FONPRODE

When assessment texts are collaboratively produced they have the potential to reform themselves into a pedagogical tool. Through the creation of texts, a process of acting and thinking with others drives the learning process, occurring through dialogue and interaction (Stephen, 2010). This process also allows the child to be viewed and constructed in multiple ways. In Chapters 3 and 5, I examined how viewing the child through a conforming lens can produce a deficit construction of the child (Bradbury, 2014a, b; Basford and Bath, 2014; Brooker, 2011; Hedges, 2010). The findings from my own sample concurred with this notion.

136 The examples the participants shared regarding the assessment practices in their settings highlighted how assessments were focused on gaining evidence of individual development, and that they were an isolated act. They found the systems that were embedded in the setting for collecting observations meant opportunities for interpreting the child’s interests or capabilities in multiple ways were closed down. Ironically, this meant that judgements were either inflated or diminished, as Lucy experienced:

If you’ve got one piece of evidence, a lot of the staff would say “that’s it, they’ve done it”… Whereas necessarily that might have been a one-off, they might not actually be able to do it ... It might have been a fluke …. So you can see them growing up ... But that will get ripped out because it’s already been in the profile, that shouldn’t be in there again. If they’ve done it, they’ve done it ... ‘ticked off’ and go on to the next thing. [FG Session 1]

Apart from Jackie, the participants found limited time to come together to engage in processes that allowed for pedagogical cognitive thinking which placed an emphasis on ideas about children’s learning (Lazzari and Balduzzi, 2013; Suarez, 2006; Forman and Fyfe, 1998), and allowed for such multiple interpretations that a socio-cultural pedagogy allows. This was evidently one of the barriers that limited opportunities for pedagogical

conversation to occur.

Interests

I was also left wondering whether the participants’ own interpretations of how they could use their documentation as a pedagogical tool to help with the resources of the learning environment was limited. They understood that part of their role as EYP/EY teacher was to model good practice, which from Helen’s perspective involved “moving toys down off high shelves as others didn’t want them ruined and creating new and exciting areas such as investigation”. From this perspective, their documented observations were used as a basis for determining the resourcing of the provision. During the FG sessions, they had expressed concern about the logistics of supporting the interests of all the children and “fitting” them into their planning and daily routine through the provision of resources and spaces in which to follow through their interests. Jackie’s example of the performance, based on the film

137 Frozen, that evolved during class, highlights her endeavour to include children’s multiple interests and their funds of knowledge (Gonzalez, Moll and Amanti, 2005), through

enhancing the provision on offer. Yet, as Hedegaard (2008) reminds us, this approach does not necessarily enable the practitioner to gain an understanding of children’s motives and intentions for engaging in such activities. Instead, it could arguably be interpreted as an example of the participants’ idealised (Anning, 1998) interpretation of the “folklore

tradition” (Anning, Cullen, and Fleer, 2004, p.13) of a curriculum that follows the interests of children. This argument also extends into how the participants incorporated children’s own perspectives regarding learning. For example, in both Helen and Lucy’s settings, children’s viewpoints were garnered by asking them what they felt they were “best at doing”, or what they liked to “play at nursery”, which then formed part of their summative assessment. However, as later discussed, Helen’s provision of her ‘Busy Day Book’, and her commitment to inviting children to select photographs to put in their profiles, was an indication of her desire to allow for the documentation of other aspects of children’s learning that would normally be surplus to requirements.

Learning or development?

Numerous other studies (Bradbury, 2012; Coleyshaw et al., 2012; McArdle and McWilliams, 2005) have concluded that it is not uncommon for the inclusion of children’s perspectives to be interpreted as the facilitation of choice and activity, rather than how to co-construct participation and provide feedback that would support their extension of learning. I have also been mindful of Payler’s (2007) research regarding the consequences of gearing interactions towards learning outcomes rather than metacognition. This left me wondering to what extent the participants themselves were seeing the significance of using their pedagogical documentation to gain an insight into broader perspectives related to learning, rather than just development. Consequently, in the second session, I pursued this a little further by asking about the “Characteristics of Effective Learning” (Early Education, 2012), and how this featured in their documentation. They admitted that a focus on learning characteristics was another feature that was indeed surplus to requirements. Jackie provided a useful insight into why this could be the case:

138 I do like the fact that there are characteristics of effective learning too but I

feel these are best seen in child-initiated play. It feels like the Development Matters statements are more academic whilst the characteristics of effective learning are more personality traits to me but this is an area I am working on at the moment. [DS]

I feel this comment serves to highlight the nub of the issue in helping to understand why the opportunities to use documentation as a pedagogical tool seemed so limited, and, at best, tokenistic (Brooker, 2011) for the participants. The performative demands of their daily professional lives meant that there was insufficient space to create opportunities to consider how they could mediate the competing ontological and epistemological perspectives concerned with learning and development. At university they had actively engaged with debates concerning the competing theoretical perspectives associated with learning and development. This should have put them in a position of the ‘more

knowledgeable other’ to support and guide others in their settings in order to affect change. Yet once they found themselves in the practical space of the work setting, there were numerous factors that got in the way.

Fisher and Wood’s (2012) study examining the effectiveness of adult-child interactions, and Hedges’ (2010;2012) studies concerned with teachers’ funds of knowledge, revealed the challenges of making sustained changes to practice, and the necessity for time, commitment and expertise. A significant feature of their studies was the role of the Early Years expert who acted as co-researcher and reflective partner, and supported the process of change and development. Effectively in my study, I was the external expert who could act as the

reflective partner for the participants. Most importantly I was an outsider, and I could help the participants to reflect outwards rather than inwards. Indeed, towards the end of the study, there was a clear sense of realisation from the participants about the challenges that they were facing:

Helen: But it made me think…It reminded me of why I wanted to do this job and what I actually believe...And you do get stuck into a rut sometimes...

Jackie: I think if I didn’t have...And that’s what I’m fearful of...Is that rut…Because I’m not doing uni now...‘cos I’m not seeing practitioners outside my little box...As

139 the case may be...I feel there could be a time when I’m that practitioner that is doing the same thing the same way all the time...And the only way to evolve and do things is to know what other people are up to...And keep in touch...But that’s really hard when we are all busy ...

Their concern regarding being “stuck in a rut” was perhaps an indication of how they were realising that the choices they had in relation to their practice were bound by external circumstances, and as Wisneski and Reifel (2012) remind us, “we put out of our minds those ideas that we believe to be important but that are not the topic of current practice or focus” (p.177). In addition to this, they were beginning to understand how the vocational habitus and funds of knowledge of the other practitioners had predisposed them to certain

dispositions and beliefs about children and how best to support them. The challenge for them was that they did not have the luxury of an ‘external expert’ (whose symbolic capital places them in a position of power) to support the change process, nor the idealised conditions synonymous with Reggio Emilia that are embedded through a pedagogy of listening (Rinaldi, 2006) that allow for continuous dialogic and reflexive practices. Instead, they were required to act as expert, role model and facilitator in such a way that fitted with the hegemonic governmental discourses around professionalism in ECEC (Osgood, 2012) that seemed to be incompatible with a relational pedagogy.