Approaches to Pedagogy and Curriculum in the Early Years in the UK - Case Study Example

School: Topic: APPROACHES TO PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM IN THE EARLY YEARS Lecturer: Introduction The fact that education is the bedrock of every nation’s development is something that cannot be argued. But for such realisation in education to be realised, the approach, policies, and programmes that guide it require critical attention and scrutiny. As argued by Lunn and Bishop (2002), when the approach to education is not right for a given context or academic setting, chances that the outcome with the education will yield intended results are minimal. It is against this backdrop that educational policy makers have constantly subjected their educational systems to scrutiny, review and reforms (Moller, 2009). In this paper, a more specific component of UK’s educational system is reviewed, which is approaches to pedagogy and curriculum in the early years. The paper’s emphasis and focus is on approaches to pedagogy and curriculum as these act as the foundation based on which educational training and development are given (Biesta & Miedema, 2002). Likewise, early years in education mark the foundation based on which the seeds of a prosperous future with learning and development are planted. This essay will critically analyse aspects of early childhood curricula in relation to theories of learning and pedagogy and will reflect on own practice. The paper will compare the Early Years Foundation Stage Curriculum to the Montessori and Reggio Emilia approach in education. The essay will review the influences of child-centred approaches on early childhood education with reference to my own experiences in an early learning setting. Finally, it will describe the practitioner’s role in planning and implementing a balance of Child-centred and adult led curriculum. Analysis of perspectives on early childhood education in the UK and international In the UK, there are three major early childhood education philosophical perspectives that are accepted for practice. Coincidentally, these are also used very extensively as international philosophical approaches to early childhood education and they include structured, open framework, and child-led approaches (National Early Years Initiative, 2012). According to Kyriacou, Ellingsen, Stephens and Sundaram (2009), the perspectives are in place to provide educators with best ways and practices that can be used in teaching children at their most formative ages, which is the early childhood period. Collectively, each of the three perspectives seeks to outline ways in which different pedagogical approaches can be used in a manner that well suitable to the needs of early childhood learners. In effect, the three perspectives can be said to be modalities that try to make the many differing pedagogy useful and appropriate in specific contexts of classroom experience (Petrie, 2005). The perspectives of early childhood education therefore seek to make the pedagogy a specific and useful means by which learning takes place in a formal classroom setting (Yates, 2009). Pedagogy refers to the study of best ways and practices in teaching in an education setting with the aim of having development in the processes (Sergiovanni, 1998). It is an interactive process between the teacher and student. It deals with the best ways that teachers should use in transferring knowledge to their students (Pound, 2011). Pedagogy has three components that include curriculum, socializing techniques and methodology (National Research Council (U.S.), Bowman, Donovan & Burns, 2001). The curriculum is the total student experience during the learning periods in the educational process. The three named perspectives used in the UK and internationally can be said to combine the inputs of curriculum and theories. The curriculum is the content taught with its designing aim is to encourage learning process and development of cognitive skills. Some of the theories involve child-centred play in the early learning process (Edwards & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2011). As demonstrated earlier, the approaches provide guidance to the teacher in the best ways and practices to teach children in their early ages with suggestion on curriculum to follow. Differing pedagogy refers to the difference in the influence of adults in child education. These approaches correlate to theories such behaviourist and constructivism theories in learning. The approaches therefore combine all these three components as a unit of teaching-learning process that is suitable for a specific classroom period. The structured approach involves the teacher providing little initiative, but the whole process is adult-directed. What this means is that the teacher takes greater part of the centre stage of learning, where intuitive instructions are given for learners to follow (Hamalainen, 2003). From a more theoretical perspective, the structured approach to early childhood education practiced in the UK and international can be linked to the behaviourist theory. It is said to has a close relation to behaviourist theory because with this theoretical perspective, the child responds to the stimulus from the environment (Essa, 2013).In this context therefore, the adult or teacher sets or acts as the stimuli in the classroom environment which the child has to respond to. The open framework is however an opportunity perspective to early childhood education where there is the admonishment that the child require much independence and freedom to explore (Moller, 2009). This is because in the open framework, the child has freedom in choosing learning opportunities. It is less structured and enables active learning where the child constructs ideas. The open framework also has its own theoretical underpinning where it can be said to be similar and closely related to constructivist theory. This is because in constructivist theory, emphasis is placed on the creation of learning space by giving children the space to express themselves (Orlich, 2009). Between the structured approach and open framework, the real bowl of contention between analysts have been on whether at their age, early childhood learners have what it takes to do independent learning. To many, the child-led perspective to early childhood education comes to answer some of the most challenging questions of structured and open framework (Kyriacou et al., 2009; Sumsion et al., 2009). The reason this is said is that the child-led perspective seeks to combine the strengths of the structured approach and open framework by giving both the teacher and the child the opportunity to coexist in the learning environment in a manner that is controlled or led by the child (Cameron, 2004). It is for this reason that Fisher (2013) indicated that the child led approach deal entirely with the interest of the child in learning the process. It encourages children self-expression and offer opportunity for exploration. Because the child-led combines aspects of the first two, it also combines behaviourist and constructivist theories in an eclectic theory. Comparison of Early Years Foundation Stage Curriculum to major approaches in education In this section of the paper, the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) curriculum of UK is compared to two major approaches in education which are the Montessori and Reggio Emilia approaches. The comparison is done to describe, analyse and constructively critique the EYFS curriculum in UK as against what is universally known and used. The EYFS has a history in the UK where it has for long been used as the foundation stage framework for early years of education, which is for those aged under 5 (Department of Education, 2014). The most current framework published in 2014 replaces the EYFS framework 2012. Some of the core components of the latest framework that are worth the comparison to major approaches in education will be discussed in terms of learning and development requirements, assessment of early childhood learning, and the safeguarding and welfare requirements for early childhood pupils. Learning and development requirements Under the EYFS curriculum or framework, there are seven major areas of learning and development that are identified. The seven areas include communication and language, physical development, personal, social and emotional development, literacy, mathematics, understanding the world, and expression arts and design (Department of Education, 2014). Of the seven listed areas however, the first three are classified as prime, meaning they are “crucial for igniting children’s curiosity and enthusiasm for learning” (Department of Education, 2014). When the seven areas of learning and development requirements are compared to Montessori, it can be said that there are both similarities and differences. For example, the theory of Montessori education is one which focuses on five specific domains of learning – practical life; sensorial development; language skills; mathematical skills; and cultural education. Whiles language skills and mathematics skills are explicit in both, aspects of expression arts and design found under the EYFS framework can be said to relate to cultural education in the Montessori. Comparatively however, the EYFS can be said to have a more comprehensive and detailed learning and development requirements as it embraces some of the most core aspects that makes the child a complete being such as social and emotional development. Backing this with literature, Moss (2006) indicated that even at the early stage, children require personal identity that help them to understand who they are and who others also are. Even though cultural education under Montessori may to extent build this form of identity, it could be said to be overly self-centred than social related. In relation to the self-centred critique of the Montessori, it would be seen that the Montessori “Practical Life” is understood to be the skills necessary for the children to acquire and develop in their hand-eye co-ordination plus the development of capacity to concentrate on tasks in hand in order to become independent learners. The exercises and materials used in this development are all real life activities including such actions as pouring or transferring objects from one bowl to another using different size spoons; threading beads; sweeping up spills; washing their hands; selecting and helping themselves to servings of food; and lunch time is also used as an opportunity to develop these skills by the children learning to clean up after they have eaten. Unfortunately, the Reggio Emilia approach does not seem to provide many alternatives to what needs to be done concerning social integration at the early stage. This is because the Reggio Emilia approach is guided by a main principle of creating an environment for children which facilitates learning and also encourages thought and reflection among children. This is enabled “through the synthesis of all the expressive, communicative and cognitive languages” (Edwards, Gandini & Forman, 1993, p. 154). Oberhuemer (2005) however fails to admit that the Reggio Emilia approach does not make sufficient provisions for the social world around the child as the EYFS because it is argued that the consequence of developing a unique interpretation is that the child develops a strong sense of self and is able to link the acquisition of knowledge to his or her own thought process and relationships with others. Assessment of early childhood learning As far as the assessment of early childhood learning is concerned, the EYFS provides that at the age of 2, a progress check be performed with the aim of providing parents with sufficient short written summary on the development of the child in the prime areas which are communication and language, physical development, and personal, social and emotional development (Department of Education, 2014). The implication here is that the EYFS recognises that learning at the early stage is a systematic ad progressive process which requires success at the starting point in order to add up more content to make a more complete learner (Cheeseman, 2007). Whiles assessment is largely focused on the prime areas of learning under the EYFS, the Montessori approach looks at assessment from all five areas of learning and development. The rationale for this is that all five areas must be developed to make the child a complete learner. These five areas are used in combination in order to develop the child’s relationship, bonding, main working and understanding systems with the promotion of the concept that each child is a unique, individual and by working together they are able to recognise their own identities. The Montessori approach also endorses group based assessment, where the progress of early childhood pupils are measured in relation to how well they are able to combine with other learners to achieve the five learning areas. As Roberts, (2011) suggested, learning in a companionable group is considered to be a powerful way to develop well-being. One of the areas in which the Reggio Emilia approach may lack is in the area of assessments and monitoring progress. While the EYFS has a checklist of developmental categories that need to be met in order to ascertain a child’s development (or lack of, thereof), there is no such standard checklist for the Reggio Emilia approach. Due to the holistic nature of the curriculum, individual monitoring of and evaluation of progress of each child becomes a major issue in respect to assessment (Carr, 2001). While the Reggio Emilia approach informs current EYFS curriculum, there is generally a greater focus on the child’s inherent capacity to learn and master knowledge, especially language, in the former approach compared to the latter. While both share enabling environments, parental involvement and adult’s role as being key, and also focus on play, social and emotional development and child-centred learning; the Reggio Emilia approach stresses on the opinions, thinking and reflective capacities of a child and aims to develop that parallel to other learning. Safeguarding and welfare requirements for early childhood pupils One major quality of the EYFS curriculum and framework that makes it comprehensive when compared to other approaches is the provision it makes for the safeguarding and welfare requirements for early childhood pupils. Indeed, even though both Maria Montessori and Reggio Emilia acknowledged the classroom environment as a safe and secure setting for children to grow, they make no clear outline on how educationists are expected to safeguard and ensure the physical and personal welfare of pupils (Emira, 2010). Under the EYFS framework, there is child protection policy clearly spelt out for education providers to follow. The education of children is also expected and requires to be done by people considered suitable to manage and be in charge of children security protection (Department of Education, 2014). But given the fact that Maria Montessori had a lot of focus and attention for special needs and disadvantaged children, one can clearly stay that child security is an important part of the Montessori approach even though this may not be stated very explicitly. For example it is known that Montessori opened up her first school/children’s home in Rome for the disadvantaged children of working parents. By 1913 there were almost 100 schools in the USA based on the Montessori philosophy to education (Mooney, 2000). Emphasis, in the Reggio Emelia approach, is also laid on the understanding and awareness of the surrounding world. The emphasis on the environment is akin to the Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum and it is stated that “a rich and varied environment supports children’s learning and development. It gives them confidence to explore and learn in secure and safe, yet challenging, indoor and outdoor spaces” (Hutchin, 2012). Common to the EFYS and the Reggio Emilia approach is the fact that children are also supported by adults and there is importance given to the role an adult play’s in a child’s learning including their role in play. Partnerships with parents are also stressed and the community as a whole is seen as being a vital force in the learning and development of a child in both these curriculum. Influences of child-centred approaches on early childhood education A number of influential philosophers have influenced child-centred teaching practice. Teachers influenced by Rosseau believe that unstructured days with open-ended activities enable the child to learn freely. In Victorian times, Owen asserted that learning starts at birth and that qualities of character depend on external factors (Pound, 2011). Owen’s theories also encompassed a focus on ‘morality’ and a concern for ‘equality’ which was unusual for this era. Froebel emphasized nature as opposed to nurture, as the basis of human development. Play was also assigned spiritual significance since he believed that this activity constituted “the highest level of child development” (Whitbread, 1972, cited in Pound, 2011:13). He felt that encouraging children to use toys they were most attracted to would help to cultivate their knowledge and capacities (Pound, 2011). Piaget asserts that intellectual ability represents an integrated ensemble of operations framed by the child’s reflections on their actions in the world (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). With this in mind, it makes sense that children be encouraged to develop through interaction with their environment and informal, open-ended activities such as play rather than the mere formal impartation of knowledge. Child-centred learning appears to be compatible with recent legislative frameworks such as Every Child Matters - a comprehensive initiative emphasizing the importance of user involvement and the development of a consistent community voice which engages children, their families and communities (House of Commons, 2005). In my own setting within an early years’ nursery context it is clear that the child-centred model plays an integral role in teaching and learning. A range of exploratory, play-based experiences are provided to children, whereby they have opportunities to interact and play. However, I do believe that the children would benefit from more structured play and direct engagement from the teachers, particularly as it is clear that children with SEN do not necessarily naturally integrate with their peers in an inclusive context as supported by empirical research (Ludvigsen, 2003). As Plowman and Stephen (2007, cited in Walsh et al. 2010) pointed out in their study on pre-schoolers, children’s freedom to choose when to play led to varying patterns of engagement and as a consequence they recommended more direct engagement from their teacher whilst maintaining a playful tone. Practitioners role in planning and implementing a balance of Child-centred and adult led curriculum Because of the continuing focus on developmental ‘readiness’, some pre-school teachers face challenges leading children beyond their current level of competence. As Walsh et al. (2010) assert, it is important to remind educators that change, in the form of progression, should be a constant feature of children’s education so that they can be fully prepared for the challenges ahead. In view of the fact that, in recent decades there has been a notable shift from an ‘ages and stages’ developmental perspective as Walsh et al. (2010) point out, to an increased acknowledgement of the role of adults in ‘scaffolding’ learning with children, it is possible that early years education may move further in this direction. With all these said, it will not be denied that the child will always take centre stage in a child-centred and adult-led curriculum. This is because in using either child-centred or adult-led curriculum, principles of communication such as sound listening and speaking skills are also facilitated in the child. The child is made aware of the importance of their voice and there is an assurance to the child that he or she will always be heard and that their opinions matter (Rinaldi, 2000). Within a Montessori nursery the teacher acts as an ‘interpreter’ rather than a ‘controller’, a person who helps the child develop their inner potential as opposed to controlling their behaviour. Since then the Montessori Movement has rapidly spread across the globe. The Montessori Nurseries promotes independence and consists of a wide range of Montessori materials which children have easy access to throughout the day. The classroom layout is such that it encourages children to explore and develop all areas of the curriculum, both physically and mentally, from details such that the shelving is child height, enabling all children to have independent access to materials as and when appropriate. Some of the materials have been specifically structured with particular ways of use, and others include self-correcting materials enabling the children to identify their own errors and correct them. When the children first arrive at the nursery, this is one of the first areas in which children are encouraged to become active in. As Gutek, (2004) observed, Montessori considered that this domain acted like a bridge connecting home and nursery and building up trust between the children and the adults. Manning-Morton (2006) argued that it was necessary for practitioners to develop self-knowledge together with the knowledge concerning the children in their care, “in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect with people” (2006, p. 50) with whom they came to know well. Conclusion To conclude, it will be said that even though the UK may have a lot to learn and adapt from popular international perspectives, approaches to pedagogy and curriculum in the early years, the UK system is generally well positioned in providing the learning needs of early childhood pupils. This point is made due to some of the major strengths of the UK system, which include the fact that it is high child-centred, social oriented, and constantly reviewed to accommodate global changing trends. That this, the UK system can effectively foster the development of the ‘whole’ child including the academic, social and emotional components of learning. However, it is important to note that play-based learning should be accompanied with a degree of structure and in order for children to be truly empowered, they must be encouraged to share their thoughts, feelings and experiences with teachers and parents so that they can glean a full understanding of their experiences and assist children in preparing for the challenges ahead. Moreover, enabling the child to have a ‘voice’ as featured in the Early Years Framework can seem more achievable in theory than it is in practice. Whilst children are given the opportunity to be heard on all issues that affect them, there is still scope to encourage more active involvement by means of information-sharing between children and other adults. References Bertram, T., & Pascal, C. (2002). Early years’ education: An international perspective. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Biesta, G. J. J. & Miedema, S. (2002). Instruction or pedagogy? The need for a transformative conception of education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 173–181. Cameron, C. (2004). Social pedagogy and care: Danish and German practice in young people’s residential care. Journal of Social Work, 4, 133–155. Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in Early Childhood Settings. Learning Stories. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Cheeseman, S. (2007). Pedagogical silences in Australian early childhood social policy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(3)., 244–254. Department of Education (2014). Early years (under 5s) foundation stage framework (EYFS). [Online] Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2 [May 18, 2015] Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G (eds.). (1993). The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Emira, M. (2010). Leading to decide or deciding to lead? Understanding the relationship between teacher leadership and decision making. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 38, 591–612. Giardiello.P, (2014) Pioneers in Early Childhood Education: The Roots and Legacies of Rachel and Margaret McMillan, Maria Montessori and Susan Isaacs, New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group Gisolo, G., (2005) Montessori, Maria. In Learning to Give. Online Accessed on 13-04-2015 from: http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper273.html Gutek, G.L., (2004) The Montessori Method. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Haines, (2001) International Women in Science, USA, ABC-CLIO Hamalainen, J. (2003). The concept of social pedagogy in the field of social work. Journal of Social Work, 3, 69–80. House of Commons (2005) Every Child Matters – Ninth Report of Session 2004-5, London: The Stationery Office Limited. Hutchin, V. (2012). The EYFS: A Practical Guide for Students and Professionals. Kent: Hodder Education. Kyriacou, C., Ellingsen, I. T., Stephens, P. & Sundaram, V. (2009). Social pedagogy and the teachers: England and Norway compared. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17, 75–87. Lally, J.R., Torres, Y.L., Phelps, P.C., (1997) Caring For Infants and Toddlers in Groups: Necessary Considerations for Emotional, Social and Cognitive Development. In Zero to three, 14 (5). pp. 1-8. Ludvigsen, A, Creegan, C and Mills, H (2005) Let’s play together: Play and inclusion. Evaluation of better play round three, London: Policy and Research Unit. Lunn, P. & Bishop, A. (2002). Nursery teachers as leaders and managers: a pedagogical and subsidiarity model of leadership. Research in Education, 67, 13–22. Manning-Morton, J., (2006) The Personal is Professional: Professionalism and the birth to threes practitioner. In Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7 (1), pp. 42-52. Manning-Morton, J., (2010) Not Just the Tip of The Iceberg: Psychoanalytic Ideas and Early Years Practice. In L., Miller, L., Pound, (eds) Theories and Approaches to Learning in the Early Years (Critical Issues in the Early Years). London: Sage. Moller, J. (2009). Learning to share: a vision of leadership practice. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12, 253–267. Mooney Garhart.C, (2000), Theories of childhood, An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erickson Piaget & Vygotsky, St. Paul, MinnRedleaf Press. Moss, P. (2006). Structures, understanding and discourses: possibilities for re-envisioning the early childhood worker. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7, 30–41. Oberhuemer, P. (2005). Conceptualising the early childhood pedagogue: policy approaches and issues of professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13, 5–16. Petrie, P. (2005). Extending ‘pedagogy’. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31, 293–296. Piaget, J and Inhelder, B (1969) The Psychology of the Child, London: Routledge Kegan Paul. Ploughman and Stephen (2007) cited in Walsh, G, Sproule, L, McGuinness, C, Trew, K and Ingram, G (2010) Developmentally- appropriate practice and play-based pedagogy in early years education – a literature review of research and practice http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/foundation_stage/eye_curric_project/evaluation/Literature_Review.pdf Date of access 22/02/15, date June, 2010. Pound L (2011) Influencing Early Childhood Education: Key themes, philosophers and theories, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Rinaldi, C. (2000). Subjectivity and Inter-subjectivity in Children’s Learning. Atlanta, GA: NAEYC Conference. Roberts, R., (2011) Companionable learning: a mechanism for holistic well-being development from birth. In European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19 (2) pp. 195-205. DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2011.574406. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1, 37–46. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Clarke, P., (2000) Supporting Identity, Diversity and Language in the Early Years. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Sumsion, J., Barnes, S., Cheeseman, S., Harrison, L., Kennedy, A. & Stonehouse, A. (2009). Insider perspectives on developing belonging, being and becoming: the early years learning framework for Australia. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 34, 4–13. Walsh, G, Sproule, L, McGuinness, C, Trew, K and Ingram, G (2010) Developmentally- appropriate practice and play-based pedagogy in early years education – a literature review of research and practice http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/foundation_stage/eye_curric_project/evaluation/Literature_Review.pdf Date of access 22/02/15, date June, 2010. Whitbread (1972) cited in Pound L (2011) Influencing Early Childhood Education: Key themes, philosophers and theories, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Wood, E. & Bennett, N. (1999). Progression and continuity in early childhood education: Tensions and contradictions. International Journal of Early Years Education, 7(11), 5-16. Yates, L. (2009). From curriculum to pedagogy and back again: knowledge, the person and the changing world. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17, 17–28. Read More