students with limited skills in the target language, programs with a strict language policy are seen to ‘create, or add to already existing, linguistic insecurity’ (García and Otheguy 2020, 2). Teaching referring to language repertoires without excluding the speakers’ language practices outside the educational context is stated as important by García and Otheguy.

A conclusion to draw is that the additive perspective on bilingualism has also had consequences for education to be understood as monoglossic monolingual. This refers to education in cases where mono-/bilingual children are expected to learn the target language using the target language. Therefore, ECE pedagogy, through bilingual teaching and learning, is grounded in a divergent epistemology and methodology compared to teaching and learning in ECE in general. Separating languages in an educational context limits the participatory opportunities and agency of some (groups of) children. This means that a view of bilingualism applied in teaching/pedagogy can directly increase injustice in ECE.

Dynamic frameworks on languaging

Contemporary research indicates a reorientation toward the dynamics of multilingualism and multicompetence practices, acknowledging speakers’ skills in using several languages (Dooly and Vallejo 2020; García 2018; García and Sylvan 2011; Vallejo and Dooly 2020; see also Cummins 2017). The perspective of languaging as dynamic recognizes bi-/multilingual contexts, speakers, and skills, for example, through focusing on multimodal languaging practices and semiotic resources as integrated and heteroglossic linguistic practices. Language competences, functions, and identifications are also seen as changeable (stressed also by Skutnabb-Kangas in 1981) and differences in power relations between languages are reduced. Within the dynamic perspective, plurilingual and translanguaging approaches are common in conceptualizing bi-/multilingualism (García and Otheguy 2020; Vallejo and Dooly 2020). The interactionist approach to plurilingualism, with an analytical focus on the details of communication, is argued to (mainly) evolve foreign language teaching. A translanguaging approach, in turn, is understood as taking a critical stance on education (teaching, valuing, and assessing) for and with bilingual speakers.

Plurilingual approach

A known definition of plurilingualism comes from the Council of Europe (2007) and refers to individuals, whereas multilingualism refers to a societal phenomenon. The language education policy coined by the Council of Europe emphasizes the individuals’ right to speak their first language(s) (L1) and learning additional languages (L2, L3) through L1. Education programs evolved as two way/dual language programs, content and language integrated learning (CLIL), transitional programs as newcomer centers, and immersion revitalization (García and Otheguy 2020). Multilingual awareness, the learner as central in the teaching activities, and learners’ linguistic and cultural assets at home, are key issues to consider in education emphasizing plurilingualism as understood from this perspective.

García and Otheguy (2020) claim the framework created and used in European contexts of majority language speakers serves European citizens to familiarize themselves with societal multilingualism, rather than, for example, their eventual experience of using a minority language. For example, the emphasis in CLIC and transitional programs are still on changing the identities of individuals with immigrant backgrounds in Europe rather than recognizing and valuing several identities of an individual, García and Otheguy argue.

Translanguaging as a concept and as a pedagogy

Translanguaging as a concept and as a pedagogy has its societal grounds in a language minoritized community and the minority language speakers’ language use (García and Otheguy 2020). Different ways of communicating in and outside education and separating the languages for educational purposes were shown not to support learning. Translanguaging is argued to function transformative of socio-political and socio-educational structures faced by minoritizing bilingual speakers in education, for example, through making them visible as bilinguals and opening up the use of their repertoire of linguistic resources. Identities and social justice are put to the forefront with this concept (García and Otheguy 2020; Vallejo and Dooly 2020).

Translanguaging as a concept goes beyond language (cf. monoglossic ideology discussed above), including also semiotic meaning-making through embodied tools (García 2018; García and Otheguy 2020). Named languages are seen as boundaries that minoritize and exclude (García and Otheguy 2020). Instead, languages are seen as repertoires of linguistic features. From the view of a linguistic system as unitary (cf. autonomous languages), a speaker’s language use is not considered incomplete. The dynamic, complex, and interrelated practices are metaphorically illustrated as an all-terrain vehicle (cf. above on bicycle and unicycle as metaphors; García and Sylvan 2011).

Translanguaging is described as a critical and political pedagogy taking a stance on linguistic minorized students (e.g. García and Otheguy 2020). In education in which a translanguaging stance is held, bilingual students are encouraged by the teacher(s) to use their semiotic repertoires in communication (García and Otheguy 2020). García and Sylvan (2011) argue for accounting of students’ experiences and semiotic repertoires in terms of singularities in pluralities, in the increased variety of educational practices. Potentially using all of one’s communicative resources is seen as a right for learning and precondition for socially-just education. According to García and Otheguy (2020), two aims for translanguaging pedagogy are acknowledging ‘students’ bilingualism and ways of knowing’ (11) as well as their bilingual identities.

Divergences and commonalities in the frameworks

The different epistemologies for plurilingualism and translanguaging, due to different research traditions and socio-political backgrounds, are argued to be important to acknowledge (García and Otheguy 2020). Without knowledge of the epistemologies, the frameworks may become expressed similarly in educational practice. Yet, despite of the divergences, in the present article, the frameworks are understood as advancement and as valuable for recognition of language practices and identities of multilingual speakers. These frameworks also put learners’ experiences at the center in teaching in ECE.

Toward play-responsive teaching and the recognition and promotion of a variety of linguistic resources in ECE

Both the dynamic perspective on languaging and play-responsive teaching stress education in language rather than language education (Pramling et al. 2019; Vallejo and Dooly 2020). In addition, interaction is understood as semiotically mediated through multiple recourses. Yet, thus far, including embodied and multiple linguistic resources, is most distinctly argued for in the concept of translanguaging. An additional aspect, also considered within play-responsive teaching in terms of placing the children’s perspectives, knowledge, and interest at the center (cf. agency), is the explicit focus on children’s linguistic repertoires as expressed by Vallejo and Dooly (2020, 1): ‘speakers’ fluent, hybrid, multimodal and creative communicative practices at the centre of research and practice’. Play-responsive teaching, in turn, adds an important aspect to pedagogical approaches of plurilingualism and translanguaging when applied to ECE, which has not hitherto been the case. In other words, play is a critical aspect of children’s opportunities to express themselves. In addition, from the perspective of play-responsive teaching, children are not left alone to use their semiotic repertoires, but instead it stresses the teachers’ participation in activities (such as play) with children for promoting opportunities for children to develop and express agency (Pramling et al. 2019). This indicates a difference from translanguaging pedagogy, where the use of semiotic resources can also be understood as the individual’s tool in learning activities rather than a teaching tool (cf. García and Wei 2014; Vallejo and Dooly 2020). Therefore, I argue, that the two frameworks are compatible and that they complement each other for understanding teaching and learning in contemporary ECE stressing the agency of children.

I will elaborate on the concept of play-responsive teaching towards acknowledging and promoting linguistic experiences and knowledge of children as a ground for equalizing ECE through elaborating the variety of linguistic repertoires (i) as a teaching tool, (ii) from children’s first day in ECE, and (iii) for diminishing generalization.

Elaborating on the variety of linguistic repertoires as a teaching tool

The world of multilingual children is not dualistically divided into minority and majority languages (García and Sylvan 2011). Instead, the children use their knowledge in all contexts and in different ways (cf. the transformative character of languages). However, a challenge in studies of translanguaging, from the perspective of play-responsive teaching, is if using multiple linguistic repertoires is reduced to being the children’s concern (cf. García and Wei 2014; Vallejo and Dooly 2020). If so, this means that languages are used as a learner’s resource. Based on Vygotsky’s theory, pointing out the importance of a teacher as a more knowledgeable participant, I argue that the use of a variety of linguistic repertoires also characterizes teaching practices. This can be understood as referring to the use of a variety (vocabulary and language practices) within a language (cf. meta-communicating and shifting between speaking as is/as if) but also between several languages (e.g. through translation activities – see Kultti and Pramling 2018). In this reasoning, teachers’ attitudes and views on the variety of linguistic repertoires in their teaching practice are seen as crucial for finding appropriate methods, tools, and practices. These resources include one’s own and one’s colleagues’ skills in other languages, mother tongue support offered, collaboration with multilingual parents, using aids such as digital technologies, and the ECE setting employing personnel with skills in several languages. In addition, play-responsive teaching contributes to knowledge about how children’s agency is acknowledged through noticing diverse ways of understanding something and distancing from the situation through meta-communication (Lagerlöf, Wallerstedt, and Kultti 2019; Pramling et al. 2019).

To acknowledge the variety of linguistic repertoires from day one in ECE

A core argument within theorizing on translanguaging is to put to the fore the diversity of the child’s experiences and competences instead of merely their mastering of a specific language (García and Sylvan 2011; García and Otheguy 2020). In addition, speakers’ languaging is seen as complete in translanguaging pedagogy (García and Otheguy 2020; Vallejo and Dooly 2020). In contrast, in a plurilingual approach, it is seen as ‘emergent, situated and in constant evolutional and change’ (Vallejo and Dooly 2020, 8). The problem pointed out by García and colleagues (García and Sylvan 2011; García and Otheguy 2020): language background as minoritizing due to the different status of languages, is here acknowledged. Therefore, the standpoint taken is to put speakers and their participation in the foreground, in line with the translanguaging approach. In addition, from the perspective of play-responsive teaching, the speaker focus (e.g. agency) needs to be understood in relation to the other participants and the context of the activity. I argue for the importance of agency in play and teaching in terms of children’s language practices and participatory opportunities from the first day in ECE irrespective of their knowledge in the majority language. That is, knowledge in the majority language cannot be the precondition for gaining access to learning practices and for expressing oneself in ECE. Expressing oneself can also be contingent on non-verbal communication opportunities and opportunities to choose the content for communication (cf. Björk-Willén 2007; Cekaite 2007; Kultti 2015, 2016). The linguistic competence of children needs to be considered from the speakers’ perspective (instead of the perspective of majority language speakers) in the context of the activity in which they engage.

Elaborating on the variety of linguistic repertoires for diminishing generalization

The need to pay attention to the child’s perspective in order to provide good learning opportunities (García and Sylvan 2011; García and Otheguy 2020; Pramling et al. 2019) is related to the importance of teachers accounting for the experiences of individual children. Children’s experiences are seen as important for creating motivation and engagement in learning activities. Yet, children’s experiences as a starting point in learning activities can also be taken for granted. It can then risk resulting in a diminishing of a reflective approach, and the concept instead becomes synonymous with the experiences of some children, for example, the children who express themselves verbally and/or in the majority language. Phrased differently, there is a risk of generalizing children and their experiences as a starting point in teaching. To truly address each and every child’s perspective in teaching requires acute awareness by the teacher. In other words, an unaware use of the term a child’s perspective or seeing the ECE as being multilingual can result in generalizing children and their experiences on the basis of particular children. Therefore, I stress teaching responsive to play and a variety of linguistic repertoires in ECE.

ECE as encompassing diverse communicative practices

Acknowledging the sociolinguistic reality of individual children, play-responsive teaching promoting the use of a variety of linguistic resources is understood in terms of diverse communicative practices to be reached when everyone can share their experiences and knowledge. Teaching in and through diverse communicative practices also includes experiences other than the majority one(s) – the voices of everyone, and therefore several languages. It opens up diverse interpretations, perspectives, and ways of understanding something, even before every child manages to speak the majority language. Only using one language in activities for learning and teaching is directly limiting and thus contrary to this ambition. In addition, languages are made visible for everyone despite their language background(s).

Meta-communication and shifting between as is and as if are pointed out as resources for teaching responsive to children’s expressions and for extending these (Pramling et al. 2019). For speakers/learners, including multilingual ones, meta-communication and shifting between as is and as is provide critical opportunities for learning: extending participatory opportunities from the communication of something known and/or concrete through resources appropriated (as is) to imagining something (as if). An as if the mode of communication that takes its starting point in the child’s experiences does not have to relate to established known contents or ways of communicating (being ‘true’ or ‘correct’). That is, communication within a mode of as if offers opportunities for moving toward the experienced meaning of the object in Vygotskian ([1933] 1966) terms. In other words, an as if the mode of communication will become a way of challenging bi-/multilingual speakers within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978) without decreasing their participatory opportunities.

A characteristic of multilingual interaction, according to García (2018, 886), is ‘an attitude of openness, flexibility and respect’. Awareness and knowledge of children’s actual language practices require exploring teaching approaches and a close home-ECE collaboration (cf. Kirova 2016). Knowledge in early language development and languaging in bi-/multilingual contexts are essential tools for analyzing the teaching activities and other practices with children from the perspective of the speakers (cf. individuals’ actual linguistic experiences and resources). A need to also have the personnel or other colleagues with knowledge in children’s language(s) is difficult to disregard from the perspective outlined here. On the level of management, this requires attention to collaborative knowledge and competence development of the ECE staff (García and Sylvan 2011).

To summarize, in this paper, I have, on theoretical grounds, shown commonalities in the epistemologies, methodologies, and pedagogies of the dynamic perspective on languaging and play-responsive teaching. I have argued that merging insights from these perspectives will extend the concept of play-responsive teaching through pushing it closer to the contemporary situation of bi-/multilingual individuals, explicitly acknowledging their many-sided linguistic practices. The linguistic repertoires of children will then become an aspect of play-responsive teaching instead of only standing for the context – multilingual preschool – through variety in linguistic repertoires, meta-communication, and shifting between as is and as if as resources for teaching and learning. In this way, theorizing ECE moves toward teaching that builds upon and increases all children’s experiential basis and counters social injustices.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Institute for Educational Research [grant number Skolfi, 2016/112].

Notes on contributors

Anne Kultti

Anne Kultti is an Associate Professor in pedagogy at the University of Gothenburg. Her research is informed by sociocultural theory and concerns matters regarding equal opportunities for children’s learning and development in early childhood education. Her work is focused on teaching, learning, and play in ECE, multilingual communication and participation in preschool activities, and collaboration between home and preschool.