Babies and Young Children in Learning and Educational Contexts

Introduction

In this essay I will discuss my own personal pedagogy towards early years as an enabling learning environment based on my belief that play is the foundation upon which early learning is built and a vital component of successful early years practice. “Play is the highest expression of human development in childhood, for it alone is the free expression of what is in a child’s soul” (Froebel 1887, cited in Brostrom, 2016, p. 3). This theory of letting children express themselves through play, allowing them to be who they are and leaving them to develop in their own time without the need to meet targets facilitates an inclusive environment and fosters a curriculum that is focused on the individual child. I will critically analyse practices within my own setting using relevant theories to support my beliefs and look at the difficulties of implementing some of these practices in real life.

Play

The term play can mean different things to different people and varies between different countries and cultures. Some play involves adults, some play involves toys, play may involve mixed age groups or it may be linked to adult creativity and imagination (Bruce, 2011). In their research into the value of play for different cultures Goncu et al (2000) found that what is termed play can differ widely between communities and yet they also discovered that all of these children developed in the same way, therefore different styles of play or non-play activities can still serve the same function developmentally. I believe that play in all its forms is an essential part of children’s learning and development, and that whilst it should be spontaneous and child initiated, free play alone is not always sufficient for children to develop.  I believe there should also be adult support in order to help guide and extend this play.  Children come from different backgrounds and are brought up in different circumstances and for some children learning how to play in itself can be a development need.

I feel that a combination of both child led and adult directed play can be beneficial to a setting. Children’s independent play is essential for us as practitioners as it allows children to develop their creative abilities and encourages them to think and explore for themselves, developing those skills that make up the characteristics of effective learning. Erikson, (1963 cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2013) believes children have a pro-active role in their own development and are active in their own environment. By providing children with the appropriate safe resources and emotional support to explore they can develop their sense of power over the environment without forming a sense of guilt from disapproval. This is an approach also taken by Malaguzzi (cited in Gray and MacBlain, 2012) co-founder of the Reggio Emilia approach who believes that children are agents of their own learning with the environment acting as the third teacher.

It is through our observations of children at play that we can assess how children are learning and progressing and determine how much interaction children need and the level of support they may require in order to extend that learning. At my setting we have a play based pedagogy and believe that play is essential, as is a positive learning environment including appropriate resources, adult support and input. We use sustained shared thinking and open ended questioning in our interactions with children.  We encourage the children to think of ideas to extend their learning themselves. We do not interrupt purposeful play for group work activities, ‘teaching’ comes through extending children’s self-initiated play and activities that are set up based on specific areas of the curriculum. We help to direct play by observing and following the interests of the children. We plan ‘in the moment’ based on what the children are enjoying playing with and their individual style of play and learning (Ephgrave, 2015).  This planning ensures that the mixture of continuous resources and planned activities that we provide are tailored to the interests of the child and therefore they are more likely to be engaged in the process.

I believe that having a pedagogy based on solely child initiated and led independent play would be limiting in its scope. Some children need support in their play and the extra confidence that comes from playing with or alongside a familiar adult. Some children are unable to imagine what is achievable without having somebody make them aware of the possibilities first.  We had a child who only played with trains and would sit and play with trains to the exclusion of everything else every day.  As a practitioner it was essential for me to step in and try to extend this learning so that the play was purposeful and the child was progressing.  To do this we built a train track outside to bring them outdoors, we painted trains, created trains with boxes, read stories about trains, drew trains, used train number activities, and turned our role play area into a train station. This enabled us to extend the child’s learning whilst still holding their interest and building on what they enjoyed.

So whilst independent play is an important part of children’s learning my approach is more in line with the findings of Sylva et al (2006, p. 1) who in her research found that the most effective pedagogy for early years included “interaction traditionally associated with the term ‘teaching’, the provision of instructive learning environments and ‘sustained shared thinking’ to extend children’s learning.”    She found the quality of a setting and quality and qualifications of the staff influenced children’s outcomes, as did having a balanced curriculum. Adult input was also an important factor in achieving a quality learning environment. Bandura (1977 cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014) also believes that children are ‘active learners’ and his observational learning theory acknowledges how the environment influences learning through the actions and behaviours of staff as role models.  According to Sylva et al (2006) the quality of adult-child verbal interactions, including ‘sustained shared thinking’, open ended questioning and providing formative feedback during activities had a strong influence on children’s outcomes. The report also found that outcomes were best when there was an equal balance of child and adult initiated activity, that extending children’s self-initiated play with the provision of adult initiated group work were the most effective methods of learning.  Adult input was essential for the development of curriculum related activities such as maths and phonics, as was adult support in encouraging children to participate in more challenging play. Bruce (2011) also believes that adults play a crucial role in developing children’s play by bringing together and connecting everything that children know.  And Froebel (1887 cited in Brostrom, 2016) supports the belief that play can be adult directed with a learning perspective. Like Groos (1901) he highlights the importance of play in children’s learning finding that some adult support was essential in ensuring play does not become dangerous for the child and to direct play in a purposeful and good direction. He suggested that this could be achieved by providing suitable resources. 

 I also believe that children should be allowed an input into their learning environment and the nature of their own play, shaping the resources we provide, thus ensuring the learning environment is gender neutral and non-specific with activities geared for children’s specific interests not led by stereotypes or assumptions.  We have an A3 children’s planning book which we use daily to jot down children’s ideas for future play. The Children’s Commissioner (2017) emphasises that listening to children is an essential part of creating an enabling community where children’s views are acted on and respected, validating their decisions and giving them an increased sense of self-worth and confidence.

There has been much research into the positive qualities of play. It is an essential part of the development of language (Vygotsky 1978, cited in Goncu, 2000), it allows children to master experiences and the physical world (Bruner, 1972), it teaches children social skills such as the ability to interact with peers (Parten 1932, cited in Gouncu, 2000), and gives children the ability to put experiences into categories (Bateson 1955, cited in Goncu, 2000). Research has shown that the richer and more varied a baby’s learning environment and activities are the more the brain is stimulated and the more powerful it becomes (Bloom 1964, cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014).  This is also supported by Piaget’s cognitive development theory (1962 cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014) where children are viewed as active participants in their own learning through schemas. He believes children’s thinking develops in stages and is a cumulative process. So the appropriate experiences that a setting provides enhances cognitive development and a child’s desire to learn. In the pre-school pre-operational stage unstructured play activities are an important part in developing children’s cognitive development.

A criticism of Piaget’s development theory is that it assumes children can only think from their own perspective and fails to take into account that the thoughts and beliefs of other people can affect children’s cognition (Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2003, cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014). Piaget (1962 cited in Bukatatko and Daehler, 2011) saw children’s cognitive development as an individual journey, whilst Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (cited in Bukatatko and Daehler, 2011) and later the work of Bruner (1973 cited in Doherty and Hughes 2014) argue that whilst children learn by doing, thinking is a socially constructed process influenced by society as well as the environment and learning takes place when the child is in their ‘zone of proximal development’ which is when children benefit from the help of other adults. More recently Van de Veer and Valsiner (1991, cited in Brostrom, 2016) argue that it is not the play itself that contributes to the child’s development, it is only when the teacher plays an active, encouraging role that the child develops new meanings and understandings. 

Another important aspect of my own pedagogy is ensuring free flow play, where children can choose whether to play inside or outside. Children are unique and have different learning styles, and environments need to reflect these different styles. At my setting we have children who love to play outside and learn best when using gross movement outdoors.  In order to ensure these children are optimising their learning outdoors we ensure there is adequate learning opportunity outside that covers the whole of the EYFS curriculum (2014).  I have recently attended training on maths in the outdoor environment and other staff have attended literacy in the outdoors training, and as a setting we are refurbishing and designing our outdoor area to ensure we are optimizing the outdoor learning opportunities.  This style of outdoor learning and play is encouraged by Forest Schools, an approach to learning originating in Scandinavia, with an emphasis on outdoor learning and exploration, natural resources to stimulate curiosity and interest, real world tools and resources, and with adults working alongside children to make a vital difference to provision (Constable, 2014).

In my experience, it can sometimes be difficult to convince parents of the learning potential of a play based pedagogy with the expectation that their child needs to be having formal group times based on numbers and phonics, where they are sat on a carpet or table listening to a teacher talking in order for them to be learning. It can also be a challenge to meet the needs of such a wide variety of children with different interests and of different ages without segregation and formalised group learning.

We overcome these issues by ensuring the learning environment meets the needs of all children by undertaking regular audits and ensuring we have age and development appropriate toys for children both indoors and outdoors, ensuring activities are varied for different ages and that key workers are planning to meet their key children’s needs and interests and regularly sharing progress with parents to demonstrate that children are developing. This is especially pertinent in areas such as phonics and numeracy which some parents become increasingly concerned with as children approach school age. We also send out a parents’ version of the ‘What to expect, when?’ document, 4Children (2015), which outlines what children should generally be expected to do by certain ages to help parents understand what skills it is their children should be developing as opposed to what parents feel their children should be able to do by the time they reach school.

Outdoor play also poses challenges with parents who do not want their children playing outside in winter as they worry they may catch colds or they dislike them getting wet or dirty. To try and overcome this I have created a transition area with all in one suits and wellingtons for the children at pre-school to wear when they are indulging in wet and messy outdoor play.  I feel the experience of playing outdoors is important and provides different opportunities to learn, through gross motor play, compared to indoor play.  However, providing this free flow play depends on having sufficient flexible staffing to cover both inside and outside provision, which is not always financially viable for settings.

Inclusion

I feel that inclusion is another very important aspect of early year’s environments. The Children and Families Act (2014) legislates teaching should be inclusive with high expectations of all children and I have found that often, in practice, an inclusive pedagogy with additional support can benefit the whole setting. We have a child in my setting who has speech and language difficulties and is receiving a course of speech and language therapy.  A therapist comes in to work with him every week undertaking specific activities and she has also provided the setting with resources to use.  As much of this learning is play based and requires games and adult interaction there are several other children in the setting who also enjoying joining in with the activities and their own speech, language and social skills are improving as a result of this. So tailoring provision to meet the needs of individual children can often improve provision for all.  

If children’s needs are sufficient they may receive support in the form of additional funding to cover increased staffing demands. The EYFS (2014, p. 5) states that “every child deserves the best possible start in life and the support that enables them to fulfil their potential.” This allows children with special educational needs to receive extra provision, in addition to, or different from that which is universally provided, through Special Education Needs (SEN) support, or for those requiring even more support an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. 

Whilst this would be ideal, depending on the nature of the child’s needs, with funding in short supply, in reality it can sometimes be difficult to get this additional support and often with low staffing numbers and finite resources it can sometimes be difficult to meet the needs of individual children without it being at the expense of the rest of the children in the setting. This means that we as practitioners sometimes have to face a social dilemma.  I have a child in my setting who requires additional support.  Whilst we as a setting do not want to treat them differently or make them stand out, at the same time, we have to highlight their difficulties when writing reports and assessing them in order for us to get the support that will enable them to access the same level of education as everyone else and meet their full potential. This additional support will also benefit the rest of the class whose learning is currently being disrupted by the behaviours.

This contradiction can also be seen within the EYFS (2014) itself. It talks about children being ‘unique’, that environments should respond to their individual needs, and recognises that all children learn and develop at different rates and in different ways, but at the same time it also measures children against development ‘norms’ with children being classed as either ‘exceeding’ or not yet reaching ‘emerging’ expected levels of development. This can lead to what Norwich (2005) terms the dilemma of difference, where he identifies the conflict between the government advocating inclusion for children with special educational needs in mainstream schooling so as not to marginalise or stigmatise them, but at the same time a huge rise in the number of statements for children in order for these schools to meet targets and for the government to be seen as raising standards.

Whilst considering inclusion it is also important to bear in mind the different needs of the children in a setting, such as the range of different ages, heights, and abilities. It is essential that the learning environment is designed so that resources are accessible and safe for all children, with special regard for younger children and those with learning difficulties and sensory impairment. At my setting we provide resources that meet everybody’s needs and all our resources are labelled and in boxes on low shelves so they can be reached by all the children. Activities are planned to ensure differentiation, they are delivered in a variety of different ways and placed at different levels, some at floor level on tough spots whilst others are placed on table tops. There are potties available for younger children and step up stools available for the sinks and toilets as well as the sand and water trays if needed, with different sized chairs available to suit individual children’s needs and preferences.  Being inclusive also means adapting practice and activities to make them inclusive for children who have allergies, such as using gluten free pasta and playdough as malleable resources for a child who was coeliac

The resources at my setting support Goldschmied (1994), in her pedagogy of learning through the senses. She highlights the importance of resources such as treasure baskets and sensory bottles to provide a stimulating environment for children with special needs. Children have been shown to like variety in their learning. This concept of accelerated learning, is based on the idea that children, especially those with learning difficulties or sensory impairments, benefit from a broad range of teaching approaches, visual, auditory and kinaesthetic and that needs to be reflected in the learning environment (Lee and Horsefall 2010, cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014).

Haegele and Hodge (2016) consider two models of disability. The medical model puts an emphasis on the biological and psychological origins of disability, where the impairment itself is seen as the problem and individuals are deemed faulty and needing repair. This can lead to segregation and discrimination. As a reaction to this people with disabilities created a social model of disability where the problem is seen as lying with attitudes within society and the environment, and how it is society not being set up to deal with impairment that causes it to become a disability.  It is this social model that influences our inclusive practices in school by encouraging us to adapt our practices and environments to make them inclusive for all children.

One of the problems with this inclusive approach to resources and the environment is the difficulty of keeping children safe and restricting access to certain items depending on the age of the children within a mixed age setting. There are some items such as small beads that older children may enjoy using for threading that could be dangerous for younger children or those with disabilities that still like the sensory experience of putting things in their mouths.  This can mean additional demands on staffing to oversee and monitor these activities carefully, ensuring that younger children, and those with special needs, are being kept safe at all times whilst still stretching the abilities and learning of older children.

Whilst the social model of disability with an inclusive approach to all is one to be aspired to, in reality it is not always practical. My setting has a number of very steep steps to come down in order to enter the building which can make access difficult for people who have a physical disability. Whilst we are aware of barriers such as these, they can be difficult to overcome without a great deal of money to adapt the environment by installing a lift, or ramp which would allow easier access.

 I feel that the non-verbal voice of the child is also an important aspect of inclusion for early years’ settings to consider. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1992) states that “parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child”.  We have a child at my setting with Downs Syndrome who has delayed speech and language and therefore we use Makaton in order to aid their understanding of what we are saying and also as a means for them to communicate with us and have their voice heard. We also encourage the other children in the setting to use Makaton by having signs around the classroom and a sign of the week which all children are taught and encouraged to use with each other. We also use a visual timetable which all children find beneficial in using as a pictorial reference for their day. It can be easy to make assumptions about children and it can be harder to include the voice of the child when children are younger and don’t have the ability to verbalise their likes and dislikes or have difficulties with communication. But listening to children isn’t just about verbal skills, it also involves observing, picking up on their body language, the choices they make, their level of involvement, and the noises they make, laughing and giggling. 

Alison Clark (2008) defines listening as “an active process of receiving (hearing and observing), interpreting and responding to communication. It includes all the senses and emotions and is not limited to the spoken word”. She believes that by listening we can provide an environment in which children will grow in confidence, feel safe, feel powerful and have the ability to express themselves. By listening to children we show them respect and this is essential to the process of learning, especially for children who have difficulties communicating.

It is not only disability, age or ability that differentiates between children, but also culture. I feel it is important for children to feel included in a setting by embracing and sharing in their different cultures and languages. This can be achieved by learning and using common words in the child’s home language, such as hello and goodbye, and encouraging families to come in and share their language and culture with the setting. At my setting we also encourage diversity by providing role play resources such as Chinese dining sets and different styles of food as well as multi-cultural dolls and multicultural clothing.  This recognition of the diversity in society is evident in the EYFS (2014) which sets out a requirement for settings to recognise and include children’s home languages in their play and learning and provide support for language development at home.

There can however be difficulties with this integration of cultures, with barriers to communication if the family do not speak English and cultural variations in what parents expect from a pre-school setting in terms of behaviour and approach to learning, with some cultures preferring a more formal style of education and others a more relaxed approach. Dietary needs also need to be considered with cultural variations surrounding what children are allowed to eat at snack times based on their culture or religion. To reduce this issue we only offer fresh fruit and vegetables for snack options therefore ensuring a healthy diet and ensuring everybody is able to have the same food stuffs at snack time making it an inclusive activity for all children.

Curriculum

In recent years the importance of early years education has become increasingly recognised. Whilst historically there was no formal curriculum and little government intervention in the work of pre-schools (Kwon, 2002), government intervention has increased over time. The Early Years Foundation Stage (2014) is the framework which all early years providers must now work to.  It became statutory in England in September 2012 and was recently revised and updated in 2017. It was created to ensure a standard of care throughout all providers ensuring every child has the best possible start in life (Doherty and Hughes, 2014). 

I think it is important that we have a curriculum that is inclusive and flexible so it can be tailored to the needs of individual children taking into account that not all children conform to what is deemed as ‘normal’ and all children are unique. I feel that the best approach to the curriculum is to have children engaged in individual discovery through play and exploration but with adult input and guidance to help them make sense of the things they discover. I believe we need a curriculum to act as a general indicator of what is typical development for children which allows us to determine whether a child is falling behind in some areas and offer them additional support, but it needs to be more play based with less emphasis on ticking boxes and categorising of children.  Although there are questions to be asked of whether that is based on the curriculum itself or individual settings desires to be seen to be making progress, completing the right paperwork and providing sufficient evidence. It is our knowledge of the EYFS (2012) that influences the learning environment we provide for our children and the curriculum we create to meet the requirements and desired outcomes of this framework.

The EYFS (2012) also requires us as practitioners to share the development and progress of children with parents, which is very important, as support from parents in their children’s learning is extremely beneficial with children’s learning extending beyond the boundaries of the classroom into children’s homes and beyond, and these interactions can have a direct influence on children’s development and learning, especially their social and emotional development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Therefore, it is important that settings incorporate parents and the wider community into achieving these aspects of the EYFS through their curriculum. The EYFS also covers areas such as child protection which are essential is ensuring children are kept safe.

The EYFS promotes the teaching of skills and knowledge in the three prime areas, Communication and language, physical development, and personal, social and emotional development, which provide the foundations for all future learning. Then later mathematics, literacy, understanding the world and expressive arts and design (EYFS, 2012). The framework states that children’s interests, needs and stage of development also need to be considered when planning, so the curriculum needs to look at the whole child and not focus on just the desired skills and knowledge.  This is supposed to allow practitioners freedom and scope in how they achieve these outcomes and offer flexibility.

However, as a practitioner, I feel there is an increasing emphasis on cascading the specific areas of the curriculum, especially maths and literacy, downwards from schools. The early years’ curriculum divides opinion. There are those that make the policies and work towards children being ‘ready’ for school, such as Woodhead (1999 cited in Kwon, 2002) who believes that even at the age of 3 or 4 learning should be done in a formal manner through direct teaching, and those who feel the curriculum needs to be more developmentally appropriate.

Pring (2004 cited in Goouch, 2008) voiced concern that teaching is becoming based on delivering the curriculum rather than actually engaging with the minds of the children. She is supported in this thinking by Young (2006) who feels that more attention is being given to targets and goals than it is to children, and Anning (1998) who feels the governments’ aim of raising standards may lead to over emphasis on formal teaching in order to meet targets. The introduction of OFSTED (2001) inspections for preschool settings has increased the pressure on settings to reach prescribed learning outcomes which encourages a more subject based approach in areas such as literacy and numeracy, as preschools that do not meet these requirements may lose their funding. The leap from child centred curriculum at pre-school to a subject based National Curriculum means that in order to prepare children for school there is a conflict between these two styles of curriculum which has an effect on how children are encouraged to learn before they reach school age (Moss and Penn 1996, cited in Kwon, 2002). Also, the move from the play based pedagogy in the EYFS to a more formal teacher based pedagogy in key stage one can make the transition difficult for some children (Fisher, 2009).  Rogoff (1990) believes teachers need to ‘lead by following’ and move away from pre-planned curricular activities and follow instead the child’s own play objectives, which as Goouch (2008) points out does not always tick the right box or fall into a specific category in an audit.  

Another criticism of the curriculum is linked to Piaget’s egocentric thinking discussed earlier. Donaldson (1978) suggests that Piaget’s theory of children needing to be ‘ready’ to move on to the next stage of thinking has led to a lack of structure and progression in the curriculum. And Bruner (1974 cited in Kwon, 2002) considered that whilst knowing how children develop is important it is not the only aspect upon which early years practice should be based.  There is a need to combine this knowledge of child development with pedagogical knowledge about teaching and an understanding of knowledge itself. 

As a practitioner I feel that on a day to day basis there are a number of challenges to be faced when working within the restraints of the EYFS framework. As a setting we feel a pressure to be reporting, evidencing and planning for all of our children on a constant basis, but do not have the funding available to pay staff for administration time in which to write up observations, assessments and reports so this is often completed in staff’s own time. This administrative burden was found to be particularly challenging for reception class teachers where there are higher staff to child ratios so fewer staff and the additional need to find time to complete the end of foundation stage profile, especially with questions being asked over the usefulness of the profile (Brooker et al, 2010). 

Brooker et al (2010) conducted a report looking at the challenges of the EYFS framework. Whilst most settings were positive about the EYFS there were common challenges that settings faced.  Risk assessments were a particular area of burden for some practitioners with the requirement to formally record all aspects of risk time consuming.  They felt the time taken to complete increased paperwork was excessive, constantly observing, assessing, planning, risk assessing, tracking and monitoring to provide evidence was taking staff away from the role of teacher. In reception classes higher staff ratios also mean that with only two members of staff to thirty children it is difficult to encourage free flow provision with only one member of staff outside and one member inside.  This makes the transition from pre-school where children are one of eight in a key worker group to reception where they suddenly become one of thirty difficult for some who suddenly find themselves with much less support.

I also feel that there are some gaps in the curriculum. Take for example speech and language.  I had a child who was reaching their milestone targets in communication and language but I referred them for speech and language therapy because they couldn’t enunciate their sounds correctly, so although the child was reaching their speaking goals they were unable to form some words correctly.  Thee are currently receiving blocks of speech and language therapy as well as being supported by myself with addition SALT time at school and making good progress.  But this development issue was identified by professional judgement rather than showing up on the EYFS progress tracker demonstrating that the system is not infallible and professional judgement is still necessary.

Children with special educational needs may also not fit in to the EYFS as speech and language difficulties may mean they are unable to communicate their understanding and vocalise their ideas in order to meet their targets. I also feel the EYFS is open to interpretation by individual practitioners, so judgements of where a child is in their development can vary from one practitioner to another.

An alternative curriculum approach is the Montessori approach founded by Maria Montessori in 1906 with her philosophy of child centred education. This is based around Dewey’s theory of individualism (1959, cited in Kwon, 2002) where the child choses the curriculum rather than the teacher, and children learn through exploration and manipulation of their environment.  Isaacs (2012) explains how the Montessori approach recognises children as active learners who need to be given the opportunity to work independently and given choices, with the adult acting as a facilitator in the process and providing an appropriate learning environment.  It supports the view that children are intrinsically motivated to learn through curiosity and a desire to explore. The focus is on the child as an individual as opposed to the current system of putting children into developmental ‘norm’ boxes.   Some aspect of Montessori can be seen in the curriculum at my setting, such as continuous provision, which I feel is very important and is an area that requires much consideration due to the huge impact this can have on learning.

There are criticisms of this approach though. Galton (1987) called the theory of a curriculum totally dictated by children’s interests as “romantic”, with Blenkin and Kelly (1987 cited in Kwon, 2002) stating that children cannot discover something unless they understand what it is they are discovering. This is a criticism supported by McIntyre (1988 cited in Kwon, 2002) who found that free play in children tended to result in simple, repetitive activities with little additional challenge. And Meadows and Cashdan (1988 cited in Kwon 2002) finding that with free flow play teachers did not push and challenge the children.

Alternatively Malaguzzi (1996 cited in Bruce, 2011) describes another approach to an early childhood curriculum developed in Reggio Emilia in the belief that there are many ways to play. Constable (2014) describes how the Reggio approach places an emphasis on the relationships between children and adults, and also between the children themselves. It is a creative curriculum where children are given space to explore freely, are exposed to different experiences, given time to develop their own ideas and the freedom to learn new skills without the pressure of meeting development norms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe in an inclusive, play based pedagogy, essential for observation and assessment that is a combination of quality teacher interactions and support, and self-chosen constructive play activities. I feel that providing an enabling environment and giving children free flow access to open ended engaging resources allows them to develop their own interests that we as staff can then build on. I think it is important to encourage an inclusive culture and ethos and this means not only making your learning environment suitable for children with disabilities or developmental delays, but, also an acceptance and celebration of other cultures and beliefs. But having worked in more than one setting it is clear to me that different settings have different pedagogies that work for them and their children, some that have been created with purpose and others that have evolved over time.  As early years settings in England we have a duty to follow the legislation as set down in the EYFS and create a curriculum that involves a fine balancing act between play based learning and meeting the criteria for formal assessments, whilst ensuring the focus remains on the child. So, whilst all settings have ‘ideal’ pedagogies the realities and difficulties of achieving these such as funding, parental expectations, staffing, time, resources and space often have an impact on the provision that we can deliver.

 

 

References

4Children, (2015). What to expect, when? 4Children (supported by DfE)

Anning, A. (1998). Appropriateness or effectiveness in the early childhood curriculum in the UK: Some research evidence, in International Journal of Early Years Education. 6(3) p. 299-314

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press

Brooker, L., Rogers, S., Ellis, D., Hallet, E. and Roberts-Holmes, G. (2010) Practitioners’ Experiences of the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: DfE. Available from [WWW]         https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181511/DFE-RR029.doc  Accessed May 2017

Brostrom, S. (2016) A dynamic learning concept in early years’ education: a possible way to prevent schoolification , in International Journal of Early Years Education. 25(1) pp. 3-15, Available from [WWW] http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196?scroll=top&needAccess=true Accessed April 2017

Bruce, T. (2011) Learning Through Play, For babies, toddlers and young children. (2^nd Ed.) Hodder Education

Bruner, J.S. (1972) The nature and uses of immaturity, in American Psychologist. (27) pp. 687-708

Bukatatko, D. and Daehler, M. (2011) Child Development: A thematic approach. (Int. Ed.) Cencage Learning. Available from [WWW] https://www-dawsonera-com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/readonline/9781408093207. Accessed April 2017

Clark, A. (2008) Listening as a way of life: Why and how we listen to young children, in Young Children’s Voices Network. London: NCB

Constable, K. (2014) Bringing the Forest School Approach to your Early Years Practice. Taylor and Francis

Early Education (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. The British Association of Early Childhood Education

Department for Education (DfE) (2014) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage.  Available from: [WWW] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596629/EYFS_STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK_2017.pdf. Accessed April 2017

Doherty, J. and Hughes, M. (2014) Child Development: Theory and Practice 0 – 11. (2^nd Ed.) Pearson Education M.U.A

Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s minds. Glasgos: Fontana/Collins

Ephgrave, A. (2015) The Nursery Year in Action: Following children’s interests throughout the year. London and New York: Routledge 

Fisher, J. (2009) ‘We used to play in Foundation, it was more funner’: investigating feelings about transition from Foundation Stage to Year 1, in Early Years International Journal of Research and Development. 29(2) pp. 131-145

Galton, M. (1987) Change and continuity in the primary school: The research evidence, in Oxford Review of Education. 13(1) p. 81-94

Goldschmied, E. and Jackson, S. (1994) People under three: Young Children in Daycare. London: Routledge

Goncu, A., Mistry, J. and Mosier, C. (2000) Cultural variations in the play of toddlers, in International Journal of Behavioural Development. 24(3) pp. 321-329

Goouch, K. (2008) Understanding playful pedagogies, play narratives and play spaces, in Early Years. 28(1) pp. 93-102

GOV.UK (2014) Children and Families Act. Available from [WWW] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/pdfs/ukpga_20140006_en.pdf. Accessed May 2017

GOV.UK (2017). Children’s Commissioner. Available from [WWW] http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/learn-more/child-participation. Accessed March 2017

Gray, C. and MacBlain, S. (2012) Learning Theories in Childhood. London: SAGE

Groos, K. (1901) The Play of Man. New York: D. Appleton & Company (Online). Available from [WWW] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002400037;view=1up;seq=413. Accessed April 2017

Haegele, J.A. and Hodge, S (2016) Disability Discourse: Overview and Critiques of the Medical and Social Models, in Quest 68(2) p. 193-206. Available from [WWW]  http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/00336297.2016.1143849. Accessed May 2017

Issacs, B. (2012) Understanding the Montessori Approach. Routledge Ltd

Kwon, Y-I. (2002) Changing Curriculum for Early Childhood Education in England, in Journal of Early Childhood Research and Practice. 4(2) Available from [WWW] http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n2/kwon.html  Accessed April 2017

Norwich, B. (2005). Inclusion: Is it a matter of evidence about what works or about values and rights?, in Education 3-13. 33(1) pp. 51-56. Available from [WWW]   http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/03004270585200091?needAccess=true. Accessed May 2017

Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED), (2001). OFSTED’s nursery education. [online]. London. Available from [WWW] http://www.ofsted.gov.uk. Accessed May 2017

Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking, cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B (2006) The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project (Online). Available from [WWW] http://eppe.ioe.ac.uk/eppe/eppepdfs/RBTec1223sept0412.pdf. Accessed April 2017

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1992). Available from [WWW] https://353ld710iigr2n4po7k4kgvv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf. Accessed 05.03.17