Content Global Perspectives in Early Childhood Education: Diversity, Challenges and Possibilities ............................................................... 9
SECTION A DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Eeva Hujala, Anneli Niikko The Science of Early Childhood Education – Core Ideas ............................... 21 Eve Kikas, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen Education in Estonia and Finland .................................................................... 33 Ulla Härkönen The Process of Creating the Pedagogical Systems Theory for Early Childhood and Preschool Education.................................... 47 James E. Johnson, Jennifer Chestnut Pyles ECE in the USA: Focus on the State-Funded Pre-K Movement..................... 67 Mare Torm 170 Years of Development in Estonian Preschool Institutions: Historical Trends in Preschool Education ....................................................... 81 Marika Veisson, Paul Kees, Taimi Tulva, And Maie Vikat Development of the Field of Preschool Education in Tallinn University .......................................................................................... 105 Sigrun Sand Early Childhood Education in a Multicultural Norway................................. 125 Jarmo Kinos Early Childhood Education in Finland – History, the Present and a Little Part of the Future ........................................................................ 141 Airi Liimets What “Gifts” Could Good Beginnings Have in Education Interpreted as a Difference?........................................................................... 153
6 SECTION B CHILDREN’S DEVELOPING SKILLS AND THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CURRICULUM Tiiu Tammemäe The Development of Speech of Estonian Children Aged 2–4 Years and Its Connections with Environmental Factors where the Child is Growing Up ..................................................................... 165 Kristina Nugin, Marika Veisson The Intellectual Development of 3–6-Year-Old Children in Different Child Rearing Environments in Estonia .................................... 183 Mairi Männamaa, Eve Kikas Developing a Test Battery for Assessing 6- and 7-Year-Old Children’s Cognitive Skills............................................................................ 203 Piret Soodla, Eve Kikas Oral Narratives of 6–7 Years Old Estonian Children.................................... 217 Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Timo Ahonen, Anna-Maija Poikkeus The Development of Reading Skills and Motivation and Identification of Risk at School Entry ........................................................... 237 Peter K Smith Children’s Play: Essential for Development, Surplus Energy, or Something in Between?............................................................................. 259 Anneli Niikko, Aino Ugaste A Comparative Perspective on the Early Years’ Curricula in Finland and Estonia ................................................................................... 283
7 SECTION C THE ROLE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS Manjula Waniganayake Early Childhood Leadership at Crossroads: Current Concerns and Future Directions ....................................................... 297 Helena Rasku-Puttonen, Eija Pakarinen, Kaili Trossmann, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Eve Kikas, Anna-Maija Poikkeus Classroom Practices in Finnish and Estonian Preschools: Subgroups of Observed Teaching Practices .................................................. 313 Kaili Trossmann, Eve Kikas Observations of Kindergarten Classroom Practices: Estonian Results............................................................................................. 333 Marika Veisson, Kerstin Kööp, Kristina Nugin Appraisal of Preschool Teacher Education Preparation by Students About Their Studies in Estonia and Finland.............................. 351
SECTION D THE ROLE OF PARENTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SETTINGS Marika Veisson, Silvi Suur Estonian Preschool Teachers’ Vision about Cooperation with Parents.................................................................................................... 367 Pirjo-Liisa Poikonen, Marita Kontoniemi Mutual Trust between Finnish Parents and Preschool Teachers ................... 383 Tiia Õun, Anu Sarap Involving the Board of Parents in the Management of Pre-School Childcare Institutions.............................................................. 399 Kerstin Kööp Children’s Transition from Kindergarten to School in Estonia – the Parental Viewpoint................................................................................... 413
8 Johanna Einarsdottir Children’s and Parent’s Views on Playschool Education in Iceland ............ 427 SECTION E SPECIAL NEEDS IN EARLY YEARS SETTINGS Jarmo Kinos, Sirkku Kinos, Reetta Niemelä Developing a School Operational Culture and Improving Student Wellbeing: the Literature Project at the C. O. Malm School ........................ 439 Claire P. Monks, Peter K. Smith Bullying, Aggression and Victimization in Young Children: Measurement, Nature and Prevention............................................................ 457 About the Authors.......................................................................................... 475
9
Global Perspectives in Early Childhood Education: Diversity, Challenges and Possibilities Introduction There is a growing interest in understanding how nations approach the education of its youngest citizens during early childhood. Early childhood education is inherently culture bound and requires understanding within the social, historical, political and economic contexts of each society. Even though the inner being of a child is consistent with his/her culture, different societies conceptualize childhood culture and education in different ways. The structures of society, its boundaries and its policies regulate the realities of childhood, as well as the realities of teachers’ behaviour, as both are defined as culture-specific. Accordingly, our main aim in producing this book is to promote international dialogue about children and early learning through the study of diversity, challenges and possibilities of early childhood education encountered in a variety of nations across the world. The cross-cultural research presented in this globally oriented book can support the development of a shared understanding of early childhood education. It can enhance our awareness of the diversity of early childhood education phenomena and its culture-specific natures. Most of all it allows us to examine our own educational cultures by enabling us to see childhood and education through new eyes and in renewed ways. This book can thereby enable us to expand our perspectives on early childhood education. Familiarity with international research strengthens the recognition that there is no right or wrong ‘education culture’, and that the ‘culture of education’ is always value bound. Crosscultural research also questions the self-evidences of culturally bounded early childhood education practices by working as a mirror to our own educational systems and every day practices. A key starting point for this book was the perceived need for global, shared understandings about the history of early childhood education, as well as an awareness of developments in the preparation of early childhood teachers in different countries. Through the exploration of issues, ideas, and trends encountered in diverse contexts, we can learn from others to sharpen our focus in finding better ways of resolving challenges in our own contexts. As we enhance our perceptions and understandings of the roots of early childhood education and its current paradigms, we can also make a better impact on future programs, practices and policies. The idea for this book arose from presentations delivered at two conferences in Europe; one organised by Marika Veisson in Tallinn, and one by Eve Kikas in Tartu, in 2008. These conferences brought together many professionals
10 and researchers working in early education, many from Eastern Europe and the Scandinavian countries, but also internationally. In this book we present a selection of the presentations from these conferences, updated, and with a few additional contributions. This book has 27 chapters, written by 37 authors and arranged into 5 sections: Section A consists of chapters about the development of early childhood education; Section B is about children’s developing skills and the early childhood curriculum; in Section C the focus is on the role of early childhood teachers; Section D directs our attention to the role of parents in early childhood education and Section F is concerned with working with children with special needs in the preschool. Below, we summarise the main contents of the chapters in each section. Section A: DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Eeva Hujala and Anneli Niikko write in the opening chapter that today there are many challenges facing the academy of early childhood education. Traditional disciplines no longer provide an adequate foundation for early childhood education in the post-modern society. The is a need for more scientific knowledge and a better understanding of education that can be applied within multidimensional and complex growth environments and networks, are stronger than ever before. This chapter provides contrasting ways of thinking about early childhood education and development. It defines development and education as contextual. Each child is interacting within a social and cultural context, and cannot be separated from these elements. Early childhood education as an academic discipline, a field of teaching and pedagogy for young children, provides a basis for training early childhood teachers. However, the science of early childhood education, like other sciences, requires critical consideration and analysis in order to be developed further. Eve Kikas and Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen provide an overview of preschool education in Estonia and Finland. They discuss the cultural-historical contexts that have influenced the development of educational aims and systems in these two countries and highlight both similarities (e.g., compulsory formal education consists of 9 years of comprehensive school and starts at age 7; national curricula place a strong emphasis on promoting the children’s social, emotional, and motor development as well as academic pre-skills) and differences (e.g., achieving measurable learning results in children’s skill development is more important for the Estonian teachers whereas the Finnish teachers place a stronger emphasis on developing the children’s positive self-concept and social skills and promoting their learning potential; Estonian education tends to be se-
11 lective, Finnish school system provides all children from different social backgrounds equal opportunities for education. Ulla Härkönen portraits in the chapter The Process of Creating the Pedagogical Systems Theory for Early Childhood and Preschool Education the basis and an overview of the new theory she has created during her professional and scientific work in the field of early childhood education and preschool. She illuminates the phases and the most important insights which have emerged as the key discoveries in the creating process of the theory. In this article she presents wellknown theories applied to early childhood education during a period of forty years in Finland. After that she pays attention to the position of pedagogical theories. The central educational tenets of the famous historical pedagogues and the general systems theory have given the basic ideas for the new pedagogical systems theory which is now capable to point out the most meaningful extensions and intensions of the concept of early childhood education. This theory signifies and symbolizes a new paradigm to understand early childhood education through language and its meanings. It mirrors different cultural views at the same time and it challenges activators to tolerant negotiations. This theory will be able to show and also to answer to the educational challenges of sustainable future. James E. Johnson and Jennifer Chestnut Pyles, focus on the State-Funded Pre-K Movement in the USA. They write that play and education also must be considered in a new way when Pre-K teachers operate within a broader developmental continuum. As noted, Pre-K and early education teachers typically value mature social role-play as a leading psychological activity in intellectual and social-emotional development during the first five years of life. The early education curriculum is often set up for pretend play. This form of play, as well as other types of play, such as constructive play and physical movement and games and music and dance and art activities, are central to the curriculum and educational goals of the program. Learning and playing are two sides of the same coin, in a playing-learning process in which there is learning in playing, and playing in learning. This is developmental pedagogy in early education. Mare Torm, reflects on the developments of preschool education in Estonia by exploring the history of Estonian kindergartens spanning some 170 years. Since 2001, the collection of historical information concerned with the development of kindergartens and pre-school education, keeping the materials, its research and dissemination of results have been centralised at the Estonian Educational Archives Museum (EEAM). This chapter is one of the first attempts to document in English, the growth and development of kindergartens and kindergarten teachers in Estonia.
12 Marika Veisson, Paul Kees, Taimi Tulva, and Maie Vikat show that the Department of Early Childhood Education at Tallinn University has a long-time history of involvement in preschool education covering a period of 43 years. In this chapter, all these four heads of department remember the studies and research offered during their period in office. They include a short overview of the preschool education courses leading to a Bachelor (BA), Masters (MA) and Doctoral studies as well as outlining the most important conferences and publications they we have been involved in to date. Sigrun Sand writes about some perspectives on early childhood education in Norway as a multicultural society and gives a brief outline of Norway as a multicultural and multilingual country both with the Sami, national minorities and recent immigrants. One of the consequences of this diversity is reflected in the challenges of language development in early childhood settings. In 2006 the kindergartens got a new national curriculum policy which reflects the increasing diversity of cultures and languages in Norway and that there are now many ways of being Norwegian. The multicultural perspective provides many challenges for the kindergartens and also for the pre-school teacher education. Jarmo Kinos shows that the shortage of kindergarten teachers has radically increased over the past decade in Finland. The proportion of kindergarten teachers has decreased in day care centres, and socionomists (social pedagogue) have been hired to carry out education tasks. Currently, 30% of those working in Finnish day care centres are trained kindergarten teachers. Finnish statistics show that the number of early childhood staff with a kindergarten teacher's degree working in day care centres has dropped by almost 10% during the past five years. Airi Liimets presents a philosophical reflection on education as a good beginning. The author notes that the perspectives presented are equally valid for education as well as for music education or art education or work education or ethics of education. A heading in the form of a question is firstly inspired by the claim by Jan Ámos Komenský that in education everything depends on a good beginning. Secondly this question results from thoughts related to giftedness, that talent is like nature’s gift to a child and that talent understood in that way lays a good foundation for a future life. Section B: CHILDREN’S DEVELOPING SKILLS AND THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CURRICULUM Tiiu Tammemäe describes her research on the development of speech of Estonian children aged 2-4 years and its connections with environmental factors
13 where the child is growing up. Her aim was to find out if the Reynell test can be used to assess how well Estonian children comprehend language and if the HYKS test can be used to test Estonian children’s vocabulary. Parents also completed a questionnaire about their child’s family background. The research showed some correlations between the development of children’s speech and the time when the first words were said; the time when first steps were made; listening to a bedtime story; the level of education of the parents; the parents' skill of foreign languages; and the family's income and frequency of the children's participation in outdoors events. Kristina Nugin and Marika Veisson argue that the intellectual development (general intelligence, performance IQ, verbal IQ) of the longitudinal group children (who participated in the study since birth) was faster compared to other groups in their study. Thus, the home rearing environment is an important factor in the intellectual development of children. In the case of 3 year old children the Step by Step group seems to have the lowest starting point; however, by the time children left the day care centre at the age of 6 years, the level of intellectual development of the Step by Step group children was significantly higher from that of the ordinary group children. Mairi Männamaa and Eve Kikas analyze the psychometric properties of tests developed for assessing 6 and 7 year old children’s cognitive skills (phoneme analysis, visual-perceptual skills, visual reasoning, attention, planning, basic concepts, and comprehension) in Estonia. They found that the majority of the tests differentiated children with low, average, and high language, mathematical and manual skills as reported by kindergarten teachers and that test performance revealed no gender differences. As there is a lack of controlled assessment tools in Estonia, this study has high practical value. Piret Soodla and Eve Kikas describe the test for assessing oral narratives of 6– 7 years old Estonian children. They examined the narratives for the macro and micro structural measures, described the relationships between the structural levels, and compared the results of children with different levels of language competence. The results demonstrated differences in narratives’ macro- and micro-levels in the language competence groups. Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Timo Ahonen, and Anna-Maija Poikkeus describe findings on the connection between early reading skills and motivation as well as on preschool-age identification of risk for reading difficulties in Finland. They found that there was large variation among children in pre-reading skills at the preschool entry, but variation decreased already during the preschool year. Children’s self-rated task-motivation and self-concept in tasks related to reading
14 were high both in preschool and first year in school. Also, associations between reading skill development and motivational aspects were found. Peter K Smith reviews the nature of play in young children, and the different types of play. He scrutinises the research evidence regarding the functions or developmental value of play in children’s development. This includes a discussion of the ‘play ethos’ – an uncritical assumption of the ‘essential’ nature of play. Smith reaches a conclusion that play is indeed useful for many aspects of young children’s development, but is not necessarily as ‘essential’ as the play ethos suggests. Aino Ugaste and Anneli Niikko study and compare the Finnish and Estonian curricula and look for similarities and differences between these curricula. Their findings of this comparison show that both curricula emphasise children's the right to education, their holistic growth, development and learning and independence, health and learning of social and interactive skills, and the significance of play. Also in both curricula, teachers are considered as skilled professionals who guide and support children's development and learning. The differences in the curricula were connected with both countries’ historical, social, cultural and educational features and heritage. Section C: THE ROLE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS Manjula Waniganayake writes about early childhood leadership, an increasingly important role expected of today’s teachers of young children. Interest in researching early childhood leadership that began in the 1990s appears to have stagnated in recent years. However, the growing recognition of the impact of leadership on enhancing child outcomes demands a reconceptualisation of leadership roles within the early childhood sector. In stimulating debate and discussion, this chapter identifies current concerns and suggestions for future directions in developing effective early childhood leaders. Helena Rasku-Puttonen, Eija Pakarinen, Kaili Trossmann, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Eve Kikas, and Anna-Maija Poikkeus used the Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure (ECCOM) and observed and compared kindergarten classrooms in Finland and Estonia. They found that both Finnish and Estonian preschool teachers were more child-centered than teacher-directed or child-dominated. They also identified four latent subgroups: child-centered teachers, teacher-directed teachers, teachers with mix of child-centered and teacher-directed approach, and teachers characterized by child-dominated approach. More Estonian than Finnish preschool teachers were users of a childcentered approach.
15 Kaili Trossmann and Eve Kikas used the ECCOM and analyzed kindergarten classroom practices in different types of kindergartens (i.e., in those using Step by Step program and others) in Estonia. In line with the emphases of child-centered practices, the developmental program Step by Step is an education reform program that introduces child-centered teaching methods, encourages children to make choices, take responsibility for their decisions. As expected, child-centered teaching practices were used more frequently in the Step by Step program classrooms than in Regular classrooms was expectable. They also showed that more experienced teachers tended to use less child-dominated practices but also more child-centered practices when teaching literacy and mathematics. Marika Veisson, Kerstin Kööp, and Kristina Nugin show that in universities and colleges studied in Estonia and Finland, teacher education students gave higher points to competencies such as the ability to create a playful environment, directing and supervising learning through play and support for children’s social development. Based on students’ opinions it is possible to conclude that they considered themselves least skilled in noticing children’s special needs, counselling parents about the need to consult a specialist and about developmental and educational matters. The academic staff received very good evaluations. Section D: THE ROLE OF PARENTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SETTINGS Marika Veisson and Silvi Suur suggest that in Estonian preschools parents were seen first and foremost as partners for cooperation. Parents’ interest in assisting and participating in common events; and their involvement in conversations about everyday life and children were regarded as desirable aspects of cooperation. The most important involvement methods were considered to be individual conversations and developmental talks with parents, open communication and persuasion. Pirjo-Liisa Poikonen and Marita Kontoniemi studied mothers’, fathers’ and teachers’ mutual trust and the relationship with parents’ education, family size and the child’s gender in Finland. They showed that all parties – parents and teachers – perceived trust in the same way. Mutual trust of parents and preschool teachers was high both in the city and in the countryside but mothers’ trust was slightly higher than that of fathers’ but differences due to parents’ educational level were not found. Tiia Õun and Anu Sarap write about the present situation in Estonia in which the role of the board of parents is becoming increasingly important in planning
16 the activity of educational institution and in making decisions while the majority of the members of the board lack pedagogical education and experience in the management of an educational institution. The aim of their study was to find out how the board of parents fulfilled their tasks and what their role in the management of the kindergarten was. The results indicate that the board of parents fulfilled the tasks derived from legislation and that the majority of both the members of the board and the heads, assessed the activities of the board, efficient. Kerstin Kööp discusses her research on parents’ perspectives on children’s transitions from preschool to primary school in Estonia. According to her findings, it can be said that the parents usually emphasized the intellectual part of school readiness and evaluated the kindergarten’s school preparation as good. Parents also valued their children participating in school preparation classes in addition to going to kindergarten. Johanna Einarsdottir writes that the views of children and their parents are in general agreement with Icelandic and Nordic cultural beliefs about the role and content of early childhood education. Children and parents are generally very satisfied with the emphasis the playschool place on social interaction, independence, and play, and the parents rarely mentioned that they wanted more formal education or academics in playschool or to move the primary school curriculum material down to the playschool. Section E: SPECIAL NEEDS IN EARLY YEARS SETTINGS Jarmo Kinos, Sirkku Kinos, and Reetta Niemelä discuss four key reforms with which the operational culture at the C. O. Malm School in Finland was developed. A three-year primary-school curriculum has renewed the micro structures of the school, combining and bringing out the best of general-curriculum teaching and special-needs teaching. Teaching literature with a professional writer as the teacher's partner and a team member has been integrated in the teaching of children with language disorders. The ongoing development work was planned by a multi-professional pedagogical team (The Mielikieli-team). The pedagogical practices were renewed using various methods of teaching literature. Claire P. Monks and Peter K. Smith discuss the nature of bullying and aggression in young children. A particular issue here is measurement, and they compare observations, self- and peer-reports, and teacher reports as sources of evidence. While there is certainly aggression in preschools, it is more debatable whether there is much bullying, in the sense of repeated attacks against a target;
17 but intervention in preschools may be important to help prevent bullying developing in later primary years. A few intervention studies are described. Books such as ours enable early childhood educators to reflect critically about their work by comparing and contrasting their experiences with others living and working in similar and/or different societal contexts. Accordingly, in adopting a global perspective, this book is aimed at promoting both knowledge transfer as well as knowledge advancement within the early childhood sector. We hope that this book will be a valuable resource for a wide range of readers. Each of the editors as well as the majority of our contributing authors are involved in early childhood teacher education programs in our respective countries consisting of Australia, England, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the USA. In reading this book, undergraduate and postgraduate students interested in early childhood education from a global perspective can acquire new learnings from countries far and near to their own. Given the increasing interest in learning about early childhood systems in different countries, early childhood practitioners and policy planners can also benefit from reading this book. This book is an outcome of international networking. According to constructivist learning theories, new knowledge is socially constructed. We hope that our book will motivate others involved in early childhood education around the world to critique, build and continue this work and expand the networking. We need each other to advance the knowledge base of early childhood education that can inform us how to make the world a better place for our children. By reflecting on the globally shared views of others, we create new information and so construct our own learnings and understandings. Cross-cultural research can open new doors to extend our understanding of early childhood education. It enables the consideration of other’s perspectives and enhances the approval and appreciation of diversity. In this way, together, we can all contribute to a more peaceful world.
Marika Veisson, Eeva Hujala, Peter Smith, Manjula Waniganayake and Eve Kikas Editors
SECTION A DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
21
The Science of Early Childhood Education – Core Ideas Eeva Hujalaa, Anneli Niikkob a University of Tampere, Early Childhood Education, Finland b University of Joensuu, Early Childhood Education, Finland
The legitimacy of early childhood education as a science Early childhood education is the most recent newcomer to the family of education sciences. In Finland it gained legitimacy in the universities in 2005 thanks to official decrees (Opetusministeriön asetus yliopistojen koulutusvastuun täsmentämisestä, yliopistojen koulutusohjelmista ja erikoistumiskoulutuksista 568/2005). Here the science of early childhood education means the science that enquires about and develops under eight year old children’s growth, development, learning and interaction, and environmental issues that link closely with it. Why were the traditional disciplines and sciences an insufficient basis for the contemplation, research and teaching of issues of childhood and early childhood education? Firstly, there is a total difference in the nature of childhood and the early years when compared to the other stages of human life. In childhood development, growth and learning are holistic and integrated. Different aspects cannot be examined separately, but rather they require concentrating upon the child holistically, from multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives. Secondly, the challenges of early childhood education today are greater than ever before. They require more profound knowledge than before and a better understanding of education in multi-dimensional and complex growth environments and networks. Co-operation in children’s upbringing has assumed centre-stage and features strongly in early childhood education (Varhaiskasvatussuunnittelman perusteet, 2005). The ever-increasing unhappiness of children proves that superficial knowledge is no longer enough. It is necessary to call on the educators’ special pedagogical expertise in order to respond to the unique needs of young and different children.
The Science of early childhood education as a basis for academic training In keeping with internationally established practice, early childhood education, as a field of science and object of research, has been set to cover the years from 0–8. But definitions of educational systems and practice are always socially situated. In Finland, the practice of early childhood education is defined as those years preceding elementary education in school. In addition to this, early child-
22 hood education is deemed to extend to the afternoon activities of young schoolchildren (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2002). Early childhood education is an academic discipline, a field of teaching and pedagogy for young children. University degree studies in early education are based upon early childhood education as a field of science. It analyses and defines the growth and upbringing of young children, likewise learning and teaching and their complex links to environments for growth. The science of early childhood education, as a basis for training in early childhood education, constructs the professional practice and expertise of educators and provides research-based knowledge for pedagogical solutions and the development of action. Today’s professional expertise presupposes the ability to form theoretical conceptions and understandings of one’s own pedagogical practice and to master them both in theory and in practice. One of the most significant changes in the history of early childhood education in Finland came in 1995, when the teaching of early childhood education was transferred from teacher training colleges to the universities and established as an academic field of research and teaching. Also the so-called temporary training for kindergarten teachers, which operated for 20 years in affiliation with the universities, set the stage for transferring early childhood education to the university institutions. This initiative showed the way and the direction for academic early childhood education. The objective, set after transfer to the university institutions, has meant the further analysis and development of the substance of early childhood education, upon which training, teaching and the development of its own branch of science have also been constructed. The amount of different research has increased rapidly with the incorporation of early childhood education into the university institutions. The mission of early childhood education research is to generate knowledge both for the field for the further development of practice and above all to provide knowledge of one’s own branch of science, the further development of early childhood education as a specialist area of study. The speed at which the universities established professorial posts in early childhood education was gratifying (Husa & Kinos, 2001). In spite of the readiness of the universities it was not permissible to establish “early childhood education” as a university discipline. The Minister of Education, Ms. Maija Rask, in a communication dated 2001, was still of the opinion that there was no need for reforms in science policy, and early childhood education was not accorded the status of a university discipline. One obstacle to the emancipation of early childhood education was the old educational disciplines. It was difficult for them to accept newcomers. Such newcomers constituted a threat to the existing academic structures and required of the traditional fields of science their own internal reappraisal. Although the development of fields of science is an internal product of the world of science,
23 there is an element of societal definition in the acquisition of established status by new fields of science. The world of science is part of a value-bound society and signals what that society deems to be worthy of further cultivation and/or what disciplines are seen to be worthy of academic status. For example, the notion of a faculty of information sciences, a title which is fairly novel for a faculty, has come to be a place where new fields of information science are constructed; likewise in economic sciences, the new fields of logistics and insurance have arrived. These have not been questioned due to their societal importance. Instead women’s studies, such as nursing science and early childhood education have been questioned. The Finnish professor emeritus in sociology, Antti Eskola (2006), concedes that it was a long time before he could write ‘nursing science’ without quotation marks until he understood the significance of status as an academic science as an indicator of the values of society. The development of society inevitably poses new challenges for the renewal of the world of science. International emphases on the importance of early childhood education and increasing participation in the international scholarly discussion on early childhood education have served to secure early childhood education an academic position. At last, in 2005, the science of early childhood education was assigned a place in academia when at the University of Jyväskylä early childhood education was accorded the status of a discipline (Opetusministeriön asetus yliopistojen koulutusvastuun täsmentämisestä, yliopistojen koulutusohjelmista ja erikoistumiskoulutuksista 568/2005).
Different scientific paradigmatic approaches of early childhood education Researchers shape the conception of childhood and through this the conception of early childhood education, when they choose the research themes, theories and methods by which they acquire new knowledge and through which they analyse reality. Retrospectively, the lives of young children have been researched most through the paradigm of developmental psychology. This is now being superseded by “childhood studies”, the orientation of which is largely based on sociology and the social sciences. The current paradigm discussion in academic early childhood education has enlivened and become, at the same time, critical. For example, Penn and Lloyd (2006) mention that early childhood education research has become fragmented in many ways. Researchers sometimes offer inadequate descriptions of their scientific solutions for an international audience. Also, the theory of early childhood education is not effectively linked to the educators’ craft and their practice. The emergence of a scientific early childhood education has been apparent in discussions on early pedagogy (Cochran, 1993; Smith, 1996; Woodhead, 1998), its development, management and quality (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003,
24 Goelman, Forer, Kershaw, Doherty, Lero & LaGrange, 2006; Hujala, Parrila, Lindberg, Nivala, Tauriainen & Vartiainen, 1999; Walsh & Gardner, 2005) and as a definer of pedagogy to support children’s learning (Hedges & Cullen, 2005; Hujala, Puroila, Parrila and Nivala, 1998; Vartuli & Rohs, 2006). Woodhead (1998) has criticised the “developmentally appropriate practice and curriculum” discourse widespread in Western countries for being based on the view that children’s development occurs in the same way everywhere. Woodhead (2005) insists on the consideration of a new paradigm for early childhood education, which better corresponds to the reality of children living in the global world of the 21st century. Woodhead (2005) offers two interesting, contrasting ways of thinking about children’s rights to development. He describes the individual development discourse in terms of the three ‘N’s (Normal, Natural, Needs) and the context development discourse in terms of the three ‘C’s (Context, Culture, Competency) (Table 1). Neither the ‘N’s nor the ‘C’s offer a complete picture, and they are not necessarily in opposition to each other. These two discourses or paradigms draw attention to the different ways to interpret children’s rights and development in theory and practice. Table 1. The individual and the contextual development paradigm discourses (Woodhead, 2005). Major theme Universality and diversity Influences on development Status of the child
‘N’s Normal Childhood Natural Processes Needs of children
‘C’s Contexts for childhood Cultural Processes Competencies of children
The discourse based on the view of the child’s individual development defines development as universal, natural, normative and developmental processes, stressing the child’s individual development according to stage theories proposed by Piaget, Eriksson and Kohlberg (van Harmelen, 1998). Further, it emphasises readiness, features, and processes by which the child develops through sensory-motor and conceptual stages towards logical and abstract thinking. It is thought that the child possesses innate qualities which guide his/her development in a correct direction from birth (Niikko, 2009). Traditionally, in these developmental theories of early childhood education, the child’s physical, mental, social and moral development has been perceived as determined from within, and supported by education. In early pedagogy this has been meant that the child will reach multi-faceted personal development when unnecessary limitations are eliminated. The educator’s task is to support each child’s development from one level to another, according to individual needs, to determine developmental needs and assess shortcomings. This developmental perspective has served to
25 introduce “developmentally appropriate” thinking into early childhood pedagogy (Bredekamp & Rosengrant, 1992; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). The normality and universal discourse stressed by the developmental perspective perceives diversity among children in a fairly marginal way. It does not contemplate children’s different experiential backgrounds, learning styles, different ways of playing, communicating, personality building and social awareness. Furthermore, the normality discourse does not assess the varying influence of different contexts for children’s growth, nor does it consider the different expectations within contexts, such as objectives for growth and desirable cultural goals. Another discourse defining development as contextually embedded is based upon the socio-cultural approach and view. Child development is considered to be based in social practice with processes of maturation and development being as much cultural as natural. Each child is born to interact within a social, cultural, historical context, and becomes an inseparable part of these elements. In this discourse the focus is upon the child’s learning and growth, language and communication, which are considered as contextually and culturally constructed phenomena. The child’s growth and learning are partly dependent upon what kind of language is used and how the child is supported in the use of language (Niikko, 2009). Woodhead (2005) concludes that, in point of fact, in all institutions involved in delivering early education educational practices are socially and culturally constructed. The Vygotskian view (Vygotsky, 1978) brought consideration of socio-cultural theory to early education emphasising that the child’s growth and learning are always historically and culturally produced “processes and products”. Rogoff (1990) has applied this contextual development paradigm to early pedagogy. She describes educating children as guided participation, which is culturally determined. Woodhead (1998) replaced the conception “developmentally appropriate” with the conception “contextually appropriate” stressing that everywhere in the world children have a fundamental need to identify with the culture in which they live. In early childhood education this “contextually appropriate” outlook always sees the child as actively involved and a part of his/her context. Thus, the point of departure for early childhood education is becoming aware of the connection between the child and the context for growth, including cultural-historical dimensions. The contextual discourse perceives the child to be full of opportunities and a competent social actor in co-operation with adults and other children. The child is respected as an individual and his/her emancipation in the community is supported. The child as an active, learning community member and the adult as the partner enabling the child’s guided participation create new challenges for consideration of education and teaching via the child’s growth and learning and through the new teacher roles which this demands (Hujala, 2002).
26 Effectiveness and benefit of early childhood education A good childhood and good early childhood education includes, among other things, good economic, social and emotional security, including that parents spend time in ways favourable to children, plus the availability of good quality day care and schools. Correspondingly good childhood conditions are a significant factor for the economic success of society and for children’s later lives. Kajanoja (2005, 2006) states in his study that investing in children and early childhood education is a significant success factor for the national economy. He has made calculations of the connection between the success of the national economy and the conditions of childhood, drawing to a great extent on the longitudinal research of Lea Pulkkinen, and demonstrates that favourable conditions in childhood are crucial factors in the formation of human and social capital. Human and social capital in turn account for two thirds of economic growth. According to Pekonen and Pulkkinen (2002) the cause-and-effect relationship between developmental background in childhood and adult functioning ability is so strong that one might even mention determinism. Of subjects who were followed-up from childhood to adulthood no-one who had experienced better than average conditions until the age of eight had ended up with weaker than average social functioning ability at age 36. And conversely, poor beginnings only seldom led to good social functioning ability. Childhood is a meaningful time in the child’s life. The basis for emotional life and self-esteem evolve significantly through the first years of life and early human relations. In addition, the child’s capacity for learning during the first years of life is greater than it will ever be again. Early childhood education is of important value to the child including the child’s right to education and the right to be educated. The significance of early childhood education and child care for the child has three main elements. Firstly, early childhood education is the keystone of a person’s life, development, growth and learning. Early childhood education is “a childhood project” in which childhood is considered and explored on the terms of the child and childhood. Early childhood education adds significant value to the child’s progress by offering many kinds of stimuli for growth and learning and a peer group community in which the child can develop his/her own social capital (Pulkkinen, 2002). Lilian Katz, professor emeritus in early education (Bredekamp, 2004) describes the added value of professional early childhood education to the upbringing at home using the metaphor of dinner parties and eating in the American style. While eating, the feeling of hunger disappears regardless of what is eaten and how. People also eat at dinner parties but in addition they involve a great deal more that is good – socialising, joy, getting to know many different kinds of food etc. In childhood services the lives of small children acquire value, added in the shape of a wide variety of quality stimuli designed to im-
27 prove the child’s quality of life here and now and to provide a base from which to go out into the future. The added value of early childhood education services is based upon their high-quality pedagogy, at the core of which is the child. This understanding of early childhood education perceives the child as a learner full of opportunities, it inspires the child to have faith in him/herself and his/her possibilities and prevents learning difficulties in advance. Education is based on team work in which the parents and professional educators form a co-operative team. In day care, the leadership that works is a joint approach, sharing goals with staff who are responsible for the quality of implementation of the core task (Hujala et al., 1999). Secondly, early childhood education in child care/day care has an indirect effect on children by supporting their upbringing at home. Families in the grip of working life are more vulnerable than before and more is required of them. Reconciling work and family also determines the child’s everyday life. Family-centred day care takes holistic responsibility for creating a high-quality childhood and supports the parents in their educational work. Thus, the importance of early childhood education in children’s day care is also conveyed to the home context and further to the children. The added value of day care vis-à-vis the family is that in day care with the adults’ goal-oriented supervision and the peer group, the child learns many things which are not necessarily possible in the home environment. A third advantage of early childhood education is its connection to the school system. Early childhood education and preschool education as part thereof, is the first and critical stage of lifelong learning. Neurological research has shown that 90% of brain growth occurs during the first five years of life and 85% of the neural pathways develop before starting school – at age 7 in Finland? The long-term economic benefit of early education exceeds the costs. Children’s participation in early childhood education and preschool education is a significant promoter of social equality (Woodhead, 2005). It has also been possible to demonstrate the effectiveness of early childhood education and preschool education on both children’s social and cognitive development. The results of the PISA Study of 2003 demonstrated the long-term effects of early childhood education on school achievement including the fact that children who had participated in early education performed significantly better in mathematics in secondary school (PISA, 2003). International longitudinal studies (e.g., Sylva et al., 2004) have demonstrated that the effectiveness of early childhood education lies in its ability to promote children’s communication and co-operation skills. Children, who have participated in early childhood education, are more successful at school and have fewer behavioural problems at school than others. However, the positive effects are contingent upon early childhood education being of good quality which responds to the needs of children and parents (Melhuish, 1993; Sylva et al., 2004).
28 The science of early childhood education showing the way The newness of the science of early childhood education, and the training and practice based thereon in the scientific world, is both its strength and weakness. The science of early childhood education, like other sciences, needs critical consideration and analysis in order to be transformed and develop further. Co-operation between different sciences and research perspectives also requires consideration. The training of kindergarten teachers, in its earlier developmental stages, gained many valuable influences and insights from the class-teacher training on which it was modelled. Now, early childhood education is in a position to give something back, to inform about the teaching of the earliest classes in school. The science of early childhood education provides a clear theoretical basis to develop the pedagogy of the child’s growth and learning in the earliest classes in school which have traditionally been only referred to as the didactics of reception teaching. There is a strong consensus on the need for co-operation between early childhood education, preschool education and reception education (Haring, 2003; Niikko & Havu-Nuutinen, 2009) and in many respects the cooperation is flourishing (Core curriculum for pre-school education in Finland 2000; Ministry of Education, 2004). However, conflicts have arisen in joint development work due to the fact that early childhood education, preschool education and reception education have been considered more in relation to administrative trends, rather than as raising scientific, theoretical and pedagogical questions. It has not yet been discussed whether what underlies the differences in viewpoints between early childhood, preschool, and reception education are divisions in the traditions of administrative factions or paradigmatic differences emerging from the science of early childhood education. The task of science-based early childhood education is, therefore, to introduce into the discussion ontological and epistemological issues of childhood and thereby activate teachers and other professional educators and parents to consider what conceptions, beliefs and theoretical paradigms we have of the child, of development, growth and learning and of the role and tasks of adults in the upbringing and teaching of children and pupils. The solutions to these developmental challenges will not be found in the centres of administration but in research-based knowledge of how children learn, grow and develop and how it is possible to promote and support the children in these things. A shared understanding of children’s holistic growth, development and learning in childhood, based on the science of early childhood education, lays a foundation for co-operation and hence for the educational continuum from early childhood education and pre-school education to basic education.
29 References Bredekamp, S. (2004). Defining quality in early childhood education and strategies for reaching our goals. educating children for democracy. The Journal of the International Step by Step Association, 7, Summer/Fall, 4–7 Bredepamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Revised Edition. Washington DC: National Association for Education of Young Children. Bredekamp, S. & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1992). Reaching potentials: appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children. Washington DC: NAEYC. Cochran, M. (Ed.) (1993). International handbook of child care policies and programs. Westport: Greenwood Press. Core Curriculum for pre-school education in Finland 2000. National Board of Education. Order 64/011/2000. Helsinki. Ebbeck, J. & Waniganayake, M. (2003). Early childhood professionals. Leading today and tomorrow. Sydney: Maclennan & Petty. Eskola, A. (2006). Yksinkertainen usko. [Simple faith] Helsinki: Otava. Goelman, H., Forer, B., Kershaw, P., Doherty, G., Lero, D. & LaGrange, A. (2006). Towards a predictive model of quality in Canadian child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 280–295. Haring, M. (2003). Esi- ja alkuopettajien pedagogisen ajattelun kohtaaminen. [The similarities and differences in the pedagogical thinking of pre-school and first and second grade teachers] Joensuun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteellisiä julkaisuja 93. Joensuun yliopistopaino. Hujala, E. (2002). Uudistuva esiopetus. [Renewing practices for early learning] Jyväskylä: Varhaiskasvatus 90. Hujala, E., Puroila, A.-M., Parrila-Haapakoski, S. & Nivala, V. (1998). Päivähoidosta varhaiskasvatukseen. [From child care to early education] Jyväskylä: Varhaiskasvatus 90. Hujala, E., Parrila, S., Lindberg, P., Nivala, V., Tauriainen, L. & Vartiainen, P. (1999). Laadunhallinta varhaiskasvatuksessa. [Quality management in early education] Oulun yliopisto. Varhaiskasvatuskeskus. Hedges, H. & Cullen, J. (2005). Subject knowledge in early childhood curriculum and pedagogy: beliefs and practices. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(1), 66–79. Husa, S. & Kinos, J. (2001). Akateemisen varhaiskasvatuksen muotoutuminen. [The construction of academic early childhood education] Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 4. Kajanoja, Jouko (2005). Hyvä lapsuus – avain menestyvään kansantalouteen. [Good childhood – a key to successful national economy] In Takala, Pentti (Ed.) Onko meillä malttia sijoittaa lapsiin? 234–247.
30 Kajanoja, Jouko (2006). Taloudellisuus ja lastensuojelu. [Economy and child welfare] Esitelmä 42. Valtakunnallisilla lastensuojelupäivillä Hameenlinnassa 17.10.2006. Melhuish, E. (1993). Preschool care and education: Lessons from the 20th for the 21st Century. International Journal of Early Years Education, 1(2), 19– 32 Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2002). Valtioneuvoston päätös varhaiskasvatuksen valtakunnallisista linjauksista. [Decision in Principle of the Council of State Concerning the National Policy Definition on Early Childhood Education and Care; in English]. Publications in Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2002: 9. Helsinki, Finland: Yliopistopaino. Ministry of Education. (2004). Esiopetuksen tila Suomessa. Valtioneuvoston selonteko eduskunnalle esiopetuksen vaikutuksista ja tavoitteista. [The status of pre-school in Finland: Account for the council of the state about the effects and purposes of pre-school renewing; in English]. Publications in Ministry of Education 2004: 32. Helsinki, Finland: Yliopistopaino. Niikko, A. (2009). Varhaiskasvatuksessa lapsikeskeisyyden perusta on monitieteisessä ajattelussa [The basis of child-centred approach lies in multidisciplinary thinking; in English]. Suomen kasvatutieteellinen aikakauskirja, 40(1), 69–82. Niikko, A. & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2009). In search of quality in Finnish preschool education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(5), 431–445. Opetusministeriön asetus yliopistojen koulutusvastuun täsmentämisestä, yliopistojen koulutusohjelmista ja erikoistumiskoulutuksista 568: 2005. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kokoelma/2005/20050101.pdf Pekonen, O. & Pulkkinen, L. (2002). Sosiaalinen pääoma ja tieto- ja viestintätekniikan kehitys.[Social capital and development of virtual technology] Esiselvitys. Eduskunnan kanslian julkaisuja, 5. Penn, H. & Lloyd, E. (2006). Using systematic reviews to investigate research in early childhood. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(3), 311–330. PISA (Programme for international Student Assessment) (2003). Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) [Online] http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2010] Pulkkinen, L. (2002). Mukavaa yhdessä. [Nice to grow up together] Keuruu: PSkustannus. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
31 Smith, A. (1996). Early childhood Educare: Quality programmes which Care and Educate. In E. Hujala (ed.) Childhood Education – International Perspectives. Oulu: University of Oulu and FACEI. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Taggart, B. (2004). The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report. Nottingham: DfES Publications. van Harmelen, U. (1998). Is learner centred education, child centre? Journal of Educational Reform in Namibia, 8 (September), 1–10. Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet (2005). [Core curriculum in early childhood education] Korjattu 2. painos. Helsinki: Stakes Vartuli, S. & Rohs, J. (2006). Conceptual organisers of early childhood curriculum content. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(4), 231–237. Walsh, G. & Gardner, J. (2005). Assessing the quality of early years learning environments. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 7(1), 1–18. Woodhead, M. (1998). ‘Quality’ in early childhood programmes – a contextually appropriate approach. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(1), 5–17. Woodhead, M. (2005). Early childhood development: A question of rights. International Journal of Early Childhood 37(3), 79–98. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
33
Education in Estonia and Finland Eve Kikasa, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanenb a University of Tartu and University of Tallinn, Estonia b University of Jyväskylä, Finland Education is highly valued in both Estonia and Finland. A survey conducted among the Estonian population in 1994 showed that all age and cultural groups regarded education as a means which would lead to economic prosperity (96.5% of respondents) and as a means for self-development (94%). In Finland, 73% of citizens have at least gained a certificate from upper secondary level and 33% (the highest in the EU) have had a university or corresponding education qualification (National Board of Education, 2008). In both countries, students have shown the highest academic knowledge in the world. Finland has reached the very top in the PISA survey (Program for International Students Assessment) carried out by OECD member states in all subjects several times (Välijärvi & Linnakylä, 2002), the latest in 2006. The PISA program tests the skills in reading, mathematics, science, and problem solving. The learning outcomes of Estonian students were assessed in an international comparison in 2006, when 15-yearold students participated in the PISA studies. Estonia ranked fifth in science (its performance was statistically significantly below the performance of Finland and Hong Kong-China), 14th in mathematics (its result was statistically significantly below the result of 11 countries, the only European countries with higher performance were Finland, Liechtenstein and Holland), and 13th in reading (the best-scoring countries among the neighbors of Estonia were Finland, Poland, and Sweden) (Henno & Kitsing, n.d.). However, there are some differences between these two countries, mainly related to the different histories in the 20th century when Estonia was part of the Soviet Union. Finland has developed smoothly as a free democratic republic for a long period. In Finland, the parallel school system has been replaced by a national nine-year comprehensive model, which has guaranteed everybody equal opportunities in education for more than 40 years. Moreover, the responsibility for basic education has been given almost exclusively to the municipalities. Since 1994, the Finnish National Board of Education has given only very broad aims and content for subject teaching and the municipalities, together with schools, set up their own curricula on the basis of the national core curriculum (the latest National Framework Curriculum in 2004). In Estonia, rapid changes towards democratization in society, but also in education, have taken place during last two decades. For example, since Esto-
34 nian independence the curriculum emphasis has shifted to the spread of childcentered and individualized teaching methods and emphasizing democratic values (e.g., taking into account individual differences and needs). The introduction of a Step by Step approach at pre- and primary school level is an example of these changes. However, regulations and values from the past still influence the system. The system of education is quite selective, and a mechanism of social regulation strongly links a person’s social position and advancement in society with education. As a rule, the prestigious secondary schools have been the pathway for the elite, and the vocational schools for the working classes (see Estonica, n.d.). This pressure is already felt before entering school – several schools in cities carry out tests for school beginners and select the very best students according to their skills and knowledge. Below, the overview of educational systems is given separately for Estonia and Finland.
Estonia The Educational System The objectives of education are stated in the Education Act as follows: to create favorable conditions for the development of individuals, family, the Estonian nation, national minorities and Estonian economic, political and cultural life in the context of the world economy and culture but also to provide conditions for continuing education (EV haridusseadus, 1993/2008). Preschool education until the age of 7 is voluntary. Schooling is compulsory between the ages of 7 and 17. Persons who have passed the minimum permitted school-leaving age and have not acquired basic education may study in the form of evening courses or distance learning, and graduate from school as external students. Requirements of education are determined by the national curriculum for basic schools and upper secondary schools, first adopted in 1996 and slightly adjusted in 2002 (National Curriculum for Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools, 2004). On the basis of the national curriculum, schools compile their own curricula. The new national curriculum has been developed and will probably be adopted in school year 2010/2011. The educational system could be described as follows. Preschool childcare institutions include crèches (until the age of 3) and nursery schools (3–7 years), which are maintained either publicly or privately. Preschool education is followed by the 9-year basic school, which in turn can be divided into three stages: 1st stage (7–9/10 years), 2nd stage (10–12/13 years) and 3rd stage (13–15/16). The first two stages are often referred to as primary school. After basic school, there are two pathways: the 3-year secondary school or the (at least) 3-year vocational school. Secondary-school leavers can also go on to a vocational secondary
35 school for one or two years, or to a university or an applied higher education establishment. Schooling is free for all who study in state-financed or municipal schools. There are also private schools and private vocational schools, which are fee-paying. There are also special schools and classes for children with special educational needs. The system is schematically described in Figure 1. Although education is compulsory, there are several special schools in bigger towns that select children for the first grade according to the results of previous entrance exams. The majority of these schools are language-oriented, which means that children study some language (e.g., English, German, or French) having more lessons than in an ordinary school. There are also music- and artoriented schools and classes. Preschool Education Kindergartens are divided into municipal and private childcare institutions. A child’s preschool education is the responsibility of parents, who are supported by local governments maintaining the preschool institutions for children. Because preschool educational establishments get their funding from different sources, the cost to parents varies. Organizational aspects of preschool education are regulated by the Law on Preschool Child Institutions (Koolieelse lasteasutuse seadus, 2007). The number of children in crèches is up to 14 and in kindergarten groups up to 20 children, exceptionally up to 24. Every classroom is usually supervised by two teachers and one assistant teacher. Assistant teachers usually are responsible for serving meals and cleaning, but a teacher may use the assistant’s help also in teaching activities. Usually one teacher and an assistant teacher are present in the classroom (child-adult ratio is 20 to 2), in some kindergartens teachers do team days, when both themselves and the assistant are present. Earlier, the content and aims of preschool education were described by the National Curriculum for Preschool Education (Alushariduse raamõppekava, 1999, updated in 2006). Preschool institutions compiled their curricula and activities, based on this document. Today, the new National Curriculum of PreSchool Institutions (Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava, 2008) has been accepted. This curriculum came into force from March 2009. In comparison with the earlier curriculum, the new one conceptualizes the development and learning more holistically, emphasizing the need to develop the child’s different competencies (not only academic) and to individualize teaching. The National Curriculum for Preschool Institutions (2008) states the general aim of preschool education as the comprehensive and continuous development of children by means of cooperation between home and the pre-school educational institution. In line with the general aim, pre-school education supports the physical, mental, social and emotional development of children.
36
37 As a result, children create a complete and positive self-image as well as an understanding of surroundings, develop their ethical behavior and initiative, primary working habits, physical activity and understanding of the importance of health care, develop their play, learning, social and self-regulating skills. Four areas of general skills – playing, cognitive and learning, social, and self-regulating – are differentiated in the curriculum. The importance of developing these skills through different activities and contexts is also stressed. Topics and activities are divided into seven areas: (1) Child and his/her environment; (2) Speech and language; (3) Mathematics; (4) Estonian language as a second language; (5) Art; (6) Music; and (7) Physical education. Topics related to the child’s life and his/her surroundings form the basis for learning and teaching. Instruction is topic-based integrating the aforementioned themes and various activities. Specific child-centered approaches are practiced in many kindergartens and the most widespread among these is the Step by Step (Hea Algus) program. The developmental program Step by Step, launched by the Open Estonia Foundation, has been in operation in Estonian kindergartens and schools since 1994. Currently, 12% of kindergartens use this approach. The program belongs to the international Step by Step Association. Step by Step is an education reform program that introduces child-centered teaching methods and supports community and family involvement in kindergarten and elementary schools. The aim of the program is to engender democratic principles and practices in young children and their families. The program’s method encourages children to make choices, take responsibility for their decisions, express their ideas with creativity, help one another, develop critical thinking skills, and practice independent thinking (About the early childhood program, n.d.). The Step by Step training centre organizes courses which aim at teaching kindergarten teachers to evaluate the individuality of every child, to offer choices for children and to involve parents in the daily teaching process of children. Step by Step complements the Estonian educational system, it is meant to be integrated in formal education and it enables a more efficient implementation of the current curricula (MTÜ Hea Algus, n.d.). Special Support for Children with Learning Difficulties According to the Education Act (EV haridusseadus, 1993/2008), Estonia has an inclusive education policy and every child has a right to attend a school in his or her area of residence. However, due to a student’s special needs, it is also possible to acquire education at schools or in classes for students with special needs, to which students are referred on the basis of recommendations of counseling committees. The simplified national curriculum for basic schools (supplementary learning curriculum; students with a slight learning disability) and the na-
38 tional curriculum for students with moderate and severe learning disabilities determine the requirements of basic education of children with special educational needs. For students with special educational needs, an individual curriculum may be compiled that creates study conditions according to the child’s abilities. In evaluating students with special educational needs, a differentiated system is applied that makes it possible to assess knowledge and skills according to the individual characteristics of a student. The principle is open and has flexible evaluation. While the number of school-age children has decreased, the number of children with special educational needs is increasing. There has been a general decline in the percentage of children attending special schools and a rise in the percentages of those included into mainstream classes (in 2003–2003 10.8% and in 2006–2007 13.0% of children studied either in special classes or mainstream classes). The following support systems are available in schools: 1) an individual curriculum; 2) remedial groups for providing learning support for students with learning difficulties; 3) speech therapy; 4) long day groups; 5) studying at home (with the possibility to attend lessons in music, arts, handicraft and physical education); 6) classes for students with behavior problems; 7) boarding school facilities for children who have social problems. A preschool institution for children with special needs is generally a mainstream kindergarten and in certain cases a kindergarten for children with special needs. While the number of special nursery schools has decreased (e.g., in 1995, there were 7 and in 2004, there were 3 special nursery schools), the number of special groups has increased. In a childcare institution, children with special needs may attend an integration group (1–2 children together with other children) or a special group. Special groups are available for children with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities (deafness and hearing impairment; blindness and visual impairment), multiple disabilities; speech impairment and specific developmental disorders, mental retardation (moderate, severe and profound learning disabilities). In integration groups, children with special educational needs study together with their non-disabled peers. Groups are established by the county or city government. In special groups, the maximum allowed number of children is smaller than in ordinary groups of a preschool institution and, depending on the type of special need (e.g., a group of children with physical disabilities is up to 12 children; development groups for children with mental disabilities up to 7 children, a group of children with multiple disabilities up to 4 children). Special measures are taken to identify special needs as early as possible. The important role of the family in this process has been acknowledged. To enlarge the possibilities of exchanging information between home and kindergarten, annual teacher-parent developmental meetings have been introduced in the majority of kindergartens.
39 Teacher Education In the last decade, the lack of qualification of teachers has been one of the key issues in education (Estonica, n.d.). In secondary schools during 1999–2000, 19% of teachers lacked university education, and 5% had only secondary education. Among these, many primary school teachers were graduates of Soviet vocational schools, so while they did not have a university education they did have teaching qualifications. On the other hand, many teachers who had a university education did not have a teaching qualification. For improving teacher training, in 2003 the National Development Plan for Teachers’ Training was developed (see Eurydice, n.d.). Today, the professional development of a teacher includes three levels: 1) initial teachers’ training – formal education at a university or other higher educational institution; 2) ‘onthe-job’ qualifying phase – a year of practice for a young teacher carried out in co-operation with a mentor and the university, which follows the initial teachers’ training and ends with taking a qualification examination and the acquisition of a teacher’s qualification; 3) in-service training – for both improving the acquired qualification and acquiring an additional one. The initial training of preschool teachers is carried out on the first level of higher education or at Master’s level. The Framework Requirements for Teacher Education (2003) establishes that all teacher training curricula include the following components: (1) general studies, (2) subject studies and (3) general education and psychology studies, methodology studies and teaching practice. The framework requirements stress the following abilities of preschool teachers upon completion of the curriculum of the first level of higher education: to create a spiritual and physical environment suitable for a child’s development; to co-operate with other teachers and with parents and if necessary, to advise parents in education-related questions; to form a child’s communication, learning and working skills; to relate education and schooling activities to the domestic region, its nature, everyday life and the surrounding environment and to guarantee a child’s safety and security; to have good knowledge of school curriculum for years 1 to 3 and to guarantee a child’s smooth transfer from preschool to school. After graduation from the Master’s study a pre-primary teacher may additionally either teach children with special needs or act as a physical education or music teacher but may also advise colleagues and parents in education-related questions. Today, not all teachers working in preschools have completed their studies even at the first level of higher education.
40 Finland The Educational System of Finland The Finnish comprehensive school system is based on providing for all children from all social backgrounds equal opportunities for education for both sexes and both language groups (Finnish and Swedish). Also in Lapland, Sami-speaking pupils in four municipalities must be provided with basic education primarily in the Sami language, if their guardians so wish (National Board of Education, 2008). The National Board of Education (2008) has set the objectives of basic educations in Finland to support pupils’ growth towards humanity and ethically responsible membership of society, and to provide them with the knowledge and skills necessary in life. Moreover, the instruction shall promote equality in society and the pupils’ abilities to participate in education and develop themselves during their lives (the concept of lifelong learning). Therefore, basic education is provided completely free of charge including teaching, learning materials, school meals, health care, dental care and school transport. The compulsory education in Finland starts from the year in which the child becomes 7 years of age and ends when he/she is 16. Day-care services are available for children up to the age of 6. The 6-year-olds are entitled to preschool education at a day-care center or in school for one year before starting basic education (see Figure 1). After the nine-year comprehensive school young people seek further education in upper secondary schools or vocational schools for the next three years. Also people during their working life can obtain basic vocational qualifications through apprenticeship training. The upper secondary school as well as vocational schools’ certificate qualifies the student for studies in universities or polytechnics (c.f., universities of applied sciences). The universities concentrate on scientific education and research while the education at polytechnics focuses on developing professional skills. The broad national objectives and the allocation of teaching time to different subjects are decided by the Ministry of Education. The National Board of Education decides on the objectives and core contents of instruction by confirming the National Framework Curriculum 2004, but each provider of education draws up the local basic education curriculum. However, there are very small differences between schools. This might be explained by the definition of admission areas, the lack of ranking lists and thus by the even distribution of good teachers between schools.
41 Preschool education In Finland, the majority of children participate in early childhood education in the context of day-care, to which children have an unconditional, subjective right. Moreover, since 2001 six-year-old children have, according to legislation, an opportunity to attend preschool education whether in day-care centers s or in comprehensive schools (minimum of 700 hours per year). At the moment, about 98% of six-year-olds attend preschool education (National Board of Education, 2008). Preschool education, meals, health care and travel are provided free of charge. During preschool children also have the right to day care if needed. The National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC, 2003) is regulated by the National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES) for children 0–6 years of age. The Core Curriculum for Preschool Education (Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet, 2000) is regulated by the Ministry of Education for 6-year-olds. The ECEC stresses the importance of care, upbringing and education as an integrated whole for young children and the educational continuum as part of lifelong learning. The core curriculum (Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet, 2000) underlines that learning takes place holistically on the basis of thematic wholes connected both to the child’s everyday experiences and to content that further expands and structures the child’s experiences. Preschool education creates a playing and learning environment that offers activities and provides children with opportunities to develop together with their peers. The core curriculum states continuity from early childhood education to preschool and from preschool education to basic education, especially to the first two years of primary school. Therefore the preschool education is closely integrated with early childhood education in general and also of the first two years of primary school. The curriculum for preschool education (Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet, 2000) includes seven subject areas: (1) Language and Interaction, (2) Mathematics, (3) Environmental Studies and Natural Science, (4) Ethics, (5) Health, (6) Physical and Motor Development, and (7) Art and Culture – but instruction is not divided into subject area lessons. Instead, the guided activities are an integrated part of thematic learning throughout the day. Preschool education is based on developmentally appropriate practices and child centered activities, thereby taking into account that children learn through imagination and play. Children can learn at their own speed, in accordance with their own capabilities and their interests are taken into account. The individual development of each child is observed and attention is paid to children’s readiness for school attendance, special to social and cognitive development, to avoid beforehand the later risks on learning at school. Therefore the early identification of learning problems or other areas is essential in preschools. According to the principles of
42 educational partnership parents and teachers support together the child’s growth, development and learning, though practices that enforce dialogue, trust and mutual respect. In the preschool classes, teachers must have at least a tertiary level training, and there is a recommendation for a group size, but no requirement for the childstaff ratio. This means that when the preschool class takes place in a day care centre, the ratio goes according to the day care regulations (half day 1 to 13, full day 1 to 7 children). When the preschool class is organized in a school, the ratio can be as high as 13 children to one teacher, but in excess of 13, the teacher must have an assistant. Special Support for Children with Learning Difficulties Municipalities provide basic education for children with special educational needs within their territory. The proportion of such pupils is 5% to 20% (National Board of Education, 2008). Special measures are taken at child health centers, day-care centers, preschools and schools to identify special needs or risk factors in learning as early as possible. Supportive action with parents also begins as soon as possible. Finland has an inclusive education policy. However, children at risk for learning disabilities can start their school in a normal class, in a small group called “Start class” or at schools or in classes for students with special needs. The form of support given at school depends on the quality and extent of the child’s difficulties. Remedial teaching, usually given by the class teacher during or after normal lessons, is given for all students who are lagging behind in their studies or have temporary learning difficulties. Remedial teaching is not actually seen as special education but, rather, as individual support for a child at any age and at any reason. Part-time special needs education is for children who have slight difficulties in learning in the classroom or who need special support to overcome learning difficulties especially in literacy or mathematical skills. Part-time special education is arranged by the special education teacher as co-teaching together with the class teacher during normal lessons, or separately in small groups or individually at school. About 20% of children in basic education receive part-time special education more or less during their nine years of schooling (National Board of Education, 2008). Transferring a student to special education within the same school or in a special school is always based on a psychological, social or medical statement. The development, growth and learning of these children have somehow been affected by illness, handicap, learning disabilities, delayed development, emotional disorder or other comparable reasons. When a student is transferred to special education, the syllabus, teaching arrangements and support services are
43 outlined in an individual education plan. However, it is also possible to make a decision to transfer the student back to general education if, for example, the students’ situation improves so that he or she can once again manage in general education. New law and regulations for special support will be given at 2010. Teacher Education Teachers working at all levels of education are well-trained and strongly committed to their work in Finland. All comprehensive school teachers are required to hold a Master’s degree and initial teacher training includes in each year teaching practice periods. The teaching profession is highly respected and popular in Finland, which makes it possible to select the best young students for teacher education. During the first six years of comprehensive school, instruction is given by the class teacher in all or most of the subjects. In the three highest grades of basic education, subjects are taught by subject teachers. Basic education also includes special education from a special education teacher. All these complete a five-year teacher education provided by universities. The studies lead to a Master’s degree, which is required of all teachers in basic education. However, most preschool teachers are kindergarten teachers who have a Bachelor’s degree in early childhood education. Teacher’s pedagogical and educational studies include teaching practice, which is completed at teacher training schools, run by universities, and at affiliated schools. At the end of their studies, teacher students write a master’s thesis, which is of the same scope as the theses required of other higher academic degree students. Because teachers have an independent position in their work, the aim of teacher education is to educate professionals who are willing to develop their own work and their schools. Later on, teachers’ professional development is supported by a voluntary in-service teacher training. Some teachers have even pursued doctoral studies, usually focusing on children’s learning and motivation, pedagogical issues or teachers’ professional development.
Conclusions To conclude, the structure of the educational system both in Estonia and Finland is quite similar and there is a long tradition to compare the educational programs between these neighboring countries (e.g., Hytönen, Krokfors, Talts, & Vikat, 2003; Ojala & Talts, 2007). First, in both counties, compulsory formal education consists of 9 years of comprehensive school, starting at age 7, later than in many other countries. Second, in both countries there is a national core preschool curriculum for 6-year-old children to prepare them for formal schooling. Third, in
44 both countries the kindergarten education is voluntary for families. In Finland kindergarten education is free of charge, and almost the whole age cohort (98%) attends kindergarten either in day care centres or schools. In Estonia, however, kindergartens are maintained either publicly or privately, and therefore, the cost to the children’s parents varies. When comparing the curriculum aims of the Finnish and Estonian preschool programs, both similarities and differences can be identified. The programs in both countries place a strong emphasis on promoting the children’s social, emotional, and motor development as well as academic pre-skills, preventing learning difficulties, supporting appreciation of ethics, art and culture, and development of cultural identity, and personal health and safety habits (Ojala & Talts, 2007). In a cross-cultural comparison study Hytönen et al. (2003) showed that in both Finland and Estonian preschool traditions high professional competence and child-centred teaching practices in which children are active learners, are seen as important. However, achieving concrete, measurable learning results in children’s skill development is more important for the Estonian teachers whereas the Finnish teachers place a stronger emphasis on developing the children’s positive self-concept and social skills and promoting their learning potential (Hytönen et al., 2003). Moreover, while Estonian education tends to be selective (e.g., entrance exams for school beginners in cities), child’s preschool career is a responsibility of parents (e.g., cost of education to parents varies), and individualization of teaching and system for supporting children with special educational needs is developing, Finnish school system provides all children from different social backgrounds equal opportunities for education. Differences were also found in teachers’ educational level and popularity of teaching profession. While in Finland, teachers are well trained, in Estonia, a lot of changes in teacher training have been and are undertaken. Also, teaching profession is highly respected and popular in Finland but has been quite unpopular in Estonia. However, this tendency has changed and today, competitions to enter teacher education institutions are quite high. In general, it should be stressed that big changes towards democratization of Estonian education have taken place and they still continue. Thus, it may be expected that educational systems in Estonia and Finland will become even more similar in the future.
References About the early childhood program (n.d.). Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from http://www.soros.org/initiatives/childhood/about
45 Alushariduse raamõppekava (1999/2006). [National Curriculum for Pre-school Education], Riigi Teataja I 2006, 46, 338. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12745713 ECEC (2003). The National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Finland. Retrieved Sept. 5, 2008, from http://varttua.stakes.fi/EN/index.htm. Eesti Vabariigi Haridusseadus (1992/2007). [Republic of Estonia Law on Education], Riigi Teataja I 2007, 4, 19. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=816786. Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet. (2000). [The Core Curriculum for Preschool Education]. National Board of Education. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Estonica (n.d.). Encyclopedia about Estonia. Education. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?menyy_id=798&kateg=42&nimi= &alam=58&tekst_id=799 Eurydice (n.d.). Eurybase, the data base on education systems in Europe. Estonia. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from http://www.eurydice.org/portal/page/portal/Eurydice/EuryPage?country=E E&lang=EN&fragment=209 Henno, I. & Kitsing, M. (n.d.). PISA 2006 – Performance of Estonia. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from http://www.hm.ee/index.php?popup=download&id=7003 Hytönen, J., Krokfors, L., Talts, L., & Vikat, M. (2003). What educational objectives are considered important by preschool teachers in Helsinki and Tallinn? Trames. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 7, 257–268. Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava (2008). [National curriculum for Preschool Institutions]. Riigi Teataja I 2008, 23, 152. Retrieved Sept. 5, 2008, from https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=816786. Koolieelse lasteasutuse seadus (1999/2007). [Law on Pre-School Child Institutions], Riigi Teataja I, 2007, 45, 320. MTÜ Hea Algus (n.d.). Retrieved Oct. 3, 2007 from http://www.heaalgus.ee. National Board of Education. (2008). Retrieved Sept. 15, 2008, from http://www.oph.fi/english. Ojala, M., & Talts, L. (2007). Preschool achievement in Finland and Estonia: Cross-cultural comparison between the cities of Helsinki and Tallinn. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 205–221. Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded (2000/2004). [Framework Requirements for Teacher Education]. Riigi Teataja I 2004, 72, 509. Retrieved Sept. 5, 2008, from https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=812791.
46 Põhikooli ja gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava (2002/2007). [National Curriculum for Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools], Riigi Teataja I 2007, 40, 294. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=802290. Välijärvi, J. & Linnakylä, P. (Eds.). (2002). Tulevaisuuden osaajat. PISA 2000 Suomessa [Well Prepared for the Future. PISA 2000 in Finland]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research.
47
The Process of Creating the Pedagogical Systems Theory for Early Childhood and Preschool Education Ulla Härkönen University of Eastern Finland School of Applied Education Science and Teacher Education, Savonlinna P.O. Box 86, 57101 Savonlinna Finland
[email protected] http://joyx.joensuu.fi/~uharkone
Abstract Early childhood education means education for children under the school age that in Finland is seven years. Theories are important tools in institutional education. The article offers an overview of the main theories applied to early childhood education during forty years in Finland. I want to take care about the position of the pedagogical theories. Pedagogical theories give the model for the new pedagogical systems theory which I have created as the basis of philosophers and pedagogues and a general systems theory. The analysis of the concept of early childhood education – varhaiskasvatus in Finnish – must also have been studied in this process. – What are the earlier theories in the area of early childhood education, what does the concept of early childhood education mean, what kind of theory could the new systems theory be, why the new pedagogical theory should be needed? This article gives the views on these questions by following the phases of long development process of the new pedagogical systems theory created by me. The method is a content analysis and scientific reasoning and argumentation.
Background and theoretical introduction This article gives a theoretical overview of the key results of my studies made during 1980–2008 in the area of early childhood education. Early childhood education means education for children under school age that in Finland is seven years. Preschool education is the education of six-year-olds in Finland. Preschool education belongs to early childhood education – and this article follows this official definition (Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2000, 2000, 1§; Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös…, 2002; Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet, 2005.)
48 The article offers the basis and an overview of the main theories applied to early childhood education in Finland during this period. It shows my deepening understanding about the systems thinking and the usefulness of the systems theory (Chang-Gen, 1990; Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992; Parsons, 1968; Rapoport, 1968; Senge, 2009; Wikipedia, 2009). The idea of a systems theory needed in the area of early childhood education was put forward by me in many of my works (e.g. some of the latest ones: Härkönen, 2003b; 2006; 2008; 2009). This article is a general analysis of my works. I shall follow the emergency of the new systems thinking and the generation process of the systems education theory of early childhood education. The references of my works show the connection to the central national and international ideas, theories, definitions and the concepts. The studies have followed the principles of qualitative research and data analysis (Cohen & Manion, 1994; Kvale, 1989; Strauss, 1987). Parsons (1968, p. 458) has said that theoretical system is a complex of assumptions, concepts and propositions having both logical integration and empirical reference. In a content analysis the question is how to give a greater conceptual order to the specific data (Strauss, 1987, p. 143). In this study some different models are presented. A model can be a presentation of a selected part of the world and it can also present a theory in the sense that it interprets the laws and axioms of that theory (Frigg & Hartman, 2006, p. 2). Here also a cross tabulation is made between modeled data. Crosstabulations are the powerful ways to combine qualitative coding with more descriptive organization of data (Lewins & Silver, 2007). The article outlines the four extensions (Church, 2001; Karvonen, 2003) of the concept of early childhood education: practice, subject, science and thinking. The first three concepts can usually be found in the Finnish textbooks of early childhood and preschool education (Brotherus, et.al., 2002; Hakkarainen, 2002; Helenius & Korhonen, 2008; Hujala, 2002; Karila et.al., 2001). The fourth concept, early childhood education thinking, is the new concept which is the result of my research – as well as the systems character, too (Härkönen, 2009). The four concepts mentioned above form the one entire system. These four concepts each also form a system of their own. Marton’s (1982) phenomenographical approach and general qualitative views on education research (Strauss, 1987) have also given impact on my ideas on education thinking. The connections between two models – the model of early childhood education thinking and the model of four extensions and intensions of the concept ‘varhaiskasvatus’ (early childhood education) – are also pointed out in this article (Frigg & Hartman, 2006, p. 2). In conclusion it is seen how this article offers new views on the future work in elaborating the new theory and the new ideas of early childhood education.
49 The basis and the main theories in early childhood education I first give a short overview of the main practical and theoretical approaches, which have influenced the Finnish early childhood and preschool education system in the last thirty years. Figure 1 presents one block of the basis and the seven main blocks of theoretical approaches in the area of early childhood and preschool education in Finland. The seven blocks include six blocks which represent non-pedagogical theories, and one block which consists of several pedagogical theories. The basis and the seven blocks together form the main eight (8) construction blocks in the process of constructing the new systems theory (Härkönen, 2008). The basis of the Finnish early childhood and preschool education combines the affects of home upbringing, the kindergarten pedagogical tradition and the elements of school teaching. The contacts with other countries have also influenced our education. The neighboring as well as other countries from all over the world have left some trace in this process. Early childhood education as an educational science has gathered integrated influences from pedagogy and other branches of science such as developmental psychology, psychology, philosophy and sociology. The main theoretical approaches, which are non-pedagogical, but are used in the early childhood education area in Finland, are the behaviorist theory, the didactic theory (or didactical theories), Bronfenbrenner’s, Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories, the constructive theory (theories) and in some cases also the critical theory (theories). The pedagogical theories here refer to the pedagogical ideas of Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827), Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852), Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925), John Dewey (1859–1952), Maria Montessori (1870– 1952), Helen Parkhurst (1887–1959), Célestin Freinet (1896–1966), Vasili Suchomlinsky (1918–1970), Alexander Neill (1883–1973), Loris Malaguzzi (1920–1994), Paulo Freire (1921–1997) and others. In education the main processes, intensions (Church, 2001; Karvonen, 2003), which the theories are focused on, are as follows: care or caring, education, teaching, learning and development. In some cases socialization and civilization (Siljander, 2000) are also noticed but not always. Some of the pedagogues, like Steiner (1979), see the process of spiritualization as a very important aim in education. Different theories focus on these processes in different ways and under different angles (Genishi & Goodwin, 2008; Härkönen, 2006). In my mind socialization, civilization and spiritualization should also belong to the category of intensions, though these concepts are not mentioned in the earlier definitions of early childhood education. However, in the above Finnish basic documents, and in textbooks, connections between care, education and teaching with learning and development and in addition with socialization, civilization and spiritualization can be found in different sentences (Härkönen,
50 2009). This article and Figure 1 follow the model of eight intentions. The systems character of the education theories are also taken into account.
Figure 1. The theoretical construction blocks for the new systems theory of early childhood and preschool education. The problem is that the non-pedagogical theories do not cover the central phenomenon of education. The phenomenon of education calls for an educational theory. The pedagogical phenomenon needs a pedagogical theory. Figure 1 shows the main focus of each theory and the questions, which can be asked after the main focus. Figure 1 also points out that the pedagogical theories can offer insights into the educational phenomena and the developmental phenomena as
51 well. A deeper analysis will show that educational theories also include ontological, epistemological, societal, human being related and other multi-faceted philosophical views in addition to the meaningful educational solutions to educational problems.
Work education and ecological systems thinking Bronfenbrenner’s (1979; 1989) ecological theory has deeply influenced my research on small children’s work education. Figure 2 shows the general ecological model of work education thinking. The sections in this figure are the following: the world view, the view on society, the view on the human being and knowledge, the view on education and the view on work education. The last mentioned section is divided into the view on institutional work education, the view on work education at home, the view on relations between institutional and home work education and the view on the adult – child relationship. These main phenomena are placed in the ecological environments of Bronfenbrenner’s theory (Härkönen, 1991).
Figure 2. General ecological model of work education thinking Härkönen 1991 Modified 2004, 2005 and 2010.
52 Bronfenbrenner’s (1979; 1989) ecological systems theory has helped in understanding the phenomenon of work education. The most important idea about this type of application has been the study of the systems features of different phenomena. Here it means the systemic features of the ecological theory and work education thinking. In the next section there will be critical remarks on Figure 2, because the areas of work education thinking do not clearly apply to the environments of Bronfenbrenner’s theory.
Work education and general systems thinking I noticed that problems occur in the general ecological model of work education related thinking, while trying to fit together the philosophical and educational concepts with the ecological environments of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. These problems compelled me to look for more useful theories, such as the general systems theory (Parsons, 1968; Rapoport, 1968) (Figure 3).
Figure 3. A common systems model of work education thinking Härkönen 1991 Modified 2004, 2005 and 2010.
53 The general systems theory offered horizons which are free from the boundaries of the concrete environments of the ecological approach. It also gave freedom to analyze the human being’s interpretations, such as the ideas of the pedagogues in the early childhood education area. Bronfenbrenner (1989) himself paid attention to these kinds of bounds in his theory, too. Afterwards, he tried to add thinking as a faculty of a person. Figure 3 shows a common systems model of work education thinking. I (Härkönen, 1991) created it, based on the general systems theory (Parsons, 1968; Rapoport, 1968). The systems thinking approach can clearly be seen in this model. Pedagogical theories and systems thinking Work education of small children has been studied by me in the cases concerning the theories of the philosopher-pedagogues as Friedrich Froebel, Maria Montessori. Rudolf Steiner, Célestin Freinet, A. S. Neill and John Dewey (Härkönen, 1991; 2008).
Figure 4. Relations between Steiner-pedagogy and its background philosophy Härkönen 1993 Modified 2004, 2005 and 2010.
54 Work education has occupied a central part in the educational thought of the above mentioned educationalists. While studying work education, I also researched the whole educational thinking of these pedagogues. Here, only one figure is chosen out of many possible ones – it is about Steiner’s pedagogy (Härkönen, 1993). Systems thinking is the point that can be seen in this model (Figure 4). In Steiner’s pedagogical theory in the background is the view on the world, the view on the human being, the view on society, the view on knowledge (epistemology) and the view on education. These philosophical categories of Steiner’s thinking are related to each other in a systemic way. The relations with the content of the categories are influencing the entirety of Steiner’s pedagogy. The different parts or the categories of the entire Steiner pedagogy are not presented in this figure, but they could be there as in Figure 6. Before it we look at the general systems model of educational thinking in Figure 5 and study the making of it.
Generalization of pedagogical theories and systems thinking After studying the theories of a number of philosopher-pedagogues, I (Härkönen, 1996) generated the general systems model of education thinking (Figure 5). Here the concept ‘view’ is changing into ‘views’. This difference is very meaningful, because many different interpretations are taken into account inside the one model. Several meanings and views can achieve their position under the same approach. Here, the general systems model of educational thinking refers, more exactly, to early childhood educational thinking. It is a generalization of Froebel’s, Steiner’s, Montessori’s, Neill’s, Dewey’s and also certain other philosopherpedagogues’ thinking. The general systems model of education thinking (Figure 5) consists of central categories, the relations between them and a systems character, which have been exposed in every pedagogical theory mentioned above. These categories, the relations between them and a systems character have a historical validity, because these things have lasted for centuries. It means that these categories are ever present, sustainable and absolute while creating a potential new theory or, still better, a wholly new idea of early childhood education. The lower part of the figure of the general systems model of education thinking, named here the essential elements of practical education, must still be analyzed in greater detail, while the results can be seen in Figure 6.
55
Figure 5. General systems model of education thinking Härkönen 1996 modified 2004, 2005 and 2010.
General systems thinking in early childhood education Here, the focus is on early childhood education thinking especially the different views on that phenomenon. This means it is a hermeneutic and a qualitative approach on early childhood education. In some studies, especially on work education works, I have favoured specifically an objective-hermeneutic approach (Õvermann, et.al., 1979; Õvermann, et.al., 1983). There have been many different educational ideas and theories in the course of history. They form a set of a myriad of ideas and theories. Hermeneutically speaking, there are several views, interpretations and meanings of education, also referring to early childhood education. This is a qualitatively useful notion when creating new ideas and theories. Something, however, can be taken along from the past and added to the new views. The hypothesis is that the things that have been important in each and every theory throughout a longer history are valid and will also be needed in the future. These things are a) the systemic categories, b) the systemic relations between the systemic categories and the entire systems, and c) the systemic char-
56 acter of educational thinking. Hermeneutically speaking, however, the contents of these categories may lead to different interpretations by the persons who have been, are going to, or will be thinking in these categories.
Figure 6. The general systems model of early childhood education and preschool thinking (GSM of ECE). Härkönen Ulla 2008, 2010. The one very essential result is that now the concept of ‘view’ must be changed into ‘views’. Also the concept of ‘category’ should get the apposite meanings through the concept of ‘context’. Because of the multitude of views on educa-
57 tion the title of Figure 6 refers to the generalization being the following: General systems model of early childhood education and preschool thinking (Härkönen, 2008; 2009). The concept ‘general’ is now important. It means that the model illustrates educational thinking on a high general and abstract level. That means also that every category can be opened up and then make a study of its sub-categories, then the sub-categories of the sub-categories and so on.
General systems model of early childhood education and preschool thinking Here the contents and characters of Figure 6 are studied more deeply. Figure 6 consists of parts of the entire system: 1) views on the philosophical background and 2) views on the essential elements of education, as in Figure 5. These two parts interrelate with each other in a systemic way. Views on the philosophical background consist of the following parts: • Views on world • Views on society • Views on human being and views on child (e.g., views on growing, learning, developing, becoming socialized, becoming civilized, becoming spiritualized) • Views on knowledge • Views on education Views on the elements of education form of the following parts: • Views on goals • Views on subjects • Views on methods Every part in this model could be opened up and it can be shown which kind of sub-categories there have been in the philosopher-pedagogues’ theories and find the valid categories in this way. The category of views on methods has been in the focus of many pedagogues, who have had thoughts about early childhood education. Certain special methods have even acquired the meaning of an intension in early childhood and preschool education. That is why the author has opened up the category of views on methods, in Figure 6. Views on methods consist of the following sub-systems: • Views on basic activities and care • Views on play • Views on work • Views on teaching • Views on celebrations
58 • Views on outdoor education (trips, outing, nature walks, excursions, picnics and so on; compare to the traveling in adults’ life) Under the categories mentioned, Figure 6 also points out the main early childhood education science, the related sciences and the fields on knowledge that can be important in education. Figure 6 also refers to the processes and the planning of early childhood education and preschool education. These processes are very important, for instance in teacher education, when the students study early childhood education and train in practice trying to mould their own educational thinking and understanding. In the way, illustrated above, the model (Figure 6) can be used, for instance, in different studies and in research when analyzing the documents or the persons’ beliefs, notions, knowledge, conceptions, concepts or ideas on early childhood and preschool education. With the help of this model students can also follow or direct the formation of his/her or other persons’ understanding of educational thinking and its formation processes. This historically valid model helps in the creation process of the new systems theory.
The systems and the process inside the concept of early childhood education I have dwelled above on early childhood education thinking; but it is also important to study how the professionals of modern day Finland have defined the concept of ‘varhaiskasvatus’, which is translated into English as ‘early childhood education’. I studied this problem in professional literature; more exactly, in the textbooks and articles on early childhood education published in Finland over a period of forty. The definitions of the concept ‘varhaiskasvatus’ were modeled and compared to each other (Härkönen, 2003a). The extensions and intensions of the concept ‘varhaiskasvatus’ have been found through this analysis (Figure 7). This is a semiotic approach (Härkönen & Jämsä, 2006) to these concepts. Figure 7 shows the extensions and also the intensions of the concept of ‘varhaiskasvatus’, early childhood education. The intensions are titled and shown by different symbolic figures. In this figure the model of eight intensions has been taken in use. Figure 7 shows that the concept of ‘varhaiskasvatus’ (early childhood education) has four extensions: • practice • subject • science • thinking These extensions all together form the systems that can be analyzed scientifically.
59
Figure 7. The four extensions and eight intensions of the early childhood education concept as a systems model. Härkönen Ulla 2008 (EECERA_08: spiritualization added). All extensions should include the same intensions, if we want to speak about ‘varhaiskasvatus’, early childhood education, in the area of these extensions. The intensions are here modeled by freely chosen symbolic figures. The idea is the fact, that if there is some special intension of early childhood education in the practice extension, the same intension should appear in the same way in all extensions. All the main intensions should be the same in all extensions. Intensions should not change too much from one extension to another. Otherwise the concept can change into another one. For instance, if any main intension of the concept ‘varhaiskasvatus’, early childhood education, has been changed too much or dropped out, the ‘varhaiskasvatus’ can change so much
60 that it will acquire, for instance, the meaning of ‘elementary education’ or ‘ special education’ or ‘leisure activities’ or even the meaning of ‘a place of storage’. Extensions form together a system of their own and also each intension is a system of its own. The extensions and intensions form together an entire systems model.
Creating the pedagogical systems theory How to continue the elaboration (see Figure 1) of the new systems theory? In the creating process every new conclusion will lead to certain new problems that need to be solved. In such a way of scientific and logical thinking and reasoning some models of systems were created in a new way. That is why the main concepts may also be changed afterwards or corrected to find a better form. As a latest phase of the development process of the pedagogical systems theory one great problem was still to be solved. The answer had to be found to the next question: Which are the connections of the elements of Figure 6 and Figure 7? In the study of mine (Härkönen, 2009) the cross-tabulation of these qualitative data was done. As a result Figure 8 shows the four extensions of the concept early childhood education. Now the intensions of each four extensions consist of the eight intensions in Figure 7 plus the entire systems of intensions in Figure 6. Figure 8 gives much more informative pedagogical view on a concept early childhood education. The complicated model of the pedagogical systems theory is 1) a pedagogical model for professional pedagogical education, 2) is a model which helps to study also a home education, 3) is a systems model for the phenomenon where enormous amount of influencing factors are valid at the same time, 4) is a model for early childhood education where the age and the development of a child under school age is a determining factor, 5) is a model which is constructed through the theories and which can work as a basis for a new theory, 6) is a model which contains a new paradigm for a new theory, 7) is a systems model whereby the education theory include diversity inside it, 8) is a model which is connected today’s cultural and societal circumstances, 9) is a model which opens the reality in its diversity, 10) is a model which opens views to values, 11) is a model which leave space for dialogue and democracy, 12) is a model which however allow to present basic values so that the model can work for sustainable human development.
61
Figure 8. Pedagogical systems theory and its core value contexts. Härkönen Ulla 2009.
Conclusion The new model (Figure 8) is the ideal model of the systems of the extensions and intensions of the concept ‘varhaiskasvatus’, early childhood education. This four-extensional concept includes also preschool education in all of its extensions and with all of its intensions. The new pedagogical systems model is created for the pedagogical education work, for practice, for schooling, for scientific and thinking work. The child, educators, parents, relationships between persons, environments, materials
62 and many other things (Gonzales-Mena, 2006) are inside the categories or the context areas of the extensions and intensions. The intension of the age of children indeed influences in the categories, in the sub-categories and in the subsub-categories, and also in more specific details of each intension. This means that the model of the pedagogical systems theory also includes a developmental changing process of children and education (Robinson, 2008). The title of Figure 8 is Pedagogical systems theory and its core value contexts. Value contexts refer to the problems on values which can be studied and to enthrone in focus about the concept early childhood education. The next phase in the study process will be to see which kinds of values there can be found inside the model in question. Until now I have found some basic stones. The most important characters of the pedagogical systems theory and the corresponding model are that they represent historical, pedagogical, systemic, holistic and comprehensive, diverse and pluralist, interpretative and semiotic, egalitarian, democratic and tolerant values. These kinds of values can construct sustainable education which takes account sustainability also in children’s, teachers’, parents’ and all human beings’ development (Genishi & Goodwin, 2008; Härkönen, 2003b; Pipere, 2006; Schreiner, 2009). All this is important in an intercultural dialogue all over the world (Council of Europe, 2008).
References Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge; MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development 6, pp. 187–249. Brotherus, A., Hytönen, J., & Krokfors, L. (2002). Esi- ja alkuopetuksen didaktiikka, 2. uudistettu painos. [Didactics of pre-school and elementary education. The 2nd revised edition.] Porvoo: WSOY. Chang-Gen, B. (1990). Major systems theories throughout the world. Behavioral Science, 35(2), pp. 79-103. Church, A. (2001, May 16) SOU: Intension & extension. In D. Runes (ed.) (1972). Dictionary of philosophy, pp. 147–148. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Company. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg02534.html Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London, New York: Routledge. Council of Europe. (2008). White Paper on intercultural dialogue. Living together as equals in dignity. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2000. (2000). [Basics for preschool curriculum 2000.]. Opetushallitus 2000. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
63 Frigg, S., & Hartman, S. (2006, February 17). Models in science. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/#ModIndThe Genishi, C., & Goodwin, A. L. (Ed.) (2008). Diversities in Early Childhood Education. Rethinking and Doing. New York, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Gonzales-Mena, J. (2006). Foundations of early childhood education:Teaching children in a diverse society. (4th Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill. Hakkarainen, P. (2002). Kehittävä esiopetus ja oppiminen. [A developing preschool and learning.]. Juva: WS Bookwell. Helenius, A., & Korhonen, R. (2008). Pedagogiikan palikat [Blocks of pedagogics]. Helsinki: WSOY. Heylighen, F., & Joslyn, C. (1992, Nov, 1). What is systems theory? Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html Hujala, E. (2002). Uudistuva esiopetus [Renewable pre-school]. Varhaiskasvatus 90 Oy. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. Härkönen, U. (1991). Työkasvatusajattelun systeeminen tutkimus – tulevaisuuden näkökulma pienten lasten työkasvatukseen [A system study of work education – A Future-oriented approach to early work education for small children]. Licentiate dissertation. Publications of the Faculty of Educational Sciences, 38. Joensuu: University of Joensuu. Härkönen, U. (1993). Steiner-pedagogiikan ja taustafilosofian yhteydet. [The connections of the Steiner-pedagogics and its background philosophy] Kasvatus 24(2), pp. 181–187. Härkönen, U. (1996). Varhaiskasvatuksen suuret filosofipedagogit ja kasvatusajattelumme kehittäminen. Opetusnäyteluento Savonlinnan opettajankoulutuslaitoksessa 10.5.1996. Julkaisematon käsikirjoitus. [The great philosopher-pedagogues and development of our educational thinking. Demonstration lesson at the Savonlinna Department of Teacher Education 10.5.1996. Unpublished manuscript]. Härkönen, U. (2003a). Mitä termit varhaiskasvatus ja esiopetus tarkoittavat? Joensuun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan tutkimuksia 86. Joensuun yliopisto. [What do the terms ‘early childhood education’ and ‘preschool’ mean? University of Joensuu, Research Reports of the Faculty of Education 86.] Retrieved November 15, 2008 from http://savonlinna.joensuu.fi/harkonen/verkot/tutkimus2003.pdf. Härkönen, U. (2003b). The new systems theory of early childhood education and preschool as a frame of reference for sustainable education. Journal of Teacher Education and Training, 2/2003. Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology. Daugavpils University, pp. 25–38. Härkönen, U. (2006). Diversity of early childhood education theories in a democratic society. Journal of Teacher Education and Training, 6/2006. In-
64 stitute of Sustainable Education, Daugavpils University. Latvia, pp. 103– 115. Härkönen, U. (2008). New pedagogical systems theory and early childhood education culture. In U. Härkönen & E. Savolainen (Ed.) International views on early childhood education. Savonlinna Department of Teacher Education. The University of Joensuu. Retrieved June 20, 2010, from http://sokl.joensuu.fi/verkkojulkaisut/varhais/harkonen.pdf Härkönen, U. (2009). Pedagogical systems theory and model for sustainable human development in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 77–86. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from http://versita.metapress.com/content/r5531w1trh314h42/fulltext.pdf Härkönen, U., & Jämsä, T. (2006). Systems theory, holism and early childhood education. Introduction to the two approaches and education. In Müyesser Ceylan & Detlev Lindau-Bank (Ed.), Between Holistic Education and Teacher Training, 3rd International Journal of Teacher Education and Training Conference, Post-Conference Book. Hochschule Vechta, WSWF, Germany, pp. 47–63. Karila, K., Kinos, J. & Virtanen, J. (Ed.) (2001). Varhaiskasvatuksen teoriasuuntauksia. [Theoretical approaches in early childhood education]. Juva: PS-kustannus. Karvonen, E. (2003, Nov.). Tiedotusopillinen ajattelu ja tutkimus. [Thinking and research in communication theory and mass media.] Retrieved November 3, 2003, from http://www.uta.fi/~tierka/S1syksy01eka/tsld029.htm Kvale, S. (Ed.) (1989). Issues of validity in qualitative research. Studentlitteratur, Lund: Chartwell Bratt. Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2007). Using software in qualitative research. London: SAGE. Marton, F. (1982). Towards a phenomenography of learning I. Integral experiental aspects. University of Gothenburg. Department of Education 6. Õvermann, U., Tilman, A., Konau, E,. & Krambeck, J. (1979). Die Methodologie einer “objektiven Hermeneutik” und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften. In H-G. Soeffner (Ed.) Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 352–434. Õvermann, U., Allert, T., Konau, E., & Krambeck, J. (1983). Die Methodologie einer “objektiven Hermeneutik”. In P. Zedler & H. Moser (Ed.) Aspekte qualitativer Sozialforschung. Studien zu Aktionsforschung, empirischer Hermeneutik und reflexiver Sozialtechnologie. Oplade: Leske Verlag + Budrich GmbH, pp. 95–123.
65 Parsons, T. (1968). Systems analysis: Social systems. In D.L. Sills (Ed.) International encyclopaedia of the social sciences, 15. Macmillan Company & The Free Press, pp. 458–472. Pipere, A. (Ed.) (2006) Education & Sustainable Development, 1/ 2006. Daugavpils: Saule. Rapoport, A. (1968). Systems analysis: General systems theory. In D. L. Sills (Ed.) International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 15. MacMillan Company & The Free Press, pp. 452–458. Robinson, M. (2008). Child development from birth to eight. McGrow-Hill Companies: Open University Press. Schreiner, P. (2009). Research for education for sustainable development. In A. Skrinda (Ed.), The proceedings of the 7th international JTEFS/BBCC conference “Sustainable development. Culture. Education.” Daugavpils: Daugavpils University Academic Press, “Saule”, pp. 38–46. Senge, P. M. (2009, Copyright 2003–2008, Howard) Systems thinking. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from http://www.systemstnker.com/interests/systemsthinking/ Siljander, P. (Ed.) (2000). Kasvatus ja sivistys. [Education and civilization] Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Steiner, R. (1979). Vapauden filosofia [Philosophy of freedom] Jyväskylä: Gummerus. Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös varhaiskasvatuksen valtakunnallisista linjauksista. (2002). STM 2002:9. Helsinki. [Principle of the Council of State Concerning the National Policy Definition on Early Childhood Education and Care. Publications of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2002:9]. Helsinki 2002. Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet. (2005). Stakes, 2005, toinen tarkistettu painos. Helsinki. [The National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland, 2005, the 2nd revised edition] Centre for Research and Development of Welfare and Health. Helsinki. Wikipedia. (2009, November, 27). Systems thinking. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking
67
ECE in the USA: Focus on the State-Funded Pre-K Movement James E. Johnson, Jennifer Chestnut Pyles The Pennsylvania State University, USA Based on the paper presented by the first author in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Early Childhood Education Program of Tallinn University, Estonia, April 26th, 2008. Globally, early childhood education (ECE) is in the midst of change, uncertainty, and debate. Change is due to many variables, including the impact of recent research from molecular genetics and neuroscience that has underscored the importance of the early years for learning. Studies have brought increased attention to our field and have raised expectations that ECE can be used to help solve educational problems worldwide, such as social inequity and school readiness. However, while ECE remains devoted to excellence, equity, and inclusiveness, many in the ECE field are unsure as to how to meet demands to translate increased understanding from latest research into sound ECE pedagogy policy and practice. Ways to improve ECE programs are being argued in many countries where new challenges exist, for example, concerning how to adapt curriculum and instruction to address the needs and interests of immigrant and refugee families with young children. Continuity and change in ECE are occurring internationally and can be seen as a dynamic interplay of cultural, social, and educational forces. ECE as an institution reflects the culture within which it resides as ECE is also affected by social forces and educational mandates within the culture. For example, Tobin, Yeh and Karasawa (2006) have discussed changes in ECE in Japan, China, and the USA in the particular locales or sites originally reported on in the classic book Preschool in Three Cultures (Tobin, Wu & Davidson, 1989). Japan’s ECE has evidently remained more stable in its educational philosophy over twenty years although pessimism has arisen over economic decline and the ability of institutions to solve societal problems. On the other hand, China’s ECE has moved from an academic model to a constructivism ECE philosophy, while in the USA the trend seems to be towards an academic model and away from constructivism. Tobin et al.’s research is a good illustration of how ECE institutions in these different countries are in states of transition and how ECE institutions are responsive to social changes but yet function to preserve cultural continuity and to contribute to national and economic goals. Unlike Asian and European countries, where there is strong government fiscal support for ECE and a desire for a national ECE curricula, the USA lacks such support; a national system, strong consensus and even commitment to ECE
68 does not exist. For example, many peer nations and even developing countries, in fact, provide more ECE programming to children prior to primary school than does the USA where there is no national commitment to give all children an ECE program from age three years to first grade of formal schooling (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2005). Furthermore, other countries see ECE as a right and a public good – but the USA does not. ECE programs for three-to-five year olds in the USA receive relatively little public funding and are very diverse structurally and in terms of curriculum. Takanishi and Bogard (2007) have noted that in the USA ECE is driven by utilitarian considerations and an assortment of policies backed by competing research findings; rival special interests preclude having national standards for curriculum as are found in many other countries. In addition, people in the USA do not have the same values with respect to ECE for three’s and four’s, not to mention for infants and toddlers. Care and education tend to be dichotomized, with families responsible for the care of younger children and schools responsible for the education of older children (Morrissey & Warner, 2007). A major development in early childhood education (ECE) in the USA is the emergence of state-funded pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) in public schools (Kirp, 2007; Pianta & Howes, 2009). This Pre-K trend is widespread. Many states are offering options, such as grant money, to help school districts implement PK programs in their communities. In 2008 alone, 38 states have invested $5 billion dollars to provide universal voluntary Pre-K for its three-and four-year olds (Barnett, Epstein, Friedman, Boyd & Hustedt, 2008). Although other forms of ECE in the US, such as Head Start, have more history, funding and research, Pre-K as a new movement is especially significant because it situates ECE within the institution of public schooling in the US. This chapter focuses on the Pre-K initiative as it is currently unfolding across the US educational landscape and as it is bringing along with it new challenges for basic and higher ECE.
State-Funded Public PK in Context Pre-K is defined as ECE programs, funded and administered by the state, that have an educational goal and serve typically developing children at least two days per week. In the USA Pre-K children are three and four years of age. Children in this age group are served in three major kinds of ECE center-based settings: Private preschools or child care or development centers; Head Start Programs; and state-funded or public preschools or PK programs. In 2007, approximately 22% of four-year olds and 3% of three year olds in the USA were enrolled in state public Pre-K, compared to 11% of four-year olds and 8% of three year olds in Head Start Programs, and 35% of four year olds and 36% of
69 three year olds in private child care or preschool programs. Twenty six percent of four year olds had no center-based care/education, while 49% of three year olds did not (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2007). According to Barnett, Epstein, Friedman, Boyd and Hustedt (2008), 1,134,687 children attend state funded pre-kindergarten programs in 38 states and the District of Columbia. The cost is $4,609 per child, which compares with $7,909 per Head Start child and $11,795 per pupil in K-12 education. Most of the funding comes from state grants and contracts to programs, $4,061 per child, with the remainder coming from local contributions or the federal government. Funding from all sources exceeded $5.2 billion, up from the previous year by nearly $1 billion (23% annual increase). When general and special education students are combined, 28% of four-year old children, and 6.3% of the threeyear old children, are enrolled by state funded pre-kindergarten programs in the United States. Note that all 50 states have state funding for preschoolers, such as through federal Head Start supplemental funds, but only 38 states have Pre-K state funding initiatives. Although from a systems point of view states have conceptualized the goals of Pre-K as part of the K-12 educational framework, states have at least partially build Pre-K outside the public school framework. Pre-K is part of the established formal primary tier of education in that school readiness is a major goal and Pre-K generally operates with an academic focus (Fuller, 2007).
Pre-K Characteristics and Program Quality The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) publishes a yearly report of state Pre-K across the USA. For each state and the District of Columbia they not only report changes in the extent and funding of these programs and Head Start and Early Intervention programs, they also evaluate Pre-K programs on the ten benchmark criteria of program quality. All of these are variables, that can be regulated by the state, are hence matters of state policy concerning the quality of ECE programs. These program quality characteristics are: (1) Having comprehensive early learning standards; (2) Having teachers with a BA degree; (3) Having teachers with specialized training in ECE; (4) Having an assistant teacher with a Child Development Credential or a two year community college degree equivalent; (5) Having no more than twenty children in a classroom; (6) Having a staff-child ratio of 1:10 or better; (7) Having vision, hearing, and health screening and at least one support service; (8) Having teacher in-service professional development at least 15 hours per year; (9) Having at least one meal a day for the children; and (10) Having site visit monitoring. Across the USA there is disparity in quality in terms of these 10 benchmarks. Alabama and North Carolina are the only states with perfect scores.
70 Seven states that continue to fund Pre-K earned scores of 9: Arkansas, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington. Unfortunately, some of the states serving the most children flare much more poorly on these quality indicators. For example, Florida, Texas, and California score only 4 out of 10, while New York earned a score of 6. The wide variation, in state program quality on the NIEER indicators, is due to a number of factors. There are uncertainties in funding that can cause teacher job insecurities and high teacher turnovers. Funding fragmentation exists with a patchwork of sources including state lotteries and public school appropriations outside K-12, and hence Pre-K programs are vulnerable to fiscal cuts on a year-to-year basis. In addition, it has proven difficult to monitor programs within a loosely organized state structure. Many programs are located outside public school buildings and are in community-based organizations. Perhaps the over-riding problem is teacher compensation and job benefits that are often unattractive to recruit and retain new teachers with higher education levels.
Content and Operations of PK Classrooms Across the nation, states are working to face the challenge of providing quality pre kindergarten for all children. Many states have developed plans for moving toward this important goal and are continuing to improve their ideas and implementation components so that Pre-K is available for more children each year. Some states are ahead in the movement and have become leaders in the work of early education. There are many quality ideas that states have produced as they work with teachers, parents, and community members to create the best program for young children. There are differing levels of implementation as states move toward universal Pre-K. Some states are just beginning the dialog about the importance of early education. Other states have already begun to provide some Pre-K to their children. Florida, Oklahoma, and Georgia have implemented programs for all Pre-K children in their states but continue to improve their programs and ideas. In some states, the funding is not equitable for Pre-K and the quality of the programs do not meet high standards. Those states are confronting their issues as they strive to continue the work for young children. Other states have found some barriers as they try to work with local school districts which refuse to participate in the program development. Change seems to be difficult in the public school sector as early education gains importance in the field of work with children prior to the established school system. In Pennsylvania, Pre-K has enjoyed a positive surge under the direction of the current governor, Edward Rendell and the development of the Office of Child Development and Early Learning (OCDEL) within the Department of
71 Education. In 2004, the state began two funding streams for quality early childhood initiatives: the Accountability Block Grant and the Head Start Supplemental Assistance Program. These funds helped school districts begin to implement full day kindergarten and Pre-K programs with support from the state offices. These funding sources continue to support schools across the state and offer sources of money for new programs every year. In 2002, Pennsylvania recognized and enhanced the quality of Pre-K programs within the state by implementing the Keystone Stars Program. This program offers assistance to meet, maintain, and improve quality for child care programs. It serves as a model for child care quality rating systems around the nation. In 2004, the Accountability Block Grant was established to provide monies for early childhood programs such as full day kindergarten, lower class sizes in the primary grades, and the establishment of Pre-K classrooms. Funding was also provided to offer Head Start to a larger population and to extend the hours of operating the programs. In 2005, Pre-K Counts was established in Pennsylvania as a three-year pilot program to establish collaboration between public and private funding to increase access to quality Pre-K in diverse settings. The funding for Pre-K Counts has been increased each year and more children are receiving Pre-K than ever before. Each year, these funding streams have continued and supplemented to provide the sources to continue the important work of establishing and maintaining quality early childhood programs throughout the state.
Impact of Pre-K A defining feature of Pre-K programs is that they are part of the public school system in their local communities. The primary child outcome variable here is academic achievement, especially reading proficiency by the end of third grade. Americans’ views are generally positive regarding how well their public elementary schools are doing; but the fact is that alarming underachievement is evident by fourth grade. Based on statistics compiled by the National Assessment of Educational Progress almost 60% of White and Asian Fourth Graders are reading below grade level; this percentage is nearly 85% for Latino, Black and Native Americans (Nation’s Report Card, 2007; Shore, 2009). Investment in high quality Pre-K programs is seen as an important part of plans for lifting student achievement nationwide. Both long-term and short-term studies provide evidence for the benefits of Pre-K programs on young children’s achievement and also motivation and commitment to school. Reynolds and Temple (2008) reviewed the literature including the three well known landmark longitudinal studies (Perry Preschool,
72 Abecedarian, and Chicago Child-Parent Center programs) that have demonstrated substantial benefits of quality preschool for children and society. Widely cited also are state-wide evaluations of the effects on Pre-K on student performance such as ones conducted by Gromley, Gayer, Phillips and Dawson (2005) in Oklahoma and Henry, Gordon, and Rickman (2006) in Georgia. Ramey, Ramey and Stokes (2009) recently reported on state-wide Pre-K programs in Maryland and Louisiana where positive influences were found on early reading abilities, math, and avoiding grade retention and placement in special education classroom. These findings are consistent with results from the landmark and the other short-term studies and help convince policy-makers and education leaders, and most of the general public in the United States, that providing public dollars for Pre-K is a sound investment.
Teacher Education for State-Funded Public PK To further the important work of establishing and maintaining quality ECE programs many states have altered their teacher certification or licensure bands and are requiring teachers to have early childhood degrees in order to lead instruction in public Pre-K classrooms. For example, Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio have recently changed to a Pre-K through Primary Grade licensure, with a separate credential to teach older children in the intermediate grades and middle school. The movement has challenged colleges and universities to strengthen ECE teacher education programs with more specialized course work and field placements to better prepare new teachers for careers in public schools serving three and four year olds and their families. Teacher education in early childhood education needs to recruit more minorities to serve on the faculty and need to offer more courses or at least course work on an anti-bias curriculum and teaching culturally and linguistically diverse learners. There is a need for more supervised field experiences in settings that serve racial and ethnic minorities (Goffin & Washington, 2007; Kagan, Kauerz & Tarrant, 2007; Ray, Bowman & Robbins, 2006). Demographic trends in the U.S., towards a more diversified student body, demands teachers from diverse backgrounds to teach and serve as role models for their diverse students and their families; and all teachers need to become ready to be ethnically sensitive and culturally responsive in their work in pre-kindergarteners and older children.
73 Discussion ECE has changed enormously over the past several decades in the US. Only 10% of the nation’s 3 and 4 year olds were in any type of center or classroom in 1960. This figure is now approximately 75% for 4 year olds and over 50% for 3 year olds (Barnett, Friedman, Hustedt & Stevenson-Boyd, 2009). Pre-K initiatives in the US currently come from 50 programs in 38 states and account for many of the three- and four-year old children currently in classrooms. Many children have shifted from private childcare programs to o Pre-K. Although Head Start and Early Intervention, per se, are under different auspices and funding streams, many Head Start Programs are funded in part by Pre-K grants, and children with special needs are in inclusive Pre-K classrooms. Some argue against public state-funded Pre-K, in fact, because taxpayers already subsidize the nation’s Head Start program. Although Pre-K programs have considerable bi-partisan support and will likely increase in the U.S. to reach more four- and three-year old children, this movement is not without its detractors. Critics such as Bruce Fuller (2007) are concerned that state departments of education across the U.S will stress the academic model of K-12 public education in the design and implementation of schooling for pre-kindergarteners. Moreover, even if tempered with the standards promulgated from progressives who espouse developmentally appropriate practices, the result might be a one-size-fits-all ECE in public schools. This would be at odds with the U.S pluralistic society that has traditionally allowed for parental and community-based influence and engagement in the nurturing and education of young children. Fuller worries that the Pre-K movement might undermine this and lead to a standardization of childhood in the US. Certainly this is a valid concern and must be addressed. Programs serving young children, whether in state-funded Pre-K classrooms, federal Head Start programs, or other kinds of early education settings such as private preschools or group homes or the family-based child care found in the U.S., all need to seek to balance academic learning, developmental enrichment, and educational play. And finding this right combination must also take into account individual differences and group differences to assure that early care and education is culturally appropriate at the Pre-K level and in programs for infants and toddlers, and as children transition into kindergarten and the primary grades. The Pre-K movement is focused on the care and education of three and four year olds enrolled in the institution of the public schools; it is strategically attempting to bring attention to this age group within this context. The rationale for launching and trying to grow the Pre-K movement is a shared belief that this has a chance of unifying the field of early education in the US as never before, and perhaps in a way that other plans targeting other age groups and institutions (such as programs for infants and toddlers, not the public schools) could not do.
74 Selecting the Pre-K plan over other possible plans is worth it, according to its proponents, because achieving widespread support for the Pre-K movement would eventually yield sufficient funds for effective intervention to successfully remedy school un-readiness and subsequent academic achievement difficulties and failure. There would be greater likelihood, over time, of having in place higher quality ECE programs and better teachers. With more public money, teacher compensation problems could be addressed also because Pre-K teachers would be employed by public education and could thereby expect and seek parity in salaries and benefits commensurate with other public school teachers. Pre-K in the Context of P-3 and Pre-K to 3rd This focus on the three and four year olds in the Pre-K movement in the US needs to be framed within a broader developmental continuum, ranging from pre-birth through the primary grades. The Pre-K movement in the US is very significant in its own right but must nevertheless be placed within what has been called P-3 or preschool (including prenatal development, birth and neonatal period, infancy and toddlerhood) through 3 or third grade (ages 8 and 9 years old) period of the child’s life. Takanishi and Kauerz (2008) point out that P-3 also entails Pre-K to third grade (PK-3). P-3 and PK-3 (or Pre-K to 3rd) have different starting ages but the same extension to third grade; and indeed both can be considered part of the P-16 system of education, defined as starting at preschool and going all the way through high school and college in the U.S. The Pre-K movement connects with both P-3 and PK-3 frameworks but there are significant differences between them that have implications for early education policies and practices. Defining P-3 as preschool (starting with earliest life and then proceeding to the third grade) recognizes learning and development, from the beginning and the variety of settings in which this takes place in the US, including Early Head Start, private homes, and early intervention programs which serve infants and toddlers and young children with developmental disabilities and special educational needs. Accordingly, P-3 brings to attention that children and their families have different circumstances and their own particular developmental and cultural roots leading up to the age of children at beginning of formal schooling. On the other hand, PK to 3 starts at pre-kindergarten or ages three and four years and so underscores the education and care of children at this particular time of the child’s life; and PK to 3 stresses the need to interlace Pre-K experiences with those the child will have in kindergarten and the first three grades. Although recognizing the importance of infancy and toddlerhood, PK-3 intends for ECE to become more a part of public education in a way that is not politically or economically feasible if ECE is defined as P-3. PK-3 as part of K-12 public education hopefully can also make public schools better developmentally
75 and with respect to individual and group differences. It cannot do this if infancy and toddlerhood is central to its mission because then its reform efforts would have to include education, health, and human services for younger children and their families that are outside public education. This is not possible now in the US. Both P-3 and PK-3 bring attention to the importance of child development as a base for education and how critical Pre-K is for school readiness and helping children get off on the right foot toward academic achievement, motivation, and commitment to school and learning across the early grades. Pre-K is seen as part of P-3 and even the broader P-16 span of the child’s school career and life course learning. Pre-K is a linchpin within the P-3 or the PK-3 frames to improve schooling. At this time, the Pre-K movement in the US is more visible and further along than the P-3 or PK-3 visions within which Pre-K is central. Currently, Pre-K movement and the germination and growth of the P-3/PreK to 3rd reform initiatives are challenging developments for the early education field. They are causing a great deal of reflection and discussion and debate (Kagan et al., 2008). One way this is being expressed is with respect to reconsidering the boundaries of the field of ECE; up to which grade level does ECE go, and how inclusive of minorities can the field be if there are demands for bachelor’s degrees to teach Pre-K? A second way this is being expressed is with respect to refining teacher’s roles and creating new programs in basic and higher education (teacher education) that seek to better interconnect early and elementary education without reducing one to the other in some kind of blending or ‘integration’. Remaining separate or independent of one other (early versus elementary education) is not a viable option any longer (if it ever really was) if the fields of early education and elementary education wish to advance and further develop their disciplines at this point in their histories. Parallel ‘play’ or activity is not enough; more mature cooperative ‘play’ or activity is required of both groups of professionals and practitioners. Expect two-way professional activity across the border dividing early education and elementary education, started by Pre-K and continuing now with Pre-K to 3rd reform initiatives in the public schools in the US. Pre-K teachers in the U.S., along with teachers in K and the primary grades with early childhood education as their primary professional identity, all will be working with other teachers and school staff (school psychologists, counselors, principals, etc.) in the public schools who do not have this background or professional identity or affiliation. Many public school professional educators in administration, instruction support, and in the teaching ranks do not have ECE backgrounds; they have a different history and come from different traditions. They belong to different professional organizations and possess alternative values and belief and attitudes that are aligned to the elementary education institutional setting, and not ECE. Early education teachers will need to communicate
76 with these new colleagues in the public schools. Early education professionals must teach their new colleagues in the public schools about the importance of the child’s families, culture, and community, and about the importance of children’s developments and parent engagement, teacher-child relations, and the social-emotional well-being of the young child. Early childhood Pre-K teachers need to learn from their new colleagues in public education about the importance of academic content and more rigorous assessment of learning. They must learn about the breadth and depth of robust content in different subjects, and how to sequence content to avoid unhelpful repetition or the going over the same topics again and again with the same group of children. Moreover, just as Pre-K teachers appreciate the importance of mature role play as the leading psychological activity during the preschool years, they can come to better realize the importance of school work and subject matter content in the different disciplines such as math and science, and geography and history, as the leading psychological activity for mental development for children between five and ten years. These new role responsibilities of teachers of Pre-K classrooms become obvious when ECE enters the public schools. Furthermore, together Pre-K and other teachers can work on transitions and alignment of teaching and learning goals, curriculum, and assessments across grade levels (vertical alignment) and within grade levels (horizontal alignment). Success at this depends on communication and collaboration, and teamwork and coordination in programs across grades and classrooms. Especially when Pre-K teachers are working physically apart from a school building in a communitybased organization, it is important to share information about programs and curriculum and information and assessment on individual children as they move on from prekindergarten to kindergarten. When the Pre-K teachers are working in a school organized in accordance with the PK-3 framework, where the Pre-K classrooms are housed within the public school building (as they tend to be in urban settings but not a rural setting in the U.S at the present time), these information flows and communications and collaborations are more obvious and more readily facilitated. Administrators must arrange staff meeting times liberally for planning and tracking and discussing individual students and sharing information about the children and the families. New teacher role responsibilities for the Pre-K teacher are added as the work-scope is changed to accommodate to the demands for more explicit and systematize relationships between early childhood and elementary education when programs accept the mandate to begin functioning as a PK-3 framework school. Play and Pre-K and PK to 3rd Play and education also must be considered in a new way when Pre-K teachers operate within a broader developmental continuum. As noted, Pre-K and early
77 education teachers typically value mature social role-play as a leading psychological activity in intellectual and social-emotional development during the first five years of life. The early education curriculum is often set up for pretend play. This form of play, as well as other types of play, such as constructive play and physical movement and games and music and dance and art activities, are central to the curriculum and educational goals of the program. Learning and playing are two sides of the same coin, in a playing-learning process in which there is learning in playing, and playing in learning. This is developmental pedagogy in early education. As children grow and develop past five years old and enter into kindergartens and the primary grades, it is necessary to realize that play in education shifts in how it is important and as to how it should be expressed in the activities in the classroom. Instead of learn-full play as seen in Pre-K classrooms, there needs to be more playful learning in activities, projects, and investigations that have a high degree of child initiation. Moreover, expect more teacher-led learning games and even in drill and practice and didactic lessons directed by the teacher of older children. But here too there should always be room for spontaneity, in physical movement, language use, social behavior, and physically to the extent possible; and by all mean keep within the school a sense of humor and the expression of humor; it should be allowed and even encouraged in the older children as well as younger ones, and the teachers as well. Play in education and for education must be grasped in this way, across the developmental continuum from being three years old to being in the third grade, in public schools organized by PK to 3rd.
Final Remarks The Pre-K movement reflects changes within the U.S social and cultural context. Population changes and demographic shifts in the make-up of the public school classrooms have made teaching for diversity a primary educational challenge in the 21st century for teachers in the U.S. Immigration patterns and the great increase in immigrants and minorities sending their children to public schools have significantly increased the demands for teaching English language learners. There is a need to elongate the early education period of the child’s life, to grant more time to achieve important school-related developmental tasks. Hence, the structuring of public schools in the U.S. to define early education through the third grade and to do this systematically in terms of a new school organization which follows the PK-3 vision of school reform. The socio-political-educational landscape in this century has been dominated by NCLB and a new stress on accountability. Children must become fluent readers for the fourth grade when they will be expected to read to learn: before this grade time is
78 granted and education provided to help all children, many at risk, to become able to learn to read. As with the rest of the world, early education in the U.S. has been influenced by findings from developmental science and new brain development research indicating the intentional learning capacities of the young. Hence, teachers are asked to be intentional as well. In no small way, the new instructional support requirements demanded for the Pre-K teachers, and the new connections of Pre-K programs with the formal educational establishment, reflect these technological, scientific, and social and political changes in the U.S. during the past decade. The serious world-wide economic recession threatens the chances that PreK programs in the USA can be increased and improved into the immediate future, at least not until there is a turn for the better in the general economy. At the present rate of growth, which is about an increase of 100,000 four-year olds per year in state-funded Pre-K, it will take about 20 years before all four-year-old children will have access to free public ECE. It will take 150 years for threeyear olds to have the same. Nevertheless, the Pre-K movement in the US has taken hold and has bipartisan support; there is no turning back. There has emerged a political consensus and social will to sustain and expand voluntary and public programs for young children to increase school readiness and lessen social inequities. Pre-K is widely seen as a sound investment in the nation’s future. Increasingly states should seek to provide high quality pre-kindergarten programs with an immediate emphasis on serving at risk children. Eventually Pre-K and PK to 3rd may become universal features on the ECE landscape in the US.
References Barnett, S., Epstein, D., Friedman, A., Boyd, J. & Hustedt, J. (2008). The state of preschool 2008: State preschool yearbook. National Institute for Early Education Research, New Brunswick, NJ Barnett, S., Friedman, A., Hustedt, J. & Stevenson-Boyd, J. (2009). An overview of prekindergarten policy in the United States: Program governance, eligibility, standards, and finance. In R. Pianta & C. Howes (Eds.), The promise of pre-k, 3–30, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Fuller, B. (2007). Standardized childhood: The political and cultural struggle over early education. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Goffin, S. & Washington, V. (2007). Ready or not: Leadership choices in early care and education. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Gromley, W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D. & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology 41(6), 872–884.
79 Henry, G. T., Gordon, C. & Rickman, D. K. (2006). Early education policy alternatives: Comparing quality and outcomes of Head Start and state prekindergartens. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 28(1), 77–99. Kagan, S., Kauerz, K. & Tarrant, K. (2008). The early care and education teaching workforce at the fulcrum: An agenda for reform. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Kirp, D. (2007). The sandbox investment: The preschool movement and kid’sfirst politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Morrissey, T. & Warner, M. (2007). Why early care and education deserves as much attention, and more, than prekindergarten alone. Applied Developmental Science, 11(2), 57–70. National Institute for Early Education Research, State Preschool Year Book. Nation’s Report Card, http://nationsreportcard.gov/. Pianta, R. & Howes, C. (2009). The promise of pre-k. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Ramey, C., Ramey, S. & Stokes, B. (2009), Research evidence about program dosage and student achievement. In R. Pianta & C. Howes (Eds.) The promise of pre-k. 79–105, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Ray, A., Bowman, B. & Robbins, J. Preparing early childhood teachers to successfully educate all children: The contribution of four-year undergraduate teacher preparation programs. Report to the Foundation for Child Development, New York Reynolds, A. & Temple, J. (2008). Cost-effective early childhood development programs from preschool to third grade. American Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 109–139. Shore, R. (2009, January). The case for investing in preK-3rd education: Challenging myths about school reform. PreK-3rd Policy to action brief. No. 1. Foundation for Child Development, New York. Takanishi, R. & Bogard, K. (2007). Effective educational programs for young children: What do we need to know. Child Development Perspectives, 1(1), 40–45. Takanishi, R. & Kauerz, K. (2008). PK inclusion: Getting serious about a P-16 educational system. Phi Delta Kappan, March, 480–487. Tobin, J., Wu, D. & Davidson, D. (1989). Preschool in three cultures. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tobin, J., Yeh, H. & Karasawa, M. (2006). Continuity and change in preschool in three cultures. In M. Takeuchi & R. Scott (Eds.) New directions for early childhood education and care in the 21st century, 184–215. Cedar Falls, IA: Martin Quam Press. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2005). Education for all global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.
81
170 Years of Development in Estonian Preschool Institutions: Historical Trends in Preschool Education Mare Torm Archival Museum of Estonian Educational Culture Tallinn University, Estonia
Introduction In 2010 we celebrate the 170th anniversary of opening the oldest child care establishment known in Estonia. To this date we do not have a detailed overview of educational institutions opened for preschool children in Estonia during the 19th century. The aim of this chapter is to look at the past to find evidence to document all the history of Estonian preschools and training of preschool teachers. Taimi Tulva started in the Chair of Preschool Education at Tallinn University more than 30 years ago. Since 2001, collecting of historical information about the development of preschool institutions and preschool education, keeping the materials, its research and dissemination of results have been centred at the Archival Museum of Estonian Educational Culture (AM EEC). For more than 10 years, I have tutored several researchers, who have taken out Bachelor`s and Master’s degrees with a research thesis connected with archival material in the mentioned field. On the 25th of November 2005, one of the big events hosted by Tallinn University (TLU) was international conference aimed at celebrating ”165 years of kindergarten development in Estonia“. At that time, an extensive overview-exhibition on the same topic was compiled by the author and was exhibited at the TLU Academic Library from 15 December, 2005 until 30 January, 2006.
Problem The importance of the history of preschool education compared to school history at large has so far not been adequately recognised in Estonia’s educational and cultural history. Although preschool institutions as educational institutions are much younger than schools, it does not decrease the need and value of research on the history of preschool education. Friedrich Wilhelm August Froebel (1782– 1852), the founding father of preschool institutions, paying tribute to Johann Gutenberg on 28 June, 1840 – celebrating the 400th anniversary of inventing the printing press, started to use the name kindergarten, and to some extent, this fact hides the deep philosophical roots and historical context of preschool education.
82 In other words, what printing means to the development of mankind, the preschool institutions serves the same special educational and child-rearing function in society. The development of preschool institutions also raises questions about cultural values and it is also one of the indicators of cultural knowledge and understanding in any society. Based on the founder of Estonian preschool education, Carl Heinrich Niggol (1851–1927), one can claim that from a cultural perspective, preschool institutions have an important role to play in society. I claim that a preschool institution is a promoter of educational culture in society. During Estonian independence in 1918–1940, education was approached from the perspective of a cultural-pedagogical model, but unfortunately, this approach is not understood by modern Estonian society. This chapter provides a short overview of the development of preschool institutions and training of preschool teachers in Estonia through the different periods of history using the following key words “preschool institution” and “preschool teacher”. For the purposes of this chapter, each of these words are defined as follows: • preschool institution: a general term denoting preschool institutions for children aged 1–7 • preschool teacher: aqualified specialist working in a kindergarten I have dealt with this topic in depth for the purposes of writing her Master Thesis ”Training of preschool teachers until 1940 and its influence to preschool education in Estonia“ (Torm, 1998). This indepth research of the topic has convinced me that I have helped to open a hidden side of Estonian’ educational and cultural history. It has also highlighted the importance of getting to know the history of preschool education in the neighbouring countries. Until now although the history of Finnish preschool education has been available to us, information concerning Latvia and Lithuania has been rather limited.
Development of preschool institutions Early Years 1840–1918: On August 1, 1840, a widow of Baron Uexküll Elisabeth Uexküll (1776–1865), opened a nursery for infants (for 2–8 year-olds) (Väikelaste Hoiuasutus) in Tallinn for children of poor parents whose mothers worked outside home (Annist, 2000, 105). There is also information about a school for infants in Vao manor in Järvamaa that was opened in the same year (Last & Raudsepp, 1998, 5). These institutions can be considered the earliest educational establishments for infants in Estonia.
83 As we know Estonian cultural relations tightened with Western-Europe at the beginning of the 19th century, first of all with Germany, a country aspiring to become a leader of research at large in the world (Karjahärm & Sirk, 1997, 15). At that time, several charity and welfare societies had been founded in Estonia. First of all, these organisations appeared to have been made up of people from among the upper layers of society, including, intellectuals, noblemen and town bourgeoisie consisting mostly of free and rich Germans, whose ideas were influenced by the European Enlightenment (Jansen, 1993, 4). During the second half of the 19th century, preschools were founded by private persons, societies, factory owners and landlords. In particular, the following societies should be mentioned: Tallinn Women’s Association (Tallinna Naisselts) (1847); Russian Charity Society (Vene Heategevusselts) (1850); Estonian Support Society (Eestimaa Abiandmissselts) (1862); German Evangel Society (Saksa Evangeeliumi Selts) (1865); Tallinn Evangelistic Lutheran Deaconess Society (Tallinna Evangelistliku Lutherliku Diakonisside Selts) (1867); Huhn Society (Huhni Selts) (1872); and the Nursery Society for Infants (Väikeste Laste Hoiu Selts) (1880). The latter built a fancy house for a nursery already in Tallinn in 1881 (Torm, 2000). The last ones were also called nursery schools/schools for infants (Kleinkinderschule) that originated from England, and were promoted by especially by the deaconesses. Work in these settings was school-like, strict discipline was used in the first place and work with children centered around religious teaching (Erning & Neumann & Reyer, 1987, 33–34). But step by step the importance of play was introduced and understood. Before the turn of the century quite a few preschool institutions were opened outside Tallinn. There were also many preschools in Järvamaa in Central Estonia. For example, a preschool in Paide functioned with some temporary pauses from 1872 to 1991. Also preschool institution in Pärnu (established 1878, 1885); Võru (established 1893) and Tartu are known. Today, the oldest kindergarten in Estonia with continual work is in Sindi (established 1894) (Torm, 1998, 3–5). At the beginning of the 20th century intellectuals in Tartu got together to combat russification (which started at the beginning of 1880ies) for the development of education provided in mother tongue. Tartu Estonian Preschool Society (Tartu Eesti Lasteaia Selts) was founded in 1905 under the leadership of Jaan Tõnisson, and Oskar Kallas and others, who were well-known statesmen in the later period. The aim was to open a preschool with instruction in the Estonian language fostering national spirit (Tartu Lasteaia Selts 1905–1935, 1935, 3–7). This marks the beginning of national preschool institutions. From the establishment of the society, it was governed by at that time well-known socially active personality Veera Jõgever (1866–1940). Estonia was at that time under Russian rule. As the tzarist power of Russia hindered opening of schools with
84 instruction in Estonian, the foundation of the Preschool Society is of great importance. It was the predecessor of mother tongue educational societies (Kinkar, 1996, 30). So, on 23 May, 2005 the national preschool institutions celebrated their 100th anniversary and it was celebrated with an anniversary conference in Tartu. Although at that time, mainly Estonian children attended the previouslymentioned instutions, the language of instruction was German and/orRussian, besides Estonian as the regulations of those days required. In addition to language teaching, the mentality and atmosphere at these centres were important. The care for infants became ever more important with the rise of the national movement among Estonians. Besides with the establishment of cultural societies also some care centres for small children such as Saron near Narva (1906) (Kinkar, 1996, 118); the Preschool Department of the Estonian Popular Education Society or ERS) (Eestimaa Rahvahariduse Selts) (1906), was also founded on the basis of the Estonian Child Education Society or TELS in Tallinn (Tallinna Eesti Lastekasvatuse Selts) (1907); and the Preschool branch of ERS (1911) was also opened in Tallinn (Kinkar, 1996, 83). However, opening of preschool institutions remained small in number, in the first decades of the 20th century and due to the World War I some of these centres had to be closed. Years between 1918–1940: The Republic of Estonia was born on 24 February, 1918 in a most complicated situation. German occupation of Estonia started at the same time as Germans defeated Russia. In schools this meant a transfer from Russian to German as the language of instruction. Estonians regained power over their country only on 11 November, the same year. However, already on 16 November, the Estonian Temporary Government ordered the release of students in senior classes of secondary schools from studies, so that they could join the army protecting their homeland together with their teachers among others (Torm, 2005). Established during the tzarist times, 15 permanent preschool institutions continued their activities in Estonia. After WW I, private individuals, entrepreneurs, societies and unions, also local governments started to open preschool institutions (Lepp, 1928). In summer 1918 the Tallinn City Government closed a German-language kindergarten that was opened by the occupying forces and by 1 December, 1918 a Tallinn City municipal preschool institution was opened. In spite of the difficulties in the beginning, Tallinn started to create a network of city preschool institutions. So, on 24 February, 1919 the Tallinn City Council at its festive meeting in honour of the 1st anniversary of the Republic of Estonia decided to open 5 free preschool institutions for children from poorer families (TLA f 82, n 1, s 94). Even the Tallinn City Government could not carry this
85 plan out quickly due to the lack of suitable premises, in order to demonstrate their interest in caring for young children. About 10 permanent preschool institutions were opened in the country during the years 1918–1921. By 1926/27 there were already 45 permanent preschool institutions with 1907 children. Local governments owned 15 (33%), societies 16 (36%) and private individuals 14 (31%) preschool institutions. Only 4 of them were in the countryside (Lepp, 1928). By 1937/38 there were 78 preschool institutions in Estonia with 3961 children. Out of them 72 were in towns and 6 preschool institutions were in the countryside. The share of preschool institutions owned by local governments had decreased a little (24.4%) (Lepp, 1939). This situation was critisised by a then famous educational scientist Aleksander Elango (1902–2004). Tallinn and Pärnu were the most progressive towns during this period. So, at the end of the 1930s there were 6 kindergartens in Tallinn and 5 in Pärnu, owned by the town government. At the same time there were no state owned preschool institutions in Tartu – there were only private preschool institutions. Some preschool institutions maintained by the town were in Paide, Võru, Põltsamaa, Valga, Haapsalu, Türi and Tapa. In addition to the above-mentioned private preschool institutions, there were also centres sustained by educational, cultural and women’s societies and church and child protection unions. Likewise, to support their employees, textile companies opened preschool institutions in Narva, and oil shale industry in Kohtla-Järve (Lepp, 1939).As a rule, permanent preschool institutions were open from August 20 until June 20. During seasonal work periods such as during the hot summer months, summertime preschool institutions and playgrounds were opened mainly within the premises of the permanent kindergartens. For the purpose of health improvement also primary school students could attend these (Kõivumägi, 1940). The first summer preschool institutions operated already in 1912 in Kilingi-Nõmme in Pärnumaa. One of the reasons why only a limited number of preschool institutions were opened in Estonia during 1918–1940 was the introduction of compulsory six-year primary education (Kiirats & Põld & Tork, 1929, 462). Paul Kogerman, the last Minister of Education during Estonian pre-war independence period, noted in his speech For preschool institutions for their 100th anniversary in 1940 the following: “In spite of the large importance that the preschool institution has in an educational system in society, it has, we have to admit, received less attention than other links such as schools, in this system.“ (Kogerman, 1940, 203–204). Based on the work of preschool institutions, being perceived as educational establishments, these centres came under the management of the Ministry of Education. This has been an important factor in the development of kindergartens in Estonia.
86 Postwar Years 1940–1991 During this period of rapid change in foriegn occupations of Estonia at the beginning of 1940ies, the ownership of preschool institutions changed: from August 1940 all private educational establishments (incl. preschool institutions) were abolished. Subsequently, during German occupation (1941–1944), private preschool institutions were allowed again. When that ended, preschool institutions became state-owned again. The war years were especially hard for the preschool institutions in the capital, when they had to be closed down or evacuated to the countryside. Preschool institutions premises suffered a lot during the bombarding of Tallinn in the autumn of 1941 and especially on 9 March, 1944 (Torm, 1998, 86; TLA f 52, n 1, s 651). Pursuant to the ideology of the superpower that was ruling Estonia, preschool institutions were obliged to celebrate the State anniversaries of the Soviet Union from autumn 1940 (TLA f 403, n 1, s 17). As one of the first professional preschool teachers, Marta Haas (1901–1996) remembered, until the end of this decade, there was a strong national spirit in learning and educational activities (EAM f 295, n 1, s 8). By the end of 1940 there were 104 preschool institutions in Estonia with 5453 children. Mainly, these were preschool institutions for 3–7 year-old children. There were 13 nurseries for children under the age of 3 years with 240 children. By the end of 1950 the total number of preschool institutions was 208, and 81 of them were nurseries, which came under the auspice of the Ministry of Health Care. The total number of children was 7631, of them 30% were children in the nursery age group. In 1950s – during the massive establishment of collective farms – preschool institutions in the countryside rose to the top of the agenda rapidly. In 1951–1955, 2983 places were created in total. From that 2560 places were by the State, cooperatives and organisations and 423 places were by collective farms (Eesti NSV Rahvamajandus 1987. aastal, 1988, 327). If located in the countryside, these preschool institutions had 1–2 groups, and in the towns, preschool institutions had 3–4 groups. A large number of preschool institutions operated in adapted premises. During the post-war years the first new preschool institutions with 4-groups were built in Tallinn at the end of 1950. At the end of the decade a new type of preschool institutions appeared – child day care centres (for 1–7 year-olds), where learning and educational work of nursery and preschool institutions age children came under a uniform system of pedagogical management (Eesti Entsüklopeedia, 1990, 31). From the 1960s onwards, the trend was to establish larger preschool institutions – that could cater for 140 and 280 children. In larger towns, day care centres with 6 as well as 12 groups were built according to a standard project, and later this spread also to smaller towns and town-type rural settlements. The first day care centers with indoor pools were built in Tallinn, Tartu und Pärnu in
87 the beginning of 1970s. Extensive development of industry and production as well as high employment rate of women compared to other Soviet republics of that time caused the need for ever more preschool institution places. Table 1. Development of the network of kindergartens during the years 1960– 1980 (Eesti NSV Rahvamajandus 1987. aastal, 1988, 324). Preschools Institutions 1960 1970 1980 Total 345 644 713 Nurseries (0–3) 101 80 66 Day care centres (1–7) 71 401 509 Preschool institutions (3–7) 173 163 138 Number of children 21 000 58 700 83 500 Gross enrolment rate for age group 1–6 years,% 16 50 63 If we compare this increase between urban and rural settings, the biggest increase was in the countryside. If in 1970 the respective enrolment number of day care centres in rural settings was only 21%, ten years later this figure had already increased to 39%. At the same time the respective day care centres enrolment indicators in urban settlements were 66% and 74%. These trends continued at least until the end of 1987. The total number of preschool institutions in 1987 was 747 and the total number of children in them was 91 300.This enrolment accounted for 70% of children aged 1–6 years attending preschool institutions. The respective figure in town-like settlements was 75% and in the countryside 55% (Eesti NSV Rahvamajandus 1987. aastal, 1988, 324). Although the building of preschool institutions continued, based on previous plans, the number of children in them dropped sharply due to several factors, especially in the countryside. According to published statistics, at the end of 1990, the number of preschools institutions was 767, but the number of children in them had decreased to 81 100. The share of 1–6-year-olds attending preschool institutions compared to the total number of children in the same age group was only 56%, with 68% of these located in urban areas and only 31% based in rural communities (Torm, 2002, 465). A drastic decrease in the birthrate in Estonia that started after the Singing Revolution at the beginning of 1990s and went on until 1998 also impacted on preschool enrolments. The birthrate was in the 1988 – 25 060; 1992 – 18 038; 1995 – 13 509; 1998 – 12 167 (Ibrus, 2007). Years between 1991–2010 The period before and immediately after regaining independence, this time from Soviet Union in 1991 is seen as one of the most difficult times in the develop-
88 ment of the network of preschool institutions in Estonia. Ferdinand Eisen, who held the post of Minister of Education between 1960–1980, declared in 1994: “... as much as possible, social achievements also from the Soviet educational management should be maintained – general availability of education, a widely developed system of preschool establishments, network and availability of extracurricular education, ways of out-of-class and out-of-school activities for students, work with parents etc., the pedagogical value of what can’t be denied due to unacceptable external ideological framework.” (Kolm küsimust endistele haridusministritele, 1994, 3). By that time – 1994 – large-scale changes had taken place in the network of preschool institutions. Appearantly Mr. F. Eisen, not active any more in educational management, was not aware of these developments in detail. Before the restoration of Estonian independence and during its first years modern preschool institutions premises were built, especially in rural areas that the Ministry of Education had planned from the beginning of 1980s together with other ministries and authorities (approx. 40). An important difference existed in the ownership of preschool institutions and schools. Comprehensive schools were state-owned and therefore all were governed and managed by the Ministry of Education. On the other hand, preschool institutions were stateowned as well as enterprise-owned. There were even a little bit more than 50% of the latter. The Ministry of Education maintained control over learning and educational activities in all preschool institutions. The state-owned preschool institutions came under municipal authorities that were financed from the first level local government bodies (rural municipalities, towns, cities). It was not allowed to close down preschool institutions during changes in ownership only based on the wish of a local government (Siimaste, 1991). For example, pursuant to the decision of the Tallinn City Council’s Procedure for real estate transaction in Tallinn from 14 March, 1990, the intended purpose of preschool institutions and hobby schools should not have been changed. At the beginning of the summer of 1991, the Ministry of Education together with the Ministry of Finance sent letters to private owners of child care centres informing them about the transfer of institutions, mainly kindergartens and hobby centres to local governments (Leht, 1992). Several enterprises took advantage of the weakness of the Ministry of Education to control the situation. At the same time there was a lack of support from the central government to the Ministry, because the decision would have gone against new ownership ideology – as the process of privatisation had already started. However, nobody prevented from destroying the, which had functioned well in earleir times. It was written in the Teachers’Paper (1992):
89 ”The network of preschool institutions is one of the best operational parts of the Estonian educational system that is being heartlessly dismantled at the moment……” (Leht, 1992, 3). At the same time, 6-year-old children who were in the compulsory schooling age, had meanwhile come back to the preschool education as the age of compulsory schooling was changed from 6 to 7 years. Preschool institutions had to find a way to survive the retention of children for one more year while accepting new groups of younger children. This was also the time when a new type of institutions – preschools andprimary schools (first in rural areas in Estonia since 1982) were opened e.g. in Tallinn. Today, however, they have all closed down. Between 1990 and 1994, more than 100 preschool institutions were closed all over Estonia (Kultuuri- ja Haridusministeeriumi Aastaraamat, 1994). Accordingly, by January 1, 1994 only 43% of 1–6-year-old children attended a preschool establishment (Kultuuri- ja Haridusministeeriumi Aastaraamat, 1994). Within a few years, the long held vision to establish a network of preschool institutions in the Republic of Estonia was dismantled. Transfer of preschool institutions to local governments without additional financial resources put several local governments in a difficult situation. At the same time, the majority of municipalities had no experience in working with preschool institutions. Several reorganisations of the Ministry of Education and its support structures also decreased the Ministry’s attention to preschool establishments. As Sirje Almann, leader of department for teachers of preschool education and in-service training at Tallinn Pedagogical Seminar claimed in 1996: “We have understood that senior officials are not aware of the importance of early childhood education. The present Minister of Education and Deputy minister have paid no attention to early childhood education during their visits to counties and cities.” (Leht, 1996, 38). Now, more than ten years later, we know that all previous ministers of education have emphasised the importance of early childhood education. The question is what does the term ‘early childhood education’ mean for decision-makers. By the end of 2000 there were 646 preschool institutions in Estonia attended by 50 600 children. Their represent 64% of the total number of 1–6-yearolds, and 77% are located in cities and 43% are in rural communities. Although there was some growth across all age groups, the rate of participation in child care establishments in 1997–2000, in absolute numbers decreased vigorously. At the same time there was also a tendency for parents to enrol very young children in preschool institutions. Accordingly, during 1995 to 2003 the share of oneyear-olds increased from 6% to 14% (Statistikaamet, 2004). Likewise, between 1995 and 2004 the share of two-year-olds attending a preschool institutions in the total age group increased from 38% to 56% (Eesti Statistika Aastaraamat,
90 2005, 63). By the end of 2004 there were 600 preschool institutions in Estonia with 52 900 children. This formed 70% of the total number of 1 to 6-year old children. So, the same level of enrolment, noted almost 20 years ago, has been reached again. But there is an important difference in the number of preschool age children, its relative share in the population dropped sharply (Eesti Statistika Aastaraamat, 2005, 63). By 1 January, 2009 there were 637 preschool institutions in Estonia including nurseries, preschools, special preschools, preschools-primary schools, preschools-compulsory schools. There were 62 100 children attending these establishments, and the share of children in establishments from the total age group of 1 to 6 year olds was 74%. In terms of the 3 to 6 year age group, these children accounted for 90% of this population (Eesti Statistika Aastaraamat, 2009, 71). In 1940, Elli Järvekülg, the Chairwoman of the Estonian Preschool Teachers’ Association (1932–1940) wrote: “Monitoring of preschool institution development convinced us that educational work in preschool institutionsbears an important educational role and, therefore, would need more attention and systematic organisation in our general educational system.” (Järvekülg, 1940, 235). This remark is very topical also at the beginning of the 21st century when the future of early childhood education is being designed for the Republic of Estonia.
2. Development of professional training of preschool teachers. 2.1. Years 1840–1918. The founders of first nurseries for infants were mainly Germans or German societies. As parents of native origin, especially in towns, had to work in several jobs, children of Estonians needed care during that time (Annist, 2000, 105). Today, these centres are known as private preschool institutions. There were also problems in manors in the countryside, as work of women was also needed there. Unfortunately there is still insufficient information concerning the establishment of nurseries and playschools in manors. Where do early childhood teachers come from? Who is a preschool teacher? As Järvekülg (1940) wrote, in the 1860s public awareness and understanding of a preschool teacher’s work was comparatively limited, often strange and unknown. However, we should doubt that the Infant Teachers’ School (Väikelaste Õpetajate Kool) was founded in 1863 by the Deaconess’ Society as the society itself was founded in 1867. The first references that a professional preschool teacher started working in the preschool institution of Eestimaa Abiandmiseselts (Estonian Support Society) which was founded in 1862, comes
91 from 1866 by Babette Pfrunder (Terri & Sõerd & Kurm, 1962). The Progressive German Society leaders sent German young ladies living in Estonia to study in Germany. According to these records, the first professional Estonian preschool teacher might be Lisa Rütel, who returned from her studies in 1897 (Terri & Sõerd & Kurm, 1962).In the vision of one of the first Estonian professional philosophers, Alfred Koort (1901–1956), one of the cornerstones of Froebel’s pedagogy is the principle of unity between a human being, nature and God. Froebel considered unity and harmony the most noble aim of mankind, and it was the task of the teachers, the leaders of people who lead us there (Koort, 1940). This resulted in the need to start preparing the so-called pioneers – or teachers-leaders, with the aim to introduce the operation of a special toy series for preschool children – known as “the gifts” and developed by Froebel. He organised 6-month training courses for preschool teachers, and these were especially actively attended between in 1848 to 1850 (Loddes, 2005, 16). So, thanks to Froebel, the knowledge and understanding of the need to have trained preschool teachers as professionals was established. He also invited young ladies, as well as young men to attend his preschool teacher courses in order to better prepare them for future family life. Available data show that J. von Stackelberg, who had received respective pedagogical training in Germany, was the first to start training of preschool teachers in Estonia independently. In 1870, the German Preschool Teacher Training College started its activities under her leadership in Käru (Kerro) manor (Järvekülg, 1940). The classes were run in the German language and encapsulated a German spirit. Several Estonian girls, among them Elise Tölp, who was a long-time manager of Tallinn Infants’ Care Society between 1894–1926, received their professional education at the Kerro Infants Care Establishment. At the end of the 19th century, these Estonian girls who graduated from a Girls’ High School (of course, these were not in their mother tongue) were considered to be qualified as home tutors. This enabled them to work as educators in a family, often abroad. There is some evidence in the biography of poetess Anna Haava that she worked as a preschool teacher in one of Tartu’s preschool institutions in the middle of 1880s (Eesti Kirjarahva Leksikon, 1965, 101). Also poetess Marie Under and her two sisters were also considered to be in the profession of preschool teachers. Miss Marie had attended a Beiersdorf (Beyersdorf) course at the beginning of the 20th century and worked one summer as a preschool teacher in one small manor Vääna near Keila, where she was selected from other girls of the same age after several tests (Rajamaa, 1983, 10). Vääna manor belonged to Baron Otto Magnus von Stackelberg, an archaeologists and an outstanding man of his time (1786–1837). In Tallinn, the Infant Teachers’ School of the Deaconess Society functioned for a couple of decades until 1917. Teaching courses at this institution were both theoretical as well as practical and Froebel’s philosophy had a central
92 place: it was used as the foundational methodology of teaching infants and the way of to direct students’ orientation to work in the kindergartens. Students came from Tallinn and outside (Terri jt, 1962). The number of students enrolled at any one time kept changing. So, in 1899 there were 7 students and by, 1914 there were 5, and after that the number decreased even more (TLA f 1378 n 1). It has not been possible to establish the exact number of its graduates. In Tartu, a higher educational establishment under the leadership of Elly Schütze was opened in 1907 and it was known as the Tartu German Froebel’s College. Teaching was based on scientific knowledge of child development of those days and it focused on the care of infants. Besides the development of the girls’ intellectual abilities the College considered it important to develop practical aspects as well as artistic and female talents. Art education formed an important part of studies, especially music and drawing, painting and modelling. The College had its own preschool for the trainees. Already in her youth, Miss Schütze, the director of the College had been interested in the problems of women’s education that, in her opinion, it needed reform. In 1904 she went to Berlin to see the Pestalozzi-Froebel Haus (Zum 5 jährigen Bestehen des Deutschen Froebel-Seminars Dorpat, 1913, 3–15). At the beginning of the 20th century it can be seen from the above discussion that there were no preschool teachers trained in the Estonian language. In the III public meeting of the Estonian Educational Societies on April 1, 1909, Mrs Alla Kuusik admitted when talking about general educational issues of girls that besides the managers of handicraft schools and physical education teachers there were also no managers for preschool institutions due to the absence of respective training colleges (Eesti Haridusseltside Aastaraamat, 1909, 25). More generally, the speech touched upon the issue where women could find work in the circumstances of the present time. The Tartu Estonian Preschool Society (or TELS) that was founded in 1905 in order to promote education in one’s mother tongue from a very early age, understood the need to train Estonian girls in Estonian for the profession of a preschool teacher. Estonian preschool needed teachers who spoke their mother tongue and understood Estonian mind. When in 1910 the Society built a new preschool house on the ruins of an old Vanemuine Society house in 14 Jaama Street, a preschool teacher called Veronika Tarrask, who had received her professional qualification in Finland, opened a course based on the PestalozziFroebel methodology. In 1911–1915, when Salme Kiviväli was the head of the preschool, at least 40 Estonian girls received training for working in a preschool. Accordingly, during the first 5 years over 50 girls completed their preschool teacher training at this institution (Tartu Lasteaia Selts 1905–1935, 1935, 12– 13). The same kind of training in Tallinn was started some years later in a preschool institution of a branch society of ERS preschool at 4 Roosikrantsi Street
93 (Torm, 2000). So, since 1910 preschool with instruction in mother tongue became a training centre for future preschool teachers. This also marks the start of national training of preschool teachers. 2.2. Years 1918–1940. Since the first days of the Republic of Estonia established in 1918 the main focus of planning national education was the development of national schools. That resulted also in the need to prepare primary school teachers as the share of teachers without teaching qualification was estimated at 40% of the profession. At first, pedagogical courses at teacher training colleges were orgnised. The first teacher training colleges that were opened again from 1919 were in Tartu, Rakvere, Tallinn and later in Võru and Haapsalu (Eisen, 1990). The need to start training professional preschool teachers in a special educational establishment was considered necessary at the state level. So, by the order of the Estonian Ministry of Education from December 1919, the Tartu Preschool Teacher Training College was opened at Tartu Teacher Training College with joint academic staff beginning on the 20th of January, 1920 (Kiirats & Põld & Tork, 1929, 462). There was also a plan to open a Preschool Teacher Training College in Tallinn (Kasvatus, 1919, 52), but this did not come into being. The training curriculum for preschool teachers was compiled by C.H. Niggol, a teacher in pedagogy and handicraft (Elango, 1991). Although the preliminary course was planned to cover two years at the College, the first graduates studied in Tartu for 1.5 years, and the rest only for a year. The College had its own preschool institution for trainees governed by Maria Niggol, a daughter of Niggol (Kiirats jt, 1929, 462). In 1920–1927 in total 85 girls acquired professional qualifications of preschool teachers, who, in spite of a short study time, recieved quite a thorough education for that time. Niggol was a committed supporter of Froebel’s pedagogy, as well as that of Montessori principles of sensory development, which he presented to students. It is a remarkable fact that a professional certificate from 1921 stated: “…/a graduate/ has acquired the rights of a preschool teacher profession and belongs to the same salary rank as graduates of the Teacher Training Colleges.” (Torm, 1998, Lisa 3) Accordingly, preschool teachers and primary school teachers were considered equal in their salary ranks. However, in reality, salaries of preschool teachers remained lower than those of primary school teachers. As few preschools were opened due to the above-mentioned reasons, it was difficult for these graduates to find a permanent job. Therefore, since 1927 the admission of girls with a secondary education was finished (Kiirats jt, 1929, 462) and this also meant the end of training of these specialists at the state level.
94 For decades, several graduates of this College became the developers of our preschool education in the 20th century. From the times of the Republic of Estonia Ella Treffner (1890–1969) is the best-known, from 1940 she had to withdraw from pedagogical activities due to ideological reasons as her educational principles were not acceptable for the new authorities. From the graduates of the first year, Marta Haas (1901–1996) was also known at that time, and she was a practioner and a trainer until 1946. In the second half of the century the graduates of the last year of the College such as Meeta Terri (1906–1993) and Eva Lootsar (1907–1987) became well known (Torm, 1998). Another graduate, Õilme Ploompuu, a daughter of a bookmerchant Jakob Ploompuu, studied at the Teacher Training College of Columbia University in New York in 1927–1929, where she acquired a Bachelor’s Degree (TLA f 52, n 2, s 2058). She was the second Estonian besides Hilda Taba (1902–1967) who had studied educational sciences in the USA and continued her studies at a postgraduate level in the field of child and parent education until 1932. However until now, no proof has been found concerning her acquisition of a Master’s degree. In 1926, preschool teacher education courses at Tallinn Young Womens Christian Association (TYWCA) started under the leadership of Maria Barhov (1874–?). The aim was to develop these courses into a college (TLA f 52, n 2, s 126). Girls from different nationalities attended these fees paying courses and received a respective certificate attesting completion of the course. The course curriculum was varied and instruction was theoretical as well as practical. Traineeship was carried out in different institutions such as specialised preschool institutions, orphanages for infants, hospitals, and with families. Froebel’s educational methods in theory and practice formed the basis for educational sciences, at the same time also the Montessori principles of sensory development became familiar to students (TLA f 52, n 2, s 418, 436). As many teachers did not master the state language, the School Government of the Ministry of Education did not register the courses for a school. The courses were closed in 1935. The exact number of students passing the courses is not known, but there might have been approximately 80 students. Well-known preschool teachers of that time included Ella Suits nee Järvekülg (1903–1977), Agnes Piirma (1914–1991), Helga Kriiel (1913–1996), and Ella Pross (1913–1997). In 1907–1913 Maria Barhov worked as a primary school teacher in Elfriede Lender’s Private Secondary School for girls. After closing down the courses for preschool teachers in TYWCA in 1935 she started to cooperate again with Elfriede Lender (1882–1974). In 1930–1932 M. Barhov was also the teacher of local history and general education. On September 20, 1935 M. Barhov was approved as a preschool teacher in the private preschool of the private secondary school. As the issue of professional education for girls was a topical issue in the agenda at that time, it was decided to start with courses for preschool teachers
95 in the brand new building of this private educational establishment at Kreutzwald Street from 1st of September 1935. (TLA f 52, n 2, s 126) The aim was to create a private teacher training college for preschool teachers; its start-up process took a long time to establish with the Ministry of Education giving permission to open a teacher training college from 1st of September 1937. The establishment was financed by the Foundation E. Lender’s Private Secondary School for Girls. Pursuant to the general rules of the statutes of E. Lender’s Private Teacher Training College for Preschool Teachers its task was to prepare girls to work with families, orphanages, preschools, playgrounds, summer camps and other establishments (TLA f 298, n 1, s 197). Pursuant to the statutes of the College the following positions existed in the College: the Head of the college, teachers and a general practitioner. Persons with higher education in the teaching profession could teach pedagogical subjects, and professional preschool teachers were tutors for preschool traineeship. The curriculum of the College was in every respect modern, if we take the circumstances of that time into account. For example, the curriculum included child psychology, and educational philosophy that did not exist earlier. With the outbreak of World War II, the private college was closed down at the same time with the private secondary school in the summer of 1940 (Torm, 1998, 94–97). Among others, Õilme PloompuuVan Nest (1905–1995?) and Stella Ernesaks (1909–1973) worked as teachers in the early childhood speciality in the College. The latter graduated from the Berlin Physical Education University in 1931 and was one of the first female physical education teachers with higher education in Estonia. Officially, only two cohorts of students graduated from the College in 1938 and 1939. From the first year of graduates, Salme-Annus Juhani (1913–2010) lived in Tallinn and Meta Tonkmann-Lender (born in 1915) lives still in Stockholm. Among others, is Juta Tomingas (1920–2003), the well-known head of a preschool from Tallinn who graduated from the College in 1939. In the 1930s the Estonian Women’s Association (EWA) vigorously raised the question of improvement of professional education for women and started to develop a new educational establishment. So, the Rosa Ploom-Reite Private Professional School for Women in 1935, was replaced by the Professional School of the Estonian Women’s Association. At first a basic class was opened with a special class in home economics with one year of study time. An Institute of Home Economics of EWA that was opened in 1937 and that was directed by Marie Reisik (1887–1941), a well-known leader of the women’s movement from 1936, and it was a new type of a socio-pedagogical professional school at a higher stage. In 1937 a class for home-tutors or infant caregivers was opened there, in addition to a social welfare branch that was opened in a pervious year. This was a completely new speciality in the whole region. In the autumn of 1939 a class for preschool teachers together with a traineeship-preschool was opened.
96 This operated in the most modern school building of the Baltic countries at 8 Hariduse Street that was completed in spring of the same year (Eesti Entsüklopeedia, 2003, 79). Head of the traineeship preschool was Eva Lootsar. Also in this private educational establishment there were all the preconditions for the training of future preschool teachers to be at a modern level.To sum up, since 1927, the State had no initiatives in training preschool teachers in Estonia. In 1931, preschool teachers from Pärnu themselves raised that question with the Ministry of Education and Social Affairs, but the guestion was unsolved. Development of specialised educational establishments were started by private initiative since 1935 (Torm, 1998, 121). 2.3. Years 1940–2010. Estonia’s incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1940 brought about many changes in the entire education system. As already mentioned, all private educational establishments were closed down in the summer of 1940. Preschool teachers received training in the Tallinn Social and Home Economics Institute, in the educational establishment of a higher levelthat was opened on 7th August, 1940. Also young people who had started their studies in E. Lender’s Private Teacher Training College for Preschool Teachers in the autumn of 1939 continued their studies there. A sociologist Dagmar Jürgenson (1899–1983), who had studied the speciality in Zurich, was appointed as the Head of the Tallinn Social and Home Economics Institute (Kiitam, 1998, 6). Partly, the pedagogical staff of the Institute came from the previous establishment. Due to the specific features of the school (social work and pedagogy, home economics, educational sciences) the best professional teachers wanted to join this Institute as lecturers. On 30 May, 1941 during WW II, the first preschool teachers graduated from the Tallinn Social and Home Economics Institute. These graduates started their professional life and work in extremely difficult situations including changes of armed occupation of Europe, war destruction and deportation. These were the 1940s in Estonia. But for young people, it was also the time to start a family life. They could work together with preschool teachers from an older generation to learn from them and develop themselves. Among some of the remarkable personalities from that year of graduates were Anna Mirka (1905– 2008), Liina Raudsik (1912–2010), Gerda Lukk (1921–2007), Linda Lilleaas (b. 1921) and etc, who for decades, have contributed to the promotion of preschool education in the 20st century in Estonia. In 1941, in Tartu Lea Nurkse (1904–1960) led another attempt to train preschool teachers in the Tartu Preschool Teacher Training College. Complicated political situation in the country dictated the length of studies that to be only six months or half a year. On 3 June, 1941 the graduates received their professional
97 certificates. On a photo one can see among the graduates in the front row Jüri Parijõgi (1892–1941), the director of Tartu Teacher Training College at that time. He was one of the first victims of Soviet mass murder on July 9, 1941. Educational Directorate (1941–1944) during the German occupation of Estonia, agreed that the work in the Tallinn Social and Home Econimics Institute could continue and the graduates were sent to the Mutual Assistance of Estonian Nation (MAEN) (Eesti Rahva Ühisabi or ERÜ) to work (Kiitam 1998, 15) (MAEN=an organisation offering help 1941–1944) They had to move out of their beautiful school building as this was given to the army for their use (Kiitam 1998, 4). As the situation of children and families was difficult during and after the war, new opportunities had to be found to open child care establishments such as preschool and orphanages. But there was a lack of suitably qualified teaching staff. MAEN organised courses for preschool teachers, lecturers were teachers of the Institute as well as preschool teachers-practitioners. Elts Mägi was appointed as the leader of the course, and teaching staff included Marta Haas, GP. Maria Ambros, Ella Treffner, Herta Toone, Ella Susi, Lea Nurkse, and Õilme Van Nest (Torm, 1998, 41). Since 1944, the name of the establishment that has trained preschool teachers has been repeatedly changed as indicated: Institute for Preschool Teachers and Special Nutrition (1944); Tallinn Technical School for Nutrition and Preschool Education (1945); Tallinn Teacher Training College (1945–1947); Tallinn Preschool Education College (1947–1950); Tallinn Preschool Education School (1950); Tallinn Preschool Education Pedagogical School (1950–1964); Tallinn Preschool Education School (1964–1966); Tallinn School of Pedagogics (1966–1986); and Tallinn Pedagogical School (1986) (Tallinna Pedagoogikakool aastail 1937–1993, 1994, 60). From 1995, the school was named as Tallinn Pedagogical Seminar (TPS). The School has also repeatedly changed its location, because it had no school building of its own until 1966. A long-time director of the School employed during 1951–1973, Leida Kokk (1905–2004), fought for the building of it. So, the School operated as a sublessee by other educational establishments, and this made the organisation of studies difficult. The school has worked in the following addresses: 3 Hariduse Street; 4 Kevade Street; 8 Tõnismägi Street; 12/14 Tõnismägi Street; and 41 Narva Road. By now the school has been able to operate for over 40 years in its present building that was built according to a typical school building design at 49 Räägu Street (Tallinna Pedagoogikakool aastail 1937–1993, 1994, 14–26). At the moment, this is the oldest institution in Estonia that has trained preschool teachers continuously. Also music and primary school teachers have been trained there (since 1976 and 1982 respectively), but this work has now finished. Social workers are trained in the educational establishment (1990) again and a new speciality is youth work specialists has also commenced since 1992. Mare Peil was the director of the School for a
98 couple of decades since 1986. Adult education and early childhood education methodology office was opened at the School in 1991 and that was formed on the basis of the staff of the previous National Preschool Education Methodology Centre coming together with its manager Sirje Almann. At present, the School has the status of a university of applied higher education and is managed by Rector Koit Nõlvak. The TPS has good contacts with its graduates. After regained independence, the first state-wide early childhood education conferences took place at the TPS. During the past few years a publication series called Tea ja Toimeta (Know and Act) for kindergartens has been published in cooperation with the publishing house Ilo, which amalgamated with the publishing house Tea in 2008. In 1972, Rakvere Pedagogical School started its activities, because the rapid expansion of the preschool network, especially in 1970s increased the need for preschool teachers. The predecessor of the School was Rakvere Economic Technical School that has operated since 1958. As a result of the reorganisation, a new speciality was opened aimed at providing preschool education for graduates of the 8th grade, and later for graduates of secondary schools. As in all earlier establishments, theoretical studies were complemented with practice in a preschool. Preschool in and around Rakvere provided traineeship places. Since 1992 the School trained early childhood caregivers and social workers for schools. Rakvere Pedagogical School was for a long time led by director Helle Ütt and it existed until 1 September, 2001. In 1999, a field of study giving secondary specialised education separated from it and joined Tallinn Pedagogical University (TPU). On the basis of Rakvere Pedagogical School and Mõdriku Agricultural Technical School Lääne-Virumaa Vocational Higher Educational Establishment was formed in 2001. (Eesti Entsüklopeedia, 2003, 467). So, since 1999 Rakvere College of Tallinn University trains preschool teachers at a Bachelor level, the director of the College is Kalle Karron. It is necessary to look again outside Estonia when talking about training of kindergarten teachers with higher professional education in the second half of the 20th century. The closest higher educational establishment where it was possible to acquire higher education in the speciality of preschool education was in Leningrad or today known as St. Petersbourg. The first specialists with higher education, graduates from the Leningrad State Institute of Pedagogy named after A.I. Herzen started to work in the Tallinn Pedagogical School for Preschool Education. These graduates from Leningrad, the specialists with higher education became teachers of preschool education and methodology. They were Elvira Modebadze (1949), Evi Heinrichsen (1954) and Ester Vee (1955). For their studies in Leningrad they were required to participate in a general competition that meant they had to compete with potential students all over the former Soviet Union.
99 Thanks to an initiative of the Ministry of Education it was possible to apply for places outside the competition in this institute from the beginning of 1960s, both as daytime and corresponding study students. So, in 1962, there were 5 daytime and 10 corresponding study places. One of the initiators of this was Linda Lilleaas, a long-time senior officer in the Ministry of Education, who herself also started to study in a corresponding course. Looking back now, this was one of the most ideal versions of training preschool teachers for Estonia. At that time highly-educated teachers taught at the Institute. Based on the network connections at that time there was a strong school in Leningrad known as the stronghold of Froebel’s theory similar to Western-Europe that valued the leading activity of preschool age, – children’s play. Already in 1894 M. Barhov acquired the profession of a kindergarten teacher in St. Petersbourg in the courses of the Froebel Association. In 1966, Tiiu Peterson, Mare Peil, Haldi Leinus, Sirje Kala and Tiiu Kolk acquired professional higher education in fulltime studies in Leningrad. A year later, in 1967, Linda Lilleaas, Eevi Salm, Hille Suursalu, Evi Nõmme, Imbi Muhel, Helgi Sarapuu, Mare Rabbi and Maret Peit graduated from the university by corresponding studies program. Asta Rohtla graduated some years before them. In the immediate past, especially preschool teachers from Narva and KohtlaJärve and also mainly Russian-speaking teachers in Tallinn used this opportunity for studies. The exact number of Estonian graduates who came through this Institute is not known. Relationships between preschool teachers of Leningrad and Estonia have always been friendly and professional thanks to common roots that in recent years have been valued and renewed again. The aristocratic city of St. Petersbourg with its rich cultural heritage is well known as is their professional orientation to education. Sadly, the problem today is that due to the lack of language skills, professional literature in Russian is rarely read by Estonians. There was an understanding in Estonia that professional staff of preschool institution shall be trained in the Republic. On 1 September, 1967 the speciality of preschool pedagogy and psychology was opened at the Tallinn Pedagogical Institute, it was possible to attend full time or correspondence studies. At first the speciality was taught at the Chair of Pedagogy and Psychology (1967–1968), then at the Chair of Primary Education (1968–1973). In 1974 two separate Chairs were opened: the Chair of Primary Education (Head of the Chair Associate Professor Eha Hiie (1937) and the Chair of Preschool Education (Head of the Chair Associate Professor Paul Kees (1917–2008) (25 aastat kõrgharidusega lasteaednike koolitamist, 1992, 3). The establishment of an independent Professorial Chair facilitated thorough research into the specificity of the speciality, organisation of study plans, popularisation of the speciality, increase in the qualification of academic staff and expansion of research in the field. From 1st
100 of September 1976 the Faculty of Pedagogy was formed on the basis of these two Chairs (30 aastat kõrgkoolis, 1997, 6–8). In 1979–1992, the Head of the Faculty was Associate Professor Taimi Tulva (b. 1940) under her leadership the Chair of Preschool Education became the leading research centre of the respective field in Estonia. At that time the Estonian Research Institute of Education mainly dealt with the problems of training the 6 year-olds for school, which was one of the research themes. In that way the mentioned themes were related to the field of preschool education. Estonia was the only Soviet Republic in the former Soviet Union that did not have a special institution focussing on research dealing with preschool education. Already during the 1960–70s Estonia had hosted international conferences on an initiative of the Ministry of Education (in today’s context with the participants from the former Soviet Socialist Republics), an international conference was organised in Tallinn in 1982 ”About the development of school maturity of children“ with main organisers from the Chair of Preschool education and which found large response (30 aastat kõrgkoolis, 1992, 12). Teachers of the Chair, who were 16 in number (14.5 work units) as of 1 September, 1991 (25 aastat..., 1992, 3), were united in research by a common research topics, such as school maturity, the role of preschool education, children’ play and the problems of modernisation of the content of preschool education (30 aastat kõrgkoolis, 1997, 11–12). Since 1993, the number of speciality teachers in the Chair decreased remarkably. In 1997 there were only 5 teachers in the Chair (30 aastat kõrgkoolis, 1997, 83). Through years, the name of the speciality and duration of studies focusing on the training of kindergarten teachers have changed. In 1996, the graduates of the speciality received for the first time in history the degree of Baccalaureus Artium in Educational Sciences. At the same time post-graduate studies were opened by the Chair. Since 2002 the speciality of early childhood education teacher and the speciality of early childhood teacher-counsellor at a post-graduate level were opened (3+2 curriculum). The first persons to defend their Master Thesis in educational sciences (M.A.) in the field of preschool education were Sirje Almann (1995) as well as Mare Torm and Juta Tubin (1998). Training of preschool education teachers at a higher educational level has now expanded also to Tartu University. Until now the statistics have showed that preschool education teachers with higher education were mainly graduates of one higher educational establishment (TPEDI; TPU), this is not accurate any longer. When in 1995 the share of preschool teachers with higher education was 20.9%, then in 2001 the respective figure was 25.6% (Torm, 2002, 465). Today the difficulties of finding qualified pedagogical staff continue to be a big problem for kindergartens. This has been a problem for decades ever since the kindergarten network started to widen since the 1970s. Looking back, we
101 have to admit that in connection with closing down preschools in 1990s lots of preschool teachers were forced to leave their profession and find employment elsewhere. Today low salary levels of preschool teachers is one of the challenges of attracting people to this profession. Leaders of preschools say that advertised positions attract very few applicants for the jobs. This happens in big towns, but the situation in the countryside is especially complicated as the number of those studying to become a preschool teacher is sadly inadequate. They are so few to replace the retiring colleagues. At the same time it should be mentioned that even a large number of students in different forms of study at universities are not able to solve the shortage of preschool teachers. Another problem is the fact that all teachers, including kindergarten teachers in Estonia are aging and as many will retire soon, replacement is badly needed. At the same time, social guarantees for preschool teachers are important. Preschool teachers were the first ones in the educational system to feel the inequity in salaries due to the transfer of preschool institutions to municipal ownership. The Article 27 of the Pre-School Establishments Act stipulates: the remuneration issue of preschool teachers is defined by the local authorities and so far it has not been reglated by the State. Although the remuneration level of preschool teachers has been raised substantially, the differences between counties have stayed. This is an indicator of society’s attitudes and low value of a preschool teacher’s work, and this can, in turn, influence the education of the next generation of citizens. In conclusion it can be claimed that historical development of preschools in Estonia during different periods of history has followed a complicated path. The existence of preschools within a community is a sign of a developed society. The preschool institutions as childrearing and educational establishments can not be attributed those negative phenomena resulting from society and people’s personal experience. Families, children and preschool institutions are inseparable concepts today. Mutual trust and supportive communication are beneficial for both professionals and parents, and all in all, the whole society wins through positive preschool experiences. The status of preschool teachers in society depends on all of us but also from the quality of the legislative policies and legal acts concerning the work of preschool teachers. Decision-makers must understand and become aware of the influence of their decisions in examining various links in the chain of responsibilities for children’s care and education. Although all political parties declare the importance of early childhood education in general educational policy, their understanding of the content of early childhood education is quite different. Over times the prevailing majority of preschool teachers have done their professional job in the best possible way, they have been keen to learn and have valued education and erudition. Preschools have a more meaningful role to fulfil in society today than we have thought so far. Estonian preschool institutions and kin-
102 dergarten teachers are dedicated promoters of a culture of education in our society. References Published sources Annist, S. (2000). Väikelaste Hoiuasutus – Tallinna esimene lasteaed? [Care establishment for infants – the first kindergarten in Tallinn] Rmt. R. Pullat (Toim.) Vana Tallinn X (XIV). Tallinn: Estopol, 104–112. Eesti Entsüklopeedia (1990). [Estonian Encyclopaedia] 5. kd. Tallinn: Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus. Eesti Entsüklopeedia (2003). [Estonian Encyclopaedia] 12. kd. Tallinn: Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus. Eesti Haridusseltside Aastaraamat (1909). [Annual report of Estonian Educational Societies]. Tartu: Postimees. Eesti Kirjanduse Leksikon (1965). [Lexicon of Estonian Literature]. Tallinn. Eesti NSV Rahvamajandus 1986. aastal. (1987). [National economy in Estonian SSR in 1986]. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat. Eesti NSV Rahvamajandus 1987. aastal. (1988). [National economy in Estonian SSR in 1987]. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat. Eesti statistika aastaraamat 2005. (2005). [Annual report of statistics in Estonia]. Tallinn: Statistikaamet. Eisen, F. (1990). Algkooliõpetajate ettevalmistamisest Eestis [Preparation of primary school teachers in Estonia]. Haridus, 6, 46–48. Elango, A. (1991). Ühest unustatud pedagoogist. 140 aastat C.H. Niggoli sünnist [About one forgotten educationalist. 140 years from the birth of C.H. Niggol]. Haridus, 10, 46–48. Erning, G. & Neumann, K. & Reyer, J. (Hrsg.) Geschichte des Kindergartens. Band I. Freiburg: Lambertus. Ibrus, K. (2007, jaanuar 23). Gümnaasiume tabab selle aasta sügisest õpilaste põud. [Since fall there will be considerably fewer students at high schools]. Päevaleht. Järvekülg, E. (1940). Lasteaiad ja lastepäevakodud Eestis. Nende areng ja praegune seisukord [Kindergartens and day care establishments in Estonia. Their development and status today]. Eesti Kool, 4, 229–235. Karjahärm, T. & Sirk, V. (1997). Eesti haritlaskonna kujunemine ja ideed 1850– 1917 [Formation and ideas of Estonian intellectuals in 1850–1917]. Tallinn: Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus. Lasteaednikkude Seminar. (1919). [Kindergarten Teacher Training College]. Kasvatus, 2, 52.
103 25 aastat kõrgharidusega lasteaednike koolitamist. (1992). [25 years of training preschool teachers with higher education]. Tallinn: Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikool. Kinkar, F. (1996). Eesti haridusseltside ajaloost [About the history of Estonian educational associations]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Kiitam, A. (1998). Südame ja mõistusega [With heart and mind]. Tallinn: Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikool. Kiirats, M. & Põld, P. & Tork, J. (1929). Tartu Õpetajate Seminar 1828–1928. [Tartu Teacher Training College 1828–1928] Tartu: Postimees. Kogerman, P. (1940). Lasteaedadele nende 100 aasta juubeliks [For kindergartens for their 100th anniversary]. Eesti Kool, 4, 203–204. Kolm küsimust endistele haridusministritele. (1994). [Three questions to the Ministers of Education]. Haridus, 2, 2–6. 30 aastat kõrgkoolis. (1997) [30 years in a higher educational establishment]. Ü. Saarits (Koost.). Tallinn: TPÜ Kirjastus. Koort, A. (1940). Fröbeli pedagoogika põhimõtted ja nende maailmavaatelised eeldused [Main principles of Froebel’s pedagogy and their ideological prerequisites]. Kasvatus, 5, 193–205. Kõivumägi, J. (1940). Suviste lasteaedade võrk peaks laienema [The network of summer preschool institutions should expand]. Eesti Kool, 5, 288–290. Leht, V. (1992, oktoober 3). Seadus on, kuid sellele vilistatakse [Legal act exists, but they don’t give a damn about it]. Õpetajate Leht. Leht, V. (1996). Missugune haridus peaks olema lasteaiakasvatajal [What kind of education a preschool teacher should have]? Kooliuuenduslane, 4, 32– 38. Lepp, A. (1928). Lasteaiad 1923–1927.a. [Preschool institutions in 1923–1927]. Eesti Statistika. Kuukiri. August, 8, 471–478. Lepp, A. (1939). Lasteaiad 1937/38.a. [Preschool institutions in 1937–1938]. Eesti Statistika 1939. Nr 206 (1)–217 (12), 251–254. Tallinn. Rajamaa, H. (1983). Marie Under inimesena [Marie Under as a person]. Stockholm. Siimaste, E. (1991, veebruar 2). Lasteaed uuenevas ühiskonnas [Preschool in a reforming society]. Õpetajate Leht. Tallinna Pedagoogikakool aastail 1937–1993. (1994). [Tallinn Pedagogical School in 1937–1993]. Õ. Haavik (Koost.). Tallinn: Tallinna Pedagoogikakool. Tartu Lasteaia Selts 1905–1935. (1935). [Tartu Kindergarten Society]. Tartu: Tartu Lasteaia Seltsi Kirjastus. Terri, M. & Sõerd, J. & Kurm, H. (1962, detsember 30). Sada aastat on seljataga [One hundred years is behind us]. Nõukogude Õpetaja. Torm, M. (2000). Mõnda Tallinna lasteaedade ajaloost [Some things about the history of preschools in Tallinn]. Haridus, 1, 56–58.
104 Torm, M. (2002). Koolieelne kasvatus [Preschool education]. Rmt. A. Raukas (Peatoim.). Eesti Entsüklopeedia, 11. Tallinn: Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus, 464–466. Torm, M. (2005). Tallinna Linna Haridusosakonna tegevusest 1918–1940 [Activities of the Educational Department of the City of Tallinn in 1918– 1940]. Rmt. V. Maanso (Koost.) Eesti Pedagoogika ja Kool LVII, 193–204. Zum 5 jährigen Bestehen des Deutschen Froebel-Seminars in Dorpat. (1913). Dorpat. Unpublished sources Estonian History Museum (EHM) EAM f 295, n 1, s 8 Tallinn City Archive (TCA) TLA f 52, n 1, s 651 TLA f 52, n 2, s 126, 418, 436, 2058 TLA f 82, n 1, s 94 TLA f 298, n 1, s 197 TLA f 403, n 1, s 17 TLA f 1378, n 1 Archival Museum of Estonian Educational Culture (AM EEC) Loddes, A. (2005). FR.W.A. FRÖBEL – koolieelse kasvatuse teoreetik ja pedagoog [FR.W.A. FROEBEL – theoretitian of pre-school education and pedagogue]. [Bakalaureusetöö]. Tallinna Ülikooli eelkoolipedagoogika õppetool. EPAM K42175. Torm, M. (1998). Lasteaednike koolitus kuni 1940. aastani ja lasteaednike pedagoogiline tegevus. Eesti lasteaednikest läbi aegade [Training of kindergarten teachers until 1940 and pedagogical activities of preschool teachers. Estonian preschool teachers through times]. Käsikiri. EPAM K36413.
105
Development of the Field of Preschool Education in Tallinn University Marika Veisson, Paul Kees, Taimi Tulva, And Maie Vikat Tallinn University, Estonia The quality and content of preschool education is determined by preschool teachers’ scholarship, professionalism and competence in educational sciences. This chapter gives an overview of the field’s development and current status at Tallinn University in Estonia. On 1 September 1967, Tallinn Pedagogical Institute opened the speciality of preschool education and psychology; students were admitted for both full time and part time learning. In the beginning (academic years 1967/1968 and 1968/1969) this speciality was taught at the department of education and psychology. Starting from the academic year 1969/1970 until 1973 preschool education and psychology belonged to the chair of primary pedagogy and psychology. 1 September 1974 was crucial in the history of the field because of the appointment of the Chair of Preschool Education. It began as an independent academic unit, under the leadership of assistant professor Paul Kees. The importance given to preschool education in the educational policies of those days enabled the development of the field, to broaden research activities, organise curricula, and renew the content of preschool studies. The name of the field and the duration of studies have changed over the years as can be seen in the following outline of major developments at Tallinn University: • 1967–1990 Preschool Education and Psychology (4 years) • 1987–1992 Preschool Education and Psychology (5 years) • 1988–1994 Preschool Education and Psychology (4.5 years) • 1990–1995 Preschool Pedagogy and Psychology (4 years) • 1992–1996 Preschool Education and Psychology (4 years) 1996 – For the first time in the history of the field, the graduates received the baccalaureus artium degree in educational sciences. • 1993–1997 Pre-Primary and Primary School Teacher (4 years) • 1994–1998 Pre-Primary and Primary School Teacher with child psychology speciality (4 years) • 1995–2002 Pre-primary and Primary School Teacher (5 years) • 1998–2005 Educational Sciences, specialisation as a Pre-primary and Primary school teacher (4 years) • The education of students who finished in those years has been equalised with a Master’s degree. The new 3+2 curricula for preschool
106
• • • •
teachers were compiled in 2001 and the first students both for Bachelor and Master’s levels were admitted in the academic year 2002/2003. 2002–2010 Teacher of Preschool Education (3 years of Bachelor studies) 2002–2004 Teacher-Counsellor of Preschool Education, Master’s studies (1 year, 40 ECTS (course credits)). The first Master’s students in the field of preschool education teacher-counsellor graduated in 2003. 2004–2010 Teacher-Counsellor of Preschool Education, Master’s studies (2 years, according to the new curriculum 120 ECTS). Starting from 2010 the curriculum of MA studies will be called Preschool teacher, the nominal study period is 2 years, 120 ECTS.
The structural changes that took place at the university are also reflected in the changes in the name of the chair: 1974–1993 Chair of Preschool Education • 1974–1979 Head of the chair assistant prof. Paul Kees • 1979–1992 Head of the chair assistant prof. Taimi Tulva • 1992–1993 Head of the chair lecturer Anu Leppiman 1993–1995 Chair of Preschool Education and Psychology • Head of the chair assistant prof. Maie Vikat 1995–2010 Department of Preschool Education • 1995–2001 Head of the department prof. Maie Vikat • Since 2001–the head of the department has been prof. Marika Veisson The Department of Preschool Education has existed since 1 September 1994 – until present and it includes the Chair of Preschool Pedagogy and the Child Study Centre. In 1996, the Chair of Preschool Education was established in association with the Child Study Centre, led by Professor Marika Veisson. This connection between research and teaching enhanced the promotion of research work as the Centre has conducted several studies, which will be discussed further in this chapter. Paul Kees (1917–2008), the head of the Chair of Preschool Education during the years 1974–1979, recalled his term of office as follows during his interview with Marika Veisson: “On September 1 Anno Domini 1974, when the chair of preschool education separated from the chair of primary education and psychology as an independent unit, I was chosen through a competition to become its head. I remained the head until 1 September 1979 and continued my work in the chair until my retirement in 1986. I received the scientific degree of
107 Candidate of Pedagogic Sciences1 in 1968 and became an assistant professor (docent) in 1971. The newly established chair had seven lecturers, who taught several disciplines such as preschool pedagogy, theory and methodology of music, drawing and its methodology, pedagogy, methodology of the mother tongue, and special courses. My tasks as the head of the chair included, in addition to courses and research, several administrative assignments, like organising meetings as the chair, preparing all sorts of reports, and other issues related to leadership. As a lecturer my courses included general pedagogy, history of pedagogy, methods of scientific research, as well as a number of special courses, and supervised students’ seminars and final papers. My main research areas were individual and age-related characteristics in students’ mental abilities and school readiness. I was also involved in studying learning motivation according to the methodology of G. Rosenfeld; reading comprehension with the cloze procedure; the formation of elementary logical structures in preschool and primary school children according to the methodology of Jean Piaget. In this respect I would especially like to mention the maintenance of equivalence of quantities; and teaching children to read with Glenn Doman’s whole word method. In terms of scientific work I would like to stress the problematic of school readiness. As we can see in case of the Estonian language term “kooliküpsus”, we are dealing with two aspects. First, how mature or able is the child for learning at school and second, how ready is he/she. Other languages too refer to two aspects: some more the first, others the second. Thus, in English, the term is “school readiness”, in French “maturité scolaire”, in German there are two words – “Schulreife” and “Schulfähigkeit”, in Russian “podgotovlennost k obutcheniyu v shkole” or “gotovnost k shkole”. School readiness is a complex notion. It can be defined as a certain physical, psychological and social developmental level that allows the child to learn successfully. Some studies have shown that most important is the psychological aspect, others suggest the intellectual. My own research focused on diagnosing the intellectual aspects of school readiness. Having this in mind, I compiled 17 distinct ability tests for measuring the mental development level of 2–8 grade students of general education schools. In addition I compiled two short test series – form A and form B – which measure the mental development level with five verbal tests. 1
The Candidate of Sciences degree was a post-graduate scientific degree in the former Soviet Union and roughly corresponds to the PhD. Its holders are allowed to work on the level of an Associate Professor (Docent).
108 The developed tests are original and measure some of the most important abilities from the learning perspective such as: speed and accuracy of perception, speed of acquisition, imagination and comprehension, thinking (the logical aspect), and thinking (combining skills). With the help of these tests we measured the abilities of 2800 students from 9 counties and 10 towns. In addition to the traditional school readiness tests I also compiled the so-called learning tests, which include preliminary and follow-up tests. It is also necessary to remember in which conditions a common person, i.e. those who were not part of the nomenclature, had to work behind the so-called iron curtain. Younger people do not know a lot or maybe even haven’t heard about life back then. When looking back, I recall a verse by Solon, which he used during the administration of his reforms in Athens: in Greek, the translation consists of ‘spinning like a wolf among a pack of dogs’. Also here in Estonia, the common person, and I among them, had to manoeuvre and wriggle out, in order not to be caught by the KGB and sent to the Gulag. The omnipotent censor of intellectual life was Glavlit, which kept guard, in order to not let any Western bourgeois ideas enter the country. Thus, we were not able to even dream about such newspapers as “Times”, “Le Soir”, etc., only “L`Humanité” and “Morning Star” – the so-called mouthpieces of the communist party which were on sale at newspaper booths. Articles published in foreign journals were also censored. I must say that at least I ignored this restriction and sent my articles straight to the editors of international journals like “Studia psychologica,” where they were also published. Sometimes censorship reached absurdities. For example, forbidden was a traditional song called “Kui on hüva pärituul, lendab vene nagu kuul [With the fair wind, the boat flies like a bullet]”. It mentions the word “vene” [this means both, a boat in Russian, and in the Estonian language, depending on the context] and it flies like a bullet. From abroad one could only get such scientific literature, which contained no words that one could interpret as being against socialism. For example, I was able to acquire journals such as Young Children from the USA and Aula from Germany. We were not only facing intellectual stagnation, but also that of material things, which drove many common people to the edge of poverty. For example, meat and meat products, fruits (e.g. oranges) could only be acquired during big state holidays or when you knew someone in the shop”. Professor Taimi Tulva, the head of the Chair of Preschool Education during 1979–1992, looks back and makes the following comments:
109 “As an educationalist and a social scientist I consider it important to glance at the societal-historic background, especially certain eras, when talking about the history of preschool education. As follows I will name the leading persons connected to the development of the field of preschool education in Tallinn University: • 1967–1968 Anita Turovskaja • 1968–1974 Eha Hiie • 1974–1979 Paul Kees • 1979–1992 Taimi Tulva • 1992–1993 Anu Leppiman • 1993–2001 Maie Vikat • 2001– until present Marika Veisson The name of the field has been changed repeatedly, but more important is the formation process of the field, the people who influenced it, as well as its continuity, lecturers who are interested in its development, and also motivated the students. 1967–1982 was a period of stagnation in the political, economic, and cultural life of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party enforced deepened political-administrative control and campaigns of Russification. Also in education there was a strong demand to teach some of the subjects for students in Russian language. We did not do the latter, but since there were ethnically mixed day care centres, we taught our students to cope with work in such environments. Lecturers at universities were expected to give further the ideas of Russian pedagogical classics and step by step we taught also Russian language professional terminology. The direction back then was to create gigantic day care centres each with 300–380 children. 1983–1991 was the period of Perestroika, when the Soviet Union had reached an all-embracing crisis. In 1983 Gorbachev started with thorough reforms, which showed some results during the second part of this period. This was the time which prepared Estonia for independence. 1991 until present was a transformation period – the formation of a democratic and an independent information society. Next, I will give an overview of the research themes, which were in the centre of the Chair’s scientific activities from 1979 to 1992. Among the research themes we considered important the analyses of school readiness and of play as child’s main activity, as well as the importance of play in attaining readiness for school. From this grew out the following theme: renewing the content of preschool education in the context of Estonian national culture. These main themes were intertwined and led in turn to the idea of studying the history of kindergartens. It did not become a separate research theme due to some objective and subjective reasons back then, but
110 we combined studying the history of kindergartens with our research on play. Our research activities were closely related to practical work. We suggested kindergartens to start using Estonian cultural heritage, e.g. traditional songs, games, and dances. We issued a compilation called “Let’s play these games”, we published a number of scientific results as scientific articles or monographs, we organised scientific conferences both on Estonian and international level. Student research was active and the results of their studies were reported at conferences organised by different Soviet universities. Traditional games and traditional toys were studied regionally, county by county, in order to get an overview about the whole Estonia and to bring out differences and common characteristics. Emphasised was the part folklore played in preschool education and the role of fairytales in child development. Great work in this area was done by Signe Väljataga through teaching of children’s literature and supervising students’ works, but also by the music pedagogue Maie Vikat, and by Aino Ugaste and Helgi Sarapuu, who have both taught special courses on play. Important were creative activities, which were mediated to students through Anu Leppiman and Marika Voogre. Work with parents was on a good level and this was taught by educationalists Ülle Saarits, Tiiu Peterson and Mare Torm. Among some special subjects we had firmly established special education (lecturer Marika Veisson) and methodology of natural sciences (lecturer Enna Koplimaa). Valuable input was also given by Ferdinand Veike, who taught students to act and through that to make children understand basic truths and values. The activities of our hardworking and solitary Chair were kept in balance and integrated to the activities of the university (back then an institute) by the irreplaceable and very energetic assistant of the head of the Chair and a former student of the field, Aili Tamm. It was a great team, everybody was committed to work, and our results were visible not just within the republic, but also outside. The field was popular and students valued the academic and methodological work of the Chair highly. Before our focus on the history of the formation of Estonian kindergartens, we got course thoroughly acquainted with the works of foreign classics in the ethnic-historical perspective, in order to learn about the influences that have been important for the formation of Estonian preschool education. I wrote an article in the educational scientific journal Soviet school about the principles of Fröbel in guiding a child and especially about the development of play; besides we also started to teach these ideas to our students. Toys which were created on the basis of the theories of Fröbel and Montessori were very popular, and teachers often made them
111 on their own, frequently including parents in the process, for developing children’s sensory motor skills. Since the end of 1980s was marked by aspirations of strengthening national identity and the day care centres started to rely on their activities more on Estonian national heritage, preschool education valued the programmatic call of Jakob Hurt to a small nation: to become great in spirit, to become great in culture. A preschool teacher, who values national heritage and Estonian cultural traditions, also looks more frequently at folklore for inspiration. Traditional games and toys, but also celebration of traditional holidays, have been a theme for numerous valuable and now already historic final theses and scientific articles. Very involved in studying the history of kindergartens was lecturer Mare Torm, who herself had deep cultural interests and supported the mission in all ways. Torm defended her own Master’s thesis in 1998 on the theme of training of preschool education teachers before 1940 and its influence on the development of preschool education in Estonia. The first study by a student in the area of preschool history was finished in 1982 (ie, 28 years ago), and was written by Heili Rammo on the history of kindergartens in the Põltsamaa town. This thesis was completed under the supervision of Taimi Tulva, who was also responsible for many other student researchers including: Ilse Lehter, Ülle Teder, Talvi Pello, and Kaie Kõivik, etc. Through the years 1982–1991 Taimi Tulva supervised 18 students’ works concerning the history of kindergartens, which were handed over to the Museum of Pedagogic History and are available to all interested parties. It is pleasing to see that yet another former student in the field of preschool pedagogy and psychology, Maarika Pukk, has chosen the theme of her Doctoral thesis to be kindergarten culture and formation in the background of different societal upheavals. Studying the history of kindergartens was hard and demanded patience and perseverance, since there were problems with gaining access to archival materials, a lot of work was done in museums. In addition, preschool teachers who had historic knowledge were interviewed. It also included the collection of teachers’ diaries, educational plans, and picture materials. The results of the studies have been presented at scientific and alumni conferences. Two international conferences had a wide theoretical and practical coverage. The first one was dedicated to the theme of school readiness (1976) and the second one was called Play and national culture (1990). In 1980s our students participated at many student conferences to popularise students’ research and we too organised some. Lecturers presented their research results in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Germany, Finland, and all published some articles in international journals. In 1989
112 the Chair formed their first contacts with Finnish colleagues. Through study trips we were able to see the organisation of work in Finnish day care centres and learned about the nature of preschool teacher training in Tampere, Jyvaskyla, and Hämeenlinna. We were also able to take with us our alumni and practitioners, who supervised the traineeships of our students. Our Finnish colleagues were also invited to visit our Institute and day care centres. We started to implement several innovative ideas both in theory and practice. In modernising preschool education I consider the most natural and creative starting point to be our training history and the continuation of our national culture and traditions. The most important condition for our nation’s survival is to give our children a chance to grow up in a healthy, ecological, and ethnicity sustaining environment. Progress and change can only happen through tireless learning. No one has regretted having too much knowledge, the opposite however for certain. Both lecturers and students should pay more attention to what is happening in the society and when necessary call for changes. It is necessary to synchronise our knowledge with the rest of the world, to merge the new with the old. I think the Chair of preschool education together with its hardworking collective has given and will give an important contribution to educating Estonian preschool teachers. They have also left a valuable mark in the field of educational sciences in Estonia – to educational sciences, which are becoming more and more international and globalised. I wish the field success, mental potential, and sustainability.” Professor Emeritus Maie Vikat, the head of the Chair during 1993–2001, writes the following about the activities of the Chair during that period: Studies This was a time of great changes at the university, when we constantly had to prove the necessity of preparing qualified preschool teachers. Through curriculum development we were able to start training specialists with BA degrees. In 1995 the Chair started to give guidelines about how to fulfil the pre-primary and primary school curriculum; added was the child psychology specialisation. In the academic year 1995/96 the Chair started to offer further training courses. In 1996, for the first time in the history of Tallinn Pedagogical University (earlier Tallinn Pedagogical Institute), and this was in our field, graduates received an academic degree – Bacalaureus Artium in Educational Sciences. In 1997, after a 5-year pause, distance learning programs were opened again.
113 Scientific work The main areas included renewing the content of preschool education in the context of Estonian traditional culture, the development of personality in preschool age through the curriculum, the impact of growth environment on child’s intellectual development, and developmental problems of gifted children. • In 1996 the Child Study Centre was established. • In 1996/97 the Chair opened the Master’s studies program and 12 Master’s theses were defended under the supervision of M. Vikat. • In 1998/99 the Chair opened Doctoral studies and 4 Doctoral theses were defended under the supervision of M. Vikat. • 1993–The role of folklore in the development of child’s personality (speakers from 13 countries, over 300 participants) • 1994–Traditional culture and the growth environment of a preschool child (speakers from 7 countries, 250 participants) • 1995–Disabled child in the family (speakers from 3 countries, 180 participants) • 1996–Play and culture (speakers from 11 countries, 250 participants) • 2001–Gifted child in a changing society (speakers from 4 countries, 200 participants). The conference materials were published in 5 compilations of scientific articles. Research grants and development projects •
• •
1994–1996 The research grant of the Estonian National Culture Foundation – Estonianness as a phenomenon. The role of traditional music in the personality development of Estonians. 1995–1997 Estonian Science Foundation grant – The influence of growth environment on the development of infant and toddler intellect. 1999–2001 Estonian Science Foundation grant – Gifted child and factors that contribute to child development. On the basis of the last grant students have defended 6 BA and 2 MA theses, in addition 1 Doctoral thesis at the University of Helsinki. A compilation of scientific articles – Gifted child in a changing society – was published in 2002, an international conference under the same name was held in 2001.
International cooperation Cooperation with the department of teacher education of the University of Helsinki was started in 1995. We organised exchanges of students and
114 teachers and in 1997 started common scientific seminars, which were held in Tallinn and in Helsinki in turns. All presentations were gathered into a compilation every second year. The activities of the Chair of Preschool Pedagogy through 2001–2010, as documented by the Chair, Professor Marika Veisson
The curriculum with higher education standards The curriculum of preschool teacher education gives a contemporary scientific preparation at either the Bachelor or the Master’s levels. These degree qualifications guarantee students’ professional competencies and skills of self-reflection as preschool teachers. These courses also prepare students to become preschool education specialists who understand educational-political processes. They provide graduates with qualifications to become early childhood professionals, who are able to direct children’s development, create a favourable environment for it, and to cooperate with other adults including parents, other teachers, and specialists in the network. The Bachelor degree also supports each learner’s personal development and enables them to continue their studies at the Master’s level. The curriculum of the preschool pedagogue or preschool teacher comprises 180 credit points, and in accordance with this the training mainly includes indepth courses in the principle subjects, educational sciences, psychology, and a pedagogical traineeship. According to the logics of the curriculum structure, the role of in-depth studies supports the future preschool teachers to form a general, cultural, social, communicative, ethical and professional set of skills and to be prepared graduates for pedagogical work with children aged birth to 7 years in diverse preschool institutions.
Master’s studies The mission of the Chair of Preschool Pedagogy (henceforth Chair) is to offer possibilities for acquiring high level qualification in the speciality of preschool education at the level of a Bachelor, Master’s and Doctoral studies and to promote scientific study of preschool education. The department bases its activities on the needs of the Estonian society, relying on historical experiences and educational research, and cooperating with universities and educational institutions in Estonia and in other countries. Over 43 years we have educated over 2000 specialists in preschool pedagogy, in different time periods whether following the four or the five year curriculum, and both have now been equalised by the
115 Estonian Ministry of Education and Science with the currently valid Master’s curricula. The curricula of Master’s studies for a preschool pedagogue-counsellor speciality (3+2) were drafted by the Chair in 2001. At first, Master’s studies lasted for one year and were based on the four year Bachelor studies (160+40 credit points). The system comprised the following: • Masters in educational sciences; • Preschool teacher-counsellor, 1 year, 40 credit points; Master’s studies in Pedagogy in 2002–2003 and in 2003–2004; the first Master’s of Pedagogy in the preschool teacher-counsellor speciality finished in 2003. • Preschool teacher-counsellor, 2 years, 80 credit points; Master’s studies in Educational Sciences in 2004–2006, 2005–2007, 2006–2010; The first students in the two year Master’s of Educational Sciences program finished in 2006. The first students in the new Master’s studies curriculum were admitted in the academic year 2002/2003. The first specialists with a Master’s degree in the field of preschool teacher-counsellor finished at Tallinn Pedagogical University in 2003. When examining the graduates of Master’s studies throughout the years, we can say that the numbers have increased. In 2001 graduated 5 students, in 2002 graduated 3, and in 2003 due to the transition to the new 3+2 Master’s curriculum the number of graduates was 20. In 2004 the Master’s diploma was given to 26 persons. In 2005 only one student received the Master’s degree in Educational Sciences, since in 2003 there had been a transition from 1-year studies (40 credit points) to two-year studies (80 credit points). In 2006 altogether 12 students in the two-year program received their Master’s diplomas. By 2007–2010 there were 45 graduates. Thus, by 2010 altogether, 112 students had received their Master’s diplomas. Of these, 107 had specialised as preschool teacher-counsellors. In addition, 31 preschool teachers have received their Master’s degrees in Educational Sciences. Our former Master’s students have applied successfully for jobs and work in managerial positions in the Estonian Ministry of Education and Science, in the National Examinations and Qualifications Centre, in university colleges, as trainers of teachers in further education, in education departments, as managers of day care centres and as teachers. The curriculum enables students to acquire a scientific education qualification at a Master’s level, to deepen preschool teachers’ competencies, to complement scientific knowledge in the area of preschool education, to acquire additional knowledge in pedagogical counselling and management of children’s institutions, and to learn how to secure a child’s smooth transition from kindergarten to school. The Master’s thesis work allows students to continue in-depth scientific studies towards the level of Doctoral studies.
116 Studies take place in the form of lectures, seminars, independent works, practical work, and traineeships.
Research and development of the Department of Preschool Education During the past 15 years, the staff at The Department of Preschool Education has been active in applying for scientific grants. Since 1996 we have been working on the Estonian Science Foundation (ESF) grant The influence of growth environment on the development of infant and toddler intellect (grant holders were Professor V. Kolga and the main executor was Professor M. Veisson), which was followed in 2000 by a continuous grant The influence of the day care centre, domestic growth environment and different educational methods on the development of preschool child’s intellect and social competencies (grant holder was Professor M. Veisson). One of the outputs of these studies was the Doctoral thesis of Kristina Nugin on the theme Intellectual development of three-six-year-old children in different growth environments according to WPPSI-R test. The holder of the ESF grant on Educational culture of the parents of toddlers in Estonia and in Finland through 1998–2000 was assistant professor Aino Ugaste. During the years 2003–2007 Professor Veisson led the state financed project on School as developmental environment and students’ coping. The executors of the theme included 5 researchers and 2 Doctoral students. Karin Lukk defended her Doctoral thesis Cooperation between home and school from the structural, functional, and social aspects in 2009. The project also included Monica Sakk, who focused on Coping of children with different cultural backgrounds in a multicultural school according to students, parents, and teachers. In 2003 our cooperation with Professor P. K. Smith from the University of London Goldsmiths College (UK) began. Professor Smith was the leader of the European Commission’s project Grandparents’ relationships with grandchildren in the aging Europe, and invited Professor M. Veisson to join. Based on the framework of this project an article was published in the European Journal of Ageing (see Quadrello, Hurme, Menzinger, Smith, et al., 2005). In 2004, Professor E. Hujala from the University of Tampere (Finland) initiated the project Cooperation between preschool teachers and parents. Participants from Tallinn University included Professor M. Veisson and S. Suur. Within this project two articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals and in a collection of articles (Hujala et al, 2009; Veisson et al 2010, Veisson & Suur, in press). In 2005 the European Structural Funds project Modernising preschool teachers’ education and further training, leaded by Professor E. Kikas from the
117 University of Tartu (Estonia), was launched in cooperation with Professor H. Rasku-Puttonen from Jyvaskyla University(Finland) and S. Mõttus from the Estonian Preschool Teachers’ Union. The coordinator of the project in Tallinn University was Professor Veisson, the assistant of the project, was the Master’s student Kerstin Kööp. The outputs of the project include chapters in this book (Kikas & Lerkkanen, in press; Lerkkanen, Ahonen & Poikkeus, in press; Männamaa & Kikas, in press; Poikkonen & Kontoniemi in press; Rasku-Puttonen et al., in press; Soodla & Kikas in press; Trossmann & Kikas, in press, Veisson, Kööp, Nugin,, in press). In 2010 the Eduko project Teacher’s professional development (leader E. Krull) was started and the sub-project on preschool education is coordinated by Professor Veisson in cooperation with Aino Ugaste and Doctoral students. The project is also supported by the university and the science foundation of the Institute.
Key publications Within the last 14 years we have published a number of books and papers. Some of the most important ones, in chronological order of publication are as follows: In 1997 Aino Saar’s (Aino Ugaste) book Laps ja mäng [Child and play] was published. In 1998 another two books were published. The first, Play in cultural contexts was edited by Assistant Professor Aino Saar (Ugaste) and Pentti Hakkarainen • the second book, Väikelaps ja tema kasvukeskkond [Toddler and the growth environment] was edited by Assistant Professor Marika Veisson. It is important to mention that the first one is a peer-reviewed book and the second received the prize of the Estonian Ministry of Education and Science at a state-wide competition. Both books included articles by almost all lecturers in the Chair. The year 2000 was also relatively fruitful. Assistant Professor Marika Veisson published her dissertation which was based on peer-reviewed articles. The lecturers of the Chair also contributed as co-authors to the publication of Lapsekeskne kasvatus haridusreformis • [Child-centred education in the educational reform]. • In 2001 Marika Veisson edited the collection of articles Väikelaps ja tema kasvukeskkond II [Toddler and the growth environment II]. • In 2002 the lecturers of the Chair contributed as co-authors to a book Andekas laps muutuvas ühiskonnas [Gifted child in a changing society].
118 • In 2003 Marika Veisson, Ülle Saarits and Linda Pallas compiled for the alumni conference a compilation, which gave an overview of the history of the preschool field and the results of the questionnaire administered among the alumni. • In 2004 we published a peer-reviewed CD with electronic copies of the full texts of the conference on Sustainable Development, Culture and Education. Later, a collection of articles, focussing on preschool pedagogy was published as an edited book by A. and M. Veisson (Eds.) with the same title as the CD. • We have also actively written articles in peer-reviewed journals and these are listed in the references included in this chapter. Scientific conferences A number of scientific conferences have been organised by the preschool education academics and took place at Tallinn University including: • October 1998 – over-Estonian seminar Toddler and the growth environment; • September 1999 – Teacher training in Baltic and Nordic countries; • November 2001 – Gifted child in a changing society; • November 2002 – Paradoxes of childhood: reality and future tendencies; • November 2002 – Swedish-Estonian joint seminar Disabilities. Health. Aging. in cooperation with the Chair of Special Education; • March 2003 – alumni conference 35 years of preschool teacher training in Tallinn Pedagogical University; • In May 2003 the University of Daugavpils initiated a series of international conferences called Sustainable Development. Culture. Education. Continuous conferences were held in Tallinn (2004), Germany (2005), Finland (2006), Hungary (2007), Turkey (2008), Latvia (2009), and in Paris, France (2010). • In 2005, the department of preschool education organised three scientific conferences: o May 2005 – in cooperation with the Tallinn State Education Department the conference Preschool teacher in the plurality of roles was organised. Almost all lecturers of the Chair as well as the best Master’s students made presentations at this conference. o September 2005 – a preliminary conference of the international conference Children in Poverty. All presentations were from the Department of Teacher Education, predominantly from the Chair of Preschool Education. o November 2005 – the third scientific event this year was an international conference on 165 years of kindergarten develop-
119 ment in Estonia, and included guest speakers from Sweden, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania. The conference took place in Estonian, English, and Finnish. • In December the same year, on the initiative of MSc Mare Torm, the Chair of Preschool Pedagogy, the Pedagogical Archive Museum and the Academic Library organised jointly an exhibition on 165 years of kindergarten development in Estonia. For the exhibition Mare Torm received the Tallinn University award for the best speciality exhibition of 2005. • In 2005 a seminar based on the project on Grandparenting led by Professor P. K. Smith was organised by Tallinn University and participants came from 25 European countries (see Quedrello et al., 2005). • In 2008, an international conference on Early childhood education in an international context, was organised in cooperation with the University of Tartu and Estonian Union for Child Welfare, and included participants from Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, USA, Australia, England, etc. Lecturers, Master’s and Doctoral students of the department have taken part in the yearly ISSBD, EERA, EECERA, and other professional conferences during last 20 years.
Defence of doctoral dissertations Four students have defended their Doctoral thesis at the Department of Preschool Education focusing on music education and culture, which have been important topics of research at Tallinn University: • Maia Muldma (2004) The Phenomenon of Music in the Cultural Dialogue between Estonian and Russian Speaking Schools • Monika Pullerits (2004) Musical drama in elementary education – a conception and applications deriving from Carl Orff’s system • Inna Järva (2004) Educational changes in three generations of Russian families living in Estonia: socio-cultural approach • Tiina Selke (2007) Music education in Estonian comprehensive school: trends in the 2nd half of the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st century. All four of these Doctoral thesis were supervised by Professor Emeritus M. Vikat. The second most important topic has been children’s play. Aino Ugaste (2005) defended her Doctoral thesis at the University of Jyvaskyla (Finland) on the topic of The Child’s Play World at Home and the Mother’s Role in the Play, and her supervisor was Professor H. Rasku-Puttonen.
120 The third most important topic has been children’s development. Two Doctoral students have defended their theses about children’s intellectual and language development as follows: • Kristina Nugin (2007) Intellectual development of 3 to 6 years old children in different rearing environments according to WPPSI-R test • Tiiu Tammemäe (2009) The development of Speech of Estonian children aged 2–4 years and its connections with environmental factors where the child is growing up. The fourth most important topic has been teacher-parent partnerships. Karin Lukk (2009) defended dissertation about Structural, functional and social aspects of home-school cooperation. These three Doctoral students were supervised by Professor M. Veisson. Currently there are 11 Doctoral students in the field of preschool education at Tallinn University and each of their research focus is as follows: • Tiia Õun about the Quality of Early Childhood Education • Maire Tuul about Teacher’s Professionality • Inge Timoštšuk about Teacher Education • Monica Sakk about Students, Teachers and Parents Coping • Silvi Suur about Teacher-Parent Partnership • Mai Sein-Garcia about Toddlers’ Teachers • Kerstin Kööp about Assessment in Early Childhood • Pärje Ülavere about Value Education in Early Childhood • Tiiu Urva about Toddlers Development • Tiina Peterson about Teacher’s Professional Development in International Context • Evelyn Neudorf about Curriculum in Early Childhood Education Of these, Professor M. Veisson supervises 7 and Professor A. Ugaste is responsible for 4 Doctoral students.
Conclusion As shown in this chapter, the Department of Early Childhood Education at Tallinn University has a long-time history of involvement in preschool education covering a period of 43 years. In this chapter, all four heads of department remembered the studies and research offered during their period in office. This included a short overview of the preschool education courses leading to a Bache-
121 lor (BA), Masters (MA) and Doctoral studies as well as outlining the most important conferences and publications we have been involved in to date. To participate actively in a knowledge based society we need partners in the other countries to conduct cross-cultural research studies. We have visited universities abroad and have also received guests at our university. For example, staff from our department have visited the University of Turku and its Rauma department in Finland (2005); the Hedmark University College in Norway (2006), the Copenhagen University College in Denmark (2007), the University of Winchester in England (2008), and the University of Pennsylvania in USA (2009). The lecturers have individually participated at several conferences, seminars, and joint projects in different European Universities. Also the students of the Chair have had possibilities to study at universities overseas in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and elsewhere using funding support through Erasmus, NordPlus, Simo and other exchange programs. The Master’s thesis of our students have also been connected to the themes of our lecturers’ scientific projects because we involve postgraduate students in carrying out scientific projects. Looking into the future, to continue our work in advancing preschool education, it is important to extend our collaborations with researchers in Estonia, Europe and beyond.
References Hujala, E., Turja, L., Gaspar, M. F., Veisson, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2009). Perspectives of early childhood teachers on parent-teacher partnerships in five European countries. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1, 57–76. Hytönen, J., Krokfors, L., Talts, L., & Vikat, M. (2003). What educational objectives are considered important by preschool teachers in Helsinki and Tallinn?, Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 257– 268. Järva, I. (2004). Põlvkondlikud muutused Eestimaa vene perekondade kasvatuses: sotsiokultuuriline käsitus. (Educational changes in three generations of Russian families living in Estonia: socio-cultural approach) Tallinn Pedagogical University. Lawenius, M. & Veisson, M. (1996). Personality and self-esteem in parents of disabled children: a comparison between Estonia and Sweden. Social Behaviour and Personality, 24(2), 195–204. Lukk, K. (2009). Kodu ja kooli koostöö strukturaalsest, funktsionaalsest ning sotsiaalsest aspektist” (Structural, functional and social aspects of homeschool cooperation). Tallinn University.
122 Lukk, K., Veisson, M., & Ots, L. (2008). Characteristics of sustainable changes for schools. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 35–44. Muldma, M. (2004). Феномен музыки в формировании диалога культур (сопоставительный анализ мнений учителей музыки школ с эстонским и русским языком обучения) (The Phenomen of Music in the Cultural Dialogue between Estonian and Russian Speaking Schools). Tallinn Pedagogical University. Nugin, K. (2007). Kolme-kuue aastaste laste intellektuaalne areng erinevates kasvukeskkondades WPPSI-R testi alusel” (Intellectual development of 3 to 6 years old children in different rearing environments according to WPPSIR test). Tallinn University. Pullerits, M. (2004). Muusikaline draama algõpetuses – kontseptsioon ja rakendusvõimalusi lähtuvalt C. Orffi süsteemist” (Musical drama in elementary education – a conception and applications deriving from Carl Orff’s system). Tallinn Pedagogical University. Quadrello, T., Hurme, H., Menzinger, J., Smith, P.K., Veisson, M., Vidal, S., & Westerback, S. (2005). Grandparents use of new communication technologies in a European perspective. European Journal of Aging: Social, Behavioural and Health Perspectives, 2, 200–207. Ruokonen, I. & Vikat, M. (2005). The Creativity of gifted children in Estonia and Finland from a musical and environmental perspective. Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 49–68. Ruus, V.-R., Veisson, M., Leino, M., Ots, L. Pallas, L. Sarv, E.-S., & Veisson, A. (2007). Students’ well-being, coping, academic success, and school climate. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(7), 919–936. Saar, A. & Niglas, K. (2001). Estonian and Russian Parental Attitudes to Childrearing and Play. Early Child Development and Care, 168, 39–49. Sakk, M. & Veisson, M. (2009). The quality of family relations in ensuring sustainable education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 2, 51–63. Seiffge-Krenke, I. B. H., Chau, C., Cok, F., Gillespie, C., Loncaric, D., Molinar, R., Cunha, M., Veisson, M., & Rohail, I. (2010). All they need is love? Placing romantic stress in context of other stressors: A 17-nation study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(2), 106–112. Selke, T. (2007). Suundumusi Eesti üldhariduskooli muusikakasvatuses 20. sajandi teisel poolel ja 21. sajandi alguse (Music education in Estonian comprehensive school: trends in the 2nd half of the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st century. Tallinn University. Tammemäe, T. (2009). Kahe- ja kolmeaastaste eesti laste kõne arengu tase Reynelli ja HYKS testi põhjal ning selle seosed koduse kasvukeskkonna teguritega (The development of speech of Estonian children aged 2–4 years
123 and its connections with environmental factors where the child isgrowing up. Tallinn University. Ugaste, A. & Õun, T. (2007). Teachers` Experiences in Child-Centered Education in Estonia. Young Children, 6, 54–56. Ugaste, A. (2003). Children’s Play World in the Family Context. Journal of Teacher Education and Training, 3, 92–101. Ugaste, A., Õun, T., & Tuul, M. (2008). Implementation of a Child-centred Approach in Post-Socialist Society. Mikk, J.; Veisson, M.; Luik, P. (Toim.). Reforms and Innovations in Estonian Education. Baltische Studien zur Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaft. (157–171). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Ugaste, A., Õun, T., & Tuul, M. (2008). Implementation of a Child-centred Approach in Post-Socialist Society. In Mikk, J., Veisson, M. & Luik, P. (Eds.). Reforms and Innovations in Estonian Education. Baltische Studien zur Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaft. (157–171). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Veisson, M. (1999). Depression symptoms and emotional states in parents of disabled and non-disabled children. Social Behavior and Personality, 27(1), 87–97. Veisson, M. (2000). Disabled children – The psychological status of parents and the social network of siblings. Sweden: University of Göteborg. Veisson, M. (2001). Parents of disabled children: Personality traits. Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 581–592. Veisson, M. (2004). Depression Symptoms and Personality Traits in Parents of Intellectually Disabled and Non-disabled Children. In F. Columbus (Eds). Advances in Psychology Research (1–39). USA: Nova Science Publishers. Veisson, M. (2004). Early childhood education and professional education of pre-school teachers in Estonia. Infancia, familia, communidade e educacao. Revista Portuguesa de pedagogia, 38(1,2e,3), 191–200. Veisson, M. (2009). Values of Estonian students, teachers and parents. USChina Education Review, 5, 67–75. Veisson, M., Einarsdottir, J., Gardarsdottir, B., Gaspar, M. F., Hujala, E. & Suur, S. (2010). Parent-teacher partnership in early childhood education in four European countries: a cross-cultural qualitative study. Estonian Studies in Education. (31–52). Peter Lang Verlag. Õun, T., Ugaste, A., & Niglas, K. (2008). The views of kindergarten staff on educational objectives in post-socialist society. Early Child Development and Care, 178(1), 81–98. Õun, T., Ugaste, A., Tuul, M. & Niglas, K. (2010, in press). Perception of Estonian preschool teachers about the child-centered activities in different pedagogical approaches. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10–25.
125
Early Childhood Education in a Multicultural Norway Sigrun Sand Hedmark University College, Norway In this article I will discuss some perspectives on early childhood education in Norway as a multicultural society. First, I will give a brief outline of Norway as a multicultural and multilingual country, and the language situation, with the Sami, national minorities, and recent immigration. In 2006, the kindergartens got a new curriculum which underlines that Norway has become more and more diverse in language and culture, and there are now many ways of being Norwegian. The multicultural perspective is clearly expressed in the curriculum and is important for all children. This is a challenge for the kindergartens and also for the education of pre-school teachers. I will a presentation of the national curriculum and how the multicultural perspective is expressed in the plan, discussing values, aims, subjects, staff and parental cooperation and involvement. I focus especially on the challenges of giving an adaptive pedagogical support to minority language children. It is a challenge for the government that minority families show less willingness to use the kindergarten for children before they start school. The result is that many children with a minority background start school without sufficient competence in the Norwegian language. Here I will present some results from an evaluation research project carried out by myself and a colleague, in kindergartens in Oslo during 1999–2003. These kindergartens were situated in a part of Oslo with a high percentage of immigrant population. I also give a brief presentation of present research projects in Norway in the field of early childhood education. Finally, I will point to some challenges concerning early childhood education for all the children in a multicultural society.
Norway as a Multicultural Society Over the past 50 years, Norway, with approximately 4.7 million inhabitants, has become an increasingly complex society. This does not imply that the country has had an ethnically homogenous population in earlier times. The only indigenous people of Norway, the Sami, have lived alongside the Norwegians for many centuries and made for a long standing language situation of diglossia. From the 16th and 17th centuries, migrants from other European countries gave rise to some small national minorities. But recent immigration has added a large number of ethnic varieties to an already existing diversity. Today’s ethnic pluralism in Norway is a fact that confronts the country’s citizens in public as well
126 as private contexts. This diversity poses a constant challenge to Norway’s kindergartens, mandatory elementary and secondary schools. The Sami The Sami of Norway are a group of about 40000 in number, and they are not a culturally homogenous group. There are distinctions in terms of history, geography, occupation, and language. One subdivision into three categories distinguishes between the Northern, the Southern and the Lule Sami; these divisions reflect geographical distribution, and substantial differences in language, with the Southern Sami and the Northern Sami languages not being mutually intelligible. For centuries, reindeer herding has been the main source of income for many Sami families. This industry has been given legal protection and is still an important source of income in most Sami areas. It has also made for considerable economic self-sufficiency among the Sami and thus served to protect Sami culture against pressure towards assimilation to the majority (Norwegian) culture (Juuso et al. 2006). National minorities All in all, today’s national minorities are few and small in number, comprising less than 1% of the total population. The national minority groups in Norway are Gypsies, Romani, Kven-Finns, Forest Finns and Jews (Ministry of Community and Regional Development 2000–2001). Recent immigration – ethnic minorities In the 1970s, 80s and 90s, waves of immigrants from a number of countries crossed the borders of Norway. Some fled from war and internal conflict, some came to find work, some to be reunited with their families. In 2010, about 552,000 people were considered the immigrant population in Norway, many of whom are second generation migrants. Taht is about 11.4% of the total population. The capital, Oslo, is in a special position, with more than 30% of the elementary school students being language minority students. During these decades, the number of foreign languages spoken among students at elementary and lower secondary levels has risen steadily, with 150 indicated as a possible, but uncertain estimate (Ministry of Education and Research 2010).
127 Early Childhood Education in Norway The Norwegian Government’s objective for its kindergarten policy is the provision of kindergarten places of high quality and at a low price. Kindergartens should provide children with good opportunities for development and activity in close understanding and collaboration with the children’s homes. Kindergartens have a particular responsibility for preventing potential problems and for discovering children with special needs. In 2006, the responsibility of the Kindergarten Act was moved from the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs to the Ministry of Education and Research. Thus, the Government emphasised kindergarten as a part of the educational system, this being seen in a life-long learning perspective. But kindergartens did not yet have equal status as schools, being outside the compulsory system and without free access for all children. Kindergartens in Norway are pedagogical institutions that comprise care, upbringing, play and learning. According to the needs of the families, the kindergartens offer full-time or part-time places. Besides being a good pedagogical institution for children, the kindergartens also take care of children while their parents work or study. The aim to build enough kindergartens and the developing work in the institutions are given top priority by the government. The Norwegian Government achieved the goal of full kindergarten coverage in 2009. This has been a high priority policy goal for the government. History The kindergarten in Norway is part of a shared European tradition. The emergence of the modern kindergartens we find in Norway, together with the other Scandinavian/Nordic countries, have two roots: 1) social/care taking and 2) educational/learning. Historically, the social basis was in “daghjem” (day care institutions, open all day) where the main emphasis was on care for children, while the “barnehage” (short-time institution) was grounded more on an educational basis. Earlier the “daghjem” and “barnehage” were regulated as a part of the Child Welfare Act. These two traditions merged into today’s Norwegian kindergartens and were confirmed through its first Act designed in 1975. For many years the debate has been going on as to whether or not the Kindergarten should be a part of the educational system, or primarily a social institution for care of children. The historical development shows that this is not a question of either/or, but of both (Ministry of Education and Research 2008–2009).
128 Attendance and payment In Norway, the kindergarten of today is for children aged 0–5 years and is not a part of the compulsory education system. No child has a legal right to a place in a kindergarten. The parents have to apply and pay the parental fee. The government has increased the effort enormously during the last few years to stimulate the local authorities to build/establish more places. Today, about 235,000 children have a place in a kindergarten. Statistics at national level show that there are about 80% of children between 1–5 years have access to kindergarten. Maternity and parental leave in Norway is up to a year so most children under one year old do not go to kindergarten. Statistics from 2008 show that 85% of children in this age group attend kindergarten (Ministry of Education and Research 2008–2009). Linguistic minority children are clearly under-represented in kindergartens. In 2005, 54% of minority language children attended kindergarten, while the average participation of majority language children was 76%. The difference between the groups is especially large before the age of four (Ministry of Education and Research 2007). There has been a relatively strong increase when it comes to the number of minority language children in kindergarten from 1997– 2008. However, many of those who attend kindergarten spend less time there than their majority language peers do. This is because they either attend for a shorter period of time each day or they only attend for three days per week (Ministry of Education and Research 2010). Reasons for the lower use of kindergartens amongst the minority population vary, but conditions that are mentioned in relevant surveys are the cultural distance from “the Norwegian”, the traditional interpretation of women’s role and duties, the number of children in the family and the low opportunities for income for women in the family. Lack of information, accessibility and pricing also play an essential role (Djuve & Pettersen, 1998; Nergård, 2006). Bakken (2003) showed that minority language families more often have a poor economic situation, and that parents participate in working life less frequently than others. Another factor that plays a role is the cash benefit for parents who stay at home with children under three years of age (a “cash support” of 3000 NOK – EURO 375 a month). This is more decisive for minority language families when it comes to not wanting a kindergarten place than it does for families with a majority language background. Lower prices and better access to kindergarten have been on the political agenda for many years. In 1997, the compulsory school age was lowered from 7 to 6. Ahead of this there was a long debate about this question which went on for many years. To lower the school age would offer compulsory education to all 6-year-olds without a parental fee. This would represent a special benefit to the language minor-
129 ity children. Leading policy makers pointed this out as one of the main arguments for lowering the school age. Parents’ rights Parents are responsible for their children’s upbringing. This principle is set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and in Act no. 7 of 8 April 1981 relating to Children and Parents. Kindergartens represent a complementary environment to the home. Kindergartens must show respect for different types of families. “Kindergarten shall provide children under compulsory school age with good opportunities for development and activity in close understanding and collaboration with the children`s homes” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006, p.5). Two concepts in the law, understanding and collaboration, cover different aspects of the contact between kindergartens and parents. Understanding means mutual respect and recognition of each other’s responsibilities and tasks in relation to the child. Collaboration means regular contact during which information and reasoning is exchanged. Both parents and staff must accept that kindergartens have a social mandate and particular values that the staff are committed to. Staff are responsible for providing parents with the necessary information about the activities of the kindergarten, and the reasoning behind them, and for inviting parents to participate. Kindergartens must be sensitive to the expectations and wishes of parents, both as individuals and as a group. When dealing with parents from minority language backgrounds, kindergartens have a particular responsibility for ensuring that parents are able to understand and make themselves understood at the kindergarten. Dealing with parents from different cultures, both within Norwegian society and from other countries, requires respect, sensitivity and understanding. The collaboration of parents in the overall activities of kindergartens is ensured through their participation in parents’ councils and coordinating committees (Ministry of Education and Research 2006).
Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens Since 1984 all the kindergartens were instructed centrally to establish their own annual plan for the educational activities and to work out their own curricula on a local level. But it was not until 1996 that the first national curriculum was established. The aim of this was to provide a binding framework for the kindergarten staff and the local board committees to follow when planning, imple-
130 menting and evaluating their own education programme on local level. All types of kindergartens, including the “Family day care” institutions (Family day care with teaching guidance from an preschool teacher) and the so called Open kindergartens (Kindergartens where the children attend with one of their parents under the leadership of a preschool teacher) were to ground their plans on this national curriculum, which also included a special section about the Sami kindergarten. Evaluation of the national curriculum The first framework plan for the kindergarten was a document which gave a description of “the good kindergarten” which corresponded closely to what many preschool teachers seemed to agree with. There were two main intentions in working out this first national curriculum: 1) The text should describe “the good kindergarten” in such a way that it should be recognised and accepted by the preschool teachers and others within the kindergarten system. 2) The plan should also challenge the traditional thinking and way of acting and thus stimulate educational development within the institutions. Two years after the national curriculum entered into force in 1996 the Ministry initiated an evaluation of the implementation of the framework plan. The conclusion here was that the kindergartens seemed to have a long way to go before the intentions with the framework plan were reflected in the annual plans and in the institution’s pedagogical life. The results from the investigation suggested that the plan confirmed and legitimised what already was going on in kindergartens rather than challenging educational practice and way of thinking (Retvedt, Skoug, Aasen & Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 1999). A further investigation which put the minority children into focus was carried out as an extension to this evaluation. The conclusion from this project was that a large majority of the informants seemed to have an educational profile influenced by assimilative thinking. The way the national curriculum seemed to be perceived by the educational staff, headmasters and preschool teachers, created a great risk in many of the kindergartens for the minority children to be put under an assimilation pressure. The results from this investigation raised a critical question of whether the multicultural/bilingual/minority issue was too poorly focussed in the national curriculum (Skoug, 1999). Revised national curriculum A thorough revision of the national curriculum for kindergarten in Norway was carried out in 2005/2006 and the new framework plan came into force in August
131 2006. This plan is based on the same values and main principles as before; but the plan document is radically shortened and the profile has been changed from mainly a descriptive character to mainly one of a more normative kind. As before the plan holds out the view that there are no contradictions between care, play and learning. In addition to present how the kindergartens shall take a holistic view of care, upbringing, play, learning and social and linguistic skills. There is now a far more expressive multicultural perspective expressed in the text: “….Norwegian society is far more diverse than it was in the past. There are now many ways of being Norwegian. This cultural diversity shall be reflected in the kindergarten” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006, p. 5). But there are few specific guidelines to help the staff to put this demand in concrete form. As it points out that “…the staff must be clear models…, must be conscious of their own cultures and values …., must recognise their role in promoting cultures through their own behaviour” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006, p. 20), the national curriculum outlines the framework for the content and tasks on an overall level. Thus this new curriculum represents a great challenge to the staff concerning the process of implementation into practice. The concept of learning The framework plan is based on a holistic view of children. This means that the development of children is seen as a dynamic and closely interwoven interaction between their physical and mental circumstances and the environment in which they grow up. Children are social players who themselves contribute to their own and other children’s learning. Interaction with other people is crucial to children’s development and learning. The framework plan builds on a comprehensive concept of learning. Learning includes both formal and informal learning. The plan describes informal learning as more spontaneous and associated to the immediate and unplanned “here-and-now-situations”. Interactions amongst children and between children and adults in everyday care situations and in play is central in this context. The concept of basic competence denotes basic skills to be acquired by the child for life as an adult. Central to childhood is the development of ability to communicate in a broad sense and of social competence, i.e. the ability to participate in play and interact with others in a positive manner. Important is also the development of the identity and skills needed in day-to-day life both in the kindergarten institution and at home (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006).
132 Learning areas The framework plan divides the educational content into different learning areas in order to facilitate the local planning and development of an all-round content with a clear-cut progression. The plan points out, as a leading principle for the content of kindergarten activities, that children’s learning is a continuous process, both in everyday life and in the staff’s more structured and directly planned activities. Kindergartens should give children basic knowledge of central and topical fields. They should nurture children’s curiosity, creativity and desire to learn and offer challenges based on the children’s interests, knowledge and skills. Therefore the plan emphasises the necessity for staff to make good use of the possibilities for learning and experiences within the different learning areas that are inherent in everyday life and children’s play. The learning areas are: • Communication, language and text • Body, movement and health • Art, culture and creativity • Nature, environment and technology • Ethics, religion and philosophy • Local community and society • Numbers, spaces and shapes As before, the national curriculum points out clearly special goals for the children’s outcome within all these areas. In addition, this new plan also points out different demands to staff: “In order to work towards these goals (for children’s outcome), staff must …..” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006). Kindergarten as cultural arena Kindergarten is seen as a transmitter of culture, of modes of expression and values from both the local and the national cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is viewed not only as tradition but also as renewal. Kindergartens play an important role as an arena for the development of cultural identity. Child culture is to be taken as culture of, with and for children. The population of Norway is linguistically, culturally and religiously diverse, which enriches and strengthens the communities in the kindergartens. Children, who do not belong to the majority group, must be supported in the development of their double cultural affiliations. In this matter, the plan points out that all adults in the kindergarten are cultural exemplars for the children. This “….is a very responsible task in an increasing multicultural society where there may be wide cultural differences between children’s homes and also between the individual home and the day care institution” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006, p.10).
133 Children’s Participation The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child emphasises that children are entitled to express their views on everything that affects them, and that their views should always be taken into consideration. Children are entitled to express their views on, and to influence, all aspects of their lives at kindergartens. The degree of participation and how the right to participation is put into practice will depend on the age and level of function of the child. It must be emphasised that children express their feelings both through body language and through words, and that their emotional expressions shall be taken seriously. Children must be helped to wonder about things and to ask questions. Children’s right to freedom of expression shall be ensured, and their participation must be integrated in work on the content of kindergartens. Taking children’s participation seriously requires good communication between children and staff, and between staff and parents. Pedagogical activities must be organised and planned in such a way that there is time and space for children’s participation (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006, p. 8–9). In many kindergartens securing child participation has become a topic of concern. There has been a lively discussion in kindergartens about its content, and staff have different opinions about what is means in practice Research shows that kindergartens have problems realising policy intentions on this point. It seems that staff place a greater emphasis on the individuals choices of children, rather than upon the opportunity of children to exert a real influence and participate in common activities (Østrem et al. 2009) Evaluation of the “new” plan Østrem et al. (2009) published a report about the implementation of the 2006 kindergarten framework policy. The report shows that ensuring the quality of kindergartens remains a challenge. Some of the main conclusions in this evaluation report are: • there is a great need for formal competence in the kindergarten sector as a whole, and in particular on a municipal level and in the individual kindergarten. A greater number of early childhood teachers with relevant education to master level is required • More funding is required ot implement the framework plans • Early childhood education requires a higher degree of practice near knowledge • More awareness and competence is required among staff with respect to the use of documentation to support reflection and learning • More needs to be known about the needs of young children and the manner in which their home backgrounds impact upon their participation in kindergartens
134 • A clear finding in the evaluation is that equality is an area given a low priority (Østrem et al. 2009, p 201–202)
Kindergartens for Sami Children Norway’s indigenous group, the Sami people, are about 1.8 per cent of the population in Norway. Most of the Sami live in Northern Norway, a substantial number also in Oslo. About 1000 Sami children have places in a kindergarten. The Kindergarten Act states that the kindergartens must take account of children’s social, ethnic and cultural background, including the language and culture of Sami children. Further kindergartens, for children in Sami districts, must be based on the Sami language and culture. In other municipalities steps must be taken to enable Sami children to secure and develop their language and their culture. This legislation relates to the ILO Convention no 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. The Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens states that kindergartens for Sami children in Sami districts must be an integrated part of Sami society and must demonstrate the diversity, vigour and variety of Sami society. Sami statutes must include the aim of strengthening children’s identity as Sami people through use of Sami language, and by teaching children about Sami culture, ways of life and society. At kindergartens catering for Sami children, but outside Sami districts, parents and children are entitled to expect staff to be familiar with Sami culture, and to emphasise it as part of the kindergarten’s programme. The Sami Assembly has special grants to establish informative material and information to and about Sami kindergartens (Juuso et al. 2006).
Ethnic Minority Children in Kindergarten Since 1982 there has been a government grant earmarked bilingual assistance to minority children in Kindergarten. The intention with this grant has always been to further the process of integration and children’s language development before starting school. The government’s aim has been that this grant should benefit all minority children in the Kindergarten who did not have Norwegian as her/his native language. But during the period of time after this grant system was first established, this aim is far from being fulfilled. Therefore, this subsidy scheme has undergone changes or reviews several times. The last time was in 2004 when the “earmarking” was removed and the Ministry allowed local authorities to use the grant more flexibly as long it will “… improve language understanding among linguistic minority children of preschool age” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2007).
135 Under the subject-area Language, text and communication the framework plan describes the kindergarten as being important to children who do not speak Norwegian as their native language (mother tongue) to contribute to their bilingual development. The plan points out that getting educational support from bilingual staff will be of great importance to minority children.
Research concerning Minority Children in Kindergarten in Norway In the report “Research about Kindergartens. A status report” (Gulbrandsen, Johansson & Nilsen, 2002) there is an overview of research concerning minority children in kindergarten up to 2002. One project at the University of Norway has focused on the kindergarten as an area for language learning for children in Oslo with a Turkish background. During 1995–96, a project about the tasks of the bilingual staff in kindergarten was carried out at the University College in Oslo. Ytterhus (2002) focused on cooperation and contact between minority and majority speaking children and children with special needs in the kindergarten. Researchers at Hedmark University College have carried out research about implementing the curriculum of the kindergarten and about cooperation between the staff and refugee parents. There are also research findings from kindergartens in Sami speaking areas. The report “OECD – Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Norway 2001” emphasises that Norwegian research in the field seldom is published outside the Nordic countries (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs 2001). The pilot project “Kindergartens free of charge for four- and five-year-olds in the district of Gamle Oslo” I will give a more detailed presentation of one large project in the field. During 1998–2003, the Department of Child and Family, in cooperation with the municipality of Oslo, started the pilot project “Free short-stay places in kindergarten for all five year olds in the suburb of Gamle Oslo” (henceforth called “pilot project”). In autumn 2000, the offer was expanded to also include all four year olds in the suburb who were not in kindergarten. This suburb was chosen because it had a high percentage of children from language minorities, many of them not attending kindergarten (Sand & Skoug, 2002). A central objective of the pilot project was to increase the participation of minority language children in kindergarten and arrange for better language education and better integration. The offer was free, the time frame was four hours a day, and it was organised as special short term groups in different parts of the suburb, in addition to the usual kindergarten. These newly established “project kindergartens” consisted to a large degree of minority language children, di-
136 vided into four to five groups with an equal number of different mother tongues represented in each group. The staff in the project kindergartens had a linguistically and culturally varied composition, and Norwegian was the common language for both children and adults. It was only partly focused on grouping children and adults with the same linguistic background in to common groups. The idea was to motivate the children to use Norwegian as the means of communication and in that way get trained in using the second language (Sand & Skoug, 2002). The pilot project was a great effort by the authorities to gain experience of kindergarten programmes for children from language minorities, and to try out kindergarten as a school preparatory programme for this group, linguistically and socially. Summary of the evaluation of the pilot project The evaluation concluded that the pilot project made a positive contribution, linguistically and socially, to the children’s school start (Nergård, 2002; Sand & Skoug, 2002, 2003). However some obvious weaknesses were noted. The evaluation was especially critical of the project’s aim of “better language training” which was interpreted and understood as meaning Norwegian, and that the children’s mother tongue was not given any formal status and place in the kindergarten’s pedagogy. Moreover, there ought to have been greater efforts to gather children and adults with the same mother tongue in the same children’s groups, to ensure that as many children as possible got mother tongue support, and on this background the evaluation was critical with regards to the composition of the children’s groups. Because of the absence of children with Norwegian as their mother tongue, it was felt that the project was less able to achieve both the aim of “better language training” (understood as the Norwegian language), and the aim of “better integration” than it would have been with a different linguistic and cultural group (Sand & Skoug, 2002, 2003). The minority language parents felt that the kindergarten programme in the suburb of Gamle Oslo had created expectations and motivation for the children to start school, and they were happy that their children had got to know other children who would join the same class. But several of the parents were disappointed that their children had learnt less Norwegian then they had expected in advance, and that few majority language children and adults were in these kindergartens. For many parents, their motivation for accepting the kindergarten offer was that their children would get acquainted with the Norwegian language and culture, and that both the children and they themselves would meet the majority language population (Nergård, 2002). However, the parents regarded the bilingual staff as a safety factor for their children, “guaranteeing” that the kindergarten could be “trusted”. The parents’ view, however, was that the kindergarten was dominated by the majority culture, something they responded to in
137 different ways. Many of them thought this was satisfactory, while some were afraid of this and wanted more support from the kindergarten in the every day life, ways of thinking and values from their own culture. There were also many children who did not attend regularly (Nergård, 2002). A new research project: “The Multicultural Kindergarten in Rural Areas” In 2007 the Research Council of Norway started a large new research programme called “Practice Research for kindergarten, schools and teacher education”, continuing to 2010. The aim is to develop knowledge in cooperation between researchers and practitioners on different levels in the education field. One research project funded by this programme is “The Multicultural Kindergarten in Rural Areas”, carried out by researchers from Hedmark University College. There are very few research projects carried out on kindergartens in rural areas. This project focuses on similar topics to the project in Gamle Oslo. The situation in the kindergartens in rural parts of Norway is however quite different from Gamle Oslo, which is an area with a very high percentage of people with a cultural and language minority background. The project The Multicultural Kindergarten in Rural Areas is funded by The Research Council of Norway and aims at producing knowledge about how the staff in kindergartens in rural districts in Norway with a low number of children and parents with minority backgrounds, mostly from refugees background, manage to meet the learning conditions of the children and the cooperation with the parents. The study focuses on different aspects of the education such as language learning, curriculum, play, integration strategies and cooperation with parents, and data about different aspects of the qualification and competence in the staff group are also collected. A hypothesis is that in rural districts with few minorities, the assimilation pressure upon the children and parents is harder and a compensatory way of thinking would easily influence the educational practice in kindergarten. Different fundamental conditions, like formal competence and experiences have to be adressed in order to provide an optimal learning environment to the children. The study includes both qualitative and quantitative methods, and this presentation is based on findings from a national survey in 7 counties and answers from 525 pre-school teachers.
Summing up As we have seen, it is a great challenge for the kindergarten in Norway to give adaptive support to minority language speaking children. It is important that all the children are ready for school when they leave kindergarten. But the reality is that many of the minority speaking children are required to have a knowledge of
138 Norwegian language which many of them have not yet attained. To make the children ready for school is not only a task for kindergarten. The schools are also responsible to be ready for the pupils. It is a challenge for preschool teacher education to give new preschool teachers skills and proficiency to make the kindergartens more inclusive of the language and culture diversity among the children and their families. This will also help children with a majority background to be well acquainted with the reality of a multicultural society. A multicultural curriculum has to be a curriculum for all children, not only for the minorities, according to the Framework Plan (Sand, 2008).
References Bakken, A. (2003). Minoritetsspråklig ungdom i skolen: reproduksjon av ulikhet eller sosial mobilitet? (Minority Language Youth in the School: the Reproduction of Inequality or Social Mobility) Oslo: NOVA – Norwegian Social Research. Djuve, A. B. & Pettersen, H. C. (1998). Må de være ute om vinteren? Oppfatninger om barnehager i fem etniske grupper i Oslo. (Do they have to Play Out in the Winter. Opinions about kindergartens among five ethnic groups in Oslo) Oslo: Fafo. Gulbrandsen, L., Johansson, J. E., Nilsen, R. D. (2002). Forskning om barnehager. En kunnskapsstatus. (Research in Kindergartens. A knowledge base). The Research Council of Norway. Juuso, R., Bjørn, I. M. E. & Ministry of Education and Research (2006). Temahefte om samisk kultur I barnehagen. (Handbook about Sami Culture in the Kindergarten). Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Ministry of Community and Regional Development (2000–2001). Nasjonale Minoritetar i Noreg – Om statleg politikk overfor jødar, kvener, rom, romanifolket og skogfinnar. (National Minorities in Norway. State Policy Towards Jews, Kvens, Gypsies and Forest Fins) Oslo: Ministry of Community and Regional Development. Ministry of Community and Regional Development (2004). Mangfold gjennom inkludering og deltakelse. Ansvar og frihet. (Diversity through inclusion and participation – responsibility and freedom). Oslo: Ministry of Community and Regional Development. Ministry of Education and Research (2007). Likeverdig opplæring i praksis! Strategi for bedre læring og store deltakelse av språklige minoriteter I Barnehage, skole og utdanning 2007–2009. (Equal education in practice! Strategy for better teaching and the greater participation of linguistic mi-
139 norities in kindergartens, schools and education 2007–2009 (Revised edition.). Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Ministry of Education and Research (2008–2009). Kvalitet i barnehagen. (Quality in the Kindergarten). Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Ministry of Education and Research (2010). Mangfold og mestring. Flerspråklige barn, unge og voksne i opplæringssystemet. (Plurality and Coping. Multi-lingual Children, Youth and Adults in the Education System) Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Ministry of Education and Research (2006). Rammeplan for barnehagens innhold og oppgaver (Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens). Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Ministry of Children and Family Affairs (2001). OECD – Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Norway. Oslo: Ministry of Children and Family Affairs Nergård, T. B. (2002). Gratis barnehage for alle femåringer i bydel Gamle Oslo. (Kindergarten free of charge for all 5-year olds in the district of Gamle Oslo). Oslo: NOVA – Norwegian Social Research. Nergård, T. B. (2006). Hva skjer med innvandrerfamiliers bruk av barnehage når et gratis tilbud går over til å koste penger? (What is the Impact on Immigrant Families when Free Kindergarten is no Longer Free) Oslo: NOVA – Norwegian Social Research. Retvedt, O., Skoug, T., Aasen, S. F. & Ministry of Children and Family Affairs (1999). Erfaringer med innføring av Rammeplan for barnehagen. (Experiences with the Implementation of the Framework plan for Kindergarten). Elverum: Hedmark University College. Sand, S. (2008). Ulikhet og fellesskap: Flerkulturell pedagogikk i barnehagen. (Inequality and Community. Multi-cultural Education in the Kindergarten). Vallset: Oplandske Bokforlag. Sand, S. & Skoug, T. (2002). Integrering – sprik mellom intensjon og realitet? Evaluering av prosjekt med gratis korttidsplass i barnehage for alle femåringer i bydel Gamle Oslo. (Integration – the Gap between Intention and Reality. Evaluation of the Pilot Project on Short Time Kindergarten Free of Charge for all the 4- and 5-year olds in the district of Gamle Oslo). Report 1. Elverum: Hedmark University College. Also available in full text: http://fulltekst.bibsys.no/hihm/rapport//2002/01/rapp01_2002.pdf Sand, S. & Skoug, T. (2003). Prosjektbarnehagen og 4-åringene. Evaluering av prosjekt med gratis korttidsplass i barnehage for alle 4- og 5-åringer i bydel Gamle Oslo. (The “Project Kindergarten” and 4-year olds. Evaluation of the pilot project on the short time kindergarten free of charge for all the 4- and 5-year olds in Gamle Oslo city district). Report 3. Elverum: Hedmark University College.
140 Also available in full text: http://fulltekst.bibsys.no/hihm/rapport//2003/08/rapp08_2003.pdf Skoug, T. (1999). Minoritetsbarna og innføring av Rammeplan for barnehagen. (The Minority Children and implementation of the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens). Elverum: Hedmark University College. Ytterhus, B. (2002). Sosialt samvær mellom barn: Inklusjon og eksklusjon i barnehagen. (Social Activity Between Children: inclusion and exclusion in Kindergarten). Oslo: Abstrakt publishers. Østrem, S. m.fl. (2009). Alle teller mer. En evaluering av hvordan Rammeplan for barnehagens innhold og oppgaver blir innført, brukt og erfart. (Everybody is Worth More. Evaluation of how The Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergarten was Implemented, used and Experienced). Vestfold University College. Report 1/2009. Tønsberg. Also available in full text: http://www.hive.no/getfile.php/filer/Biblioteket/skriftserien/2009/rapp012009.pdf
141
Early Childhood Education in Finland – History, the Present and a Little Part of the Future1 Jarmo Kinos Faculty of Education, University of Turku, Finland
1. Roots – Early Childhood Education à la Fröbelian Tradition The history of the Finnish day care system from the beginning of the 19th century to the year 1973 stems from three separate sources: (1) kindergarten (educational-instructional child care), (2) crèche, nurseries, playgrounds (social and nursing child care), and (3) family day care, relatives, siblings, maids (traditional child care) (Välimäki, 1999). These fields and practices have functioned independently. Over time, the Fröbelian kindergarten, intended for children aged 3 to 6, became the leading form of early childhood education in Finland. It was the only early childhood institution which was (partly) funded by the state. The pedagogical importance of crèches and nurseries was marginal, having their main emphasis in social protection. Further, the family day care institution was not systematic or wide enough to provide a real alternative for kindergartens. In urban areas in particular, its function was closer to informal neighbourhood help. In addition, kindergartens and elementary schools were functionally separate institutions despite their largely common goals, aims, and working practices. The administrative position of kindergartens ignited a flurry of debate: were they to operate under Welfare Administration or Educational Administration? Along with the Compulsory Education Act of 1921, kindergartens were excluded from education proper and joined as part of the Welfare Administration in 1924 (Hänninen & Valli, 1986). At the same time, the division between kindergarten teachers and other teachers was rather permanently established. The earliest phase of organized day care in Finland can be characterized as harmonious and static – despite the brief period of administrative disputes. In all, day care provision was small in number in agricultural Finland, excluding the few industrial communities that had developed their own, specific forms of day care (e.g., Lujala, 2007). Finland experienced a drastic change in her economic structure in the late 1960s. Families with children moved to urban areas in Southern Finland, while 1
Part of this article has been previously published in the Taylor & Francis publication European Early Childhood Education Research Journal Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2008, 224–241: Kinos, J. Professionalism – a breeding ground for struggle. The example of the Finnish daycare centre.
142 their relatives stayed behind. Agriculture lost its dominant position as a means of livelihood and was replaced by industry and new services. Mothers started to work outside homes, and, consequently, the labour market became increasingly dominated by women. The structural changes created a massive problem for day care, and preliminary plans for a Day Care Act were launched. Meanwhile, Finland was being remodelled into an affluent Nordic state (a ‘welfare state’) with a functional social services system.
2. State-led Period – Day Care System under Construction and the Expansion of Early Childhood Education The construction of the public day care system, related to the vigorous change in societal structures in the late 1960s, culminates in 1973 as the Day Care Act introduced a state-run system of day care. The welfare state took possession of day care from 1973 to the mid-1990s. State intervention covered all central areas of day care. In general terms, it can be said that intervention held day care in its grip during the entire period. The administrative sectors of the newly forming Finnish welfare state, were planning themselves and distributing their territories. Day care was one card in this game, because social capital (social services) demands its field. A day care system becomes the most central guarantee for the existence of this field, as the day care personnel increased rapidly in number to form approximately 50% of the entire social services personnel. It is possible that the social services system could not have been built without day care. Day care lends a positive image to social services which, at the time, was struggling with the social problems of marginal groups. Consequently, it guaranteed political support from the middle class in particular to construct the social services system (Heikkilä & Haverinen, 2007). The welfare administration thus received day care, while the educational administration took care of the reformed school education in the form of the new comprehensive school emerging in the early 1970s – something for everyone! This is when an actual system of day care was created, the central goal of which was to balance the demand and supply of day care. The second goal was to provide families with good care as well as a “foster home and foster parents” while the mothers were working outside homes! In the Day Care Act, crèches and kindergartens were joined together into day care centres. The day care forms given were day care centre, family day care, and supervised play centres, all of which had an equal position as the day care system was being developed. The day care centre lost its symbolic status as the principal form and the ‘flagship’ of day care. This is partly also reflected in the fact that the traditional name ‘kindergarten’ (‘lastentarha’ in Finnish) was no longer used. It only survived in the professional title of a kindergarten teacher, ‘lastentarhanopettaja’.
143 Day care became a central part of a social service in which the orientation in (foster) care and nursing acquired a strong foothold, following the interest of the social administration but regardless of which form of day care was used. Pedagogical goals for the kindergarten institution were not formulated until 1980, when the report of the Pedagogical Goal Committee was published. The pedagogical goals were amended in the Day Care Act in 1983, ten years after the act was first issued. However, the emergent pedagogical development did not win full unanimity, as fears and doubts of losing the specific nature of childhood were reflected in the discussions: is the child allowed to play and live according to his or her own rhythm? Why is mathematics being taught to small children? Will the day care centre become excessively school-like? Similarly to medicalization, pedagogics was regarded as a threat to social services, a foreign mode of thinking completely (Kinos, 2006). In addition, the supporters of family day care and those of day care centres disagreed as to which form of day care ought to be primarily developed. Pedagogical goals were not able to bring a reform in the everyday practices, which fortified the conception of day care as a social nursing service. This resulted in the blurring of the image of the entire function of the day care system (Kinos, 1997). In a relatively young urban state, people did not grow accustomed to educating young children outside their homes. Mothers in particular were burdened by a collective guilt for having to resort to a day care system subsidized by the state and organized as paid labour in day care centres. From this perspective, the requirement of a homely atmosphere1 and the emphasis on nursing associated to day care are understandable and logical. The general attitudes towards day care thus largely resembled the ideology of an agrarian society even in the 1980s and the early 1990s (Kinos, 2006). The Day Care Act of 1973 was modelled by the social situation of its time. It was primarily a skeleton law with an interest for the labour policy, aimed to control demand and supply and, specifically, to enable the working and studying of mothers. The main purpose was to guarantee the quantitative growth of day care, which overshadowed the educational task. This was particularly visible in the 1980s. The organisational needs of the adult world steered the day care arrangements and the phrasings of questions. Defining day care as a social service spoke of adult-oriented thinking, that is, of a social task of day care that stems from the needs of adults (see e.g., OECD 2000). "Service" was an apt word for describing the relationships between the day care system and the parents, but not the relationships between the day care personnel and the children (Niiranen & Kinos, 2001).
1
Attitudes are in a way reflecting also in the name of the institution: A direct translation of ‘day care centre’ (‘päiväkoti’ in Finnish) is ‘daytime home’ or ‘day home’.
144 The pedagogical importance of day care and its effects on educational politics were gradually clarified and specified along with the trend of preschool childhood education in the early 1990s. The harmony and stability of the early days of organized day care were replaced by internal turmoil in the day care centres, which resulted in a clash of working cultures formed over the preceding decades. The 1980s can further be characterized by political decision-making to support the home care of small children. This considerably affected the ways in which day care was to be organized in the future. Infant care concentrated in the homes, and a number of infant groups were discontinued at day care centres. Meanwhile, a decision was being prepared on guaranteed and supported day care for every child before the first year of comprehensive school.
Institutional day care
Other day care forms (e.g. private) Kindergarten Practical ability
State subsidy for taking care of children at home
Ability based on theoretical education
Family day care Non-institutional day care Figure 1. Day care system of the children under school age in Finland. No single form of day care (Figure 1) obtained the position of monopoly. In fact, the field of day care changed since the mid-1980s in the opposite direction, at which point the competitive setting for the various forms of day care was created. The day care centre entered a situation where it had to increasingly struggle for its position with other day care solutions. In the early 1990s, competition expanded between various service sectors (e.g. hospital, old people’s home, children’s home, care of the disabled, care of the alcoholics, day care) as the state in its fiscal crisis was trying to discard its role as the monopoly buyer of welfare services.
145 It is very difficult to answer the question of what the most durable and valid form of cultural capital (know-how) was in the state-led day care system. There may not necessarily be one to be found. On the other hand, the only valid currency was the day care capital, i.e. nursing and education itself. However, the professional groups did not commit themselves to this form of capital. Theoretical education of kindergarten professionals has not, in spite of the attempts made, been able to explicitly produce this kind of ability. The state-led, centralized system wanted nursing and education, the education system was producing something else, and the professional groups held on to and counted on their traditions. As a result of the economic recession in the early 1990s, the state economy was balanced. The partial dismantling of the system of social services led to reductions in the supply of day care services. On the ideological level, too, attitudes towards day care were changed. Reforms in the day care field (home care subsidy, the right to tax deductions for hiring domestic help, employment subsidy) were justified by cost savings and the ensuing freedom of choice. Critiques aimed at expertise also resulted in justifying less professional day care. The relative significance of ability based on theoretical education had been gradually decreasing since the mid-1980s.
3. Era of New Explanation – The Emergence of a New Wave in Early Childhood Education From the mid-1990s, after the crisis of the welfare state and economic recession, a new period in ECE and Day Care was launched – the era of new explanation of day care. The right to day care was the most essential structural change since the issuing of the Day Care Act. As of the beginning of 1996, all children under 7 years of age have been covered by the right to day care. As a result of this, the justifications for the organization of day care were changed, since the means test originating from the early 1970s was replaced by the statutory obligation of the municipalities to guarantee day care for all children, regardless of the social or financial standing of the family. Day care became a universal institution that resembles comprehensive school, the notion of which no longer suited the ideology of social services. The educational premises of 6-year-olds were sealed, as a principle was written into the educational and scientific alignment in the 1999 government platform by which free preschool education was to cover the entire age group of 6-year-olds as of 1 August, 2000. In addition, the first national binding preschool curriculum was issued in 2000, followed by the national curriculum for Grades 1 and 2 of the comprehensive school as a continuum. The administrative
146 reform of day care in municipalities was enabled in 2003. As a result of this, municipalities started to shift early childhood education (including preschool education and day care) back under Educational Administration after 79 years of Social Administration. Here Finland followed the path of its neighbouring countries: Sweden shifted the administration of day care under Education in 1996 and Norway in 2006. In Russia and in Estonia, early childhood education and day care were already administered under Educational Administration in the former Soviet Union. Professional training and education in the field underwent a number of changes. For example, as the kindergarten teacher training was permanently established at universities (1995), students of kindergarten teaching and primary school teaching had increasingly more common courses and interaction. The key principle in the educational reform was to bring closer the education of children of 3–6 and 7–8 years of age in order to create a pedagogical continuum (early childhood education – preschool education – primary education). The idea was familiar from both the early steps of the kindergarten in the 19th century and the administrative discussions of the 1920s. The practical field also saw unprejudiced experiments, as so-called ‘schools for small children’ emerged in Finland for children aged 5 to 9. In these functional units, kindergarten teachers and primary school teachers operated side by side and integrated the practices of day care centres and comprehensive school in their work. Another essential change was related to the privatization of day care and the launch of private day centres in particular. Private day care centres often specialize in various pedagogical movements and emphasizes, such as the Reggio Emilia pedagogy, art education, music, physical education, etc. The reforms of the new explanation stage of the day care system were crucial in changing the entire nature of the system compared to its construction in the early 1970s. One interpretation attributes the rapid and partly surprising changes to Finland’s joining the European Union in 1995 (Kinos, 2006). The right to day care, the continuum of early childhood education – preschool education – primary education, the shift in the day care administration, the functional approaching of the day care centres and comprehensive school, as well as privatization generated dynamicity in the field of day care and early childhood education. Meanwhile, the day care centres1 were able to reclaim their lost status as the principal form of day care, as the attitudes towards day care centres have acquired an entirely positive note along with the recently introduced statutory preschool education in particular. The state has played a central role in producing and developing day care services. The role of the state changed, however, as reflected in the cancellation 1
In some cases the names of single day care centres ware renamed as ‘lastentarha’ aka kindergarten.
147 of the role of the state in creating the norms for day care centre practices. The present day care is influenced by many other instances than those contained in the professional triangle. The triangle has turned into a hexagon, at least. The central actors include, in addition to the state, the expert professional groups and traditional "clients who have given the power to the experts", and at least a third sector, the market forces and citizens with their own interests (Rinne & Jauhiainen, 1988, p.46). This direction of development means increasing pluralism and more flexible day care arrangements.
4. Summary To conclude, the Finnish day care system has different and separate roots originating from the European kindergarten tradition, the institutes of social care and protection, and traditional family care. Over the decades, the administration has shifted between the school system and social administration. Social practices have been more important than school practices in administrative issues. In retrospect, the key macro historical milestones in the history of the Finnish day care system and early childhood education are: • The Compulsory Education Act in 1921 excluded the crèche and the kindergarten from the educational system • The Act on State Subsidies for Kindergartens in 1927: guaranteed the operations of kindergartens in the financial sense • The Day Care Act in 1973: created the basis for building the national day care system • The Child Home Care Allowance Act in 1985: the day care centre lost its status and position as the principal form of day care • Kindergarten teacher training established at universities in 19951: the formation of the academic infrastructure of early childhood education • The right for day care in 1996: guaranteed a day care place for all children under 7 years of age and changed the social-service oriented nature of day care • The Act to amend the Education Act in 1999: launched statutory preschool education and joined it as part of the educational system
1
Kindergarten teacher training was established as permanent in universities, and now led to a lower university degree (BA, Bachelor of Education). Concurrently, professorships and other research posts in early childhood education were launched in all universities. The academic infrastructure of early childhood education acquired its current form in 1995–2003, at which time degree studies of Masters of Early Childhood Education (MA) also emerged in all universities. An independent Science of Early Childhood Education first saw the light at the University of Jyväskylä in 2005.
148 • The Act to amend the Day Care Act in 2003: tore down the organizational monopoly of the social administration in day care affairs. There are still many problems to solve. Kindergarten teachers and social pedagogues have acquired a university status. Moreover, universities with degree and post-graduate programmes in early childhood education create a career path and a scientific basis for kindergarten teachers in particular to rehabilitate teaching in the field of day care. Instead, the wages and service benefits have not evolved in line with the educational status. Day care work is still being burdened by the roughand-tumble for job descriptions and work division. The shortage of kindergarten teachers has radically increased over the past decade. The proportion of kindergarten teachers has decreased in day care centres, and socionomists (social pedagogues) have been hired in their tasks. Currently, 30% of those working in Finnish day care centres are trained kindergarten teachers. Finnish statistics show that the number of early childhood staff, with a kindergarten teacher’s degree, working in day care centres has dropped by almost 10% during the past five years. What adds to the shortage of kindergarten teachers is the fact that kindergarten teachers have started to retrain themselves as comprehensive-school teachers (Kinos & Laakkonen, 2006). There is still no political or administrative unanimity on the overall reform of the 35year-old Day Care Act. A family-work function is about to be defined for day care, which will in part decrease the amount of work with children as the work with adults steps in (Karila & Kinos, 2008).
5. Epilogue The story of early childhood education comes true again All Finnish children under six, who are in day care, are now covered by the early childhood education curriculum (2003). The national early childhood education curriculum process has raised welcome and active pedagogical discussion in the kindergartens. The problem is, however, the recommendatory nature of the early childhood education curriculum. It does not lie in the interests of the social and health administration to guarantee pedagogical quality; instead, the final solution of the actual substance of the operations lies with the hands of the personnel and their level of interest. The first compulsory Pre-school curriculum for children under 7 years old (2000) in Finland came into force as of 1 August, 2002. Pre-school education is voluntary for the child, but municipalities have an obligation to arrange for preschool education for every child in its area. In addition, the curriculum of the first two years of comprehensive school was for the first time based on the pre-
149 school curriculum of the six-year-olds, to create a pedagogical continuum. In comprehensive school, a qualified comprehensive-school teacher may act as the primary-school teacher. A person with a degree in kindergarten teaching may teach a pre-school teaching group with no comprehensive-school students. Thus comprehensive-school teachers and kindergarten school teachers are qualified as pre-school teachers. The shifting of day care administration under Education is based on a law that was temporary for five years and then made permanent as of 1 January, 2007. According to the law, municipalities may independently choose the administrative organ under which they wish to organize day care issues. As of 1 January, 2009, approximately 20% of municipalities will have shifted day care under Education. Meanwhile, the municipal amount of day care operating under Education will rise to approximately 50%. Pre-school teaching has assumed the role of the first ‘step’ of the school system, whereas other areas of early childhood education still remain outside the school system. Along with the pre-school teaching reform, the field of comprehensive-school teachers widened to also cover the 6-year-olds. The reform provided kindergarten teachers and comprehensive-school teachers with a common field consisting of two until now separate institutions, the kindergarten and the comprehensive school. As a result of the administrative changes in the statutory pre-school teaching and day care, kindergarten and comprehensive school operate increasingly ‘under the same roof’, whereby the co-operation of kindergarten teachers and comprehensive-school teachers becomes a natural part of the pedagogical work. Thus the boundaries and the roles of the teachers of small children overlap and interact. This creates, for example, new structural premises and opportunities for schools of small children (children of 5–9 years of age). Along with the shift into university-level kindergarten teacher training in 1995, an academic infrastructure with professors and other research posts was created for early childhood education. It is worth noticing that the field of a number of professorial posts is defined as a combination of early childhood education, pre-school teaching, and primary-school teaching. (Husa & Kinos, 2001). Currently, it is possible to pursue MA studies in Education focusing on early childhood education in all Finnish universities. ‘Independent’ early childhood education, however, can only be chosen as the main subject at the University of Jyväskylä. In all, the situation is interesting, as the recent education-political reforms have changed the day care institution from being a social service into an educational service. The other contributing factors are the right for day care and the general and wide attitudinal acceptance of day care. Finland is thus about to join neighbouring Estonia, Russia, Sweden, and Norway as a country that recognizes and tangibly expresses the educational rights of the smallest children. The only
150 thing that has not changed to meet the present-day requirements, is the statelevel central administration of day care – day care continues to be part of the social and health administration! A suggestion for development – new small-children teacher training I would like to suggest a new two-step teacher training that would consist of small-children teacher training and subject teacher training. The small-children teacher training would combine the traditions of early childhood education, preschool education, and primary-school education as well as recent pedagogical innovations. The degree would aim at teaching children of 0–8 years of age, and the resulting teaching vocation would be based on a true interest in the comprehensive growth and development of the children, not an interest in teaching a particular school subject. Developmental psychology and the science of early childhood education ought to be the core content of the new small-children teacher degree; these are also interpreted as concepts of science that are directly linked to practice. There would be internal optional fields within the training, of which one would focus on the education of children under three years of age. The training would naturally lead to a Master-level degree. The current curricula of kindergarten teacher training and comprehensiveschool teacher training do not support the integrating idea of a comprehensive totality of skills. The new small-children teacher training would be based on Fröbel’s kindergarten philosophy and the comprehensive totality of skills as described by Aukusti Salo (the Johannes Käis of Finland).
References Heikkilä, M. & Haverinen, R. (2007). Liudentuuko sosiaalinen näkökulma? [Will the social Premissi. Terveys- ja sosiaalialan johtamisen erikoisjulkaisu 2(6), 13–17. Husa, S. & Kinos, J. (2001). Akateemisen varhaiskasvatuksen muotoutuminen. [Formation of academic Early Childhood Education]. Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. perspective disappear?]. Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 4. Husa, S. & Kinos, J. (2005). Academization of Early Childhood Education in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(2), 133–151. Hänninen, S.-L. & Valli, S. Suomen lastentarhatyön ja varhaiskasvatuksen historia. [The History of Finnish kindergarten and Early Childhood Education]. Keuruu: Otava.
151 Kinos, J. (1997). Päiväkoti ammattikuntien kamppailujen kenttänä. [Kindergarten as a field for struggle of professional groups]. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja, C:133. Kinos, J. (1998). Päiväkoti – kolmikymmenvuotinen kiistakapula ja taistelutanner. [Kindergarten – battle field during three decades]. Kasvatus 5, 524– 534. Kinos, J. (2006). Varhaiskasvatuksen keskeiset kehittämishaasteet ja -kohteet. [The essential developping challenges and targets of early childhood education]. Puheenvuoroja varhaiskasvatuksen kehittämisestä. Opetusalan Ammattijärjestö OAJ. 13–17. Kinos, J. & Laakkonen, E. (2006). Pienten lasten opettajat Varsinais-Suomessa. Selvitys lastentarhanopettajatilanteesta Varsinais-Suomen maakunnassa. [Teachers of the small children in the Western Finland. Situation of the kindergarten teachers in the Western Finland]. Turun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Lujala, E. (2007). Lastentarhatyö, kansanopetuksen osa ja kotikasvatuksen tukitoiminnan päämäärät ja toteutuminen Pohjois-Suomessa 1800-luvun lopulta vuoteen 1938. [Kindergarten work as a part of popular education and in support of home education – goals and fulfilment of activities in Northern Finland from the late 19th century to 1938]. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Kasvatustieteiden ja opettajankoulutuksen yksikkö. Oulun yliopisto E 89. Niiranen, P. & Kinos, J. (2001). Suomen lastentarha- ja päiväkotipedagogiikan jäljillä. [On the tracks of the pedagogy of the Finnish kindergarten and day care center]. In K. Karila, J. Kinos & J. Virtanen (Eds.) Varhaiskasvatuksen teoriasuuntauksia. Juva: PS-Kustannus, 58–85. OECD (2000). Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Finland. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 21. Rinne, R. & Jauhiainen, A. (1988). Koulutus, professionaalistuminen ja valtio. Julkisen sektorin koulutettujen reproduktioammattikuntien muotoutuminen Suomessa. [Education, professionalization and state. Formation of professions in Finland]. Turun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Julkaisusarja A:128. Välimäki, A.-L. (1999). Lasten hoitopuu. Lasten päivähoitojärjestelmä Suomessa 1800- ja 1900 -luvuilla. [Evolution of the children’s day care system as an environment for early growth in Finnish society in the 19th and 20th centuries]. Suomen Kuntaliitto. Helsinki: Kuntaliiton painatuskeskus.
153
What “Gifts” Could Good Beginnings Have in Education Interpreted as a Difference?1 Airi Liimets Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre, Estonia This chapter presents a philosophical reflection on education. The following comments are equally valid for education in general, as well as for music education or art education and education as work or ethical practice. The chapter title is presented in the form of a question: What “gifts” could good beginnings have in education interpreted as a difference? This question is firstly inspired by the claim by Jan Ámos Komenský (1917) that in education everything depends on a good beginning. Secondly this question results from thoughts related to giftedness. That is, talent, is like nature’s gift to a child and that talent understood in this way lays a good foundation for the future. So, the heading of this chapter is a combination of Komensky’s statements and their connectivity to the notion of a ‘gift’ as expressed by giftedness and talent. In the following text I will search for an answer to the question presented as the heading of this chapter. An answer to the question What ‘gifts’ could good beginning have in education?, in my mind requires a search for answers to the following questions: a) what kind of beginning can be interpreted as a good beginning?; b) how are education and beginnings as such related to each other at all? An answer to the first question could be that any beginning can be considered good, if it supports the constant skill and ability to be in a beginning condition permanently. This answer comes from the synthesis of the ideas of Martin Heidegger (1996) and Gianni Vattimo (1988) concerning the connection between Person and Being as such and my approach towards education, that is, education as a difference between Person and Being as such (see Liimets 1999).
1. Education as a difference between Person and Being In a philosophical sense, I have interpreted education as a difference between Person and Being (see Liimets 1999). I have based this definition upon the ideas of Martin Heidegger (1996) and Gianni Vattimo (1988) concerning the relations between Person and Being (Sein). In the case of Vattimo, his questions are connected with the post-modern roots in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, an apology for nihilism (Vattimo 1995) and an ontology of 1
This investigation was carried out with the financial support from the Estonian Science Foundation (Grant ETF-7378; Principal investigator: Prof. Dr. A. Liimets).
154 decline (Vattimo 2003). In the case of Heidegger (1996) I have mainly proceeded from his ideas in ”Identität und Differenz” (Identity and Difference). In the first part “Der Satz der Identität“ (The Sentence of Identity) of the work ”Identität und Differenz” Heidegger (1996: 18–19) says that Person and Being belong to each other as though they have been given to each other (übereignet). Similar to the concept of beings (etwas Seiendes), a Person belongs (as, for example, also a stone and a tree) to the entirety of being; it has been structured into Being (eingeordnet). At the same time, the Person is open to Being as a being-in-the-world (Dasein) that thinks and understands of being. By Heidegger, Being is thought of as presence (Anwesen). Being is present only as much as it concerns (an-geht) a Person, because only a Person, who is open to Being as such allows Being as presence to come along (ankommen). So, Person and Being need each other in mutual interrelation. This, through what in a modern technological world, both Person and Being are concernd about each other (angehen), and talk in the language of com-posing1 (Ge-stell). With the word Ge-stell, Heidegger marks the world where metaphysical ways of thinking continues, but in the form of high-level technology. Gianni Vattimo (1988) suggests using Ge-stell as an ensemble of imposition (Stellen), arrangement (Anordnen) and obliged enjoining (Auferlegen). In Heidegger’s (1996) interpretation Ge-stell concerns us everywhere indirectly. This is being more being (seiender) than atomic energies and whatever machinery, information, organisations and automatisations. Ge-stell does not concern us as something being present (etwas Anwesendes) and therefore stays alien and alienated. Ge-stell stays alien first of all as much as we experience modern technical world through a constellation between an individual and the presence of Being and this 1
The German word Gestell means word-by-word ‘a shelf’. Ülo Matjus has translated it into Estonian as ‘seadestu’ (com-posing) on a substantial consideration. Most importantly Heidegger himself defined Ge-stell in his Spiegel-speech: The rule of composing means that a Person is set, addressed and claimed upon by a power that becomes visible in the nature of technique. By experiencing the fact that an individual is set by something that one is not and does not rule, the individual’s opportunity to understand that Being’s needs become evident. What makes modern techniques true nature, hides the possibility of readiness for experience, necessity and new opportunities. To help to understand it: thinking cannot do more and philosophy is coming to an end (Heidegger 1992; see also Kiisler 2002: 152). Gestell is not something technical, because the nature of technique is something else than technique. This is also not a universal gender definition or general species that could cover all technical (all shelves and frames, undercarriage and frameworks) and technique. By demanding a an individual to set (stellen) and hide oneself, Gestell is a way to reveal or disengage or de-hide, it means the way truth, i.e de-hiding is born (see Kiisler 2002: 151-152). Gestell sets an individual apart in different ways of the setting; it demands the individual into it. This is the danger that belongs to the destiny of ours who are born late. Because so claimed upon an individual stands – setting oneself and at the same time set by Gestell in the characteristic area of Gestell, belonging there – in danger (with its main characteristics being regulations) that in the end he should only be considered as Bestand (component) (Kiisler 2002: 157).
155 experience is a foreplay for something that could be called Er-eignis (word-byword ”event”). Ge-stell – this is the first flash of Er-eignis. With the word Er-eignis Heidegger (1996) does not indicate an event or a situation in its everyday meaning. The word is used as Singulare tantum. In the original etymologisation er-eignen means er-äugen – i.e. to perceive, to notice, to invite to oneself when noticed, to attain, to acquire (an-eignen). So, Er-eignis invites Person and Being to their essential inter-connection (Er-eignis vereignet Mensch und Sein in ihr wesenhaftes Zusammen). Er-eignis is an area that vibrates in itself through what an individual and Being essentially have each other, win the essential for themselves and at the same time lose definitions that metaphysics has attributed to them. According to Heidegger (1996) metaphysics can be interpreted as a philosophy of identity where Being is thought of as beings. In his work ”Zeit und Sein“ (1976: 6) Heidegger defines metaphysics as thinking of beings in entirety that can be understood only from the so-called horizon of higher-level beings that concentrates all beings into itself. The highest beings where also Being is present Aristotle calls divinity or static motion; Plato calls it an idea; and philosophers of the Middle Ages call it the God in the sense of Christian religion. By Descartes and Kant this is expressed in the form of ”I think”. Hegel expresses the highest beings as an ”Absolute Spirit”, Nietzche as ”life” or ”Will to Power”. Being that is not beings, but therefore non-beings, but still allows the beings to be, will be forgotten and become unthinkable. This forgetting of Being in Western metaphysics is not a mistake of thinkers, but rather their Geschick (i.e. something sent their way) to think that way. If two beings (das Seiende) even are different from each other, their difference is in principle still some beings between two similar objects. So, their difference will be in the limits of identity thinking. A try to think of Being would mean to be able to subsume its difference in the total beings as such. Metaphysical thinking as identity thinking has by Heidegger forgotten the question of Being. Asking for Being would lead to a new difference – ontological difference. Ontological difference can be understood as a difference between Being (Sein) and beings (Seiende) that cannot be related to identity thinking any more. Essence (Wesen) as such in these connections cannot be understood essentially, but verbally, from the basis of language as such. But this means that essence (Wesen) can be interpreted as presence (Anwesen), but in the meaning that one is still reaching it (anwesend wird) and leaving it (abwesend werden). What and how we try to think, we always think within the limits of tradition (Überlieferung). Being exists only in the entirety of destiny (Geschick, Ganze der Schickung) and in the form of tradition. To think of Being from the point of view of Ge-schick would mean to trust yourself in the freeing relation of Überlieferung. According to Vattimo (1988: 243) Being in Heidegger’s interpretation is nothing else than a transfer of these Historical-fatal openings
156 (geschichtlich-schicksalhafte Öffnungen) that form a historical dimension for humankind that for people time and again constitute a specific eternal opportunity to access the World (Weltzugang). A person’s experience of Being is understood as an experience to receive and react to these traditions, its contents being Andenken (reminding, re-thinking, return) and Verwindung. Vattimo (1988) thinks that the term Verwindung that was brought into philosophy by Heidegger (and that could be linked to post-modernism in philosophy) means: a) devolvement that includes also acceptance; b) healing, recovery (e.g. eine Krankheit verwinden; it is used not only for illness, but also for loss and pain); c) deformation, a twist that brings along excursive changes. If understood that way, Verwindung has similarities with Überwindung, but the difference is that it has no relation to leaving something behind in the name of a dialectic new (that characterises a relation to past and has nothing to say to us) in the meaning of overcoming. By the opinion of Vattimo the first philosopher who talks in the language of these meanings is Friedrich Nietzsche, who thinks that modernity is a category of temporal and critical Überwindung. As Nietzsche thinks, since the 19th century the too high history- consciousness has been the illness of humankind that hinders one to find oneself. A nihilist conclusion should be reached in order to get rid of history of illness – one has to lose the basis for belief in foundation (Grund), i.e. not to believe that thinking through its activity should find itself foundation and that so it would be possible again to find the so-called new values in its entirety. The power of foundation was especially strongly believed in during the Enlightenment. The task of thinking cannot be to reach whatever foundation. The truth as such is a disintegrating value and people cannot feel things in ”themselves”. In Vattimo’s opinion Heidegger’s Verwindung-thinking is related to the idea of eternal return of one and the same (ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen) presented in the work ”Fröhliche Wissenschaft” by Nietzsche. In light of this idea, thinking is not aimed at development, sources, or any foundation any more, but at its closest. This would be the so-called an error of thinking, thinking in mistakes. This does not mean of course incorrect or wrong thinking, but thinking that goes along with already experienced mistakes, the fabric of morality, metaphysics, arts etc. This would be a road of constructions for the socalled disintegrating truth that at the same time forms our only true wealth and being. Likewise, this would also denote the end of the eras targeted at overcoming, and the end of historism, i.e. thinking of Being under the sign of novum. Together with more perfect cognition of sources the meaninglessness of these sources will increase inevitably. So, the idea of foundation becomes empty and the closest reality can start to show its colours. Comparison between the emptiness of sources and the closest colourfulness is through what Nietzsche suggested what is the task of thinking in a period when the idea of foundation and truth is dissolved. We should turn our eyes from far to near. Thinking of the
157 near would be understood also as thinking in mistakes. In thinking one and the same keeps coming back to us, each time showing itself in different colours. Heidegger (1996) understands post-metaphysic thinking as a deconstruction or destruction in the meaning of the word Andenken (reminding, re-interpreting, return). The task of thinking would be to ask again and again the question of the meaning of Being, to ask again and again for Überlieferung’i and Geschick in order to maintain the continuity of experience. At the same time, this would also be a stimulus for hereafter metaphysics as forgetting of Being – into forgetting of the forgotten, into the entirety of Being. Metaphysics – is like a prison for a person; imprisonment that is derived from the taskfulness (Aufgabenhaftigkeit) of its nature to ask for Being. The task of thinking in Heidegger’s interpretation in the present Gestell-era is defined by the word Verwindung in its entirety as indicated above. Metaphysics as forgetting of Being cannot be thought of only as a mistake of a person that could be removed by will or another strict method. So, metaphysics is not simply our destiny in the meaning that it belongs to us and constitutes us, people, and that we could simply verwinden. Forgetting of Being (i.e. metaphysics) is also recorded in Being (encoded in). Neither Being nor forgetting depends entirely from us. As Person cannot be without thinking or forgetting, there is no escape from metaphysics. But what would take us to the other side of metaphysics, is related to the Verwindung of metaphysics. Metaphysics cannot be just thrown aside, it would stay inside us as pain or traces of illness. At the same time it is something from what you heal again and again, that we give ourselves to and that gives itself to us; so to speak is sent to us (Geschick). At the time metaphysics and Gestell could be experienced as a chance for change, through what they change into the direction that does not originate from their own nature, but is still connected to them. As mentioned already, Ge-stell could be understood as the first flash of Ereignis. Er-eignis can also tell us about an opportunity that the reign of Ge-stell may twist or heal into something else or another provenance Er-eignis. Ereignis-thinking is related to Heidegger’s difference-thinking. The difference between Being and beings (see Heidegger 1996: 57) is understood as the difference between transfer and arrival of revealing-concealing perdurance (Überkommnis und Ankunft des entbergend-bergenden Austrags). Perdurance (Austrag) could be understood as circulation; a mutual circling of Being and beings around each other (Umeinanderkreisen von Sein und Seiendem). Thereby one and the same Er-eignis can be described one time from the side of giving Being and one time from the side of a receiving person. Even both poles and processes belong inseparably together, there is also a difference between them. So, a person, in order to be, shall continuously ask and think (feed) of Being. Being, in order to be, shall allow a person a connection with fatal openness of transmission or as expressed by an Estonian poet Betti Alver: the door of the
158 world is slightly open, everything is possible somewhere. Figuratively, we may say that the ties of mutual taskfulness (questions-answers, transfer and receipt) have made a person and Being neighbours. As a border, an area vibrating in itself that connects these two, but also distinguishes them; through what a person and Being achieve each other, acquire their nature can be understood as Ereignis as an ontological difference.1 To think of whatever event (Ereignis) as Er-eignis, means to be active in the construction of the area vibrating in itself. For that, thinking receives tools from language. Insomuch as our nature becomes rooted in the language used by individuals we live in Er-eignis. So, from an ontological difference, we experience transformation in thinking and speaking about identity and difference, i.e. in reality the language of our thinking changes. In order to think of difference in a new way (that is difference between Being and beings, and not between two beings as such), we look for new words i.e. tools. If we ask now through what phenomena Er-eignis as a difference, that according to Heidegger’s ideas would express a described relation between an individual and Being, would appear in an educational context, then the main category and construct that is defined as a relation between the two inter-related poles (teacher and student; child and parent; younger and older generation etc.) is “education”. So, from my perspective, education (including music education, work education etc.) could be interpreted as a difference between the individual and Being. As one of the possibilities to think of an individual is a textual interpretation (Wulf 2001) – i.e. interpretation of an individual as an anagram – then in order to re-define the concept of ”difference” and to re-render the concept of ”education” I ask: ‘Does the Estonian word “kasvatus” (education) that indicates the phenomenon of Er-eignis that is expressed as a difference between the individual and Being, also the expression of Heidegger’s and Vattimo’s meanings described above?’. As an answer to that question I will perform an anagram deconstruction of the Estonian word kasvatus. I will see what new words can be created from the letters in the word kasvatus. The results can be seen below (the letters in the brackets after a new word show the remainder in the course of deconstruction).
1
In conclusion we might claim that Heidegger’s Er-eignis-thinking that is related to the forfeit of grounds and abyss (Abgrund) and perdurance (Austrag), is well linked to Gianni Vattimo’s (2003; 1995) ontology of decline and nihilism-apology according to what a person lives in the world of ”alleviated“ reality, where, to a large extent, human experience is a mediated experience and it acquires meaning especially thanks to a hermeneutic re-definition of messages conveyed by language.
159 PERSON
BEING
difference: Er-eignis KASVATUS (EDUCATION) = ka vastus = kas ustav = kavatsus = avastus –(k) = vasta, kus = taskus-(va) = taasusk-(v) = sakutav –(s) = tusa kasv = tavausk –(s) = vastakus = kas tasuv = kust saav = vaat kuss = sa katsuv
(also answer) (faithful?) (intention) (discovery) (answer, where) (in the pocket) (re-belief) (pulling) (increase of chagrin) (ordinary belief) (opposition) (profitable?) (where to get) (hush) (you touching)
As we see the Estonian word kasvatus or education as a phenomenon in Estonian when deconstructed as an anagram allows us to really talk about the link (or taskfulness) between the individual and Being in Heidegger’s and Vattimo’s meaning as described above. We can say that education as a difference has power vested in the individual and Being relation, it pulls them both, forcing them to ask and answer each other, to make them re-believe in discoveries and intentions, to put each other into each other’s pocket, to admonish them to be quiet and stay faithful, at the same time increasing the chagrin in both. The difference examined in the described way keeps together the framework that anchors the so-called reality. But the difference itself (here education) that helps different poles of binary opposition to find itself meaning and strive for the entirety of Being, always stays separately, is lonely and, thus, separately taken is meaningless (it is always defined by who coordinates the support). It would acquire autonomy and resulting meaning only in case it would allow the individual and Being achieve each other completely; it would allow them to reach their natural order. But separately taken it would mean the end of the individual and Being. If existing difference disappears, also Being and the individual would disappear, thinking of difference and the differences would disappear – only one and the single thought would stay. The existence of the thought taken only separately would mean absolute singularity and absolute meaninglessness (also thinkers, philosophers – creators of thoughts – have over the times been the loneliest people). Binarity creates meaning, because Being exists as co-being (Mitsein), thinking gives meaning to the thought. An individual as a self-tran-
160 scend nature (Hamann 1993) is characterised by desire and strive for entirety and unity. But this means seeking difference in singularity.
2. ”Gifts” of good beginning in education interpreted as a difference So, according to Heidegger, an individual, in order to be, should constantly ask for the meaning of Being and beings. This means that one only exists when asking questions. Beings hide in order to open again and again when asked by others. So, based on Heidegger, we can claim that mutual taskfulness between an individual and Being appears first of all in the relation between asking and answering. But the mutually interrelated process of asking and answering depicts the constant state of beginning and starting. As such, both education and music education are meaningless in itself, as separately taken they have no content or value. As described above, their content depends on the fact how they unite the individual and Being. So, it should never be a problem in music education what (i.e. what kind of music or songs or piano pieces) is taught, but it is important how it is learnt and acted and what kind is a person’s relation to learning, because education – it is a process as well as constant beginning and start, constant change. If we think in the context of education interpreted as a difference, we can interpret the kind of (music)education that takes care of the constant state of beginning as GOOD, i.e. of maintaining a status that creates a questioning and searching man. But this would mean that whatever education (music and arts education, work education) is responsible for a continuation of the individual and Being as such. Only (music)education as a way of being in the world that is ambivalent in its content and contains opposite phenomena in itself, is capable of that. The ambivalent nature of education (at least in the Estonian meaning of education) as a phenomenon and its inner opposition became also evident during the above deconstruction of the Estonian word ”kasvatus” (education). In order to be able to keep the individual in a constant development and permanent beginning state (music)education should be able, according to its new meanings constructed in the anagram (see above-described deconstruction), to offer a person at the same time discoveries and intentions, ordinary belief in traditions, re-belief or trust in lasting of existence as such, but also a possibility for increasing chagrin etc, because a growing child needs to experience also resistance, force for certain activities and increasing chagrin from that. Without the danger of failure a person cannot value progress and success. Also an Estonian educational scientist Heino Liimets (2001) has emphasised on the need to keep an eye on the opposite extreme poles of the same phenomenon in education (in this case success and failure in education). One of the didactic principles for-
161 mulated dimensionally by Heino Liimets is: teaching shall be in unity with the danger of failure and the prospect of success. Music education may increase the chagrin, for example, if a child has no interest in music as such or in certain music taught in a school or if a child does not like music at all. Some time later the chagrin might transform into trust and interest in music. The chagrin might become gratitude towards music. Through inner polarisation of entirety and dissonance resulting from that, prerequisites for permanent state of beginning will be formed. So, we can say that we are on a never-ending road. So, these so-called “gifts” of education, music education and good beginnings, are hidden in the contradictory nature of the mentioned phenomena. These gifts also seem to be powerful as they force people to search for their own way as such and the gifts hidden in the nature of education make people able to stand the aporia related to Being as such. These gifts make us aware of no-road or the lack of road as such to the entirety of Being from one side and roads with no end and specific aim from the other side, or, in conclusion, allow us to experience the paradox nature of being as human being. These gifts let us know that in spite of constant questioning for Being and its meaning, it is not possible to find final answers or give it meaning, aim or results. This is also how the Estonian language allowed me to talk and think of (music)education and its hidden ”gifts” through the word ‘kasvatus’.
References Hamann, B. (1993). Pädagogische Anthropologie: Theorien – Modelle – Strukturen – Eine Einführung. 2.Aufl. Bad Heilbrunn / Obb.: Klinkhardt. Heidegger, M. (1976). Zeit und Sein. – Zur Sache des Denkens. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Heidegger, M. (1992). Spiegel’i kõnelus Martin Heideggeriga [Spiegel’s talk to Martin Heidegger]. Tõlkinud Ülo Matjus. – Akadeemia, 6, 1195–1227. Heidegger, M. (1996). Identität und Differenz. Stuttgart: Neske. Kiisler, V. (2002). Mäe vari: ringi ümber riiuli [The shadow of a mountain: around the shelf]. – Techne. Koost. ja toim. M. Jaanson, M. Kaldalu, J. Päll. Tallinn: Scripta Musicalia, 150–160. Komenský, J. A. (1917). Mutterschule: oder über die fürsorgliche Erziehung der Jugend in den sechs ersten Lebensjahren. Hrsg. Wilhelm Altemüller. Paderborn: Schöningh. Liimets, A. (1999). Postmodernismi retseptsioonist kasvatusteaduses ehk kas kasvatus olemisel ka eesti keeles laseb kõnelda [Reception of post-modernism in educational sciences or does education allow Being to talk in
162 Estonian]. – Quo vadis, kasvatusteadus? Toimetanud Airi Liimets. Tallinn: TPÜ Kirjastus, 98–119. Liimets, H. (2001). Kuidas õppeprotsess kasvatab? [How does a learning process educate]? Toim. A. Liimets, vene keelest tõlkinud M.-L. Laherand. Tallinn: TLÜ Kirjastus. Vattimo, G. (1988). Nihilismus und Postmoderne in der Philosophie. – Wege aus der Moderne: Schlüsseltexte der Postmoderne – Diskussion. Hrsg. von Wolfgang Welsch. Weinheim: VCH, Acta Humaniora, 233–246. Vattimo, G. (1995). Nihilismi apoloogia [Apology of nihilism]. – Akadeemia, 7, 1434–1444. Vattimo, G. (2003). Vastu languse ontoloogiale [Against the ontology of decline]. – Akadeemia, 7, 1445–1463. Wulf, C. (2001). Einführung in die Anthropologie der Erziehung. Weinheim & Basel: Beltz.
SECTION B CHILDREN’S DEVELOPING SKILLS AND THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CURRICULUM
165
The Development of Speech of Estonian Children Aged 2–4 Years and Its Connections with Environmental Factors where the Child is Growing Up Tiiu Tammemäe Tallinn University, Estonia During the preschool years children develop fast. Cognitive development during this period, for instance, is closely related to speech and language development. During this period, intellectual development undergoes important changes and these become expressed in speech and language development. Early diagnosis of speech and language development disorders and the provision of speech therapy are important considerations of overall child growth and development. The importance of an individual’s genetic makeup and the environment s/he inhabits, can have on child development has been evaluated differently. In general, these assessments fall between 20–60% on the environment (Rowe, Jacobson, & Van den Oord, 1999). This difference is probably related to the variations in children’s home environments. The more attention we pay to the qualities of the home environment, the more we are able to support children’s development. Thus, one can say that child rearing environments play an important part in how and to what extent individual intelligence is manifested (Schneider & Bullock, 2008). The environment can be supporting, as well as restraining. According to those such as Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, and Guerin (1994, 167) and Buckley (2003) home environments play a very important role in children’s intellectual development and development of other skills.. When knowing the factors that influence children’s speech and general development favourably, educational scientists are able to give parents suggestions about how to support their children’s development in more successful ways.
Connecting speech and language with cognitive development Speaking is one of the most complex skills that humans perform. In our everyday communication, we transfer sentences, concepts, thoughts, and ideas. Language, more than anything else, is what makes us human (Maassen, Kent & Peters, 2007; Fitch, 2010). Speaking is one type of human activity, which is guided and regulated by the functional system of speech. Analysis of speech looks at the creation and perception of speech, as well as the acquisition and use of speech, oral and written speech and inner speech (Karlep, 1998, 54). Humans have the ability to use conditional symbols or signs that have a certain content
166 about an idea or phenomenon. Our ability to symbolise is most spectacularly expressed by human language, which is more elaborate than whatever artificially created sign system and is more universal than if all the different sign systems were put together (Hint, 1978, 7–8). Our ability to speak is most accurately viewed in its biological and social unity. That is, humans have the biological premises for learning to speak. The social aspect of the ability to speak lies in the fact that the biological premises are realised only in a group context. Accordingly, chilren need a language environment and age related activities that activate communication during their early childhood. In the case there is limited communication, the development of speech can take a longer time (Karlep, 1998, 60). The fact that children learn in certain times and in a certain order is determined by their genetic makeup or nature, while what exactly they will learn has more to do with their home and community culture (Fukuyama, 2001, 168– 169). Although imitation and following a model are important factors in terms of language development, we do not yet know precisely how exactly children start to speak. One principle is meaningful for early development – children learn to speak through speaking. Therefore, creating possibilities for speaking is very important (Croft, 1995, 158), so that children can learn their first words, words for abstract and metaphorical concepts, understanding stories, and grammar (Feldman, 2006). Children can also, have mastered language before they can tie their shoe laces. (O´Grady, 2005). During early childhood, the use of language is an indicator of cognitive development. During this period language has a multifunctional role in changing cognition and communication. Early years educators are now more than ever having to provide activities in early childhood settings that encourage problemsolving, prediction and critical thinking (Robson, 2006). The remarkable way in which young children acquire language has long fascinated linguists and developmental psychologists. Language is a skill that we have essentially mastered by the age of 3 years, and with incredible ease and speed, despite the complexity of the task (Lust, 2006). The goal of language is to show the development of biological and socio-cultural situations; language is a means through which humans pass on knowledge and culture. Vygotsky (1966) analysed the relationship between play and development. Play is the basis for development since it creates the zone of proximal development. During play a child is always one step ahead from his/her everyday behaviour and development. Play is related to changing needs, to the development of motivation and understanding its link with behaviour. These aspects highlight the importance of play in human growth, since children develop through play. Therefore, play can be called the main activity of children in preschool or the main activity that directs child development (Vygotsky, 1966, 62–76). According to some studies children who do not play or who are paid very little attention
167 to, have 30% less neuronal connections in the brain compared to their peers (Nash, 1997, 52). Taking into account the relationship between speech and psychological processes enables us to establish an accomplishable level of learning, to understand what and in which situation a child speaks, how s/he comprehends speech, and which means of language s/he masters. Speech cannot develop and function apart from other psychological processes like perception, memory, thinking, and emotions (Karlep, 1998, 31). As the child develops the mutual relationships between psychological processes undergo change. In accordance with a developmental perspective, the leading processes can be perception (at 4–5 years), memory (up to 12–14 years), and finally thinking. During every step of development the content and comprehension of speech depends on the most leading process. Speech, in turn, has an impact on accomplishing intellectual operations, and thus, on psychological processes in general. Up to the age of 5 years, children’s psychological activities are dominated by perception as during this period children explore the environment and get to know it. As perceptions appear more concrete, general memory images follow thereafter. The main function of memory during this phase is the recognition of familiar objects. At first, the child talks only about what s/he perceives – speech is situational and depends on the child’s activities. Understanding speech also depends on the perceived situation. Approximately around the age of 5 years, memory develops fast and becomes the main cognitive process. Characteristic of this age is that perception intertwines with memory images, and develops speech, which is external to the situation. Thinking becomes the main psychological process at the age of 12–14 years. Characteristic of this phase is the intertwining of perception, memory and thinking. On the one hand, perception and memory give material for thinking, and on the other, one can remember and recall through thinking (Karlep, 1998; Wood, 2003; DeLoache, 2005).
Methodology Speech therapists need to use standardised tests in their work, to achieve an objective evaluation of child’s speech capabilities. These tests provide an important basis for the diagnosis of speech and communication disorders and for planning further speech therapy. Such tests have so far been unavailable in Estonia and speech therapists have tried to develop children’s language skills by relying on their subjective professional experiences and skills. When studying speech, one must take into account the fact that testing is significantly more superficial than studying spontaneous speech. However, this is the only way to assess how to control all necessary and/or planned units and
168 the only means to observe a big group of children an equal basis (Bloch, 1996, 77). Administering standardised tests should be one part of a complex study of the child. The aim of this resarch was to find out how can the Reynell test (1997) used for assessment of how well Estonian children comprehend language and the HYKS test (1990) can be used for testing Estonian children’s vocabulary. I have delated the sentence on girls and boyd as this is inculated as an objectiv of this study. The aim of the current study was to find out children’s level of comprehending language and vocabulary between at the age of 2years to 3 years and 11 months. The objectivies of this reasrch study consisted of the fallowing: To find out 1. whether the Reynell test developed in English can be adjusted to use as a standardised test to assess the understanding of Estonian children’s speech 2. whether the HYKS vocabulary test developed in Finnish can be adjusted to use in determining the level of vocabulary of Estonian children 3. whether there are differences between the levels of understanding speech and vocabulary between boys and girls in Estonia 4. conditions of the home environment (including cultural, social, and material aspects) that favour the development of Estonian children’s speech and language To begin the study, it was assumed that the chosen tests were suitable for researching the speech of Estonian children and there are no essential differences between the levels of speech of boys and girls. The three parts of this research are elaborated next: 1. The Reynell test (1997) developed in the United Kingdom (UK) was used to assess the level of how well children comprehend language. In this research we used the Reynell Developmental Language Scales III (henceforth the Reynell test). This test is meant for use with children aged 1 to 7 years and it focuses only on appointing the level of speech and language development. This test does not pay attention to phonetic problems. To develop the Estonian language test used in this study, both the English as well as the Finnish language versions of the Reynell test were used as a model. The test includes two parts: a scale for language comprehension and a scale for expressive speech. The current study used the language comprehension scale only. In order to carry out testing, toys and picture books were used. At first comprehension of single words was observed, after that skills of understanding more elaborate sentences were studied. Age norms for children were specified month by month. 2. HYKS active vocabulary test (HYKS’in sanavarastotesti, 1990) is very popular among Finnish speech therapists. It was first used in the Central Hospital of the University of Helsinki (Helsingin yliopistollinen keskus-
169 sairaala = HYKS). In 2002, Oulu University carried out an extensive survey in Finland, to find that 53% of Finnish speech therapists used the HYKS vocabulary test in their everyday work (Huttunen, 2005). During the testing a classical method was used, where an adult places pictures on the table in front of the child and the child has to name the object shown on the picture. If the answer is correct, the child receives 1 point and if it is wrong 0 points. Some pictures allow more than one correct answers (such as mug or cup). The age norms of children’s results were given by 6 months. 3. The questionnaire given to the parents consisted of 43 questions. The questionnaire was aimed at finding out information about the children’s cultural, social and economic environments. This was a semi-structured questionnaire, where the parent had to select and mark one suitable answer and in case there was nothing suitable, the parents could add their own version. The author of the current article created this questionnaire. The children participating in this study were tested between September 2004 and January 2007. Testing was administered individually and depending on the child, it took 30–50 minutes to complete the test. The author of the current article tested all children. Parents were asked to fill in a questionnaire within one week of the test being done and in case they were interested, they received oral feedback about their child’s verbal development. The tests were carried out at 12 day care centres in Tallinn. Altogether 333 children participated in the study. The sample of children included 164 girls (49%) and 169 boys (51%). In order to calculate the results, children were divided into age groups by 6 months (2.0–2.5 years; 2.6–2.11 years; 3.0–3.5 years and 3.6–3.11 years). The first test administered was the part A of the Reynell test, which assesses a child’s language comprehension level. The second test was the HYSK active vocabulary test. After completing the test, each child was praised for completing the test. This chapter presents a discussion of the results on the relationships between the level of verbal development and the home environment.
Results The results of the tests In the analysis, when comparing the Reynell test responses with those of the HYKS active vocabulary test, those children who obtained better results on the former performed also better on the latter (See Table 1). There was a strong statistically significant correlation between the results of the two tests (r = .768,
170 p = .000). As expected, those children who comprehend language better possess also a wide active vocabulary. Comparing the results of boys and girls indicated that in general, girls received slightly better results. In the case of the Reynell test of how well children comprehend language this difference was statistically significant (p = .021). When comparing the HYKS test results, there were no statistically significant differences between the levels achieved by boys and girls (p = .145). Table 1. Results of the tests. Age groups (in years) 2.0–2.5 2.6–2.11 3.0–3.5 3.6–3.11
Reynell test results HYKS test results Average girls boys average girls Boys 26 26.4 25.5 24.6 23.8 25.4 27 28.4 23.1 24 25.1 23.1 34.7 36.1 33.3 35.8 36.4 35.2 39 38.5 39.4 38.9 40.6 37.9
On the Reynell test, in three age-groups, the girls have better results than the boys. The biggest difference was found between girls and boys in the 2.6–2.11 years age group, The girls performed better on the language comprehension test, receiving on average 5.3 points better results when compared to the boys; at most, the difference was +/– 2 points. One characteristic of this age group was that 9 of the weakest results belonged to boys. The analyses of the HYKS test results indicated that in three age groups, the girls have better results, but here the differences were not very big. The biggest difference was in the age group 3.6–3.11 years, and these girls acheived higher scores of 2.7 points or more. The relationship between language development and home environment Many genetic effects became apparent through the genes-environment correlation. In an active gene-environment relationship, individuals can unconsciously choose environments which support their genetic potential (Rowe, Jacobson, & Van den Oord, 1999). Differences in IQ are 70% determined by genes and 20% by the so-called shared environment factors and 10% by the unshared or specific environment factors or events, which have a different influence on family members. Opinions about when do the first words appear vary among different authors, but the most common view is that children speak their first real word around the first birthday. Studies by Smith and McCartney (Oksaar, 1987, 187) showed that the first word appears in 8-month-old children. Chapman (1992, 66) presumes that the first word appears in the 11th month. The studies of other au-
171 thors suggest that a child should have 10–12 words in his/her active vocabulary by the time she is 1 year old. Some others have found that an optimal number is 9 words. Nelson (1973) for example, marks that it is more important to consider the age when the child has 10 words than to focus on the age when the first one word appears. In Nelson’s studies the children had 10 words on average around 15 months. Saying the first words may not be a condition of the child rearing environment, but it is undoubtedly an emotional sign about children’s development. In the survey questionnaire used in this research, participating parents marked 8 months as the youngest age for children to start saying words and 16 months as the oldest. According to these parents the average age when children who participated in the study started to say their first words was 10.05 months (see Figure 1). The analyses of parents’ responses show that in all age groups those children who started to say words earlier, received also better results on the vocabulary tests. Children who obtained better results said their first word on average at the age of 9.5 months, while children whose results were lower started at 10.6 months (the relationship with Reynell test was not significant at r = .097, p = .317; with HYKS test at r = .127, p = .189).
12 10 8 6 4 2 0
9.5
10.5
2.0–2.5
10.5
9.1 10
9.3
2.6–2.11
3.0–3.5
Better results
Weaker results
10
11.2
3.6–3.11
Figure 1. The relationship between language development and the time for saying the first words. During early childhood, in addition to verbal development in the first year of life children also made big advancements in physical development (such as turning, crawling, sitting, and walking). The speed of this is expressed as motor intelligence. Studies show that higher the child’s motor intelligence at the age of 12 months the earlier s/he says the first words (Veisson, 2001). According to the published literature, children make their first steps around the first birthday.
172 However, the parents of the children participating in the current study gave different results. The earliest first steps were made in the 5th month and the latest in the 16th month. It is possible that the parents of these children thought, that the first step was made with significant help from parents, and was not the same as when the first steps were made completely independently by the child. On average, these children had started to make their first steps at the age of 10.8 months. When children were distributed into two groups according to the median of the test results, it appeared that in each age group those children who made their first steps earlier obtained also better results on the language tests. Those children who started to walk later, performed also worse on the tests (see Figure 2). The relationship between the firts steps and the Reynell test was r = .158, p = .074; and the HYKS test was r = .091, p = .307. Children who received better results, also started to walk on average at 10.6 months, while those who received weaker results started on average at 11.05 months. Statistically significant differences appeared between those groups of children who started to walk before the 8th month and those, who made their first steps later than the 12th month (p = .045). Between other groups the differences were not statistically significant.
11.5 11
11
11.4
11 11.2
10.5
10.6 10.4
10.5
10.7
10 9.5 2.0–2.5
2.6–2.11 Better results
3.0–3.5
3.6–3.11
Weaker results
Figure 2. The relationship between language development and making the first steps. Listening to a bed time story is an emotional activity that can be used to promote children’s creatvitiy and imagination within a calm atmosphere. The questionnaire given to parents allowed the following responses: every day, a couple of times per week, once a week, seldom, never. It appeared from parents’ responses that on average 2/3 of the children listened to a bed time story every day or a
173 couple of times a week. The story was predominantly read by mothers (81%), while other family members did it significantly less frequently. The result that 21% of children had a bedtime story seldom or never is concerning. In many cases parents had written a comment that the child was still too small for a bed time story. At the same time, some parents indicated that it was not possible to find age-related stories for every age. However, it was not clear from the responses whether this shows parents’ unawareness or unwillingness. Children who were read stories, obtained on average 6.3% better results in the langugage tests (see Figure 3). A statistically significant difference appeared in the use of both tests: the Reynell test (r = .267, p = .004) and the HYKS test (r = .210, p = .025). The analysis of the research results indicates that as expected the biggest differences appeared between those children who listened to a bed time story every day as compared to those who were never read one. The difference is statistically significant both in the case of the Reynell test (p = .001) as well as the HYKS test results (p = .029).
80 60
52 40 38
57 51
63
3.0–3.5
3.6–3.11
54
44
40 20 0 2.0–2.5
2.6–2.11 Every day
Never, rarely
Figure 3. The relationship between language development and listening a bedtime story. The educational level of parents who participated in this research was higher than the average of Estonia (Database, population accounting, 2001). No parents marked an educational level below basic education. The reason for this can be considered to be the fact that mostly young parents (25–30 Years old) from Tallinn participated in this study, while the statistics from the census includes the whole population of Estonia. Of participating parents, mothers had on average, held a higher education qualification than fathers. Overall, 66% of the fathers and 73% of the mothers had a higher education degree (diploma or applied secondary education). 24% of the fathers and 21% of the mothers had completed
174 secondary education, and 10% of fathers and 6% of mothers had achieved a basic education. The educational level of mothers and fathers was moderately correlated (r = .392; p = .000), thus the educational level of both parents was rather likely to be of equal standing. Comparing the children of mothers with basic education to the children of mothers with a Master’s degree, it appeared that in all age groups, the children whose mothers had a higher education, obtained better results (r = 768; p = .000). On average the children of mothers with higher education received 4% better results (see Figure 4). It is important to note the fact that although all age groups had a tendency where children of mothers with higher education obtained better results on the vocabulary test, the differences between the results in all age groups were not absolute. However, in all age groups those children, whose mothers had basic education, obtained lower results as compared to other children.
80 60 40
47 37
40
69
53
71
40 45
20 0 2.0–2.5
2.6–2.11 Fundamental education
3.0–3.5
3.6–3.11
High education
Figure 4. The relationship between language development and mothers level of education. The parents of the children who participated in this study were asked about their abilities to communicate in a foreign language. It is positive to note that only 4% of the parents lack a foreign language skill. It was found that 2/3 of the parents spoke 2 or 3 foreign languages. Maximally, knowledge of 5 foreign languages was marked. Parents’ foreign language skills might not have a direct relationship with their children’s language development, since parents do not usually communicate with children in foreign languages but in the mother tongue. However, foreign language skills in general show a wider range of interests, erudition,
175 better linguistic competence, and more conscious attitude toward language as a means of communication. When comparing the results of the children who participated in the study, an unexpected tendency emerged. Namely, children whose parents spoke more foreign languages obtained better results on the vocabulary test. When comparing the children of parents who did not speak foreign languages with those whose parents spoke 3 or more other languages, it appeared that in every age group the latter obtained more points (Reynell test p = .008; HYKS test p = .055). On average, children whose parents spoke 3 or more languages received 6% better results compared to children whose parents spoke none or only 1 foreign language (see Figure 5). Statistical analysis indicated that the correlation between foreign language skills of parents and child’s language development was small (with Reynell test r = .206/ r = .186 and HYKS test r = .188/ r = .175), but nevertheless statistically significant. Relations with mothers’ foreign language skills were in the case of the Reynell test was significant at p = .022 and HYKS test at p = .037. In the case of fathers’ foreign language skills, the relationships were also significant at p = .044 and p = .059 respectively.
76
80
64
60 40
32
35
42 49
42 43
2.6–2.11
3.0–3.5
20 0 2.0–2.5
Non or 1
3.6–3.11
3 or more
Figure 5. The relationship between language development and mothers foreign language skills. Parents of children who participated in the study were also asked about the average income of each parent. In analysing these answers one must take into account the fact, that since the time this questionnaire was first administered, there has been changes in the Estonian economy which have also significantly changed the average wage of the country. In 2003, the average wage was 6723 croons and the average income per one member of the household was 2789 croons. By the year 2005, the average wage had increased to 8073 croons and
176 the income per one household member was up to 3475 croons (Database Economy, 2001). The most common income for one family member, in families that participated in the current study, was 2000–5000 croons per month. Overall, 14% of the families had to manage with less than 2000 croons for one person, which means living under the poverty threshold. 4% of the respondents had marked their income per one family member to be over 10000 in month. The results of the study indicated that in every age group children from families with smaller incomes received less points on the vocabulary test compared to children from families with higher monthly incomes. When comparing the incomes of the families in the lower and the upper end – those who received 2000 croons versus those who received 10000 croons per one family member – it appears that on average children from families with very low incomes (up to 2000 croons) obtained 12.4% lower results compared to children from families with high incomes (more than 10000 croons). There were no statistically significant differences in the case of the different incomes neither with the Reynell test (r = .005, p = .954) nor the HYKS test (r = .086, p = .365) (see Figure 6). A reason for this could be the fact that the number of children in different income groups was very different.
76
80
64
60 40
32
35
42 49
42 43
2.6–2.11
3.0–3.5
20 0 2.0–2.5
... 2000
3.6–3.11
10000
Figure 6. The relationship between language development and family income. Parents were also asked questions about what events outside home the child, the mother, and the father attended together (for example, going to the cinema, theatre, concert, visiting friends, etc.). The responses were selected from the following options: several times a week, once a week, a couple of times in month, once a month, once a year, very seldom, not at all. It appeared that 71%
177 of the children had attended events outside home once or more times per week. Moreover, 10% of the children went out once a month or less. Without their children parents went out significantly less often – 25% of parents went out once a year or even less and 5% of parents claimed that they never went out. The questionnaire did not give much information about the reasons for not going out such as is it lack of interest, time or money. At the same time, the tendency that the child was taken out a lot was in every way positive and may reflect the interest of families to spend time together and express their wish to spend as much time as possible with their children. In analysing these results, we were seeking to find out the extent to which taking children to community events was related to language development. In general, the differences fell within the range of 1–2%. One exception was the age group from 2.6 to 2.11 years, where the results of children who went out several times a week was 9% better from the results of children who went out once a month or less often (see Figure 7). There were no statistically significant differences in the case of either the Reynell test (r = .086, p = .364) or the HYKS test results (r = .007, p = .943).
80 57.1
60 40
28.2
29.7
40.9 31.9
59.5
30.5 29.4
20 0 2.0–2.5
2.6–2.11 Many times per week
3.0–3.5
3.6–3.11
Once a month
Figure 7. The relationship between language development and the frequency of events attended outside home.
Discussion The aim of this study was to find out the level of 2 to 3 year old children’s understanding of speech and vocabulary and to find relations between the level of language development and the conditions of the home rearing environment.
178 Reynolds (1995) presumes that about 5% of preschool children have speech and language disorders and in the case of different methods, this indicator can be even up to 20%. Hartas (2005) refers to the accepted fact that up to 10% of school children experience some degree of difficulty with their language and communication skills. Speech and language development disorders in early childhood are a big risk factor for later development, identifying disorders and they are related to a qualitative lack in cognitive and social development. Therefore, early diagnosis and speech therapy are very important in terms of addressing the child’s further development. In order to evaluate objectively the level of language development, speech therapists need different speech and language tests. One of the aims of the current work was to adapt the Reynell and HYKS tests into Estonian language and to do a primary analysis of the results of Estonian children. Those tests can be used for find out objective results about Estonian children’s speech and language development. Using the chosen tests – Reynell test for comprehending language and HYKS vocabulary test was justified. The obtained results were similar to those in the countries of origin of the tests (Reynell test in the UK and HYKS in Finland). However, a final standardisation of these tests would need a more extensive research. In general, girls are considered to be verbally more talented and it is presumed that they outperform boys in terms of verbal development (Veisson, Nugin, 2006) The hypothesis about the fact, that boys’ speech and language development is equal to girls’, was achieved partially. Thus, it is necessary to test more children to find out if there are statistically significant variations. When comparing the results of boys and girls, the results of girls were somewhat better and there were statistically significant differences in the results for the Reynell test. In the case of the HYKS active vocabulary test the differences were not significant. Thus, one can conclude that girls were somewhat better in comprehending language compared to boys, but apparently there were no significant differences in their levels of vocabulary. A lot of attention in recent years has been turned to the early rearing environment of children and its influence on child development side by side with heredity has been proved. According to different sources environment constitutes 20–60% in the development of intelligence, thus, one can presume that such difference in percentages is largely related to differences in home environments (Bachmann, Maruste, 2001). The more we turn attention to the quality of the environment, the more we are able to support and help the child through it. According to the results of this study, reading bedtime stories has a good influence on children’s language development. There were statistically significant differences in this area, with children who fell asleep with a bedtime story had better results on both tests. Although 2/3 of the children participating in the current study could hear a bedtime story every evening, 1/5 of the children were
179 never read a story in the evenings. In addition to the findings of this study, previous researchers in Estonia have also found that those children who can listen to bedtime stories, can have a higher rating in intelligence scales (Veisson, 2001). Using these research findings, by advising young parents about the benefits of this traditional evening activity, educators can promote the enhancement of language development during early childhood. Educators can also assist by identifying and informing parents about appropriate literature suitable for the different age and capacities of children during early childhood. There was a tendency in all age groups that the results of the children whose mothers had basic education were lower from those children whose mothers had higher levels of education. However, children of parents who spoke more foreign languages, were verbally more skillfull, and obtained better results on both the tests. Previous researchers have assessed that there is a strong correlation between mothers’ education and children’s mental intelligence (Veisson, 2001). The majority of children in the current study came from families with average incomes. Economically well off families (more than 10000 croons per family member in month) made up only 4% of the sample, while 8% of the children lived under the poverty threshold (less than 2000 croons per person). Since the number of children in different income groups was very different, the differences between different levels of language development were not statistically significant. Previous research in Estonia has confirmed that if the income for one person in the family is bigger, this is sufficient to enhance children’s language development (Veisson, 2001). This study also attempted to find out to what extent is attending children’s events outside the home is related to language development. In most cases, the differences were around 1–2% and statistically not significant. It appeared that the majority of children (71%) went out with their parents at least once a week to events such as the theatre, cinema, long walks and visiting friends. About 10% of the children went out once a month or less frequently. In summary, one can say that the earlier a child starts to say the first words and the younger s/he starts to walk, the faster is his/her development of speech and language skills. This study has shown that from among the environmental factors observed, reading bedtime stories, the mother’s higher educational level, parents’ foreign language skills and the family’s material well-being, have a positive influence on speech and language development during early childhood.
References Bachmann, T. & Maruste, R. (2001). Psühholoogia alused [Basis of Psychology]. Tallinn: Ilo.
180 Bloch,V. (1996). Children`s phonological development – The Importance of Roman Jakobson. Denmark: Audiologopaedisk Forening. Buckley, B. (2003). Children’s communication skills: from birth to five years. London: Routledge. Chapman, R.S. (1992). Processes in Language Acquisition and Disorders. St.Louis: Mosby Year Book. Croft, J. D. (1995). An Activities Handbook for Teachers of Young Children (Sixth edition). Boston-New York. Database Economy. (2001). http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Database/ Majandus/Majandus.asp Database, population accounting. (2001). http://www.stat.ee/files/koolinurk/rahvaloendusest/tulemused /haridus.php DeLoache, J.S. (2005). Mindful of symbols. New York: Scientific American. Feldman, J.A. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: a neural theory of language. London: Language Arts & Disciplines, MIT Press. Fitch, W.T (2010). The Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fukuyama, F. (2001). Suur vapustus. Inimloomus ja ühiskondliku korra taastamine [The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order]. Tallinn: Tänapäev. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K. & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ. Early Developmental Aspects. The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York: Plenum Press. Hartas, D. (2005). Language and communication difficulties. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Hint, M. (1978). Häälikutest sõnadeni [From sounds to words]. Tallinn: Valgus. HYKS sanavarastotesti [HYKS vocabulary test. (1990). Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Karlep, K. (1998). Psühholingvistika ja emakeeleõpetus [Psycholinguistics and teaching Estonian language]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. Lust, B. (2006). Child language: acquisition and growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maassen, B., Kent, R., & Peters, H. (2007). Speech Motor Control: In Normal and Disordered Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nash, M. (1997). Fertile Minds. Time, 10, 50–58. New York. Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Resarch in Child Development, 38, 149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Grady, W. D. (2005). How children learn language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
181 Oksaar, E. (1987). Spracherwerb im Vorschulalter [Language development in preschool age]. Einführung in die Pädolingvistik. Stuttgart: Verlag W.Kohlhammer. Reynell Developmental Language Scales III (1997). Oxford: Nfer-Nelson. Reynolds, M. C., & Birch, J.W. (1995). Adaptive Mainstreaming. A Primer for Teachers and Principals (Third Edition). New York: Longman Inc. Robson, S. (2006). Developing thinking and understanding in young children. London: Routledge. Rowe, D. C., Jacobson, K. C. & Van den Oord, E. J. C. G. (1999). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Vocabulary IQ: Parental Education Level as Moderator. Child Development, 70, 5, September-October, 1151–1162. Schneider, W., Bullock, M. (2008). Human development from early childhood to early adulthood: findings from a 20 year longitudinal study. New York: Hove: Psychology Press. Veisson, M. (2001). Kasvukeskkond ja andekus [Rearing environment and giftedness]. Haridus, 1, 50–53. Veisson, M., Nugin, K. (2006). The relationship between intelligence, language, and creativity development of preschool children with their developmental environment. Tallinn: TLÜ Kirjastus. Võgotski, L. (1966). Igra i jejo roll v psihitseskim razvitii rebjonka [Playing and its role in child development]. Voprosi psihologi, 6 (In Russian) Wood, D. (2003). How Children Think and Learn, Second Edition. New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
183
The Intellectual Development of 3–6-Year-Old Children in Different Child Rearing Environments in Estonia Kristina Nugin, Marika Veisson Tallinn University, Estonia
Introduction Supporting children’s intellectual development during pre-school years is important for parents as well as teachers. The following research study investigated the relationship between different child rearing environments and intellectual development. Well-considered and an age appropriate environment in a kindergarten supports the intellectual development of children. The current study tries to examine the intellectual development of 3–6year-old children in different child rearing environments. The theoretical part of this study presents perspectives about intelligence, about the development of 3– 6-year-old children and child rearing environments. Intellectual development includes different aspects. Every child is an individual who has different interests and talents. Intelligence can, according to Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory, be manifested in various ways. It is essential to see the distinctiveness of every child and to be able to value it (Gardner, 1983). Research demonstrates that neighbourhoods with low socio-economic conditions, experienced within a kindergarten, have a durable, negative effect on children’s reading and comprehension outcomes (Lloyd & Hertzman, 2010). Such research provide evidence that early social contextual experiences play a critical role in the lives of children. However, it is also important to note that early childhood education and care cannot compensate completely for developmental deficits due to unfavourable learning conditions in disadvantaged environments (Burger, 2010). There are some special programmes that can assist children to get started in the learning process effectively. One of those programmes is the Ready To Learn (RTL) which was developed by Villares, Brigman & Peluso, 2008. RTL strategies and structured activities have been shown to assist students develop critical academic and social skills. The main skill areas are, listening, social skills, and cognitive skills such as understanding the story. Working memory and attention control predicts growth in emergent literacy and numeracy skills during the pre-kindergarten year. Moreover, growth in these domain-general cognitive skills makes unique contributions to the prediction of kindergarten mathematics and reading achievement, by controlling for growth in domain-spe-
184 cific skills (Villares, Brigman & Peluso, 2008; Welsh, Nix, Blair, Bierman & Nelson, 2010). Today, aspects such as task-orientation, motivation, and interest, which the existing intelligence tests do not measure, are considered important for intellectual development. Within contemporary day care centres, the different intelligence levels are taken into account in relation to the care and education of preschool age children. Within these centres, children develop physically, musically, receive knowledge in arithmetic and acquire verbal skills. They also develop their spatial, interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. Thus, all children in these centres are offered a wide spectrum of activities that promote their development. Naturally, the multiple intelligence levels are necessary and therefore it is important also to develop children in these areas. Only 1–2 years after meeting the child, when s/he has grown older – at around the age of 5–6 years, is it possible to see in what area of intelligence the child is better or worse. The preferences and the stronger sides of a child should be supported; however, one should also continue to develop the weaker sides (Gardner, 1983; Renzulli, 1995; Kuhn & Udell, 2001). The cognitive class theory (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) posits that intelligence prescribes the individual’s socio-economic status. That is, one’s intelligence determines the cognitive class to which the individual belongs and this in turn, dictates their socio-economic status. The task of the child rearing environment is to make children interested and to support the wish “to get to know”. The child rearing environment conditions and provide stimuli which are, first and foremost, created for supporting the child’s development (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). The central focus of the Step by Step programme is a development oriented way of teaching, which takes into account that children develop and grow at a different pace. The central question, in preschool education, is how to create the best conditions and stimuli within the environment to support children’s intellectual development. In the preschool years, children’s verbal, motor, and thought development undergo rapid change; and there is also the need to achieve something and to cope. It is believed that the genetic potential becomes manifested in a stimulating rather than in a non-stimulating environment. The Step by Step Programme draws attention to the importance of child rearing environments, especially during the preschool years. The use of intelligence tests, for instance, provides an overview of the developmental level of children and reveals those areas in which children are more developed and which areas parents should take into account more (Hansen, Kaufmann & Walsh, 1997). By the time children go to school many have acquired the skills of reading, writing, and counting. During the preschool years intellectual development undergoes important changes. Testing a child’s intelligence or IQ level is important to find out the in-
185 dividual characteristics and peculiarities of a child. Even within the same family, different child rearing factors can magnify individual differences (Flavell, 1992). Children are different in terms of their intellectual abilities. The intellectual development of individual children within a group, should always be viewed separately considering the concrete child and taking into account each child’s individual characteristics. Cognitive development includes skills and knowledge in a certain area rather than general aptitude. Such concrete areas include, for example, verbal development, reading, writing, and knowledge in mathematics. Specific areas are nowadays seen as distinct from cognitive basic processes like memory and attentiveness. However, one should pay attention also to the fact that general development can only be supported via such different specific areas (Curtis & O’Hagan, 2003; Croll & Hastings, 1997; Rogoff, 1990). Different children experience and perceive the environment differently. Thus, the impact of one and the same child rearing environment can never be identical even for children from the same family. The role of parents is to understand in what areas are children stronger and weaker and to support their development more effectively (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst & Guerin, 1994; Capron & Duyme, 1989; Espy, Molfese & DiLalla, 2001).
Problem of the study We do not know the level of intelligence of Estonian children at preschool age. There are mainly two preschool programmes in Estonia: Ordinary preschool programmes which work on the basis of the National Curriculum of Estonia (Koolieelse lasteasutuse...2008) and Step by Step preschool programmes which also uses the National Curriculum, but also considers specifications under the Step by Step Programme guidelines. The current study focuses on how these two preschool programmes influence children’s intellectual development. We also focus on the role of parents in supporting cognitive development during early childhood. The aims of the study were to find out the: • level of motor and verbal development of 3–6-year-old children in the development of general intelligence, and • characteristics of intellectual development in different child rearing environments. We consider it important to study this theme to find out answers to questions such as: what are children with a higher IQ better at? and in what sense does this ability indicate a further development above the norm? These findings should
186 give us a clearer picture about Estonian children’s zone of proximal development. The study tested the following hypotheses: 1. The intellect of the 3–6-year-old children who were well stimulated at home by parents (from now on referred to as the longitudinal group) is higher than that of the children attending either an ordinary preschool programme or a Step by Step preschool programme, since these parents had attended training seminars, were individually advised, and received direct feedback about their child’s intellectual development. 2. The intellect of 3–6-year-old Step by Step group children is higher than the intellect of ordinary group children, since the study takes place in organised centres and special attention is placed on the cooperation with parents and on the promotion of mutual cooperation between children.
Procedure The current study tries to find out the level of intellectual development of 3–6year-old children in three different child rearing environments and therefore includes 3 groups: 1) Longitudinal group children (its special feature is a stimulating environment at home), 2) Ordinary Preschool group 3) Step by Step Preschool group Also some children, in the Ordinary group and in the Step by Step group, have been studied longitudinally, but the longitudinal group is different from them as intellectual development of the experimental group has been monitored since the age of 3 months. Intellectual development of other children in the study groups have been monitored since the age of 3 years. The experimental group children differ, because testing took place at the children’s home or at the Child Research Centre at Tallinn University, not at the day care centre. In addition, these parents were given feedback instantly about the results of the IQ tests, about what the child had mastered, what the child did moderately well, and what should definitely be supported by parents in future development. The ordinary and Step by Step group parents did not receive direct feedback about a child’s results, unless they themselves showed interest. The longitudinal group children were tested at home or at the Child Research Centre of Tallinn University. The parents, or other accompanying people of the longitudinal group children, stayed with the child during testing. After testing, the parents of the experimental group children were given feedback
187 about their child’s test performance. Parents had the opportunity to present questions about the development of their child and to ask for advice. All parents did this. The parents of the longitudinal group children were very interested in what they could teach their children and how to do it. The ordinary and the Step by Step group children were tested at the day care centres’ group rooms or in separate rooms. Only the examiner and the tested child were present in the room. Data were analysed with using the SPSS software, and statistically significant differences between groups were calculated by using LSD and ANOVA analyses.
Method and sample As a method we used the Wechsler Primary and Preschool Scale of IntelligenceRevised (WPPSI-R) scale. The WPPSI-R scale is a clinical instrument, which is used to measure the intellect of children aged 3 years to 7 years and 3 months, bringing out separately the child’s performance and verbal abilities (Wechsler, 1990). The author of the WPPSI-R has defined intelligence in relation to the environment. It is important for a person to fit into the environment and to manage successfully in this environment (Wechsler 1944). As the test has not been adapted for Estonia yet we have to keep to the defined norms. Professor Marika Veisson has received an answer from the Psychological Corporation that as the total population of Estonia is very small we can use the norms of the WPPSI-R scale to analyse the findings of this research. In this study, a total of 551 children were tested (264 girls, 287 boys) using the WPSSI-R test. Of these 110 belonged to the Step by Step group (51 girls, 59 boys) and 215 were ordinary group children (108 girls, 107 boys). In the longitudinal group there were 226 children (105 girls, 121 boys) and this group was comprised of the children whose development was observed by the Child Research Centre of Tallinn University and whose level of intellectual development was tested starting at the age of 3 months. The average time for completing the test was approximately 90 minutes. The distribution of children across age is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Age-wise distribution of children across the study groups. Study group 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years Longitudinal 24 100 63 39 Step by Step 20 36 30 24 Ordinary 29 52 51 83
All 226 110 215
188 Results The WPSSI-R test includes two scales: performance and verbal scales. Children belonging to the group of average intellect distributed differently in both the verbal and the performance scales. Namely, there were more children, whose verbal IQ rather than performance IQ is between 90–109 points – that is, 35.7% and 23.3% respectively. In the case of the performance scale results compared to those of the verbal scale there were more children whose IQ is between 130 or more – 30.1% and 21.9% respectively. This tendency appears already in the case of children whose IQ was classified to be 120–129. Thus, it is possible to argue that children with a higher general IQ have a more developed performance IQ, which demands good fine motor movements and a skill to comprehend the whole. Children with average general IQ had a more developed verbal IQ, which demands good vocabulary, self-expression, and finding cause-and-effect relationships. The IQ levels of the different study groups are presented in Table 2. Table 2. IQ levels in different study groups (%). Group
IQ 130 IQ 120– and higher 129
IQ 110– 119
IQ 90– 109
IQ 80– 89
IQ 70– 79
Longitudinal
40.4
17.5
22
17
2.2
0.9
Step by Step
30.3
11.8
27.3
29.1
0.9
0.9
Ordinary
21.3
13.9
21.8
34.3
6.9
1.9
As Table 2 indicates, the largest number of children, whose intelligence was over 130 IQ points, came from the longitudinal group. At the same time, there were fewer children with average intelligence in the longitudinal group – only 17% in the 90–109 IQ point range. In the Step by Step group children were distributed almost evenly on these levels, 30.0% and 29.1% respectively. In the case of the ordinary group, most of the children belonged to the average intelligence group with 90–109 IQ points (34.3%) and compared to the other groups, a smaller number came from the group of highly intelligent children (21.3%). Since the data reveals a clear difference also between the Step by Step and the ordinary group children, one can assume that the Step by Step programme has a more positive influence on children’s development than that of the ordinary group. Figure 2 indicates also that, if not taking into account the 70–79 and 80– 89 IQ point groups, the smallest number of children from all study groups came from the range of 120–129 IQ points. In the case of the longitudinal group
189 17.5% of the children belonged to the range of 120–129 and 17% to the range of 90–109 IQ points. There were rather few children whose IQ was in the range of 120–129 points especially among the Step by Step and the ordinary group children. A reason for this might be the fact that the day care centres try to attain an average level with the whole group and those children who are highly intelligent receive less attention. The Wechsler intelligence scale has 7 IQ levels, thus, it is not so easy for teachers to take into account the level of children’s intellectual development in their every day work. At school, a 5-point scale is used, but before school the easiest way for the teacher to take into account children’s individuality is by using a 3-point system. With more individualised programs available at the day care centre or, the more activities with different levels of difficulty were offered to children, the more it is possible to develop the abilities of all children. Similarly, the more orientation there is toward the average, the less attention children with higher intelligence will get. When analysing the IQ ranges of 70– 79 and 80–89 points we can claim that these were the groups that included a few problematic children with very individual peculiarities.
Intellectual development of 3 year olds The number of children tested, the mean values and statistically significant differences in intellectual development of 3-year-old children compared in different study groups, is presented in Table 3. Table 3. Multiple Comparisons LSD for different study groups, 3 year olds. Dependent Variable
Verbal IQ
(I) Group
N
longitudinal
24
Step by Step
20
ordinary
29
Mean Std. Mean (J) Group Difference Error (I–J) Step by 13.43(*) 5.22 116.33 Step ordinary 2.33 4.76 longitu–13.43(*) 5.22 102.9 dinal ordinary –11.10(*) 5.01 longitu–2.33 4.76 dinal 114 Step by 11.10(*) 5.01 Step
Sig. .012 .625 .012 .030 .625 .030
190 Table 3. Continued Dependent Variable
Performance IQ
(I) Group
N
Mean
longitudinal
24
123.33
Step by Step
20
ordinary
IQ
29
longitudinal
24
Step by Step
20
ordinary
29
111.9
125.97
122.83 108.1
122.97
Mean Std. (J) Group Difference Error (I–J) Step by 11.43(*) 4.23 Step ordinary –2.63 3.86 longitu–11.43(*) 4.23 dinal ordinary –14.07(*) 4.06 longitu2.63 3.86 dinal Step by 14.07(*) 4.06 Step Step by 14.73(*) 5.13 Step ordinary –.13 4.68 longitu–14.73(*) 5.13 dinal ordinary –14.87(*) 4.93 longitu.13 4.68 dinal Step by 14.87(*) 4.93 Step
Sig. .009 .497 .009 .001 .497 .001 .005 .978 .005 .004 .978 .004
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. General intelligence The following statistically significant differences appeared. The results of the longitudinal group children appeared to be 14.73 points higher from the results of the Step by Step group children (p< .01). Similarly, the results of the ordinary group children were 14.87 points higher from the results of the Step by Step group children (p< .01). Thus, the general intelligence of 3-year-old longitudinal and ordinary group children was statistically significantly higher from the general intelligence of the Step by Step group children. Performance IQ The results of the longitudinal group children appeared to be 11.43 points higher from the results of the Step by Step group children (p= .01). The results of the
191 ordinary group children were 11.07 points higher from the results of the Step by Step group children (p= .001). Thus, in addition to the general intelligence scale the Step by Step group children had a lower starting point also in terms of the performance scale. Verbal IQ The results of the longitudinal group children were statistically significantly higher (13.43 points) from the results of the Step by Step group children (p= .01). Similarly, the ordinary group children performed better (11.10 points) compared to the Step by Step group children (p = .05). It appears that in the case of the general, performance and verbal intelligence the Step by Step group children performed, at the start, statistically significantly worse compared to the other study groups. However, since we lack information about whether the children attended the day care centre earlier or not, one can presume that this difference is not due to the peculiarities of the Step by Step programme, but rather depends on the characteristics of the children in the current sample. One can also presume that this methodology is rather dependent on the parents, whose children have so far developed intellectually slower.
Intellectual development of 4 year olds The number of children tested, the mean values and statistically significant differences in intellectual development of 4-year-old children compared in different study groups, are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Multiple Comparisons LSD for different study groups, 4 year olds. Dependent Variable
Verbal IQ
(I) Group
N
longitudinal
100
Step by Step
36
ordinary
52
Std. Mean Mean (J) Group DifferEr- Sig. ence (I-J) ror Step by 4.20 3.39 .218 111.42 Step ordinary 5.65 2.98 .060 longitu–4.20 3.39 .218 107.22 dinal ordinary 1.45 3.78 .701 longitu–5.65 2.98 .060 dinal 105.77 Step by –1.45 3.78 .701 Step
192 Table 4. Continued Dependent Variable
Performance IQ
IQ
(I) Group
N
Mean
longitudinal
100
118.05
Step by Step
36
115.5
ordinary
52
111.48
longitudinal
100
116.94
Step by Step
36
113.42
ordinary
52
109.52
Std. Mean (J) Group DifferEr- Sig. ence (I-J) ror Step by 2.55 2.99 .394 Step ordinary 6.57(*) 2.63 .013 longitu–2.55 2.99 .394 dinal ordinary 4.02 3.33 .229 longitu–6.57(*) 2.63 .013 dinal Step by –4.02 3.33 .229 Step Step by 3.52 3.28 .284 Step ordinary 7.42(*) 2.89 .011 longitu–3.52 3.28 .284 dinal ordinary 3.90 3.66 .288 longitu–7.42(*) 2.89 .011 dinal Step by –3.90 3.66 .288 Step
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. General intelligence The results of the longitudinal group children were statistically significantly higher (7.42 points) from the results of the ordinary group children (p< .01). Quick changes have taken place in children’s development of general intelligence. At the age of 3 years there were statistically significant differences apparent also with the Step by Step group, while at the age of 4 years the Step by Step group children have reached a level of intellectual development where statistically significant differences with other study groups were missing. The intellectual development of ordinary group children had started to lag somewhat behind the intellectual development of the longitudinal group children.
193 Performance IQ At the age of 4 years the longitudinal group children received statistically significantly higher results (6.57 points) compared to the ordinary group children (p= .01), and thus performed better on the performance scale subtests. A similar tendency (10.92 points) appeared in the case of the 5-year-old longitudinal group children compared to the ordinary group children (p < .001). Verbal IQ There were no statistically significant differences between the different study groups. Verbal development at the age of 4 seems to progress equally across all groups. However, the ordinary group children start to lag behind the longitudinal group children in their intellectual development especially in the sphere of the performance IQ.
Intellectual development of 5 year olds. The number of children tested, the mean values and statistically significant differences in intellectual development of 5-year-old children compared in different study groups, are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Multiple Comparisons LSD for different study groups, 5 year olds. Dependent (I) Group Variable
Verbal IQ
longitudinal Step by Step ordinary
Performance IQ
longitudinal Step by Step ordinary
N
Mean
62 122.58 30
116.3
52 112.19 62 128.81 30 122.87 52 117.88
(J) Group Step by Step ordinary longitudinal ordinary longitudinal Step by Step Step by Step ordinary longitudinal ordinary longitudinal Step by Step
Mean Std. Sig. DiffeError rence (I–J) 6.28 4.06 .124 10.39(*) 3.43 .003 –6.28 4.06 .124 4.11 4.18 .328 –10.39(*) 3.43 .003 –4.11 4.18 .328 5.94 3.53 .095 10.92(*) 2.99 .000 –5.94 3.53 .095 4.98 3.64 .174 –10.92(*) 2.99 .000 –4.98 3.64 .174
194 Table 5. Continued Dependent (I) Group Variable
IQ
longitudinal Step by Step ordinary
Mean Std. N Mean (J) Group Sig. DiffeError rence (I–J) Step by Step 7.46 3.93 .060 62 130.26 ordinary 12.97(*) 3.32 .000 longitudinal –7.46 3.93 .060 30 122.8 ordinary 5.51 4.05 .176 longitudinal –12.97(*) 3.32 .000 52 117.29 Step by Step –5.51 4.05 .176
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. General intelligence At the age of 5 the longitudinal group children received higher results (12.97 points) compared to the ordinary groups children (p< .000). There were no statistically significant differences between the results of the Step by Step and the longitudinal group and the Step by Step and the ordinary group. Performance IQ The longitudinal group children received statistically significantly higher results (10.92 points) compared to the ordinary group children (p < .001), and thus performed better on the performance scale subtests. Verbal IQ At the age of 5 the results of the longitudinal group children were statistically significantly higher (10.39 points) from the results of the ordinary group (p= .01). Child’s motor and verbal development are so closely intervened that the level of one influences the level of the other.
Intellectual development of 6 year olds The number of children tested, the mean values and statistically significant differences in intellectual development of 6-year-old children compared in different study groups, are presented in Table 6.
195 Table 6. Multiple Comparisons LSD for different study groups, 6 year olds. Dependent Variable
Verbal IQ
(I) Group
N
longitudinal
37
Step by Step
24
ordinary
83
longitudinal
37
Step by Performance Step IQ
24
ordinary
IQ
83
longitudinal
37
Step by Step
24
ordinary
83
Mean 129.03 130.21
108.7
132.49 128.08
113.05
136.32 134.29
112.61
(J) Group Step by Step ordinary longitudinal ordinary longitudinal Step by Step Step by Step ordinary longitudinal ordinary longitudinal Step by Step Step by Step ordinary longitudinal ordinary longitudinal Step by Step
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Mean Std. Sig. Difference Error (I–J) –1.18
4.47 .792
20.33(*)
3.37 .000
1.18
4.47 .792
21.51(*)
3.95 .000
–20.33(*)
3.37 .000
–21.51(*)
3.95 .000
4.40
4.45 .325
19.44(*)
3.36 .000
–4.40
4.45 .325
15.04(*)
3.94 .000
–19.44(*)
3.36 .000
–15.04(*)
3.94 .000
2.03
4.58 .658
23.71(*)
3.45 .000
–2.03
4.58 .658
21.68(*)
4.05 .000
–23.71(*)
3.45 .000
–21.68(*)
4.05 .000
196 General intelligence The statistically significant differences between the results of the longitudinal and the ordinary group appeared already in the case of 4-year-old children and became even more apparent at the age of 6 years when the difference was 23.71 points (p< .001). The Step by Step group children received significantly higher results (21.68 points) from the ordinary group children (p < .001). Thus, in terms of the intellectual development of 6-year-old children the ordinary group children received the lowest results. There were no statistically significant differences between the results of the longitudinal and the Step by Step group children. The ordinary group children started to lag behind the longitudinal group children at the age of 4 years and the differences increased year by year. A statistically significant difference appeared also between the results of the 6-year-old ordinary and Step by Step group children. To sum it up, both the rearing conditions at home, as well as the Step by Step methodology, compared to the conditions of the ordinary group, seem to have a more positive impact on the development of general intelligence. Performance IQ Six-year-old longitudinal group children were already 19.44 points better from the ordinary group children (p< .001). The Step by Step group children performed also statistically significantly better (15.04 points) compared to the ordinary group children (p< .001). Thus, in the case of the performance scale a similar tendency appeared as in case of the general intelligence. The results of 4year-old ordinary group children were poorer than those of the longitudinal group children and this difference continued to increase. The performance IQ of 6-year-old Step by Step group children appeared to be statistically significantly better from the indicators of the ordinary group. The statistically significant differences in the general intelligence scores were directly related to differences in the performance scale scores across the studied groups. Verbal IQ Longitudinal group children (20.33 points) performed statistically significantly better on the verbal scale compared to the ordinary group children (p< .001). Similarly, the Step by Step group children preformed better (21.51 points) compared to their peers in the ordinary group (p< .001). Since the Step by Step group children performed better on the verbal scale than the ordinary group children, children’s verbal intelligence is certainly also influenced by how the work at the day care centre is organised. Especially positive in terms of children’s development are the morning groups common to the
197 Step by Step methodology, which aim to give children a smooth transition to the day care centre’s daily activities. At the same time, the morning group has a very important function in considering children’s verbal development. The aim of this program is to give every child an opportunity to speak about his/her experiences and impressions. Moreover, it is discussed, what will be the activities of that particular day. Thus, the emphasis on children’s preferences and individuality are highlighted in the morning group. Individuality is also paid attention to in the ordinary group, but to a lesser extent. First of all, there are no morning groups, where the child can, at the beginning of the day, share the events and happenings important to him/her. Through activity centres the children are also given a bigger opportunity to choose the activities that they like most. Finally, we analysed how all the age groups together have developed intellectually. The number of children tested, the mean values and statistically significant differences in intellectual development of children compared in different study groups all ages together, are presented in Table 7. Table 7. Multiple Comparisons LSD for different study groups, all ages together Dependent (I) Group Variable
Verbal IQ
N
Mean
longitudinal
223
117.97
Step by Step
110
ordinary
Performance IQ
216
longitudinal
223
Step by Step
110
ordinary
216
113.93
109.55
124 119.6
115.57
Mean Std. (J) Group Difference Error (I–J) Step by 4.05 2.16 Step ordinary 8.43(*) 1.77 longitu–4.05 2.16 dinal ordinary 4.38(*) 2.17 longitu–8.43(*) 1.77 dinal Step by –4.38(*) 2.17 Step Step by 4.40(*) 1.93 Step ordinary 8.44(*) 1.58 longitu–4.40(*) 1.93 dinal ordinary 4.03(*) 1.94 longitu–8.44(*) 1.58 dinal Step by –4.03(*) 1.94 Step
Sig. .062 .000 .062 .044 .000 .044 .023 .000 .023 .038 .000 .038
198 Table 7. Continued Dependent (I) Group Variable
IQ
N
longitudinal
223
Step by Step
110
ordinary
216
Mean Std. Mean (J) Group Difference Error (I–J) Step by 4.93(*) 2.15 124.49 Step ordinary 10.11(*) 1.76 longitu–4.93(*) 2.15 119.56 dinal ordinary 5.18(*) 2.16 longitu–10.11(*) 1.76 dinal 114.38 Step by –5.18(*) 2.16 Step
Sig. .022 .000 .022 .017 .000 .017
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. When looking at all the age groups together, no statistically significant differences on the verbal scale appeared between the longitudinal and the Step by Step groups. This shows that both the child rearing conditions at home as well as the Step by Step programme created an equally good environment to support the intellectual development of these children. However, the parents at home were able to pay more attention to the development of motor abilities, due to which the general intelligence of the longitudinal group children appears to be statistically significantly higher when compared to the other groups.
Discussion The data from the present study were matched against the American norms of the WPPSI-R test, and the permission to use these norms were granted by the Psychological Corporation as noted earlier. As can be seen, the hypoteses formulated by the study were proved. The intellect of the 3–6-year-old longitudinal group children was higher than that of the ordinary and Step by Step group children and the intellect of 3–6-year-old Step by Step group children was higher than the intellect of ordinary group children. Children of the longitudinal group achieved better results because they were strongly stimulated by their families. Although home influences intellectual development of preschool children, it may be claimed that preschool programmes where children spend most of their day, plays an important role, too. A well planned and organised group room and
199 group activities can contribute significantly in encouraging children towards independent investigation and experimenting. In the case of 3-year-old children the Step by Step group seems to have the lowest starting point. However, by the time children leave the day care centre at the age of six years, the level of intellectual development of the Step by Step group children was significantly higher than that of the ordinary group children. The intellectual development of 3-year-old Step by Step group children has undergone the most apparent changes. However, how does one estimate the impact of the child rearing environment of the ordinary group children? It certainly cannot be considered bad. When looking at the means of the general performance and verbal IQ of children in the ordinary group, one can see that these too appear to be in the range of 105.8 to 126.0 points. Since the intellectual age that corresponds to the chronological age equals 100 IQ points, one can argue that the intellectual development of ordinary group children was above average. The intellectual development level can though be changed through the influence of the child rearing environment. Although the Step by Step programme has a positive impact, the impact of the home rearing environment seems to more effective or influential as shown in the case of the longitudinal group. Researchers in Finland have tried to develop WISC-R norms for Finnish children (n=407) and has met with several problems. First, the norms, created in the study, were differed from the norms used so far by 5–10 points. The difference in the verbal scale was 10 points, and in the activity scale 5 points. Thus, 5–10 points should be added to the intellectual coefficient of children tested at the moment. It was found that the younger the child the more distorted the norms were. In contrast, the original WISC-R gives a satisfactory result among 9-year-old children. Secondly, the norms created in the study by Konttila (1998) were most suitable for academically well-performing children in the city of Helsinki. Children in Helsinki have their own norms and different norms were valid for the rest of Finland. So, it is quite a difficult task to create national norms in tests and the results of intellectual tests can vary quite significantly accordingly to regional environmental characteristics. (Konttila, 1998). In the future, it is very important to study specific factors in different child rearing environments that affect children’s intellectual development.
References Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 140–165.
200 Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M. & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhood educational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 231–242. Capron, C. & Duyme, M. (1989). Assessment of effects of socio-economic states on IQ in a full cross-fostering study. Nature 340, 552–554. Croll, P. & Hastings, N. (1997). Effective Primary Teaching, Research Based Classroom Strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers. Curtis, A. & O’Hagan, M. (2003). Care and Education in Early Childhood. A Student’s Guide to Theory and Practice. London: Routledge Falmer. Espy, K. A., Molfese, V. J. & DiLalla, L. F. (2001). Effects of Environmental Measures on Intelligence in Young Children: Growth Curve Modeling of Longitudinal Data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 42–73. Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive Development: Past, Present, and Future. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 998–1005. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:Basic Books. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K. & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ. Early Developmental Aspects. The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York: Plenum Press. Hansen, A. K., Kaufmann, K. R. & Walsh, B. K. (1997). A Program for Children and Families. NY: Open Society Institute. Herrnstein, R. J. & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press. Konttila, A. (1998). Suomalainen WISC-R. Poikkittais- ja pitkittäistutkimus psykometrisen älykkyyden rakenteesta ja prosessista. Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja, Sarja/Ser. C-osa – tom. 144, Turun Yliopisto. Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava (2008). (National Curriculum of Preschool Institution). http://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12970917. Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2001). The Path to Wisdom. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 261–264. Lloyd, J. L. V., Li, L. & Hertzman, C. (2010). Early experiences matter: Lasting effect of concentrated disadvantage on children’s language and cognitive outcomes. Health and Place, 16(2), 371–380. Renzulli, J. S. (1995). The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness. In S. M. Baum, S. M. Reis & L. R. Maxfield (Eds.), Nurturing the Gifts and Talents of Primary Grade Students. Creative Learning Press, Inc., Mansfield Center CT. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford New York: University Press.
201 Villares, E., Brigman, G. & Peluso, P. R. (2008). Ready to learn: An evidence based individual psychology linked curriculum for prekindergarten through first grade. Journal of Individual Psychology, 64(4), 403–415. Wechsler, D. (1944). The Measurement of Adult Intelligence. (3rd ed.) Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company. Wechsler, D. (1990). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. The Psychological Corporation. San Antonio: Harcourt Brace & Company. Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L. & Nelson, K. E. (2010). The development of cognitive skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 43–53.
203
Developing a Test Battery for Assessing 6- and 7-Year-Old Children’s Cognitive Skills Mairi Männamaaa, Eve Kikasa, b a University of Tartu, bTallinn University Correspondence: Mairi Männamaa
[email protected] RUNNING HEAD: Test battery for assessing cognitive skills Acknowledgements The study was supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (SF0180025s08) and Estonian Science Foundation (Grant 7388). Abstract We aimed to develop an original test battery for assessing 6- and 7-year-old children’s cognitive skills (phoneme analysis, visual-perceptual skills, visual reasoning, attention, planning, basic concepts, and comprehension). In parallel, teacher reports on children’s language, mathematical and manual skills were used. Children were tested at the end of their last year in kindergarten. Tests were conducted in writing, in small groups. In total, 269 children were assessed with a test battery, and teacher reports were collected for 214 children. Internal reliabilities of all the tests were at least good. The majority of the tests differentiated children with low, average, and high language, mathematical and manual skills as reported by kindergarten teachers. In contrast, only three tests differentiated 6- and 7-year-old children. Test performance revealed no gender differences. Introduction School readiness – the skills and knowledge that children are expected to master by the transition to school – has been the topic of discussion for many years. School readiness is a multi-dimensional construct, covering physical, socioemotional, cognitive and academic skills (Blair, 2002; Duncan et al., 2007; Hair, Halle, Terry-Humen, Lavelle, & Calkins, 2006; Janus & Offord, 2007; Gumpel, 1999; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2006). In most countries the developmental outcomes and learning standards are established by legal documents and national curricula (e.g., Alushariduse raamõppekava, 1999; Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet in Finland, 2000; National Curriculum of England Preliminary Education, 2007). The writings on early learning standards emphasize
204 the role of language and cognitive domains (see Scott-Little et al., 2006). In Estonia, a new national curriculum for pre-school institutions has been accepted recently (Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava, 2008); however, there is a lack of instruments for evaluating the children’s level of development. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to develop a test battery for assessing cognitive skills that have been shown to play an important role in the child’s later school success and are related to school readiness as described in this curriculum. Results from 70 longitudinal studies, reporting correlations of academic/cognitive measures administered in preschool or kindergarten and similar measures administered in first and second grade, revealed correlations between .12 and .87 (La Paro & Pianta, 2000). Different skills have been assessed in tests of school readiness and have been shown to predict later school success. Reading achievement has been shown to be associated with phonological awareness (Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, 2004; Savage & Carless, 2004; Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Carlson, & Foorman, 2004), prior skills of letter knowledge, early skills of word recognition, vocabulary, and grammatical skills (Muter et al., 2004). Writing skills have been found to be significantly correlated with the child’s vocabulary, pre-reading skills, handwriting, and proficiency in writing name (Dunsmuir & Blatchford, 2004). As visuo-spatial and visuo-perceptual skills help to interpret chart graphs, tables, read maps without verbal cues, deficits in this field have been found to be related to difficulties in mathematics (Baron, 2004). Conceptual development has been shown to be strongly related to general school achievement (Zhou & Boehm, 2004). Knowledge of basic relational concepts has important implications for the child to manage successfully in school: fulfil the requirements of curriculum, follow the teachers’ directions and perform problem-solving tasks (e.g., classification, seriation, comparing) (Boehm, 2000, 2004; Bracken & Shaughnessy, 2003, Zhou & Boehm, 2004). Child’s mathematic concepts and skills (counting, selecting and naming numbers, visual discrimination) have been found to have either great (Duncan et al., 2007) or moderate (VanDerHeyden, Broussard, & Cooley, 2006) predictive power on achievement. Some studies have revealed links between executive functions and school readiness (Blair, 2002) and later academic achievement (Blair, 2002; Bull & Scerif, 2001; Gathercole & Pickering, 2000; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006; Swanson & Ashbaker, 2000). Attention, as one of the executive functions, is related to many different domains; individual differences in attention are associated with school readiness (NICHD, 2003) and predict later achievement (Barriga, Doran, Newell, Morrison, Barbetti, & Robbins, 2002; Duncan et al., 2007; Johnson, Altmaier, & Richman, 1999; Konold & Pianta, 2005; Swansson & Ashbaker, 2000). In general, attention may be considered as a foundation for
205 the academic learning that takes place in the classroom (Hains, Flowler, Schwartz, Kottwitz, & Rosenkoetter, 1999). The purpose of the study Our purpose was to develop a test battery that may be used for screening school readiness in Estonian kindergartens and to examine the its psychometric properties. According to previous experience with group tests in assessing basic concepts (Boehm, 2004) or phoneme awareness (Watkins & Edwards, 2004), we tested children in small groups. This resembles more closely the school context, where children have to study in the classroom alongside other children. Several studies have found that there is more than one pattern of school readiness in children at school entry (Hair et al., 2006; Konold & Pianta, 2005) and, accordingly, the assessment of different skills is reasonable. We included tests that assess skills that have been shown to predict later school achievement by earlier studies and that are described as important in the new preschool curriculum (Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava, 2008). The following skill areas were assessed in the test battery: phoneme analysis; visual-perceptual skills (visual distinction, spotting details); visual reasoning; attention (looking for stimuli with specific features in stimulus tasks); planning (following the prescribed rules in planning the course of solution for a task, comparing different courses of solution); basic concepts (knowledge of temporal, spatial and numerical concepts); comprehension of text and pre-academic skills (knowledge of letters, writing of numbers and letters, counting skills). First, we developed a test battery of 12 tests for assessing different skills of 6- and 7-year-old children. Second, we examined the psychometric properties of the tests. Third, we evaluated the differentiation capabilities of the tests by age, gender of children and assessments provided by teachers.
Method Sample The sample included 217 children (109 boys, 108 girls), of mean age 6.42 years, SD = .50) from 23 Estonian kindergartens; 124 were 6 years old and 93 were 7 years old. None of the children had been diagnosed with developmental disorders. The mother tongue of all participants was Estonian. Kindergarten teachers
206 evaluated children’s language, mathematical and manual skills, respectively for 217, 212 and 213 children.. According to each evaluation, children were categorized into three groups – with low, average, and high skills. The following groups were used in the analyses: LanguageLow (29 children), LanguageAverage (109 children), LanguageHigh (79 children), MathLow (18 children), MathAverage (115 children), MathHigh (79 children), ManualLow (21 children), ManualAverage (111 children), and ManualHigh (81 children). Procedure All the parents of the children signed a written permission to participate in the research project. Testing children’s cognitive skills was carried out in small groups (4–7 children) by one or two researchers. Each child received a test-book with each test printed on a separate page. The tasks and instructions were read out aloud by the researchers. The instructions were repeated or the sample tasks were filled out the second time, when necessary. The children answered in writing. The entire test battery took about 75–90 min. Tests were conducted by trained psychologists and graduate students. All researchers were instructed in advance and training sessions for conducting the tests were carried out in order to secure a comparable conditions of testing. Teachers filled out questionnaires, evaluating the skills of children in various fields (language, maths and manual) either at the time of testing or afterwards. They either gave the questionnaire to the researcher or sent it back by mail. Test battery The battery included 12 original tests. Phonemes. The child is presented with a series of four pictures. For each series, the researcher names all the words shown in the pictures and asks the child to check off the picture in which (s)he hears a specific phoneme. For example, "On the pictures there is a horse, a boat, a window, a bottle. Check off the picture in which you hear the sound "n"". The position of the sound in the words mentioned by the researchers varied (in the beginning, the middle or the end of the word). The test comprises a sample item and 15 test items. The test measures the skill of phoneme analysis, knowledge of letters, attention, and functions of long-term memory. Visual Perception. This test has two subtests. In the subtest Visual Perception of Objects (5 items) a child must find the missing details of the pictures and distinguish individual pictures amongst overlapping objects. In the subtest Visual Perception of Letters (3 items) the child must distinguish individual letters amongst overlapping letters. Both subtests are scored separately. The Visual
207 Perception of Objects and Visual Perception of Letters include a multi-component task therefore their sum scores are higher than the number of items. Tests using similar ideas are found in intelligence tests (Weschler, 2005) and in Poppelreuter’s test (1990). The test measures visual perception and attention, visual differentiation capabilities, attention to details and presumes the knowledge of the shape of letters. Planning. The sheet of paper in front of the child contains a 4x4 table, where the position of an apple and a hedgehog has been determined. The child must line out the shortest way for the hedgehog to the apple along the rows and columns. The child must find and mark the route for the hedgehog according to the pre-determined rules from the starting point to the point of destination, count the crossed cells and write down this number. The test consists of two subtests, Planning-One (sample + 3 items) and Planning-Two (sample + 5 items), which are scored separately. Completing the subtest Planning-One the child has to follow one rule for all items. In order to complete the subtest Planning-Two, the child has to follow two rules simultaneously for each item. Tests using similar ideas can be found among neuropsychological tests (Korkman, Kirk & Kemp, 1998) and intelligence tests (K-ABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). The test measures executive functions, skills of planning and thinking, counting skills, knowledge and writing of numbers. Visual reasoning. The child must find and mark the missing link of the chain among the given selection. The test comprises 10 items. Similar ideas can be found in capabilities’ tests, e.g. Raven Progressive Matrixes (Raven, 1981), K-ABC-II (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). The test measures executive functions, planning skills, visual reasoning and finding visual analogies. Attention. The child must find and mark one certain face among many faces in the first subtest Attention-Find the Face and words beginning with a certain sound among the pictures in the second subtest Attention-Find P. The time allocated for filling out both subtests is 3 minutes. Both subtests are scored separately. The first subtest has been modified from the subtest of NEPSY Test Battery Visual Attention (Korkman et al., 1998). The test measures attention, distribution of attention and phoneme analysis skills. According to Korkman et al. (1998) it also measures executive functions. Concepts. The child must find and mark the picture among the presented pictures, which corresponds with the instruction read by the researcher. (S)he must also complete rows of figures, make simple calculations and recognize simple two-dimensional shapes and space concepts. The instructions include the concepts of time, number and space. For example: "Check the picture with the oldest child.", “There are 5 balls in this cell, draw two balls less in the empty cell next to it.” or “Draw a cross to the left from the triangle.” As completing the items for Concepts Tests requires the knowledge of different concepts, these tests’ items are scored separately for the Concepts of Number (12 items), Con-
208 cepts of Time (5 items), Concepts of Space (9 items). The test idea resembles the Test of Basic Concepts (Boehm, 2000) and concepts are drawn from the curriculum (Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava, 2008). The test measures the knowledge of the concepts of time, space and numbers, vocabulary, counting skills, knowledge and writing skills of numbers, knowledge of spatial relationships and performance of simple mathematic calculations. Comprehension. The child must mark among the presented series of pictures the picture, which fits the sentence said by the researcher. The essence of the tasks lies in transferred meanings, extraordinary situations, wrong word order, similar word stems, double meanings and focusing on multiple stimulus features. E.g. “The house is on the roof “, “A girl with long blond hair.” The test includes 8 items. It measures understanding the text, attention, vocabulary and working memory. In all tests the right answer was scored 1, wrong answers or unanswered items were scored 0. The sum scores of the right answers were used in analyses calculated accordingly.
Results The means, standard deviations, maximum scores and values of internal reliability of each test are reported in Table 1. The internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) of different tests are good, falling between .61 and .95. There were no significant group differences for gender in any of the tests. A significant main effect of age was found for Attention – Find P, F (1, 266) = 5.36, p = .02, Comprehension, F (1, 266) = 6.10, p = .01 and Concepts of Number, F (1, 266) = 9.08, p = .003. In all these tests 7-year old children performed better than 6-year olds. The differences between groups formed by the teacher reports were examined separately for each skill (language, maths, and manual) and subtest using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The effects are presented in Table 2. The main effect of the group in language as well as in mathematical skills was not significant for the Visual Perception-Objects and Planning-One. As expected, the results of the children assessed low in language and mathematical skills by the teachers were significantly lower than the children assessed average or high. In language-based groups, the Scheffé test revealed statistically significant differences between the low and high group in Planning-Two (p < .02) and Comprehension (p < .04); between low and other groups in Phonemes (p < .001), Concepts of Number (p < .001), Concepts of Space (p < .02) and Visual Perception-Letter (p< .03); between average and high groups in Attention-Find the Face (p < .001); between high and other groups in Concepts of Time
209 (p < .006), Visual Reasoning (p < .002) and between all groups Attention-Find P (p < .02). Table 1. Means, standard deviations, maximum scores, and internal reliabilities of cognitive tests by age groups. Test 1. Phonemes 2. Visual PerceptionObjects 3. Visual PerceptionLetters 4. Planning-One 5. Planning-Two 6. Visual reasoning 7. Attention-Find a Face 8. Attention-Find P 9. Comprehension 10. Concepts of Number 11. Concepts of Space 12. Concepts of Time
All groups Age 6 Max Mean SD Mean SD 15 12.64 2.65 12.37 2.82
Age 7 Mean SD α 12.97 2.37 .95
10
4.93
1.13
4.88
1.24
5.00
.96
14
5.59
1.99
5.40
2.08
5.80
1.83 .72
3 8 10
1.94 1.35 4.77
0.82 1.07 2.6
1.86 1.30 4.68
0.83 1.01 2.60
2.04 1.41 4.91
0.81 .62 1.16 .61 2.60 .89
9
7.13
2.57
6.98
2.61
7.32
2.51
21 8
11.62 6.15 1.90* 6.24 12.64* 5.87 4.03 1.03 3.89* 1.09 4.21* 0.94 .64
12
8.76
1.95 8.51* 2.00
9.10*
1.83 .75
9 5
6.75 3.78
1.41 1.1
6.88 3.88
1.28 .63 1.03 .61
6.68 3.70
1.48 1.15
.73
Note. * statistically significant differences between 6- and 7-year-old children In maths-based groups, significant differences were revealed between the low and high group in Planning-Two (p< .009) and Visual Perception-Letters (p < .01); between average and other groups in Attention-Find the Face (p < .001); between high and other groups in Attention-Find P (p .100. Grammatical errors. The measure of grammatical accuracy was calculated as a ratio of total errors divided by total words. The occurrence of errors in the studied stories was lowest in HLC group and highest in LLC group (Table 2). The group differences were statistically significant, F(2.213) = 13.20, p < .001. Bonferroni tests revealed the group effect for all three comparisons, LLC and ALC group, p = .021; LLC and HLC group, p < .001; and ALC and HLC group, p = .003. The Relationship between Macrostructural and Microstructural Measures The quantity of story information units was used as the macrostructural measure; the number of words, the mean length of C-units and grammatical errors were measures at the microstructure level. The children were divided into three groups, according to their narratives’ quantity of story information units, based on the mean and ± 1 SD of the mean: stories with a low score of information units (LIU) (N = 61), average score (AIU) (N = 149), and high score (HIU) (N = 42). Table 3. The relationship between microstructure and macrostructure of stories: Means and standard deviations of microstructure measures for stories by children with low, average and high score of story information units.
Number of words Mean length of C-unit Grammatical errors
LIU (N= 61) M SD 27.2 9.5 5.6 1.6 .06 .04
AIU (N= 149) M SD 35.8 10.6 6.3 1.6 .04 .04
HIU (N= 42) M SD 53.8 21.6 6.8 1.3 .03 .02
Note. LIU = low score of story information units; AIU = average score of story information units; HIU = high score of story information units; Grammatical errors = number of errors divided by the number of words.
229 There was a high and significant correlation between the quantity of story information units and number of words, r = .57, p < .05. The group comparison showed also that stories which involved more central information were significantly longer in quantity (see Table 3), F(2.249) = 53.77, p < .001. Post Hoc tests revealed statistically significant differences between all the groups, p < .001. There was a weak but significant correlation between the quantity of story information units and the mean length of C-units, r = .23, p < .05. Children whose narratives were more informative produced, on average, longer C-units. Oneway ANOVA showed a significant difference between the groups, F(2.249) = 8.68, p < .001. Post Hoc tests demonstrated significant differences between stories with LIU and AIU, p = .006, and between stories with LIU and HIU, p < .001. Narratives with AIU and HIU did not differ significantly, p = .175. The quantity of story information units and the ratio of grammatical errors also correlated weakly, r = –.22, p < .05. Narratives which included more central information included fewer grammatical errors. ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between the groups, F(2.249) = 6.40, p = .002. Bonferroni tests showed differences between LIU and the other groups (p = .035, .002, respectively for AIU and HIU). Stories with AIU and HIU did not differ significantly for grammatical accuracy, p = .218.
Discussion This study explored self-generated narratives of 6–7-year-old Estonian children at the macrostructure and microstructure levels, with the aim of getting as complete picture as possible of the stories produced. At the macrostructure level, the analysis was carried out for the presence of SG components and the quantity of story information units. The number of words per story, the mean length of Cunit in words and the ratio of grammatical errors divided by the number of words were the measures at the microstructure level. The results demonstrated differences in narratives’ macro- and micro-levels in the language competence groups. The second intention was to find a relationship between the macro- and microstructural measures. Again, the analysis showed significant relationships between the measures at micro- and macrostructure levels. The macrostructure of the stories was different in groups, formed by teachers’ evaluations of the children’s language skills. That is, the children of HLC group were more likely to include a setting component in their narratives while children with LLC and ALC did not differ from each other for presence of settings. This indicates that half of the 6–7-year-old children were not sufficiently skilled to start their self-generated stories with the introductory information. For the presence of the other SG components, group effects did not occur. Thus, al-
230 though the stories were different for one category (setting), the presence of any SG components did not enable to differentiate between LLC children and their peers in the ALC and HLC groups. This result is not completely in line with findings of Copmann and Griffith (1994) who compared narratives of 8−13 year old children with typical development and language impairment and found that in addition to the setting category, significant differences also existed for frequency of reaction component. Discrepancies between our results and those of Copmann and Griffith may be due to the differences in the age groups that were researched, as well as variations of story elicitation method. In addition, differences between results may be caused by the developmental background of the children; we examined stories of children from standard, as opposed to special needs, kindergartens and information about their possible impairments was unavailable. For that reason, we can not refer to the LLC children as having language impairment although they are at risk for being assessed as such. To sum up, our hypothesis that significant differences between children’s groups with different language status may occur for the presence of setting, internal response and reaction, was supported only for the setting component. The second macrostructure measure, the quantity of story information units, was different in the language competence groups. The tendency was that if language competence was higher, then more information would be included in the narratives. This supports similar findings from previous studies (Schneider et al., 2005; Wagner et al., 1999) that children with language impairment produce stories which are less informative than those of their typically developing peers. However, a statistically clear difference occurred only for comparison of the LLC and HLC groups, other comparisons demonstrated marginal differences. Modest differences between the groups may be caused by developmental as well as methodological factors in our study, namely the basis of grouping children by their language competence as mentioned above. The productivity measure, the number of words, did not distinguish the children from each other by their language competence, demonstrating that the stories of LLC, ALC and HLC groups were similar in length. This finding agrees with those of Norbury and Bishop (2003) and Fey et al. (2004), that narrative length does not distinguish children by their language competence. Children with language difficulties may generate stories as lengthy as their typically developing peers. The large variation in the stories’ lengths in the LLC group suggests that children’s difficulties with language development within the group, as reflected in the contrasting degrees of verbal productivity in the narrative task, are also widely varied. To sum up, our results of productivity and quantity of story information units are in accord with Merritt and Liles (1987), demonstrating that while the children with difficulties in language development generated as much quantity as their typically developing peers, they said less qualitatively.
231 Grammaticality was measured by the mean length of C-units and the occurrence of grammatical errors. Group differences for the grammatical errors were significant for all comparisons, supporting the findings of previous studies (Fey et al., 2004; Norbury & Bishop, 2003; Scott & Windsor, 2000) that grammatical accuracy is a valuable measure in distinguishing children with language impairment from their peers. The mean length of C-units was also related to the children’s language status, demonstrating that children with LLC produce shorter utterances. Although the difference between the LLC and HLC group was significant, the comparison of the LLC and ALC groups did not reach statistical significance. However, the results do support the findings of Scott and Windsor (2000) and Fey et al. (2004) that utterance length may be a sensitive measure for clinical use in this age group. The second focus of the study was to explore relationships between measures of macro- and micro-level. The quantity of story information units was used as the macro-level variable. There was a high and significant correlation between SG scores and story length. The group comparison also demonstrated the connectedness, in that, on average, longer stories included more relevant information than shorter ones. This logical outcome supports the results of Wagner et al. (1999). Although we did not measure the occurrence of information that was not relevant for the content structure of the story, it is apparent that some long stories might involve such inappropriate utterances as some earlier studies have found (Merritt & Liles, 1987; Wagner et al., 1999). Analysis of a relationship between macrostructure and grammaticality (i.e., mean length of C-unit and grammatical errors) indicated weak associations. This result is in accord with Liles et al. (1995), suggesting that macro- and microstructural variables represent two distinct underlying areas of narrative competence. The group comparison did however reveal the interesting result that children whose stories were least informative (i.e. LIU) differed from the other groups (AIU and HIU) for length of utterances and grammatical accuracy. In other words, children with LIU produced significantly shorter utterances and made significantly more grammatical errors. This indicates that poor narrative ability is related to low levels of skills both at macrostructure and microstructure levels. It supports the argument of Hughes et al. (1997) that, in narrative assessment, measures of both levels should be taken into account. Conclusions and Limitations of the Study Narrative abilities of children are widely explored in English-speaking countries. There are, however, few comparable studies available for other languages. The current study about narratives of Estonian-speaking children was made in line with English-speaking countries’ research and enables comparisons with their results. Furthermore, this study offers evidence that though macrostructure and
232 microstructure are two distinct underlying areas of narrative competence, children’s performances at both levels are significantly associated and should be taken into consideration in narrative assessment. Some limitations of the study need mentioning. First, the basis of grouping children by their language competence limits the scope of this study. The children were divided into three competency groups solely on the basis of their teachers’ evaluation of their language skills. However, the teachers’ evaluations may be highly subjective. Also, it is not known on which characteristics they formed their evaluations. In addition, the language skills were defined only for reading and story-telling, which are distinct skills and do not cover all components of language competence. Thus, the present research does not indicate the sensitivity of studied measures for identifying children with language impairment. In the future, other measures of language competence must be used. Second, the children’s story-telling was elicited as self-generated narratives without any previous model story. Using a training story before assessment is suggested with the purpose of familiarizing the child with the storytelling format and to provide assistance in getting started if necessary (Schneider et al., 2005). In future research, the influences of different task conditions (i.e., story retelling and generation with a previous model story) on the children’s narrative production should be taken into account. Despite these limitations, this study provides a general picture of storytelling skills of 6–7-year-old Estonian children in a picture-elicited narrative task, indicating some macrostructure and microstructure measures that seem to be substantial in narrative assessment, and also indicating relationships between the two narrative levels.
References Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language teaching and Therapy, 18, 1–21. Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351. Copmann, K. S. P. & Griffith, P. L. (1994). Event and story structure recall by children with specific learning disabilities, language impairments, and normally achieving children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 231–248. Fazio, B. B. & Naremore, R. C. (1996). Tracking children from poverty at risk for specific language impairment: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 611–624.
233 Feagans, L. & Appelbaum, M. I. (1986). Validation of language subtypes in learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 358– 364. Fey, M. E., Catts, H. W., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, J. B. & Zhang, X. (2004). Oral and written story composition skills of children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1301–1318. Fiestas, C. E. & Peña, E. D. (2004). Narrative discourse in bilingual children: Language and task effects. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 155–168. Griffin, T. M., Hemphill, L., Camp, L. & Wolf, D. P (2004). Oral discourse in the preschool years and later literacy skills. First Language, 24, 123–147. Hayward, D. & Schneider, P. (2000). Effectiveness of teaching story grammar knowledge to pre-school children with language impairment. An exploratory study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 16, 255–284. Hughes, D., McGillivray, L. & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. John, S. F., Lui, M. & Tannock, R. (2003). Children’s story retelling and comprehension using a new narrative resource. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 18, 91–113. Justice, L. M., Bowles, R. P., Kaderavek, J. N., Ukrainetz, T. A., Eisenberg, S. L. & Gillam, R. B. (2006). The index of narrative microstructure: A clinical tool for analyzing school-age children’s narrative performances. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 177–191. Liles, B. Z. (1987). Episode organization and cohesive conjunctives in narratives of children with and without language disorder. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 185–196. Liles, B. Z. (1993). Narrative discourse in children with language disorders and children with normal language: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 868–882. Liles, B. Z., Duffy, R. J., Merritt, D. D. & Purcell, L. (1995). Measurement of narrative discourse ability in children with language disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 415–425. Merritt, D. D. & Liles, B. Z. (1987). Story grammar ability in children with and without language disorder: story generation, story retelling, and story comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 539–552. Merritt, D. D. & Liles, B. Z. (1989). Narrative analysis: Clinical applications of story generation and story retelling. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 429–438. Muñoz, M. L., Gillam, R. B., Peña, E. D. & Gulley-Faehnle, A. (2003). Measures of language development in fictional narratives of Latino children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 332–342.
234 Norbury, C. F. & Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Narrative skills of children with communication impairments. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 38, 287–313. O’Neill, D. K., Pearce, M. J. & Pick, J. L. (2004). Preschool children’s narratives and performance on the Peabody Individualized Achievement Test – Revised: Evidence of a relation between early narrative and later mathematical ability. First Language, 24, 149–183. Pearce, W. P., McCormack, P. F. & James, D. G. H. (2003). Exploring the boundaries of SLI: findings from morphosyntactic and story grammar analysis. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17, 325–334. Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Resendiz, M., Fiestas, C. & Sabel, T. (2006). Dynamic assessment of school-age children’s narrative ability: An experimental investigation of classification accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1037–1057. Price, J. R., Roberts, J. E. & Jackson, S.C. (2006). Structural development of the fictional narratives of African American preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 178–190. Ripich, D. N. & Griffith, P. L. (1988). Narrative abilities of children with learning disabilities and nondisabled children: Story structure, cohesion, and propositions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 165–173. Rollins, P. R. & McCabe, A. (2000). Culturally sensitive assessment of narrative skills in children. Seminars in Speech and Language, 21, 223–234. Schneider, P., Dubé, R. V. & Hayward, D. (2005). The Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument. Retrieved [02.05.2008] from University of Alberta Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine website: http://www.rehabmed.ualberta.ca/spa/enni. Schneider, P. & Winship, S. (2002). Adults’ judgments of fictional story quality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 372–383. Scott, C. M. & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339. Speece, D. L., Roth, F. P. & Cooper, D.H. (1999). The relevance of oral language skills to early literacy: A multivariate analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 167–190. Stein, C. L. (2004). Analysis of narratives of Bhutanese and rural American 7year old children: Issues of story grammar and culture. Narrative Inquiry, 14, 369–394. Stein, N. L. & Albro, E. R. (1997). Building complexity and coherence: Children’s use of goal-structured knowledge in telling stories. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), Narrative Development: Six Approaches (pp. 5–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
235 Stein, N. L. & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In Freedle, R. O. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing, 2 (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tilstra, J. & McMaster, K. (2007). Productivity, fluency, and grammaticality measures from narratives. Potential indicators of language proficiency? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 29, 43–53. Ukrainetz, T. A., Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., Eisenberg, S. L., Gillam, R.B. & Harm, H. M. (2005). The development of expressive elaboration in fictional narratives. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1363–1377. Wagner, R. C., Sahlén, B. & Nettelbladt, U. (1999). What’s story? Narration and comprehension in Swedish preschool children with language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 15, 113–137.
237
The Development of Reading Skills and Motivation and Identification of Risk at School Entry Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanena, Timo Ahonenb, Anna-Maija Poikkeusc a Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, b Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland c Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Acknowledgements This study has been carried out in the Centre of Excellence in Learning and Motivation Research financed by the Academy of Finland (Nr. 213486 for 2006–2011) and Developmental Dynamics of Literacy Skills (Nr. 213353 for 2005–2008). For any correspondence, contact: Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland; e-mail:
[email protected]. RUNNING HEAD: Reading skills, motivation and identification of risk KEYWORDS: motivation, preschool, reading disability, reading skills Reading development has a well documented language basis, and it is known to be affected by a number of factors exerting their influence long before school entrance. In addition to language development and verbal abilities, other factors originating within the child (e.g. cognitive skills and motivation) and within the child’s environment at home (e.g. parent-child interaction, printed environment) and at school also have their influence on reading skills (see Catts, Fey, Zhang & Tomblin, 1999; Wagner et al., 1997). Recent studies have highlighted the important role of motivation during the early school years (Aunola, Nurmi, Niemi, Lerkkanen & Rasku-Puttonen, 2002). Studies focusing on the connections between development of pre-reading skills and motivational aspects before formal school instruction, however, continue to be rare. The present study draws its data from a comprehensive population-based follow-up of Finnish children and reports preliminary descriptive findings on the early connection between early reading skills and motivation as well as on preschool-age identification of risk for reading difficulties. Learning to read requires an acquisition of the system for mapping between distinctive visual symbols and units of sounds, i.e. the process of phonological recoding (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). Letter knowledge and phonological awareness have consistently been identified as the best proximal predictors of future word recognition skills (Elbro, Borstrøm & Petersen, 1998; Gallagher, Frith & Snowling, 2000; Lonigan, Burgess & Anthony, 2000; Pennington & Le-
238 fly, 2001; Scarborough, 2001; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling & Scanlon, 2004). Relatively strong predictive associations have been observed also between word reading and naming speed (Holopainen, Ahonen & Lyytinen, 2001; Wimmer, Mayringer & Landerl, 1998, 2000), especially in languages such as Finnish or German having orthographies with a high degree of consistency. The close association between rapid naming and reading skill in these languages can be understood through the transparency of the writing system. In Finnish, for example, the writing system consists of only 29 graphemephoneme combinations and every word can be read through reliance on this highly bi-directionally consistent phonological strategy. This makes the acquisition of basic reading accuracy a fast and easy process for the majority of beginning readers (Seymour, Aro & Erskine, 2003). Children who have difficulties in learning to read often have a history of delayed language development (Scarborough, 1990). For example Catts, Fey, Zhang & Tomblin (1999) showed that children with poor reading skills are four to five times more likely than good readers to have had problems in kindergarten-age phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming. Although the language problems of children with word recognition difficulties predominantly reside within the domain of phonological language skills, variation in word recognition has been found to be predicted also by oral language abilities, such as vocabulary knowledge (Catts et al., 1999; Nation & Snowling, 2004). It is also known that children from families in which several members have reading disabilities have a high risk for manifesting reading difficulties themselves (Gilger, Pennington & DeFries, 1991; Pennington et al., 1991; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). Snowling, Gallagher and Frith (2003) reported that 66.1% of students, with at least one family member with dyslexia (severe reading disability), experienced reading problems at the age of 8. A link between reading difficulties and early language problems is typically reported in the form of group differences (Scarborough, 1990). For purposes of early intervention, reliable early identification of risk of future reading difficulties is essential. Meta-analyses and familial dyslexia follow-up studies, among them the Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia, (Lyytinen et al., 2004, 2006), show that the best predictors of preschoolers’ and kindergarteners’ later reading achievement are measures requiring processing of phonology and print, oral language measures, and familial history of dyslexia. Phonological awareness or sensitivity (the ability to attend to the phonological structure of spoken words) has been documented to have strong links to both reading skills (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Lonigan, Burgess & Anthony, 2000; Snow et al.,, 1998; Wagner et al., 1997) and reading difficulties (Gallagher, Frith, Snowling, 2000: Pennington & Lefly, 2001, Puolakanaho, Poikkeus, Ahonen, Tolvanen & Lyytinen, 2004). The development of phonological awareness is well charted; it progresses from syllable awareness emerging around 3
239 and 4 years, to onset-rime awareness around 4 and 5 years and finally to phoneme awareness which develops reciprocally with reading instruction (see Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). Progress from implicit sensitivity of large phonological units towards explicit awareness of small phonological units is documented also in the Finnish language (Puolakanaho et al., 2003) as well as the reciprocal development of phoneme skills with reading instruction (Lerkkanen, Rasku-Puttonen, Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). Along with phonological awareness, letter knowledge has strong associations with reading difficulties (de Jong & van der Leij, 1999; Snow et al., 1998). Moreover, children’s letter knowledge is related to their phonological awareness and vocabulary skills (Lonigan et al., 2000), phonological memory and rapid serial naming (de Jong & Olson, 2004). In the early identification of the risk of later reading difficulties attempts have been made to combine kindergarten-age measures and to implement findings from logistic regression modelling into clinical practice (Catts et al., 2001; Puolakanaho et al., 2007). To determine which measures are most useful in uniquely predicting risk for later reading difficulties a representative sample of children needs to be obtained. In the present study, preliminary descriptive findings are reported on preschool-age identification of risk for reading difficulties in a sample of 890 Finnish children. During the last decade a growing interest has emerged towards motivation in academic subjects and its relation to skill performance. Concepts like interest (Schiefele, 1996), intrinsic motivation (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991; Gottfried, 1990), and task value (Eccles et al., 1983) have been used to refer to the extent to which a child values, or is interested in, a particular academic subject. Inter-individual differences in task-motivation start to emerge early on in the school career (Eccles, Wigfield, Harold & Blumenfield, 1993; Nurmi & Aunola, 2005; Wigfield et al. 1997), and become increasingly stable during the first school years (Aunola et al., 2006; Gottfried et al., 2001). In the present study, we will use the concept task motivation (Aunola et al., 2006; Nurmi & Aunola, 2005) to refer to how much a child enjoys or likes a certain preschool curriculum activities or a task. It is acknowledged that for becoming a fluent reader, cognitive skills are not enough, but children must also be motivated in order to engage in reading activities (Baker & Wigfield 1999). Gottfried (1990) showed that task motivation predicts subsequent teacher-rated reading performance. Similarly, Ecalle, Magnan, and Gibert (2006) reported that when children’s interest in reading is high, their performance improves more quickly than when the interest is low. Motivation has been reported to contribute also to the amount and breadth of reading (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), which, in turn, contributes to later reading achievement (Anderson, Wilson & Fielding, 1988; Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992). Finally, reading motivation seems to have also long-term effects on chil-
240 dren’s school career by contributing to their academic-related choices (for a review, see Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Aims The present study aimed 1. to report descriptive findings of children’s development in pre-reading skills and their relation to task motivation (reading interest) and self-concept in reading; and 2. to report preliminary descriptive findings concerning preschool-age identification of at-risk readers through group comparisons between children identified with risk for reading disabilities (RD) and children without risk on the first school year literacy skills and achievement. Method Participants and Procedure Data were drawn from the ongoing longitudinal First Steps study, a prospective follow up of approximately 2000 children from the beginning of their preschool year to the end of their fourth school year. The follow-up is a sub-project belonging to the Center of Excellence on Learning and Motivation at the Jyväskylä University, Finland. The purpose of the five-year follow-up is to examine children’s skill and motivational development in preschool and in primary school through group and individually administered tests, and to analyse the role of family and classroom context through questionnaires and classroom observations. The sample is drawn from four municipalities; in three the participants form the whole age-cohort of children entering preschool whose parents gave their consent to participate in the study, and in the fourth the participating children comprise about a half of the age cohort. During the preschool year all 2000 children were assessed twice; in the Fall with a short screening and in the Spring with more comprehensive group and individual assessments by trained testers. During the first school year all children participated in group administered assessments in the classrooms in the Fall and in the Spring. In addition, individually administered tests were administered in the Fall and in the Spring to a sub-group of children identified with risk for later reading problems and a similar size of a group of randomly selected classmates for these children. The present analyses draw on the data from the preschool group and individual assessments and the school group assessments from two municipalities. The analyses include data for 890 children (424 girls, 466 boys; age at Time 1 M = 73.34 months, SD = 3.35 months) assessed in their preschool year and first
241 year in school. Preschool data was collected in the Fall 2006 (Time 1) and in the Spring 2007 (Time 2) in 76 preschool groups and in the Fall 2007 (Time 3) and in the Spring 2008 (Time 4) in 76 Year 1 classrooms. Teachers received feedback of the test results concerning their own groups. Finnish children commence preschool in the August of the year in which they turn 6 years of age and Year 1 in the August of the year in which they turn 7 years of age. The Finnish preschool curriculum emphasizes social skills and school readiness skills. It aims to evoke an interest in reading but preschool education does not involve explicit reading instruction. The skill-based reading instruction of Year 1 emphasizes systematic use of phonics and letter-sound relationships (Lerkkanen, 2007). Measures Phoneme Identification. The initial phoneme identification was tested with the ARMI test material (Lerkkanen, Poikkeus & Ketonen, 2006). The initial phoneme identification task entailed the child being shown four pictures of objects with simultaneous presentation of the object name. The child was then required to select the correct picture on the basis of the oral presentation of a subsequent initial phoneme relating to one target (e.g., “In the beginning of which word do you hear ____?”). The sum score was based on the number of correct items (maximum value of 10). The Cronbach alphas for the Phoneme Identification at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 were .76, .74, and .72, respectively. Phoneme Blending. In the phoneme blending test (Poskiparta et al., 1994), the child was presented with separate phonemes. The task requirement was to blend the phonemes to produce the resulting word (e.g. y-ö [night]). The test was a group test at Time 3 and Time 4. The sum score was based on the number of correct items (maximum value of 9). The Cronbach alphas for the Phoneme Blending at Time 3 and Time 4 were .67 and .66, respectively. Letter Knowledge. At Time 1 and Time 2 the children were asked to name 29 uppercase letters shown by the experimenter in the individual assessment situation. The letters were in random order, arranged into three rows and shown one row at a time (subtest of ARMI; Lerkkanen, Poikkeus & Ketonen, 2006). The child received one point for each correct response (use of a phoneme or a letter name were both coded as correct responses). Uppercase letters were used because in Finnish preschool education children are exposed only to capital letters. At Time 3 letter knowledge was assessed in a group situation using written responses (subtest of ARMI; Lerkkanen, Poikkeus & Ketonen, 2006), i.e. the children wrote down the letters after hearing the experimenter say one letter at a time. The sum score was based on the number of correct items (maximum value of 29). The Cronbach alphas for the Letter Knowledge at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 were .95, .94, and .88, respectively.
242 Rapid Serial Naming (RAN). Rapid serial naming was assessed using the standard procedure (Denckla & Rudel, 1976) in which the child was asked to name, as rapidly as possible, a series of five visual stimuli. Serial naming of objects was used at Time 2. Total matrix completion time (seconds) was used as the measure. Vocabulary. A 30-item shortened version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R, Form L; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) was used as a measure of receptive vocabulary. The PPVT requires the child to select from four alternatives the picture that correctly depicts a spoken word. The items for the shortened version were selected based on the data from the full scale administration of the PPVT-R to control children in the Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia (see Lyytinen et al., 2004). Vocabulary was tested individually at Time 2. The raw sum score of correct items was used (Cronbach’s alpha was .59). Listening Comprehension. The task assessing listening comprehension involved a story of a fox at Time 2 preschool Spring (“Turre the fox” test in preparation by The Centre for Learning Research in Turku University) and multiple choice questions testing comprehension of events in the stories. The story was read twice by the examiner, and after that children were given a sheet with 6 multiple choice items in picture format. The examiner read one question at a time and on each item asked the children to indicate the correct choice by crossing one of the four alternative pictures. The coding ranged from 0 to 2 for each item (0 = incorrect, 1 = choice of a picture with some correct details, 2 = the most accurate choice) yielding the maximum of 12 points (Cronbach’s alpha was .31). Word Reading. Reading of words was assessed using an individually administered wordlist (subtest of ARMI; Lerkkanen, Poikkeus & Ketonen, 2006). The list included 6 words at Time 1, and 10 words at Time 2, Time 3 and Time 4. The words were two-syllabic (7 words), three-syllabic (2 words) and fivesyllabic (1 word) words. The raw sum score of correct items was used (Cronbach’s alphas for Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 were .82, .81, and .92, respectively). Fluency of Word Recognition. In this speeded word decoding fluency test the child was asked to select the correct word from four (phonologically similar) alternatives and link this to a picture by drawing a line between the two. In the task, a maximum of eighty trials can be attempted within the test duration. The score is the number of correct responses marked within the time limit. In the First Steps design a two minute time limit was used. The original task belongs to a standardized national reading achievement test battery (subtest of ALLU; Lindeman, 2000). Parallel forms of the word recognition fluency test were administered at Time 3 and Time 4 as a group test. The raw sum score of correct items was used.
243 Task-motivation. Children’s task-motivation was assessed in an individual interview using the Task Motivation Scale for Children (Lerkkanen & Poikkeus, 2006a) at Time 2 and Time 3. This scale is based on the ideas presented by Eccles et al (1983) concerning the value or interest that children show related to particular school subjects. The scale consisted of 8 items (one concerning letters/reading each year) measuring children’s task-motivation (i.e., interest in or liking for a particular task) in curriculum activities and tasks at preschool and subjects at school. In the measurement procedure, the children were first showed the picture of task/subject and read the question like “How much do you like doing letter tasks at preschool?” or “How much do you like reading tasks at school?”. They were then shown a set of five faces drawn to depict an evaluative scale running from very positive to very negative. The children were then asked to point out the picture which most describes their liking for a particular task/subject (picture of unhappy face 1 = “I do not like doing those tasks”; picture of happy face 5 = “I like very much doing those tasks”). The Cronbach alphas for Task-motivation Scale at Time 2 and Time 3 were .57 and .60, respectively. Self-concept. Children’s academic self-concept was assessed in an individual interview using the Self-concept Scale for Children (Lerkkanen & Poikkeus, 2006b) at Time 2 and Time 3. The scale consisted of 3 items concerning sports, letters/reading and number/math skills. The children were shown a picture of a vertical chain of 10 circles and taught the scale: “These circles represent children in your group/classroom. Now I would like you to think about your letter skills and reading skills in comparison to others children in your own group. Are your skills in knowing letters and reading the very best in your group, somewhere up here, or are you down here, the least skilful in letters and reading, or are you somewhere in the middle? Please, show me where you are by pointing with your finger”. The children were asked to point out the circle which best described their position in a group with respect to skills in the subject area (1 = “I am the best in the group”; 10 = “I am the least skilful in the group”). The Cronbach alphas for the Self-concept Scale at Time 2 and Time 3 were .38 and .50, respectively. Family Risk for Reading Disabilities. Both parents filled in the questionnaire concerning i.e. family background information, parental beliefs, efficacy, trust and cooperation with preschool teacher and concerns concerning child’s school beginning at the end of the preschool year (Time 2). Information on parents’ self-reported reading difficulties as a child was asked on a 3-point scale (1 = no problems; 2 = mild problems; 3 = clear problems). The criterion for family risk for reading disabilities was that the child’s mother and/or father indicated on a questionnaire that she/he has had or has at least “mild problems” in reading (score 2 or 3).
244 Results First, we present descriptive statistics concerning pre-reading skills, reading skills, task-motivation and self-concept at each time point. As shown in Table 1, the group mean of initial phoneme identification was already high from the first measurement point at the beginning of the preschool year (as was also the phoneme blending at T3). On the other hand there was high variation between the children in phoneme awareness especially at Time 1, but variance diminished considerably by Time 3. For letter knowledge variation was high at each measurement point. As shown in Table 1, on average children learned to read at least some words during their preschool year between T1 and T2. Fluent word recognition showed rapid increase during the first school year between assessments waves at T3 and T4. The mean of task-motivation and self-concept did not change dramatically between T2 and T3: children indicated a relatively high interest in reading both in the end of the preschool year and at school entry, and their self-concept in reading were high at both times although the mean was slightly lower after school entry. Correlations for the measured variables are also presented in Table 1. The correlations indicate a strong relation between the pre-reading skills (phoneme identification, phoneme blending, letter knowledge, rapid automatic naming, vocabulary, listening comprehension) and reading skills (word reading and fluency in word recognition) as well as task-motivation and self-concept in reading in each measurement point. Correlations emerged between task-motivation and skills most closely linked to reading i.e. phoneme awareness and letter knowledge, but no correlations were found between task-motivation and more general language skills (rapid automatic naming, vocabulary and listening comprehension). Moreover, task-motivation (T2) correlated with later fluency of word recognition during the Year 1 (T3 and T4). Self-concept in reading at T2 correlated with phoneme skills, letter knowledge, rapid automatic naming, vocabulary and reading skills (word reading, fluent word recognition) at every measurement point while self-concept in reading at T3 correlated only with letter knowledge and reading skills.
245
246
247 Next, for determination of risk for later reading disabilities the following three key predictors were chosen from the preschool Spring measures, based on the earlier literature and studies (Lyytinen et al., 2004, 2006): letter knowledge (LK), phonemic awareness (PA), and rapid serial naming (RAN). The skill cutoff was set at the 15th percentile. In addition, information on parents’ self-reported reading difficulties (i.e., family risk for reading disabilities; FR) was used as a criterion of risk (in combination with one test score at or below the cutoff). The criterion for family risk was that the child’s mother or father indicated, on a questionnaire, that she/he has had or has at least “mild problems” in reading (score 2 or 3, on a 3-point scale). The cutoff scores for the skill measures were the following: letter knowledge (LK) ≤ 16 letters (M = 22.54, SD = 6.94), phonemic awareness (PA) ≤ 7 correct (M = 8.84, SD = 1.74), and rapid serial naming (RAN) ≥ 86.87 seconds (M = 70.32, SD = 17.70) (see Figures 1, 2 and 3).
Figure 1. Letter knowledge profile at Time 2 and the cutoff for risk criterion in Letter knowledge (LK).
248
Number of correctly named phonemes, max 9
Figure 2. Phoneme identification profile at Time 2 and the cutoff for risk criterion in Phonemic awareness (PA).
Figure 3. Rapid serial naming profile at Time 2 and the cutoff for risk criterion in Rapid serial naming (RAN).
249 Seven groups at risk for later reading disabilities were identified: a group of children with all three scores at or below the cutoff (LK + PA + RAN, n = 31, 17.4%), three groups of children with two test scores at or below the cutoff (LK + RAN, n = 10, 6.9%; LK + PA, n = 61, 37.5%; PA + RAN, n = 18, 12.5%), and three groups of children with one test score at or below the cutoff and with family risk (LK + FR, n = 14, 8.3%; RAN + FR, n = 15, 9.0%; PA + FR, n = 11, 8.3%). The remaining children who did not meet these criteria formed the group of no risk (NR, n = 706). From these remaining children a random sample i.e. no risk individual (NRI, n = 146) was further selected to serve as a control group in the individual follow-up from Year 1 onwards. The random selection of the NRI sample was carried out in a stratified fashion from the classrooms so that there would optimally be one or several children with risk and up to 6 children with no risk (depending on the classroom size) in each classroom belonging to the individual follow-up sample. As shown in Table 2, group comparisons of children with no risk (NRI) and children with risks (combined across the 7 groups) showed statistically significant differences in Year 1 Fall and Spring pre-reading skills and reading skills. For instance, children in the no risk group knew significantly more letters than the children identified with risk, and the former received a significantly higher score in the word recognition fluency test than the children identified with risk. Table 2. Group comparison between Children at Risk (Combined Group) and No Risk (NRI) in Pre-Reading and Reading Skills in Year 1.
Measures Year 1 Fall (T3) Phoneme awareness Phoneme identification Phoneme blending Letter knowledge (written) Word reading Fluency of word recognition Year 1 Spring (T4) Phoneme blending Fluency of word recognition
Risk M Sd 7.8 6.1 16.2 0.8 3.3
No risk M Sd
t
2.2 9.6 0.8 –9.5*** 2.0 8.0 1.3 –9.8*** 6.4 24.8 3.9 –13.8*** 2.1 5.9 4.2 –12.9*** 2.8 9.1 6.9 –9.5***
7.9 1.4 8.8 0.5 12.5 5.5 20.7 9.1
–6.6*** –8.5***
Note. T3: Risk n = 141–142; No risk n = 145–146; T4: Risk n = 121; No risk n = 123.
250
251 Comparison carried out with ANOVAs between the seven groups of children at risk and the randomly selected group without risk (NRI) showed some group differences (see Table 3). Especially, the group with three low test scores (LK + PA + RAN; i.e. scoring at or below the 15th percentile in preschool Spring letter knowledge, phonemic awareness and RAN) and the group with low scores in phonemic awareness and letter knowledge (PA + LK) had consistently lower scores than the no risk group in all Year 1 measures. It should be noted that the group sizes are very small and variances in some measures large (especially in fluency of word recognition), and, thus, conclusions between the groups identified with different combinations of risk need to wait for further analyses. Discussion Longitudinal studies have convincingly shown that children with reading problems have often a history of delayed language development (Catts et al., 1999; Scarborough 1990). Moreover, letter knowledge, phonological awareness and naming speed have been identified as both predictors of reading skill development and indicators of early risk for reading disability (Gallagher et al., 2000; de Jong & Olson, 2004; Lonigan et al., 2000; Pennington & Lefly, 2001; Scarborough, 2001; Wagner et al., 1997; Wimmer et al., 1998). The role of motivation in the process of becoming a fluent and active reader has more rarely been investigated in studies concerning prediction of reading skills. The present study aimed to report preliminary descriptive findings on children’s development in pre-reading skills and their relation to motivation as well as on findings concerning preschool-age identification of risk for later reading difficulties. First, it was found that there was large variation among children in prereading skills at the preschool entry, but variation decreased already during the preschool year. However, children who were early readers in the preschool Spring continued to have an advantage in reading skills at school entry. Second, preschool entry phonemic skills and letter knowledge as well as more general language skills (i.e. RAN, vocabulary, listening comprehension) correlated strongly with children’s reading skills at the end of the preschool year and at the beginning of the school. Third, children’s self-rated task-motivation and selfconcept in tasks related to reading were high both in preschool and Year 1. Moreover, associations between reading skill development and motivational aspects were found; high phonemic skills and letter knowledge were associated with high task-motivation and self-concept in reading, and good reading skills were associated with high self-concept in reading. The findings of the present study are in accordance with previous studies of reading skills’ development (de Jong & Olson, 2004; Lonigan et al., 2000; Wagner et al., 1997; Wimmer et al., 1998) and motivational studies (Aunola et
252 al., 2004; Eccles et al., 1993; Gottfried et al., 2001). It has earlier been documented (Gottfried et al., 2001; Nurmi & Aunola 2005) that task-motivation becomes increasingly stable during the first school years. Our findings indicate that task-motivation and self-concept towards reading begin to form already based on preschool experiences of learning letters and pre-reading skills, and signs of consolidation of perceptions of oneself as a becoming reader and differentiation between children are seen already around school entry. Thus, the findings suggest that the motivational aspects in activities concerning pre-skills in academic subjects like reading and math should strongly be taken into account in preschool education planning and training. Previous literature has shown that phonological awareness, letter knowledge (de Jong & van der Leij, 1999; Snow et al., 1998) and rapid serial naming (de Jong & Olson, 2004) are among the strongest preschool-age predictors of later reading and potential problems in reading. In the present study risk for later reading disabilities were identified based on a screen which included test scores of three pre-reading skills (preschool Spring letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, and rapid serial naming) and information of family risk for reading disability.(parental self-report). The skill cutoff was set at the 15th percentile. Group level comparisons were conducted between the children identified with risk and the group consisting of randomly selected children without risk from the same classrooms. The findings indicated the expected group level differences, i.e. the children identified with risk on average had lower scores than the group of children without risk in all Year 1 pre-reading and reading measures. Comparison at the level of sub-groups (i.e. children identified with different combinations of risk) indicated that the risk for slow development of pre-reading skills and reading was highest for children in the group with delay in all three pre-skills and for children in the group with low phoneme awareness and letter knowledge. The results are in accordance with earlier studies and provide preliminary validation for constructing a screening battery for preschool-age. However, the use of this kind of screen at individual level requires further analyses, e.g. validation against criterion of occurrence of reading disabilities with bigger samples (which is typically not diagnosed before the end of Year 2) and analysis of the learning paths of the children across time (from preschool year up to the Year 4). In our future studies the associations between different combinations low pre-reading skills and motivational aspects will also be analyzed. The findings stress the importance of carefully planned screening of prereading skills as well as paying attention to motivational aspects in the preschool year. A combination of low skills and low motivation at the preschool entry can provide a useful screen for identifying children at risk for later difficulties at school. Monitoring of children’s development of phonemic awareness and naming skills and letter knowledge with standardized evaluation tools and providing tasks, activities and environmental stimuli supporting task-motivation
253 and self-concept in letter tasks and reading in the preschool is strongly recommended.
References Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T. & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303. Aunola, K., Leskinen, E. & Nurmi, J.-E. (2006). Developmental dynamics between mathematical performance, task-motivation, and teachers’ goal during the transition to primary school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 21–40. Aunola, K., Nurmi, J.-E., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M.-K. & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2002). Developmental dynamics of achievement strategies, reading performance, and parental beliefs. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 310–327. Baker, L. & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477. Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorising sounds and learning to read – a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–521. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X. & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X. & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38–50. Cipielewski, J. & Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Predicting growth in reading ability from children’s exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74–89. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G. & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346. Denckla, M. B. & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid “automatized” naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–479. Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines. MN: American Guidance Service. Ecalle, J., Magnan, A. & Gibert, F. (2006). Class size effects on literacy skills and literacy interest in first grade: A large-scale investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 191–209.
254 Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L. & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.) Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: Freeman. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D. & Blumenfield, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. Elbro, C., Borstrøm, I. & Petersen, D. K. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: The importance of distinctness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 36–60. Gallagher, A. Frith, U. & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Precursors of literacy delay among children at genetic risk of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 203–213. Gilger, J. W., Pennington, B. F. & DeFries, J. C. (1991). Risk for reading disability as a function of parental history in three family studies. Reading and Writing, 3, 205–217. Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S. & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3–13. Holopainen, L., Ahonen, T. & Lyytinen, H. (2001). Predicting delay in reading achievement in a highly transparent language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 401–413. de Jong, P.F. & Olson, R.K. (2004). Early predictors of letter knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 254–273. de Jong, P. F. & van der Leij, A. (1999). Specific contributions of phonological abilities to early reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent variable longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 450–476. Lerkkanen, M.-K. 2007. The beginning phases of reading literacy instruction in Finland. In P. Linnakylä & I. Arffman (Eds.). Finnish reading literacy. When quality and equity meet. (pp. 155–174). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research. Lerkkanen, M.-K. & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2006a). The Task Motivation Scale for Children. Unpublished test material for First Steps Study. University of Jyväskylä. Lerkkanen, M.-K. & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2006b). The Self-concept Scale for Children. Unpublished test material for First Steps Study. University of Jyväskylä. Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M. & Ketonen, R. (2006). ARMI – Luku- ja kirjoitustaidon arviointimateriaali 1. luokalle [ARMI – A tool for assessing reading and writing skills in Grade 1]. Helsinki: WSOY.
255 Lerkkanen, M.-K., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of phonemic awareness and reading performance during the first year of primary school. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2, 139–156. Lindeman, J. (2000). ALLU – Ala-asteen lukutesti: käyttäjän käsikirja. [The comprehensive school reading test]. Center for Learning Research, Turku University. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R. & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596– 613. Lyytinen, H., Aro, M., Eklund, K., Erskine, J., Guttorm, T.K., Laakso, M.-L., Leppänen, P.H.T., Lyytinen, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., Richardson, U. & Torppa, M. (2004). The development of children at familial risk for dyslexia: birth to school age. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 184–220. Lyytinen, H., Erskine, J., Tolvanen, A., Torppa, M., Poikkeus, A.-M. & Lyytinen, P. (2006). Trajectories of reading development: A follow-up from birth to school age of children with and without risk for dyslexia. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 52, 514–546. Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342–356. Nurmi, J.-E. & Aunola, K. (2005). Task-motivation during the first school years: A person-oriented approach to longitudinal data. Learning and Instruction, 15, 103–122. Pennington, B. F., Gilger, J.W., Pauls, D., Smith, S.A., Smith, S.D. & DeFries, J.C. (1991). Evidence for major gene transmission of developmental dyslexia. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 1527–1534. Pennington, B. F. & Lefly, D. L. (2001). Early reading development in children at family risk for dyslexia. Child Development, 72, 816–833. Poskiparta, E., Niemi, P. & Lepola, J. (1994) Diagnostiset testit 1: Lukeminen ja kirjoittaminen [Diagnostic tests 1: Reading and spelling]. University of Turku, Finland: Centre for Learning Research. Puolakanaho, A., Ahonen, T., Aro, M., Eklund, K., Leppänen, P. H. T., Poikkeus, A.-M., Tolvanen, A., Torppa, M. & Lyytinen, H. (2007).Very early phonological and language skills: estimating individual risk of reading disability. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 923–931. Puolakanaho, A., Poikkeus, A.-M., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A. & Lyytinen, H. (2003). Assessment of three-and-a-half-year-old children’s emerging phonological awareness in a computer animation context. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 416–423.
256 Puolakanaho, A., Poikkeus, A.-M., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A. & Lyytinen, H. (2004). Emerging phonological awareness differentiates children with and without familial risk for dyslexia after controlling for general language skills. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 221–243. Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children. Child Development, 61, 1728–1743. Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford Press. Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2, 237–244. Seymour, P.H., Aro, M. & Erskine, J.M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington: National Academy Press. Snowling, M. J., Gallagher, A. & Frith, U. (2003). Family risk of dyslexia is continuous: Individual differences in the precursors of reading skill. Child Development, 74, 358–373. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J. & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468–479. Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J. & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40. Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310. Wigfield, A. & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432. Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D, Freedman-Doan, C., Eccles, J. S., Suk Yoon, K., Arbreton, A. J. A. & Blumenfield, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469. Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H. & Landerl, K. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill-automatization or a phonological deficit? Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 321–340. Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H. & Landerl, K. (2000). The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 668–80.
257 Ziegler, J. C. & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across language: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.
259
Children’s Play: Essential for Development, Surplus Energy, or Something in Between? Peter K Smith Goldsmiths College, University of London Play is very characteristic of young children. In this chapter I will review the main different types of play, and the kinds of developmental benefits they may bring to children. Play is an important element of the preschool and early school curriculum, but how vital is it? The ubiquity of play in childhood (and in most species of mammals when young; Burghardt, 2005) strongly suggests it’s benefits for development, but what these benefits are and how important or essential they are, are still debated. I will outline three models of the role of play in development, and what I have called the play ethos. I will then look at types of evidence, and overview some of the relevant empirical research on the topic, before making concluding comments. Defining Play Play is often defined as activity which is both done for its own sake, and is characterized by ‘means rather than ends’ – the process of the play is more important than any end point or goal. These criteria contrast play with, for example, exploration (which may lead into play, as a child gets more familiar with a new toy or environment), with work (which has a definite goal), and fighting (different from play fighting, as discussed later). Additional characteristics of play are flexibility (objects being put in new combinations, roles acted out in new ways), positive affect (children often smile and laugh in play, and say they enjoy it) and pretence (use of objects and actions in non-literal ways); see Smith (2010) for a more detailed discussion of these definitions of play.
Main Types of Play Although classifications differ, I will describe the following main types of play: Physical Activity Play (Exercise Play; Rough-and-Tumble Play); Object Play; Pretend Play and Sociodramatic Play. Of these, physical activity play and object play are seen widely in other species of mammals (Power, 2000). Pretend and sociodramatic play are only seen in humans (apart from some possibly very elementary forms of pretence in chimpanzees). Besides Play, there is the related concept of Games. Games with rules describe more organised forms of play in
260 which there is some goal (such as winning the game); these are more characteristic of children aged 6 years and over, and I will not review games with rules further, here.
Physical Activity Play This refers to playful activity which involves large body activity – particularly Exercise Play which includes running, climbing and other large body or large muscle activity; and Rough-and-Tumble Play, which includes play fighting and play chasing. These forms of play have been reviewed in detail by Pellegrini and Smith (1998). Exercise play increases from toddlers to preschool and peak at early primary school ages, then declines in frequency. Young children seem to need opportunities for physical exercise more than older children, and are more likely to get restless after long sedentary periods and to run around when released from them. Boys do more of this kind of play than girls. Exercise play is often hypothesised to support physical training of muscles, for strength and endurance, and skill and economy of movement. Byers and Walker (1995) examined the nature of locomotor or physical activity play in mammals generally. Both the form of the play, and its peak time of occurrence in development, led them to conclude that this kind of play has important functions in affecting brain growth and developing motor skills. Pellegrini and Smith (1998) also argued that it would improve physical strength and endurance. Another hypothesis is that exercise play encourages younger children to take breaks from being overloaded on cognitive tasks. This cognitive immaturity hypothesis was put forward by Bjorklund and Green (1992). It proposes that in younger children, an impulse to engage in physical activity builds up, and that the resulting physical activity gives them a break from cognitive tasks, relieving memory overload and ultimately enhancing learning. The argument here is that younger children have less mature cognitive capacities, and so the benefits of concentrating at a cognitively demanding task decrease after a shorter time than for older children; the ‘need’ to exercise thus helps children ‘space out’ these cognitive demands.
Play fighting, or rough and tumble play Play fighting is a common form of peer interaction throughout the school years. It involves wrestling, grappling, kicking, tumbling and rolling on the ground, and chasing. A majority of children say they take part in it (especially play chasing, which is more common in girls compared to play fighting); and a ma-
261 jority (although not all) say they enjoy it. When asked why they enjoy it, the most common response is that ‘it is fun’; if they do not enjoy it, the most common reason is that ‘you might get hurt’ (Smith, 2010). The frequency of play fighting seems to increase from around 3–5% of free time behaviour in preschoolers, to 7–8% in 6–10 year olds, and 10% in 7–11 year olds, before declining to around 5% in 11–13 year olds and 3% in 14 year olds (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Children do much more on soft grassy areas than on hard concrete, especially play fighting. Friends are often chosen as play fighting partners, both at nursery school and through the primary school years, although by early adolescence there appears to be some change, with dominance/status becoming important in choosing play partners, as well as friendship; and a greater risk of play fights turning into real fights. It is hypothesised that rough-and-tumble play in younger children may (in addition to the general benefits of exercise play) have functioned for practicing fighting and/or hunting skills, at least in earlier human societies; but also (or instead), by adolescence it may involve dominance relationships, for example using rough-and-tumble play to establish or maintain dominance in the peer group (Pellegrini, 2009).
Play fighting, real fighting, and bullying: “We were only playing, Miss” Real fighting involves an intent to hurt another child. Play fighting superficially looks like real fighting; after all, similar behaviours (chasing, hitting, kicking, wrestling) are involved. But a number of criteria differentiate the two, including facial expression, presence of restraint, role-reversal, and how an encounter starts and finishes. A full table summarizing such criteria is given in Table 1. These have been established by observation, and confirmed by oral and videobased playback interviews. When asked, most children (75–95%) say that they can tell play fighting from real fighting. This can also be assessed by playing children sections of videotape showing either play fighting or real fighting, and asking them to say which they think it is, and why. Most children can do well at this task, and from 8 years they give reasons in terms of similar criteria to those in Table 1: for example, ‘it was only a play fight because he didn’t hit him hard’; ‘it was a real fight because they were both angry’; ‘that was a play fight as the other boys didn’t watch them’. Even at 4 years, some cues are recognized and can be explained by many children. As we were all children once, and most of us will have taken part in play fighting, it is a surprising finding that many teachers and playtime supervisors say they have difficulty distinguishing them. In fact, teachers and playground supervisors do sometimes mistake them, and intervene to break up what they
262 think is a ‘fight’ only to be told "we were only playing, Miss!”. It may be relevant that many primary school teachers and playground staff are female, and perhaps did not engage in so much play fighting (as opposed to chasing) when young. Also, school staff usually prefer quieter forms of play. Finally, many teachers and playground staff believe that play fighting often leads to real fighting. Table 1. Main ways in which play fighting and real fighting episodes can be distinguished. Criterion Circumstances leading to an encounter How an encounter is initiated Facial and vocal expression Number of participants
Reaction of onlookers
Self-handicapping Restraint
Reversal of roles Relationship between participants immediately after an encounter has ended
In play fighting
In real fighting Frequently conflict over No conflict over resources resources such as space, toys, equipment One child frequently One child invites another, challenges another, who cannot fail to respond who is free to refuse without losing face Often staring, frowning, Usually preceded or accompanied by smiling and red face, puckering up and crying playful expression Sometimes two but often Seldom more than two children primarily inmore children in an volved episode Attracts attention from Little interest for non-par- non-participants; often ticipants a crowd gathers around to watch The stronger partner will Self-handicapping noroften not use maximum mally absent strength Contact between partners Restraint occurs to a lesser extent or is is usually gentle; blows absent are not hard Participants may take it in Turn-taking not usually turns to be on top/underneath, or to observed chase/be chased Participants often stay together while moving to another activity
Participants usually separate
263 Does play fighting turn into real fighting? This certainly can happen, and when asked, most children (around 80%) say it can happen. It is one reason why some children say they don’t like it. But it does not seem to happen very often, and certainly not often in primary school children. During the primary school years, observational studies suggest that only about 1% of play fighting episodes turn into real fighting. But when we asked primary school teachers what proportion of play fights they thought turned into real fights, while there was a wide variation (from 10% to 80%), the average was about 30% (Schäfer & Smith, 1996). Why should such a misconception come about? One reason may be that, although the great majority of play fighting is really playful, occasionally things can go wrong and a fight does develop or someone gets hurt. According to Pellegrini (1994), this is much more likely in sociometrically ‘rejected’ children – those who are disliked by many peers and seldom liked much. He found that these children often respond to play fighting aggressively (in around 25% of episodes, compared to 1% as the usual norm); indeed, this behaviour could contribute to their being disliked by classmates. Perhaps teachers or lunchtime supervisors are making general judgments about play fights turning into real fights in children generally, based on experiences with these ‘rejected’ children who may be taking up a lot of their supervisory time. Why should some play fights turn into real fights, especially when ‘rejected’ children are involved? This could happen for two main reasons. One has been called ‘honest mistakes’ and refers to a lack of social skills: a child lacking appropriate social skills incorrectly responds to a playful initiation, such as a playful punch, as if it were hostile. The other would be deliberate manipulation or ‘cheating’ – a child, sophisticated in understanding and manipulating playground conventions, deliberately misuses the expectations in a play fight situation to hurt someone, or display social dominance while ‘on top’ (Pellegrini, 1988). The evidence is that in the early years, and indeed up to around 11 years, the great majority of play fighting is purely playful, and when play fighting does turn into real fighting, this is usually due to a lack of social skills, and not conscious manipulation. From around 11 years, the picture does appear to change, and some manipulative use of play fighting in older children could shade into bullying (repeated attacks by a stronger child on a weaker one). An appreciable proportion of the bullying that does happen in school, happens in the playground. But fighting and bullying make up only a small proportion of what goes on. Blatchford et al. (2003) found only 0.7% of their observations of 7–8 year olds in playgrounds recorded aggression, 0.4% distress/crying, and 0.6% teasing/taunting. An interesting playground environment, and good playground supervision, can greatly reduce the incidence of bullying (Smith & Sharp, 1994). Negative interactions are part of life and cannot be avoided, but pupils can learn how to
264 manage disagreements, both with adult help, or through peer support, and this is an important learning process. It is also important that teachers and playground supervisors are aware of the real differences between play fighting and real fighting. “We were only playing, Miss” may be a cover for aggressive and bullying behaviour, but will very often be the truth.
Object Play Piaget (1951) described children’s actions with objects during the first two years, as part of his sensorimotor stage of development. What is clear from his and subsequent work is that exploratory behaviours, playful behaviours, and goal-directed or tool use behaviours, all develop in these first two years. When an object is first encountered, behaviour will be exploratory. What does this object feel like? – let’s suck it and see (literally!). But when we get to the circular reactions, such behaviours are repeated, presumably because the infant finds such actions enjoyable – two criteria for playful behaviour. As the infant moves from primary to secondary and then tertiary circular reactions, such repeated behaviours become more flexible and variable, such that some behaviours would definitely be described as playful: what Piaget calls sensorimotor play, such as banging objects together in various ways and laughing. Observations of infants suggest that by 18 months play accounts for more of the child’s interactions with the environment than does exploration (Belsky & Most, 1981). By the preschool years, the distinction between exploration and play is much clearer than in infancy. In toddlers, exploration precedes play when children explore an object, or try out its properties, before they play with it. Object (or construction) play is common in the preschool years; Pellegrini and Bjorklund (2004) cite conservative estimates of 10–15% of children’s free time being spent on object play. As they point out, some studies suggest considerably higher rates of time spent with objects, maybe 30–35%, but such estimates usually do not differentiate object play, from exploration, and from tool-use. In traditional societies, children’s play with objects is typically with surrounding materials, often involving pretend subsistence activities. But in modern societies, play with objects typically involves toys purpose-made for children’s play, often based on mass media prototypes. Shops have a profusion not only of simple objects such as building blocks and bricks, balls, stacking cubes, jigsaws, toy trucks, dolls, teddies, toy animals, but also ranges of toys for pretend and fantasy activities, such as train sets, farm sets, castles, action figures, transformers, and figures and action objects based on either older but enduring (Star Wars, Dr Who) or current TV series or films. However in the preschool period, children of 2 to 4 years do not really need a huge range of specialized toys. The more traditional toys such as blocks,
265 bricks, nesting cubes etc provide a good range of possibilities for developing and displaying growing cognitive skills. Children are gradually developing skills of classification and seriation, and this is shown in some detailed studies of constructive play. In a classic study, Gesell (1940) examined stages in block construction play, from 1 to 5 years of age. Initially infants just grasp and suck individual blocks, but from 18–24 months will start stacking or arranging them in simple ways, this becoming more sophisticated by 3 years, although still predominantly one-dimensional (and now more horizontally than vertically). By the time they are 4 years, children are building complicated two dimensional structures, such as enclosures, and by 5 years three-dimensional structures, often named as part of some pretend play activity (as for example a castle, or a boat). Similarly studies of children’s play with nesting cups shows clear developmental progression (DeLoache, Sugarman & Brown, 1985). Younger preschool children simply put one cup inside another, or stack one on another. Older preschool children develop a more hierarchically organized or planful way of proceeding; for example they may put one cup in another and then move both together into a third cup; or if a stack has a too large cup at the top, they will take that off and insert it at the bottom of the tower to make a more stable assembly. There is not a lot of difference in the overall frequency of object play between toddler boys and girls, but it does vary in nature and choice of toys, especially after the sensorimotor period. Studies of 2-year-olds at home, and of 3and 4-year-olds in nursery classes, show that boys tend to prefer transportation toys, blocks and activities involving gross motor activity such as throwing or kicking balls, or rough-and-tumbling, while girls tend to prefer dolls, and dressing-up or domestic play (Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 2004: Smith, 2010). Many activities, however, do not show a sex preference at this age period. Two main hypotheses have been put forward for the function of object play in childhood. The first hypothesis is that object play helps children develop proficiency in skills relevant to subsistence activities. This shows continuity with the generally assumed functions of object play in animals, where it is usually thought to provide practice or training for food extraction, prey catching, agonistic behaviour, or tool use. The second hypothesis is that object play facilitates creative problem-solving. The emphasis here is on the flexible, unpredictable nature of play, and it’s role not so much in reproducing existing culture, but in taking it forward, and in the broader sense contributing to the evolutionary process (both genetically, and culturally; Pellegrini et al., 2007). These two hypotheses are not incompatible; Bruner (1972) made a case for both of these functions of object play.
266 Pretend Play Pretence and fantasy are generally taken to mean an ‘as if...’ orientation; actions, objects, and verbalizations have non-literal meanings. A circular motion of hands represents turning a steering wheel; a wooden block represents a cake; a grunting noise represents a bear growling. Pretend play in children begins during the second year of life, peaks during the late preschool years, and declines during the primary school years. It has been found to account for 10–17% of preschoolers’ and 33% of kindergartners’ play behaviours (Fein, 1981), but in contrast observations by Humphreys and Smith (1984) found that it made up only 5% of 7 year olds play time, and about 1% at 9 and 11 years. Many early studies of children’s pretend were based on experiments, or observations in constrained laboratory situations, where infants were provided with particular toys. Basically, these were observations of solitary play. But a naturalistic longitudinal study by Haight and Miller (1993), based on videofilms of children playing at home, showed that pretend play is very often social. They observed 9 children in detail, from 12 to 48 months. About 75% of pretend play was social – first with mothers or parents, later with friends (peers). Howes and Matheson (1992) described stages in the development of social pretence, based on both the observational and experimental literature. The mother (or older partner, perhaps a sibling) typically has a 'scaffolding' role – supporting the play a lot at first, by for example suggesting and demonstrating actions. For instance the mother might 'give teddy a bath' and then hand teddy to the infant. Thus a lot of early pretend play by the child is largely imitative; it tends to follow well-established ‘scripts’ or story lines, such as ‘feeding the baby’, or ‘nursing the patient’. Realistic props help to sustain pretend play, but as children get to 3 or 4 years, they are less reliant on older partners and realistic props. They take a more active role in initiating pretend play; they adapt less realistic objects or even just imagine the object completely; and they show an awareness of play conventions and competently negotiate roles within play sequences. Dunn (2004) has argued that an older brother or sister may contribute a lot to a child’s pretend play experiences. She and her colleagues observed a secondborn child in interactions with their older sibling (usually 1.5 to 3 months older; so a 2 year old younger sibling typically with a 4 year old older sibling). She commented that mothers almost always focussed on object-based pretence, using objects as props; they would make relevant comments and suggestions, as ‘interested spectators’. In contrast, older siblings would take part in complementary role playing with their younger brother or sister. They would closely mesh their play, using talk and nonverbal actions; about a quarter of their play bouts did not involve objects at all.
267 There do not seem to be substantial sex differences in frequency of engaging in pretend play during the preschool period. Some studies find that girls engage in more frequent and more sophisticated pretend play than boys; but in a review, Göncü, Patt, and Kouba (2002) concluded that findings are inconsistent, and dependent on the play environment, toys available, and the kinds of activities measured. However there are sex differences in the themes of fantasy play; while girls’ pretend play often involves domestic themes, boys’ pretend play is often more physically vigorous, rough-and-tumble type activity, perhaps with super hero themes (Holland, 2003; Smith, 2010). Pretend play is seen very widely in different societies. It is often imitative of adult roles; for example in rural societies, children may play at ‘herding cattle’ with stones and at ‘pounding maize’ with sticks and pebbles (Lancy, 1996). Such play might be considered as ‘practice’ for the adult activities concerned. However, rather more ambitious developmental benefits for pretend play have been put forward. Many theorists have suggested that pretend play has important functions in development; for example for social and cognitive skills; narrative skills; imagination and creativity; and theory of mind. Theory of mind abilities involve understanding (representing) the knowledge and beliefs of others; for example that someone else can have a different belief or state of knowledge from yourself. Leslie (1987) argued that pretend play is an early indicator of theory of mind abilities. For example in simple object substitution pretence, the knowledge or representation that ‘this is a banana’ becomes ‘this banana is a telephone’. Correspondingly, in theory of mind the representation that ‘this is a banana’ is related to the representation that ‘X believes that the banana is a telephone’. Leslie argued that this similarity suggested that pretence might be very important in theory of mind acquisition. However, early pretend (before 3 years) is often imitative, and it is not clear whether a young child who talks into a banana is actually having the cognitive representations that Leslie describes, or is simply imitating what s/he has seen an older child do. The more usual argument (examined below) is that pretend and sociodramatic play assists theory of mind development, during the 3 to 5 year age period. A lot of talk about mental states does take place in pretend play.
Sociodramatic Play From around 3 years children engage in a lot of sociodramatic play, defined in terms of social play with others, sustained role taking and a narrative line. Such play can be quite complex, involving an understanding of others’ intent and role, sophisticated language constructions, and the development of sometimes novel (sometimes less novel!) story lines.
268 Smilansky (1968) claimed that pretend and sociodramatic play were less frequent and less complex in 'disadvantaged' children. This led her and others to develop play tutoring (intervention by an adult) to raise levels of these kinds of play; adults would provide suitable props, visits, etc and encourage sociodramatic play in children in nurseries and kindergartens, such that they became more able to sustain this play themselves, subsequently. Smilansky considered play training important, as she thought that sociodramatic play assists language development, cognitive development, creativity and role-taking. Recent work has focused on benefits for theory of mind development (as for pretend play generally, see above), and narrative skills and early literacy. Sociodramatic play has a story line and thus provides natural opportunities for developing narrative competence in children. Nicolopoulou (2006, p.249) argues that ‘we should approach children’s play and narrative as closely intertwined, and often overlapping, forms of socially situated symbolic action’. She and others (Kavanaugh & Engel, 1998) argue that the integration of (pretend) play and of story-telling takes time. Sociodramatic play is seen as highlighting identification with and understanding of roles, and developing rich and vivid characters, which are however of a generic type (doctor, monster, etc); whereas children’s initial story telling shows more concern with constructing and elaborating coherent plots. Through the preschool years these abilities become more integrated. A related argument is that sociodramatic play links to early literacy development (Christie & Roskos, 2006; Roskos & Christie, 2007). Narratives in play provide opportunities for enhancing pre-reading or literacy skills by structuring such play in various ways, for example by providing print materials, introducing message sending into the story line, etc. Christie and Roskos (2006) distinguish several relevant components of early literacy. One is oral language, and the evidence of sophisticated language use in sociodramatic play. Another is phonological awareness. An important component in learning to read involves children learning letter-sound correspondence (Pellegrini et al., 1995). This could be facilitated by the kind of rhyming and language games seen in toddlers. A third aspect is print awareness. Much sociodramatic play can facilitate this, for example ‘signing in’ to a ‘doctor’s surgery’. General background knowledge and narrative integration are also seen as helpful in school readiness skills.
War toys and war play Not all pretend and sociodramatic play is viewed positively in the early school curriculum. War play refers to is when children use toy guns or weapons, or combat figures, to engage in pretend fighting or warfare. This kind of play is
269 banned in some nurseries and playgroups. Parents too have mixed views about it. Costabile et al. (1992) surveyed parents in Italy, and England, about their views on war play. Some actively discouraged it; some were uncertain, or felt it should be allowed within limits; and some allowed it unconditionally. Researchers too have been divided. Carlsson-Paige and Levin wrote two books, The War Play Dilemma (1987) and Who’s Calling the Shots? (1990), in which they argued that war toys and combat figures encourage stereotyped good-versus-evil aggressive scripts, which impoverish the child’s imagination and encourage actual aggressive behaviour. They recognized the difficulties in banning such play entirely, but advocate adults intervening to turn such play to more constructive, and less aggressive ends (a policy also favoured by most parents, in the survey by Costabile et al.). In contrast, Sutton-Smith (1988) argued that for children, war play is clearly pretend, and just reflects an aspect of real life. In England, guidance from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCFS, 2007, p.16) stated that “Images and ideas gleaned from the media are common starting points in boys’ play and may involve characters with special powers or weapons. Adults can find this type of play particularly challenging and have a natural instinct to stop it. This is not necessary as long as practitioners help the boys to understand and respect the rights of other children and to take responsibility for the resources and environment.” This was highlighted in the press: Let boys play with toy guns, ministers advise nursery staff (Guardian, Dec 29th 2007). In fact the guidance in the DCSF document is balanced, with its final sentence on rights and responsibility for others and the environment. For most children such activities are natural, separated from real life, and probably do little if any harm. But it is easy to feel uncomfortable when the activity becomes very prominent; and there is the possibility that for children who are already disturbed or have violent tendencies, sanctioning violent play can make matters worse. Dunn and Hughes (2001) studied 40 ‘hard-to-manage’ and 40 control children in London, filming them playing alone in a room with a friend when they were 4 years old; they found that the ‘hard-to-manage’ children showed more violent fantasy; and the extent of violent fantasy (across both groups) was related to poorer language and play skills, more antisocial behaviour, and also to less empathic understanding two years later at age 6.
Play in different cultures Both anthropologists and psychologists have studied play in different human societies. Although the main types of play are seen in most if not all societies, there are variations in frequency, and in the content of play. Obviously in many
270 traditional societies, children do not have the great variety of toys available in more affluent societies; but they can play in varied ways with available materials. For example, Baka hunter-gatherer children, living in the African tropical forest, make guns from the stem of a papaya, play hunting animals with stones, shoot plants and inanimate objects with bows and arrows, mimic the forest spirits with songs, and play a flute made of a papaya stem (Kamei, 2005). Gaskins, Haight and Lancy (2006) described three types of societies with differing prevailing attitudes to play: Culturally curtailed play refers to societies where adults will tolerate only mimimum amounts of play. The Yucatan Maya people of Mexico are an example; children are busy running errands, accompanying parents etc, from 3 or 4 years. Parents believe that children need to acquire skills through observation and imitation. Play is seen as “having little purpose beyond being a distraction for children when they cannot help with the work to be done and as a signal that the children are healthy”, and “extensive pretense in particular is of questionable appropriateness. Adults believe that one should not lie even in jest, and fiction, written or oral, is not a valued genre” (Gaskins et al., 2006, p.192). Culturally accepted play refers to societies where parents typically expect children to play and do not disapprove of it, but neither do they invest much time or energy in supporting it. Many traditional societies are of this kind; children, especially by around 6 years, start to be seen as useful in looking after younger siblings and in subsistence tasks, but adults see play as harmless and keeping children busy and out of the way until they are old enough to be useful. When an adult plays with a child, there is no concern with the benefits of play for the development of the child. Culturally cultivated play refers primarily to urban, middle-class Euroamerican families. We have seen how many parents encourage play when it starts to appear in their young children; and in these families there are many objects and toys to play with. Parents believe in the importance of play for cognitive development and social skills. MacDonald (1992) argued that this is a form of parental investment in children, which is of recent historical origin.
Three models of the role of play in development As we have seen, there are a number of different ideas about the functions of play, depending also on the type of play concerned; and there is a range of views on the general issue. On the one hand, play has been held up as the child’s way of learning, and as essential to development. At the other extreme, play has been regarded as simply letting off excess energy, a time-wasting activity when there is nothing better to do. And there is of course a range of intermediate positions. I
271 (Smith, 2010) contrasted three models for the importance of play in development: 1. Play has no particular role in development; it is just a by-product of other abilities (social, cognitive, linguistic) as they develop. 2. Play is one of a number of ways in which a child can learn and acquire skills; it is useful, but not essential. Children also learn through observation, trial-and-error, work and instruction. 3. Play is essential, or at least has a very privileged position, for many aspects of development in the preschool years and beyond. This third model is the ‘play ethos’.
The play ethos I have argued (Smith, 1988, 2010) that in modern industrial societies, a ‘play ethos’ developed through the twentieth century. The ‘play ethos’ is an uncritical and extreme assertion of the functional importance of play, that has been very influential from around the 1920s to at least the 1980s if not the present day. This play ethos sees play as vital and essential for development, and the following quotes illustrate this point of view: “Play is indeed the child’s work, and the means whereby he grows and develops. Active play can be looked upon as a sign of mental health; and its absence, either of some inborn defect, or of mental illness.” (Isaacs, 1929, p.9). “The realisation that play is essential for normal development has slowly but surely permeated our cultural heritage”. (Department of Environment Report, UK, 1973, p.1). “Play is the elemental learning process by which humankind has developed … It is the very process of learning and development, and as such all that is learnt through it is of benefit to the child” (Welsh Assembly Government Play Policy, October 2002). These quotes are from U.K. sources, but similar quotes can be found from the U.S.A. and from other western sources. In a similar vein, Sutton-Smith (1997) has described the ‘play as progress’ rhetoric about play, which idealises play and ignores any possible negative aspects of it. Possibly, this somewhat extreme view of the benefits of play may have come about as an over-reaction to the alternative view, that play is a largely superfluous activity. Although Spencer’s (1898) view of play as simple the useless expenditure of ‘excess energy’ has little scientific credibility these days, there are certainly views in many educational and government circles that instruction in cognitive and language skills are most important, even in the preschool and early school years. As a result, play has been rather marginalized in many preschool curricula, and play times have got a lower priority in schools, with play-
272 ing grounds being sold off, and school recess breaks decreased or eliminated (Blatchford et al., 2003; Zigler & Bishop-Josef, 2005). It is an empirical question whether some forms of play or some forms of instruction are more effective, for particular kinds of learning, at particular ages and in particular cultures. Learning can be achieved by different routes – what some authors call ‘equifinality’. But some routes may be more effective than others. The picture is complicated by the need to consider both free play (chosen by children, unconstrained by adults) and structured play (deliberately channelled by adults towards educational ends). But first lets look at the types of evidence available. These include: the forms of play, or ‘design studies’ (does the actual nature of play behaviour reveal something of its value?); correlational studies (what tends to go with playfulness in children?); and experimental studies (attempts to compare the value of play and non-play experiences in controlled conditions).
The forms of play or ‘design studies’ If we look closely at what goes on in playful episodes we may form hypotheses as to what uses the behaviour has. Indeed, this has led to many of the hypotheses referred to above, such as functions of exercise play for motor skills, of pretend play for theory of mind, and of sociodramatic play for narrative skills and early literacy. Observations of the flexibility present in play with objects led Bruner (1972) to postulate its role in problem-solving and creativity. A study of Oxfordshire nursery schools by Sylva, Roy and Painter (1980) documented which activities of nursery-school children resulted in what they considered to be complex or challenging activities. They concluded that activities with some sort of goal, and the means to achieve it, were the most challenging; activities such as building, drawing, doing puzzles. They called these ‘high-yield’ activities. These might be considered less playful (i.e. more constructive, or goal-directed) than what they thought of as ‘medium-yield’ activities; pretending, play with small-scale toys, manipulating sand or dough. Finally, ‘low-yield’ activities comprised informal and impromptu games, gross motor play and unstructured social playing and ‘horsing around’ (rough-and-tumble play). This study suggests that unstructured, free play kinds of activities may be less cognitively useful than more structured activities. However the emphasis in Sylva and colleagues’ study is on cognitive, rather than social, challenge or complexity. Observations of sociodramatic play suggest there is considerable negotiation about social roles. Observations of rough-and-tumble show that co-ordination with a large number of partners is often involved, and suggest it may have social functions in terms of making friends, or practising fighting or dominance skills.
273 Studies on the forms of play are suggestive of functional hypotheses, but are these suggestions supported by other forms of evidence?
Correlational studies If playful behaviour has useful developmental consequences, then we would expect that children who practice a lot of a certain type of play should also be more advanced in other areas of development for which play is supposed to be beneficial. As an example, Hutt and Bhavnani (1972), traced 48 children who had been observed with a novel toy at around 4 years of age, when they were now aged 8 years. From the earlier data they had recorded those children who, after investigating the toy, used it in many imaginative ways. Four years later they gave the children some tests designed to measure creativity. The imaginative players scored significantly higher on these tests than did the children who at 4 years had not played much with the novel object. This is consistent with the idea that imaginative play fosters creativity; but no more than that. An alternative explanation would be that another factor (for example, shyness with adults) was responsible for the poor performance both with the novel object, and later in the tests. Or, perhaps the playfulness of the imaginative children is just a by-product of their creativity, not a cause of it. Many other correlational studies have been reported. Johnson, Ershler and Lawton (1982) observed 4-year-olds in play and also gave them cognitive and intelligence tests. They found that constructive play, but not sociodramatic play, was positively and significantly correlated with intelligence scores. This finding would be congruent with the position of Sylva’s group (above). In contrast Connolly and Doyle (1984) observed preschoolers in social fantasy play, and obtained measures of social competence from observation, role-taking tests and teacher ratings. The amount and complexity of social fantasy play correlated significantly with several measures of social competence. This would be congruent with the view that the benefits of sociodramatic play may be social more than cognitive. Taylor and Carlson (1997) correlated various measures of pretend and fantasy play with theory of mind tasks. They studied children aged 3 and 4 years, and found no relationship for 3-yr olds, but a significant relationship for 4 yr olds. The authors concluded that "The results of this study provide strong evidence that there is a relation between theory of mind and pretend play development in 4-year-old children" (p.451). However the correlations in these and other studies are usually small, and variable. I (Smith, 2010) reviewed 10 studies that correlated pretend play measures with theory of mind scores. The pattern of results was patchy – many correlations, even if positive, were small or not sta-
274 tistically significant. I concluded that (of the three models presented earlier) the evidence best supported the second model (see Table 2); pretend play may be helpful for theory of mind, but so also are many other kinds of experiences. Table 2. Predictions regarding correlational and experimental evidence for each model of the function of pretend play in development.
MODEL 1 [no important function] MODEL 2 [one of many routes] MODEL 3 [essential for development]
CORRELATIONAL EVIDENCE (correlations of pretend play measures with other developmental skills). Any correlations would be around zero, once age or general IQ or language ability is partialled out. Correlations would be positive, but very variable in size depending on other circumstances. Correlations would be consistently positive and of appreciable magnitude.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE (comparing developmental outcomes for groups with enhanced or deprived pretend play experiences and control groups). No differences expected between groups if other experiences are equated. Any differences favouring pretend play groups would be very dependent on what the control group experiences are. Consistent differences favouring enhanced pretend play groups (or disadvantaging deprived play groups).
A study by Watson and Peng (1992) has been one of the few to look at effects of war-toy play. They coded for pretend aggression play and real aggression in 36 preschool children (taking care to distinguish these from rough-andtumble play). Parents completed questionnaires saying how much toy-gun play the children did at home, and how aggressive were the TV programmes that they watched. There was an association for boys (but not for girls) between a history of toy-gun play (based on parents’ ratings) and levels of real aggression in the day-care centre. However, this finding could simply reflect that temperamentally aggressive children also like playing with toy guns. Pretend aggression in the day-care centre did not correlate with real aggression.
275 Experimental studies of play All the correlational studies are subject to the same caveats about drawing conclusions from correlational evidence. Associations may be due to some third variable, and do not demonstrate a causal association. However in experimental studies, if participants are randomly allocated to the various conditions, it should be possible to make better causal inferences than is the case in correlational studies. Experimental studies of play take two main forms: deprivation studies, and enrichment studies. The effects of depriving children of play opportunities have largely been limited to studies of physical activity play. Pellegrini, Huberty and Jones (1995) examined the effects of keeping children in primary school classrooms for longer (delaying the recess breaks). Greater deprivation led to increased levels of play when opportunities became available. Also, the experience of break time increased children’s attention to school tasks when they returned to the classroom, supportive of the cognitive immaturity hypothesis of Bjorklund and Green (1992). The more usual form of experiment on play is in the form of enrichment. The benefits of some form of extra play experience are compared with the benefits of non-play experience. Some experiments have been done on object play, usually using short sessions of about 10 minutes’ duration. Children, usually of nursery-school age, are given some play experience with objects; others are given an instructional session, or an alternative materials condition (e.g. drawing), or are put in a notreatment control group. After the session is over, they are then given an assessment, for example, of creativity (e.g. thinking of unusual uses for the objects they have played with), problem-solving (e.g. using the objects to make a long tool to retrieve a marble) or conservation. A number of such studies claimed some form of superiority for the play experience, but subsequent work has not always borne these claims out. Smith and Simon (1984) argued that these early studies were methodologically unsound due to the possibility of experimenter effects. When the same experimenter administers the conditions and tests the subjects immediately after, some unconscious bias may come in. Some studies were criticized for inadequate control for familiarity with the experimenter. When these factors are properly taken account of, there is little evidence that the play experience helps, or indeed that such sessions have any real impact. Smith and Simon concluded that either the benefits of play in real life occur over a longer time period, or they are not substantial enough to measure by this sort of experimental procedure. Experiments on the effects of make-believe and imagery on deductive reasoning in 4- to 6-year-olds were reported by Dias and Harris (1988, 1990). The results were suggestive of a role of pretence in theory of mind development; but
276 unfortunately, full protection against experimenter effects was not taken. Leevers and Harris (1999) have done further studies within this paradigm that led them to reinterpret the earlier work. Harris now argues that it is not the fantasy or pretend component, but simply any instruction which prompts an analytic, logical approach to the premises, which helps at these syllogistic tasks. A more ecologically valid approach is to look at the effects of play over periods of weeks, or perhaps a school term. This has been done in studies examining the effects of play tutoring in preschool classes.
Play tutoring studies Smilansky’s ideas about the value of sociodramatic play were tested by a number of experimental studies, including ‘play tutoring’ studies: in these, a group or class of children which received ‘play tutoring’ were compared with those who did not. Several such studies on disadvantaged preschool children in the USA found that play tutoring, besides increasing children’s fantasy play, also had benefits in a variety of areas on cognitive, language and social development. However a number of critiques were made of these studies (Smith, 1988). Many were flawed due to selective interpretation of results, effects of experimental bias, and the use of inappropriate control groups. Taking the latter point, in the traditional play tutoring study, the play tutored children receive more stimulation and adult contact generally, and were compared with children who received little or no extra adult intervention. Thus, one cannot really conclude that it is the extra play which has brought the developmental benefits; the general adult involvement and conversation might have caused the gains, rather than fantasy play per se. This alternative idea has become known as the ‘verbal stimulation’ hypothesis. Some play-tutoring studies since then have embodied controls for ‘verbal stimulation’, or more generally, adult involvement, and also assessed outcomes blind to the child's treatment condition. These found little superiority for the play-tutoring conditions. This suggests that the benefits of sociodramatic play need not be ‘essential’, and can be achieved in other ways. Nevertheless, play tutoring does work out as equal to skills tutoring, in many domains, and it is a generally enjoyable and sociable for children in the preschool years, so there are sound reasons to encourage it in the nursery curriculum. An experimental study looking at the hypothesis that pretend play assists theory of mind was carried out by Dockett (1998) in an Australian preschool. Four-year old children were naturally split into 2 groups and pre- and post-tested on measures of shared pretence and on theory of mind ability. One group of children received sociodramatic play training for 3 weeks; the other, control group experienced the normal curriculum. The play training group significantly
277 increased in frequency and complexity of group pretence, relative to the control group; and improved significantly more on the theory of mind tests, both at posttest and at follow-up 3 weeks later. This study provides the best evidence yet for a causal link from pretend play to theory of mind; however the groups were small and not well matched; and the testing was not done blind to condition.
Summary: what do Children learn from play? Play is a major part of the activities and time budget of young mammals, and of children. It is enjoyable: it is usually great fun for those taking part, and young children actively seek out play opportunities and play partners. There is also evidence that play, while not ‘essential for development’, does have important and beneficial functions. In my view, the play ethos overstates the case for play. The psychological, anthropological and evolutionary evidence do not provide any compelling case that play is ‘essential’. But there is little doubt that it is useful. What may be considered a more balanced view is that play is indeed important for learning in early childhood, but is not the only route to do so: the second model referred to above. The ubiquity of play in children and indeed most mammals; the ‘rebound’ effects found after deprivation of play; and the design characteristics of play, whereby it provides many opportunities for learning, all argue for the developmental value of play experiences. It is very likely that play evolved precisely for this reason – as a relatively safe means of getting useful learning experiences, in cognitive, social and other domains. However, play is obviously not the only way of learning. Children can learn through observation, trial and error, and direct instruction. Direct instruction or teaching, is something particular to humans (compared to other species, apart from a few specialised examples; Thornton & McAuliffe, 2006), and can be a very efficient way of learning compared to the more haphazard experiences that play provides. In this respect, play has perhaps two advantages, and one major disadvantage, so far as human learning is concerned. One advantage of play is the intrinsic motivation and fun of playing; this is part of all usual definitions of play. Children enter into play voluntarily, and enjoy it – they do not (normally) have to be coerced into playing. As young children also do not normally have the conscious intrinsic desire to learn specific skills (that might motivate an adult, for example, to learn a new language, for travel or for their work), the fun of play is most important. Too much forced instruction at a young age can lead to boredom and apathy. This links to the second advantage of play – it’s creativity. As Bruner (1972) argued, in play children can try out new combinations, new behaviors that might not be in any ‘syllabus’. Most of the time of course this
278 does not lead to any great inventions! But in smaller but more pervasive ways, it is arguable that free play helps inculcate a mindset in which a child feels free to explore, try new ideas, not be limited too much by conventional constraints. In comparison, rote learning for example – even if effective in imparting a fixed body of knowledge, such as a number system, or the words of a song or religious text – will lead to a different mindset, in which knowledge is prescribed and not to be questioned. Needless to say, there are important cultural differences and value judgements in contrasting these positions, but advocates of play would argue that creative thought is at a premium in the contemporary world. The disadvantage of play is the other side of the coin to what we have discussed: it’s unplanned and haphazard nature. It can be seen as rather a ‘shotgun’ approach to learning; an active child exposed to the environment will learn more than an inactive one, through whatever it encounters. In our earlier evolutionary history (and that of other mammals and playing species), direct instruction was rare or absent, and play was a necessary mechanism for learning. Humans especially need flexible behavior patterns, of which learning is an essential part, so play provided a useful general purpose mechanism for facilitating such learning. But as humans evolved the cultural means of direct instruction – first through apprenticeship and observation of skilled activity, and then through writing, textbooks, face-to-face teaching – then play may be seen as a rather inefficient means of learning. Thus, if we know what we need to learn, and want to learn it, direct instruction may well be the most effective method in many circumstances. But we need to remember the two provisos favouring play: (a) how certain are we that we know precisely what should be learnt?, and (b) are we motivated to learn? These provisos retain an important place for play, most especially for younger children where the motivational aspects are especially important.
References Belsky, J., & Most, R. K. (1981). From exploration to play: A cross-sectional study of infant free play behaviour. Developmental Psychology, 17, 630– 639. Bjorklund, D., & Green, B. (1992). The adaptive nature of cognitive immaturity. American Psychologist, 47, 46–54. Blatchford, P., Baines, E. & Pellegrini, A. (2003). The social context of school playground games: Sex and ethnic differences, and changes over time after entry to middle school, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 481–505. Bruner, J. S. (1972). The nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist, 27, 687–708.
279 Burghardt, G. (2005). The genesis of animal play: Testing the limits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Byers, J. A., & Walker, C. (1995). Refining the motor training hypothesis for the evolution of play. American Naturalist, 146, 25–40. Carlsson-Paige, N. & Levin, D.E. (1987). The War Play dilemma. New York & London: Teachers College, Columbia University. Carlsson-Paige, N. & Levin, D.E. (1990). Who’s calling the shots. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers. Christie, J.F. & Roskos, K.A. (2006). Standards, science, and the role of play in early literacy education. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play=Learning (pp. 57–73). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Connolly, J.A. & Doyle, A-B. (1984). Relation of social fantasy play to social competence in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 20, 797–806. Costabile, A., Smith, P.K., Matheson, L., Aston, J., Hunter, T., & Boulton, M. (1991). Cross-national comparison of how children distinguish playful and serious fighting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 881–887. DeLoache, J.S., Sugarman, S. & Brown, A.L. (1985). The development of error correction strategies in young children’s manipulative play. Child Development, 56, 928–939. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCFS) (2007). Confident, capable and creative: supporting boys’ achievements. London: HMSO. Department of the Environment (1973). Children at play: Design Bulletin 27. London: HMSO. Dias, M., & Harris, P.L. (1988). The effect of make-believe play on deductive reasoning. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 207–221. Dias, M., & Harris, P.L. (1990). The influence of the imagination on reasoning by young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 305– 318. Dockett, S. (1998). Constructing understandings through play in the early years. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6, 105–116. Dunn, J. (2004). Children’s friendships: The beginnings of intimacy. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell. Dunn, J., & Hughes, C. (2001). “I got some swords and you’re dead!”: Violent fantasy, antisocial behavior, friendship, and moral sensibility in young children. Child Development, 72, 491–505. Fein, G. (1981). Pretend play: An integrative review. Child Development, 52, 1095–1118. Gaskins, S., Haight, W. & Lancy, D.F. (2006). The cultural construction of play. In A. Göncü & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural and functional perspectives (pp. 179–202). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
280 Gesell, A. (1940). The first five years of life: A guide to the study of the preschool child. New York: Harper & Brothers. Göncü, A., Patt, M. B. & Kouba, E. (2002). Understanding young children’s pretend play in context. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 418–437). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Haight, W.L. & Miller, P.J. (1993). Pretending at home: Early development in a sociocultural context. Albany: SUNY Press. Holland, P. (2003). We don’t play with guns here. Maidenhead & Philadelphia: Open University Press. Howes, C., & Matheson, C.C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: social and pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961–974. Humphreys, A.P., & Smith, P.K. (1984). Rough-and-tumble play in preschool and playground. In P.K. Smith (Ed.), Play in animals and humans (pp. 241–266). Oxford: Blackwell. Hutt, C. & Bhavnani, R. (1972). Predictions from play. Nature, 237, 171–172. Isaacs, S. (1929). The nursery years. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Johnson, J. E., Ershler, J. & Lawton, J. T. (1982). Intellective correlates of preschoolers’ spontaneous play. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 106, 115– 122. Kamei, N. (2005). Play among Baka children in Cameroon. In: B. S. Hewlett & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods: evolutionary, developmental and cultural perspectives (pp. 343–359). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Kavanaugh, R.D. & Engel, S. (1998). The development of pretense and narrative in early childhood. In O.N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 80–99). Albany: SUNY Press. Lancy, D.F. (1996). Playing on the mother-Ground: Cultural routines for children’s development. New York: Guilford Press. Leevers, H. J., & Harris, P. L. (1999). Persisting effects of instruction on young children’s syllogistic reasoning with incongruent and abstract premises. Thinking and Reasoning, 5, 145–173. Leslie, A.M. (1987). Pretence and representation: The origins of ’theory of mind’. Psychological Review, 94, 412–426. MacDonald, K. (1993). Parent-child play: An evolutionary perspective. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child play (pp. 113–143). New York: SUNY Press. Nicolopoulou, A. (2006). The interplay of play and narrative in children’s development: Theoretical reflections and concrete examples. In A. Göncü & S. Gaskins (editors), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural
281 and functional perspectives (pp. 247–273). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pellegrini, A.D. (1988). Elementary school children’s rough-and-tumble play and social competence. Developmental Psychology, 24, 802–806. Pellegrini, A.D. (1994). The rough play of adolescent boys of differing sociometric status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 525–540. Pellegrini, A.D. (2009). The role of play in human development. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Pellegrini, A.D., & Bjorklund, D.F. (2004). The ontogeny and phylogeny of children’s object and fantasy play. Human Nature, 15, 23–43. Pellegrini, A.D., Dupuis, D. & Smith, P.K. (2007). Play in evolution and development. Developmental Review, 27, 261–276. Pellegrini, A.D., Huberty, P.D., & Jones, I. (1995). The effects of recess timing on children’s playground and classroom behaviors. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 845–864. Pellegrini, A.D. & Smith, P.K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69, 577–598 Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Power, T.G. (2000). Play and exploration in children and animals. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Roskos, K. & Christie, J. (Eds.) (2007). Play and literacy: Research from multiple perspectives (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schäfer, M. & Smith, P.K. (1996). Teachers’ perceptions of play fighting and real fighting in primary school. Educational Research, 38, 173–181. Singer, D.G., Golinkoff, R.M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). Play=learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and socio-emotional growth. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley. Smith, P.K. (1988). Children’s play and its role in early development: A reevaluation of the ‘play ethos’. In A.D. Pellegrini (Ed.), Psychological bases for early education (pp. 207–226). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, P.K. (2010). Children and Play. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Smith, P. K. & Sharp, S. (Eds.) (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge. Smith, P.K. & Simon, T. (1984). The study of play and problem-solving in preschool children: methodological problems and new directions. In P K Smith (Ed.), Play in animals and humans (pp. 199–216). Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
282 Spencer, H. (1898). The principles of psychology. New York: Appleton. (Original work published 1878). Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Sutton-Smith, B. (1988). War toys and childhood aggression. Play and Culture, 1, 57–69. Sylva, K., Roy, C. & Painter, M. (1980). Child watching at playgroup and nursery school. London: Grant McIntyre. Taylor, M., & Carlson, S.M. (1997). The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind. Child Development, 68, 436–455. Thornton, A. & McAuliffe, K. (2006). Teaching in wild meerkats. Science, 313, 227–229. Watson, M. W. & Peng, Y. (1992). The relation between toy gun play and children’s aggressive behavior. Early Education and Development, 3, 370–389. Welsh Assembly Government (2002). Welsh Assembly Government Play Policy. Cardiff Zigler, E.F. & Bishop-Josef, S.J. (2005). Play under siege. In Zigler, E.F., Singer, D.G. & Bishop-Josef, S.J. (Eds.), Children’s play: The roots of reading (pp. 1–13). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
283
A Comparative Perspective on the Early Years’ Curricula in Finland and Estonia Anneli Niikkoa, Aino Ugasteb a Professor, University of Joensuu, Finland b Associate Professor, Tallinn University, Estonia
Introduction The OECD report on early childhood education and policy, “Starting Strong II” (OECD, 2006) shows that many European countries emphasise the significance of early childhood education as the first step in lifelong learning and as an important path for making successful social, family and educational policies. Attention has been paid to the possibilities of improving the quality of early childhood education, making early childhood institutions visible and showing the importance of the child’s early years (Goffin, 2001; Oberhuemer, 2005). Curriculum research offers useful knowledge and helps to improve the quality of early childhood education, in terms of young children’s social-emotional and cognitive development and their growth and learning, at both local and national levels (Carr & May, 2000). The study of curriculum challenges early childhood scholars to investigate the pre-school teachers’ role, task and different pedagogical methods (such as play) in order to better take into account children’s own experiences and activities in different early childhood settings. The purpose of this article is to study and compare the national written curricula of two countries, Finland and Estonia. The research questions are: • What are the meanings, aims and goals of early childhood education? • What conceptions of the child can be found in the curricula? • Which teacher roles and tasks have been focused on? • What are the core contents? By studying curriculum models in each country, and comparing the curricula of different countries, it is possible to uncover values, morals and principles which underlie meanings, and also the aims and goals which create the basis for the curriculum models (Kwon, 2002; Dodge, 2004). This can expose beliefs and theoretical orientations towards children and their growth, learning and development. The comparison of teachers can offer an interesting viewpoint of how teachers’ role and tasks are understood in different countries. David (2001: 59) mentions that the analysis of curricula focuses light on the purposes and the requirements that the curriculum has to meet in each setting and society. The study can also reveal things that should be given a closer consideration and possibly
284 viewed in a new way, things that it would be better to change and things to adhere to and cultivate (Goffin, 2001).
The Unique Features of the Curriculum of Early Childhood Education Blenkin and Kelly (1994) have called for an evaluation of what is suitable for inclusion in the early years’ curriculum. Bruce (1987) and David (2001) mention that a curriculum for the early years should be constructed taking into account the child and childhood. This means the knowledge, skills and concepts the child already has, and knowledge, skills, concepts and attitudes she/he will need to acquire. It also means educators’ consciousness of the contexts where the children are growing and learning. The modes and learning styles of small children, under seven years old, are totally different from those of older children. Young children’s learning is holistic and happens in ‘here and now’ situations. Key development and learning theories (e.g., of Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner) serve as an important foundation for constructing a curriculum. It is generally recognised that the aims and goals of the early years’ curriculum have to be wide, and take into account the child’s health, overall development and learning, social competence, a positive self-concept and emotional well being, as well as later success in school and later life (Spodek & Saracho, 2002a). The curriculum has to contain development of communication skills between teachers and children and between children (UNESCO, 2004). The written contents, methods and activities in the curriculum offer a chance to develop children’s interests and produce intrinsic motivation that can lead to meaningful learning (David, 1996). The curriculum is an important tool to guide pre-school teachers, to help them to cover necessary learning areas, and to meet needs across age groups in early childhood centres. In addition the curriculum is thought to give pre-school teachers a similar framework for action, enhance better co-operation among staff and between professionals, parents and other experts (Ball, 1994). On the one hand, the curriculum can vary in terms of the freedom granted to pre-school teachers to interpret the implementation of the curriculum. On the other hand, the curriculum can be highly structured and can provide detailed scripts for the teachers’ behaviour and action (Goffin, 2001). Variations of curriculum depict teachers’ action and tasks and the environment’s structure and organisation. An early childhood education curriculum does not focus so much on the content of what is learnt but on activities, games, learning and teaching processes (David, 2001; Saracho & Spodek, 2002b). Dewey (1959) advocated an integrated early years’ curriculum, instead of a content-based curriculum, because young children do not think in subjects but instead holistically.
285 Previous Comparative Curriculum Studies In recent years, researchers studying curriculum content, structure and activities have attached much attention to the work of the researchers of earlier periods. At the beginning of this millennium, two international curriculum studies were carried out, which compared similarities and differences between the curricula of different countries. Soler and Miller (2003) studied the English Foundation Stage Curriculum Guidance, the Te Whariki curriculum of New Zealand and the Italian Reggio Emilia curriculum. Pramling Samuelsson, Sheridan and Williams (2006) have studied the strengths and limitations of five curricula: Reggio Emilia, Te Whariki, Experiential Education, High/Scope and the Swedish National Curriculum for Preschool. Soler and Miller (2003) questioned the ways in which different visions of child, childhood and teachers’ tasks are embedded in each curriculum. The analysis showed that in the English Foundation Stage Curriculum Guidance the child is considered as a future pupil. The development of a child is focused on learning which takes place in a straightforward sequential manner. The child’s learning goals are based upon future achievements, his or her lifelong learning and especially the needs of schools. In the Te Whariki curriculum the viewpoint of the child is socio-cultural, so the child’s growth and learning is seen in a holistic way. The child’s development is understood as a series of increasingly intricate patterns of linked experience and meaning focused on cultural and individual purposes. In the Reggio Emilia curriculum the child is considered both from progressive and socio-cultural viewpoints. The child is seen as a powerful partner and active co-constructor of knowledge and understanding with other children and adults. Each child is a unique individual with rights rather than merely needs. In the English Foundation Stage Curriculum Guidance, the task and role of the teacher is to prepare children for entry to school through formal teaching approaches. The so-called step model curriculum is seen to be helpful for teachers and gives them clear guidance as to how the early learning goals can be consistently implemented. In this curriculum, play is seen as marginal. In the Te Whariki curriculum, the role of the teacher is to conceptualise the children’s development as a series of increasingly intricate patterns of linked experiences and meanings and also cultural and individual purposes. Children’s learning is supported through responsive and reciprocal relationships with people, places and things. In the Reggio Emilia curriculum, the teacher is viewed as a collaborator and co-learner with the children. The teacher’s role is to guide, facilitate and encourage children, and to be flexible and not to formulate pre-specified goals. The teacher’s task is to focus on the development of knowledge, through a collaborative partnership and relationship between children and adults.
286 As their conclusion, Soler and Miller (2003) mention that the English Foundation Stage Curriculum Guidance represents the national early childhood curriculum and it has been largely underpinned by instrumental beliefs. The Te Whariki curriculum has been inspired by progressive and socio-cultural beliefs and theories. The Italian Reggio Emilia curriculum provides the strongest contrast with the instrumental views of education. All these three curricula fit inside a continuum ranging from localised, individualised models (Reggio Emilia, the Te Whariki) through to centralised goal- and outcome-oriented frameworks (the English Foundation Stage Curriculum Guidance). According to Pramling Samuelsson et al. (2006), the most obvious characteristic of early childhood curricula is that the child is described as an active and competent individual, who initiates communication and who is interested in the surrounding world. The primary goal of all the curricula is to give children a good start in life, which means being sensitive to their needs, interests and experiences. In all the programmes there is also a similar tendency to visualise the child’s rights. Another similarity in curricula is the role of communication and interaction as a key factor in children’s learning and wellbeing. Knowledge of child development is recognised as a basis for making sense of children’s actions. Besides that, it is also necessary to understand each child and his or her experience. Another similarity for all curricula is value orientation. All five curricula emphasise the teachers’ professional competence and there is also a strong similarity in the view of the pedagogy emphasising “here and now”. All curricula also make a point of it being necessary for the teachers to develop a better understanding of the child by being reflective. However the views of the child, and of her/his rights and needs, appear to vary in the different curricula. In the Te Whariki, the Swedish National Curriculum for Preschool and in Reggio Emilia, it is obvious that the child is seen as a cultural citizen. In Te Whariki, the cultural and historical roots are emphasised, and specifically the bi-cultural questions of the Maori and the European population. In Reggio Emilia, it is the competent child – an exploring child in collaboration with the teacher – that stands out. In the Swedish National Curriculum, it is the competent child in interaction with other children and the teacher who comes into view. In Experiential Education and High/Scope, it is the developmental psychological child with different needs and possibilities appearing at different ages. The teachers in Experiential Education are involved in a sophisticated interplay in order to involve the child, in High Scope they encourage the child to plan, do and review his/her activities and in Reggio Emilia they listen and allow the child to express his/her skills of communication in hundreds of ways. In the Swedish curriculum, the teachers are expected to interact with the children by making the overall goals the objective of learning and in the Te Whariki the
287 teachers help the children to express their understanding through narratives and learning stories. The researchers emphasised that all programmes stressed similar qualities and skills that are valued as important for children to learn and develop. The differences depend on cultural and historical factors and the origin of the programme. Value orientation especially is either adopted implicitly (High/Scope and Experiential Education) or expressed more explicitly (Reggio Emilia, the Swedish National Curriculum for Preschool, Te Whariki).
Empirical Approaches to This Study This study compares curricula (previously known as programmes). It explores similarities and differences concerning meanings, aims and goals, conceptions of the child, the pre-school teacher’s role and tasks, and core contents in the curricula of two countries, Finland and Estonia. In Finland, early childhood education programmes and curriculum have been developed as a part of the Finnish welfare policy, following the kindergarten play pedagogy of Friedrich Froebel and influenced by Piaget’s developmental psychology of child development. During the last decades, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory has had a strong influence on the development of Finnish early childhood education. At the beginning of this millennium, the Finnish government published the Decision in Principle of the Council of State Concerning the National Policy Definition on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) (Varhaiskasvatuksen linjaukset, 2002) where early childhood education and care are considered as a part of children’s lifelong learning and care, with the co-operation of parents. This document creates a basis for the planning, development and content of national early childhood education and care. A couple of years later the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health published the National Curriculum Guidelines of Early Childhood Education and Care (referred to as the Core Plan) (Varhaiskasvatuksen suunnitelman perusteet, 2003, renewed 2005), which stresses equality, goal-oriented interaction and collaboration, and a holistic view of children’s growth, development, learning and wellbeing. The child’s spontaneous play is the key element. Families and teachers form a close co-operative group. Early childhood education and care is based upon a wide range of pedagogical knowledge and research and cross-disciplinary information. In Estonia, the development of early childhood education has been substantially influenced both by Froebel’s ideas and Russian psychological thinkers, including also fifty years of traditions of Soviet education. Pedagogical activity in preschool in the Soviet time was based on the standard programme that prescribed age-specific educational objectives, tasks and content. The programme stressed the importance of the child’s different activities – academic activities,
288 play and work. The theoretical basis of the curriculum relied on pedagogicalpsychological standpoints, which rested upon cultural-historical theories (of Vygostky, Leontjev, Elkonin, etc.). The Republic of Estonia Education Act (Eesti Vabariigi haridusseadus, 1992) defines early childhood education as a system of knowledge, skills, experience and behavioural norms which create the prerequisites for succeeding in everyday life and at school. Several essential documents have been worked out, like the Preschool Child Care Institutions Act (Koolieelse lasteasutuse seadus, 1999) and the Framework Curriculum of Preschool Education (Alushariduse Raamõppekava, 1999, renewed 2008). According to the given documents, early childhood education is established to offer care and education for children below compulsory school age. The primary task of early childhood institutions is to care for and to strengthen the health of a child and to encourage his/her emotional, ethical, social, intellectual and physical development. Early childhood education is intended to support and complement family upbringing. In order to compare the curricula of the two countries, content analysis was used, which is a good method for analysing a written text. In the implementation of the analysis Wilson’s (1989) ideas of types of content analysis were followed: semantic content analysis and feeling, tone or inferred content analysis. The latter means that the researcher goes beyond the things said or written. Based on the ideas of Mayring (2000), criteria were developed for interpreting curricula text. As the criteria for reading the text, sentences and wholeness of thought were considered. In the formulation of the criteria, research questions (see above) and theoretical background of the study were used. During the process of the analysis the text was reduced and reconceptualised (Tesch, 1990). With the help of the described criteria, researchers from both countries first carried out an independent analysis of the curriculum of their own country. After that they negotiated regarding the criteria which were corrected, changed and checked in respect of the credibility and dependability of the study.
The Findings We compared the curricula of the two countries and looked for similarities and differences in values, aims, goals and principles, conceptions of the child, the tasks of teachers and core content. First, we discuss the similarities and then the differences. Both Finnish and Estonian curricula consider the right of child to education to be an important value. The general aims, also stressed by both curricula, are each child’s holistic growth, development and learning. The child is encouraged and helped to grow up as an active, responsible, independent and decision making individual. The curricula focus on the child’s independence, health and
289 learning of social and interactive skills as goals to be achieved. In the same way, both curricula stress children’s self-expression and exploration, and the meaning of play and activity in different environments. Special attention is paid to the development of children’s psychological processes and their emotional and social skills. Children’s character, abilities, skills, domestic situation and developmental potential are important for children’s individuality. It is also important to ensure the feeling of experiencing success. In both curricula the teacher has an important meaning. The teacher plans activities and games, and the regular observation of children’s growth, development and learning is stressed. The teacher’s task is to listen and guide children’s perceptions, describe and explain events to them and teach children how to act and behave in different situations. They use careful language and they explain new concepts to children. Teachers need to be able to respond to the child’s needs and understand the significance of the peer group in children’s lives. They should be aware of the stage of each child’s growth and development and his/her potential for growth and learning. In planning and carrying out education, teachers take into account the child’s characteristics, such as abilities, cultural background, age and gender. Uniformly, the curricula of both countries take into account similar contents, for example, the content areas of mathematics and aesthetics. Each content area has its own goals which all together support each child’s individual development, growth and learning. The comparison reveals that both curricula have their own unique features and emphasises the versatility of both. In the Finnish curriculum, issues are considered in more in detail and broadly, while in the Estonian curriculum they are covered more briefly. In the Finnish curriculum, childhood is seen as having value, emphasising the child’s dignity and equality with adults. The child is seen as a separate individual, who has a right to life and full development, equal treatment and nondiscrimination. The child’s development as a human being, and children’s own customs and language, history and culture are also important values. The central aims mean the promotion of child’s overall well-being, positive attitudes towards learning and fair treatment. Furthermore, one of the aims is to develop children’s relationships with their parents, teachers and other children. The goals promote child’s positive self-image, self-esteem, health and functional capacity and learning of social skills, interactive skills and the development of thinking. As the central principles warm personal relationships, secure growth, special support, and healthy environments, with play, are stressed. The Estonian curriculum emphasises, as values, human and democratic relations, which have been pointed out in the new version of the curriculum and also the ensuring of the child’s security and experience of success. Attaching value to Estonian cultural traditions and taking into account the characteristics of other cultures are considered important. The main aim of the Estonian cur-
290 riculum is to create an environment which promotes the child’s development. Another goal is to support child’s natural interest in acquiring knowledge and experiencing the surrounding life, nature and social phenomena as well as coping with everyday life and school. As the main principles consideration of the child’s gender, age specific and national characteristics have been emphasised. In the conception of children there are also differences. The Finnish curriculum stresses the expression of children’s holistic feelings, care of their basic needs and holistic learning by play. Children are as competent as adults, and they have their own views. Children learn gradually to classify things, to form questions and to understand interrelationships. Through relationships with adults and peers, children learn cultural and social customs and communication models. They learn to use all their senses in the process of learning and play. The Estonian curriculum puts emphasis on the integration of training and education according to the daily schedule of the group. It has also created the preconditions for coping with everyday life and studying at school. According to the new version of the curriculum, the child is an active participant in training and education, he/she is involved in the planning of activities, guided to make choices and to analyse what has been accomplished. In the process of training and education conditions are created to develop children’s capability. In the Finnish curriculum, the teachers’ task is to take care of children and satisfy their needs, promote children’s personal wellbeing, develop and support each child’s unique personality and raise self-esteem. Teachers respect children’s own personal choices, create an environment with an open atmosphere and give space for children’s own imagination, creativity, physical activities and artistic experience and expressions, and the feeling of togetherness. Teachers respond empathetically to children’s needs and contacts initiated by them. Teachers offer children models for learning language and concepts. They transmit earlier generations’ experience and cultural heritage. Teachers give children opportunities to take the initiative, decide about their activities, explore, draw conclusions, and express their thoughts. The Estonian curriculum emphasises the responsibility of teachers to implement and develop the curriculum. Teachers give parents a written assessment once or twice a year. The duty of teachers is to plan and execute pedagogical process. However, some differences were also found in the content of the curricula. The Finnish curriculum stresses natural science, historical-societal, ethical and religious-philosophical content orientations. The contents are more extensive than school subjects and subject matters. Language is considered an important means of communication and interaction in the context of all content orientations. Different content orientations are linked to children’s daily life and concrete learning experience and they are approached in a holistic way and integrated. Children’s own interests and needs, as well as local circumstances, are decisive factors in selecting content orientations. The Estonian curriculum pre-
291 sents the content of training and education in five areas: language and speech, physical education, music, art and mathematics. The content of these categories is achieved by children mainly through different activities and games.
Discussion and Conclusions The findings reflect ethical and holistic ideas of early childhood education and the influence of Froebel’s pedagogical philosophy in both Finland and Estonia. The values, aims and goals outline the principles of Children’s Rights and democracy when they emphasise children’s uniqueness, autonomy, independence and equality. In both curricula the holistic view of children’s growth, development and learning, as well as the expression of feelings and needs, has been pointed out. Conceptions of the child take many forms. In the central role is the child as an individual person, with his or her psycho-social, developmental, expressive and exploring views, whose development, growth and learning happen in the regular, safe environment through play and activity. Both curricula emphasise children’s learning of social skills, which are seen as important for each child. Play and activity in different environments are viewed as meaningful in both curricula. Also, mathematics and aesthetics emerge in the content of both curricula. The contents emphasise the importance of the areas of learning. Teachers are considered as skilled professionals who use careful language, follow, guide and support children’s development, growth and learning and have awareness of these things. They organise the environment for children’s activities. The results of the current study are similar to the findings of Soler et al. (2003) and Pramling Samuelson et al. (2006) in their comparative curriculum studies of the Te Whariki curriculum and the Reggio Emilia approach. Although there are similarities in the studied curricula, there are also many differences which are clearly connected to the history, national culture, societal and political tradition and psychological and pedagogical orientations of each country. The Finnish curriculum emphasises the child’s dignity, overall wellbeing and equality with adults. Children’s feelings and belonging to the peer group are important viewpoints. Children are seen to have their own culture, customs and history. Goal-oriented interaction, warm and personal relationships and cooperation among children and between teacher and children are stressed. Teachers and parents constitute a close, co-operative group. Historical-societal, ethical and religious content orientations construct the child’s many-sided picture of the world. Teachers’ task is to take care of children, and react empathetically, create an open atmosphere and transmit earlier generations’ experience and cultural heritage. The concepts of the Finnish curriculum reflect features that are typical of early childhood education and welfare policy in the Nordic countries.
292 Success, security, experience, democratic relations, as well as support for child’s positive self-esteem and different areas of the child’s development are characteristic of the Estonian curriculum. In addition, the Estonian curriculum emphasises the system of knowledge, skills, experience and behaviour of children as the prerequisites for success in everyday life and school, integration of training and education and the precondition for coping with everyday life and school. The content of training, lifelong learning process, Estonian culture and national characteristics, children’s natural interest to acquire knowledge, and children’s holistic development in co-operation between home and the childcare institution are also stressed. In the new version of the curriculum, the role of the teacher has changed – instead of being a planner and executor of the training and education the teacher is now viewed as a supporter, guide and the creator of the learning environment for children. Estonia, as a society of lifelong learning, is acquiring its first experience of democracy. The disadvantages of the curricula compiled during previous decades were their teacher-centeredness, with little attention paid to the formation of democratic relationships and to attaching value to Estonian culture. In the new Framework Curriculum the value of humane and democratic relationships in training and education is emphasised. Great attention is paid to Estonian cultural traditions while considering the specific character of other cultures. In summarising the results of this research, together with previous comparative curriculum studies, it appears that the Finnish curriculum has many features that are characteristic of the Te Whariki curriculum, while the Estonian curriculum reflects similar issues to the English Foundation Stage Curriculum Guidance (Carr & May, 2000; Soler & Miller, 2003). One important question from the viewpoint of this study is how pre-school teachers in both countries consider and understand the basic issues of the curriculum in their work and how their conceptions fit with national and international thinking about the curriculum.
References Alushariduse Raamõppekava 1999. [Framework Curriculum for Preschool Education of Estonia]. Riigi Teataja I, 80, 737. Ball, C. (1994). Start right: The importance of early learning, London: Royal Society of Arts. Blenkin, G. & Kelly, A. V. (Eds.) (1994). Early childhood education: A developmental curriculum. London: Paul Chapman. Bruce, T. (1987). Early childhood education. London: Holder and Stoughton.
293 Carr, M. & May, H. (2000). Te Whariki, making a difference for the underfives? The New National Early Childhood Curriculum. Delta, 48(1), 101– 102. David, T. (2001). Curriculum in the early years. What do we mean by “curriculum”? In G. Pugh (Ed) Contemporary issues in the early years. Working collaboratively for children (3rd edn.), London: Paul Chapman. Dodge, D. T. (2004). Early childhood curriculum models. Child care information exchange. Available online at:Www.ChildCareExchange.com, (accessed 9 March 2007). Dewey, J. (1959). School and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eesti Vabariigi haridusseadus [Republic of Estonia Education Act] (1992). Riigi Teataja 12, 192. Goffin, S. G. (2001). The role of curriculum models in early childhood education. Available online at: http://www.ericdigests.org/20012/curriculum.html, (accessed 8 February 2007). Koolieelse lasteasutuse seadus [Preschool Child Care Institutions Act] (1999). Riigi Teataja I, 27, 387. Kwon, Young-Ihm (2002). Changing curriculum for early childhood education in England. Early Childhood Research Practice, 4(2), 1–12. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 61–69. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2002) the decision in principle of the council of state concerning the national policy definition on early childhood education and care (ECEC) [Varhaiskasvatuksen linjaukset]. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2003, renewed 2005). The national curriculum guidelines on early childhood education and care [Varhaiskasvatuksen suunnitelman perusteet] Helsinki: Stakes. Oberheumer, P. (2005). International perspectives on Early Childhood Curricula. International Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1), 27–38. OECD (2006) Starting Strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD Publishing Centre. Pramling Samuelsson, I., Sheridan, S. & Williams, P. (2006). Five preschool curricula comparative perspective. International Journal of Early Childhood, 38(1), 11–29. Soler, J. & Miller, L. (2003). The Struggle for early childhood curricula: a comparison of the English foundation stage curriculum, Te Whariki and Reggio Emilia. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1), 57–67. Spodek, B. & Saracho, O. N. (2002a). Influences on early childhood curriculum development. In O. N Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds) Contemporary perspectives on early childhood curriculum, U.S.A.: Information Age Publishing. Spodek, B. & Saracho, O. N. (2002b). Introduction. The backbone of the early childhood curriculum. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds) Contemporary
294 Perspectives on Early Childhood Curriculum, U.S.A.: Information Age Publishing. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer Press. UNESCO (2004). Curriculum in early childhood education and care. UNESCO policy briefs on early childhood. Available online at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/image/0013/001374/1374le.pdf, (accessed 2 April 2007). Wilson, H. S. (1989). The craft of qualitative analysis. In H. S. Wilson (Ed.), Research in nursing. (2nd edn.), Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
SECTION C THE ROLE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS
297
Early Childhood Leadership at Crossroads: Current Concerns and Future Directions Manjula Waniganayake Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, Australia
Introduction Interest in researching early childhood leadership may be traced back to the 1990s (Clyde & Rodd, 1993; Kagan & Bowman, 1997; Rodd, 1998). It appears that the focus of leadership research remains on the leader and her/his relationships with others working within the same organization (Rodd, 2006). Current interests in integrated child and family settings provide opportunities to consider community development approaches to early childhood leadership (Whalley, 2006). Research in other sectors examining leadership sustainability (Hargreaves & Fink, 2005), gender (Sinclair, 2005) and cultural imperatives (Frawley, Fasoli, Darbon & Ober, 2010) has not yet been fully developed within early childhood contexts. As such, despite the inherent diversity of programs, practices and backgrounds of professionals working in the sector, cross-cultural voices including Indigenous perspectives on early childhood leadership, continue to be marginalised (Fasoli, Scrivens & Woodrow, 2007). Leaders must be cognisant of contextual characteristics of communities and organisations in applying theory into practice. As yet however, consideration of leadership from a systems perspective, involving multiple organisational constructs, presents challenges for early childhood practitioners as well as researchers. Learning from research and theorising in school leadership continue to offer potential for advancement, and this is particularly visible in relation to distributed leadership approaches. Woods & Gronn (2009) for instance, connect distributed leadership to organisational capacity. Any advances in theorising and improving leadership practice, require mindfulness about contemporary complexities and challenges confronting the daily lives of children, families and early childhood practitioners. This chapter is presented as a stimulus, to provoke the engagement in early childhood leadership discussions. It is based on the belief that dialogue within the sector is essential to advance and negotiate meaningful recommendations to resolve common concerns. Moreover, international benchmark studies undertaken by those such as the OECD (2006) have highlighted numerous commonalities about workforce issues between countries, especially in relation to staff qualifications and regulation of program quality. As such, it is appropriate to conceptualise this discussion from both a national and an international perspective. Accordingly, whilst Australia will be used as the primary case study to in-
298 form this discussion, information from other countries will be presented where appropriate.
Working in the early childhood sector There is a strong body of research based evidence that clearly demonstrates that well qualified early childhood teachers can enhance the learning outcomes for children placed in early childhood settings (OECD, 2006; COAG, 2009). Professional development and preparation of early childhood practitioners however, is complicated by the quality and quantity of structural arrangements available. In part, the complexity arises due to the absence of clarity regarding expected roles and responsibilities of contemporary early childhood practitioners. Failure of public policy to embrace the challenges of addressing the pay inequities of early childhood practitioners also feeds into this complexity. The scarcity of rigorous research on early childhood workforce issues that could inform community discussion also weakens public policy making. When taken together, it is therefore no surprise that it is easier to walk away than stay to discuss the question of whether growing early childhood leaders is a necessity or a luxury. The image of the early childhood teacher also continues to conjure images of ‘niceness’ synonymous with words such as amiability, friendliness, likeability, congeniality, and sensitivity. These descriptors deflect authority, status and power, and thereby assist early childhood practitioners to evade consideration of leadership roles and responsibilities. Research over time has shown that early childhood teachers have shunned leadership (see Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Rodd, 1998; 2006). By and large, in affluent western societies like Australia, teachers, especially those working in preschools and childcare centres, have yet to win public esteem as a serious occupation or profession (OECD, 2006). Against this backdrop of public ridicule of being cast as ‘glorified babysitters’ – felt especially by four year university qualified graduates, low wages plague employment prospects within the sector. Lack of a meaningful nomenclature and specificity that accords respect and separation of teaching, management and leadership functions have also reduced the capacity of early childhood practitioners to lobby for better employment conditions. In Australia for instance, different industrial awards and employment contracts have meant that there is a plethora of job titles, expectations and pay rates across the country. There is little consensus on the roles and responsibilities attached to these jobs, and there is much variation in terms of the required qualifications and remuneration awarded despite similarity in qualifications and experience of individuals. Having to perform a variety of functions, often simultaneously, as teachers, managers and/or leaders daily, can be physically and intellectually demanding,
299 frustrating and stressful. This is because of the sheer volume and intensity of having to respond continuously to demands from children, parents and other adults, within and beyond the centre.
Conceptualising early childhood leadership Much has been written about the absence of an agreed and definitive way of conceptualising early childhood leadership (see Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Mujis, Aubrey, Harris & Briggs, 2004; Nupponen, 2006; and Rodd, 1998, 2006). Cross-cultural variability in defining early childhood leadership was found in the International Leadership Project involving scholars in Australia, England, Finland, Russia and the USA (See Hujala & Puriola, 1998). There is also broader agreement about the situational nature of leadership enactment, both within early childhood (see Hujala & Puriola, 1998; Rodd, 2006, SirajBlatchford & Manni, 2007) and in other sectors (see Durbin, Dalglish, & Miller, 2006; Harris, 2005; and Spillane, 2006). That is, contextual elements including the history, demography, social, political and cultural features of the organization and community within which the leader is situated, can either advance or impede leadership enactment, in behaviour, style and methods. There is little or no evidence to support that the early childhood sector will engenders charismatic authority although cases of long-term popular directors or teachers with continuous employment in the same kindergarten or childcare centre may be found. Typically, governance and compliance requirements covering the management of centres, have tended to reinforce positional leadership. Based on research in childcare centres in Australia, those such as Rodd (1998; 2006) and Hayden (1996) have also attempted to identify typologies or hierarchies of tasks performed by early childhood practitioners by placing leadership as a summating function. However, due to the continuing absence of a strong body of empirical evidence to support the validation of leadership characteristics, one has little choice but to agree with the assessment by Mujis, Aubrey, Harris & Briggs (2004, p. 163) that the reliance on “purely normative prescriptions” is a “major weakness in the research base in this area.” This gap in the early childhood knowledge base has been addressed to some extent by Siraj-Blatchford and colleagues (2007) working on the Effective Leadership in the Early Years Sector (ELEYS) Project in the UK. This work has led to the identification of ten “categories of effective leadership practice” as follows: • Identification and articulating a collective vision • Ensuring shared understanding, meanings and goals • Effective communication • Encouraging reflection
300 • • • • • •
Monitoring and assessing practice Commitment to ongoing professional development Distributed leadership Building a learning community and team culture Encouraging and facilitating parent and community partnerships Leading and managing: striking the balance (Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2007, p.12)
Three of the above categories, having a vision and sound communication, and participation in continuous learning, have been traditionally and consistently aligned with leadership (see Aubrey, 2007; Colmer, 2009; Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; and Rodd, 2006). There is however, some confusion in including in this list, the notion of distributed leadership and the need to balance leading and managing. In part, this is because distributed leadership is perceived as a particular theoretical approach to leadership, applied typically within schools (Harris 2005; Spillane, 2006). This makes it difficult to use distributed leadership as a single variable to measure early childhood leadership effectiveness. However, there is growing support that distributed notions of leadership could be applied comfortably within the early childhood sector (Colmer, 2009; Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Scrivens, 2006). It is however difficult to work out exactly how success and failure of leadership is determined or assessed, and what to do with destructive or unsuccessful leaders. Within this context, it is worth noting that discussions about early childhood leadership has hitherto resisted open dialogue about the ‘dark-side’ of leadership, preferring instead to focus on the benevolent and heroic aspects of leaders and leadership. Following an analysis of relevant academic and popular literature, Slattery (2009, p.4) defines the dark-side of leadership as an ongoing pattern of behaviour exhibited by a leader that results in overall negative organisational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower and the environment. Organisational goals, morale and follower satisfaction are thwarted through the abuse of power and self-interest of the leader. Application of such a definition to early childhood leadership may seem almost sacrilegious because a passionate commitment to social justice is taken for granted or considered a pre-requisite for those working in the early childhood sector. Overall, explicit discussion of the use of power among early childhood practitioners is rare. Research by Hard (2006) undertaken in Australia is an exception. This study, widely discussed in the sector, demonstrated the existence of a “culture of horizontal violence” correlating with Duke’s powerful metaphor of “a crab bucket mentality” (1994, in Hard, 2006, p.45). Comments made by early childhood practitioners in this study indicated that “team-based leadership” and “the lingering discourse of niceness” demanded compliance to the group. (p. 45)
301 Silence over incidents of workplace bullying, conflict, harassment and other unethical behaviour experienced within early childhood organisations cannot be tolerated. Without open dialogue and “overt attention”, Hard (2006, p. 47), warns that the early childhood sector “will continue to crave leadership but be unable to provide the culture in which it can be fostered and flourish.” To prevent and minimise long-term damage on both organisations and their stakeholders, Slattery (2009) calls on academics to engage in investigating and publishing analysis based on empirical evidence about the dark-side of leadership.
Gender and leadership Most well known scholars who have theorised, researched and developed models or frameworks for exploring leadership are men (see Van Maurik, 2001). Leadership scholars such as Sinclair (2005) have continued to express frustration at the perpetuation of the masculine archetype of leadership declaring that “Until we unravel and expose the links between being a leader and enacting a particular form of manliness, then, in gender and racial terms, leadership will remain the domain of a homogenous elite” (p. 175). There are of course exceptions, particularly within educational leadership literature, such as Blackmore & Sachs (2007) and Harris (2005). Nevertheless, conventional approaches are silent about gender bias in leadership, and this requires critiquing when considering the relevance and application to a highly feminised sector such as early childhood. There is also awareness and acknowledgement of the limitation of applying command and lead models of traditional leadership within early childhood organisations (Kagan & Bowman, 1997; Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Rodd, 2006). Yet, critical exploration of whether or not one’s gender makes a difference within early childhood leadership contexts remains an uncharted area. In addressing this gap in the research literature on early childhood leadership, the absence of accurate workforce data about those employed within early childhood settings is a major hindrance or stumbling block. This inadequacy goes beyond documenting the numbers of men and women employees in settings such as preschools and childcare centres. Performance of leadership varies according to stated job descriptions aligned with one’s position as a teacher, assistant, manager or director in centres. There is also a need to examine leadership functions of those working as early childhood academics. In the same way, little is known about the leadership roles of those who are centre owners as well as those involved in early childhood policy development and regulation, in both government and non-government organisations. On the one hand, these comments reflect the kaleidoscopic organisational settings where early childhood leadership may be found. On the other hand, characteristics of early childhood settings, including location, hours of operation, mix of social class, culture,
302 number and age of children and adults as well as funding and governance requirements, can all have a significant bearing on leadership enactment. It is therefore not surprising that consideration of gendered approaches within early childhood leadership has been hitherto ignored or buried within the organisational complexity of the sector.
Essential elements of early childhood leadership In reading available leadership literature, three elements, which characterise leadership, have emerged consistently over time. Firstly, leaders are imaginative, thoughtful, and are able to shape and mould ideas in someway to articulate a vision that others can see and value. (Duigan, 2007; Durbin, Dalglish, & Miller 2006) The International Leadership Project conducted in five nations, for instance, upheld the importance of visionary leadership within the early childhood sector (Hujala & Puriola, 1998). Secondly, leaders are learners, willing to extend their capacities by their commitment to continuous self-development. Effective leaders demonstrate engagement in self-development through a variety of strategies including reflection, dialogue and research within and beyond their organisations. Within early childhood, as in school education, organisations participating in ongoing professional development have been found to be centres/schools of excellence in the UK (See Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2007; and Harris, 2005; respectively). These organisations also report on having sound leadership that guides further education of all involved (Colmer, 2009, Waniganayake, Harrison, Cheeseman, De Giogia, Burgess, & Press, 2008). Third, leadership is inextricably linked with followers and this reinforces the view that communication skills and interpersonal relationships go hand-in-hand with leadership (Slattery, 2009). Research by those such as Aubrey (2007) also validates the importance of networking as a dimension of effective leadership. It is therefore not surprising to see that leading inter-professional or multi-disciplinary teams in the provision of early childhood programs, is emerging as an important area for future research inquiry (Whalley, 2003; Willumsen, 2006).
Effectiveness and influence of leaders Effectiveness usually goes hand in hand with efficiency. Popularised in management literature, efficiency or effectiveness is the successful application of a program or model, reflecting the skills and ability of an individual (or group or ogranisation) to achieve results without wastage. Within management or business studies, effectiveness is also synonymous with numerical assessment, and this is reflected in the desire to find ways of measuring leadership in quantifiable
303 ways. Emergence of leadership assessment tools and tests is a bi-product of these attempts to both pre-test or identify leadership capabilities and in turn, ascertain growth and effectiveness following implementation of leadership. Leadership effectiveness can also be considered in terms of influence, or the capacity to sway or lead others. The level of influence or power a leader may have, could be vested in the individual’s employment position (such as being the Prime Minister of a country), wealth (be it personal or organisational, in terms of owning a company), and social status, as defined by a particular community (such as being a tribal chief or a Bishop in the Catholic Church). Leaders may use their positional authority to affect the thinking or actions of others, either by coercion, by example, force of personality or some other factor. The extent to which ‘influence’, however defined, was used to identify early childhood leaders is reflected in a study undertaken in Australia (Waniganayake, 2002). In this study, when asked to identify early childhood leaders, focus group participants gave a variety of factors to clarify their rationale for selecting these individuals as early childhood leaders. The reasons were in turn, analysed in terms of the work done by leaders, usually in their employment positions: • Development work in the tertiary sector (eg. Joan Faragher), in government policy (eg, Quentin Bryce), or the establishment of services (eg. Ruth Crowe) • Innovation in children’s programs (eg. Jean Adamson) • Writing (eg. Margaret Clyde and Anne Stonehouse) • Research (eg. Jill Rodd and Bridie Raban) • Inspirational (eg. Heather Lyons and Karen Weston) • Specialist Expertise (eg. Priscilla Clark for Bilingualism, and Barbara Piscitelli for children’s art) • Political skills (eg Rosalie Kinson, and Beth Stubbs) The list of reasons and leaders identified above provides some insights about the way in which leaders can influence the early childhood sector broadly. It is also clear that the impact of these individuals was felt on mass in terms of a leader’s publications, research output, policy or program development work. However, most individual’s direct sphere of authority was by and large contained within the location where s/he was employed. It is also important to note that those identified as leaders will have familiarity and currency within a particular context, and at a particular time. In this study, the majority of leaders who were held up as ‘heroines’ worked in the State of Victoria. Some, like Jean Adamson and Beth Stubbs, were also no longer alive at the time of data collection but were remembered with deep admiration and affection by the older participants in this study. When the data was collated, there was a list of 50 names identified by participants as EC leaders in this study. The trends discussed above also raised ad-
304 ditional questions about how leaders are identified within the early childhood sector. For instance, to be recognised as a leader in early childhood, • Does one need to be dead first? There was little or no contest about the leadership of those who were no longer alive, whilst the leadership capacity or credibility of others who were living attracted heated discussion at times. • Does the individual’s gender and qualifications matter? There were only two men who were identified by participants in this pool of early childhood leaders. Both were medical practitioners, who were frequently invited to provide advice to parents of young children through the popular media and enhanced their public profiles. • Does one need to perform more than one job? The majority of individuals listed held high status employment positions as well as voluntary unpaid positions in professional organisations or government advisory boards. The voluntary roles also highlight the importance of unpaid advocacy work performed by early childhood leaders. • Does one need to have an area of speciality or can one be a generalist? This is difficult to answer because it is not clear exactly how specialisations can be identified. When writing and researching, individuals could focus on one or more areas of early childhood but one’s position as a policy maker or university academic responsible for a department of early childhood may mean that one is expected to keep abreast of developments across the sector, and thereby be a generalist. Overall, therefore the search for ways of exploring influence and impact of early childhood leaders remains a puzzle that requires further scrutiny. Exploration of the effectiveness of leadership can also easily slip into numerical assessments because viability is typically associated with profitability from an accounting and business perspective. It is difficult to know the extent to which territorial disputes across diverse programs (as per childcare, preschool, family day care and outside school hours care for instance) as well as the split between public and private funding and management structures may have contributed to the disruption of leadership growth within the early childhood sector. Few would disagree that the need to find innovative ways to identify, develop and sustain early childhood leaders is more urgent than ever before. For many, when investigating early childhood leader effectiveness, the inclusion of a leader’s interactions with people, places and products in combination with business viability measurements, may require a shift in our mindsets. Accepting responsibility for market profitability of early childhood organisations as a necessary dimension of leadership effectiveness also cannot be ignored. Accordingly, understanding entrepreneurial leadership represents an important gap for future research endeavours.
305 Leadership with a focus More than 10 years ago, Kagan & Bowman (1997) observed that command and lead models of leadership found in large business and bureaucracies, were not appropriate for the early childhood sector. The extent to which early childhood leadership is similar or different to other organisations or professions has not yet been examined through empirical inquiry. Often heard anecdotal comments from early childhood practitioners reflect differentiation or distinctiveness about early childhood leadership to include considerations such as: • Interpersonal dynamics within early childhood organisations formed by small teams of mainly female employees • Passionate commitment of practitioners working with young children and their families, reflected in their willingness to endure low wages and uphold ethical practice • Constraints on professional autonomy due to high levels of compliance and public accountability Whether or not these aspects are sufficient to warrant making a special case for conceptualising leadership within early childhood differently is, still debatable. The growing interest in understanding the role of early childhood leaders in curriculum and pedagogy must be added to these discussions on assessing the uniqueness of early childhood leadership. That is, play based approaches to learning and teaching is a central platform of early childhood education (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2010). This perspective has been validated in national policy on early childhood curriculum such as Australia’s Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government, 2009). In turn, it is recognised that well qualified curriculum specialists are necessary to implement high quality early childhood programs (OECD, 2006; Siraj-Blatchford & Woodhead, 2009). The current diversity of professional qualifications and complexities of separating teaching and pedagogy roles as identified by the OECD (2006) reflect the need to rethink professional development and practice. This also raises questions about leadership capacities of early childhood teachers working directly with children, and the non-teaching centre director who is responsible for the overall orgnisation. In reality, compliance requirements and public accountability gives authority to the centre directors. This reinforces notions of positional leadership, regardless of who has more/less responsibility for implementing the curriculum or pedagogy. Research conducted in Finland by Hujala and Heikka (2007), found that pedagogical leadership was a key role performed by childcare centre directors. However, because of too many competing demands and expectations, centre directors had little or no time to consider these responsibilities carefully and allocation of resources to leading pedagogy were often neglected. It has also been
306 shown that “according to Andrews (2009), interest in pedagogical leadership came about through the need to develop skills in leading organizational change in early childhood settings.” (Heikka & Waniganayake, 2010, p.1) More broadly, contestations about the meaning and definition of ‘pedagogy’ and ‘pedagogical leadership’ have also not been sufficiently well advanced within the early childhood sector. Accordingly, Heikka & Waniganayake (2010, p.22) have concluded by stating that “the question of how to practice pedagogical leadership in a way that acknowledges community perspectives incorporating child and family voices (however) requires in-depth investigation.” In their influential publication on early childhood leadership, Kagan & Bowman (1997) identified pedagogy, administration, advocacy, community and conceptual leadership as potential areas of focus for early childhood leaders. Based on research conducted in the UK, Aubrey (2007) opened discussions about entrepreneurial leadership, reflecting the importance of early childhood organisations as small business enterprises. The demise of large scale corporotisation of childcare within countries such as Australia (Brennan, 2007; Sumsion, 2006) highlights the importance of enhancing the business skill base of early childhood practitioners. Much has been said about ‘accidental managers’ heading childcare centres without adequate preparation to take on management and leadership responsibilities (Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2003; Rodd, 2006). Like most small business operations, early childhood settings are also high-risk commercial enterprises, subject to the vagaries of global economic and financial crises. Whether or not pedagogical leaders in early childhood can also perform business and accounting roles, requires wider discussion. It is clear however, that preparation for entrepreneurial leadership within the early childhood sector, has to be built into postgraduate study and will require specialist input from the accounting profession. In the same way, policy work and research work are also emerging as potential areas for specialisation for early childhood leaders. It is easy to see that early childhood has become a “hot policy issue” (Rigby & Neuman, 2005, p.1) in both national and international forums (See for example, COAG, 2009; Moss & Petrie, 2002; Penn & Lloyd, 2007; OECD, 2006, Siraj-Blatchford & Woodhead, 2009). The career pathways of the six senior policy advocates interviewed by Rigby & Neuman (2005) showed that “serendipity, luck and timing” impacted on their work as policy-makers (p.3). They indicated that direct work with children and families, formative experiences in policy arenas, as well as academic training combining undergraduate and postgraduate study are necessary for those aspiring to become early childhood policy leaders. Internships, policy advisory jobs, working on election campaigns and government inquiries are some of the avenues for mastering public policy development skills and knowledge. These suggestions also resonate with Bown’s (2010) research on the key role politicians play in determining early childhood policy in Australia.
307 Given that public policy making is specific to each nation, it is necessary to hold localised discussions to inform and guide aspiring policy leaders to seek appropriate networks to build professional relationships in strategic ways. Another trend that is gaining momentum within the early childhood sector is evidence-based policy development. (See for example, Harrison, Ungerer, Smith, Zubrick, Wise, Press, Waniganayake, and the LSAC Research Consortium, 2009; Penn & Lloyd, 2007; Siraj-Blatchford & Woodhead, 2009). Universities are also enforcing this emphasis on research work, as research productivity is crucial in gaining government funding. In Australia for instance, much work is going into providing mentoring and infrastructure support to facilitate improved outcomes in achieving competitive research grants by university academics. Diversification of career trajectories as researchers can now be mapped both within the academy and beyond. University professorships in early childhood may be seen as coveted research leadership positions in this sector. Although the appointments of early childhood professors have increased in the last 10 years, with the increasingly aging academic workforce, signs of a generational change in the academy are eminent. To date, however, there has been no exploration of building a research-based leadership career in early childhood. If leadership is about being strategic from a long-term perspective, then aspiring research leaders will need to start early to develop and implement a research plan. In these discussions, emergence of questions about balancing competing responsibilities of teaching, administration and research as university academics, also reflect challenges of leadership distribution within universities.
Conclusion This chapter has elucidated and updated a number of important considerations regarding early childhood leadership. There is a continuing need to sharpen the focus of leadership roles and responsibilities through adequate research studies. Consideration of both positive and negative impacts of early childhood leadership also requires transparency and critical appraisal. Checklists, rating scales and universal standards of leadership effectiveness cannot provide guarantees or meaningful ways of assessing the quality of leadership performance. Alternative ways of defining leaders and leadership roles are also critical if the sector is to respond effectively to current and future challenges facing early childhood practitioners today and tomorrow. Living through increasingly unpredictable and turbulent times also behoves one to seek alternative leadership approaches that can sustain early childhood programs, for both the children and the adults who come together in these settings.
308 References Aubrey, C. (2007) Leading and managing in the early years. London: Sage Publications. Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2007) Performing and reforming leaders: Gender, educational restructuring, & organisational change. New York: State University of New York Press. Bown, K. (2009) The policy paradox. The politics of lobbying. Rattler, 91, Spring, 26–28. Brennan, D. (2007) The ABC of child care politics, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), Winter: 213–225. Clyde, M. & Rodd, J. (1993) A comparison of Australian and American centrebased caregivers’ perceptions of their roles. In S. Reifel (ed) Advances in early education and day care. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press. Colmer, K. (2009) “Leading a learning organisation: Australian early years centres as learning networks”. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(1), March, 107–115. Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2009) Investing in the early years – A national early childhood development strategy. Canberra: COAG. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009) Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: DEEWR for COAG. Duignan, P. (2007) Educational leadership. Key challenges and ethical tensions. 2nd Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Durbin, A., Dalglish, C. & Miller, P. (2006) Leadership. (2nd Asia-Pacific Edition). Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley and Sons. Ebbeck, M. & Waniganayake, M. (eds) (2010) Play in early childhood education. Learning in diverse contexts. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Ebbeck, M. & Waniganayake, M. (2003) Early childhood professionals: Leading today and tomorrow. Sydney. MacLennan +Petty Fasoli, L., Scrivens, C. & Woodrow, C. (2007) Challenges for leadership in Aotearoa/ New Zealand and Australian early childhood contexts. In L. Keesing-Styles & H. Hedges (Eds.), Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogues (pp. 231–253). Castle Hill: Pademelon Press. Fenech, M., Waniganayake, M. & Fleet, A. (2009) More than a shortage of early childhood teachers: Looking beyond the recruitment of university qualified teachers to promote quality early childhood education and care. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), May: 199–213. Frawley, J., Fasoli, L., Darbon, T. & Ober, R. (2010) The Linking Worlds Research Project: Identifying intercultural educational leadership capabilities. Leading and Managing, 16(1), 1–15.
309 Hard, L. (2006) Horizontal violence in early childhood education and care: Implications for leadership enactment. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3): 40–48. Harris, A. (2005) Crossing boundaries and breaking barriers. Distributing leadership in schools. London: Specialist Schools Trust. Harrison, L. J., Ungerer, J. A., Smith, G. J., Zubrick, S. R., Wise, S., Press, F., Waniganayake, M. & the LSAC Research Consortium (2009). Childcare and early education in Australia. The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Social Policy Research Paper No. 40. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Hayden, J. (1996) Management of early childhood services: An Australian perspective. Sydney: Social Science Press. Heikka, J. & Waniganayake, M. (2010) Conceptualising leadership for learning through early childhood pedagogy. (under review) Hujala, E. & Heikka, J. (2007) Distributed leadership in child-care. Paper presented at the 17th EECERA Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 29 August–1 September. Hujala, E. & Puroila, A. (eds) (1998) Towards Understanding Leadership in Early Childhood Context. Cross-cultural perspectives, ACTA Universitatis Ouluensis, Scientie Rerum Socialium, E35, Oulu, Finland: Oulu University Press. Kagan, S. L. & Bowman, B. T. (eds) (1997) Leadership in Early Care and Education Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Mujis, D., Aubrey, C., Harris, A. & Briggs, M. (2004) How do they manage? A review of the research on leadership in early childhood, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), 157–169. Moss, P. and Petrie, P. (2002) From Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces: Public Policy, Children and Childhood. London: Routledge-Falmer. Nupponen, H. (2006) Leadership concepts and theories: Reflections for practice for early childhood directors, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), March, 43–50. Penn, H. & Lloyd, E. (2007) Richness or rigour? A discussion of systematic reviews and evidence-based policy in early childhood, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1): 3–18. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2006) Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD Publishing. Rigby, E. & Neuman, M.J. (2005) Making a difference. Leadership in early care and education policy. Young Children, January, 1–8.
310 Rodd, J. (2006) Leadership in early childhood: the pathway to professionalism. 3rd Edition. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Rodd, J. (1998) Leadership in early childhood: the pathway to professionalism. 2nd Edition. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Rodd, J. (1997) learning to be leaders: Perceptions of early childhood professionals about leadership roles and responsibilities. Early Years, 18(1):40– 44. Scrivens, C. (2006) Distributed leadership within a community of practice in a New Zealand /Aotearoa Context. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the European Early Childhood Research Association, September, Iceland. Sinclair, A. (2005) Doing leadership differently: Gender. Power and sexuality in a changing business culture. (revised edition) Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press. Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Woodhead, M. (eds) (2009) Effective early childhood programmes. Early Childhood In Focus No.4: Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Manni, L. (2007) Effective leadership in the early years sector. The ELEYS study. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Slattery, C. (2009) Troubling times at the top. The dark side of leadership. Discussion paper. Sydney: Semann & Slattery. Spillane, J. (2006) Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Press. Sumsion, J. (2006) The corporatisation of Australian childcare. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(2): 99–120. Van Maurik, J. (2001) Writers on Leadership. London: Penguin. Waniganayake, M., Harrison, L., Cheeseman, S., De Giogia, K., Burgess, C. & Press, F. (2008) Practice potentials: Impact of participation in professional development and support on quality outcomes for children in childcare centres. Canberra: Professional Support Coordinators Alliances, Access Macquarie and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Waniganayake, M. (2002) “Why do we need ‘tall poppies’ in early childhood? The challenges of nurturing early childhood leaders.” Presentation at the “Early Childhood Matters” Conference of the Department of Human Services, Melbourne. (4–5 October) Whalley, M. (2006) Leadership in integrated centres and services for children and families – A community development approach, Childrenz Issues, 10(2): 8–18. Willumsen, W. (2006) Leadership in interprofessional collaboration – the case of childcare in Norway. Journal of Interprofessional Care. August, 20(4): 403–413.
311 Woods, P.A. & Gronn, P. (2009), Nurturing Democracy: The contribution of Distributed Leadership to a Democratic Organizational Landscape, Educational Management Administration Leadership, 37(4): 430–451.
313
Classroom Practices in Finnish and Estonian Preschools: Subgroups of Observed Teaching Practices Helena Rasku-Puttonena, Eija Pakarinenb, Kaili Trossmannc, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanena, Eve Kikasd, Anna-Maija Poikkeusa a Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä b Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä c University of Tartu, Estonia d University of Tartu and University of Tallinn, Estonia
Acknowledgements The Finnish part of the study has been carried out in the Centre of Excellence in Learning and Motivation Research financed by the Academy of Finland (No. 213486 for 2006–2011), Developmental Dynamics of Literacy Skills (No. 213353 for 2005–2008) and financed by the Academy of Finland (No. 130707, for the first author). The Estonian part of the study was supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (SF0180025s08), Estonian Science Foundation (Grant 7388 to the first and third author), and the European Social Fund INNOVE (Measure 1.1, Project Code 1.0101- 0301). KEYWORDS: ECCOM, observations, preschool classrooms, teaching practices The importance of high quality education on children’s academic achievement is widely acknowledged, and the role of the teacher–child relationship on children’s learning outcomes has been demonstrated in many previous studies (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Perry, Donohue & Weinstein, 2007; Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Stipek & Byler, 2004). It has been shown that teachers differ in their teaching practices and in interaction with their students (Howes, Burchinal, Pianta, Bryant, Early, Clifford & Barbarin, 2008; LoCasale-Crouch, Konold, Pianta, Howes, Burchinal, Bryant, Clifford, Early & Barbarin, 2007; Pianta, LaParo, Payne, Cox & Bradley, 2002). Authentic classroom observations (e.g., Pianta et al., 2008; Stipek & Byler, 2004) have demonstrated their potential to inform about these teaching practices and classroom organization. The observational methods CLASS (Pianta et al., 2008) and ECCOM (Stipek & Byler, 2004) have been used in a variety of contexts in the USA. However, there is limited information on classroom practices in other cultural environments and schooling systems outside the USA. Therefore, the ECCOM measure has been recently used in Finnish and Estonian preschools (for validation results see Lerkkanen, Kikas, Pakarinen, Trossmann, Poikkeus,
314 Rasku-Puttonen, Siekkinen &Nurmi, 2010). The present study aimed at describing classroom practices in Finnish and Estonian preschools. For observing teaching practices in classrooms, serving children from the age of 4–7 years, Stipek and Byler (2004, 2005) introduced a procedure called ECCOM (Early Childhood Observation Measure). ECCOM assesses instructional practices as well as management and the social climate of the classroom; it focuses more on the approach used for instruction than on the content of instruction (Stipek & Byler, 2004). The measure is designed to be appropriate for measuring the extent and quality of teaching practices which teacher provide in the classroom, classified as child-centered, teacher-directed and child-dominated practices by Stipek and Byler (2005). Child-centered practices emphasize the view of children as active knowledge constructors informed by “constructivist” approaches (c.f., Piaget 1985; Vygotsky 1978). In child-centered classrooms teachers assist children’s learning by providing them with both guidance and opportunities to direct their own explorations of objects and academic topics (Stipek & Byler, 2004). Teacher-directed practices emphasize certain skills as “basic” and their need to be mastered before more advanced learning tasks can be introduced. This kind of classroom organization is determined by the teacher and involves primarily drill and practice of academic knowledge and skills. The development of social skills is less emphasized (Stipek & Byler, 2004). In child-dominated practices teachers provide little control, direction, or feedback. In these kinds of classrooms, clear or coherent activities, lessons or rules may be missing and the teacher does not give support for children’s communication or interpersonal skills or the child’s personal needs (Stipek & Byler, 2004). Classrooms are likely to vary in whether they are dominated by one approach, implement a mix of approaches, or do not engage very much in either approach to instruction (Stipek, 2004). Research concerning this variation in classroom practices is, however, lacking. Thus, the aim of the present study was to contribute to the literature concerning teaching practices in authentic learning situations. Previous research has documented advantages of child-centered practices in the development of children’s academic skills (Huffman & Speer, 2000; Marcon, 1999; Perry et al., 2007), motivation (Lerkkanen, Kiuru, Pakarinen, Viljaranta, Poikkeus, Rasku-Puttonen, Siekkinen & Nurmi, 2010; Stipek, Feiler, Daniels & Milburn, 1995; Stipek, Feiler, Byler, Ryan, Milburn & Salmon, 1998), behavioral outcomes (Perry et al., 2007), and social skills (DeVries, Reese-Learned & Morgan, 1991). Children in child-centered classrooms have been shown to rate their abilities higher (Perry et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1995), show more task-value in literacy and mathematics (Lerkkanen, Kiuru et al., 2010), have higher expectations for success, and prefer more challenging tasks
315 (Stipek et al., 1995) in comparison to their peers in more teacher-directed classrooms. However, Stipek and her colleagues (1995; 1998) have shown some benefits regarding an emphasis on basic skills at the kindergarten level but not in the preschool level: children in teacher-directed kindergarten classrooms which stressed basic skills had higher scores on letter and reading tests (Stipek et al., 1995) and made greater gains in both reading and math (Stipek et al., 1998) than children in child-centered kindergarten classrooms.
Aims We first aimed to describe the teaching practices observed in Finnish and Estonian preschool classrooms. Based on the cultural and historical development of educational systems in Estonia and Finland (see Kikas & Lerkkanen, this volume) we assumed some differences between the two countries in preschool teaching practices. There might be more authoritative strategies produced in Estonian preschool classrooms compared to Finnish ones. Second, we aimed to examine what kind of subgroups could be identified based on the observed classroom practices in Finnish and Estonian preschools. Classrooms are likely to vary in whether they are dominated by one approach or implement a mix of approaches (Stipek, 2004). Our third aim was to examine whether Finnish children, in these latent subgroups, differ from each other in terms of their overall interest in preschool activities. As previous research has shown that children are more motivated in child-centered classrooms (Lerkkanen, Kiuru et al., 2010; Stipek et al., 1995, 1998), we assumed the children to show more overall interest in child-centered classrooms.
Method Participants. The sample included 83 preschool classrooms, 49 from Finland and 34 from Estonia. The Finnish sample is a part of the ongoing longitudinal First Steps Study following up about 2000 children from the beginning of their preschool year to the end of the 4th grade. The Estonian sample was collected as a part of the larger project Modernizing Early Years Teacher Training in Pre- and In-Service Programs. Finnish sample: Classroom observations took place in 49 classrooms from 38 day care centers or preschool classrooms in elementary schools. They were situated in two medium-sized towns and one municipality, two of them in Cen-
316 tral Finland and one in Eastern Finland. Questionnaires were filled out by 48 preschool teachers. The preschool teachers’ working experience in day care ranged from less than a year to more than 15 years (most teachers’ working experience was more than 15 years). All teachers (47 female, 2 male) had at least a Bachelor’s degree. Of the classrooms 36 (73.5%) were situated in day care centers and 13 (26.5%) in elementary schools. Classroom size ranged from 3 to 24 children (M = 13.85; SD = 5.92); on average 10.89 (SD = 3.35) children were present during the observations. Although most of the groups were composed of preschool-age children (6-year-olds) exclusively, the age composition was wider in a minority of the groups: some groups in day care centers also enrolled younger children (most often 5-year-olds), and some groups in elementary schools also enrolled 1st and/or 2nd graders. All the classrooms were Finnish-speaking. Estonian sample: Classroom observations took place in 34 classrooms from 26 public kindergartens. Ten were located in the two biggest cities of Estonia (Tallinn, and Tartu) and 24 in rural areas around these cities. Thirteen classrooms were identified as using the Step by Step program (11 in or around Tartu); compared to all the preschool groups in Estonia, these classrooms are over-represented in this sample. All classrooms were taught by Caucasian females, with an average working experience of 18.5 years, range 1 to 38.5 years. In six classrooms there were two teachers present at the observation time, in 28 only one (total of 40 teachers) and the teacher(s) was always helped by an assistant teacher. Teachers differed in education, 27 had a bachelor’s degree or college education, two were acquiring a bachelor’s degree, four marked only the graduation year, and two had only secondary school education. Most of the teachers were regularly participating in in-service training. Classroom size ranged from 18 to 25 (M = 21.75). On average, there were 15 (SD = 3.39) children present during the observations, range 7 to 22. In 14 classrooms there were 6 to 7 year-olds, in 16 classrooms 4 to 7 year-olds, and in 4 classrooms 2 to 7 year-olds. All the classrooms were Estonian speaking. Measures Classroom observations. The ECCOM (Stipek & Byler, 2005) consists of 47 items. The ratings are conducted using a three-column format. The ratings for the first column stand for child-centered practices (“A”, constructivist childcentered program with instructional goals balanced and integrated with student initiative and interests), the second column for teacher-directed practices (“T”, teacher controlled and directed classroom and didactic practices which emphasize the acquisition of basic academic skills), and the third column for child domination (“C”, minimal teacher direction or control, low facilitation of development of academic or social skills).
317
318
319 Items are conceptually grouped in the following way: 1) Management (4 items; Child responsibility, Management, Choice of activities, Discipline strategies), 2) Climate (6 items; Teacher warmth, Support for communication skills, Support for interpersonal skills, Student engagement, Individualization of learning activities, Relevance of instruction activities) and 3) Instruction (7 items; Learning standards, Coherence of instructional activities, Teaching concepts, Instructional conversation, Literacy instruction, Mathematics’ instruction and assessment). Since the ratings concerning Management, Climate and Instruction were correlated, Stipek (2004) used a single constructivist score (the average of the 17 items) and a single didactic score (the average of the 15 items) in the analyses. In the present study we used 14 child-centered, 14 teacher-directed and 14 child-dominated items (42 items altogether); see Table 1 for descriptions of the items. We left out the following items: 1) Teacher warmth and 2) Relevance of activities (both rated only for constructivist practices), and 3) Mathematics’ assessment (not typical in Finnish or Estonian preschools). All items were rated on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = “practices are rarely seen” to 5 = “practices predominate”), and a description of a set of practices is provided for each item in the ECCOM manual (Stipek & Byler, 2005). ECCOM Subscales. Observers rated independently altogether 75 preschool classrooms (44 Finnish, 31 Estonian) in pairs. In order to calculate inter-rater reliability, we used intra-class correlations, with a two-way mixed effect model (measure fixed, observers random), the absolute agreement definition and average measure intra-class correlation (which assume no interaction effect). McGraw and Wong (1996) recommend this approach when ratings are on continuous scales and the observers vary from classroom to classroom. All the interrater reliabilities were from acceptable to high, and varied between .52 to .97 in the Finnish sample, and.59 to .84 in the Estonian sample. For analyses, a mean score for each item was calculated from ratings of two observers. Ratings of the items comprised three parallel subscales (childcentered, teacher-directed, child-dominated) for: management, climate, instruction. In previous studies these subscales have been shown to have high internal consistencies (see Perry, Donohue & Weinstein, 2007; Stipek & Byler, 2004), and this was the case here: alphas for child-centered subscales were: management = .92, climate = .91, instruction = .90; for teacher-directed subscales: management = .85, climate = .88, instruction = .87; for child-dominated subscales: management = .89, climate = .80, instruction = .77. Since the subscales correlated highly with each other, global mean scores for teaching practices were calculated. Cronbach alphas for teaching practices in the whole sample were: childcentered = .96; teacher-directed = .93; child-dominated = .93. Overall interest in preschool activities. In Finland only, children’s overall interest in preschool activities was assessed using a rating scale in an interview
320 situation. The task started with practice items demonstrating the use of a 5-point scale with pictures of faces (picture of the most unhappy face 1 = I do not like it at all/ I dislike doing those tasks; picture of the happiest face 5 = I like it very much/I really enjoy doing those tasks), and provided examples of its use. Next, the children were shown eight pictures of activities that are related to kindergarten curriculum areas (letter tasks and reading, mathematics, play, listening to storybook reading, music, outdoor play, nature and environment, and art and crafts). They were asked to indicate how much they liked each particular activity by pointing at one of the faces of the scale (e.g., “Point to the face that tells how much you like doing letter tasks in preschool?). A summary score was calculated on the basis of eight items. A mean score on seven items was calculated on the basis of factor analysis (outdoor playing not included based on factor analysis). The Cronbach alpha reliability for the Overall interest in preschool activities was .63. Procedures Finland: Preschool classrooms were observed in the spring 2007. Kindergartens and school directors, teachers and parents were asked for their written consent to participate. The teachers participating in the observation were selected on a voluntary basis from a total of 162 preschool teachers participating in the First Steps Study. They were asked to complete questionnaires on their teaching experience, teaching styles, efficacy beliefs, curriculum goals and instructional activities. Questionnaires were sent to the teachers and returned by mail. When the observed teachers were compared to those who chose not to participate in classroom observation, no statistically significant differences were found concerning teachers’ working experience, the number of 6-year-olds in the classrooms, exhaustion at work, curriculum goals or teaching styles. However, a trend towards higher teacher efficacy was found for the participating versus non-participating teachers. Observations were conducted by 17 trained observers who were female university students. The students’ major subjects were as follows: Early Childhood Education (4 students), Primary School Teacher Education (11 students), and Psychology (2 students). Before starting the observations, the observers were trained. The first training session (4 hours) consisted of an introduction to the ECCOM measure, dimensions and overall guidelines, clarification of criteria for coding (criteria had been handed out to the observing students earlier), a practice coding using a 30-minute videotape of a preschool classroom, comparisons of ratings of the practice tape, and discussion about discrepancies and striving for consensus. A day after the first training session the observers went in pairs to conduct practice coding (3 hours) in authentic preschool classrooms which were not participating
321 in the First Steps Study. After this coding practice the observers participated in a second training session (3 hours) in which inter-rating agreement was analyzed, discrepancies between coding and points of divergence were identified, criteria were clarified once again when needed, and adherence to the guidelines was emphasized to maximize consensus among the observers. In cases where the pairs of observers had discrepancies between their coding of more than one point, extra coding practice in authentic classrooms was required and a meeting was arranged to monitor the inter-rater agreement after this practice. Extra practice was needed in the case of two pairs of observers. Each preschool classroom was observed on two different days by a pair of observers. The two observation days were typically 1 or 3 days (but less than a week) apart. The observers worked in pairs so that the same pair conducted the observation on both days. The observation was begun in the morning when the instructional activity started (about 9 a.m.) and lasted approximately 3 hours (up to nap-time in full-time programs and up to the time children left in half-time programs). After the observation session, the two observers scored the classroom independently based on the percentage of time the described practices were seen during the observation. Observers also made consensus ratings on a separate form. For 44 preschool classrooms, observations conducted separately by both observers were available, but for five classrooms only the consensus ratings were returned by the observers. These five groups were left out from the ECCOM psychometric analyses (means, standard deviations) which compared the Finnish and Estonian scores. Correlations between the mean scores of two observers and consensus ratings were high for all items, ranging from .78 to .98 (based on the 44 classrooms with both types of scores available). In further analyses we used the whole sample of 49 classrooms (44 with mean scores and 5 with consensus rating scores). Mathematics’ activities were observed in 17 classrooms and literacy activities in 20 classrooms. In 14 classrooms there were no mathematics’ or literacy activities during the observations. Estonia Preschool classrooms were observed from the end of April to May 2006 and from the end of October 2006 to the beginning of March 2007. Permission was asked from kindergarten directors, teachers and parents for the whole study (observation, children tests etc.). Classrooms were observed by six observers, all Caucasian females, three had psychology education (two had a bachelor’s degree, one a master’s degree) and three had Early Years Teacher education (one had a bachelor’s degree, two a master’s degree).
322 The observer’s training consisted of two separate half-day seminars: the first day manual was read beforehand and the session included discussion about the manual, and on the second day two 30 minute videos were watched, observers evaluated the activities separately, afterwards the evaluations were compared and discussed.. After a pilot study in 10 classrooms, observers’ inter-rating reliability was analyzed (correlations, differences between observers) and before a new set of data collection, new training included new manual reading, discussions and previous differences’ debate. A couple of times, observers analyzed their independent assessments till agreement. From 34 classrooms, 31 were observed by two observers and three by one. Observations periods were agreed approximately two weeks ahead and the teacher was called by phone one or two days before the observation. Observations lasted on average 2 hours and 37 minutes, ranging from 2 hours to 3 hours 15 minutes, depending on the classroom daily schedule. Mathematical activities were observed in 15 classrooms and reading activities in 19 classrooms. In six classrooms there were neither mathematics nor reading activities on the observation day. Analysis Strategy To examine the latent subgroups of observed classroom practices, we utilized the mixture modeling feature of the Mplus v. 5.0 statistical package (Muthén & Muthén, 1988–2007). Mixture modeling allows one to identify mixtures of subpopulations (latent classes) from the observed data and provides statistical tests to evaluate the existence and number of the sub-populations. In order to evaluate the appropriate number of latent subgroups, we used three criteria: (a) fit of the model, (b) mean probabilities and number of preschool teachers to be situated into a latent subgroup, and (c) the interpretability of the latent subgroups in practice. The fit of the model was evaluated by three criteria: Akaike’s information criteria (AIC), Bayesian information criteria (BIC), and adjusted Bayesian information criteria (ABIC). For statistical testing of the number of latent subgroups we used the following tests: Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin test (VLMR), LoMendell-Rubin adjusted LRT test (LMR), and Parametric bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT). The lower AIC, BIC and ABIC values indicate a better fit, and significant test results indicate a higher number of subgroups. To examine whether Finnish children in different latent subgroups differed from each other in terms of overall interest in preschool activities, we ran nonparametric ANOVAs using the Kruskall Wallis test of the SPSS statistical package.
323
324
325
326 Results The descriptive statistics for the items and subscales separately for the Finnish and Estonian sample and for comparison, those reported by Stipek and Byler (2004), are shown in Table 2. Both Finnish and Estonian teachers received slightly higher means on the items of child-centered than on teacher-directed practices (see Table 2). The lowest means were found for child-dominated practices in both countries. Estonian preschool teachers scored highest on the items measuring child-centered practices. Latent Subgroups of Preschool Classroom Practices In the mixture modeling procedure, we fitted models with different numbers of latent subgroups. The four-class solution was confirmed as the best according to one of the criteria and three tests described above (see Table 3 for indices of mixture models different numbers of subgroups). Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the final mixture solution of four latent subgroups. The first classroom practice subgroup, referred to as teachers characterized by use of child-dominated approach comprised nine teachers (11%) with the highest means on child-dominated practices. The second classroom practice subgroup, referred to as users of mix of child-centered and teacher-directed approach comprised 21 teachers (25%) with nearly equally high means on both child-centered and teacher-directed practices. The third classroom practice subgroup, referred to as child-centered teachers, was the largest group and comprised 37 teachers (52%). The fourth and final classroom practice subgroup, referred to as users of teacher-directed approach, comprised ten teachers (12%) with high means on teacher-directed practices and low means on the others. The mean comparisons between the classroom practice subgroups showed that the subgroups were distinct (see Table 4). Further, we identified the teachers in each of the subgroups. Figure 1 shows the percentage of preschool teachers from both countries in each latent subgroup (49 Finnish, 34 Estonian). Most teachers in both countries belonged to the latent subgroup referred to as childcentered teachers. In that group there were more Estonian teachers (59% of Estonian teachers) than Finnish teachers (47% of Finnish teachers). In the latent subgroup referred to as users of mix of child-centered and teacher-directed approach there were more Finnish teachers (29%) than Estonian teachers (21%). In turn, in the latent subgroup users of teacher-directed approach there were again more Finnish teachers (18%) than Estonian (3%) (only one). Finally, in the latent subgroup teachers characterized by use of child-dominated approach there were more Estonian teachers (18%) than Finnish (6%).
327
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Child-centered Mix of childcentered and teacherdirected
Finnish
Teacherdirected
Childdominated
Estonian
Figure 1. Profiles of Latent Teaching Practice Subgroups in Finnish and Estonian Kindergartens. Note. N= 83; 49 Finnish, 34 Estonian teachers; numbers are percentage values of the total number of teachers in each country Children’s Overall Interest by Latent Subgroups The ANOVAs to examine whether Finnish children in different latent subgroups differed from each other in terms of their overall interest in preschool activities
328 showed significant differences: χ2(3) = 8.56, p = .04. Pair-comparisons showed that children in the latent subgroup child-centered teachers reported higher means of overall interest in preschool activities than children in the latent subgroup users of a teacher-directed approach (z = 2.89, p = 0.02).
Discussion Classroom practices and teacher–child interactions have been under extensive examination in recent years. Our first aim was to describe preschool teaching practices in Finnish and Estonian preschools. Both Finnish and Estonian kindergarten teachers used more child-centered practices in authentic classroom situations than teacher-directed or child-dominated practices. However, the preschool classroom practices in Finnish and Estonian preschools differed slightly from each other. The means in Finnish preschools were actually more similar to those obtained by Stipek and Byler (2004) in the USA than those found in Estonian preschools. This may reflect the fact that in the Estonian sample 13 out of the 34 observed preschools applied a special program (Step by Step) developed to foster child-centered practices, and their proportion was overrepresented concerning the Estonian preschools at large (see also Kikas and Lerkkanen, this volume). Our second aim was to examine what kind of latent subgroups could be identified based on the observed classroom practices. There were four latent subgroups in the Finnish-Estonian sample. In both countries, more than half of the kindergarten teachers belonged to the latent subgroup child-centered teachers. This may reflect that kindergarten teachers are highly qualified in both of the countries, and there are certain common emphases in the program of teacher education. However, a greater number of Finnish than Estonian preschool teachers were teacher-directed or used a mix of child-centered and teacher-directed approach. This may reflect the strong tradition on thematic lessons in Finnish preschools. More Estonian than Finnish preschool teachers, in turn, were users of a child-dominated approach. This suggests that Estonian preschool teachers use more child-centered approaches, which, might go to another extreme, i.e., childdomination. Historically, during the Soviet period, teaching methods in Estonian preschools (similarly to primary and secondary school) tended to be authoritarian and didactic. The results might reflect two types of developments in teaching. First, the Step by Step approach was launched by the international association to educate preschool teachers and introduce child-centered methods (see Kikas & Lerkkanen, this volume) in previous socialist countries with authoritarian schools. Accordingly, teachers who have participated in these courses, tend to use child-centered practices. Second, some teachers might also incline to
329 the other extreme – child-dominated approach, providing little control and setting low demands. Our third aim was to examine whether Finnish children in different latent subgroups differed from each other in terms of their overall interest in preschool activities. Children in child-centered classrooms showed more overall interest in preschool activities and children in teacher-directed classrooms showed less overall interest in activities. This is in line with previous studies which have shown that children in child-centered classrooms are more motivated than their peers in teacher-directed classrooms (Lerkkanen, Kiuru et al., 2010; Stipek et al., 1995, 1998). These results indicate that child-centered classroom practices might promote children’s motivation at preschool; and they further suggest that teacher-directed practices do not appropriately support children’s overall interest in preschool activities. However, there is also a possibility that child-centered and teacher-directed teachers interpret and promote motivation differently. Child-centered teachers use more play-centered activities which promote motivation to the play while teacher-directed teachers might use more teacher talk and paper and pencil practices which do not motivate all children yet at preschool age and they would like to do something else. The present study has some limitations that need to be considered. First, the sample was relatively small. This naturally decreases the power of statistical testing. Second, some of the preschool teachers in the latent subgroup users of mix of child-centered and teacher-directed approach might belong to childcentered or teacher-directed teachers’ group; however, we wanted to keep this subgroup in order to simplify content wise interpretations. Third, teachers using special child-centered – Step by Step – approach in their work were over-represented in the Estonian sample; thus, the results are not representative for Estonia. Nevertheless, the results of the present study do contribute to our understanding of authentic classroom practices in Finnish and Estonian preschools. In future studies we will examine the relation between different classroom practices and children’s academic performance, social competence as well as their motivation.
References Birch, S. H. & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61–79. DeVries, R., Reese-Learned, H. & Morgan, P. (1991). Sociomoral development in direct-instruction, eclectic, and constructivist kindergartens: A study of children’s enacted interpersonal understanding. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 473–517.
330 Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162. Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949–967. Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R. C., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R. & Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-Kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 27–50. Huffman, L. R. & Speer, P. W. (2000). Academic performance among at-risk children: The role of developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 167–184. Kikas, E. & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2010). Education in Estonia and Finland. This volume. Lerkkanen, M.-K., Kikas, E., Pakarinen, E., Trossmann, K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Siekkinen, M. & Nurmi, J.-E. (2010, accepted). A validation of the early childhood classroom observation measure in Finnish and Estonian kindergartens. Early Education and Development. Lerkkanen, M.-K., Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E., Viljaranta, J., Poikkeus, A.-M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Siekkinen, M. & Nurmi, J.-E. (2010). The role of teaching practices in kindergarten children’s task-motivation in reading and mathematics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, under revision. LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D. & Barbarin, O. (2007). Observed classroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and associations with teacher, program, and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 3–17. Marcon, R. A. (1999). Differential impact of preschool models on development and early learning of inner-city children: A three-cohort study. Developmental Psychology, 35, 358–375. McGraw, K. O. & Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46 Muthén, L. & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus users guide and Mplus version 5.0. http://www.statmodel.com/index2.html Perry, K. E., Donohue, K. M. & Weinstein, R. S. (2007). Teaching practices and the promotion of achievement and adjustment in first grade. Journal of School Psychology 45, 269–292. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J. & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family and
331 school characteristics and child outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 102, 225–238. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). The Classroom Assessment Scoring System – CLASS. Manual, Pre-K. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Skinner, E. & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581. Stipek, D. (2004). Teaching practices in kindergarten and first grade: Different strokes for different folks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 548– 568. Stipek, D. & Byler, P. (2004). The early childhood classroom observation measure. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 375–397. Stipek, D. & Byler, P. (2005). The Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure. Coding Manual. Stipek, D. J., Feiler, R., Byler, P., Ryan, R., Milburn, S. & Salmon, J. M. (1998). Good beginnings: What difference does the program make in preparing young children for school? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 41–66 Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D. & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children´s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209–223. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole., V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds.)). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
333
Observations of Kindergarten Classroom Practices: Estonian Results Kaili Trossmanna, Eve Kikasa,b a University of Tartu, bUniversity of Tallinn Correspondence: Kaili Trossmann
[email protected] RUNNING HEAD: Kindergarten classroom practices in Estonia KEYWORDS: ECCOM, observations, preschool classrooms, practices
teaching
Acknowledgements The article is based on a Master’s thesis completed and defended by the first author at the University of Tartu, Estonia (June 2008). The study was supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (SF0180025s08), Estonian Science Foundation (Grant 7388), and the European Social Fund INNOVE (Measure 1.1, Project Code 1.0101- 0301). What may be considered as the best practices in kindergartens, what kind of methods should teachers use to enhance children’s development (Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006; Phillips & Stipek, 1993), what and how different practices influence children’s development (Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Bryant & Clifford, 2000; Stipek, Feiler, Byler, Ryan, Milburn & Salmon, 1998) have been topics of debate for a long time. Three types of teaching practices have been described in the literature: constructivist or child-centered (named also developmentally appropriate), didactic or teacher-directed (also traditional), and unstructured or child-dominated teaching practices (Stipek & Byler, 2005). Different teaching practices have been studied mostly in the USA, less in other cultures. The aim of this study was to describe teaching practices in Estonia and compare practices in kindergartens using different methodological approaches. Estonia has formerly been a part of the Soviet Union with traditional teaching practices dominating, but has changed a lot during the last two decades. Among other changes, a special child-centered Step by Step program has been launched in several kindergartens (see also Kikas & Lerkkanen, this volume). Child-centered practices emphasize that children actively construct their knowledge through physical and social experiences and that their preliminary knowledge, beliefs, interests, values, motivation and personality influence their actual learning (Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006; Stipek & Byler, 2004, 2005). The teachers’ role is to structure the environment to facilitate learning, to
334 encourage children to explore new objects and through this develop cognitive understanding (Stipek & Byler, 2004). Teachers also offer experiences which foster the children’s self-esteem and positive feelings toward learning (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, Fleege, Mosley & Thomasson, 1992). These practices are also named as developmentally appropriate practices because teachers are taking account of the children’s typical developmental pattern and individual differences (Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006). Classrooms with child-centered teaching practices have been found to have a lower level of stress (Burts et al., 1992), anxiety (Burts et al., 1992; Stipek et al., 1998), more positive social climate, higher motivation to learn (Stipek et al., 1998), and better social skills (Sylva et al., 2006). Teacher-directed practices on the other hand emphasize basic skills which are acquired in discrete, accumulating units through the teacher’s instructions and practice (Daniels & Shumow, 2003; Stipek & Byler, 2004). Children are quite passive and learning is reaction to environmental stimuli (Daniels & Shumow, 2003). Learning activities are prepared by the teacher (Stipek, 2004), memorizing is emphasized, a lot of time-limited paper-pencil tasks are used (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth & Kirk, 1990), and the social climate of these classrooms tends to be more negative (lower warmth, individual differences are not considered important, teachers use negative discipline strategies) (Stipek et al., 1998). Some teachers believe teacher-directed practices are effective in teaching certain groups – gifted children, immature children, and children with special needs (Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006). Teacher-directed practices have been found to be effective in teaching some reading skills (letter recognition) (Stipek, Feiler, Daniels & Milburn, 1995), but are also associated with more stress (Burts et al., 1992) and lower learning motivation (Stipek et al., 1995). Child-dominated practices emphasize children’s choice of activities, children’s innate interest is stressed and skills are viewed as developing at a sensitive period (Daniels & Shumow, 2003). The teachers’ role is quite passive, minimal guidance and explanations are provided, teachers provide materials and keep minimal order in the classroom (Stipek & Byler, 2005). Classrooms vary in whether they are dominated by one approach, implement a mix of approaches, or do not engage very much in any approach to instruction (Stipek, 2004). Teaching practices have been associated with teachers’ and classrooms’ characteristics, but results here are quite mixed. For example, in some studies the number of children in the classroom has not been found to be related to observed practices (Maxwell, McWilliam, Hemmeter, Ault & Schuster, 2001; Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox & Bradley, 2002), but in others a lower teacher-child ratio has been associated with lower teacher warmth and lesser child-centered instructions (Pianta et al., 2002). Teachers` higher education has been found to be associated with child-centered practices (Maxwell et al., 2001; Stipek & Byler, 2004), and teachers’ shorter working experience with teacher-directed prac-
335 tices (Stipek & Byler, 2004); however some studies have not found significant associations between experience and teaching practices (Pianta et al., 2002). Teaching practices have been measured in different ways: with teachers` or students` questionnaires (Fung & Chow, 2002; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2006), interviews (Walker, 2008), and classroom observations (CLASS: Pianta, La Paro & Hamre, 2006; ECCOM: Stipek & Byler, 2004). In comparison with other methods, observations of teacher behavior and classroom activities seem to provide more objective and specific information, however, they are limited in time, sensitive to observer’s biases, training etc. (Muijs, 2006). Starting from the end of the 1980’s (becoming independent from the Soviet sphere of influence), great changes took place in Estonian society and education. While authoritarian education dominated earlier, changes towards democracy and individualization are visible now (Estonica, n.d.). Today, specific childcentered approaches are practiced in many kindergartens, the most widespread among these being the Step by Step (Hea Algus) program which was launched by the Open Estonia Foundation since 1994. The program introduces child-centered teaching methods and supports community and family involvement in the kindergarten and elementary school (for more details see Kikas & Lerkkanen, this volume). Different kinds of groups are found in Estonian kindergartens. In some kindergartens (situated mainly in rural areas) children of different ages are taught together in one group (e.g., 2–7 or 4–7 year olds) and in others groups comprise only same age children. Whether this affects teaching practices has not been studied.
Aims of this study Our overall aim was to examine kindergarten teachers’ practices in Estonian kindergartens, using the Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure (ECCOM). The ECCOM measure has been adapted for usage in Estonian kindergartens (for validation results see Lerkkanen, Kikas, Pakarinen, Trossmann, Rasku-Puttonen, Siekkinen & Poikkeus, submitted). The specific aims and hypotheses were as follows. (1) to compare teaching practices in kindergartens using different programs. We compared the practices in kindergartens that used the Step by Step approach with those that did not; and expected that Step by Step kindergarten teachers use child-centered practices more often than other teachers. (2) to compare teaching practices in kindergarten groups with children of different ages.
336 (3) to analyze the associations of some teacher-related (age and experience) variables with observed teaching practices. We expected that older and more experienced teachers use more child-centered teaching practices (Maxwell et al., 2001; Stipek & Byler, 2004). (4) to analyze some classroom-related (number of children in groups, number of children present at observation) variables with observed teaching practices. We expected that the higher number of children in the classroom might be associated with less child-centered practices (Pianta et al., 2002) but that the number of children present at the observation would not be related to observed practices since teaching practices should be quite stable and not influenced by the specific day.
Method Sample The data were collected as a part of the larger INNOVE 1.1. Project “Modernizing Early Years Teacher Training in Pre- and In-Service Programs”. Thirtyfour kindergarten groups from 26 municipal kindergartens were observed; 10 were located in the two largest cities of Estonia (Tallinn and Tartu, in North and South Estonia respectively) and 24 groups in rural areas around those cities. Eight groups were located in North Estonia, 26 in South Estonia. Groups from cities were selected from the main project and all agreed; half of them used the Step by Step program. Groups from rural areas were selected by their locations and the criterion was to have at least seven preschool-aged (going to school next autumn) children in the group; of those, four groups refused to participate, one teacher refused to be observed. To compare regular kindergarten groups and the Step by Step program groups it was planned that one third of the sample were using Step by Step program. Groups were identified as in the Step by Step program if they defined themselves as such. Altogether 13 groups (38%) used the Step by Step program; these groups are over-represented in this sample compared to Estonian preschool groups nationally (~12%). The groups’ working language was Estonian. The average group size was 21.8 children (SD=2.29), ranging from 18 to 25. On average, there were 15.0 (SD = 3.39) children present during the observations (range from 7 to 22). 14 groups consisted of 6–7 year-old children, 16 groups of 4–7 year-olds and 4 groups of 2–7 year-olds. All classroom groups were taught by Caucasian females, with an average age of 41.7 years, ranging from 23 to 57 years and with average working experience 18.5 years, ranging from 1 to 38.5 years. In six classrooms there were two
337 teachers present at the observation time, in 28 only one (total of 40 teachers) and the teacher(s) was always helped by an assistant teacher. Teachers differed in education, 27 had a bachelor`s degree or college education, two were acquiring a bachelor`s degree, four marked only the graduation year, and two had only secondary school education. Out of 40 teachers 32 (80%) were regularly participating in in-service training, 3 did not participate in any training. Procedure Observations: Kindergarten classrooms were observed from the end of April to May 2006 and from the end of October 2006 to the beginning of March 2007. Permission was asked from kindergarten directors and teachers, from parents permission was asked for the whole study (observation, children tests etc.). Classrooms were observed by six observers, all Caucasian female, three had a psychology education (two had a bachelor’s degree, one a master’s degree) and three had Early Years Teacher education (one had a bachelor’s degree, two a master’s degree). The observers’ training consisted of two separate halfday seminars: the first day manual was read beforehand and the session included a discussion about the manual, and on the second day two 30 minute videos were watched, observers evaluated the activities separately, afterwards the evaluations were compared and discussed. Neither an examination nor reliability analysis was done. After the pilot study in 10 classrooms, observers’ inter-rater reliability was analyzed (correlations, differences between observers) and before a new set of data collection, new training included new manual reading/overlooking, discussions, previous differences’ debate. On some occasions, observers analyzed their independent assessments till agreement was made to enhance reliability. Out of 34 classrooms, 31 classrooms were observed by two observers and three by one. Observations were agreed approximately two weeks ahead and the teacher was called by phone one or two days before the observation. Observation lasted on average two hours and 37 minutes, ranging from two hours to three hours 15 minutes, depending on the classroom daily schedule. Observations took place in the mornings, starting with children coming to kindergarten, and lasted until children went outside, so free time activities, playtime, and also mathematics, reading and art activities were observed. Mathematic activities were observed in 15 classrooms and reading activities in 19. There was neither mathematic nor reading activities planned on the observation day in six classrooms, in six groups there were both on the same day, so in 22 classrooms only one of two activities took place. Teacher questionnaire: teachers were given a questionnaire about their age, working experience, graduated school and graduation year, additional training, and methods they use during their everyday practice (Step by Step, Montessori
338 etc.). Teachers completed these a maximum of a month before or soon after observation. Questionnaires were handed out directly to teachers or to kindergarten directors and teachers had the possibility to ask questions by telephone or email. They were asked to complete them within two weeks. Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure (ECCOM) The Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure (ECCOM), developed by Stipek and Byler (Stipek & Byler, 2004, 2005), was used to assess kindergarten classroom academic management, social climate, quality and nature of resources. The Manual of Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure (ECCOM) (Stipek & Byler, 2005) was received electronically from the authors and was translated into Estonian. The ECCOM consists of 47 items (17 child-centered, 15 teacher-directed and 15 child-dominated), which are rated on a 5-point scale (1 – these practices are rarely seen (less than 20% of the time), to 5 – these practices predominate (80–100% of the time) (Stipek & Byler, 2005). The classroom gets a score on all three teaching practices (mean of all items, minimum 1.00, maximum 5.00, mean of two observers). Since mathematic and literacy activities took place in only some observed groups, the total teaching practices’ scores were computed as a mean on items 1 to 14 (child-centered 14 items, teacher-directed 12 items, child-dominated 12 items), and literacy and mathematics instructions items are presented as a separate sub-scale. We used all items as in the ECCOM manual (Stipek & Byler, 2005), as compared to a validation study with Finland, where three items were left out (see Lerkkanen et al., submitted). In addition to total scores of observed practices, items are divided into four conceptually distinct subscales (Stipek & Byler, 2005): management (4 items: child responsibility, management, choice of activities, discipline strategies), climate (6 items: relevance of activities to children’s experience, teacher warmth/responsiveness (those two are assessed only in a child-centered scale), support for communication skills, individualization of learning activities, support for interpersonal skills, student engagement), instructions (4 items: learning standards, coherence of instructional activities, teaching concepts, instructional conversation), and literacy and mathematics (3 items: literacy instruction, mathematic instruction, mathematic assessment). See Table 1 for further details of teaching practices’ sub-scales.
339
340
341 Internal consistency was high on all scales (.90 to .95), moderate to high on subscales (.64 to .90). Inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation) was high on all scales (child-centered .80, teacher-directed .75, child dominated .81) and moderate to high on all sub-scales (management .73 to .83, climate .74 to .81, instructions .59 to .69, literacy and mathematics – .19 to .68). Since assessments on child-dominated literacy and math sub-scales were unreliable (low inter-rater reliability), the results of these sub-scales are not presented here. The detailed overview of the scales’ reliability is given in Lerkkanen et al. (2008).
Results Teaching Practices in Groups with Different Programs First, we compared the practices in kindergartens using the Step by Step program and others (named here as Regular and which did not use any specific teaching program). According to the Analysis of Variance, the two groups did not significantly differ on teacher’s age, working experience, number of children in classroom or present at the observation (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). Table 2. Background variables of groups with different programs.
Teacher’s age Teacher’s working experience Number of children in classroom Number of children present at the observation
Step by step (n= 13) M SD 42.96 8.49
Regular (n= 21) M SD 40.50 10.34
F
p
.47
.50
18.17
10.13
18.00
10.88
.00
.97
22.08
2.43
21.56
2.23
.38
.54
14.64
4.01
15.20
3.09
.19
.67
ANOVA showed that Step by Step group teachers scored higher on child-centered practices’ scale, F(1,32)=5.85, p= .02, and on respective sub-scales of: management, F(1,32)=4.11, p= .05, climate, F(1,32)=5.63, p= .02, instructions, F(1,32)=5.17, p= .03 and literacy and math, F(1,26)=7.00, p= .01, compared to Regular group teachers. Step by Step group teachers scored lower on teacher-directed literacy and mathematic sub-scale, F(1,26)=4.73, p= .04 and lower on child-dominated practices’ scale, F(1,32)=3.77, p= .06, and on respective sub-
342 scales: management, F(1,32)=3.56, p= .07 and climate, F(1,32)=3.61, p= .07. See also Table 3. Table 3. Teaching practices in Step by Step and regular kindergarten groups. Step by step b M SD Child-centered Total score Management Climate Instructions Literacy and math a Teacher-directed Total score Management Climate Instructions Literacy and math a Child-dominated Total score Management Climate Instructions
Regular c M SD
F
p
3.86 3.99 3.93 3.68 3.71
0.75 0.62 0.73 0.93 0.95
3.16 3.35 3.23 2.97 2.68
0.85 1.03 0.89 0.86 1.05
5.85 4.11 5.63 5.17 7.00
.02 .05 .02 .03 .01
1.84 1.92 1.76 1.84 1.84
0.58 0.66 0.67 0.60 0.59
2.17 2.22 2.16 2.12 2.68
0.68 0.87 0.75 0.66 1.19
2.06 1.12 2.50 1.57 4.73
.16 .30 .12 .22 .04
1.70 1.54 1.86 1.69
0.61 0.61 0.77 0.64
2.17 2.07 2.35 2.11
0.75 0.88 0.70 0.80
3.77 3.56 3.61 2.58
.06 .07 .07 .12
Note a Literacy and math subscale: Step by Step N=11, regular N=17; b Step by Step groups N=13; c regular groups N=21; statistically significant differences are presented in bold. Teaching practices in groups with children of different age groups Kindergarten groups were divided into three groups based on the age of children: 6–7 year-olds (n=14), 4–7 year-olds (n=16) and 2–7 year-olds (n=4). Groups differed in locations, groups of 6–7 year-olds were located both in cities and in rural areas, groups of 4–7 and 2–7 year-olds were located only in rural areas. The Step by Step program was used in five groups of 6–7 year-olds (36%), in six groups of 4–7 year-olds (38%) and in two groups of 2–7 year-olds (50%). ANOVA did not show any significant differences by teachers` age, working experience, number of children in classroom, or number of children present at ob-
343 servation (see Table 4). Nor were there any statistically significant differences on any ECCOM scale or sub-scale between groups. Table 4. Background variables of groups with children of different ages.
SD 10.28
4–7 yearolds M SD 39.43 8.52
M 51.50
9.94
14.57
9.66
25.00 13.50 1.84 .18
1.69
21.36
2.71
20.00
0.00
3.02 .07
2.84
14.06
3.60
14.33
3.21
1.82 .18
6–7 year-olds M 41.38
Teacher’s age Teacher’s working 20.23 experience Number of chil22.77 dren in classroom Number of children present at the 16.42 observation
2–7 year-olds SD 6.38
F
p
2.12 .14
Teaching practices, teacher’s age and experience Teacher’s age and working experience were highly correlated (r= .81, p < .001). Associations between teaching practices and teacher’s age and working experience are presented in Table 5. Statistically significant negative correlations were found between child-dominated observed teaching practices and the teacher’s age and experience. Younger and less experienced teachers scored higher on child-dominated teaching practices in general, but also on instructions and climate scales. Older and more experienced teachers tended to use more childcentered practices when teaching literacy and mathematics. Table 5. Correlations between observed teaching practices and teachers` and classroom variables.
Child-centered Total score Management Climate Instructions Literacy and math
Teachers’ age
Teachers’ working experience
Number of children in classroom
Number of children present at observation
.18 (.31) .09 (.61) .18 (.29) .17 (.33) .38 (.04)
.18 (.30) .06 (.72) .18 (.31) .19 (.26) .36 (.05)
–.14 (.44) –.23 (.23) –.12 (.53) –.13 (.50) .06 (.76)
.10 (.61) .11 (.55) .14 (.46) –.01 (.94) .34 (.08)
344 Table 5. Continued Teachers’ age Teacher-directed Total score Management Climate Instructions Literacy and math Total score Management Climate Instructions
Teachers’ working experience
–.13 (.45) –.05 (.76) –.04 (.81) .03 (.88) –.16 (.34) –.15 (.39) –.15 (.37) –.02 (.90) –.22 (.24) –.22 (.24) Child-dominated –.32 (.06) –.30 (.07) –.27 (.11) –.25 (.14) –.31 (.06) –.30 (.07) –.32 (.06) –.30 (.08)
Number of children in classroom
Number of children present at observation
.18 (.33) .15 (.41) .25 (.17) .08 (.66) .03 (.87)
–.08 (.66) –.17 (.37) –.06 (.74) .03 (.89) –.30 (.13)
.31 (.09) .29 (.12) .31 (.09) .29 (.12)
.04 (.84) –.04 (.85) –.06 (.74) .21 (.25)
Note. 1. N=30–35; Pearson r, in brackets p value, in bold statistically significant results (p< .10). Teaching Practices and Classroom Size The number of children in the classroom and number of children present during observation were moderately correlated (r= .30, p= .13). Associations between the number of children in classrooms and the number of children present at observation and teaching practices are presented in Table 5. Marginal positive correlations were found between the number of children in the classroom and childdominated practices; and also between the number of children present at observation and child-centered practices when teaching literacy and mathematics.
Discussion We examined kindergarten teachers’ practices in different types of Estonian kindergartens, using the Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure (ECCOM). First, we compared teaching practices in kindergartens using the Step by Step program and in regular classrooms. The finding that child-centered teaching practices were used more frequently (both in total scale and in all subscales) in the Step by Step program classrooms than in Regular classrooms was expectable. In line with the emphases of child-centered practices (Burts et al., 1992; Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006; Stipek & Byler, 2004), the develop-
345 mental program Step by Step is an education reform program that introduces child-centered teaching methods, encourages children to make choices, take responsibility for their decisions (About the early childhood program, n.d.; see also Kikas & Lerkkanen, this volume). These results also prove a validation for the ECCOM scales. In Estonia, the program has been operating already for more than a decade, and the Step by Step training centre has organized courses teaching kindergarten teachers to apply the child-centered practices (MTÜ Hea Algus, n.d.). Accordingly, these teachers may have both better knowledge and skills in using childcentered practices. This may be also the reason why they scored lower in childdominated practices as compared with teachers in Regular classrooms. The differences were found just on management and climate sub-scales. Higher scores on the management sub-scale meant that no one seems to take the responsibility and the teacher intervenes only in conflict situations, on a climate sub-scale that teachers seem not to see children’s individual needs and differences (see Table 1). These teacher practices may be related to their lower management skills. As to more academic tasks (instructions’ sub-scale), teachers in regular and Step by Step classrooms did not differ in using either child-dominated or teacher-directed practices and their practices were even more teacher-directed when teaching literacy and mathematics. It must be mentioned that the interior (organization of furniture into activity centers, toys, learning materials) of the Step by Step classrooms was different from Regular classrooms. This type of classroom organization might also support the usage of child-centered practices. However, it might also influence observers to give different scores on the ECCOM Response Sheets. Compared to teaching practices in the USA (see Stipek & Byler, 2004), even Regular classroom teachers in Estonia seem to use more child-centered practices and less teacher-directed practices. Estonian kindergarten education has changed a lot over the past two decades and most of the teachers are regularly participating in in-service training such as the Step by Step program, but many kindergartens and teachers will not identify themselves as specific program kindergartens due to incomplete training or learning materials or resources. Compared to teachers in the USA, Estonian teachers seem to use more teacher-directed methods in mathematics assessment, such as paper-pencil tasks and also emphasize more on right and wrong answers (Stipek & Byler, 2005). This might be due to different curricula and goals of kindergarten education. Comparing to teaching practices in Finland (Lerkkanen et al., 2008), Regular classroom practices in Estonia are as child-centered and teacher-directed as in Finland, but seem to be a little more child-dominated than Finnish kindergarten classroom practices. These comparisons indicate that Estonian classrooms overall are quite child-centered and use less teacher-directed practices.
346 Second, teaching practices in groups with children of different ages (groups including 2–7, 4–7, and 6–7 years old children) were compared. It might be assumed that teachers have to be more sensitive to individual differences and needs in classrooms where there are children with different ages and developmental levels. However, teachers used the same kind of practices despite the children’s age. In this study all classrooms included 7 year-old children, so this mean that in classrooms where among others there are children who go to school next autumn, teaching practices did not differ. We did not compare classrooms where there were no 7-year-olds. Also, it must be stressed that the groups were small. Third, we analyzed associations between practices and the teacher’s age and experience. The main finding was that older and more experienced teachers tended to use less child-dominated practices but also more child-centered practices when teaching literacy and mathematics. No significant relations were found between age, experience and teacher-directed practices. These findings again refer to the possibility that use of child-dominated practices might be related to lower knowledge and skills (related to less experience). Earlier studies (Maxwell et al., 2001; Stipek & Byler, 2004) have shown relations between using child-centered practices and the teacher’s educational level. However, these might also refer to the possibility that young and inexperienced teachers tend to have idealistic ideas of childrearing. With experience, they may start to use more child-centered practices. Our results differ from findings in the USA: teacher’s age and experience were negatively associated with teacher-directed practices in Stipek and Byler (2004), and no relations were found in Pianta et al. (2002). These differences might be due to different educational backgrounds of teachers (including in-service training) which we did not take into account. Fourth, we examined relations between teaching practices and the number of children in classrooms but also present at observation. The group size was positively associated with child-dominated practices, specifically with the climate sub-scale. This suggests that it is harder for teachers to be responsive to children’s individual needs when there are too many children in classrooms. As the group size is related to the child-teacher ratio, this result is in accordance with that of Pianta et al. (2002) who found that a higher ratio of children to staff was associated with lower teacher warmth. Quite unexpectedly, the number of children present at the observation was positively associated with child-centered literacy and mathematics teaching practices. It might be that teacher’s usage of specific practices is not only the characteristic of a teacher but depends on context, content of activities etc. These relations have to be studied in the future.
347 Limitations and Conclusions Some limitations of the study must be mentioned. First, our sample was quite small and this decreases the power of statistical conclusions. In the future, a wider variety of classrooms should be observed (e.g., including only younger children, from different parts of Estonia). Observational measuring is sensitive to the observers’ previous knowledge and background education, and thorough training is very important. It is also important to use different measures. To conclude, the study showed that Estonian kindergarten teachers tend to use child-centered practices most frequently and teacher-directed practices the least. We also found that teachers in kindergartens that use the specific childcentered Step by Step use child-centered practices even more frequently and child-dominated practices less frequently for different purposes. It means that with appropriate education it is possible to encourage teachers to use more developmentally appropriate practices. In the future, the associations between teaching practices and children’s cognitive, academic, and social skills must be studied to analyze which practices contribute to which skills.
References About the early childhood program (n.d.). Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from http://www.soros.org/initiatives/childhood/about Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D. M. & Clifford, R. (2000). Children`s social and cognitive development and child-care quality: Testing for differential associations related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 149–165. Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., Fleege, P. O., Mosley, J. & Thomasson, R. H. (1992). Observed activities and stress behaviors of children in developmentally appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 297–318. Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R. & Kirk, L. (1990). A Comparison of frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate versus developmentally inappropriate instructional practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 407– 423. Daniels, D. H. & Shumow, L. (2003). Child development and classroom teaching: a review of the literature and implications for educating teachers. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 495–526. Estonica (n.d.). Encyclopedia about Estonia. Education. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2008, from
348 http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?menyy_id=798&kateg=42&nimi= &alam=58&tekst_id=799 Fung, L. & Chow, L. P. Y. (2002). Congruence of student teachers` pedagogical images and actual classroom practices. Educational Research, 44, 313– 321. Kikas, E. & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2008). Education in Estonia and Finland. This volume. Lerkkanen, M.-K., Kikas, E., Pakarinen, E., Trossmann, K., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Siekkinen, M. & Poikkeus, A.-M. (submitted). A validation of the Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure in Finnish and Estonian kindergartens. Early Education and Dvelopment. Maxwell, K. L., McWilliam, R. A., Hemmeter, M. L., Ault, M. J. & Schuster, J. W. (2001). Predictors of developmentally appropriate classroom practices in kindergarten through third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 431–452. Muijs, D. (2006). Measuring teacher effectiveness: Some methodological reflections. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 53–74. MTÜ Hea Algus (n.d.). Retrieved Oct. 3, 2007 from http://www.heaalgus.ee. Opdenakker, M.-C. & Van Damme, J. (2006). Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1–21. Parker, A. & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2006). Developmentally appropriate practice in kindergarten: Factors shaping teacher beliefs and practice. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21, 65–78. Phillips, D. & Stipek, D. (1993). Early formal schooling: Are we promoting achievement or anxiety? Applied & Preventive Psychology, 2, 141–150. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M. & Hamre, B. K. (2006). Preschool (Pre-K) Version. Manual. University of Virginia. Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J. & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 225–238. Stipek, D. (2004). Teaching practices in kindergarten and first grade: different strokes for different folks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 548– 568. Stipek, D. & Byler, P. (2004). The early childhood classroom observation measure. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 375–397. Stipek, D. & Byler, P. (2005). Early Childhood Classroom Observation Measure: Coding Manual. (Electronically from authors, 2005). Stipek, D. J., Feiler, R., Byler, P., Ryan, R., Milburn, S. & Salmon, J. M. (1998). Good beginnings: What difference does the program make in preparing
349 young children for school? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 41–66. Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D. & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children´s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209–223. Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Elliot, K. & Totsika, V. (2006). Capturing quality in early childhood through environmental rating scales. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 76–92. Walker, J. M. T. (2008). Looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 218–240.
351
Appraisal of Preschool Teacher Education Preparation by Students About Their Studies in Estonia and Finland Marika Veisson, Kerstin Kööp, Kristina Nugin Tallinn University, Estonia In many countries, strategies to further the development of services and institutions for the education and care of young children are linked to a discourse on professionalism. Ambitious policy goals can only be achieved by a skilled and qualified workforce whose practice is guided by a body of professional knowledge. Conceptualisations of a profession have always been linked to knowledge. Professionalism can be understood as an attribute of the entire system, to be developed in its reciprocal relationships. Second, a key feature of a professional system would be its ability to encourage and systematically create spaces for dialogue and for asking critical questions at every layer of the system – and to value the multitude and diversity of answers as key to creating new understandings. A third cornerstone of a professional system in early childhood education arises from Paolo Freire’s notion of hope (Urban, 2010). Early childhood teacher education has been conceptualised as mastery of a particular set of knowledge and skills that pre-service teachers of young children birth to eight years should learn. The knowledge and skills usually contain a similar list of topics such as child development, working with families, and curriculum (Ryan & Grieshaber, 2005). This commonality of perspectives has constructed the field of early childhood teacher training and preparation. Less is known about the actual preparation of teachers, and which specific components in the training programmes might have the most influence on how teachers work or engage in daily practice (Early, Bryant, Pianta, Clifford, Burchinal, Ritchie, Hoves, & Barbarin, 2006). According to Dayan (2010) one of the key components of early childhood teacher preparation which lacks documented or theoretical knowledge about best practice, is the area of professional practicum and student supervision. In the practicum, teacher education students engage in a developmental process of observing and experimenting with the practice of working with children, learning about skills, knowledge, philosophies and attitudes during their practice in preschool settings. Dayan asked the students to nominate the key features of their current job. The following aspects were identified by the respondents: (1) Working with children (including planning, observing and assessing; (2) Working with parents/other agencies/community; (3) Professional report writing, (4) Administration, staff development, curriculum monitoring and evaluation, development planning, covering for lunch and tea breaks, staff sickness and so on,
352 (5) Supporting other staff or students, (6) Tidying, cleaning, organisation of resources (exclusively basic grade staff and up to 20% of their time). In Finland, professionalism in early childhood education is characterised by variation, whether on a municipal or the individual level, or at the level of the organisational working unit, such as a day care centre. The operating at different levels do not seem to share the interpretations of professionalism in practice. This makes it difficult to be clear about what professionalism means in early childhood education in Finland. A wider mutual understanding is needed to interpret the basic tasks of day care organisations, and of early childhood education generally, as well as the responsibilities and the obligations of the various professionals who make up the early childhood workforce. Three main elements are essential in the construction and development of expertise and it is argued that these constitute a relevant unit of analysis for the notion of professionalism: (a) the personal dimension, hereafter called “myself and life history”, (b) the domain-specific knowledge, and (c) the working environment (Karila, 2010). According to Dalli (2010), in New Zealand, in the ten-year strategic plan (Ministry of Education, 2002), early childhood education is perceived as a multi-disciplinary field that draws on knowledge/s from diverse areas. The early childhood curriculum is understood as a weaving of experiences that are not subject-bound but arise when professionally trained early childhood teachers, soundly grounded in the traditional specialist knowledge bases of child development and early childhood curriculum studies, are able to draw knowledgeably on insights from other disciplines and work collaboratively with professionals from related disciplines. This approach also reflects international trends in early childhood education (OECD, 2001, 2006). The massive expansion in early years scholarship has also re-positioned the field as a cross-disciplinary one with connections to fields such as social policy, health, cultural studies, family studies, and social sciences more generally. Kindergarten, preschool and school demand teachers who are competent and experienced. The use of technology, collaboration with colleagues from different countries and a multicultural world requires teachers to makes changes to teaching and learning processes every day. Today’s teachers therefore need to be flexible, as well as intellectually and emotionally competent (Saracho &Spodek, 2007). Teachers for the twenty-first century for the global world need to be proficient in technology and skilled as reflective practitioners. They need to be able to reflect on diversity in a myriad ways taking into account variation in learning styles, special needs, culture, race, development, teaching styles and personality of children, teachers, parents, community members and administrators. Teachers need to be team players who are skilled at operating in a variety of collaborative partnerships (Landerholm, Gehrie & Hao, 2004). A study by Baer & Foster (1974) involving 390 early childhood graduates in the USA focusing on their values and attitudes shows some importants re-
353 sults. It was found that 1) courses or experiences that provide opportunities to work with children should be increased; 2) greater emphasis should be placed on the teaching of reading, social studies, and science; 3) provision the USA, should be made for preparing teachers to teach ecology, sex education, and drug education; 4) practice and theory should be brought closer together; and 5) college instructors must show (not just tell) students how to use innovative teaching techniques and procedures. In another study conducted in by Scott-Little, La Paro & Weisner (2006) with 118 pre-service students and 78 recent graduates, it was found that participants’ beliefs related to developmentally appropriate practice, attitudes toward children, and perceived competencies at different points in the training program and upon graduation were examined. Results suggest that students’ beliefs were more consistent with developmentally appropriate practices and with a progressive or child-centered approach at later points in the program. Participants felt they were more competent in what they know about early childhood practices in theory than how they implemented it in practice. The teacher as a socializing agent, a person who promotes social goals, was not mentioned at all in the above study. Student teachers maintained that they had hardly improved their knowledge of the subjects they taught or their level of general knowledge. The core category of the teacher was those who had professional knowledge. This category included qualities that present the teacher as a professional who has disciplinary knowledge in his/her field of knowledge and in the subjects that were taught. Three characteristics were specified: 1) The ideal teacher who has disciplinary knowledge, including qualities such as knowledge of what is being taught, wide professional knowledge and up-to-date knowledge. Such teachers continue to renew their knowledge and to do research; 2) A good teacher is one who has didactic knowledge in the field of education, uses a variety of teaching methods, is educationally creative, is reliable, is able to solve unexpected problems and can provide guidance; 3) A good teacer is one who has didactic knowledge that focuses on the pupil as an individual, respects pupils who are different, provides opportunities, relates to every pupil and tries to energize and encourage pupils who are not participating (Arnon & Reichel, 2007).
The aim The aim of the current study was to find out how pre-service early childhood students’ appraise different teaching tasks, their competence, units of study, the quality of the academic staff and their competence at future employment as teachers and how they see themselves as kindergarten teachers in Finland or in Estonia. This work was guided by the following research question: What are the
354 similarities and differences of the appraisals of preschool teacher education students about their teacher preparation studies in Estonia and Finland?
Sample The current study was conducted among the final year bachelor degree students in all five Estonian Universities where preschool education is taught (Tallinn University, University of Tartu, Tallinn Pedagogical College, Rakvere College, and Narva College) and in University of Jyväskylä in Finland. The sample consisted of 195 students from Estonia and 57 students from Finland (total N = 252). The age of the students fell between 20–58 years. 247 respondents were women, 5 were men, and of the latter all studied at the University of Jyväskylä. 127 students attended on-campus classes, 118 studied as distant learners, and 7 students did not specify which curriculum they had. All the distance students were based in Estonia. 154 students already worked in kindergartens or in general with children, and 98 students were not involved in paid work. Most of the students who were not in paid work were Finnish.
Method The study included a questionnaire, which was based on the feedback questionnaire of the alumni of the Department of Preschool Education of Tallinn University and the ESF project being undertaken by the universities of Tartu, Tallinn and Jyvaskyla examining the modernisation of further education at preschool children’s institutions conducted during 2005–2008, and led by Professor E. Kikas as the project leader. The questionnaire was presented in three blocks. In the first block, students appraised their knowledge of different areas in the university; the second block examined their competencies and quality as teachers and in the third block, the focus was on their teaching skills. The first block of questions helped to find out students’ appraisals about their teacher preparation studies. The questionnaire included 39 different subjects or skills which they studied at the university. Participants were required to give their answers on a five-point scale. Participants were also asked to give recommendations on what could be improved by the university in developing preschool education courses in the future. Data were analysed using the SPSS software programme.
355 Results The mean scores derived in the data analysis show that Estonian students evaluated higher new skills such as individual (academic) work (mean = 4.36) and their ability to find new material (mean = 4.26). Estonian students also mentioned good opportunities for traineeship and supervision (mean = 4.17), academic staff as specialists – lecturers who know their subject (mean = 4.16), and students’ readiness for cooperation (mean = 4.15). Least points were given to knowledge about medicine and paediatrics (mean = 2.69), music (mean = 3.06) and their ability to work with children who have special needs (mean = 3.19). Finnish students evaluated highest the academic staff as specialists (mean = 4.12), pedagogical knowledge (mean = 3.98), ability to work individually (mean = 3.96) and readiness for cooperation (mean = 3.96). Finnish students gave lowest points to knowledge about medicine and paediatrics (mean = 1.68), visiting alternative-pedagogical day care centres (mean = 2.15), ability to work with children who have special needs (mean = 2.18), and knowledge in biology and anatomy (mean = 2.49). It should be mentioned though, that by the time of completing the questionnaire, the Finnish students had not yet completed the course in medicine and paediatrics, this may explain the reasons for why knowledge about this area was evaluated as being very low (see Table 1). Table 1. Finnish and Estonian students’ appraisals about their studies. T-Test Theoretical knowledge Knowledge of child psychology Skills to work with children with special needs History of Pedagogy Medicine, pediatric knowledge Biology, anatomy Physical education Mathematics
Country Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia
N 57 194 57 195 57 193 57 195 57 195 57 195 56 195 57 195
Mean 3.84 4.07 2.91 3.95 2.18 3.17 2.56 3.57 1.68 2.85 2.49 3.53 3.45 3.84 3.16 3.84
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000
356 Table 1. Continued T-Test Mother language Knowledge of pre-school pedagogy Wide range of vision Ability to bring out the essential Ability to analyse Base to working skills Ability to find new material, to use literature Ability to explain and defend one’s principles Skills to work individually Solve practical tasks Ability to evaluate kindergarten’s quality Ability to communicate with parents Ability to practice theory Ability to do research, compose summaries Ability to use different methods in work Practice places and tutors Visiting alternative kindergartens Pedagogical knowledge Practical skills
Country Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia
N 57 194 57 194 57 195 57 194 57 195 56 195 57 195 57 195 57 194 57 195 57 194 57 195 57 193 57 194 57 195 57 188 55 191 57 194 57 194
Mean 3.67 3.91 3.30 3.86 3.81 4.03 3.44 3.88 3.21 3.95 3.38 3.72 3.67 4.23 3.32 3.99 3.96 4.28 3.40 3.94 3.12 3.76 3.40 3.70 3.46 3.79 3.44 3.96 3.02 3.86 3.81 4.14 2.15 3.46 3.98 4.11 3.46 3.42
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.032 0.000 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.177 0.789
357 Table 1. Continued T-Test Knowledge of child development Methodological knowledge and skills Children’s literacy Music Group leading skills Ability to see a problem as a whole Communication and presentation skills Ability to evaluate the quality of your own work Ability to do team-work Ability to plan (time management) Professors who know their subject Contact with professors
Country Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia
N 56 195 56 194 57 195 57 194 57 194 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 183 57 193 57 194
Mean 3.86 4.05 3.52 3.51 3.77 3.97 3.37 3.21 3.49 3.30 3.46 3.66 3.75 3.95 3.77 3.89 3.96 4.14 3.72 3.82 4.12 4.19 3.89 3.90
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.064 0.951 0.114 0.283 0.126 0.063 0.066 0.334 0.109 0.436 0.534 0.949
As can be seen from Table 1, the average appraisals of Finnish students were lower than the overall average ratings given by Estonian students. It might be that Finnish students are more critical about their studies and are better at evaluating the quality of their studies. They might also be more objective and less emotional in completing their assessments. In the case of Estonian respondents, a large percentage is made up of non-stationary or distant learners, who evaluated everything somewhat higher. Finnish students evaluated only music studies and group leading skills higher than Estonians. When comparing on-campus and distance students’ responses, it appeared that distance students have allocated most questions higher ratings. The few questions, which received higher scores from on-campus students, were for questions dealing with practical skills, group leading skills, and time management skills.
358 The second block of questions analysed students’ appraisals about their professional competence and qualifications as preschool teachers. As can be seen from Table 2, Estonian students valued their competences again higher than Finnish students. There were also some similarities in the comparison of the responses of Estonian and Finnish students: both Estonian and Finnish students valued their competence to create playful and secure environments for children’s development as the highest (see Table 2). Table 2. Estonian and Finnish student appraisals about their competences. T-Test
Country
N
Mean
Support child’s cognitive development Create playful and secure environment for child’s development Direct and instruct playful learning Create environment originate from children Create primary communication, learning and collaboration skills Counsel parents in developmental and educational questions
Finland Estonia Finland
57 195 57
3.68 3.89 4.00
Estonia
195
4.25
Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland
57 195 57 194 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 195 57
3.91 4.19 3.75 4.11 3.77 4.06 2.96 3.46 3.07 3.46 3.96 4.11 3.77 3.95 3.07
Estonia
195
3.31
Notice child’s special needs Support child’s social development Support child’s physical development Advise parents about the need to consult specialists of special education
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.028 0.012 0.020 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.129 0.108 0.082
As can be seen from Table 2, many statistically significant differences appeared in the comparison of responses of Estonian and Finnish students. Estonian students saw themselves more competent in all of the categories. There were also categories where no statistically significant differences were found. These were supporting children´s social and physical development and advising parents about the need to consult specialists. These results may reflect the effect that the
359 study groups from the two countries were not of equal number. Also many parttime students (N = 118) from Estonia participated in this study. These students might be very positive about their studies because they already know what they want to learn, they have work experience and they are highly motivated. There were no part-time students in the sample of participants from Finland. Also the criticism of Finnish students about their studies might be stronger. The third block of questions explored how students saw themselves as teachers. As can be seen in Table 3, statistically significant differences were found in every category. Table 3. Statistically significant differences between Estonian and Finnish students’ appraisals about their teaching skills. T-Test I use play in activities Activities are in conformity with children’s development and individuality Integrated activities, both educational and pedagogical Activities are balanced Flexibility according to child’s development and advancement Flexibility according to parents’ wishes and kindergarten’s opportunities
Country
N
Mean
Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia
57 195 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 194 57 193
4.02 4.48 3.75 4.22 3.35 4.35 3.65 4.08 3.88 4.20 3.72 4.00
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004
As indicated in Table 3, Estonian students rated themselves higher in all teaching skills. It appeared that both student groups gave themselves the highest evaluations for using play-based activities. This result is very hard to discuss as we do not know the background of the students or the teaching methods they used in different educational environments. It is also possible that Finnish students were more aware of education and they have higher expectations of teacher preparation courses. Participants who were distance learners from Estonia already had work experience as they were working as teachers in kindergartens and they were more competent in valuing themselves as professionals. Oncampus students just had to estimate how they may perform as teachers and it might be that they did not feel so competent about their own teaching skills as future teachers.
360 Table 4. Statistically significant differences between Estonian and Finnish students appraisals about which abilities in children they consider most important. T-Test Self esteem and emotions Learning and thinking skills Language and communication Mathematics Environment and biology Health Physical activity Manual skills Music Art Unselfish and accepting differences Sociality Appreciate different views Ethical education Religious education Motor skills
Country
N
Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia Finland Estonia
57 195 56 195 57 195 56 195 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 195 57 192 56 195 57 195 57 195 57 194 57 194
Mea n 4.91 4.57 3.96 4.56 4.33 4.56 3.59 4.18 4.09 4.48 4.21 4.66 4.46 4.67 4.00 4.66 3.89 4.41 3.81 4.55 4.56 4.39 4.41 4.62 4.40 4.35 4.37 4.53 3.16 3.00 4.49 4.65
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.051 0.612 0.125 0.272 0.060
The fourth block of questions helped to find out, which abilities in children the students considered most important. There were 6 categories where no statistically significant differences were found. The results show that both Finnish and
361 Estonian students do not evaluate equally children’s different abilities. This is problematical because future teachers saw some children’s abilities more valuable than others. In early childhood education it is important to see a child as whole person. At the end of the questionnaire the respondents were invited to write their suggestions for improving the quality of studies and give their opinion about what else they were interested in studying. One issue that was mentioned both under suggestions and wishes was their interest in having more opportunities for training. Practical skills were already very important in the early childhood educator curriculum, but still students wanted more practical training in kindergartens. One suggestion is that different courses should provide more practical exercises, especially in didactics. This would help students to gain some type of preliminary skills for their training. Students of Estonian universities were also interested in studying more foreign languages.
Discussion and conclusions The current study showed that in all universities and colleges, students gave higher points to competencies such as the ability to create a playful environment, directing and supervising learning through play and support for children’s social development. Based on students’ opinions it is possible to conclude that they considered themselves least skilled in noticing children’s special needs, counselling parents about the need to consult a specialist and about developmental and educational matters. The academic staff received very good evaluations, with an average of 4.15 points. When taking into account all results, most critical about their competence were students from Jyväskylä University. Estonian students appraised their knowledges and skills mostly as either good or excellent. Students of both countries wanted more experience in teaching practice. In Estonia, Tallinn University has been involved in preparing preschool teachers who work with children birth to seven years, since 1967. In Estonia, kindergartens and preschools work under the Ministry of Education and Research, and in Finland, early childhood matters come under the Ministry of Social Affairs. In other countries there are very different experiences. For example, early childhood courses in Australia typically include both a pedagogical focus on children between birth and eight years, and sociological focus on supporting and interacting with families and community. Increasingly, there are attempts to overtake early childhood courses by domineering and narrowly conceived discourses of schooling. Many early childhood teacher educators fear the result will be the loss of the capacity to prepare specialist early childhood teachers for the early years of school. The inevitable consequence being the destruction of sound relationships built up over time between schools and non-school settings by
362 courses preparing early childhood teachers to work across the birth to eight year age range spanning the non-school and schooling sector (Woodrow, 2010). In England we know from research studies that quality of provision in early years settings is linked to the quality of staff that work in them (Sylva, 2010). Reforming the workforce through a programme of training and qualifications is therefore seen by government as crucial in raising the quality of services (Miller, 2010). An integrated qualifications framework for the early childhood workforce is under development for 2010, to promote skills acquisition, to enable career progression and to work across professional boundaries and multidisciplinary and multi-agency context (http://cwdccouncil.org.uk7projects/integratedqualificationsframework.htm). In developing a relatively ‘new profession’ in England one can see a unique opportunity to influence the framing of the discourses around qualifications, training and leadership and the knowledge base that individuals (who make up any profession) need to draw on in their interactions with children and families. As the OECD (2006) report notes, the opportunity is present in England to re-think workforce roles and to identify a ‘lead’ early years professional who would work alongside others in a multi-disciplinary team. In 2007 the Scottish National Party was elected to government in the Scottish Parliament. They promised to increase in the number of teachers in nursery education and acted on this promise almost immediately, specifying priority for schools in areas of disadvantage. A potentially more significant announcement has been the statement that proposals for a new BEd degree, that would prepare teachers to work with children aged from birth to eight years. Adams (2010) found in her research with students that the key features of their current work were: (1) working with children; (2) working with parents; (3) professional report writing; (4) administration, staff development, curriculum monitoring and evaluation, development planning, covering for lunch and tea-breaks; and (5) Tidying, cleaning, organisation of resources. According to Kinos (2010) in Finland, the aim of the professional group is, on the one hand, to maintain the advantages obtained and, on the other, to strengthen their position by allying themselves with the elite of the society. This project on professionalization entails that professional groups are aiming to enhance the professional status, as distinctive from the ‘ordinary work’ and/or semi-professional status, in order to increase their influence in society and their expertise, and to gain better working conditions. The special features of the process are: (1) professionalization takes a long time; (2) in each country professionalization has features specific to that country; and (3) the professional groups meet both supporters and opponents on the way. According to Dalli & Urban (2010) professionalism and its discourses and practices would be linking the (global) macro and (local) micro systems, allowing for local and diverse practices and experiences to inform the professional
363 body of knowledge in democratic, ground-up ways. It would be challenging and restricting predominant power relations within the professional systems that manifest in influential concepts of scientific ‘evidence’, policy imperatives, decontextualised effectiveness, and manageability of professional practices. Instead, a critically ecological professionalism would actively be gathering, exploring, documenting, disseminating and theorising ‘practice-based evidence’.
References Adams, K. (2010). What’s in a name? Seeking professional status through degree studies within the Scottish early years context. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: International Perspectives (pp. 65–78). USA and Canada: Routlege. Arnon, S. & Reichel, N. (2007). Who is the ideal teacher? Am I? Similarity and difference in perception of students of education regarding the qualities of a good teacher and of their own qualities as teachers. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13, (5), October, 441–464. Baer, G. T. & Foster, W. (1974). Teacher Preparation – What Graduates Tell Us. ERIC(ED103402). Dalli, C. (2010). Pedagogy, knowledge and collaboration: towards a ground-up perspective on professionalism. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: international Perspectives (pp. 40–54). USA and Canada: Routlege. Dalli, C. & Urban, M. (2010). Towards new understandings of the early years’ profession: the need for a critical ecology. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: international Perspectives (pp. 150–155). USA and Canada: Routlege. Dayan, Y. (2010). Towards professionalism in early childhood practicum supervision – a personal journey. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: international Perspectives (pp. 22–39). USA and Canada: Routlege. Early, D.M., Bryant, D.M., Pianta, R.C., Clifford, R.M., Burchinal, M.R., Ritchie, S., Hoves, C., & Barbarin, O. (2006). Are teachers’ education, major, and credentials related to classroom quality and children’s academic gains in pre-kindergarten? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 174– 95. Karila, K. (2010). A Finnish viewpoint on professionalism in early childhood education. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: international Perspectives (pp. 93–110). USA and Canada: Routlege.
364 Kinos, J. (2010). Professionalism – a breeding ground for struggle. The example of the Finnish day-care centre. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: international Perspectives (pp. 93–110). USA and Canada: Routlege. Landerholm, E., Gehrie, C., & Hao, Y. (2004). Educating early childhood teachers for the global world. Early Childhood Development and Care, 174(7– 8), 593–606. Miller, L. (2010). Developing professionalism within a regulatory framework in England: challenges and possibilities. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: international Perspectives (pp. 124–137). USA and Canada: Routlege. Ryan, S., & Grieshaber, S. (2005). Shifting from developmental to postmodern practicies in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 34–45. Saracho, O.N. & Spodek, B. (2007). Early childhood teachers’ preparation and the quality of program outcomes. Early Child Development and Care, 177(1), 71–91. Scott-Little, C., La Paro, K. M., & Weisner, A. (2006). Examining Differences in Students’ Beliefs and Attitudes: An Important Element of PerformanceBased Assessment Systems for Teacher Preparation Programs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Vol, 27, p p. 379–390. Sylva, K. (2010). Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective PreSchool and Primary Education Project. USA: Routlege. Urban, M. (2010). Dealing with uncertainty. Challenges and possibilities for the early childhood profession. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: international Perspectives (pp. 4–21). USA and Canada: Routlege. Woodrow, C. (2010). Discourses of professional identity in early childhood: movements in Australia. In Dalli, C. and Urban, M. (Eds.), Professionalism in Early Childhood Education and Care: international Perspectives (pp. 138–149). USA and Canada: Routlege.
SECTION D THE ROLE OF PARENTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SETTINGS
367
Estonian Preschool Teachers’ Vision about Cooperation with Parents Marika Veisson, Silvi Suur Tallinn University, Estonia Contemporary society places high demands on the education and upbringing of children. It is therefore very appropriate to establish effective cooperation between the employees of the pre-school child care institutions (later in text preschool institutions – in Estonia these are institutions for 1,5 to 7 years old children) and parents, where a key goal of early childhood education is to create a favourable developmental environment for the child both at the pre-school institutions and at home. Tallinn University participated in an international research project that investigated the cooperation between the employees of the pre-school institutions and parents in order to clarify which methods are applied and what are the future directions in establishing cooperation between teachers and parents in educating children. Identification of teachers of the pre-school institution as a supporter of child development and parents as the creators of the early learning and developmental environment, and the role of the pre-school institutions employees as early childhood education experts in this work, are all highly important. The current study was first and foremost, based on the contextual approach and bio-ecological theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1995, 2005). Building on this work, those such as Hujala (2004) and Hujala, Turja, Gaspar, Veisson and Waniganayake (2009) have also demonstrated that child development can be seen as mutually influenced by both home and the pre-school institution contexts. As home is an important supporter of children’s development the cooperation of the teachers of the pre-school institution with parents is essential. The quality of early childhood education and care is a matter of concern at both international and national levels, although most parents appear to be satisfied (Pramling & Sheridan, 2004). Similarly, according to Hamilton, Roach, and Riley (2003) we see the child as being embedded in a family system and the family embedded in a community network of family support programmes, of which early childhood education programme is only one. New models of parentteacher cooperation based on family-centred goals, can improve the overall quality of early education and care for young children. We can learn from the families how to adapt our programme to match their values, goals, and culture. Families can also learn from us how to continue developmentally appropriate practices at home. Early childhood professionals have long recognized the importance of having effective and meaningful partnerships with parents and fami-
368 lies (Swick, 2004; Knopf & Swick, 2007 a, b). This chapter provides an overview of the main results achieved in Estonia. Previous studies conducted in Estonia (Almann & Kuusmann, 1999; Almann, 2008) confirm that parents wanted more information about the activities of a pre-school institution; that teachers were more cordial, trustworthy, and active; that they would hear every evening a few words about the child, that there were more gatherings for parents, more general meetings, face to face conversations, and that teachers were very interested in the parents and home situations. According to Almann (2008) the main themes of parent-teacher discussions were child behaviour and development of the child’s abilities. There were many methods used in establishing cooperation between parents and teachers including notice boards, written messages, open days, evenings for play, visiting homes, common events, family evenings, group meetings, and general meetings at the pre-school institution.
Participants and methods The aim of the current study was to clarify what types of parent-teacher cooperation methods were used most and what skills and trainings were needed by pre-school institution`s employees in Estonia. The study was conducted with 452 pre-school institution employees in Estonia, with 219 employees from Tallinn and 233 from elsewhere in Estonia. The respondents included 226 preschool institutions’ teachers (51%), 60 assistant teachers (13%), 124 heads and deputy heads of teaching and education of pre-school institutions (28%), and 4% of health care professionals and other employees. Of these, 200 respondents (49%) had a university degree, 170 (38%) had professional secondary education, and the rest (13%) were people who had completed secondary education. Two thirds of the respondents were had been working in early childhood education system for more than 10 years. The questionnaire created by Finnish Professor Eeva Hujala, was translated into Estonian and distributed electronically in Tallinn and by post elsewhere in Estonia. The questionnaire included both closed and open-ended questions. Thus, the study was both quantitative and qualitative in nature. All open-ended questions were analysed by two researchers and results were translated in English for the purposes of writing this paper.
Results The parent is first of all seen as a partner in the cooperation between the home and the pre-school institution. In seeking parents’ assistance and their participa-
369 tion at common events it is anticipated that parents will talk about everyday happenings at home concerned with their children. As a result of categorising teachers’ open responses, it was found that 26% of the responses were concerned with parents’ participation at common events, excursions, working together with art and craft materials; and that parents also participated in planning and organising events at the pre-school institutions. In 24% of the responses the parent was seen as a cooperating partner, with whom there were different dimensions in the way the cooperation occurred. In the opinion of 23% of the respondents discussions with parents focused on everyday events and children’s development as well as making arrangements to meet with parents, and scheduling of lectures, training and open days. Likewise, 20% of the participants also reported that parents observed children’s development, were familiar with everyday teaching and educational work, participated at the developmental discussions about their child and received directions on developing their child at home. Some participants (5%) also reported that they take into account questioning parents and considered their opinions to be important in improving their work at the pre-school institutions. According to the preschool teachers, parents faced a variety of problems as follows: 14% related these issues to environmental influences; 14% mentioned educational mistakes; for another 11% of the problem was the lack of cooperation by parents; 10% highlighted difficulties with divorced parents; 10% referred to other social problems; 9% identified parents’ challenging behaviour; 8% of parents emphasised that their child was special or unique; 8% related to child protection issues; 6% were worried about children with intellectual disabilities; 5% were worried about family violence, and 4% believed that parents who had insufficient material security were an essential problem. Pre-school teachers’ goals in seeking cooperation with parents were first and foremost connected with establishing good contact and trust including the following elements: • partnership • predisposing a normal and age relevant development for the child together with parents • parents’ inclusion in preschool events and activities • to give parents consultations about teaching and educational questions and to inform them about what is happening at the pre-school institutions • receiving information about problems at home, or with the child, and feedback from parents about education activities at the pre-school institutions. According to the pre-school teachers who participated in this study, it is important to have common events, family evenings, theatrical performances, excur-
370 sions, and individual conversations with parents. Furthermore, teachers also emphasised the importance of • introducing the pre-school institutions group to parents to demonstrate inclusion of parents in teaching and educational work, • holding meetings with parents, • having developmental discussions, • counselling parents, and • solving problems of individual children and parents.
Methods for the inclusion of parents
Research Communication 5% Counselling with parents 19% 22%
Directing development Events
26%
28%
Figure 1. Methods for the inclusion of parents. Teachers who participated in this study felt that individual conversations with parents, free communication and persuasion were the most important or essential in establishing cooperation with parents. Similarly, teachers considered important sharing info on notice boards, announcements, creating a good atmosphere, open door days and organising open activities, changing information in conversations with parents. Furthermore, important were considered events, also
371 common activities with children, family days, and sporting together; organising meetings for parents, lectures, seminars and trainings for parents, family club, round table; and several surveys and questionnaires and taking into account parents’ opinions and suggestions (Figure 1). What needs to be in the daily organisation of the pre-school institutions According to the majority of participants there was nothing that required to be changed Nevertheless, a quarter of the respondents did offer suggestions for improving cooperation with parents. Almost half of the participants (48%) recommended making changes to the daily routine of the pre-school institutions such as to shorten the time children spent at the pre-school institutions; to shorten and make more flexible the children’s daytime sleep routine, increase the time children spent in outdoor play; and increase the time allocated for free play. Furthermore, to reduce the number of learning and educational activities 30% of participants found that the proportion of playful activities should be higher and the schedule of learning activities be more free. Moreover, 5% of participants noted that the conditions of the developmental environment should be better and that there should be more space for the children’s play. It was found the organisation of work should also be changed, so that in the mornings two teachers were present with a group simultaneously (14%). About 3% of participants also suggested that children’s group size should be smaller. How has the cooperation succeeded? In general, participants in this study considered that the cooperation between parents and employees of the pre-school institutions in Estonia was good or satisfactory. Only 5% of the teachers were not satisfied with this work. Even though there was something that was worrying the teachers, they considered that conversations with parents were essential in establishing an effective partnership. They also discussed problems with other teachers or informing centre management about ways of establishing cooperation with parents. The most challenging aspect of creating good cooperation was the fact that parents had little time. It is also important to note that although there are also parents who lacked any kind of interest in establishing cooperation and they were also those that were indifferent and passive. What does the teacher do when something in worrying? The majority of the teachers (75%) tried to solve problems by talking with parents, discussing the matter with colleagues, or by collaborating with specialists such as the social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist or family doctor. Heads and
372 the teaching and education deputy heads of the child care institutions were also always informed about these problems. These problems included the careless attitudes of parents; parents’ lack of time or difficulties of coping with the length of day at pre-school child care institutions; children with allergies; bringing a sick or dirty child to pre-school institutions; or parents’ problems such as alcoholism, smoking, using drugs, and the challenges of being a single mother and/or a “new” father. The main obstacles in establishing cooperation with parents Two important obstacles emerged in the data analysis as follows: 1) parents with little or no time – 40% of all respondents reported that parents were indifferent and passive or were negligent towards the child. According to these participants, these parents believed that children should be raised by the pre-school institutions or their problems were not taken seriously. They saw the pre-school institutions only as a care institution. The language problems of children and parents from diverse family backgrounds, economic stratification of parents, and their greater interest in material values or material security were not sufficiently well addressed. 2) parents had no interest in developing cooperation – 14% parents did not want or know how to communicate with pre-school institutions employees. One of the problems was in finding a proper time for both sides to get together. Moreover, factors such as different understandings and attitudes about early childhood education, lack of caring, parents’ negative attitudes towards early childhood education, weak information exchange and feedback. All contributed to lack of interest in developing cooperation. Parent`s role in educating the child 72% of all teachers responded that they emphasised the primary role of the home and parents in raising children. The second category included those, who found that the pre-school institutions helped the parent, the child develops in cooperation between home and pre-school institutions, and the educational methods applied both at pre-school institutions and home should be similar. The second category included 18% of all teachers participating in the study. The third category was made up of those teachers, according to whose opinion the preschool institutions plays a big role in raising the child and who found that parents wish for the pre-school institutions to teach children the main skills.
373 Do parents play an important role in early childhood education? Most teachers agreed parents play an important role in their children’s education. It appeared that for working with different families one needs different skills. The majority thinks that teachers willingly discuss with parents children’s development, questions concerning teaching and educating, and this at least once a year. Pre-school institution employees’ work obligations included counselling parents about their questions concerning education and teaching. Furthermore, the majority of parents wanted to support their children’s development and were interested in the work of the pre-school institutions and they participated willingly in the activities of the pre-school institutions. Most often teachers discussed with parents the child’s age relevant development, behavioural and educational questions, how the child spent the day at the pre-school institutions, health, nutrition, relations with peers, child’s problems, as well as achievements and school readiness (cf. Figure 2). Most teachers found that fathers were included in the child’s educational work. It was claimed that pre-school institutions events were organised with fathers and that fathers participated equally with mothers. Fathers helped preschool institutions also with different kinds of physical skills and support, including construction, repair, and environment improvement work. Fathers were also active in organising various sporting events and festive days, and participated at family days. Fathers also took part in individual developmental discussions, meetings and go to play with children at pre-school institutions. Most frequently teachers discussed with parents age relevant development of the child, social and physical development and achievements (28%), how the child spent the day at the pre-school institutions and his/her relationships with peers (23%), health, nutrition, proper clothing, and adaptation of the child at preschool institutions (18%), and child’s problems (16%), educational and teaching questions and child’s school readiness (13%). During their discussions with parents, three fourths of teachers emphasised equally both education as well as teaching, and another 18% emphasised education, and 12% teaching.
374
Different skills are needed to work with different families (i.e. cultural background) I willingly discuss the problems about a child's development and education with parents A preschool institution teacher's duty is to consult parents about educational problems
3.61
3.51
3.48
Parents want to support their child's development
3.39
We convince the parents to visit preschool institution in every possibility
3.37
Once a year we discuss with parents about the child's development
3.34
Parents are interested in their child's day in preschool institution
3.30
Parents willingly discuss about the educational topics and the child's development
3.18
Parents show interest towards the work in preschool institution
3.14
Educational and instructional aims of a preschool institution and family are similar
3.06
Parents willingly participate in the preschool institution's activity
2.98
I am aware of our parents' educational aims
2.89
Preschool institution supports the aims of a family athough their aims don't coincide
2.79 0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Figure 2. Parents’ roles in education according to pre-school teachers (mean values).
375 In the opinion of 90% of teachers fathers were involved in their child’s educational work. It was noted that 51% fathers’ activities in cooperation with the pre-school institutions involved events. Fathers equally with mothers took part in common events, participating willingly in sporting events, hikes, excursions, family days, and helping to organise events. Other trends found include: • 27% of fathers helped with environment improvement works, easier construction and repair works, work of the board of trustees, help to organise transportation, and recording events; • 12% of fathers participated in their child’s development discussions, individual conversations with teachers; and taking care of their child’s welfare; • 6% of fathers went to the pre-school institutions to play with children, and help with handwork; and • 4% of fathers participated in training and meetings. What are the challenges of cooperation with parents? Our research has shown that parent – teacher cooperation can benefit child development. In cooperation, it is important to maintain a positive mutual attitude, to be familiar with values/beliefs underpinning child rearing at home and at preschool. In general parents were interested in the cooperation and understand its importance. Another area of challenges in parent-teacher cooperation was linked with the provision of counselling, confidential communication, take into account the individual needs and characteristics of child giving recommendations. Teachers found that one should try to suggest to parents to change their use of time, and to find more time for their child. It was very important to explain problems and support parents, introducing them to principles of developmental psychology and communication skills, and valuing the family. To undertake this work teacher training and competence is needed. The competencies of pre-school institutions and the family It appeared that 32% of teachers believed that the children’s problems were related to their growth and development or their parents’ competencies to manage these. Teachers of pre-school institutions. Pre-school have a sound understanding of child development, teaching and educational activities, school readiness, supporting families, children’s social behaviour, counselling parents, and intervention in family problems in case it is needed in the interest of the child. Parents can also have a sound awareness of the child’s behaviour, communication skills, health and protection of the child, and can use the knowledge received from the pre-school institutions. The family decides also on shaping reli-
376 gious beliefs, world views and traditions. Family competencies include also the family’s social issues, interpersonal relations within the family, as well as the choice of pre-school institutions, language, and school.
Parents should support children's learning at home
3.7
Parents contribute to guarantee the family's welfare
3.29
Parents contribute into co-operation with preschool institution staff
2.9
Parents cope well with children's rearing (education)
2.74
Parents cope well with children's teaching
2.65
Parents should leave their children's teaching to a preschool institution
1.8 0
1
2
3
4
Figure 3. Teachers’ appraisals on parents’ priorities concerning educational questions (mean values). The support a family received from the State and society was believed to be relatively small. Of all respondents 54% found that the State does not support families or does not support them enough. It was found that the support should depend on the needs of the family, and go towards supporting extracurricular activities, and families with children who have special needs. Various forms of government assistance, such as childcare benefits, maternity benefits, coping benefits, social benefits, allowances for families with 3 or more children, single parent child allowances, support for extracurricular activities, favourable loans, free family days, and school allowances, were available for families in need.
377 New parenting methods (e.g. variations of fatherhood)
71.7
A child with special needs in the family
68.9
Child raring in a problematic family
68.6 60.4
Functional family Early intervention into problems
57.7
Legislation
57.2 54.5
Cooperation with different professionals Child development evaluation and developmental plan elaboration.
53.0 48.8
Family in the contemporary society. Cooperation methods Meetings between the family and day care centre's specialists Educational methods at home
37.4
Group activities
36.3
46.1 38.0
Security
32.1
Communication skills
31.3
Obligation of education
31.0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 4. The percentages of areas where training is most needed. It was found that 92% of parents decided their child’s choice of school, extracurricular activities, school readiness, choice of foreign language, and choice of the language of conduct. It was also noted that 6% of parents wanted to make these decisions in cooperation with the teacher and another 2% needed the help of specialists in making these decisions. Teachers’ appraisals of parents’ priorities concerning educational questions are presented in Figure 3. The majority of teachers (59%) evaluated their cooperation skills with parents as relatively good. Among these, there was a higher proportion of teachers
378 from Tallinn (70%) than those teachers working in the counties (49%). In general, it was believed that cooperation skills were included in professional training; however, many admitted that there was a need for further training. Especially needed were training sessions in the following areas: new ways of being a parent, working with children with special needs, raising children in problematic families, early intervention, knowledge of legislation, cooperation with different professionals, evaluation of the child’s development and working out a developmental plan. More was also needed also in terms of knowledge about the family in contemporary society, cooperation methods, collaboration between family and employees of pre-school institutions, and educational methods at home (c.f. Figure 4).
Discussion In Estonia, a modern society that puts high expectations on education and child rearing, the theme of cooperation between pre-school staff and families, especially by pre-school teachers and parents, is extremely topical. The aim of this cooperation is to create a favourable development environment for a child in a pre-school establishment as well as at home. One of the ten policy options identified in the OECD’s Report on Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong II (Starting strong, 2006) is “to encourage family and community involvement in early childhood services“(p.17). It is further stated that “The continuity of children’s experience across environments is greatly enhanced when parents and staff members share information and adopt consistent approaches to socialisation, daily routines, child development and learning. Communities involvement in the pre-school institution is important not only for providing expanded services and referrals where necessary, but also as offering a space for partnerships and the participation of parents.” (Starting strong, 2006, 17) The home is an important supporter of the child’s development and therefore cooperation between teachers of pre-school institutions and parents is extremely important. Pursuant to Estonian legislation, early childhood education is mainly acquired at home and therefore parents or their substitutes are responsible for most children’s early education and care. According to the National Curriculum for Pre-school Child Care Institutions (Koolieelse, 2008), teachers of pre-school institutions assess children’s development in collaboration with their families, conduct development interviews and, if necessary, prepare individual development plans for children. Pre-school institutions seek assistance from various professionals in special education and speech therapy for instance, to support their work. The aim of this cooperation is to support children’s development, protect and develop their well-being both at pre-school institutions and
379 at home. In this way, families are supported and complemented by staff in the pre-school institutions. The present study examined teacher-parent cooperation in pre-school institutions. Use of pre-school institutions as supporters of child’s development and parents as designers of educational environments, also the role of teachers as professional experts, is especially important. The integration of employment and family life is reflected in increasing numbers of mothers returning back to work as quickly as possible after childbirth and more children starting preschool at a young age. In Estonia, the State supports families by paying a parental benefit until a child is 18 months old. After that a family allowance is paid, but that cannot guarantee the family is coping with their child’s education and care. The family can decide at what age they take their child to the preschool institutions. Year after year parents demand more places in the pre-school institutions, often a child has to start his/her preschool at the age of 1 or 2 years. The pre-school institutions support the child’s family, facilitates the child’s growth and development through the individual needs and characteristics of a child. Parents have the right to bring and take children from the pre-school institutions as it suits them but be mindful about taking into account the daily schedule at the pre-school institutions. Parents have the right to demand necessary conditions for the holistic development of their child. They can also assist the pre-school institutions to create these conditions and they have the right to familiarise themselves with the teaching programme and timetable of the preschool institutions and receive information concerning the establishment of their child’s programme. At the same time, the parents have a responsibility to create favourable conditions for the development and acquisition of education in the pre-school institutions, follow the preschool timetable as well as health protection and health promotion requirements they stipulate for all children. This research found that pre-school staff in Estonia considers cooperation with parents very important. A key person involved in this cooperation was the teacher to whom parents entrusted their children. Teacher-parent cooperation was seen from different aspects. Firstly, the main aim of teachers engaged in establishing cooperation with parents was to establish contact and trust with parents as partners. Secondly, preschool teachers provided support and counsel for parents on educational issues. Thirdly, teachers planed children’s programmes together with their parents, to facilitate age-appropriate development by taking into account children’s individuality. Counselling of parents sometimes took place during daily communication, individual discussions and group meetings. Literature or articles on child development and health were displayed on information boards at the preschool institutions. Main topics of counselling consisted of the child’s adaptation to the group, age-appropriate development, health, nutrition, relations with peers, pedagogical issues, behavioural problems, and also the child’s achievements and school readiness. Parents were also interested in
380 appropriate clothing, adjustment at pre-school, as well as social and physical development of their child. Overall, issues concerning early childhood education and child rearing were most important. Lack of time was the key problem in establishing parent involvement or cooperation. Some parents were not interested in or passive towards the work in the pre-school institutions and the child’s problems were not taken seriously. Inclusion and participation of parents was also hindered by teachers not having time to communicate with parents and/or not being able to speak the child’s home/family language. A teacher’s task is to plan for the cooperation with families. This begins with clarifying the need for cooperation and sharing each other’s expectations of the cooperation between teachers and parents. Based on the needs and expectations a plan is written, including the identification of specific aims and activities to promote cooperation. According to Ebbeck and Waniganayake (2004, pp. 98– 99), in Australia, “There is considerable variation between and within early childhood services regarding the types and levels of interaction between parents and staff. Some centres may view parent participation as an essential aspect of helping to contain the cost of service delivery. Rosters to undertake various tasks on a regular basis may be characteristic of those centres which are run as parentmanaged cooperatives. In such centres there is a high level of input from parents, and this input may be a mandatory requirement of all families. Regular participation in helping to maintain the building, grounds and equipment, and attendance at various committee meeting, may be examples of how parents are expected to contribute to the centre’s maintenance and management”. In the current study, teacher-parent communication was perceived as having a decisive role in involving parents. Individual discussions and daily communication, aimed at providing an overview of the child’s development to parents, played an important role in establishing sound cooperation between teachers and parents. The child’s development was assessed based on age-appropriate competence criteria that were based on the Estonian national curriculum for preschool institutions and supported the development of the pre-school local curriculum’s development plan for each child. These plans were used by teachers to monitor each child’s development, make assessments and conclusions. A key aspect of the approach presented in this study reflects teachers’ interest in capitalising on family strengths in developing positive and empowering relations with families (Knopf & Swick, 2007a, 2007b). If a teacher has difficulties in finding a common understanding with parents, then parents were also more passive in participating in their child’s pre-school education and group activities. At the same time, participation of parents in pre-school activities and their wish to cooperate in and be responsible of child’s development increases.
381 It is noted that in most preschools in Estonia, parent satisfaction surveys are done once a year, usually in spring. The results are analysed and feedback is given, and considered in planning group activities and events at the preschool. In conclusion, we can say that good cooperation is important in order to support children’s development during early childhood. Confident communication, positive attitudes towards parents, an individualised approach and recommendation are some of the specific aspects that were deemed particularly important in establishing rapport and gaining trust.
References Almann, S. (2008). Partnerlus – lasteaia ja lapsevanemate koostöö alus. [Partnership – basis for cooperation between kindergarten and parents]. In E. Kulderknup (Ed.), Õppe- ja kasvatustegevuse korraldus (pp. 51–64). Tartu, Estonia: Studium. (In Estonian language). Almann, S. & Kuusman, M. (1999). Kodu ja lasteasutus koostöös: Lapsevanema ja kasvataja käsiraamat. [Home and day care cooperation: Handbook for teachers]. Haridusministeerium. (In Estonian language). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Development Ecology through Space and Time: A Future Perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder Jr. & K. Lüscher (Eds.), Examining Lives in Context. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, 619–647. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human. Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. CA,Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ebbeck, M. & Waniganayake, M. (2004). Early Childhood Professionals: Leading Today and Tomorrow. Sydney, Australia: Elsevier. Hamilton, M. E., Roach, M. A. & Riley, D. A. (2003). Moving Toward FamilyCentered Early Care and Education: The Past, the Present, and a Glimpse of the Future. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(4), 225–232. Hujala, E. (2004). Early Childhood and Care in a Changing Society. International Reflections. Abo Akademi. Hujala, E., Turja, L., Gaspar, M. F., Veisson, M. & Waniganayake, M. (2009). Perspectives of early childhood teachers on parent-teacher partnerships in five European countries. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(1), 57–76. Knopf, H., T. & Swick, K. J. (2007a). How Parents Feel About Their Child’s Teacher/School: Implications for Early Childhood Professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(4), February, 2007.
382 Knopf, H. T. & Swick, K. J. (2007b). Using Our Understanding of Families to Strengthen Family Involvement. Published online: 24 October 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava (2008). [National Curriculum for Preschool Child Care Institutions]. Riigi Teataja I, 23, 152. Pramling Samuelsson, I. & Sheridan, S. (2004). Recent Issues in the Swedish Preschool. International Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 7–21. Swick, K. J. (2004). What Parents Seek in Relations with Early Childhood Family Helpers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 217–219. Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. (2006). Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
383
Mutual Trust between Finnish Parents and Preschool Teachers Pirjo-Liisa Poikonena, Marita Kontoniemib a Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä b Teacher Training School, University of Jyväskylä This study has been carried out in the Centre of Excellence in Learning and Motivation Research financed by the Academy of Finland (Nr. 213486 for 2006– 2011) and other grants from some funding agency (Nr. 213353 for 2005–2008). In recent years, changes in home-early childhood education cooperation have been put into practice in Finland (National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland, 2003). The value of cooperation between parents and early childhood professionals has been highlighted. Also, greater attention has been paid to the father’s participation in early childhood education. It is acknowledged that parents and professionals should collaborate and share responsibilities for enhancing children’s development and learning (Adams & Christenson, 2000; Waanders, Mendez & Downer, 2007). Owen, Ware and Barfoot (2000) have found that more communication between mother and caregiver about the child was significantly related to more sensitive and supportive caregiver-child interactions. Also several researchers have found that trust in the teacher or caregiver significantly effects the parents’ perceptions of the quality of care their child is receiving (Mensing, French, Fuller & Kagan, 2000). It has been found that highly educated parents are more involved in their children’s educational activities (Fantuzzo, 2000). Consequently also mutual trust between parents and teachers may be higher. Trust has been found to be an important factor facilitating collaboration (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). However, there are few empirical studies on mutual parent-teacher trust in kindergartens and preschools in different countries. Also, few empirical studies have examined how to encourage fathers to participate. Bryk and Schneider (2003) found that trust among administration teachers and parents is higher in small schools. However, as far as we know there are no empirical studies on mutual trust between parents and teachers in different contexts, like countryside and city. Reciprocal parent-teacher trust and its relations with family characteristics have rarely been analyzed. However, some studies have revealed associations between child’s gender and the quality of parent-teacher and teacher-child relationships (Silver, Measelle, Amstrong, & Essex, 2005). For example, boys have less closeness and more conflict with their teachers, because they are less selfregulated than girls. That situation may also affect parent-teacher relationships.
384 Consequently, the present study aims to examine mothers’, fathers’ and teachers’ mutual trust and the relationship with mothers’ and fathers’ education, family size and the child’s gender.
From Cooperation to Partnership Building partnership is very important in the early childhood period. Parents learn ways of communicating with teachers and other parents, and how to share responsibilities in the educational area. Early childhood professionals have more opportunities than school teachers to collaborate with children’s parents, because parents bring their children daily into day care centers and preschools. The Finnish view of cooperation between parents and professionals has changed during the last three decades. In the 1970’s and 1980’s professionals’ expertise was stressed in cooperation between parents and educational staff; while in the 1990’s there was an emphasis on client-focused practice and also the client’s expertise. Today an equal relationship of both parties is stressed. During recent years the concept of partnership in Finnish early childhood education has been introduced. National guidelines define partnership for the first time in the National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood and Care (ECEC, 2003); here, partnership means a conscious commitment by parents and staff for collaboration in the support of children’s growth, development and learning. This requires mutual trust, respect and equality. The Finnish National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood and Care (2003), and Core Curriculum for Pre-School Education (2000), state that parents have the primary right to, and responsibility for, their child’s education. Early childhood professionals have the primary responsibility for creating conditions favorable for partnership, taking into consideration each family’s specific needs. Parents are provided with opportunities for discussing their child’s education, and also for discussions with other parents and the whole staff. Partnering with parents is an attitude and not only an activity to be implemented. “Families and kindergartens as partners is a way of thinking about forming connections, not about how educators can fix the family” (Christenson, 2004, p.95). Partnership involves participation that goes further than cooperation. Real partnership as mutually supportive interactions between families and professionals focuses on meeting the needs of children and families. Even though professionals know that relationships with parents are important and bring about positive child outcomes, many professionals find it difficult to facilitate parent participation at levels that will result in significant change. Professionals often lack a full understanding of another’s culture; they tend to rely on stereotypes, images that usually are very incomplete and incorrect. Prior research of parent participation has characterized parents as relatively isolated in-
385 dividuals who interact with their own child and their child’s teacher (Sheldon, 2002; Tiilikka, 2005). Practices to facilitate parent participation do not encourage interactions among parents; unfortunately they focus almost solely on educator-parent relationships (Tiilikka, 2005). Too often family participation involves just mother participation. Possible barriers to fathers’ participation include teacher and staff attitudes toward a father’s cooperation, the mothers’ attitude toward father cooperation, and the fathers’ lack of knowledge of how to become involved. The journey from cooperation to partnership requires mutual, continuous and committed interaction in all matters concerning the child. Key characteristics of effective partnership include mutual respect and trust (Keen, 2007; Christenson, 2004; Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006; Foot, Howe, Cheyne, Terras & Rattray, 2002).
Trust The concept of trust has received attention in several areas – psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, history, and socio-biology (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). There is no commonly accepted definition of trust – most of the definitions stress the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the concept. Carter and Weber (2003, p.2) differed from the dimensions of trust: cognitive (when and to whom you can trust), emotional (feelings and experiences) and respect of behavior (depends of experiences about behaviors of other people). Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson and Beegle (2004) described three meanings of trust in a school context referred to by parents. First: trust as reliability means that trusted people fulfill their promises and do what they say: second, trust as safety includes that a child can safely be left with trustful person, and finally trust as discretion means that trustful people use confidential and personal information appropriately. Studies in different cultures and organizations have shown that trust is highly context dependent. Also, it has to be examined in relation to the behaviors relevant in a specific context (e.g., a day care center, school). Although there are many different definitions of trust in the literature, most authors seem to agree that positive expectations, willingness to become vulnerable and confidence in the other’s positive goals and behaviors are critical elements to define trust. On this theme, Adams and Christenson (2000, p.480) defined trust in the family-school relationship as “confidence that another person will act in a way to benefit or sustain the relationship, or the implicit or explicit goals of the relationship, to achieve positive outcomes for students”. Common understanding is that trust is not static. Once trust is given to others it can increase or decrease, depending on ongoing interactions with these
386 others and on features of the context in which these occurred. Lewicki and Bunker (1996) examined how trust develops. They found that trust is a dynamic phenomenon that takes on a different character in the early, developing and “mature” stages of a relationship. Trust tended to increase bit by bit and needed continual communication. Teacher-parent trust depends both on family and school characteristics. Some parents may be willing to trust school/early childhood professionals more readily than others. Adams and Christenson (2000) found that trust was highly related to the frequency and satisfaction of parent-teacher contact. They also found a higher level of trust in elementary than in older grades, according to parents’ and teachers’ ratings. They showed a higher level of trust in parents than in teachers. Mutual parent-teacher trust has been considered as an important prerequisite of home-school collaboration and parental participation in their children’s educational process, specifically in school (e.g., Adams & Christenson, 2000; Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Many teachers and parents stress that meaningful interaction and collaboration are impossible without mutual trust and respect (see Keen, 2007; Miretzky, 2004). Both parties need to feel that their individual expertise and contributions are valued and respected, and that they can count on each other for help in supporting the child. Accordingly, collaboration and trust are reciprocal processes which depend upon and foster one another. Developing parents’ and educators’ trusting relationships presupposes opportunities for parents and educators to discuss the culture of the school/day care center and the family (i.e. norms, values, beliefs, expectations, actions). SoutoManning and Swick (2006, p.191) found that “there is no way to prescribe or standardize a single way of going about building trust, as teachers and families differ, so, there is no simple formula. There is, however, a need for respect and appreciation for a multiplicity of perspectives”.
Aims of the Study The aims of the study were to investigate: (1) To what extent the level of trust between parents and preschool teacher differs in the countryside and the city. (2) To what extent child’s gender predicts the level of trust between parents and preschool teacher. (3) To what extent parents’ education and family size associate with parent-teacher trust.
387 Method Participants and Procedure The data were collected as a part of a larger research project The First Steps Study: Interactive Learning in the Child-Parent-Teacher Triangle. The sample included 76 preschool groups in two municipalities. First, the social and educational administrations of both municipalities were contacted. Principals and preschool teachers were invited to join the project at an information meeting. After they had given their written consent to participate in the study, the preschool teachers informed the parents of their preschool children and gave them a consent form and return envelope. The participants had the possibility to obtain more information from the researchers by phone or e-mail. The questionnaires for the preschool teachers and the parents were sent in April 2007. Altogether 1,233 parents participated in this sub-study. These comprised 503 fathers (12 stepfathers) and 730 mothers (3 stepmothers), who all returned the questionnaire. Of the 76 preschools, 17 were in a rural area and 59 in a city. Because some groups had two teachers, 99 teachers altogether rated their trust towards the parents of each child separately. Families were larger in the countryside than in the city (with a mean of 2.9 in the rural area and 2.4 children in the city and a maximum number of children 10 and 7, respectively). Mothers had higher education than fathers, especially in the countryside. A master/ licentiate or doctoral degree was held by 22% of mothers and 12% of fathers in the countryside and respectively 28/24% in the city. Fathers more often had vocational/college education: 71% in the countryside and 60% in the city and, respectively, mothers 64% in the countryside and 52% in the city. Most teachers had been working a long time in the same workplace, especially in the countryside where 80% had worked in the same place for 1–10 years compared to 48% in the city; only 5% of preschool teachers in the countryside but 22% in the city had been working less than one year in the current workplace. Questionnaires Trust was assessed with modified questionnaires based on the Trust Scale developed by Adams and Christenson (2000) (see Appendix 1). The scale contained the same 15 items for parents and teachers and showed good internal reliability (Cronbach alpha .95 for teachers, .95 for mothers and .94 for fathers). The items begin with the words “I am confident that teachers/parents” followed by statements that described behaviors often practiced by teachers/parents to enhance children’s development. Respondents had to assess their agreement with
388 statements on five-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree). Whereas Adams and Christenson (2000) assessed the general trust shown by the teacher towards parents, in the present study each teacher had to evaluate her/his trust towards each child’s mother separately. Parents’ educational level. Parents were asked to rate their level of vocational education on a 9-point scale as follows: 1= no vocational education, 2= vocational courses, 3= vocational school degree, 4= vocational college 5= polytechnic degree, 6= bachelor´s degree, 7= master’s degree, 8= licentiate degree and 9= doctoral degree. Statistical Analyses To describe the content of trust we used exploratory factor analysis (PAF). Independent Samples t-tests were used to compare teacher-parent trust in the countryside and in the city. Associations between the child’s gender and parentteacher trust were also analyzed with a t-test. Associations between parents’ education and the family size were analyzed with analyses of variance (ANOVA). The nine educational level groups were combined to three groups to get enough cases in each group.
Results Factor analysis (PAF) revealed one factor of trust. The factor explained 52.9% of variance in the fathers’ trust and respectively 57% of mothers’ and 58.4% of teachers. The factor described the wholeness of trust in the parent-teacher relationship: kindness, respect and positive attitude and the atmosphere of communication. Teachers as well as mothers and fathers had high loadings on all items of the questionnaire (around 0.6 to 0.8. Only the last item, which described networking with other parents of the preschool class, had lower loadings (around 0.5). (see Table 1) The Level of Mutual Trust The level of mutual trust between parents and preschool teachers was high. Teachers had the highest mean at 4.43 (out of maximum 5.0). Mean for mothers’ trust were nearly the same (4.14) as teachers, and fathers had mean of 3.98. Differences in trust level between the countryside and the city were small. Most of the means were a little higher in the countryside, but not statistically significant. Fathers’ trust for teachers did not differ between countryside and city, but trust of mothers was different on two items (7 and 10) of the Trust Scale (see Table 2).
389 Teachers’ trust in parents was high both in the countryside and in the city. Means of the trust levels of preschool teachers in these two municipalities differed significantly only in the item 7 of the Trust Scale (Table 3). Associations between the Child’s Gender and Parent-Teacher Trust Comparing mothers and fathers of the same family, the averaged trust level of mothers was higher than that of fathers. As seen in table4, there was no difference in the level of trust according to child’s gender. Overall teachers’ trust was at a high level. However, there were clear differences according to the child’s gender. Preschool teachers trusted more in the parents of girls than in the parents of boys and variation of the trust rates was bigger among boys. However, the differences were not significant in most of the items. In table 5, it can be seen that preschool teachers trusted parents of girls more for five items of competent caring. Associations between Trust and the Education of Parents To compare the level of education of parents and the level of trust to preschool teachers we combined the nine different groups of educational level to three groups. There were no differences on trust according to the parents’ educational level (see Table 6). Associations between Trust and the Family Size Because there were only a few families with more than three children they were combined together into the same variable ‘4 or more’. In Table 7 it can be seen that the level of trust of mothers increases with number of children, but the trust level of fathers has no associations with family size. Mothers having only one child trusted preschool teachers less than mothers with more children. For closer examination we divided the families into two groups: families with only one child and families with more than one child and compared mothers and fathers both of boys and girls. This revealed that trust level of mothers with one child varied more and was clearly lower especially in the case of mothers of boys (see Table 8). Trust of fathers was lower than trust of mothers in all cases. However, the samples sizes were rather small (from 25 to 44).
390
391 Table 2. The difference in mothers’ trust (items 7 and 10) between the city and the countryside.
Item 7. My child’s preschool teacher is easy to approach if I have questions or troubles concerning the child. Item 10. My child’s preschool teacher communicates in a way that is easy to understand
City n =574
Countryside n =150
t-test
M 4.42 SD .928
M 4.62 SD .833
t(254,49)=2.557 p= .011
M 4.48 SD .774
M 4.66 SD .684
t(257.98)=2.778 p= .006
Table3. The difference in preschool teachers’ trust between the city and the countryside. Item 7. Parents of this child are easy to approach if I have questions or troubles concerning the child. City Countryside
n
Mean
SD
676 194
4.45 4.65
.844 .620
t-test t(258.38) = –3.260 p=.000 Table 4. The level of trust to preschool teachers of mothers and fathers of the same family.
Trust Mother Father t-test
Parents of girls and boys n Mean SD 481 4.16 .65 481 3.97 .62 t(480)=6.19 p
