European Early Childhood Education Research ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Roehampton] On: 23 March 2015, At: 04:49 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

What do early childhood practitioners think about young children's thinking? a

Sue Robson & David J. Hargreaves

a

a

Roehampton University , London, England Published online: 03 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Sue Robson & David J. Hargreaves (2005) What do early childhood practitioners think about young children's thinking?, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13:1, 81-96, DOI: 10.1080/13502930585209571 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930585209571

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal Vol. 13, No. 1 2005

81

What do Early Childhood Practitioners Think About Young Children's Thinking? SUE ROBSON & DAVID J. HARGREAVES

Downloaded by [University of Roehampton] at 04:49 23 March 2015

RoehamptonUniversity London,England

SUMMARY: This study investigates the perceptions and practices o f early childhood practitioners in relation to the development of thinking in children aged 3-5 years. Five practitioners working in nursery and reception classes in England were interviewed, and sessions were observed in each setting, including discussions with the children. The results suggest that these practitioners believe that supporting the development of young children 3' thinking is an important part of their role, but that it often remains an implicit ~ther than explicit part o f their planning. A range o f contexts was cited by practitioners as supportive of the development of children "s thinking, and emphasis was placed on children 3' own choices, sufficient time to carry out child-chosen activity, and opportunities for talk. Views were divided about the impact of the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage, and there were some differences in the views o f praetitioners between the nursery (3-4 year~9 and reception (4-5 years) age groups.

R[~SUME." Cette 6tude porte sur les perceptions et les pratiques des professionnels concernant le dOveloppement de la pens~e chez des enfants dg~s de 3 h 5 ans. Nous avons interrog~ cinq praticiens travaillant dans des ~coles maternetles et des classes de maternelle ~ I 'Oeoleprimaire, en Angleterre, et nous avons rdaIisO des sOances d'observation, incluant des discussions avec les enfants, clans ces deux situations. Les rOsultats montrent que ces enseignants pensent que soutenir le d~veloppement de la pens~e des jeunes enfants constitue une partie essentielle de leur r6le, mais que ce soutien demeure le plus souvent implicitedans la plannification de leur travail Une sdrie de situations a dtd circe par les enseignants comme ~tant favorables au dOveloppement de la pensde des enfants, et l 'aecent a ~tO mis sur les choix propres des enfants, le temps nOcessaire ?z l 'execution des activit~s choisies et les occasions d'en parler. Les avis sont partag~s quant ?z l'impact du curriculum pr~scolaire (curriculum guidanee for the foundation stage), des divergences ~tant constatOes entre les enseignants qui travaillent avec des enfants de 3 d 4 ans et ceux travaillent avec ceux de 4 g75 ans.

ZUSA MMENFASSUNG: Diese Studie untersucht die Auffassungen und Praktiken yon P?idagogen in Zusammenhang mit der kognitiven Entwicklung von Kindern von 3 bis 5 Jahren. Fiinf Pddagogen/ P6dagoginnen, die in englischen Kindergiirten und Vorschulen arbeiten, wurden interviewt und Unterrichtsstunden in den einzelnen Bereichen beobachtet. Zusdtzlich fanden Diskussionen mit den Kindern statt. Die Ergebnisse lassen auf eine Oberzeugung der Piidagogen/Pgidagoginnen schlieJ3en, dass die Unterstiitzung der intellektuellen Entwicklungjunger Kinder ein wiehtiger Teil ihrer Rolle seL dabeijedoch eher ein impliziter als ein expliziter Teil ihrer Planung bleibt. Die Pddagogen/P(idagoginnen nannten eine Reihe von Inhalten, die die intellektuelle Entwicklung bei Kindern begiinstigen, und besonderes Gewicht wurde auf Tdtigkeiten gelegt, die die Kinder seibst gew~ihlt hatten, a u f ausreichende Zeit fiir deren Durchfiihrung und zusgitzlich auf

82

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal


Gelegenheiten zum Sprechen. Verschiedener Meinung war man in Bezug a u f den Einfluss des Curriculums" fiir die Grundstufe und es gab einige Untersehiede in den Ansichten yon Pgidagogen/ Piidagoginnen fiir die Altersgruppen Kindergiirten (3-4 Jahre) einerseits und denen fiir die Vorschule (4-5 Jahre) andererseits.

RESUMEN: Este estudio investiga las percepciones y pr6cticas profesionales de es'pecialistas en primera infancia acerca del desarrollo intelectual de ni~os con edades entre tres y cinco a~os. Se entrevistaron a cinco especialistas empleados en centros infantiles de Inglaterra, donde se observaron un n~mero de clases tanto en parvularios como en primer a~o de primaria, incluyendo charlas con algunos alumnos de estos centros. Los resultados sugieren que uno de los papeles m6s importantes que estos especialistas aportan, seg~n sus propias conclusiones, es el apoyo al desarrollo intelectual infantil, aunque a menudo esto contin~a siendo una parte implicita de su estrategia pedag6gica, en vez de explicita. Nuestros especialistas citaron una variedad de eontextos identificados como beneficiosos al desarrollo intelectual infantil, subrayandose la importaneia de permitir a los alumnos que elijan sus propias actividades, de conceder el tiempo necesario para llevar a cabo estas actividades, y de dar lugar a oportunidades" que fomenten la comunicaci6n oral. Las opiniones quedaron divididas sobre el impacto que el Curriculum inglOs tiene sobre la educaci6n en primera infancia, y tambikn se constataron diferentes opiniones entre aquellos especialistas seghn procedan de parvulario o de primaria.

Keywords: Thinking; Problem solving; Practitioner perception; Children's choices; Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage.

The development of children's thinking is a vital concern of practitioners and policy makers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan 1980; Fisher, 1990; Coles & Robinson, 1991 ; McGuinness, 1999) and this study is a preliminary exploration of early years' practitioners' perceptions of the nature of thinking, and of their role in supporting its development in young children. Such efforts are often referred to as 'teaching thinking', or 'teaching thinking skills'. Any study of thinking, whether in young children or human beings in general, needs to recognise that defining what might be meant by 'thinking', in itself, is problematic. Cohen (2002) asserts that' Human beings cannot help thinking' (p. l), and thought is often regarded as a uniquely human characteristic, and as 'constitutive of our humanity' (Johnson, 2001, p.31). The phrase 'thinking skills', in turn, is a contested term. In particular, discussion has revolved around the attempt to describe the processes of thinking as a 'skill'. White (2002) suggests that 'thinking' can be characterised as a skill because it can be improved by practice, but that this alone will not be enough to ensure that children develop a positive disposition to think clearly 'about what they are to do and to believe' (p.104). Johnson points out the somewhat paradoxical notion that, in many areas of life, 'to have mastered a skill usually means to be able to exercise it without thinking' (2001, p.6). McGuinness (1999), in a report commissioned by the then Department for Education and Employment in England and Wales, acknowledges the difficulty of providing an agreed definition, but lists the common attributes and processes that are often cited, including collecting, sorting, analysing and drawing conclusions from information, 'brainstorming' new ideas, problem solving, determining cause and effect, evaluating options, planning and setting goals, monitoring progress, decision making and reflecting on one's own progress. This impressive set of attributes and processes suggests just why the development of thinking has acquired such a focus by both practitioners, as well as by policymakers who, in particular, have made much use of McGuinness' work (Johnson, 2001). Thinking clearly involves much more than the acquisition of knowledge. Critical judgement, creativity, decision making, and the ability to act independently and to reflect on one's own thinking (metacognition) are all involved. Kite suggests that 'there is ample evidence from the research literature to suggest that the teaching of thinking should be the major focus for education' and that it is 'seen as the key to raising educa-


S. Robson & D. J. Hargreaves

83

Until relatively recently, much work in this area has focused on the experiences of children in the primary and secondary school years. Now, however, more emphasis is being placed upon the ways in which the development of children's thinking can be supported in the early years (Rodd, 1999; Costello, 2000; Wallace, 2002). The English Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (DfEE, 2000) makes explicit reference to this, in statements such as 'Through play, in a secure environment with effective adult support, children can...think creatively and imaginatively' (op cit. p.25). Practitioners are advised to ensure that they 'provide positive images in, for example, books and displays that challenge children's thinking' (op cit. p.28) and 'activities based on first-hand experiences that encourage...problem-solving, prediction, critical thinking' (op cit. p.82). As such, the current mandatory curriculum for 3-5 year olds in England (ie. for settings in which children are in receipt of the nursery education grant) contains direct reference throughout to the importance of developing children's thinking. Two recent, large scale DfES-funded research projects (Moyles, Adams & Musgrove, 2002 and Siraj-Blatchfbrd, Sylva, Muttock, Gilden & Bell, 2002) have also included, as part of their brief, to: "Gather information on effective practitioners' understanding within five specifically defined aspects...iv) thinking skills development," Moyles et al. (2002, p.2) The term 'thinking skills', alongside 'developing children's thinking', was used in discussion with interviewees in this study as it was felt that, whilst often ambiguous, it was a familiar term in current use, and would be well known to the interviewees. This paper reports a small pilot study which is part of a larger scale investigation of 'Ownership and Autonomy in Early Learning', funded by the Froebel Research Fellowship. The present study looks at the perceptions and practices of five practitioners working in nursery and reception classes in relation to the development of thinking in children aged 3-5 years. It comprises in-depth interviews with practitioners working in state-funded Foundation Stage settings in England. The objective was to gain insights into practitioners' perceptions by addressing three main research questions: 1. What are practitioners' working definitions of'thinking'? 2. What are practitioners' perceptions about their roles in supporting and extending children's thinking? 3. Do practitioners believe that the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage has had an impact on their practice in relation to supporting and extending children's thinking?

Method

Participants The five interviewees worked in three different local authorities, two of which were in inner city areas, and the third of which was in a suburban area of a large city. All of the settings and interviewees were known to the researchers, who had approached them and invited them to participate, as a result of their prior involvement with the University, either for their own study, or in previous collaborative work with the University. Reasons for the choice of settings included ensuring a range of types of setting, age group and location. Teacher A: Educator B:

Teacher C:

Deputy head in Early Excellence Centre. Qualified as teacher in New Zealand, completed BA Early Childhood Studies degree in UK. Early years educator in Early Excellence Centre, working with Teacher A (same centre). Nursery nurse trained, currently studying for BA Early Childhood Studies degree. Head of nursery school with Masters degree in education, formerly higher education lecturer in Early Childhood.


84

Teacher D: TeacherE:

Early years coordinator in infant and nursery school, working as reception class teacher, with BA Education degree. Reception teacher with responsibility for early years in primary school, and Masters degree in Early Childhood Studies.


Procedure Two interviewers, both working at the University of Surrey Roehampton (now Roehampton University), conducted the interviews and observations. Each interview used a semi-structured format, and lasted approximately 45 minutes (see Appendix 1). It took place within the setting, in a place of the interviewee's choice. Interviews were, by agreement, tape recorded, and transcribed, and transcripts submitted to each interviewee for checking and agreement. The transcripts were then read independently by two researchers to establish agreed content categories for analysis. In addition to the interviews, two researchers also observed sessions with the adults and children (aged between 3.1 and 5.9 years) in each setting. Written field notes were made of these sessions, including discussions with the children, for whom permission to talk with them had been obtained. Data from these observations have been included here to provide illustrations of practice. The initial data management stage (cf. Miles & Huberman, 1994; Spencer, Ritchie, Lewis & Dillon, 2003) was carried out by establishing 8 'categories' of the content of the practitioners' interview transcriptions, established directly from the interview questions (see Appendix 1). These were: 1: Practitioners' understanding of the term 'thinking skills' (from interview question 1); 2: The value of developing children's thinking (question 2); 3: Where 'thinking' was made explicit in their policies and planning (question 3), 4: The best contexts and areas in their settings for developing children's thinking (questions 4 & 5); 5: The role of talk and interaction in developing children's thinking (questions 5 & 6); 6: The relationship of adult-led and child-initiated activity to children's thinking (question 7); 7: The influences on their own thinking (questions 8-10); and 8: The impact of the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage on their practice (questions 11-13). Having established these categories, the subsequent data interpretation stage (cf. Spencer et al., 2003) was carried out by identifying 5 main themes from the interviews, with additional data from the observational field notes, representing the teachers' main expressed concerns about children's thinking, and the distinctions they drew themselves. As Dey (1993) suggests, given that the nature of the research here was to establish practitioners' perceptions, it would be extremely difficult to do this without taking account of those perceptions as they arose in interview. These themes derive from the eight initial categories: Theme 1: Practitioners' definitions of'thinking' and 'thinking skiffs': from category 1 Theme 2: The value of developing children's thinking: from categories 2 and 7 Theme 3: Planning for thinking: from category 3 Theme 4: Organising for thinking: from categories 4, 5 and 6 Theme 5: The curriculum guidance for the foundation stage and children's thinking: from category 8. The results and discussion (below) are organised to reflect these five themes.

Results and discussion

The first research question is addressed in themes 1 and 2: 'Practitioners' understanding of the term "thinking skills"' and 'The value of developing children's thinking'. The second research question (What are practitioners' perceptions about their roles in supporting and extending children's thinking?) is addressed in themes 3 and 4: 'Planning for thinking' and 'Organising for thinking'. The third research question is addressed in theme 5: 'The curriculum guidance for the foundation stage and children's thinking'.


85


Theme 1: Practitioners' definitions of 'thinking' and 'thinking skills' The difficulties of defining 'thinking' and 'thinking skills' are reflected in the views expressed by the practitioners interviewed here. A variety of processes and activities was cited by them, including 'the ability to operate independently and to use independence wisely' (Teacher C) and 'how the children are evaluating their own learning, how they are working things out' (Teacher E). Educator B talked of 'how they (the children) cope with their development.' Perhaps the most common definition offered was about thinking as problem solving, a definition reflected by Wilson (2000). It may be that, in so doing, the practitioners had been influenced by other proponents of thinking skills. Johnson (2001) suggests that 'most advocates of thinking skills equate thinking with problem-solving' (p.9). In referring to examples of activities and contexts, practitioners drew on both children's sell-generated and adult-set 'problems' to illustrate what they meant. Teacher D referred to adult-initiated open-ended activities, for example, a task which started from the question, 'can you make a bag strong enough to hold two apples?'. Teacher A commented on adult strategies such as the use of open-ended questioning in 'moving them (the children) on'. Such problems were not always seen as embodying a 'physical' challenge. Teacher A cited an example of one boy who had been upset over an incident: "1 knew he wanted to resolve it, but finds it really hard to talk about. So, with the knowledge I already had about him, I was able to subtly talk to him about it, and get to the bottom of the problem, and then try to think together how next time we could make it better.'

Theme 2: The value of developing children's thinking All five of the practitioners in this study believed that it was important to try to develop children's thinking. Their views here were closely related to their definitions of 'thinking skills', in particular in the emphasis on problem solving and its importance as a life skill. 'You want children to be able to cope with life, and education ought to be taking part in that as a whole' (Teacher C) and 'if you can help them with problem solving techniques and strategies, then you're helping them for life' (Teacher A) were comments typical of all of the interviewees, and reflect Kite's (2001) comment above. The strongest rationale offered was what all five practitioners saw as the relationship of thinking to learning. Teacher D said 'It's the way they are going to learn. It's like the way I learn. I do something and think about it.' Teacher E related this to constructivist ideas of cognition: 'if we want them to develop their understanding, they have got to think about it and relate it to things that they already know, because otherwise, if you tell them something and they can't connect it to something else, it doesn't make sense'. Both of these teachers, along with Teacher C, drew an explicit contrast between this rationale for supporting children's thinking and ideas of rote learning and 'telling' children things. For Teacher C, this was about the development of an attitude, a disposition to take responsibility, and make decisions for oneself: 'you can make decisions that are well-informed because they are based on your thought'. At a time when practitioners often feel considerable pressure about 'covering' a content-oriented curriculum, this may be a source of some tension. As Teacher D, working in the reception class of a school, said: 'It's the expectation of what children need to have achieved by the end of the foundation stage'. As we shall see below, time was a key issue for all five practitioners here, and, in particular, the importance of time for the children's own thinking and ideas to develop.


86


Theme 3: Planning for thinking Whilst emphasising the value of developing children's thinking, all of the practitioners felt that their setting's own plans, and the policies that underpinned them, tended not to refer explicitly to 'thinking'. Teacher A said: 'I think that the policies don't use the word 'thinking' as much as they could. They could use the word "learning" maybe more, but using the word "thinking" makes you think more about thinking.' Teacher C concun'ed: 'we don't use the term 'thinking skills'. At the same time, they believed that it was implicit in their plans, but, as teacher D commented, 'it's (talking about it) made me realise it's something I do, but its not perhaps a planned in thing, as much as it should be...and it's not overt enough.' There may be several reasons for this absence of explicit reference to thinking in the plans and policies of these settings. As we noted above, it is only in recent years that 'thinking', as distinct from 'learning' and 'development', has been a subject of focus in the early years, and none of the five practitioners interviewed here could remember it being mentioned in their initial training. Some mentioned courses and inservice work undertaken, but, again, said that these had tended to be set in contexts such as 'effective communication', using questioning with children, and personal, social and emotional development. Teacher E said that a recent Ofsted inspection had focussed her school's attention on questioning techniques and making time for talk, which she believed had influenced her ideas about children's thinking. Only Educator B could recall explicit reference to it, on a course: 'l saw a video of a baby sleeping, and they were saying, "that child's thinking"'. Whatever the reasons for this apparent absence of direct emphasis on 'thinking', as the practitioners here suggest, more explicit reference may help to focus people's attention upon it, in both policies and planning. As Teacher A said: 'using the word 'thinking' makes you think more about thinking'. A clear message may be the desirability of more explicit reference to 'thinking', at both initial and inservice training levels, as a way of drawing attention to its importance in working with young children, and as a way of valuing what practitioners are doing to support its development. As Teacher D said: 'It's been really interesting this afternoon just sitting and chatting about it, because it's there, I just don't realise it.' Pramling (1988) speculates that a probable reason for the 'expansion of children's thinking' in one of the groups of children she studied was that 'the teacher continuously focused on the children's ideas of learning throughout the year' (p.277).

Theme 4: Organising for thinking 4.1

Where in the curriculum ?

All of the practitioners believed that they incorporated the development of thinking skills into their practice, though they did not refer to it by name in many instances. Teacher A said that, for her, it 'would come through every curriculum area', but people also suggested particular areas which they felt were more supportive of the development of children's thinking. In relation to the foundation stage guidance, 'Communication, language and literacy' (Teachers D and E) and 'Knowledge and understanding of the world' (Teacher A) were specifically mentioned. Teacher E cited science as important for developing investigative and questioning skills. Two interviewees (D and E) cited activities in which children are 'actually physically doing something, so anything where they're fixing things together, or making, sticking, so, like, the bricks' (Teacher D). Part of the value here derived fi'om the role of talk, as Teacher E suggested, giving an example of one child: '(he) will come and decide that he wants to make something and he will talk about what he needs'.

4.2

Outdoor activiO:

Teacher D, Teacher A and Educator B all commented on the value of outdoor activities for supporting children's thinking. The Centre in which the latter two both work has a notable outdoor area on

S. R o b s o n & D. J. H a r g r e a v e s

87

which much time, effort, and money has been spent, and so it might be expected that they would value the opportunities it gave them and the children. However, in talking about it, Teacher A highlighted a feature seen as important by all interviewees: 'just having that time, and that space, and that opportunity just to ' b e ' really'. Outdoors was seen as providing good opportunities for this, and often a time of greater child-chosen activity.


4.3

Pretend play

Interestingly, pretend play of any kind did not feature significantly in interviewees' responses. Teacher D commented on the importance of 'open ended activities, role play type areas', and Educator B commented 'we do a lot of role play' in response to the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage statement 'Role play gives children the opportunity to make sense of their world' (2000, p.31). Recent research (eg. Dockett, 1998; Trawick-Smith, 1998; Bergen, 2002) has suggested that shared pretend play can be important in facilitating perspective-taking, which may be important in developing a theory of mind and later abstract thought. Observations of the children themselves bear this out, as in this episode with three girls engaged in socio-dramatic play in the classroom o f Teacher D: Girl I: ' l ' m Cinderella' Girls 1 and 2: 'Yeah, we're Cinderella" Girl 3: 'You can't be, you've got a baby.' This metacommunicative exchange, albeit brief, highlights Girl 3's ability to take on another's perspective, even if, as in this instance, that person is a fictional character from a traditional tale. Significantly, a large number of the children observed cited areas with rich potential for pretend play as their 'favourite place': the construction area, dressing up and role play. This perhaps suggests the desirability of more strongly highlighting the relationship of pretence to children's thinking in initial and inservice training.

4.4

Chx/dren ',s'own choices

There was considerable emphasis on the importance of children's own choices, and the time to pursue their own ideas, as echoed by Teacher D, when she said that: 'if the children have set something up, or if the children are self-selecting, they've got the agenda...they've got more of an opportunity then to develop those skills'. There is often discussion amongst early years practitioners over what is an appropriate balance between adult-led and child-initiated activity (Sir@ Blatchford et al., 2002), and our practitioners reflected the dilemmas and concerns expressed by many. Teacher D, working in the reception class of an infant and nursery school, said that: '1 know that children learn best when there's a balance, and children learn better when they are choosing, because the motivation is there, but in the real world - I would certainly say it shouldn't be less than half and half(adult-led and child-initiated). And that's why I find the daily mathematics lesson and the literacy hour a problem.' She pointed out an issue, also identified by Adams, Alexander, Drummond and Moyles (2004), which may be more pressing for practitioners working with four year olds in an infant or primary school setting than for those working with fbur year olds in a nursery school setting: 'When you're working in an infant school, or a primary school, there has to be give and take...You have to sort of swallow some times and fight on other things. I would like to give the children more opportunity to choose their own activities.'



88

Teacher E, working in a primary school, felt that a balance of approximately half adult-led and half child-initiated activity was appropriate. In contrast, all three of the practitioners working in nursery schools chose 'mostly child chosen' or 'between half and half and mostly child chosen'. Siraj-B[atcbford et al. (2002) found that three quarters of all 'learning episodes' in reception classes were adult-initiated in their study. They speculate that this could be a result of the higher level of structure they observed in reception classes, as compared with nursery classes. This may be particularly important here. When asked to respond to the statement 'freely chosen play activities often provide the best opportunities to extend children's thinking' (Sir@ Blatchford, et al. 2002, p.12), 4 of the 5 practitioners said that they 'strongly agreed' with the statement. Only Teacher E differed, saying that 'it all depends on the planning and the people involved'. Teacher A also linked choice to quality of outcome: 'If the child feels they've made the choice, then the outcome is always going to be better. Self-selected activities are much more inspiring for the children'. As Danny, a boy in Teacher D's class said: 'I like it best when I get to choose.' Lambert (2000) stresses the importance of children having opportunities to solve the problems they set for themselves, suggesting that these will have meaning for the children as compared with problems set for them by the adult, which may not even be perceived by the children as 'problems' at all. The relationship of choice to children's thinking clearly merits further exploration.

4.5

Size (?/group

The optinmm size of group for children's activity was commented upon by two interviewees. Teacher D said that her team had focussed on the use of paired activity as a valuable way of grouping in the early years, in preference to larger groups, which they had found quite difficult to make work effectively. She reflected: 'it might be an age thing, or it might be because of what we do'. She commented: 'It (problem solving activity) works really well in pairs, the children work well together', particularly, in her view, when the context was discussion based: 'because they don't feel threatened by each other'. The National Oracy Project (1990) in England came to a similar conclusion, suggesting that younger and quieter children seemed to make better contributions in pairs rather than in larger groups. In focussing explicitly on thinking, Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2002) report that 'our observations show that "sustained shared thinking" was most likely to occur when children were interacting 1: 1 with an adult or with a single peer partner' (p. 12) Teacher A, though, believed that groups of three and four children were supportive of children's thinking: 'more ideas may be coming through from children in a small group...and to have the ideas coming through from different children, as well, can be shooting in different directions.' Bennett and Dunne (1992), discussing their research on co-operative grouping in primary schools, come to the similar conclusion that 'As a generalisation, it does seem that groups of three and four are the most likely to co-operate to good purpose', allowing for 'lines of communication' that are not too complex (p. ll 5). Bennett and Dunne's work focuses on the benefits of collaborative working, rather than solely on children's thinking. However, their recommendations are underpinned by a consideration of the quality of interactions between children, which are themselves reliant upon the quality of the children's thinking.

4.6

Role(~fadul~

Teacher A also voiced her concerns about the potential danger of adults 'leading' the conversation too much in a very small group, or one-to-one with a child, since the children's own ideas may thereby be restricted. This emphasis on the ways in which adults talk to young children was also commented upon by Teacher D: 'The bottom line is the quality of interaction between adult and child'. Hughes and Westgate (1988) noted the greater input of the children, and their use of talk for a wider range of purposes, in classroom contexts where adults, and teachers in particular, were absent, either physically or 'pedagogically' (i.e. by not taking an instructive role). In this, they



89

differ from the conclusions of Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2002), that 'when adults manage to find time to talk to children individually or in child pairs, then these interactions are likely to be the most "stretching" interactions' (p.59). The roles of adults, and more experienced others, in supporting children's learning, has long been a central concern for early childhood professionals, with the work of Vygotsky (1978), in particular, emphasising the co-construction of meaning. Educators in Reggio Emilia (Reggio Children/Project Zero, 2001) suggest that young children's thinking is a collective process, dependent upon discussion and 'provocation' to challenge existing theories and ideas, with adults playing a vital part in this discursive process. The variety of viewpoints here suggests that exploration of the role of adult presence at, and involvement in, children's activities, particularly those which involve discussion, remains important. More generally, the roles of adults were seen as being crucial. Underpinning that role, Teacher A suggested, was the adult's knowledge of the child: 'it's knowing, really, individual children'. This knowledge was seen as important in deciding how and when to intervene in order to support children's thinking, and was commented upon by several people here. Teacher C summed this up in relation to supporting children's thinking: ' finding the right point to become involved and the right way in which to become involved to extend someone's thinking...it's about extending rather than redirecting. I know that we probably redirect rather in actual fact because sometimes organisationally you just have to. But there is a real aim there to try and extend and the moment you have that as an aim, actually you are always extending children's thinking'. (Teacher C) This 'spotting' of opportune moments was seen as very important, particularly in relation to extending thinking through children's self-chosen activities. Teacher D commented on how adults needed to be aware of how children might be showing their thinking through action, or gesture: 'what Nathan was doing, he hasn't got the skills to actually verbalise what he was doing, so he was actually just going and doing things, and trying things out by moving bricks, or planks, using different tools. He was actually showing what he was thinking, he was acting out his thought processes.' (Teacher D)

4.7

Timefi)r thinking

There was a strong consensus that having sufficient time was an essential ingredient in developing children's thinking, and that this was very closely related to the adults' roles in providing the best conditions and opportunities. This included both ensuring sufficient time for children to complete activities and see through ideas, and giving children time to talk. As Teacher A said: 'So giving children time to explore their own thinking is important, too. 1 had to learn to not interrupt children so much.' Medcalf Davenport (2003) reports a study which demonstrated more elaborated talk by both boys and girls when they were given greater opportunities for conversation, as compared with more closed 'question and answer' sessions. Such findings support earlier work by Wells (1987) and Tizard and Hughes (2002). There were some differences between the remarks of the two interviewees working in reception classes and those of their nursery colleagues. Teacher D believed it to be important to give children the time and opportunity to follow through their ideas, with the adult's role being one of ~Not leaping in...sitting back and then getting involved'. However, she saw this as being difficult in a reception class context, commenting on 'pressures of time'. Teacher E commented on another aspect they had in common, in contrast to their nursery colleagues: 'What I prefer is that they (the children) can go out when they want and they don't have to go out to play at set times. I prefer it when they don't have that so they can have a longer period of time so their learning is less disjointed.' Both teachers had to liaise more with teachers working with older children in the school, and could not give the children uninterrupted access to outdoor play, and thus a potentially less 'timetabled' day. This was not a concern for the other three interviewees. In their settings, children

90


had free access to both indoor and outdoor areas uninterruptedly, and could stay at activities without being stopped in order to 'go out to play'. As we have seen, several of the interviewees here felt that the outdoor area was particularly valuable in relation to children's thinking, and, regardless of context, Gura (1992) comments on the way in which a 'hit and run' attitude developed in the children in her study when they had tight time restrictions, leading to less elaborate play. The parallels with time for children's thinking to develop are clear.


4.8

Adult,s'talking about thinking

Whilst not necessarily mentioning 'thinking' specifically in their intentions or planning, the majority of the practitioners here used the language of thinking in their interactions with the children. Teacher A emphasised this: 'Modelling thinking for the children, sometimes l'll say, in imaginative play, "imagine i t ' , and they are really good prompts'. This modelling of speculative talk with the children was particularly emphasised by both Teachers C and D, in their advocacy of reflective questions such as 'I wonder what will happen?', and 'I wonder why that's there?' when talking with the children. Teacher D often used words such as 'think' and 'know' with the children. A good example of this was during a shared book session. When the children were asked to discuss something with a talk partner, she asked them: 'What did you think? What did you talk about? What did you think might happen?'. On another occasion, she said to a child who was making a pair of sandals out of paper and ribbon, 'How did you know the paper was going to fit?' Talk often linked this reflection with emotion, too: 'How do you feel about that?' and 'Are you worried about ( )?' in reference to a child who had gone home ill (Teacher A). It is interesting to speculate on the possible impact of this explicit use of the vocabulary of 'thinking' on the children's own language use. The children themselves were, at different times, heard to talk in ways which suggested metacognitive awareness. At the sand tray in Teacher A ' s class, Joseph said 'This is a good idea like this', using a bottle top as a scoop to empty the tray. Practitioners were also observed to use ideas of stimulating recall as a way of supporting children's reflection. Teacher A was heard saying to the children 'It's because you remembered what we did last time!'. Her colleague, Educator B, used similar strategies. At the water tray one child brought her a plastic starfish, whilst another showed her a plastic octopus. Her comment to them was 'It reminds me of that story, a fish out of water.' Whilst thinking is undoubtedly not merely a matter of recalling memory, as Meadows points out, 'remembering of some sort is necessary for virtually any human cognitive activity' (1993, p.49). MacNaughton and Williams (2004) emphasise the central part recall plays in problem solving, which is, as we have seen, a key aspect of thinking for the practitioners in this study. One potential drawback here, however, is best illustrated through a group story reading episode in Teacher D's class. In reading a story about birthdays, Teacher D asked the children to reflect on the characters' feelings by thinking about times they had been to birthday parties themselves. One girl said that she had not had a party herself, or, indeed, ever been to one. What, then, was she able to think about'? Astington (1994), in her discussion of Paley's practice (see, for example, 1981, 1997) emphasises the importance of this type of reflective discourse for supporting the development of children's thinking. She points out Paley's own use of words and expressions about thinking as she comments on the children's narratives: "are you wondering...?" or oh, 1 think 1 know what reminded you of that'. She says (1994, p.185): 'In Paley's classroom the talk is not just about things in the world, it is also about the children's thoughts about things in the world.' Astington suggests that this is important because, in so doing, children's understanding of how they think and learn, an aspect ofmetacognition, is made more consciously explicit to them. Pramling (1988) expresses a similar view, and suggests that a focus on the relationship of the child to the world promotes the development of metacognition. Teacher A stressed that this practice is not always easy or straightforward, however: 'When I've tried to talk to the children about their own learning...l've found they would go off the subject really easily, that they actually find it really hard to know what you're getting at... but a video or photograph can inspire it more.' The use of the children's own photographs, alongside a range of other ways of gathering evidence about a


91

child, is a feature of the Mosaic approach, which was developed by Clark and Moss (2001) as a way of gaining a very full picture of a child. Photographs, as Clark and Moss point out, may be a way of giving children a 'voice'. As such, they may contribute to adults' opportunities for 'noticing' children's thinking.


Theme 5: The curriculum guidance for the foundation stage and children's thinking In all four of the settings in this study, implementation of the foundation stage curriculum for 3-5 year olds was mandatory. What impact did the practitioners believe that the guidance had had on their practice? How were they planning to meet the requirements set out in individual statements such as those cited earlier, or others, including the goals to 'use talk to organise, sequence and clarify thinking, ideas, feelings and events' (DfEE, 2000, p.58), 'use developing mathematical ideas and methods to solve problems' (op cit. p.80), or 'express and communicate their ideas, thoughts and feelings' (op cir. p. 126)? Interviewees were divided in their views about the impact that the guidance had had on their own thinking. Teacher E said that she believed it had influenced her planning and teaching. Teachers A and C saw the guidance as supporting what they believed they were already doing: 'I think we looked through it and thought yes, we do that, or we do more of that...really it's validating what we are doing rather than leading us to do anything' (Teacher C). Teacher D believed that the foundation stage guidance had had a positive impact: 'What I am impressed about is that, as part of Communication, language and literacy, thinking features specifically, and it's not just reading and writing, speaking and listening, that word "thinking" is there'. Teacher A believed that this was important for the practitioners themselves, in supporting them in doing what they believed was "right': ' I ' m not actually teaching a direct skill here, but I am supporting a child in learning a very important skill, and that is important, that is written into the curriculum'. She also emphasised the benefits of being able to share this with parents, stressing its value as part of the stated curriculum. Teacher D felt that what had been valuable had been the 'outpouring of articles and training materials' that had come in the wake of the guidance. As we have seen, the interviewees attached considerable importance to talk as a vehicle for developing thinking: and there was general agreement that the emphasis on talk in general, and particularly in the area of'Communication, language and literacy', was a positive element of the Guidance. At the same time, this was recognised as one of the most challenging aspects, because practitioners were aware of the need for time tbr such talk to develop: 'All the way through, the whole time you need to give children time to talk about what they're thinking, and this is the difficult one. This is the time issue one, because so often 1 think, I've really only skated the surface of that comment, I should have asked another question.' (Teacher D) An interesting thread running through interviewees' comments about meeting the requirements of the guidance was the distinction made, often implicitly, about differences in supporting children in talking about 'ideas and feelings' and 'thoughts'. A range of statements in the guidance group these three together (see, for example, the goals quoted above for 'Communication, language and literacy' (op cit. p.58), or 'Creative development' (op cit. p.126)). When looking at these, interviewees tended to focus on the communication of ideas and feelings, and encouraging children to express their feelings. Teacher A cited this in relation to the development of conflict resolution skills, as well as in creative activities. It was less common for interviewees to refer explicitly to the expression of thoughts, as Teacher D reflects: "Expressing their ideas, and their feelings - yes, but thoughts'? How does that one come in'?...They (the children) can talk about their ideas, they talk a lot about their feelings, but it's getting them to verbalise their thoughts in that way...you have to do a bit of delving, I think.'


92


In planning, organising and teaching to meet the requirements of the guidance, all interviewees cited a variety of examples, across all six areas (personal, social and emotional development, communication, language and literacy, mathematical development, knowledge and understanding of the world, creative development and physical development). It is interesting to note that 'problem-solving' is specifically mentioned in curriculum guidance statements on play, personal social and emotional development, mathematical development and knowledge and understanding of the world. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that as with their definitions of 'thinking skills', practitioners tended to talk about this in the curriculum guidance statements rather more than about other possible thinking processes. A good example of this was mathematical development, which was seen by most of the interviewees as having 'almost inbuilt' (Teacher D) opportunities for problem solving, and to be an aspect of the curriculum in which developing children's thinking was happening all the time. Comments in relation to other areas included 'there is a vegetable patch and there's a lot of problem solving there' (Teacher C), and Teacher E related an example of construction activity in knowledge and understanding of the world, 'That's play, really, with problem solving'. It may be that the advent of the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage has served to strengthen the conflation of'thinking' with 'problem solving', and that a useful message for practice could be a more explicit focus on a wider range of thinking processes. As Johnson (2001) suggests, this may be further exacerbated by many advocates' apparent emphasis on problem solving.

Conclusion

This study set out to explore practitioners' perceptions of and practices concerning the development of thinking in children aged between three and five years. The development of children's thinking is often seen as a 'good thing' in itself, and this view was reflected by the practitioners in this study. Continued research in this area is vital in order to establish not only why it may be important, but, crucially, how it may be supported. The practitioners' responses here reflected the commonly-held view of'thinking' as a problem-solving activity (Wilson, 2000). Less apparent in their ideas was the possible role of thinking in aspects such as children's conceptual development, imagination and creativity, highlighted by writers such as Thornton (2002) and White (2002), or mention of approaches such as 'philosophy for children' (Lipman et al. 1980; Costello, 2000; Haynes, 2002). Too narrow a focus on particular aspects such as 'problem solving' may deny both adults and children vital opportunities to develop, and to make best use of their thinking in a much wider range of contexts, and for many more purposes. The practitioners in this pilot study saw their own roles in supporting and extending children's thinking as very important, but often as remaining implicit rather than explicit in their planning and in their own thinking. Further research is needed to investigate how practitioners and children can ensure that enough time and space is available to develop their thinking, the adult's role in interveningto support it, and the impact of adult modelling on children's thinking. Finally, more research is needed to investigate what can be done at initial and inservice training levels to draw more explicit attention to the development of children's thinking. Claxton (1999) suggests that we live in an 'age of uncertainty' (p.243), where 'the only useful- and defensible- thing to do is try to prepare young people to deal with uncertainty' (p.281). Actively working to develop children as autonomous, flexible and creative thinkers, equipped with the resilience and resourcefulness to deal with uncertainty, is a vital and achievable goal for early childhood practitioners.

REFERENCES

ADAMS, S., ALEXANDER, E., DRUMMOND, M. & MOYLES, J. (2004) Inside, the Foundation Stage. Recreating the Reception Fear (London: Association of Teachers and Lecturers). ASTINGTON, J. (1994) The Child's" Discovery of the Mind (London: Fontana). BENNETT, N. & DUNNE, E. (1992) Managing Classroom Gt~mps (London: Simon and Schuster).


S. Robson & D. J. H a r g r e a v e s

93

BERGEN, D (2002) The role of pretend play in children's cognitive development, Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4(1), available on: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu. CLARK, A. & MOSS, P. (2001) Listening to Children." The Mosaic Approach (London: National Children's Bureau). CLAXTON, G (1999) Wise-Up: The Challenge of Lifelong Learning (London: Bloomsbury). COLES, M. & ROBINSON, W.D. (1991) (Eds) Teaching Thinking: A Survey of Programmes in Education (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press). COSTELLO, P. J. M. (2000) Thinking Skills and Earl)," Childhood Education (London: Fulton). DfEE (2000) Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (London: HMSO). DEY, I. (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis (London: Routledge). DOCKETT, S. (1998) Constructing understandings through play in the early years, International Journal of Early Years Education, 6 ( 1), pp. 105-16. FISHER, R. (1990) Teaching Children to Think (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). GURA, P. (1992) (Ed.) Exploring Learning: Young Children and Blockplay (London: Paul Chapman). HAYNES, J. (2002) Children as Philosophers' (London: RotttledgeFalmer). HUGHES, M. & WESTGATE, D. (1988) Re-appraising Talk in Nursery and Reception Classes, Education 3-13, 16(2) pp.9-15. JOHNSON, S. (2001) Teaching Thinking Skills, Impact No.8, (London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain). KITE, A. (2001) Developing Children's Thinking, Research in Education, 68 (Summer 2001), available on: http://www.scre.ac.uk/rie/n168/n168kite.html, accessed 25 February 2004. LAMBERT, E.B. (2000) Problem-solving in the first years of school, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(3), pp.32-8. LIPMAN, M., SHARP, A.M. & OSCANYAN, F.S. (1980) Philosophy in the Classroom (Philadelphia: Temple University Press). MACNAUGHTON, G. & WILLIAMS, G. (2004) Teaching Young Children (Berkshire: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education). McGUINNESS, C. (1999) From Thinking Skills to Thinking Classrooms, Research Report 115 (Nottingham: DfEE). MEADOWS, S. (1993) The Child as Thinker (London: Routledge). MEDCALF DAVENPORT, N. A. (2003) Questions, Answers and Wait-time: implications for assessment of young children, International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(3), pp.24553. MILES, M.B. & HUBERMAN, A.M. (1994) QuaBtative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (London: Sage). MOYLES, J., ADAMS, S. & MUSGROVE, A. (2002) SPELL Study of Pedagogical Effectiveness in Early Learning, Research Report 363 (Nottingham: DfES). NATIONAL ORACY PROJECT (1990) Teaching, Talking and Learning in Key Stage 1 (York: National Curriculum Council). PALEY, V. G. (1981) Wally "sStories (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press). PALEY, V.G. (1997) The Girl With the Brown Crayon (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press). PRAMLING, I. (1988) Developing Children's Thinking About Their Own Thinking, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, pp.266-78. REGGIO CHILDREN/PROJECT ZERO (2001) Making Learning Visible. Young Children as Individual and Group Learners (Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children). RODD,J. (1999) Encouraging Young Children's Critical and Creative Thinking Skills, Childhood Education, 75(6), pp.350 -355. SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD, I., SYLVA, K., MUTTOCK, S, GILDEN, R. & BELL, D. (2002) Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years (REPED, Research Report 356 (Nottingham: DfES). SPENCER, L., RITCHIE, J., LEWIS, J. & DILLON, L (2003). Quali~ in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence (London: The Strategy Unit).


94


THORNTON, S. (2002) Growing Minds (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). TIZARD, B. & HUGHES, M. (2002) (2nd ed.) Young Children Learning: Talking and Thinking at Home and at School (London: Fontana). TRAWICK-SMITH, J. (1998) A Qualitative Analysis of Metaplay in the Preschool Years, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), pp.433-52. VYGOTSKY, L. (1978) Mind in Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). WELLS, G. (1987) The Meaning Makers (Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton). WALLACE, B. (2002) Teaching Thinking Skills Across the Early Years (London: David Fulton). WHITE, J. (2002) The ChiM's Mind (London: RoutledgeFalmer). WILSON, V. (2000) Education Forum on Teaching Thinking Skills" Report, Scottish Executive, available on: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/education/ftts-00.asp, accessed 11 February 2004.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study forms part of the Froebel Research Fellowship programme, which is funded by the Froebel Research Committee and National Froebel Foundation, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. We would also like to thank all the practitioners and children who took part.

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Interview Schedule 1.

What do you understand by the term 'thinking skills'?

2. Do you think it is important to develop children's thinking? Why? 3. Do you deliberately incorporate the development of thinking skills into your practices? • • • • • • •

•

Are they referred to in any policies? If so, which? Are they identified in learning intentions for any planned activities? Do you aim to develop them problem-solving activities? Do you aim to develop them in pretend play/socio dramatic play? Do children have opportunities to develop their own plans? Do children have opportunities to talk about their own learning in discussion with you? Do you use vocabulary about thinking in conversation with the children? e.g. 'wonder', 'think', 'remember' etc.'? Do you model 'thinking' for the children? Do you note examples of children's thinking in your observations/records? Do you share documentation with children and discuss this? - for example, observations, children's drawings etc.? Any otherways?

4,

What do you think are the best areas in this setting for developing children's thinking?

• • •

5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with these two statements from a recent study commissioned by the DfES? (Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years, 2002, p. 12): 1. 'our observations show that 'sustained shared thinking' was most likely to occur when children were interacting 1:1 with an adult or with a single peer partner.'

Strongly agree / agree / neither agree nor disagree / disagree / strongly disagree

S. R o b s o n & D. J. H a r g r e a v e s

95

2. 'Freely chosen play activities often provide the best opportunities to extend children's thinking.'

Strongly agree / agree / neither agree nor disagree / disagree / strongly disagree 6. What strategies do you use to engage the children in extended dialogue - With each other? With you?


7. What do you think is the best balance between child chosen and adult led activities? Do you think you achieve this? If so, how? • • • • •

All child chosen Mostly child chosen Approximately half child chosen and half adult led Mostly adult led All adult led

8. Are there things you would like to be able to do here to support children's thinking development, but, for whatever reason, are unable to do? 9. What has influenced your own thinking in this area? 10. Have you had any initial or inservice training about developing children's thinking? 1 I. Has the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage influenced your planning or teaching for developing children's thinking? 12. Do you think that any particular aspects of the CGFS are supportive of developing children's thinking? 13. Please look at the following statements from the CGFS. Can you think of examples of how you have planned to meet any of these?

1. Play "Through play, in a secure environment with effective adult support, chiMren can: ... l a. Think creatively and imaginatively; 1b. Communicate with others as they investigate or solve problems.' (p.25)

2. Personal, social and emotional development 'practitioners ,should give particular attention to:... 2a. providing positive images in, for example, books and displays that challenge children's thinking' (p.28) 'Effective learning involves:... 2b. children having opportunities for problem-solving' (pp.28-9) 2c. 'Role play gives children the opportunity to make sense of their world.' (p.31)

3. Communication, language and literacy 'practitioners should give particular attention to: ...

96



3a. providing opportunities for children to communicate thoughts, ideas and feelings' (p.44) 3b. (Goal): 'Use talk to organise, sequence and clarify thinking, ideas, feelings and events.' (p.58)

4.

Mathematical development (Goal): 'Use developing mathematical ideas' and methods to solve problems. " (pp. 74 & 80)

5.

Knowledge and understanding of the world 'practitioners should give particular attention to:... activities based on first-hand experiences that encourage exploration, observation, problemsolving, prediction, critical thinking, decision making and discussion.' (p.82)

6.

Creative development (Goal): 'Express and communicate their ideas, thoughts and feelings' (p. 126)

Correspondence about this paper should be addressed to: Sue Robson Early Childhood Research Centre Roehampton University Froebel College Roehampton Lane London SW15 5PJ England e.mail: [email protected]